Erfworld 65, Page 59

[Scientivore]

Actually, I think with any warlords in the attack max stacking dwagons would be pointless. Page 12 and 55 show that with warlords its possible to selectively attack units. You put all your wounded dwagons in a single stack with your full strength ones, and they just kill the wounded ones and retreat, similar to Parsons tactics. The only way to defend them is to make sure that they cannot be directly attacked by a warlord led stack.

It's even worse than that. Against one max stack, Tarfu could've led a small force of archers in a kamikaze attack targeting the warlords. They seem to get first strike in which case they could re-croak the warlords before the dwagons could touch them. No enemy warlords, no selective targeting of their siege. They could've preserved their assault plan for a relatively trivial cost, possibly as small as a dozen common Woodsy Elves and one good warlord.

[VariaVespasa]

I think the selective targeting thing probably only works against stacks that dont have warlords.

[SteveMB]

I think the selective targeting thing probably only works against stacks that dont have warlords.

If so, Parson's plan is easily countered by gathering the siege engines into stacks with a warlord in each -- surely a force that big has the dozen or two (presumably even a relatively low-level warlord would do for this purpose) required for the remaining siege units.

[Krelon]

I bet Parson was expecting his enemies to attack the empty hex with full force. it was very clever to risk one bat and scout the middle. Now Ansom has some options left. Great comic.

I'm really looking forward to seeing hat Ansom will do with his remaining turn.

let's speculate!
For me the most likely moves are:
Ansom+forest units attack 4 dwagons left or right. Alliance takes losses but the dwagons will be killed as well. Ansom+Vinny (flyers) move out to hide in a strong column hex. Tarfu remains with his units.

Jillian is a wild card, I cannot predict any move here....

next turn prediction:
Parson will have enough dwagons to:

• selectivly destroy wounded gumps and Tarfu
• finish off most/all of the siege
• use his perfect intel to go for some alliance warlords
• returning to GK hit some orlies/gwiffons

I like the idea someone had in this thread that any captured alliance warlords can be brought back to GK, then croaked, then uncroaked!

let's say it costs 7 dwagons, is it worth it?

Yes, IF all the siege is gone AND some of the more capable alliance warlords are dust (maybe even some have been recycled to add to Stanleys forces). As a bonus some hard units (gumps) and flyers will be dead on Ansoms side.

why?
Part of Parsons plan was to force Ansom through the tunnels. Without siege the walls should be nearly untakeable. I bet (strongly assume) that the tunnels below the city are narrow, hence no megastacks possible, only small groups (sort of a city-fight boulder for boulder). If the alliance loses capable leaders and Parsons wins some more uncroaked warlords to boost every stack of gobwins and crap golems, he might be able to bury the attackers below the city (dont forget Sizemore has prepared some nasty surprises down there). With perfect intel he might even let some seperated stacks reach GK' surface and have dwagons waiting at the opening. Additionally, Wanda might be able to uncroak some of the invaders.

[shakes019]

I bet Parson was expecting his enemies to attack the empty hex with full force. it was very clever to risk one bat and scout the middle. Now Ansom has some options left. Great comic.

I don't think that Parson would be surprised at Ansom scouting the hex before moving into it. After all, Parson's whole plan is based on hiding the contents of the hex from the scouts in the first place.

The movement system is looser than I am used to. I keep thinking in terms of turn phases, where everything is moved into combat, then all combat is resolved, then non-combat moves are completed. I guess I'm just too used to Axis and Allies.

I wonder if Parson will make a mistake by assuming that the rules bind his enemy more than they actually do.

[CNagy]

I doubt it, Parson's plan of cherrypicking the siege made extensive use of non-combat movement amidst combat; namely, whenever he had to pull a wounded dragon out of battle and send it somewhere else.

[Caledonian]

I think Parson's already accomplished what he hoped to with this strategem: Ansom has wasted his turn instead of attacking the heavily-wounded dragons, which are off recuperating safely in an unknown location.

Next turn: Parson repeats the previous attack pattern. Will Ansom bring Jillian out of reserve, or will the siege engines be totally defenseless?

[SmartAlec]

I think the selective targeting thing probably only works against stacks that dont have warlords.

If that was the case, I would have imagined Ansom to be less certain of being able to attack the uncroaked Warlords with the Arkenpliers.

[zorac]

Remember that the listed occupation of the Arkenhammer is "MacGuffin"

Parson need only to capture the Arkenpliers and the siege becomes irrelevant. The plot advances to the next scenario. That's what macguffins do.

Parson realizes he's in a wargame, but remember, it's not really a wargame, it's a story. The rules of storytelling take precedence over imaginary wargame rules that exists only to support the story.

[ChowGuy]

I guess I'm just too used to Axis and Allies.

Ooooo, I remember that one! But do the more recent on-line versions have the same phased move/resolve combat turns? I know in particular there's one version that allows attacks on a single hex per turn, but then switches to RTS mode for actual combat resolution. That's not too unlike what we may be seeing in Erfworld, except that the turn can continue after each battle finishes. These days it's all a matter of what the interface can be made to support.

[Puma]

There's only One True Axis And Allies game... and it has nothing to do with a computer. :)

Ooooo, I remember that one! But do the more recent on-line versions have the same phased move/resolve combat turns? I know in particular there's one version that allows attacks on a single hex per turn, but then switches to RTS mode for actual combat resolution. That's not too unlike what we may be seeing in Erfworld, except that the turn can continue after each battle finishes. These days it's all a matter of what the interface can be made to support.

[Winged One]

Am I the only one who thinks they just added the f to w00t to make it sound like arrows flying through the air?

[shakes019]

Remember that the listed occupation of the Arkenhammer is "MacGuffin"

Parson need only to capture the Arkenpliers and the siege becomes irrelevant. The plot advances to the next scenario. That's what macguffins do.

Parson realizes he's in a wargame, but remember, it's not really a wargame, it's a story. The rules of storytelling take precedence over imaginary wargame rules that exists only to support the story.

I give that a QFT. That might very well become my sig.

As to my earlier comment about A&A, I was referring to the original boardgame, and the first computer version that follows the exact same ruleset as the boardgame version.

[Renx]

There's only One True Axis And Allies game... and it has nothing to do with a computer. :)

It takes too long, the production rules are booped up and the d6s that came with the game hate me.

[CNagy]

Remember that the listed occupation of the Arkenhammer is "MacGuffin"

Parson need only to capture the Arkenpliers and the siege becomes irrelevant. The plot advances to the next scenario. That's what macguffins do.

Parson realizes he's in a wargame, but remember, it's not really a wargame, it's a story. The rules of storytelling take precedence over imaginary wargame rules that exists only to support the story.

I think you are talking about the wrong story. The story at current is The Battle For Gobwin Knob, and unless losing the Arkenpliers forces the alliance to give up the battle and go home (and we have no evidence to support that they would,) the Arkenpliers are not a MacGuffin. The Arkenhammer's occupation is MacGuffin because in the events prior to the strip, its aquisition moved the story into Stanley's quest and the subsequent alliance against him.

I'm not sure what rule of storytelling involves the completion of a seemingly arbitrary task moving the plot past what is still a very real threat-- probably because it sounds more like the Objective victories in some wargame than any actual storytelling rule.

[ErikZ]

It's a story. The pliers might be used to end the current plot.

He might pull a deux ex mechana.

He might just have Ansom win, kill Stanley, and send Parson back to his dimension of origin.

The Titans could return, angry that no one is singing Elvis songs on Sunday and wipe out the world and start over.

Or they might not. All these things can happen when you put pen to paper. I'm really shocked at the amount of effort and thought people are putting into analyzing this comic, when you could put the energy to better use and making your own stories.

[ChowGuy]

unless losing the Arkenpliers forces the alliance to give up the battle and go home (and we have no evidence to support that they would,) the Arkenpliers are not a MacGuffin.

Uhm, no, other way around. Pretty much by definition, a MacGuffin is a plot device that motivates but has no real relevance to the story. Hitchcock, the man most famous for their use explained the idea as "The only thing that really matters is that ...[they]... must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they're of no importance whatsoever."

[u]If[u] gaining/losing the Arkenpliers resolves the story, then they are not a MacGuffin. If not, and they are only a story device that are importance to the characters themselves, then they may be. And probably are.

[Krelon]

It's a story. The pliers might be used to end the current plot.

He might pull a deux ex mechana.

He might just have Ansom win, kill Stanley, and send Parson back to his dimension of origin.

The Titans could return, angry that no one is singing Elvis songs on Sunday and wipe out the world and start over.

Or they might not. All these things can happen when you put pen to paper. I'm really shocked at the amount of effort and thought people are putting into analyzing this comic, when you could put the energy to better use and making your own stories.

I disagree. The speculations and discussions are fun, so no time wasted here.

I'm sure as soon as unexpected and unmotivated twists of events happen (like: we are outnumbered, let's use the green beam and win) the analyzis will stop. But I sincerely hope the comic keeps its style, cause I think it's great.

[CNagy]

Uhm, no, other way around. Pretty much by definition, a MacGuffin is a plot device that motivates but has no real relevance to the story. Hitchcock, the man most famous for their use explained the idea as "The only thing that really matters is that ...[they]... must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they're of no importance whatsoever."

[u]If[u] gaining/losing the Arkenpliers resolves the story, then they are not a MacGuffin. If not, and they are only a story device that are importance to the characters themselves, then they may be. And probably are.

Eh, I could argue that gaining the Arkenpliers is a plot device that advances the story and motivates Tool to find the other Arkentools. Battle for Gobwin Knob is essentially Act I of a play that may or may not be finished, from what's been said. Regardless of whether it is or is not, the idea that obtaining it would negate the siege entirely is hardly a rule of good storytelling, which is what I was responding to.

[teratorn]

I'm really shocked at the amount of effort and thought people are putting into analyzing this comic, when you could put the energy to better use and making your own stories.

And you haven't seen nothing yet. I expect a flood when the next comic comes. And yes, I will be one of the time wasters. For fun.

When I want to put my energy to better use I write scientific papers, not fiction, I'm no good at it.

[tainsouvra]

The movement system is looser than I am used to. I keep thinking in terms of turn phases, where everything is moved into combat, then all combat is resolved, then non-combat moves are completed. I guess I'm just too used to Axis and Allies.

In that aspect, it's very "Heroes of Might and Magic", where units (there, heroes instead) have a finite amount of movement but allow the player to switch back and forth at will until all of them have used all their movement or you end the turn.

[Curxzed]

5 million - 3.5 million = 1.5 million last known treasury value.

Parson ~ 1k per turn

uncroaked ~ cheap

~200 not-uncroaked.

~dwagons, imo just because the arkenhammer can allow them to be controlled doesn't mean they are free. They COULD use an alternate upkeep item besides smuckers. Unknown at this time. I'm guessing magic power/mana whatever you want to call it, possibly also supplied by the arkenhammer

~tons~ of crap golems and presumably lots of other golems. I would expect crap golems to have a zero upkeep, or a magic type of upkeep same as dwagons.

*-amancers ~ relatively expensive, but probably few total units.

5 uncroaked warlords ~ I'd say cheap also, especially since they are degenerating.

Sorry for the dis-jointed thought pattern but I was just thinking about how long Stanley actually could handle being under siege.

I am going to say... A very long time. Even assuming all income sources are gone, 1.5 million smuckers will last him I'd say at least 200 turns, worst case scenario. If any factors at all can alleve some of the costs, like city income, mana use for dwagons and golems etc., then Stanley can last much much longer without his people throwing him over the walls.

(the biggest assumption I am making is that Parson is the single highest individual upkeep cost, and by a large margin, judging from Stanley's reaction)

We have to assume the losses of a direct attack on GK will be very very bad #'s for them, they only plan to win by using a feignt to draw defenders away from the walls and then attacking all sides of GK, overwhelming the weakest hex and then concentrating the assault there. *with use of a large # of now 40% destroyed siege*

Also sorry for bringing the train of thought back to a place it left a bit ago.

So, to sum up: in the short term Time is on Ansom's side, Stanley is only a few turns from being completely surrounded. In the long term Time is on Stanley's side, how long will it be before the alliance loses the will to fight, to stay together?

[SteveMB]

5 million - 3.5 million = 1.5 million last known treasury value.

Er, you've got one too many zeroes in those figures....

[Curxzed]

spose I should know by now to not do anything from memory here lol

anyway, thats still absolute minimum 20 turns.

While that does put a damper on my original evaluation, Ansom and Co. don't seem to be the type to sit around for that long waiting on Stanley to give up. Just look on their faces when they were discussing the coming charge into the center hex. They WANT to fight... now.

[Wender]

I think the selective targeting thing probably only works against stacks that dont have warlords.

If so, that would immediately become Parson's least favorite rule ever. Ansom seems to have stacks of warlords--a side effect of having such a huge alliance and so many cities, as well as the tactical good sense not to burn through his talent at quite the rate that Stanley does.

[Wender]

Remember that the listed occupation of the Arkenhammer is "MacGuffin"

Parson need only to capture the Arkenpliers and the siege becomes irrelevant. The plot advances to the next scenario. That's what macguffins do.

Parson realizes he's in a wargame, but remember, it's not really a wargame, it's a story. The rules of storytelling take precedence over imaginary wargame rules that exists only to support the story.

The Arkenhammer is also listed as having poor taste. The Arkenpliers are not.

We have no reason at all to take Stanley's hypothesis at face value. Fate may not, in fact, be using Ansom to bring the Arkenpliers to Stanley. There is no guarantee he'll have any better luck with them than Ansom has had up to this point, and even if he throws off the siege he won't afford another high-powered fate magic spell to find out why for a very long time, if ever.

The Arkenhammer has already been used as a Macguffin: Once he bonded with it, the world moved to the chapter where Stanley tries to achieve what he sees as his destiny, and we get to see the end of the chapter.

[iabervon]

Uhm, no, other way around. Pretty much by definition, a MacGuffin is a plot device that motivates but has no real relevance to the story. Hitchcock, the man most famous for their use explained the idea as "The only thing that really matters is that ...[they]... must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they're of no importance whatsoever."

If gaining/losing the Arkenpliers resolves the story, then they are not a MacGuffin. If not, and they are only a story device that are importance to the characters themselves, then they may be. And probably are.

I think you're misunderstanding the definition of MacGuffin. I believe that the point is that the characters are not deluded about the importance of the MacGuffin to them and the outcome. The thing actually is vital, so vital that if or when it is activated (a home agency gets the papers, the cops get the necklace or the crook gets it to a fence, etc) the story is over. This means that Hitchcock doesn't care what the thing does, because the story doesn't include seeing those effects, since it ends as soon as the MacGuffin does anything. He doesn't need to know what effect it has, because he's not writing that part. In a spy movie, we don't get the impression that the papers don't say anything important and that the characters ought to just ignore them, even if we know that the narrator doesn't know or care what they say.

This is to contrast with items that are actually used in the plot, where they have some effect and the effect matters to the continuation of the story. If gaining/losing the Arkenpliers enables Gobwin Knob to raise a sufficiently large uncroaked army to have reasonable odds against the Alliance in a straight all-out battle, then it wouldn't be a MacGuffin.

[ChowGuy]

I believe that the point is that the characters are not deluded about the importance of the MacGuffin to them and the outcome. The thing actually is vital, so vital that if or when it is activated (a home agency gets the papers, the cops get the necklace or the crook gets it to a fence, etc) the story is over.

Which, however, does not happen. It does not happen because if it did it would alter the outcome of the story the narrator was telling. He knows this of course, but the characters do not. Nor, if he is doing his job correctly, do his audience. That's the nature of a MacGuffin - properly handled one does not know it was a MacGuffin until the story is complete.

The argument here, and it's largely one of semantics, is whether the Arkenpliers fit that description. If they do fall into Stanley's hands, and at that point it's *Game Over* because they are "activated" then ther were not a MacGuffin. If the never fall into Stanley's hands, they were. But we don't yet know which will be the case, and merely the fact the the Arkenhammer is listed on the cast page as "MacGuffin" is not enough to tell us if the Pliers are as well.