Erfworld 67, page 61

[DavidByron]

Interesting. However, when the dragons attacked, it was defense attacks, then offense attacks. It seemed the same way when the dragons popped out of the trees to take the elves. If this is the case, Ansom shouldn't have been able to attack before the dragons attacked him.

By, "when the dragons attacked" do you mean the A dwagons attacking the siege units? The defence attacked first there because they had range (archers).

When the 3 B dwagons were attacked by infantry the infantry actually shoots first. You see their arrows all miss.

Combat panels

Panels 5 and 6 show the archers attacking first. Then panels 7 and perhaps 8, 9 and 10 show the dragons killing 5 or I think 6 out of eight archers (the bubblegum dwagon presumably kills 2 as the rest are doing). Then panel 11 shows the remaining two archers about to attack again. Panel 12 looks to have so many bodies it might be after two stacks of eight have gone through the process of being wiped out.

Visually the place where this theory looks worst is probably the combat where Jillian is captured. It sure looks like she first strikes the blue dragon. Of course she may have special rules, for example maybe the sword gives her first strike capacity. But if that was true she'd have had an attack on another dwagon after the 4 dwagons attacked the orlies. Maybe instead the sword mesmerises your opponent, "Watch the nice shiny".

I'm not too worried about this case though. The combat with the 3 B dwagons appears to be drawn to show us how combat works whereas the combats with Jillian seem to be more narrative.

[factotum]

Well, the Jillian case was arguably a special case anyway--she was a warlord, facing a stack of dwagons with NO warlord. This may well have given her an advantage. This might also explain why the massed stack punched through the dwagons with apparently little effort, since they had at least three warlords present (Ansom, Tarfu and Vinny) where the opposition also had none.

Of course, if things DO work that way, it begs the question of why Ansom didn't attack with a warlord-led stack to begin with!

[Rockphed]

Of course, if things DO work that way, it begs the question of why Ansom didn't attack with a warlord-led stack to begin with!

Because he took losses while fighting the dwagons. And not just the leaderless stacks he sent in to begin with, he lost troops from his massed stack.

[ChowGuy]

It's almost like Erfworlders are born knowing everything and cannot understand someone who does not.

It's almost like Erfworlders are born knowing everything and cannot understand someone who does not.

Well, "popped" knowing everything. And actually I think Parson himself expresses much the same idea in his Klog #5. Although it probably only applies to things they should know as part of their unit class. Sizemore at least seems to be interested in trying to learn things outside his class, and perhaps for that reason is himself more understanding and amenable to passing along what he can to Parson.

I'm not too worried about this case though. The combat with the 3 B dwagons appears to be drawn to show us how combat works whereas the combats with Jillian seem to be more narrative.

Sooooo... anything which can possibly be read as supporting your ideas is "Complete and Inerrant" but anything which does not must be "Mere Allegory Subject to Interpretation" eh? Uhh... now, where have I heard something that before?

ETA:

When the 3 B dwagons were attacked by infantry the infantry actually shoots first. You see their arrows all miss.

So the archers all shoot, and you see the arrows miss. Then and only does their turn end and do any of the Dwagons get to attack.

OK, explain the arrows that have not yet hit/missed Red #1, at the same time Red #2 is "krinching" a Battle Bear.

[BarGamer]

Chowguy: Oh boop, that does make a twisted kind of sense. Parson, find the Archons NOW. I mean, not that I wouldn't want a fan-service-y fight featuring three beautiful women. XD

I got my odds on that we'll either see a Klog or a Jillian update.

[sihnfahl]

It's hard to read why the veil thing comes up at this point. It's hard to see the grand arc of the story when you analyse it one page at a time like this. But I am surprised how much space has been taken up with this single stratagem by Parson. It started around erf p52 with klog 6 although that was in the limited format without the empty center hex. It's 15 pages later and we still haven't seen how this one stratagem works out yet. If the story arc is 90-odd pages, possibly not including klogs, it's clear this is a big big part of the whole story. The longer it gets the more substantial the pay off must be.

Parson's expression does look like he thinks he's booped but it can't be. There's just no way that I can see that the existence of a veil spell spoils his current plan. Certainly Ansom has nothing up his sleeve because we just saw exactly what he did and all he did was say "battle formations", not eg. "Get me the Foolamancer on that hat". Ansom's got nothing. I don't see that Parson has anything new either. He's still saying Ansom and the Arken pliers can be captured at this point presumably. Parson should be confident, though he's wrong to be. And Ansom shouldn't be feeling like he's booped because he has the flying reserve, though he's wrong about that.

No, Parson doesn't look like he thinks he's booped. He just learned, in an offhand way, that the strategies he devised and spent so much time on... were almost unnecessary.

His original assumption? That everyone had a setup like Stanley's and could see all units. His second assumption? That Ansom had to use scouts, and that the dwagons could and would be found. Now, he finds out he could have hid the dwagons all along and possibly not risk losing even one.

As for Ansom's feeling of being booped, it's warranted. He went in hoping to save at least some of his siege. In this diversion and trap, he only croaked 3 dwagons. If he attacks even a weak 4 dwagon hex, he knows his column's facing 40+ full-health dwagons with 3 warlords. He knows he's lost all his siege units - the backbone of an assault on any walled and fortified city. It's not his personal situation that worries him - it's the battle for GK that he realizes... "I'm .... losing? To -STANLEY-!?"

[DavidByron]

We might be talking about different things by "simultaneous".

The revelation of the 3-D glasses shows that individual creatures have attack rolls to hit and then damage in the classic hex based turn based combat from a hundred different games of the genre. Each creature attacks one other creature on the other side. All creatures have an attack (possibly multiple for special creatures) and the attacks are resolved and then results of those attacks (ie damage mostly) are calculated and then you do it all again. In turns.

What I am saying is that the revelation of the 3-D glasses implies a discrete combat system of discrete attacks. One attack per round of battle. Therefore there are battle rounds. The only question left is whether the damage resolution of these battle rounds is left to the end of the round or whether you can kill a creature during a round before it got to attack, thus denying it the attack.

So what I think of as "simultaneous" combat here is that damage isn't resolved until the end of the combat round. That is, all creatures that start a combat round roll to hit and damage. As opposed to a system where damage is resolved immediately as part of the attack and creatures killed before their turn to attack lose their attack.

Now some have suggested an initiative roll like AD&D but there was no initiative stat revealed by the 3-D glasses. Besides hex based board games don't use initiative like that. That's for RPGs. So your choice is between everyone effectively attacks "at once" on both sides, or something like, attacker hits first, defender second. Or as I suggested above, ranged attacks by attacker first, etc. (Maybe ranged only shoots first on the first round).

What others here may be thinking of "simultaneous" is saying let's get rid of the idea of discrete combat rounds altogether. But how can that be reconciled with the creature statistics which strongly imply a one creature rolls to hit and damage one target, style of combat?

The visual evidence you are presenting is arguing against discrete combat attacks itself. In game terms there's no way you have two combat attacks being rolled (ie dice being rolled - this is a mathematical / luck based roll system per the mathemancer / luckamancer discussion) and resolved simultaneously. There's no system where that would happen in a turn based game IMO. At any rate that's what you appear to be arguing. That's a HUGE point to challenge and goes way beyond my attempt to figure out if combat rounds are structured one way or another way. You're denying there are even such things as combat rounds it seems?

At any rate the evidence for a belief in discrete combat attacks resolved serially one creature vs one other, one attack after another, is the 3-D glasses, the creature stats and the fact that that is how just about every, if not every game of this genre works. I can't even think of an exception...

Um well some games (I think there was a game based on Space 1889 for example - Martian highlander bandits - can't remember it's name now..) add up the combat stats of all creatures in a stack and resolve a single combat on the basis of the totals of attacker and defender. That's all I can think of. but it wasn't a hex game like Erfworld, more a board game though the combat stats were compatible and come to think of it that would help account for the odd lack of a damage stat. But I doubt it.

Btw upon reflection the Jillian vs the Blue dwagon combat makes as much sense or more with an attacker-then-defender system as "simultaneous" in the sense that I meant it above (ie damage not resolved until end of each combat round). Jillian is basically a one hit auto-kill so if she were attacking simultaneously and there appears to be two rounds in the combat, she'd kill 2 dwagons. Same if she attacked first. Therefore she must attack second and the combat goes dwagons, Jillian, dwagons end of combat.

So anyway sorry for the confusion if you have been promoting the idea of there being no discrete combat attacks at all. That's so out of the box I'd have to consider the implications of it.

[DavidByron]

Temple of the Beastmen that was the name.

[SteveMB]

It's not his personal situation that worries him - it's the battle for GK that he realizes... "I'm .... losing? To -STANLEY-!?"

If Jillian was told about the results of the "monstrous Findamancy/Lookamancy thing", and reports it (both of which are uncertain), I can see Ansom clinging to this revelation like a drowning man to a life preserver.

[sihnfahl]

If Jillian was told about the results of the "monstrous Findamancy/Lookamancy thing", and reports it (both of which are uncertain), I can see Ansom clinging to this revelation like a drowning man to a life preserver.

Course, then the question would be... 'Er, how would you know that? You were a prisoner in their dungeon and tortured, right? How would you know they bought and cast a spell to summon a new warlord?'

[DavidByron]

Hey maybe I'm missing something here but where does the idea that warlords can direct who attacks whom come from? If combat is made up of discrete one-attacker-vs-one-target rolls, then you'd have to chose targets even if neither side had warlords. Saying warlords get to chose wouldn't make any sense if you get to chose normally.

The nearest I could find is the klog about the plan to target siege units. But the rules described there isn't about targeting within combat, it is about warlords being able to selectively decide to initiate combat vs non-fliers with a stack of all fliers during their move.

Parson's klog

He's not saying the warlords mean he can target the siege units.

Actually my reading suggests that even without warlords the dwagons would be forced to attack ground units that had archers, is that right? Why are the warlords necessary then?

[SteveMB]

Course, then the question would be... 'Er, how would you know that? You were a prisoner in their dungeon and tortured, right? How would you know they bought and cast a spell to summon a new warlord?'

Precisely why I noted that whether or not she would report it (if she knows) is "uncertain". It might depend on whether or not she can concoct (or has been given a false memory of) an alternative explanation for that point.

Hey maybe I'm missing something here but where does the idea that warlords can direct who attacks whom come from? If combat is made up of discrete one-attacker-vs-one-target rolls, then you'd have to chose targets even if neither side had warlords. Saying warlords get to chose wouldn't make any sense if you get to chose normally.

My inference is that, without warlords on either side, the units attack each other more or less at random.

The nearest I could find is the klog about the plan to target siege units. But the rules described there isn't about targeting within combat, it is about warlords being able to selectively decide to initiate combat vs non-fliers with a stack of all fliers during their move.

Parson's klog

He's not saying the warlords mean he can target the siege units.

Actually my reading suggests that even without warlords the dwagons would be forced to attack ground units that had archers, is that right? Why are the warlords necessary then?

The warlords are necessary to 1)make sure the dwagons concentrate their fire on the siege units rather than some other unit they might encounter first, or randomly select out of the same stack as a siege unit, and 2)direct the dwagons to leave for the next siege unit (or for shelter, if too badly wounded) once they finish off the siege unit(s) in a given stack.

[DDL]

According to this one: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html

Parson doesn't even know what happens in a non-warlord-lead fight.

Possibly it's just random target assignation. Have we even SEEN any non-warlord containing fights yet?

I think the idea with the warlords is he can barge his forces into a hex containing a mass of enemy troops, completely ignore everything except the siege (which presumably is pretty poor at non-siege combat), and then leave. Because he's entirely on flyers, the rest of the enemy forces in the hex (archers aside) can't even hit him unless he engages them, which he doesn't. I think one or two panels showed some dwagons munching down on marbits, but that could be because "hey: if the archers are going to be attacking you ANYWAY, and you've already got too many dwagons attacking the siege to fit any more in, you might as well return the favour with your 'spare' dwagons."

Of course, we don't know how the fights work out in uneven combats: you assume one-on-one, which seems ok with caveats: if we assume undirected combats use randomly assigned one-on-one until one side is completely engaged, then use random assignation of the remaining other side's 'excess' forces into two-on-one or even three or more-on-one combats, it works out ok.

For directed combats, there doesn't seem to be any reason why you couldn't have 'everything against one', or similar. Maybe there are size restrictions (can't attack siege with more than four discrete units/stacks, etc). Maybe you can only have one 'directed combat' per warlord, so by including all three in the one force, Parson could target three siege engines per hex, per round.

In combats with warlords on both sides, you could either have 'directed combat is negated', or 'both sides are permitted to direct combat', which could be amusing (All the dwagons vs Ansom, All of ansoms force vs Leeroy...at the SAME time).

Or something.

[Aris Katsaris]

What I am saying is that the revelation of the 3-D glasses implies a discrete combat system of discrete attacks. One attack per round of battle. Therefore there are battle rounds.

An uncertain conclusion by far. In World of Warcraft (to bring up an example from a different genre) there are "Attack Power" and "Defense Rating" stats (among a bazillion other stats - STR, STA, INT, AGI, etc), but combats aren't divided in battle rounds, nor are attacks discrete. It's done in real-time.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_&_South_(computer_game)">"North vs South"</a> was one game that combined turn-based strategy and real-time combat. Am sure there must have been others too.

Now some have suggested an initiative roll like AD&D but there was no initiative stat revealed by the 3-D glasses.

Heroes of Might and Magic used unit speed to determine initiative. "Move" (either remaining or max) could be used for the same purpose here.

Besides hex based board games don't use initiative like that.

Um, HoMM did.

What others here may be thinking of "simultaneous" is saying let's get rid of the idea of discrete combat rounds altogether. But how can that be reconciled with the creature statistics which strongly imply a one creature rolls to hit and damage one target, style of combat?

Easily. E.g if "attack 5" means something like ability to do 5 hitpoints of damage on the enemy per minute and "defense 3" means average ability to resist 3 hitpoints of damage on the enemy per minute.

You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions here, and closing your mind to an awful lot of possibilities.

[Scientivore]

[snip] Parson's klog

He's not saying the warlords mean he can target the siege units.

Actually my reading suggests that even without warlords the dwagons would be forced to attack ground units that had archers, is that right? Why are the warlords necessary then?

I tend to focus on the left-hand side of that page. Sounds like you might be doing the same thing. Check out the fourth bullet under "Our plan".

Without warlords, it sounds like the dwagons would continue automatically attacking any and all non-allied units in the hex, to the croak. With warlords, they can roast the siege while only taking damage from archers, not infantry, and then move on.

[DavidByron]

Random targeting is really unlikely IMO. I've never seen that in any game of this genre. You'd have to have a computer game to do the randomising for you. The problem with a lot of the comments is that they are based on computer games and not on board wargames which Erfland and the game Parson was working on appear to be examples. Die-cut counters on a hex board. Physical dice, most likely d6s being rolled. You can't just randomly pick targets in a board wargame. You'd have to roll dice or something to pick. Or use a pseudo-random generator such as each player secretly ordering his units and then revealing simultaneously. Rather than have random targeting I'd sooner think that there are no discrete one-on-one attacks without warlords and that the abilities of stacked units are added together and a single attack roll made.

So the comment about selective targeting by warlords, implying no selective targeting at other times is rather odd. A way around this is to interpret the klog 2 comment as saying that a warlord with a flying group can choose which non-archer non-flyers it will add to the fight. Then the combat starts. During combat actual unit to unit targeting is the same as non-warlord combat. So what warlords bring to the plan is the ability to attack non-flyers without involving all the non-flyer non-archers in the same hex, but as for "my dwagon attacks the siege tower not the marbit archer" that you could have got even without a warlord.

Of course Ansom's unprecedented inability to direct his non-bat units, to see the results of combat his non-bat units are involved in or even move his non-bat units and know if they managed to move.... all that argues against this and any board wargame interpretation. You just can't have that much hidden knowledge without a computer game. But the game parson was working on very clearly was a non-computer game.

[ChowGuy]

What others here may be thinking of "simultaneous" is saying let's get rid of the idea of discrete combat rounds altogether.

[Higgins]By George I think he's got it. I really think he's got it![/Higgins]

But how can that be reconciled with the creature statistics which strongly imply a one creature rolls to hit and damage one target, style of combat?

Easily. But first the glasses:

Each unit attacks a single creature at a time (uually), with a (possibly randomized) chance of hitting determined by its stats (and possible adjusted by its opponent's), and doing a certain (possibly randomized) amount of damage if it does so. These are the individual's stats, and like the "move" may vary vary from one individual to another of the same unit type, this need to be "seen" via the glasses to judge that individual's state. The effect of these stats however may be modified by a unit's intrinsic abilities such as strength / weakness against another class of units, favorable / unfavorable terrain ("big bonuses for tunnel fighting") and a host of others. Some may be "special abilities" that like base stats may vary between individual based on their current "assignment" and also need be displayed. Most however not as they are inherent in a unit's class and Warlords are assumed to know them. Parson says as much in his klog, and bemoans the fact that he does not know them all, and seemingly is something having a hard time finding them out.

I've added a good deal of qualifiers there (and there are many more I could, like "area" attacks such as a Red bweathing fiwe) but on this much, I trust we agree. Now, since these unit attacks must take place on a discrete basis, cannot be assumed to be fatal in all cases, and take place within larger engagements of possibly differing stack/army sizes, they must be performed at the unit level in some sort of sequence. Again I hope we are agreed.

The question is, how is ithe timing of that sequence determined? Here we disagree.

Hopefully we can however agree that each action such as moving 20 feet, firing an arrow (and having it hit/miss), or swinging a sword, takes some (unknown, and perhaps variable) amount of time to complete. This time may be thought of as taking "ticks" in which individual sub-actions take place. This is simply a case of the physics not allowing such things to happen "instantaneously" and while this "action time" per se is not easily discernible in your dice-based, it is evidences in at least a few of your reference examples, ie: the arrows are fired [tick] and miss [tick]. Jillian raises her sword [tick], passes it (unseen) through the Dwagon's neck [tick] , resulting in the Dwagon's plummeting [tick].

Your contention is that is is "turn based" in a very narrowly defined classical sense, with all units of a given side (or at a minimum, all units wiihin a given level of inititive or "speed" as displayed in HoMM) taking their moves, followed by units of the other side. All of these attacks/moves by the first group however are fully resolved (all ticks accounted for) before the second can take theirs. As you say, this is a pattern often found in turn-based games, though it is by no means "the only way" (consider the most classic game of all - chess - in which only one unit moves/attacks per round, but the choice of which is [u]not[/i] dependent on "speed"). This "it's the only conceivable" way is indeed the whole brunt of your argument, and you look to the art only for support, not clues as to what can be deduced. As I said, a pre-conceived notion which you use as part of your "proof" that it is correct.

But consider this. If every "action" takes a certain amount of ticks, what is the resolution of these ticks, and what evidence do we have that the physics of Erfworld require they all complete within a "round"? Since as pointed out this is a largely D&D oriented site (though the comic is not) go back to that as an example. Combat there I believe is divided into six-second rounds. In each round the various players and monsters get one "tick" action. But not all meaningful actions can take place within a single "tick." Some may take as much as a minute (10 "ticks") or more. During these ticks, do all other creatures stop moving? No, they do not. They continue to act in what can be said to be "simultaneous" turns. OK, still agreed?

Now, think calculus. In the limit as the resolution of "ticks" goes to zero, actions become "continuous." This is in gaming what is (somewhat inaccurately) called "real time." It's really more likely to be "simulated time" but the term is applied since the actors (actually, the player) is typically forced to respond to events as they happen, without the grace of a "between rounds" time out to think and plan that is typical of "classic" turn based. Again, this appears to be how things are in Erfworld - we do not see Jillian pause in combat to say, ok, now I'll go for the Blue." She says it, but is already moving that way even as she does. She's taking some of the (many) ticks that that action requires.

Now once again, your argument is that this is "not possible" because we are given that Erfworld is strictly "turn based." Parson says so, and Stanley confirms it. But as I have noted elsewhere, that assertion and "confirmation" is conditional. Only in global terms (ie on the overworld map) is a given. In detail (on the combat map) there is no such canon. And yes, there are games (a great many) in which overland actions takes place in strict turns by sides, but detail actions (combat within a single engagement) is resolved on a much finer time scale. Even to the limiting case of "continuous."

Dice rolls per se do not apply as a determinant as we see no one rolling dice in Erfworld. There are simply a mechanic in our world for randomizing results based on probability, and the physics of our world is such that throwing two (or twenty) sets of dice simultaneously, then resolving the individual actions indicated, is inconvenient to say the least. However, other probability mechanisms (the Titan's will?) can be easily taking place in Erfworld that can and do operate on a much faster scale.

Finally, about the archers "moving first," then the Dwagons. This makes perfect sense, now matter if or how "rounds" are determined. The archer's having entered the hex and set up, will wish to take their best shot and are unlikely to wait till the Dwagons have killed them. Hence they shoot as soon as they have range. Meanwhile, the Dwagons, having a shorter range attack, may or may not wish to move closer then need be whether or not they are physically able. It's to their advantage to stay back ubtil the arrows have (hopefully) missed them. Then they can feel free to attack while the archers are busy reloading (an another action which may take a certain number of "ticks.") By itself, this sequence actually tells us nothing of the "turned-ness" of combat, only that a small party of archers, without leadership bonus, is no match for a group of Dwagons. Perhaps they all missed because without leadership, their shakiness throws their aim off. Or becauase there was no experienced leader there to tell them to hold, then "Volley" they simply fired too soon, while the Dwagons were out of effective range. It doesn't even imply that a much larger party, say ten times as strong, with leadership bonus, could not set up, then take out the same number of Dwagons before any of the Dwagons closed to within their own effective range. Thus even if one accepts your :no archers were killed" premise, the challenge is easily refuted.

[BarGamer]

Since any old idea is as likely to be heard, commented about, and shot down, I might as well come up with my half-baked idea:

Maybe it's a "Might Makes Right" combat system. If you can possibly kill all of the units in a stack, regardless of accuracy, you go first. Commander bonuses count toward this, obviously. Where this breaks down is the Jillian fight, where she kills one dwagon, but she gets smacked and captured. Thus, it's only a half-baked maybe. Comments?

[tainsouvra]

But consider this. If every "action" takes a certain amount of ticks, what is the resolution of these ticks, and what evidence do we have that the physics of Erfworld require they all complete within a "round"? Since as pointed out this is a largely D&D oriented site (though the comic is not) go back to that as an example. Combat there I believe is divided into six-second rounds. In each round the various players and monsters get one "tick" action. But not all meaningful actions can take place within a single "tick." Some may take as much as a minute (10 "ticks") or more. During these ticks, do all other creatures stop moving? No, they do not. They continue to act in what can be said to be "simultaneous" turns. OK, still agreed?

I would like to point out, in case you're not familiar with D&D rules outside of how you've heard them described on this site, that you are misrepresenting how D&D works. Turns, actions, and rounds don't work that way.

You can make a certain number of actions on your turn during a D&D round, depending on the type of actions. You do not get another turn until the following round, and nobody else's turn coincides with yours. A few, very few, actions can take more than one round to finish, but they are actually resolved on a turn-by-turn basis, in piecemeal (ie, a one-minute casting time is ten separate full-round actions, not one ten-round action). Simultaneity like you describe does not occur, it is broken up by the game mechanics until it fits on a round-by-round basis.

Additionally, in D&D, a very turn-based game, there are mechanics to do things such as prepare an action to be resolved on a later initiative number ("delay"), or prepare your action to be resolved when a predetermined condition is met ("ready"), or perform an action in response to an opponent's action ("opportunity"). None of these things detract from its turn-based nature.

I think you are being excessively limited in what you consider turn-based, you're leaving out things that are already established in the genre.

[ChowGuy]

Hey maybe I'm missing something here but where does the idea that warlords can direct who attacks whom come from?

I think the best example is when Jillian tells her Orlies "Divert. Hard Left. [as she herself leans and points right]. [Attack those others to] Buy me some time to solo the Blue."

If combat is made up of discrete one-attacker-vs-one-target rolls, then you'd have to chose targets even if neither side had warlords. Saying warlords get to chose wouldn't make any sense if you get to chose normally.

But the choice of targets would be up to the individual unit's default behavior. Lacking any other priorities, it would probably be "hit the closet one first" but as we see in the "Archers shoot at Dwagons" panel, they may also just "band box" the enemy rather then effectively concentrating their fire.

The nearest I could find is the klog about the plan to target siege units. But the rules described there isn't about targeting within combat, it is about warlords being able to selectively decide to initiate combat vs non-fliers with a stack of all fliers during their move.

Actually its about Warlords being able to ignore non-flying units in combat. This allows the to avoid exposing their fliers to ground backs retaliatory strikes. Note that he makes a point of the exception: Archers can attack anyway, so try to avoid groups of them.

Actually my reading suggests that even without warlords the dwagons would be forced to attack ground units that had archers, is that right? Why are the warlords necessary then?

Without the warlords, combat must continue till one or the other side is eliminated, so yes, they would need to attack ground units. This appears to be the typical Erfworld style of combat even with warlord (and their bonuses), which is why Vinny says "we should have lost five or size whole stacks." With warlords however, the attacking force can withdraw as soon as their priority target are eliminated, minimizing damage taken to themselves. This was the key to Parson's plan and the reason why the warlords were needed there. It does not however count as a "win" for the warlords, hence the "victory" celebration as Vinny ponders, then realizes the implications of such an unconventional move.

This is also why Ansom was compelled to attack and eliminate the warlords. As long as they are... uhm... not croaked... they can and will repeat that unconventional attack.

[Scientivore]

The problem with a lot of the comments is that they are based on computer games and not on board wargames which Erfland and the game Parson was working on appear to be examples.

Parson is in a webcomic of a story about a world with physics that has elements reminiscent of tabletop and computerized turn-based, hex-based fantasy wargames. The named characters have distinct personalities. They pop instead of being born; yet they seem to reason and will for themselves, not via a global CPU or Titan's hand.

I don't know what sort of mind a cloth golem has. Whatever it uses to appear to grieve over a fallen comrade, it can presumably use to choose a target at whim when it doesn't have a leader.

[ChowGuy]

But the game parson was working on very clearly was a non-computer game.

And this is the crux, and the failure, of your argument. You presumption is that because Parson appeared to be working on a table top game (though I suspect it was in fact an RP campaign) that the world in which he finds himself is in fact that very game. But as you yourself point out, much of what we see of Erfworlds' mechanics - FoW, warlords taking their own initiative (unless those "warlords" are seen as player avatar's) - would not have been possible in that genre.

This is not, despite what he initially guesses in his Klog, an "Oz" world based on his own thinking, nor even a "Through The Looking Glass" which he has solely created and into which he has insetred himself. It is a world derived from Rob and Jamie's imaginations and experiences which may (to say the least) be a great deal broader then Parson's. A world in which it is possible to summon the Perfect Warlord from "anywhere. All of existence."

The surface similarity of this world to the game he was setting up is only one of several things that could have helped lock that spell onto him. He is also big by Erfworld standards, eats Marbits for breakfast, and snacks on something that look enough like Erfworld Gwiffons that Wanda (who is not a findamancer) could easily have been drawn to them. Most importantly he is also obsessed with warfare, at least warfare much like what is conducted in Erfworld, and (says) he wants to be summoned. These were all part of Stanley's criteria. Parson's likely was the closest mind Wanda could find for "Scrubby!"

ETA:
By the way, if the original was indeed an RP, then Parson was the DM, not a player. And if a DM making rulings (including when and where to say "roll for <x>" isn't a good analogy for "the Titan's will" I don't know what is

[DavidByron]

The relationship between Erfworld and the real world hasn't been given.

But it doesn't really matter because we have enough data to know that the apparent "real time" actions of the various units in combat are just representations of a fairly simple arithmetic-numeric combat system. There is no free will to break outside the simple numbers that represent the combatants. No more than they can choose to travel just one more overland hex after their time is up. The rules of the game trump the apparent "real time" aspect of both.

Parson goes over this a few times and the answer is always the same. You can't attack or move at night - regardless of the fact that in "real time" those units are not frozen on the spot but plodding around or whatever. Dwagons can flap their stubby wings all day above the lake but they cannot move to the shore because that's another hex. Is that "realistic"?

In the same way we know that Erfworld combat is not and cannot be "realistic" even as much as AD&D 3.5 edition rules are. There is no room for free will. Each unit has it's simple stats. The rules of the game dictate the outcome. Mathemancy or a simple calculator, can give you the exact odds of success according to the formulae for such things. This is Battle For Wesnoth not World of Greyhawk. Can anyone here calculate the exact odds of each result of a battle in an AD&D game? But in Wesnoth it's easy. Luckamancy can change the odds only because there are odds to change. There are discrete probabilities of discrete outcomes. You can't pull a surprise out of the hat any more than cross a hexside out of turn.

The implication is that this cannot be a real time system or use analogue distances or movement. We know this and it is accepted for the strategic overview. Each hex has it's co-ordinate. It is also true for the tactical "map" although so far there's no sign that there is any such thing as positioning on the tactical scale. As far as I can see everything can hit everything.

How could it be any other way? Why would a red dwagon choose to fly down to be hit by a gump? That would be ridiculous. It would just flap around up there and breath fire. But the rules of the game say otherwise. The dwagon cannot just fly up out of "range" and bomb its land-locked enemies (even archers) with boop or bubblegum while staying far far out of their range.

You are trying to argue that regardless of how we all accept the strategic level is discrete, the tactical level combat might be real-time / analogue, or at the least have time periods and distances so fine that it acts realistic. The only evidence for this is the way the people move about in the pictures but that's just as true on the strategic level. This is just the way the story is set up. It's a board wargame come to life. The pieces appear to have a sort of free will but in fact they cannot do anything but obey the rules of the game.

And those rules are (as Parson has said in a klog) simple and use small numbers and simple mathematical probabilities. The results are predictable ahead of time with each possibility having an exact knowable probability.

[Thes Hunter]

After reading Chowguys theories on Charlie's Archons... I am a bit more convinced in the importance of Ansom's turn not being over.

It could be that he calls the archon's, Jillian, the gwiffons, and pulls Himself, Vinny, and the other warlord out of there, with the Archons doing some sort of foolamancy to make it look like they never left.

When I had first thought of this possibility, I discarded it, because I didn't know if the flyers would have enough move to circle around the 'doughnut' of doom, back out again, and be far enough away to be protected. Since I am not exactly sure the column will provide Ansom enough protection from a huge warlord directed stack of dragons.

There is a lot of If's and unknowns in this, since we don't know how much move the gwiffons have (We just know they are within reach), how foolamancy works, or what the exact nature of the archons are.

I am just placing my bet that Ansom get's his boops out of the vice (more likely before the end of this turn) and Parson is still able to do some significant damage to the army despite that Ansom's escape.

Thereby maintaining the story tension.

[ChowGuy]

Why would a red dwagon choose to fly down to be hit by a gump? That would be ridiculous. It would just flap around up there and breath fire. But the rules of the game say otherwise.

*sigh* And as I've already pointed out, the rules of the game say a Dwagon may do exactly that.

Flying units with commanders may selectively engage non-flying units on their own turn.

The ability to selectively engage includes the ability to selectively not engage. What they cannot do is withdraw from combat, either on their own overworld] turn, or on their opponents. Only Warlords are permitted do that, as only Warlords have will and can give orders. (Or in the case of Stanley's uncroaked, have no will, but can relay his orders). And then, only on their [overworld] turn. There is no retreat for defenders, and without an attacking warlord to withdraw, there is no end to a combat action save the elimination of all units. Thus Dwagons who do not meet the stated criteria must withdraw. Nor can [attacking] flyers selectively not engage enemy flyers. If they try, those flyers will simply come up to engage them anyway.

Exception: enemy archery units may attack tou if you are on their space. Avoid!

Because they have ranged attacks, and can hit anything within that range, including "up." But if they have (limited) range, why can't the Dwagons simply fly out of range? Because they too have limited range. The primary attacks we've seen are melee. To use them, they must descend to attack. Even the breath attacks we've seen are quite short ranged. Parson says "Avoid!" for a reason. Getting too close to archers, whether they are the immediate targets or not, is hazardous to a Dwagon's health.

Those ARE the rules, as stated, for this world. That IS the data we have been given. Those rules in no way preclude the possibility of mathamancy "predicting" the outcome of an engagement, based upon troop strength and other data, including but not limited to past performance and "intuition" as to what an opponent will do. If such predictions could not be made, no "real world" general would ever rise above the rank of sergeant. Nor would Economists or other be able to predict and influence real world trends in their own field. But they can, and do. There is in fact an entire field of "Mathamancy" devoted to the study and application of such things. It was largely pioneered by Nobel Lauriate John Nash, and is quite appropriately called "Game Theory."

And yes, given enough input, one can calculate the expected outcome of a battle in AD&D. If one could not, the DM in particular, that DM would be up boop creek in either designing a campaign, or getting people to play with him again. As for Battle For Wesnoth, if you don't think one can pull off a surprise there, you've either never played it in multiplayer or never visited the Forum to hear the members moan about how they were booped by the RNG (Random Number God). Expected damage dealt and taken can be calculated, but at the end of the game they rarely match the Actual damage, even over a large number of sample. Over a small number, they can differ considerably.

ANow as to "Luckamancy" while the field of Probability does not admit of "Luck," there is another burgeoning field of Mathamancy in which it is recognized that even small and imperceptible changes in starting conditions can lead to major differences in outcome. This is the often cited "Butterfly Effect" and the study itself is again appropriately called "Chaos Theory." We actually see this cited in action in the strip, when the Titan's inadvertent leaving of a single gem behind leads to Manpower's loss at Warchucking, and consequently Parson's summoning. This game is very much based on math and probabilisties, but it is not [i[just[/i] the simple probabilistic outcome of "Pawn takes Knight" or "Stack of 5 beats stack of 3, loses 1." How do we know this? If they were that simple, there would be no need of "Mathamancers" with the equivalent of Parson's (now magically boosted) calculator watch.

But it doesn't really matter because we have enough data to know that the apparent "real time" actions of the various units in combat are just representations of a fairly simple arithmetic-numeric combat system.

We have seen no canonic "data" that supports that at all. You yourself admit that much of what we actually see contradicts that view. Your arguments boil down to "It is so because Ichoose to say it is so. Any thing which "appears" to contradict The Truth&trade; is clearly irrelevent so please do not confuse me with facts."

This is not an argument based on analysis. It is an argument based on belief and preference only. It is no different in that then a "political" argument or a "religious" argument, or a "9/11 truth" argument or a "moon Hoax" argument. In the end, they are all "ideological" arguments. Inevitably they turn into black-and-white "if you don't completely support me, you're the enemy!" There's fire and smoke, but no light in such discussions. I choose not to take any such stances, and I don't do idealogical arguments.

I can't know or say what prompts your steadfast choice in this matter. But if you believe my own analyses are based solely on some supposed personal preference for "real time" versus "turn based" combat you are wrong. To enlighten you, here is a post I made the other day on another game-related board. The key paragraph is the first:

For myself, I don't understand the fascination with "Real Time" in combat games, hence a "Turn based" overland game with "Real Time" combat would not appeal to me at all.

This was in response to an earielr post that included in part the suggestion

What we need is what I suggested though a turn based strategic game and then a real time combat game like the total war series.

I do not perfer that approach. However, the fact that I do not prefer it, does not keep me from recognizing it when I see it.

[DavidByron]

I apologise if something I said suggested you were dogmatic.

I thought it might be best to move to a new thread since this discussion is taking up a lot of space in the thread for page 67/61.

[BarGamer]

Awwww, but we wanna break 300 replies again! XDDD (*Possibly kidding.*)

Edit: Also, Erfworld 64, Page 58 broke 300 replies, but nobody noticed much. :-p

[kreszantas]

well the non-warlord combat appears to be move and threat level orientated.

The spidews in one instance actually took out a battle bear, which was the closest to the 1 spidew that it could kill without being killed before it struck, since the spidews actually engaged due to no warlord the selection process began, Webinar realized he was going to lose something and acted accordingly with his attack following the spidews engagement.

Same for the Dwagons with the ORLY's and Jillians Gwiffon. the highest initiative gets first attack or option to do so in combat, but if the defender actually has a higher one then they act first no matter if the warlord is there or not, which appears to be the case. The 4 dwags went in and BBQ'ed the ORLY's and the blue went to attempt to attack but Jillian had init on it and was able to select knowing which had the higher/lower speed when her time came. the higher speed dwagons then KO'ed her and rest is comic history.

[Hecore]

Just a few thoughts:

1. If the combat is simultaneous why couldn't Jillian have a First Strike ability? It would let her roll and assign damage before another unit without a First Strike ability.

2. Perhaps combat could be somewhat like Heroscape? Hits means a unit gets to roll as many dice as they have Hits for. Then damage is tallied based on how many skulls came up (or whatever Erfworld uses).

3. When there isn't a warlord I would assume damage on the stack is automatically applied to the weakest* unit, then the leftovers go to the next weakest, ect. until either all units are dead or all damage has been expended. In the case of ties then the defending player gets to choose how damage is applied to units.

*Weakest, in this case, would mean the unit with the least health.

[abb3w]

Here, the angle of the shot makes it difficult to see his face and the hair covers his brow, but the jaw appears more clenched - a sign of consternation.

Optimistic Possibility: Parson's consternation is over the amount of sleep he lost over developing his Party Platter Plan, when easier alternatives were possible.

Pessimistic Possibility: he realizes that Ansom may have cloaked troops dangerously close to the Gobwin Nob, who might be about to become Inconvenient.