Erf 118, Pg 106

[MuthSera]

You know what ruthlessness is?
Take a look at the city walls arround gobwin knob.. And how far out the forces extend. They are gathering arround the walls, but ruthlessness today, could be using sizemore to callapse the walls so they all fall directly outwards on top of the forces, then mopping up the rest with the gobwin knob stack.

[fendrin]

Hmm... Ruthlessness + Loyalty means collapsing all of the tunnels if it means destroying the entire invasion force, even if it also means destroying the city and killing everyone inside, ifs that is the only way to save Stanley.

[Justyn]

Hmm... Ruthlessness + Loyalty means collapsing all of the tunnels if it means destroying the entire invasion force, even if it also means destroying the city and killing everyone inside, ifs that is the only way to save Stanley.

You are thinking of Duty; Loyalty is following your ruler's commands, Duty is using your initiative to act in your Ruler's best interests.

Anyway, I think that Ruthless is a special ability, like Bogroll's Regeneration, but what it does, I know not.

[R13]

(things he'd have had if he were Erfian).

I protest! Clearly the proper term is Erfling.

[fractal]

Anyway, I think that Ruthless is a special ability, like Bogroll's Regeneration, but what it does, I know not.

Kill your own units before they die to deny enemies the experience needed to level up? Obviously a more useful power in the midgame, though, so probably not what Parson has in this endgame scenario.

[fendrin]

You are thinking of Duty; Loyalty is following your ruler's commands, Duty is using your initiative to act in your Ruler's best interests.

Erm, yes. I meant duty.

[grumbleboom]

Just a thought I had, and not sure if anyone mentioned it.

Spoiler

Show

Could Parson collapse the ramp up to Gobwin Knob? That would isolate Ansom's forces completely and knock out the siege on the ramp at the same time. With little to no siege available on the top of the caldera, Parson could direct his full force against the now isolated ground troops outside the walls or in the tunnels without having to worry about the walls getting knocked down around him.

Also, since Ansom's airforce is now out of range, any air support would not be forthcoming.

[DCR]

You know what ruthlessness is?
Take a look at the city walls arround gobwin knob.. And how far out the forces extend. They are gathering arround the walls, but ruthlessness today, could be using sizemore to callapse the walls so they all fall directly outwards on top of the forces, then mopping up the rest with the gobwin knob stack.

I think any commander worth his rank would love something along those lines. Efficiency is not ruthlessness, just good management. Completing an objective despite the cost, especially personal cost, is ruthlessness.

The heart of the matter: Ruthlessness is defined by behavior and it is subjective. I'll prove it. Would you be willing to lose one of your men to kill 10 enemy combatants? Answer? It depends. (20.3)

What if your enemy was willing to lose 10 to kill one of yours? What if he was willing to lose a hundred? A thousand? Behavior, subjective judgement on the behavior. Food for thought.

[warmachine]

Didn't we see his friends comment on Parson's sudden disappearance?

That is, indeed, evidence that Parson is not hallucinating but that could be what he thinks happened. After all, someone with low self-esteem would imagine his friends aren't too perturbed by his sudden disappearance but, actually, anyone would be shocked by that.

Overall, balance of evidence must be considered and the meal giving exactly the advice Parson needs is yet more evidence in favour of hallucinations.

[Grubsnik]

The Tool will be killed by the party waiting for him. Parson & co. will lose their turn after nearly kicking Webinar's wood-reinforced butt. Ansom & co will then charge in and get themselves demolished by Uber-Parson, at which point Charlie will make his move, only to get his head handed back to him.

If Stanley dies, their entire faction goes neutral. Then Ansom will simply pull back his troops until he has all the siege in place and take it slow from there. Charlie might sweep in before that to grab Parson and the artifacts.

[teratorn]

I love the cereal box. I had to sit there and do the maze with my cursor. Yay! I won all the neat magic toys!

Yay, I won them too. The authors should think about selling these boxes stuffed with a magical gauntlet, 3D-googles and a sword... Add a plush dwagon and a stained t-shirt and any of us is ready to become Parson.

[Laurentio II]

Ruthlessness.

To push Sizemore under action, using Loyalty instead of confidence and authority, to maximize his effort in the battle.

To use Gobwins as trap baits, to lead enemies in places that can be collapsed with minimal structural damage.

To hastily Chain Sizemore, Wanda and/or Maggie, killing their individuality in order to have a more powerful bonus on uncroaked/artifacted troops.

To use Bogroll as a scape goat (actually not very useful, as enemies have no reason to know that he is large and tall like a twoll).

[fendrin]

Just a thought I had, and not sure if anyone mentioned it.

Spoiler

Show

Could Parson collapse the ramp up to Gobwin Knob? That would isolate Ansom's forces completely and knock out the siege on the ramp at the same time. With little to no siege available on the top of the caldera, Parson could direct his full force against the now isolated ground troops outside the walls or in the tunnels without having to worry about the walls getting knocked down around him.

Also, since Ansom's airforce is now out of range, any air support would not be forthcoming.

Yeah, that was my initial idea to stop the siege, but for some reason I had thought it was too late for that now. Upon rereading, I don't know why I thought that it was too late... Ansom's troops are already surrounding GK, but only one sixth of the remaining siege has made it to the walls. Doing a little math on the one sixth and the forty percent, only one tenth of the initial siege has made it to the walls. Even though he had four times what he needed, he is still below the one quarter necessary.

Ooh, in digging for info on my wacky idea below, I found that the 40% that was croaked was 50 siege units. That means the coalition initially had 125 siege, and needs approximately 31. Only 12-13 units have made it to the walls so far, less than half of what is needed.

To hastily Chain Sizemore, Wanda and/or Maggie, killing their individuality in order to have a more powerful bonus on uncroaked/artifacted troops.

Yeah, that's something else I thought might happen. It's just too convenient that there are three casters left, and one of them is a thinkamancer... I was thinking that combining Sizemore's magical knowledge with Wanda's raw power, you could get some amazing effects from any discipline.

And now a random wild crazy improbable theory on the grand reveal, so out there it just might be true:

Spoiler

Show

Stanley is not the overlord of Gobwin Knob. Wanda is.

Ok, I said it was wild and crazy, but Wanda has a good reason to have Stanley be a patsy: It keeps all the enemies focussed on croaking him, not her. Think about it, though.

• She routinely disobeys Stanley's orders (from the 'permitted' incident to talking after being told to shut up).
• Parson only obeyed his orders after Wanda told him he had to.
• She refers to GK as 'my side', not 'our side'.
• She's not under a loyalty spell.
• When she talks with Parson about leaving, she flat out says she is not acting out of duty (though she does thrown in an obfuscating comment immediately afterwards), and she states he 'couldn't' stop her.. which to me implies an unspoken continuation would be 'you couldn't stop me, if that's why I were leaving.'

So, a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing conclusive... the way a grand reveal should be.

[Fuzzypaws]

And now a random wild crazy improbable theory on the grand reveal, so out there it just might be true:

Spoiler

Show

Stanley is not the overlord of Gobwin Knob. Wanda is.

Ok, I said it was wild and crazy, but Wanda has a good reason to have Stanley be a patsy: It keeps all the enemies focussed on croaking him, not her. Think about it, though.

• She routinely disobeys Stanley's orders (from the 'permitted' incident to talking after being told to shut up).
• Parson only obeyed his orders after Wanda told him he had to.
• She refers to GK as 'my side', not 'our side'.
• She's not under a loyalty spell.
• When she talks with Parson about leaving, she flat out says she is not acting out of duty (though she does thrown in an obfuscating comment immediately afterwards), and she states he 'couldn't' stop her.. which to me implies an unspoken continuation would be 'you couldn't stop me, if that's why I were leaving.'

So, a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing conclusive... the way a grand reveal should be.

I like it, but don't know if it's probable. If that was true,

Spoiler

Show

why would Stanley have been allowed to lose all those cities, bringing Wanda's side to the brink of defeat? That's not a Xanatos Gambit, it's a Xanatos Roulette.

[Lamech]

I agree with Fuzzypaws, it doesn't make sense for Wanda to be the overlord of GK. Wanda would have kept up Stanley's tactics, which made him a threat. Two Stanley would have had to either bring her or stay to defend her. She might have a spell placed on him of some sort. But definatly not his overlord. Maybe she is the croatan overlord, and is just technically "captured", or allied, that could explain her freedom.

[SteveMB]

Maybe she is the croatan overlord, and is just technically "captured", or allied, that could explain her freedom.

We know that Wanda served under King Banhammer of Faq. It's theoretically possible that she originated elsewhere, but unlikely -- how would an isolated bubble kingdom capture or recruit outside units?

Another possibility is that Wanda entered Stanley's service without being bound to obey him in the usual way... and that her original Duty to the ruler of Faq remains in place, and is now directed to Jillian.

[Laurentio II]

Another possibility is that Wanda entered Stanley's service without being bound to obey him in the usual way... and that her original Duty to the ruler of Faq remains in place, and is now directed to Jillian.

We know that captured or turned units have a very low loyalty, if not put under a spell. Wanda, as "captured or turned" unit, seems not under any spell, by me.

[DarkNewton]

We know that captured or turned units have a very low loyalty, if not put under a spell. Wanda, as "captured or turned" unit, seems not under any spell, by me.

Do we know that Wanda was captured or turned?

Prehaps she was made barbarian somewhere along the line and at that point she hooked up with Stanley. Granted I think the historical evidence we've been given semi-implies that she was brought into Stanleys service when the city of FAQ fell.

But if it was a matter of Stanley capturing all the neutral units in FAQ at the time he wiped out it's forces.. wouldn't he just as simply have taken the whole city, had it pop it's creation libraries and rebuilt it as one of his outlying cities?

Or you know.. have I missed something big?

[Laurentio II]

Or you know.. have I missed something big?

Just that Stanley is a jerk, and not prone to capture a city that doesn't offer a Arkentools.
It's even plausible that at that time he was under Saline IV orders, and he could not rebuild cities at all.

[Arkenputtyknife]

Yeah, that was my initial idea to stop the siege, but for some reason I had thought it was too late for that now. Upon rereading, I don't know why I thought that it was too late... Ansom's troops are already surrounding GK, but only one sixth of the remaining siege has made it to the walls. Doing a little math on the one sixth and the forty percent, only one tenth of the initial siege has made it to the walls. Even though he had four times what he needed, he is still below the one quarter necessary.

Page 98, panel 9: “Ansom doesn't have his whole column here yet, but he doesn't need it. If he hits us this turn, we can't win.”—Parson. And the subsequent gripes, and Ansom's excuses, on page 101.

Presumably the absence of the dwagons and the reduced number of knights have made enough difference that a tenth is now sufficient to break the walls.

[SteveMB]

Page 98, panel 9: “Ansom doesn't have his whole column here yet, but he doesn't need it. If he hits us this turn, we can't win.”—Parson. And the subsequent gripes, and Ansom's excuses, on page 101.

Presumably the absence of the dwagons and the reduced number of knights have made enough difference that a tenth is now sufficient to break the walls.

Or Parson could have meant that if the enemy had immediately pressed the assault through the tunnels, they would have taken the city before he could put his defense plans into motion. He was counting (correctly, as it turned out) on Ansom getting all his ducks in a row before making his move.

[Sky_Schemer]

Yay, I won them too. The authors should think about selling these boxes stuffed with a magical gauntlet, 3D-googles and a sword... Add a plush dwagon and a stained t-shirt and any of us is ready to become Parson.

I think they can skip the stained T-shirt. I can make those at home.

[Laurentio II]

Presumably the absence of the dwagons and the reduced number of knights have made enough difference that a tenth is now sufficient to break the walls.

Again, it's a matter of jerkiness. Ansom has enough engines to open a breach in any point of the walls, so Parson is right - he could take the city in one turn.
But Ansom wants to take down ALL WALLS at the same time, or to use his words, "(we will) pour through the first breach we get".
A waste of energy, the kind of things a players would do when he has so much units, he can win no matter the strategy.

What do you expect from a guy that send half a dozen archers to sure death, to keep the Gumps "fresh"?

[fendrin]

Page 98, panel 9: “Ansom doesn't have his whole column here yet, but he doesn't need it. If he hits us this turn, we can't win.”—Parson. And the subsequent gripes, and Ansom's excuses, on page 101.

Presumably the absence of the dwagons and the reduced number of knights have made enough difference that a tenth is now sufficient to break the walls.

Ah, but it's not just a matter of cutting off the rest of the siege. It's also a matter of cutting off (or croaking) the majority of the column. Perhaps Ansom could have won this turn by concentrating all of his siege on one point, then flooding GK with infantry. Remember that the column is moving slow because of the siege (panel 3), so much more of the regular infantry is in range than the one sixth proportion of (remaining) siege in range. Destroying the bridge cuts that down significantly, because only those troops already at the walls would be able to attack through the breach.

Fewer breaches means defenders per breach.
Fewer attackers means the defenders don't have to last as long.
Combine the two and even a small army (and GK has a small army) can hold the fortress.

[multilis]

Earlier dragon/donut debate, a key issue in placement was that only a few units can attack a lake hex.

Ansom imo didn't attack partially because he *lacks* ruthlessness, he was trying to minimize losses. If in it for personal gain he could have sent allies charging ahead like they wanted, as after the war they may no longer be allies, but competition. In holding back to 'play it safe' he lost initiative, allows enemy time to counter attack.

(One of first rules in many rpg strategies is finish off enemy magic users *quickly* as they otherwise can lead to nasty suprises.)

Now with Parson, he started with 60% chance of not being beaten by Ansom. Now both sides are potentially stronger, he has to both stop Ansom, *and* stop Charlie, but he has some extra bonuses.

Charlie is in his airspace, wonder what Parson can do with that.

[Nargrakhan]

So that sword provides Parson with: Leadership, Combat, and Ruthlessness

In regards to "Combat", I assume it means he knows how to handle a blade. The fact that he suddenly swipes it to his side with confidence seems to hint at that. If this is the case, I wonder if the sword imparted such knowledge permanently, or if Parson needs to retain possession of the blade on his personage.

[fractal]

Or Parson could have meant that if the enemy had immediately pressed the assault through the tunnels, they would have taken the city before he could put his defense plans into motion. He was counting (correctly, as it turned out) on Ansom getting all his ducks in a row before making his move.

It doesn't even need to mean that the enemy could have taken the city in one turn. Perhaps the forces Ansom already had there weren't sufficient to take the city... but they WERE sufficient to make Parson's plans for a lasting successful defense impossible, resulting in the certain loss of the city on the following turn. Parson wouldn't have been able to win, in the long run.

Even now, Parson is only betting on "not losing the city" for a single turn. The Coalition doesn't have to take the city in one turn, they can launch massive waves of attacks for multiple turns. We don't know what his odds are of actually defeating the Coalition, those could be much lower than 60%.

[Arkenputtyknife]

Ah, but it's not just a matter of cutting off the rest of the siege. It's also a matter of cutting off (or croaking) the majority of the column. Perhaps Ansom could have won this turn by concentrating all of his siege on one point, then flooding GK with infantry. Remember that the column is moving slow because of the siege (panel 3), so much more of the regular infantry is in range than the one sixth proportion of (remaining) siege in range. Destroying the bridge cuts that down significantly, because only those troops already at the walls would be able to attack through the breach.

Fewer breaches means defenders per breach.
Fewer attackers means the defenders don't have to last as long.
Combine the two and even a small army (and GK has a small army) can hold the fortress.

I'll admit I had to think about the first part of that for a while before getting it. (Sometimes I can be dense … you've probably noticed.) But yes, that makes sense — so much sense that we have to ask why no one in the comic has mentioned it. My guess would be that it can't be done.

As far as I can see, there is no bridge. (Please correct me if I missed it somewhere.) There's a twisty approach road — just perfect for hurling rocks and shooting ballistae at from the walls, which makes me wonder why they didn't — and I'm fairly sure from an earlier strip that there's a barbican, though I can't remember where. So in the absence of a bridge, they have to collapse the path, and that may be easier said than done given its position. Without knowing the layout of the tunnels and the capabilities of Sizemore and the other tunnelers, it's hard to say. Again, I'm guessing: being outside the hex or hexes that comprise GK itself (the caldera and the crater rim) means that the tunnel zone doesn't extend under the approach path.

In fact, one of the things that I've been wondering about is the absence of siege artillery; we've only seen towers and rams. The layout of GK makes it look as if it would be hard for the attackers to bring such artillery to bear, but that doesn't explain why the defenders don't seem to have any (see, for example, this defensive trebuchet design by Leonardo da Vinci). Some well-placed artillery would wreak havoc upon an approaching siege train. In fact, that's a primary reason for having a twisty, climbing approach path like that: it brings the attackers under defensive fire for a long time, while making it very hard for them to shoot back.

The one strong reason I can think of for not having such things is the hex-based layout of Erfworld, and a general prohibition on missiles crossing hex boundaries. Shame, really; I'd like to see how Jamie would render a trebuchet.

[SteveMB]

In fact, one of the things that I've been wondering about is the absence of siege artillery; we've only seen towers and rams. The layout of GK makes it look as if it would be hard for the attackers to bring such artillery to bear, but that doesn't explain why the defenders don't seem to have any (see, for example, this defensive trebuchet design by Leonardo da Vinci). Some well-placed artillery would wreak havoc upon an approaching siege train. In fact, that's a primary reason for having a twisty, climbing approach path like that: it brings the attackers under defensive fire for a long time, while making it very hard for them to shoot back.

The one strong reason I can think of for not having such things is the hex-based layout of Erfworld, and a general prohibition on missiles crossing hex boundaries. Shame, really; I'd like to see how Jamie would render a trebuchet.

The battle-bear cloth golems can throw rocks, as seen in the battle with the spidews and in the print ad artwork.. Note that they were among the "siege units" targeted in Parson's raids (though that could be because they were pushing the siege towers, not just because they were siege units in their own right).

[Arkenputtyknife]

The battle-bear cloth golems can throw rocks, as seen in the battle with the spidews and in the print ad artwork.. Note that they were among the "siege units" targeted in Parson's raids (though that could be because they were pushing the siege towers, not just because they were siege units in their own right).

Yes, but can battle bears throw those rocks hundreds of feet? Probably not. Though it's possible to imagine a battle-bear-powered traction trebuchet. That would be fun… and deadly… But the thing is that no matter how far they throw them, I'm guessing that they can't throw the rock into the next hex. I'd love to see what happened if one of them tried.

(A traction trebuchet, for those who don't know their history of siege engines, is an early type of simple trebuchet where the force is provided by men pulling on ropes, instead of by gravity as in the more powerful and accurate medieval trebuchet. It's among the oldest siege weapons known, with signs that it was known to the Chinese of the 5th century BC.)