124 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 112

[Vreejack]

"PK" as a sound effect? I love it. Sizemore angst? Not so much love. But still awesome.

Pozzolana? Apparently, some kind of natural (volcanic ash) or artificial (bauxite trash and clay) cement. Interesting.

It is the porcelain of cements. I didn't understand what had happened at first but apparently Sizemore resurrected one of his rock golems by cementing its wounds closed.

[Monan]

Now that the tunnels are sealed off from further attack, I wonder if phase 2 is to move all the units to the outer walls to defend against the next wave of attacks. I wonder how many of those Jetstone units that are dead can be controlled by Wanda as uncroked...

Yes this protects them from further attack, however I think that sealing off the tunnels is just so no reports of the carnage get back to Ansom and the leadership. Allow the "fog of war" blind Ansom from the actual status and think that he is successfully attacking GK on two fronts.

Excellent point about Ansoms forces getting uncroaked to be used against his people. I think Parson might be foreshadowing the Tool messing things up. This comic is maintaining the exciting level.

[dr pepper]

A ton and a half? I'd like to see that horse, its rider and the armor for it and its master. It would have to be like a dire knight and warhorse!
OK, I guess if you armor the horse reaaaally heavily you could reach 1,500 kg, but it wouldn't be able to charge, more like a steady walk if it's a strong horse.

Uh, that was "ton", not "tonne". A ton is 2000 pounds, so 1.5 tons is 1,364 kg. Still pretty heavy, though.

[CaptC]

Er, kindly refrain from making personal comments of this ilk. Let's just discuss the comic.

Not meant to be taken personally, apologies given if taken that way.

[K2]

WooT, GO TOOL!
so the tunnels are safe, now all parson has to worry about is the siege heading for the wall.

[Zeku]

In response to someone who is just noticing that there is a certain moral ambivalence in wartime: (that you just can't get at the movie theater)

If you're someone who can't see a war from the perspective of a general, then why did you ever like this comic? That's what the main character is. Parson, like any wartime leader, has the knowledge that regardless of how many people die or suffer, as long as his own people/faction prevail relatively intact, then he has done the right thing.

The comic takes place in a strategy gameworld, and in a gameworld, victory is the overarcing truth, and the overarcing good. Ultimately all real war is based this principle as well. Nations are simply well-organized gangs, who will not under any circumstances tolerate dissention or rivals. "Might is right," and this is the single foundation that all finer virtues stand upon, with both feet.

Are you a religious person? Do you think God would be God if he were weak? Do you think he needs someone to agree with him? Do you think he has ever asked anyone for advice? Might is right. What you call morality is simply the personality of the individual who has all the strength. Any other line of reasoning is simply your preference, and not based in sustainable fact or logical conclusion.

Edit: And I really hope we don't hear from any more wilting flowers. Sizemore is interesting, and got plenty of buildup, all the way back to the Flower Power episode. But he's plenty. I'm mainly interested in the war and it's strategies.

[Caledonian]

The comic has been truly exceptional lately, guys. Kudos to the creators.

I wonder what kind of experience is necessary for a Primary Warlord to increase in level? Is it direct kills only, or do you get experience for directing a battle?

Because if it's the second, Parson is *totally* going to level up at the end of this skirmish.

[TamLin]

Yeah yeah, no one agrees with me. Fortunately, my opinion is not contingent on everyone elses.

1. The "Don't read it" argument: Well, I might decide to do just that. In the past I've found Erfworld enjoyable, but if it keeps things up the way they are that may change and I'll stop bothering. However, the qualities of the story exist independently of whether I read them. If there's a giant pothole in your street, and I tell you "Just drive around it", that may help you avoid the problem, but it doesn't change the fact that the problem exists, does it? Nor does it invalidate criticism of the problem.

2. The "You don't speak for everyone" guy: No, I don't. When did I say I did? I'm sharing my opinion, not yours.

3. The "There are no good guys and bad guys in real life" argument: I adressed this many times in my OP, if you care to look.

4. The "Life/war/entertainment is violent argument": Yes, but what's the point of the violence we're being shown here? Unlike real life and real war, Erfworld is fiction and therefore things don't just happen for no reason, they're conscious decisions on the part of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Noguchi. And that's what I don't get, what's the point of all this? To tell me that war is horrible? Fine, but then why play it for laughs? Is it trying to be ironic and satirical? Is so, of what? Society? Entertainment? Gamers? It's not clear.

And, ya know, it's not neccesarily about violence, but about the degree of it, the overall tone of the story, and the emotional damage done to the characters. You notice how in the begining of Erfworld violent acts were depicted in funny, almost slapstick ways, "I can taste key lime pie", etc, but as time goes on it becomes more and more grim and nihilistic. I find this rather manipulative, as it points out to the reader that they really probably shouldn't be laughing at "people" dying in the first place. But then this nihilistic violence is followed up by more attempts at humor, and notice who is cracking the jokes here: Parson, the gamer, the reader's proxy in the story. Translation: Shame on you, gamer culture, for using violence as entertainment, just look at what you've done. Sorry, but I don't appreciate the finger-wagging, nor the way in which I was set up for it.

Then again, perhaps I'm overanalyzing. Perhaps there IS no message at all. But then again I have to beg the question, what's the damn point? I don't think anyone found it really funny, so "entertainment" doesn't seem like a likely answer. Are you just telling me that war is miserable? Well duh, I didn't need little cartoon people to know that.

And it's not an isolated incident, the whole comic has been full of this stuff. We started off with Wanda as the main character, and Mr. Baldwin made her sympathetic by depicting her as long-suffering and the only rational person in an irrational situation. Then, once enough time had gone by that we might identify with her a bit, the rug gets pulled out from under us and we learn that she's really just a sick freak who treats rape/torture/emotional sadism as a hobby. Then we set up Sizemore as the Everyman character that we can all root for, only to then be treated to watching his mental breakdown. They introduce Misty and give her just enough personality to be likable before then having her killed (this death SEEMED to have a point to it, as it showed Parson that he was not just playing a game and there were real consequences to his actions, but that message doesn't appear to have sunk in). And then we've got Parson. He's clearly the guy we're supposed to root for and identify with: He's the fish-out-of-water, he's the one forced into an unenviable situation, he's the funny, creative guy, and he's a gamer, just like most of us. Hell, his name is an anagram of "Protagonist". Obviously this character is designed to make us identify with him as much as possible. And then what happens? He gets a crazy magic sword and becomes "Ruthless". It's Wanda all over again.

So it's obvious that they're intentionally screwing with reader's expectations and setting us up for various falls. Which is fine, to a degree, but it's not clear why, and it never has been, and this aimless manipulation is starting to, as I orginally noted, just come off as mean-spirited. Like it or not, that's my opinion. If you have a counter opinion, I'd like to hear it.

[Suicide Junkie]

As you can see, a significant portion of the air strike survived. They just didn't report back to the coalition because they had no means to do so.

The only report that the coalition leaders will have received is an "Engagement: Loss" notice. The typical assumption is fight-to-the-death engagements, which makes it look really bad.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0058.html
Also, the alliance's new turn unit report would, at best, include only units currently in the alliance. Jillian and the Transylvitos are no longer a part of the RCC (in order to get their bonus move exploit), so they would not be listed. No evidence of their survival...

As for the tunnels;
If Ansom gets the same sort of reports as during the siege attack, he would know that A) They lost a bunch of battles in the tunnels. B) They have very few Jetstone units left in the alliance all of a sudden.
Even if the restricted terrain prevents battle reports from being passed, the unit report should make the results fairly clear; the tunnel force was wiped, and King Slately's treasury is fuller than expected.

He won't have any idea how it happened, but he should certainly know that it did happen.

In fact, such an event might be worrisome enough that King Slately will give Ansom a call just to ask what happened. If he knows that the rest of the alliance suffered no significant losses, it might look like betrayal. If he doesn't know what forces the rest of the alliance have left, he might think that the entire alliance has been wiped out and will *really* be worried.



PS:
Perhaps it could be that the battle reports require a chain of adjacent units to pass the message along; walk to the edge of a hex, yell across to somebody in the next hex. Then they run to the far side of the hex at zero move cost, and pass the message on...
Thus their Intel would be "not too bad in the column" since they can pass basic messages fairly reliably within the column, but bats would give a far better view of the situation since they give a video feed directly to the warlord instead of playing the telephone game.

[Suicide Junkie]

So it's obvious that they're intentionally screwing with reader's expectations and setting us up for various falls.

Huh? Are we reading the same comic? This was definitely not unexpected.

[Zeku]

Tam you're thinking about it way too much. If there was an intentional juxtapose of Parson's and Sizemore's mood, it was well executed, showing that in real life people get happy and depressed about different things. Evil is very, very subjective. Good, not so much.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Please keep Thomas Covenant of 'the Tree Age' out of this. He can't decide whether he's gonna put his sins behind him, or work with his flawed self and be a hero in either case or stop caring.
It's like he somehow manages to be a bad guy, angst about it, and not improve himself or live with it. He's like Shinji Ikari except he's worse (and that kid at least has a few vindicating features other than being human).
He's a douche.

I listed examples of the genre not necessarily examples of good writing.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

And, ya know, it's not neccesarily about violence, but about the degree of it, the overall tone of the story, and the emotional damage done to the characters. You notice how in the begining of Erfworld violent acts were depicted in funny, almost slapstick ways, "I can taste key lime pie", etc, but as time goes on it becomes more and more grim and nihilistic. I find this rather manipulative, as it points out to the reader that they really probably shouldn't be laughing at "people" dying in the first place. But then this nihilistic violence is followed up by more attempts at humor, and notice who is cracking the jokes here: Parson, the gamer, the reader's proxy in the story. Translation: Shame on you, gamer culture, for using violence as entertainment, just look at what you've done. Sorry, but I don't appreciate the finger-wagging, nor the way in which I was set up for it.

Then again, perhaps I'm overanalyzing. Perhaps there IS no message at all. But then again I have to beg the question, what's the damn point? I don't think anyone found it really funny, so "entertainment" doesn't seem like a likely answer. Are you just telling me that war is miserable? Well duh, I didn't need little cartoon people to know that.

And it's not an isolated incident, the whole comic has been full of this stuff. We started off with Wanda as the main character, and Mr. Baldwin made her sympathetic by depicting her as long-suffering and the only rational person in an irrational situation. Then, once enough time had gone by that we might identify with her a bit, the rug gets pulled out from under us and we learn that she's really just a sick freak who treats rape/torture/emotional sadism as a hobby. Then we set up Sizemore as the Everyman character that we can all root for, only to then be treated to watching his mental breakdown. They introduce Misty and give her just enough personality to be likable before then having her killed (this death SEEMED to have a point to it, as it showed Parson that he was not just playing a game and there were real consequences to his actions, but that message doesn't appear to have sunk in). And then we've got Parson. He's clearly the guy we're supposed to root for and identify with: He's the fish-out-of-water, he's the one forced into an unenviable situation, he's the funny, creative guy, and he's a gamer, just like most of us. Hell, his name is an anagram of "Protagonist". Obviously this character is designed to make us identify with him as much as possible. And then what happens? He gets a crazy magic sword and becomes "Ruthless". It's Wanda all over again.

So it's obvious that they're intentionally screwing with reader's expectations and setting us up for various falls. Which is fine, to a degree, but it's not clear why, and it never has been, and this aimless manipulation is starting to, as I orginally noted, just come off as mean-spirited. Like it or not, that's my opinion. If you have a counter opinion, I'd like to hear it.

You know, I'm a fan of the comic and I have strong reactions to it. The emotions are often contradictory. Personally, I did not like seeing Webinar croak, nor Jaclyn. I root for Ansom and for Parson despite wanting to Stanley to get away with it. I dislike Jillian. Etc.

But I've never had as strong a reaction as you seem to be having now. Is that a good or bad thing? I don't know. I do understand your point. Sometimes a movie, story, comic, whatever makes you feel uncomfortable experiencing it although other people are comfortable with it. Punch Drunk Love and Tie Me Up Tie Me Down are examples for me. I was thoroughly uncomfortable through both though the person with me wasn't. On the other hand, I can sit though The Seven Beauties and love it though I'm revolted at the same time. I know people who can't see it all the way through.

I don't know what it takes to walk that fine line. I think one thing that is you need some distance from the story while maintaining suspension of disbelief. For me this comic does this by various means. For example, the constant pop culture references in unexpected circumstances. Ikea is a goblin battle cry and Webinar and Dora are killed with the sound effect PK.

Ultimately it's up to you to determine whether the emotiosn triggered by the comic are worth reading the comic.

[teratorn]

It is the porcelain of cements. I didn't understand what had happened at first but apparently Sizemore resurrected one of his rock golems by cementing its wounds closed.

Golem croakamancy is part of a dirtamancer pack of tools?

[SteveMB]

And, ya know, it's not necessarily about violence, but about the degree of it, the overall tone of the story, and the emotional damage done to the characters. You notice how in the beginning of Erfworld violent acts were depicted in funny, almost slapstick ways, "I can taste key lime pie", etc, but as time goes on it becomes more and more grim and nihilistic. I find this rather manipulative, as it points out to the reader that they really probably shouldn't be laughing at "people" dying in the first place. But then this nihilistic violence is followed up by more attempts at humor, and notice who is cracking the jokes here: Parson, the gamer, the reader's proxy in the story. Translation: Shame on you, gamer culture, for using violence as entertainment, just look at what you've done. Sorry, but I don't appreciate the finger-wagging, nor the way in which I was set up for it.

The overall style of the story obviously juxtaposes cute and comical trappings with grim and serious events. I don't think the purpose of that juxtaposition is anything as simplistic as "finger-wagging" at gamer culture.

Then again, perhaps I'm overanalyzing. Perhaps there IS no message at all. But then again I have to beg the question, what's the damn point?

To borrow a phrase, there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer. The story has yet to conclude, and thus yet to show the ultimate impact of these events on the characters.

I don't think anyone found it really funny, so "entertainment" doesn't seem like a likely answer.

There are all kinds of "funny". It reminds me a bit of the gallows humor in one of my favorite movies (Dr. Strangelove).

So it's obvious that they're intentionally screwing with reader's expectations and setting us up for various falls. Which is fine, to a degree, but it's not clear why, and it never has been, and this aimless manipulation is starting to, as I orginally noted, just come off as mean-spirited. Like it or not, that's my opinion. If you have a counter opinion, I'd like to hear it.

Again, I just don't agree that the various subversions of reader expectations are "aimless". They all look to me like they're headed in a definite direction, even if I can't quite tell what it is.

[Bongos]

Parson is not evil, he's just trying to stay alive like everybody else. Probably a better motivation than Ansoms' royal creed, Stanley's religious quest or Charlie's greed.

He was forced into this situation against his will by that spell. Now he is making the most out of the cards he was dealt. Ansom would probably kill him, Charlie made him an offer that was worse than working at Kinko's, so he's at Gobwin Knob trying to keep himself and the few friends he has alive.

That last panel though, probably the effects of the sword, he never even asks if Sizemore is okay.

I thought the crap golem smeared against the wall was a nice touch.

Another things, can enemy units move within their hex and act, attack,when it's not their turn when you move into their hex? I think that explains Webinar chasing all over the tunnels, it's the same hex....and in a round about way how the Transylvito gang was able to move behind Stanley; maybe they were hiding until Stanley moved into their hex?

[Trixie]

Manpower smelling key lime pie remains a shining point of awesome amongst a myriad shining points of awesome in this comic.

By the way, what is key lime pie?

[Bongos]

By the way, what is key lime pie?

[Estelindis]

Not meant to be taken personally, apologies given if taken that way.

No worries.

[Justyn]

Mmmmmmmmmm. I like key lime pie, but seeing it reminds me that despite Manpower's new piercing, at least his last moment was somewhat pleasant.

[CaptC]

Uh, that was "ton", not "tonne". A ton is 2000 pounds, so 1.5 tons is 1,364 kg. Still pretty heavy, though.

Clydesdales. Originally bred to carry knights. At the height of their ridiculousness, an armored knight carried several hundred pounds of armor all by himself.

But that's probably right, I've got it too heavy. Oh, well, it's only 1/2 a ton of horse and man that ran poor Fred through. He's still dead, it wasn't pleasant, and I still don't care, as it was just a pawn.

[Ptorquemada]

A ton and a half? I'd like to see that horse, its rider and the armor for it and its master. It would have to be like a dire knight and warhorse!
OK, I guess if you armor the horse reaaaally heavily you could reach 1,500 kg, but it wouldn't be able to charge, more like a steady walk if it's a strong horse.

It surprised me too, but according to Wikipedia there is at least one real-world example of a horse massing over 1500 kg by itself.

Also, since it may not be entirely obvious from the picture: a Key lime is a particular kind of lime; a Key lime pie is a pie made from the juice of those limes. Think lemon meringue except with limes instead of lemons and you're pretty close.

[BarGamer]

I thought the crap golem smeared against the wall was a nice touch.

Dangit, HOW did I miss that one?! Too bad none of the characters had a fan-like weapon, or we woulda been treated to another pun. XD

[Justyn]

It surprised me too, but according to Wikipedia there is at least one real-world example of a horse massing over 1500 kg by itself.

Also, since it may not be entirely obvious from the picture: a Key lime is a particular kind of lime; a Key lime pie is a pie made from the juice of those limes. Think lemon meringue except with limes instead of lemons and you're pretty close.

Lime custard instead of lemon custard for those of you who understand cooking lingo.

[Bongos]

I still don't get the Parson evil thing....

What? It's wrong for a warlord to feel happy at a victory?
Generals and soldiers cheer when they win, Parson can't?

I can understand Sizemore's conflict as well as Parson's lack of conflict.

[Justyn]

I still don't get the Parson evil thing....

What? It's wrong for a warlord to feel happy at a victory?
Generals and soldiers cheer when they win, Parson can't?

I can understand Sizemore's conflict as well as Parson's lack of conflict.

I don't think that it's Parson being evil as much as it is the Mood Whiplash: Sizemore is having a moral dilemma as he coup de graced Webinar, who is looking over the corpse of Dora and saying (presumptively) that their deaths were in vain, but at least they did their duty while Parson is giving him more orders to kill all the remaining enemy troops... And then Parson starts laughing about how he can say "hosed".

[teratorn]

I still don't get the Parson evil thing....

What? It's wrong for a warlord to feel happy at a victory?
Generals and soldiers cheer when they win, Parson can't?

If I understood the complaints, since he is playing for the "bad guys" he should feel bad about winning. I would expect him to be somewhat gloomy if he had been there watching the carnage. Parson never saw the things live, just on a "tv screen" like thing, and through reports.

Wanda on the other hand, should enjoy being there on the field leading her legions of uncroaked.

[Quaalsten]

Tam Lin might do well to understand that this strip is, formally, a tragedy. Tragedies have a number of features: including the predilection for an otherwise noble character to face destruction because of a fatal flaw. Parson's disconnection is part of that: no matter how much he may become a "prefect warlord," he will never feel part of Erf.

Parson's levity is not unusual for a tragedy. Shakespeare often uses humour to highlight the intensity of tragedy by contrast. The humour regarding "hosed" fills at least two important niches here. In the first place, it points to the standing concern with the theme of free will. In the second place, as a light moment, it serves to highlight Sizemore's conflict. Webinar dies a noble death, a good death: the sight of Sizemore being moved by it makes the reader share a thought with him. This does more than make him ympathetic -- Sizemore has become a protagonist, with whom the reader can identify.

Arthur Miller once commented that the greatest tragic flaw was for a character to have a different view of himself than does the world. The tragic hero, in Miller's eyes, chooses to be destroyed rather than conform to the world's expectations.

Part of the discussion here about Sizemore has been speculation about precisely that: that Sizemore may rebel in some way, choosing destruction rather than success in war. It is a sign, I think, of his increasing role: we are starting to expect real depth and stature from the character -- maybe more than we do of Parson.

In a way, one could say that the authors have subverted the tragic motif. Parson, the protagonist, is not really a tragic character at this point. Rather, in learning about and coping with Erf, he shows up the tragic qualities of the lesser characters around him. He, however, chooses life rather than destruction. While he isn't a picaro like Sancho Panza, he has definitely turned the tragic motif on its head -- it's not his tragedy.

This is all pretty deep stuff for a comic strip.

[John Campbell]

Clydesdales. Originally bred to carry knights. At the height of their ridiculousness, an armored knight carried several hundred pounds of armor all by himself.

Clydesdales are draft horses; they're bred for straightforward hauling of heavy loads, not for combat. Good destriers were smaller and more agile, compactly muscled, particularly in the hindquarters, for rapid turning and quick acceleration. Andalusians were probably the most coveted breed of warhorse in the Middle Ages.

(If you've ever seen Lipizzaners - which are an offshoot of the Andalusians - note that those are actual trained warhorses demonstrating their training. All that fancy jumping and turning stuff they do is pretty and flashy, but it's basically all designed to kill people, or at least facilitate the rider doing so.)

And actual combat armor wouldn't have been much more than a hundred pounds, and usually quite a bit lighter, more like 50 or 60 pounds. Generally it was only the tournament armor that even got up to a hundred pounds, and even the ridiculous stuff they used in the joust late in period, when it was more entertainment than actual practice for war, where they bolted extra plates over top until you couldn't do much of anything besides sit on a horse and wave your lance back and forth a little bit, wouldn't have been several hundred pounds.

[Darkfalle]

Clydesdales. Originally bred to carry knights. At the height of their ridiculousness, an armored knight carried several hundred pounds of armor all by himself.

But that's probably right, I've got it too heavy. Oh, well, it's only 1/2 a ton of horse and man that ran poor Fred through. He's still dead, it wasn't pleasant, and I still don't care, as it was just a pawn.

Hate to burst your bubble, but an armored knight never carried several hundred pounds of armour. If so, how could he have realistically been expected to move, much less fight? To prove my point, I'll provide a couple examples of historical armour that did not weigh nearly as much as you suggest.

1. Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I; Weight: 52.9 lbs
http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_ar...=40002166&vT=2

2. Late German Gothic Armour of the
Archduke Sigmund; Weight: About 40 lbs
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_gothic_armour.html

If you look at any modern reproduction, they tend to weigh about the same as these two examples.