121 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 109

[Lamech]

Since it sounds like they might attempt to capture enemy warlords... how likely would Ansom be to trade his pliers for Webinar in a hostage exchange setting?

Not unless he was crushed by grief at his own foolishness. I mean its not like Webinar is his love interest or anything. And since Jillian is going to be perfectly fine since she is well away from the battle and is in no danger what so ever... Looks like Stanley's going to be getting a new artifact to add to his collection.

[CaptC]

Dora is definitely a Warlord- Charlie sends his Archons to escort 'Three commanders and entourage'. The group they were sent to consisted of Dora, Webinar, Jillian, Webinar's mount (same one he's riding in the tunnels), and some gwiffons. The only real candidate to be the third commander in that group is Dora.

Ah! Nice, missed that implication. Well researched!

[Faithless]

Hehe. one of the goblins is carrying a meat tenderizer.

[VariaVespasa]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html
The fact that Parsons bonus is applied to all units in GK does not implicitly mean they count as having a warlord in their stack.


Vinnie is in the pass to FAQ, waiting to engage Stanley. Webinar on the other hand you are right about.

It is true that both Webinar and Sizemore could choose not to fight, if they were sharing the same hex. Your hypothesis therefore hinges on the assumption that Webinar moved his army of infantry and marbits, into the tunnels zone of the 1 hex city, and then choose not to obliterate Sizemore and his relatively tiny garrison, and instead end his turn.

It's possible, true, likely? Not by a longshot.

The fact that Parsons bonus applies does not, in itself, implicitly mean that the gobwin scouts count as having a warlord in their stack, true. The fact that the gobwin scouts apparently have the option to not engage when the bats didnt have that choice DOES, however, and Parson is the only source for a command bonus the scouts have at the moment. Ok, it *could* actually be some function of merely being in their capital thats doing it, but I'm going with the Chief Warlord in Capital thing till the strip says otherwise.

Whoops, I meant Webinar, not Vinnie. :)

It was not MY hypothesis that Webinar moved in and then chose not to engage. I was merely rebutting one or more other posters contention that if they were in the same hex they would inherently have HAD to have fought to the death already. I've edited my original post to clarify that, and correct the Vinnie whoopsie.

[ReccaSquirrel]

Panel 3 of today's strip shows an Archon peering into the tower. While we have no evidence of a thinkagram going on, the hand positions are such that it is possible.

To me though, it looks as if she is simply shielding her eyes from ambient light so that she can see through the glass better.

It does appear to be an archon snooping in that panel. I can't imagine they'd get much information that way but it is a very amusing panel and one of those great tiny details of the comic.

[ReccaSquirrel]

No no, not as assassins, as a message to the RCC that Ansom's entire force in the tunnels has been WIPED OUT.

I suspect it'd be more dramatic flavor than strategic masterstroke.

I don't see that as the Parson way. That and it is more likely to undo the work he has made on morale. Seeing your own units come back as the dead to fight you is certain to insight them more into rage and bring them together instead of causing the others to lose confidence in Ansom.

[rman]

He bought it.

The electric light bulb had already been patented twice by the time Edison got his hands on it.

Edison was a major a-hole. Look at what he did in the DC vs AC current wars. Electrocuting dogs and elephants to death for the purpose of securing patent royalties, aka cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

[ReccaSquirrel]

Well, I'm calling it again...Parson is going to utterly own Webinar in the tunnels and his girlfriend is going to die but Webinar is going to survive...either being the only one or with a small handful of other troops.

And I'm fairly certain this is going to happen within the next five pages give or take.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling this is going in that kind of a direction.

I think it will be over in one and maybe two but most likely one panel. We are going to see the wounded units move to where Sizemore is located and we are going to see the full swarm of Gobwins descend on their forces.

[Manoftyr]

I think it will be over in one and maybe two but most likely one panel. We are going to see the wounded units move to where Sizemore is located and we are going to see the full swarm of Gobwins descend on their forces.

Ehh, possibly but I just have this feeling the battle will get a little more drawn out than that for whatever reason...more traps triggering as Webinar and his troops run all over the place perhaps, or Webinar pulling out an unforeseen ace in the hole or something to that effect that'll make it all a bit longer, the potential for action in the tunnel seems to great and grandiose to end in one or two panels imho.

[ReccaSquirrel]

Regarding the whole debate over Bat vs. Gobwin scouts, don't forget that Gobwins get "big bonuses for tunnel fighting". We don't know what bonuses those are but I suspect an ability to avoid engagement may be involved.

[teratorn]

Regular stacks attack when in contact if there are no warlords in the stack, even if there are warlords in the same hex. Parson being in GK doesn't change the fact that when stacks see eachother they must attack.

I agree with the posters assuming that there must be a tactical grid inside the hex which defines what is contact and non-contact between units. On the other hand there is the question of the size limit (both in area and number of units) for a stack. Erfworld hexes are huge, and for some reason Webinar had to break his army into stacks.

People have been talking about Webinar blaming Ansom for losing the battle. Marbit scouts had seen a crap golem, so it's possible Ansom knows GK has a dirtamancer. He should be expecting the traps. But not the bonus to the golems and probably not the collapsing of select tunnels, for those require the caster to be in the battle front. Webinar can not fault Ansom for something he also didn't think about.

Besides, if anything happens the blame lies with Webinar. The spreading of the army is wise, to minimize the effect of collapses and traps. Keeping the bulk of the army far from the entry in the city during the enemy's turn is also wise. But leading the main stack in blind pursuit is foolish. He could easily break a smaller stack (still with enough strength to kill anything sent by GK) and send it after the scout.

It seems the only guy in Erfworld with a cool enough mind to face Parson is Vinny.

[raphfrk]

However, if Jack started to talk normally, Stanley might notice. Thus, it's possible that he has at least somewhat recovered, and speaks in riddles to hide that fact. Or he could still be deranged.

That might also explain the pause before he talks. He has to think of something in character, which has the correct meaning.

[dr pepper]

Anyone else notice how big a boop Weibnar is commiting? He sees a scout fleeing, and he amasses his forces to pursue it. Despite just surviving first hand the kind of diabolical traps are in the tunnels. He has to realize there's a good chance he's being lead into another trap, or he's an idiot, which I didn't think he was.

History is full of battles that were lost because one side pressed an apparent advantage too far. It's a natural impulse that takes a really savvy commander to rein in. But a commander that just saw half his troops barbecued might not be thinking strategicly.

[The Old Hack]

Concerning the argument about engagement and disengagement: I suspect and hope that it may lead to Word of God clarification either in the current storyline or alternately in the finished product; it appears to me to be the only way we can settle the subject.

History is full of battles that were lost because one side pressed an apparent advantage too far. It's a natural impulse that takes a really savvy commander to rein in. But a commander that just saw half his troops barbecued might not be thinking strategicly.

Not just history, ordinary wargaming is like that, too. I confessed myself guilty of this exact sort of behavior in an earlier thread; while I at times do make myself stop and pull back, I more often try for just that extra inch of advantage. And while I do get away with it sometimes, I have also quite often burned my fingers badly that way.

[fendrin]

Regular stacks attack when in contact if there are no warlords in the stack, even if there are warlords in the same hex. Parson being in GK doesn't change the fact that when stacks see eachother they must attack.

I don't think we have any examples of this, do we?

[Moechi_Vill]

It does appear to be an archon snooping in that panel. I can't imagine they'd get much information that way but it is a very amusing panel and one of those great tiny details of the comic.

Underestimate lip-synch at your own risk. If I was Parson and that wasn't one of Charlie's Archons (and it wouldn't be too costly to repair the window) I'd stab her straight through the heart with sword and glass.
And I adore the Archons (except Jaclyn, hah!).

As it is, turning your back to the Archon in question or threatening with an idle attack should and might work (unless the Archon takes it from every angle in which case Lord Hamster would have to leave the room).


Debate in Question: There is clearly no way scouts can lead enemies into traps without leadership as then there would have to be a tactical (not operational) bait-function or there would be just 1 segment of baiting per round on both sides. Lord Hamster is in da house.

The theory I support requires only a so far implied special rule.
The theory that they are not in the same hex would violate multiple basic tenets of combat we've already been witness to and require, as we've seen in the last few threads, more excuses at a higher level of complexity. The only one of them I've come to with others so far that's halfways realistic is Gobwins being able to avoid engagement. But it goes to reason they would have to level up first to gain such an ability and Parson seems to be using level 1 gobwins for both fighting and scouting. The other theory would demand the engagement grid to be subdivided, something we've heard little off so far (the Archons waiting to engage the Dwagons) and which would require pulling units over the operational map once you get them into your non-operational area... a (strategic)operational bait-function. Not only would it be difficult, there'd have to be many loopholes and exemptions to what we've previously learnt.

I hate using Occam's razor, but this is a good example.

[CaptC]

There's probably game mechanic and there's probably artistic license at play.

It seems clear to me that the battle at the tunnels is a mini-game. In a cardboard tabletop game, they are fighting on a map inset and each side is taking turns. In a computer game, every fight is resolved as a mini-game, a la Final Fantasy or Heroes of Might and Magic games.

The tactical game feels like hex grid but it could be squares, or just tactical areas. For story purposes, that level of mechanics isn't really all that important unless you are trying to actually implement the game. (I'm not. I'm gonna talk about hexes, but substitute your mechanic of choice.)

Both sides are taking turns in the tunnels. That's why we can see Webinar reacting, even though it's not Ansom's turn.

There are clearly fog of war rules. You don't get a God's eye view of all units. Visibility is likely low, but you can probably see the hex next to your current location. So, if you want to scout something, you send out a unit that stops in the adjacent hex. Since you aren't in the same tactical hex, autoengage rules don't matter. (Someone has been saying autoengage rules apply when one stack sees another. I believe it applies when you are in the same hex. Don't confuse strategic hexes and tactical hexes when thinking about this.) You want to track something? Stay in the next hex, follow it when it moves.

If the unit you are scouting attacks you, autoengage applies and your scout dies horribly. Or autoengage doesn't apply because Parson is around, in which case your scout gets a retreat possibility. (*Shrug* not enough combat power in scouts to affect the battle either way. Their role is information gathering, not doing damage. If you choose to believe that newly ruthless Parson is trying to save Gobwin scouts, or that the game always has a retreat option, that works, too.)

If your scout dies, you send out another one. You lead an enemy unit to traps or Sizemore using scouts as breadcrumbs. If you find a tempting target that you can kill with minimal losses, you attack it with a large stack of Gobwins or Sizemore's stack of golems.

I think this gives a mechanic for all the tactics Parson discusses. The emotions of the units is artistic license. A scout sneaking in a tunnel is in reality in the next adjacent tactical hex. A scout dismayed at finding Webinar's stack is being attacked on Webinar's tactical turn. Webinar's determined look and apparent advance is exactly that, on his tactical turn he's pressing the fight.

(Artistic license and my supposition here: unless the author's want to show a God's-eye view, they aren't going to devote multiple panels to showing all of Webinar's stacks advancing - they are going to short-cut with a view of Webinar being angry and determined and advancing through the tunnels. I'm supposing Webinar is competent, and thus he will be using his numerical advantage properly. All his units are advancing, he's not haring off with his single stack after a lone scout.)

I'd expect the fight at the walls to be a mini-map fight as well.

We don't know how the mini-map converts back to the strategic game. I've seen multiple methods, but most commonly the tunnel fight must complete in it's entirety, with one side winning and one side losing. Given that the fights in outside hexes always seem to end with one side dead or fleeing, I suspect that's the case here, too.

The next few panels should tell us that mechanic, anyway.

[Angband]

Ah! Nice, missed that implication. Well researched!

Right, from comic #56 Jillian says to Webinar "I'm a 9; you're a 5. And your girlfriend (Dora) is a 2."

We also see in Comic 116 that Caesar Borgata (Transylvito's Chief Warlord) relieves Jillian from command, presumably meaning that his Leadership score is 10 or even higher.

Now that Parson has his magic sword that grants him Leadership and Combat, would another warlord looking at him be able to see his stats now?

[Cinqueda]

Isn't Parson a 2 also, like Dora? Did completing his set (sword/glasses/bracer) grant him a higher Warlord bonus?

[SteveMB]

Isn't Parson a 2 also, like Dora? Did completing his set (sword/glasses/bracer) grant him a higher Warlord bonus?

Parson's bonus is invisible, but they deduced that it was a 2 (from his effect on other units as Chief Warlord). It might be higher now -- the cereal box maze lists "Leadership" as as one of the sword's features, but it's not yet clear exactly what that means.

[Vossik]

Right, from comic #56 Jillian says to Webinar "I'm a 9; you're a 5. And your girlfriend (Dora) is a 2."

We also see in Comic 116 that Caesar Borgata (Transylvito's Chief Warlord) relieves Jillian from command, presumably meaning that his Leadership score is 10 or even higher.

Now that Parson has his magic sword that grants him Leadership and Combat, would another warlord looking at him be able to see his stats now?

I thought that was regarding unit level, they never made any implication it had anything to do with leadership did they?

[Noble Savant]

It specifically said that the sword granted "leadership".

I suppose you could assume that it granted Parson some tactical abilities, that would help him lead troops, but I don't really think so. Not only is he already excellent in that respect, (from what we've seen), but the box implied that the prizes were to make up for deficiencies in Parson that stopped him from being the Perfect Warlord.

He had a low leadership value, that isn't perfect. Thus, the spell fixed this, by giving him a sword that increased it. It's perfectly logical.

[Avilan the Grey]

Concerning the argument about engagement and disengagement: I suspect and hope that it may lead to Word of God clarification either in the current storyline or alternately in the finished product; it appears to me to be the only way we can settle the subject.

Not just history, ordinary wargaming is like that, too. I confessed myself guilty of this exact sort of behavior in an earlier thread; while I at times do make myself stop and pull back, I more often try for just that extra inch of advantage. And while I do get away with it sometimes, I have also quite often burned my fingers badly that way.

I suck at RTS games. However the few times I do win I tend to be cautious in the extreme; I usually prolong games up to 3 times it's necessary length because I do not dare to push for the final attack. And when I do I get very surprised how much more powerful I am than I thought I was. Oh well we all have problems

I assume it's really the opposite problem of a commander above; A lot of armies has failed to succeed (and some have been outright defeated) because of a hesitant general.

[hiigaran]

I suck at RTS games. However the few times I do win I tend to be cautious in the extreme; I usually prolong games up to 3 times it's necessary length because I do not dare to push for the final attack. And when I do I get very surprised how much more powerful I am than I thought I was. Oh well we all have problems

I assume it's really the opposite problem of a commander above; A lot of armies has failed to succeed (and some have been outright defeated) because of a hesitant general.

funny though how erfworld isn't a real time strategy game its a turn based strategy game

[fendrin]

funny though how erfworld isn't a real time strategy game its a turn based strategy game

Yes, but the problem described applies to both. In this day and age of computer games, RTS is a much more common shared experience than TBS.

Of course, RTS games are really just TBS with time limited turns that go by so fast we cannot perceive the transition from one to the other... the same way a film is sequence of still images that move so quickly we cannot perceive that it is not one single moving picture.

[VariaVespasa]

Regular stacks attack when in contact if there are no warlords in the stack, even if there are warlords in the same hex. Parson being in GK doesn't change the fact that when stacks see eachother they must attack.

Blatantly false- A stack is all the units in the hex. Thats what "stack" MEANS. None of the units in the dwagon donut hunting horde were forced to attack the dwagons even though there were far more than 8 units per warlord and therefore by your thought there must have been uncommanded stacks present. Units often operate in 8's due to the max unit bonus, but there is no known limit to the number of units in a stack.

It hasnt been made clear what the exact relationship is between combat strengths, defense values and leadership/item/unit bonuses, but the fact people dont usually seem to stack more than 8 strongly suggests that the bonuses count for a lot more in a fight than a few extra units. I'd like to know more about that aspect of combat in Erfworld since even with bonuses being important in a game (Squad Leader, War in Europe, etc) having extra raw unit strength available in a fight is still usually highly valuable, and in Erfworld it doesnt seem to be really, or 8 unit stacks wouldnt be the commonality they apparently are. The klog where the 8 unit bonus cap was mentioned said nothing about a limit on the number of units in a hex, but there must be some reason big stacks arent used, but what exactly it is remains a mystery at the moment. :(

[CaptC]

I don't think fights occur on the strategic map, I think a smaller tactical minigame opens up for each fight. A tactical map hex is either limited by game mechanic to eight unit stacks, or coimmanders tend to do that because it makes sense to have as many optimum stacks as possible. A strategic map hex can contain many, many units, and is correspondingly powerful because it can make many optimum sized stacks on the tactical map.

[SteveMB]

Blatantly false- A stack is all the units in the hex.

"Okay, near hex, second stack is where we start." (emphasis added)

Clearly, a hex can contain more than one stack.

[Vesilasi]

"Okay, near hex, second stack is where we start." (emphasis added)

Clearly, a hex can contain more than one stack.

For that matter, "Weak stack first!" and "Merge Phat-Singh and Manpower's stacks."

[CaptC]

Hmmm. Vesali's pointers are all tactical scenes, and can be different stacks in different hexes. SteveMB's scene can't be explained that easily. From the evidence, multiple stacks can indeed be in a single hex, and what the stacks are can be seen before initiating combat. My mental picture just got flipped a bit, that kind of mechanic makes it much more difficult for the game to actually be cardboard on a table.