Grand Strategy

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby 0beron » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:10 pm

Shai_hulud wrote:It feels good to know I'm lazy...
Not sure where you're getting that implication from....my point was that Earthlings commonly go to school (training) for 12+ years, and here Erflings are seeing only 2 as unusual and excessive.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3153
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Mikalyaran » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:53 pm

Lamech wrote:I'm waiting for someone to just rant at them. An Earthworlder obviously. Erfworld is a world where cities provide magical support. You live forever. Are healed at the start of every day. You can get strong and intelligent by doing push ups. Gain higher classes. Farming is totally a thing people can do to survive. And they have magic to help out. There is no excuse for this war. Erfworld is a bloody paradise compared to Earth. Its the people that make it warlike. Not the world.


That is 100% untrue. The mechanics of the world push units into war. f you do not have enough schmuckers coming on to pay for all your units upkeep you have to disband them. If you do have enough schmuckers more units will pop until you no longer have enough income to pay for everyone. You can have all your units out foraging/hunting/farming/mining but that's no guarantee you will get enough to pay upkeep for everyone. If it was natural allies would have no reason to ally with a side. Even if you do so though and all your units and engaged in these activities you are still popping new units. In cities where you can you pop units which can be harvested and use that to pay unit upkeep as well. But any cities which can't produce harvestable units pop new units which require upkeep paid. Eventually you reach a point where even with all units engaged in these activities you cannot pay all their upkeeps without some new source of income. Like new cities.

So a conquering you must go!
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lilwik » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:33 pm

Mikalyaran wrote:If you do have enough shmuckers more units will pop until you no longer have enough income to pay for everyone.
Is that really true? We know a side chooses which units each city will produce. I would expect that producing nothing would also be an option. I'm not aware of any evidence one way or the other.

Mikalyaran wrote:But any cities which can't produce harvestable units pop new units which require upkeep paid. Eventually you reach a point where even with all units engaged in these activities you cannot pay all their upkeeps without some new source of income.
It seems like a side that was unable to produce mounts would be at a huge disadvantage. It seems like it's only fair to allow every city to produce at least one mount-type unit. Have we ever heard of a city being unable to produce mounts? If there are such cities and it's true that production can't be stopped, then at least production could be stopped by razing the city. If you don't want war, then cities that can't produce food units and can't stop producing new mouths to feed would be a worthless city.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:27 am

TV can't as far as we know. However they also drain life so they can presumably eat doombats.
GK pops mounts. Goodmitton had mounts. Jetstone had mounts. Unaroyal had mounts. FAQ had mounts. Hmm... that would actually be interesting if every side could pop themselves rations. That would certainly point to a possible path for peace.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Shai_hulud » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:34 am

Lilwik wrote:If you don't want war, then cities that can't produce food units and can't stop producing new mouths to feed would be a worthless city.
I'm sure there's a satirical statement about useless eaters over breeding in there somewhere. Also something about population control. SOYLENT RATION'S PEOPLE!

Lamech wrote:TV can't as far as we know. However they also drain life so they can presumably eat doombats.
GK pops mounts. Goodmitton had mounts. Jetstone had mounts. Unaroyal had mounts. FAQ had mounts. Hmm... that would actually be interesting if every side could pop themselves rations. That would certainly point to a possible path for peace.
It's less about popping rations and more about not producing units you can't feed even after you hire allies and casters that can farm.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby drachefly » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:06 am

wih wrote:
drachefly wrote:Maybe at some time in the past, Charlescomm or Faq skipped a turn and Kingworld gave that saved-up turn to Faq (and allies). Maybe they even saved that turn up recently - Jillian knew the plan, after all.


If that was the case, then I would have expected GK to have gotten their turn back after FAQ et al ended theirs. Didn't happen. This was an ending of GK's turn, not a bonus turn for the RCC2.


I really don't see why GK would have gotten their turn back. Yes, it wasn't a bonus turn for RCC2, but it was negative (most of) a turn for GK. A turn for a turn and we're back to zero.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Shai_hulud » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:21 pm

Then why is there a juice cost in the first place? Why not just trade the turn directly, since that's the only resource involved. Seems kind of weird to have something that is both two turns worth of juice and a turn. Does Sizemore have to pay fire back somehow for spending juice to put out the flames at Spacerock?
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby drachefly » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:27 am

For the same reason it takes juice to lift a rock and put it back down?
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Shai_hulud » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:10 pm

Right... but then they need to give up some other, identical rock somewhere else. Otherwise it wouldn't be proper game balance. That's why every strategy game fireballs your troops with a second fireball every time you use a fireball spell on your enemies in addition to the mana cost. So it's balanced. :|
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:40 pm

Spending juice, even if whatever you get needs to be stolen or balanced out can be great. For example, Red had her incapacitation death delayed repeatedly. Then she had her death by fire delay. The last one is particularly badass. Yeah, she dies by fire, but until then? Its great. Luckamancy is similar. You move numbers in less important battles to more important battles. If you are lucky you steal them from the enemy!

In fact, in the real world people pay good money just to get money even though they need to pay it back later! That's what a loan is.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby wih » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:13 pm

Lamech wrote:Spending juice, even if whatever you get needs to be stolen or balanced out can be great. For example, Red had her incapacitation death delayed repeatedly. Then she had her death by fire delay. The last one is particularly badass. Yeah, she dies by fire, but until then? Its great. Luckamancy is similar. You move numbers in less important battles to more important battles. If you are lucky you steal them from the enemy!

In fact, in the real world people pay good money just to get money even though they need to pay it back later! That's what a loan is.


Except Red moved numbers from very important battles. The battle for Spacerock would have probably been very different if that luckamancy repayment didn't kill the other Warlord (KC, IIRC).
wih
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:41 pm

wih wrote:
Lamech wrote:Spending juice, even if whatever you get needs to be stolen or balanced out can be great. For example, Red had her incapacitation death delayed repeatedly. Then she had her death by fire delay. The last one is particularly badass. Yeah, she dies by fire, but until then? Its great. Luckamancy is similar. You move numbers in less important battles to more important battles. If you are lucky you steal them from the enemy!

In fact, in the real world people pay good money just to get money even though they need to pay it back later! That's what a loan is.


Except Red moved numbers from very important battles. The battle for Spacerock would have probably been very different if that luckamancy repayment didn't kill the other Warlord (KC, IIRC).
Reckless use of extremely powerful magic can backfire hard. Don't do that. It would be like saying that the dirt-croak-amancy link up is underpowered if Parson used it at the start of book one. The fact that Jojo never informed Red of what it did is not the fault of carnymancy/luckamancy being weak. Its the result of Jojo being a fail.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby wih » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:05 pm

I never said that the effect was weak.

Having passive Luckamancy that you cannot control what it steals from isn't a great idea; the benefits of Luckamancy come from, as you said, stealing from the unimportant to give to the important (on a sidenote, pretty sure that it is implicitly stated that you take Numbers from your own side, though I imagine some tri-link could break that. Carny/Think/Luck?). When you cannot control where they come from, it always has the chance to come back to bite you. As it did in this case, and on a long enough time scale inevitably will.

It only takes one important moment to end everything.

Put simply, what Jojo did to Sylvia was great for the unit but bad for the side.
wih
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:26 pm

wih wrote:I never said that the effect was weak.

Having passive Luckamancy that you cannot control what it steals from isn't a great idea; the benefits of Luckamancy come from, as you said, stealing from the unimportant to give to the important (on a sidenote, pretty sure that it is implicitly stated that you take Numbers from your own side, though I imagine some tri-link could break that. Carny/Think/Luck?). When you cannot control where they come from, it always has the chance to come back to bite you. As it did in this case, and on a long enough time scale inevitably will.

It only takes one important moment to end everything.

Put simply, what Jojo did to Sylvia was great for the unit but bad for the side.
What Jojo did would make a lot of sense for a ruler or a caster. However for a piker. For luckamancy our novice class said he doesn't know which side they come from. He suspects its their side mostly, but other people get the shaft too. Presumably with a higher class he could direct the "backlash" ala thinkamancy. (Novice Wanda can't control backlash, Adept Maggie can.)
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby drachefly » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:13 am

Shai_hulud wrote:Right... but then they need to give up some other, identical rock somewhere else. Otherwise it wouldn't be proper game balance. That's why every strategy game fireballs your troops with a second fireball every time you use a fireball spell on your enemies in addition to the mana cost. So it's balanced. :|


your point appears to amount to "I'm going to make up imaginary restrictions and pretend they apply to all possible rulesets" while mine is "Here are possible additional costs that return some balance, fit thematically, and are consistent with the story."

If I'm incorrect in this, please clarify.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Shai_hulud » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:42 am

I was making fun of your arbitrary definition of balance and that you were proposing new imaginary restrictions by applying hypothetical rules about Luckamancy and Carnymancy to all possible situations. So pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:42 pm

I also am going to point out we don't know if carnymancy is always "balanced", or if the balance is anything remotely sane. In fact, I would disagree even. The price for Red not dying in a fire was that Red would later die in a fire. ... Now barring extreme safety measures every unit dies. Every time someones life is saved they get a new death. Healomancy prevents death by paying with a different death. But carnymancy with its "cost"? Same deal, except that different death had to be the exact same sort. What really happened is she got uber-protection. An infinite strength luckamancy spell is not a "cost", that's a bloody awesome bonus.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lilwik » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:34 pm

Lamech wrote:The price for Red not dying in a fire was that Red would later die in a fire.
I can believe that, but it's hard to be sure. From Book 2, Page 86, what we know is that Jojo "made a trade" for Sylvia. That's plenty cryptic, but it would certainly make sense that what he traded was one death by fire for another death by fire. On the other hand, we can't really rule out the possibility that it was some other sort of trade, and the fact that Sylvia ended up dead by fire was just what had to happen when the terms of the deal ran out.

Lamech wrote:Healomancy prevents death by paying with a different death. But carnymancy with its "cost"? Same deal, except that different death had to be the exact same sort. What really happened is she got uber-protection. An infinite strength luckamancy spell is not a "cost", that's a bloody awesome bonus.
I expect that no discipline of magic is radically better than any other, so if that's the way it seems to work then we're probably missing something.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby Lamech » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:38 am

Lilwik wrote:I expect that no discipline of magic is radically better than any other, so if that's the way it seems to work then we're probably missing something.
There was a link up between two carnymancers, and possibly a third unknown caster? Arkentools are way better than any other discipline. Links are cheating bastards. Like how Parson got the mathamancy bracer from the summon warlord spell. Or the volcano put Sizemore's traps to shame.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Grand Strategy

Postby drachefly » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:38 am

Shai_hulud wrote:I was making fun of your arbitrary definition of balance and that you were proposing new imaginary restrictions by applying hypothetical rules about Luckamancy and Carnymancy to all possible situations. So pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said.


If that's what you thought I was doing, then you seriously misinterpreted my intention. And my denotation!

The conversation was speculation about balancing mechanisms. I presented one such balancing mechanism. I fit it into a known-to-exist structure which applies to some unknown set of things. My proposal was that this improved balance and fit thematically - NOT that everything, no matter how dissimilar, had to obey some rule - and it's not even clear what rule it would be from what I said.

Sheesh. How could you get that out of what I wrote?
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests