Charlie and Warlords

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

Charlie and Warlords

Postby Higatron » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:48 am

Something just hit me. If Charlie has no warlords, why did he want Parson on his side so badly? He doesn't need any strategy since all he does is sell his units out to other sides. Does he secretly have other warlords for some reason?
Higatron
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby valce » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:32 am

Normal warlords? Not worth hiring out. People wouldn't pay that much for a unit they could pop themselves.

A warlord who is a strategic genious? Sides would hire him just to think for them. Charlie wouldn't even have to move Parson, just leave him in the city, answering questions and planning strategies for other sides.

And think of how much more work Charlie could get if other sides trusted Parson to devise strategies for them... Causing problems for clients is good for business, remember :P

-V
valce
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Decorus » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:40 pm

Parson + mathamancy guantlet = Whole new market segment.

Charlie: How many Archons does this contract need to succeed with zero casualties?
Parson: Let me run the numbers.
Charlie: Faq wants an offensive strategy to deal with hostile agression against thier cities.
Parson: What is thier tactical situation.

What makes it worse is hiring Parson for battlefield planning gives Charlie reasons to know everything about the side involved increasing his information broker buisness.

Charlie: Whats the probability that x side is interferring with y side?

Then there is the whole Erfworld domination thing...
Decorus
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby DevilDan » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:11 pm

Charlie was confident he could get the bracer without needing Parson. Parson, as the most innovative and even experienced military strategist and theorist on Erf is valuable on his own.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Fangthane » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:54 pm

Charlie doesn't have warlords because in the past, he hasn't needed them.
Some significant portion of his Archons have leadership, meaning he doesn't need a warlord to make them self-starters nor to provide a stack-based bonus. And his units fight on behalf of other Sides, taking advantage of their bonus. Wanting Parson on-side is a sign of one of four things, therefore (none is exclusive of the others, but each is potentially sufficient).
1. He anticipates having to fight some battle or battles wherein he expects to require a more substantial or side-wide leadership bonus.
2. He recognises Parson's preeminence in devising strategies, and canny dealings with him, and wants to prevent other Sides having access to such a resource.
3. He wants to sell Parson's abilities in order to generate cash and/or power for himself.
4. He wishes to make Parson believe 1/2/3 in order to pursue some unknown agenda which is aided by such belief, or in order to lead Parson into some error which is exacerbated thereby.
Fangthane
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Lord Kasavin » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:55 pm

DevilDan wrote:Charlie was confident he could get the bracer without needing Parson. Parson, as the most innovative and even experienced military strategist and theorist on Erf is valuable on his own.


Problem with this is there was no reason at the time to believe that Parson was more brilliant than (say) Ansom. Sure, Charlie undoubtedly knew about the doughnut trap, and that was clever. However, it wasn't so clever as to be unheard of. Had Ansom not been expecting to battle Stanley very lacking wit, then he might have realized that attacking the weak, far hex would leave him isolated and low on move and considered another approach. Charlie also liked Parson's sales pitch, fine. But to go from no warlords to picking up a kind of stranger out of nowhere whose stats were hidden? That doesn't make sense, though little of what Charlie does makes sense.

My guess is Charlie really wanted the bracer, and considered the possibility that it would only work for Parson. The threat to croak him was to make turning more appealing and thus certain. After getting the bracer and testing to see if an Archon or himself could use it, he'd either have kept Parson or ditched him or kept him for his strategic genius which was apparent after the incredible victory in the tunnels.
"Act, and God will Act." - Joan of Arc

"Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt." - Thomas Moore
User avatar
Lord Kasavin
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby benana » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:47 pm

Look at it this way... Charlie has no warlords (or casters, but you need to pop warlords to get casters, pretty much) on his side. There are a couple of possible reasons for this, but in my mind, it boils down to:
1. Charlie doesn't want to take time off from his "all archons, all the time" strategy
or
2. Charlie doesn't want anyone with any kind of free will working for him

I'm not really buying (1), if a warlord would otherwise be desirable (if only to have a chief warlord to provide bonuses). But otherwise... Charlie has only golems (presumaby mindless) and archons (presumably linked to the arkendish somehow). I suspect he has control issues... and he may know better than anyone else how easy it is to turn units on their allies (whatever is going on with the natural allies, for example).

By that logic, he wouldn't be looking at taking Parson on as a warlord, or even military advisor... but as a unique curiosity. And prisoner.
I think Parson made an excellent choice in turning down Charlie's offer.
benana
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:16 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Welf von Ehrwald » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:10 pm

It is very mysterious why Charley has not a single warlord. Not having one even seems to interfere with his agenda.
Having a chief warlord will give Charley important bonuses. A level 6 chief warlord would give all his units a bonus of +2 with their attack. For this, the chief warlord doesn't even have to leave the capital.
Getting a level 6 is quite easy, if he takes a little time. Jillian showed that it's possible. Charley should have enough opportunities to capture such a unit without someone realizing. And he doesn#t even have to care about the loyalty of that unit, because he has the arkendish and can brainwash units on an titanic level.
Charley has about 120 archons in his city, with 200-500 schmuckers upkeep per turn. That makes on average 350, overall about 40.000 schmuckers per turn. Having a warlord in a city as regent reduces the upkeep of the units. Charley himself isn't working as regent, because to get the boni he needs to personally walk around and look at his buildings. And according to his archons he never leaves his tower.
I love uncroaked Dora. I love an anonymous friend even more.

Only one man has understood me, and even he has not!
User avatar
Welf von Ehrwald
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:57 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby DevilDan » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:02 am

Lord Kasavin wrote:Problem with this is there was no reason at the time to believe that Parson was more brilliant than (say) Ansom. Sure, Charlie undoubtedly knew about the doughnut trap, and that was clever. However, it wasn't so clever as to be unheard of. Had Ansom not been expecting to battle Stanley very lacking wit, then he might have realized that attacking the weak, far hex would leave him isolated and low on move and considered another approach. Charlie also liked Parson's sales pitch, fine. But to go from no warlords to picking up a kind of stranger out of nowhere whose stats were hidden? That doesn't make sense, though little of what Charlie does makes sense.


Charlie had access to the eyebooks and is a shrewd observer: he had a very good idea of Parson's value. Don't forget that the doughtnut trap was, at the end of the day, only an add-on to a tactic that allowed him to inflict serious damage to the RCC through the destruction of a sizable percentage of its siege units. By the time Charlie had a new version of his contract ready for Ansom, he also had far more proof regarding Parson's value.

On the other hand, he would really have little reason to suspect that the bracer, unlike an arkentool, could only be operated by specific or special units.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Dancing Cthulhu » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:29 am

Lord Kasavin wrote:
DevilDan wrote:Charlie was confident he could get the bracer without needing Parson. Parson, as the most innovative and even experienced military strategist and theorist on Erf is valuable on his own.


Problem with this is there was no reason at the time to believe that Parson was more brilliant than (say) Ansom. Sure, Charlie undoubtedly knew about the doughnut trap, and that was clever. However, it wasn't so clever as to be unheard of. Had Ansom not been expecting to battle Stanley very lacking wit, then he might have realized that attacking the weak, far hex would leave him isolated and low on move and considered another approach. Charlie also liked Parson's sales pitch, fine. But to go from no warlords to picking up a kind of stranger out of nowhere whose stats were hidden? That doesn't make sense, though little of what Charlie does makes sense.


True, Parson took full advantage of the RCC underestimating GK because they were under the impression that the battle would be a walk over, what with their numbers and Stanley being useless.

Welf von Ehrwald wrote:Having a chief warlord will give Charley important bonuses. A level 6 chief warlord would give all his units a bonus of +2 with their attack. For this, the chief warlord doesn't even have to leave the capital.


Can Charlie, as ruler, be his side's Chief Warlord as well?

Or Jillian (it seems in her nature to be Chief Warlord if it were possible)?
And so my time with the Tardy Elves draws to a close, and I am let to ponder how the experience will... eh, I'll finish later. No need to rush.
User avatar
Dancing Cthulhu
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:49 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby noxharrington » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:54 am

Having Parson is valuable because of the potential value of his future advice. I think Charlie probably also has a much better understanding of the value of the bracer than Parson (or we) at the moment.

More valuable for Charlie, though, is the benefit of not having Parson on anyone ELSE'S side. Parson (we as readers and Charlie as very-clever-bastard know) is a potential world-beating strategist, with an eye constantly towards exploiting the nature of Erfworld for his benefit. Charlie profits from war. The sooner there is one major uncontested power in Erfworld the sooner Charlie's market dries up. The best strategy for Charlie is to play for anyone who will pay, but play harder for the underdog. Maintain the status quo, in which there are as many potential clients as possible.
noxharrington
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:01 am

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby Decorus » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:38 am

Some Archons Have the leadership trait so why pop a Warlord?

Charlie has over 600 archons so his up keep is much higher then 40k a turn.

Archons are an incredibly flexible unit that can gain multiple casting and other special traits as they level and since he isn't usually leading the combat, but rather providing magical and troop support there is no need for him to have a warlord "usually".

Parson how ever is a special case as he can perform mathamancy using the bracer and is the perfect Warlord....
It was also evident from the begining that Ansom was not fighting Stanley when Parson used the Attack retreat tactic to eviscerate the stacks of attacking units, but because of the retreat and lack of a lookamancer on the opposing side they had no idea that Parson was winning the fights by losing.
Decorus
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Charlie and Warlords

Postby DevilDan » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:19 pm

Decorus wrote:Some Archons Have the leadership trait so why pop a Warlord?


Any non-flier warlord could prove to be a liability, if only in terms of reduced mobility or vulnerability thereof. Sure, he could use a warlord in special situations, but would it interest him and be worth the investment to do so?
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm


Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests