Maybe, and maybe not. Or perhaps it is better phrased that "can do" does not equate to "does do." Or it's just a plot hole. If you could talk to anyone at all, on any Side, don't you think that you'd have a chat with everyone, every turn? There is no down side, and the positives of intelligence gathering and relationship building would seem to make it a no-brainer.oslecamo2 wrote:Eerr, the decrypted archons explicitly said he can make an unlimited number of thinkgrams per turn.
I agree. I just think that if you actually have zero cost to do a thing that can bring you value, that doing that thing would be a matter of habit by now for anyone who isn't a complete idiot. And Charlie isn't being positioned as being a complete idiot. In other words, I'm not buying that Charlie can do unlimited thinkagrams per turn, because if that was true he would actually do unlimited thinkagrams per turn. It is a plot hole, and I doubt this plot hole will be filled. The author needs to learn that citing some capability needs to translate into the logical and practical use of that capability. And anything cited as "unlimited" needs to be very carefully examined indeed.oslecamo2 wrote:Thinking you're on top of things is diferent than actualy being on top of things.
You are listing things that shmucker rich Sides can do. But you are ignoring the fact that shmucker poor Sides have plenty of options as well. Jetstone and TV are both Sides which are described as being shmucker poor right now. This is limiting their options, but neither Side is positioned as being crippled by this. Jetstone, by all conventional wisdom, is about to destroy the invading army. TV is sitting pretty with a new allied nation which is absorbing the direct impact of combat (why this is an advantage to TV is anyone's guess. Caesar at least seems to feel that the shmuckers spent on FAQ would have been better spent on TV. But that is beside the point.). Shmuckers is a part of the game, but a Side can do plenty of things without shmuckers. And really, tribals turning? This has been positioned as being an extremely rare and odd occurrence, despite that fact that the story has showed it happening twice. Using shmuckers to boost the production of troops by creating more allied units is very much like hiring a caster to speed the production of a city. No Side can be faulted for the fact that natural allies have been shown to be unreliable when the author has taken pains to point out that this behavior is very unusual. Hell, Stanley is pissed off that he can't find gobwins, and gobwins turning is the whole reason he is now the Overlord of GK. Stanley isn't a very reliable source of information, but this does show the standard mindset on natural allies.oslecamo2 wrote:Like what? Spamming tribal troops that have a considerable chance of turning against you?
And yet again, Ansom's "polite" offer of discussing terms was by any real knowledge of Erfworld an offer to have the GK units slaughtered out of hand. Labeling it "polite" is like labeling a suggestion to go fuck yourself as polite. Both messages can be delivered with seeming courtesy, but neither is truly courteous.oslecamo2 wrote:Oberon wrote:My point exactly. The "winner" offers some outrageous terms which it knows will be refused, and then attacks with the supposed moral high ground of being able to claim that the other Side was unwilling to come to terms. This is what Ansom offered. There were no real terms offered, it was just "I will have your sword", with no promises to spare any of the GK forces.
Yet, earlier on the strip when Hamster contacted Ansom to provoke him, Ansom politely asked if he wanted to discuss the terms of his surrender. Then Hamster himself made Ansom enter RAGE mode with fae hints that there were traitors on the coalition.
But feel free to keep believing that anything Parson said or did would have deterred Ansom from his goal of ending the GK Side, capturing GK and splitting the treasury amongst the members of the RCC. I find it highly amusing that you can read about the Noble tradition of offering "some perfunctory unacceptable surrender terms, an insult to injury sort of thing, masquerading as mercy. When you refuse, then they will feel justified in shooting us all down" and still believe that nobles offering surrender terms have a higher purpose than self-justification.
Unless Jack is made out to be an unreliable source of information, his offered opinions needs to be considered to be Word of God, especially when the protagonist is basing his plan on Jack's advice. Stanley is the sole source of unreliable information we have to date, with Parson stating something like needing to make a "saving throw vs. suicide" any time he tried to get information out of Stanley. All other mentors for Parson must be considered to be accurate sources of information, or the story would have no basis.