eras10 wrote:One other point - people are wrong about Jetstone's objectives in rushing the garrison (Slately's attack), or at least what those objectives should have been. I'm not saying they should have risked Trammenis, but they should have sent in literally everything else. If any dwagons survive Jetstone's turn, Trammenis, the heir to Jetstone, is exactly one move away by air. In other words, any surviving dwagons with two brain cells to rub together would fly after Trammenis and promptly end him and the side. Leaving any dwagons alive in Spacerock would have been really really bad.
eras10 wrote:I'm leaving out the question of if the tower spells can't be directed against the garrison on the ground for some very weird reason. Let's just say that would be odd.
eras10 wrote:Meanwhile, the atrium and the rest of the garrison were (atrium) or could have been (dungeons) evaced. With the purple dwagons gone, there is no siege to get into the tower. Decap is now out for this turn. Taking the garrison is also out (tower is garrison). At the very least, you have a stalemate. Where does GK get more siege on their next turn, either?
eras10 wrote:Even if we make that assumption, you've picked on a lot of my points but skipped the part where I outline a more intelligent suggestion, something like this, starting from when Wanda's force bellyflops into the Atrium and Trammenis knows why:
#1. Evacuate (this was right) - leaving GK unable to give chase beyond the garrisson or going after the tower.
#2. Send a force down from the tower to scout. Has a mass decryption happened? Use it to kill anything smaller than itself, like Wanda waiting for you to burn your overwhelming shooting advantage.
#3. At this point, Wanda has two choices: #1. Start decrypting her dragons and available forces to defend herself, or #2. Get killed.
#4. With the dwagons decwypted (or maybe just some of them, if Wanda is smart), pull back the other forces and start area arrow spamming, for a few rounds.
#5. Scout again. Is everything dead? In effect, return to #2.
#6. If siege dwagons start trying to knock down the tower, return to #4. For that matter, the siege dwagons are also vulnerable to being killed in combat by ground forces, kind of like Aretemis' charge, except, you know, actually supported.
Frankly, add pierce to Artemis' stack all by himself and they probably win.
So, even in the worst case scenario, Jetstone had the forces and capabilities required - namely, the ability to kill without enaging in direct hand-to-hand combat, and a massive firepower advantage in doing so - to wipe out GK and kill Wanda - without even having to take on the Decryption gun straight on.
Some of the rest of your counterpoints are fair, but unless you have a counter to the strategy I have mentioned, I still think I'm right.
To be fair, more intelligent tactical suggestions aren't too relevant under the context in which the you brought up the original issue. You indicated that there was a problem with the relative strengths of the forces in the comic. If you had indicated that a specific character did not take the perfect course of action in light of knowledge of the future then most people wouldn't have disagreed. The only character that some people, myself included, have a hard time stomaching bad decisions from is Parson.eras10 wrote:Even if we make that assumption, you've picked on a lot of my points but skipped the part where I outline a more intelligent suggestion, something like this...
Liberty taken in bold font.eras10 wrote:And if you can shoot at the tower, the tower can shoot at you.
erianaiel wrote:You, and we all in fact, keep forgetting that the air space around the tower was surrounded by Archons, ...SNIP...
So Tramennis was no fool to order to leave them alone and to not use the tower spells. At least not until after he got the one critical weakness of his side out of the direct line of fire.
effataigus wrote:Liberty taken in bold font.eras10 wrote:And if you can shoot at the tower, the tower can shoot at you.
The converse of this statement is definitively not true, and we have no reason to believe that this statement is always true, as drachefly points out.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests