Darkness Rising

[Exate]

According to my recollection of the original description of the Support and Coordinate abilities, the ally who was gaining the bonus had to fire simultaneously with the supporting unit at the same target, but would always be considered to have their attack hit last. During one of the revisions that seems to have gone away, though.

[MarbitChow]

According to my recollection of the original description of the Support and Coordinate abilities, the ally who was gaining the bonus had to fire simultaneously with the supporting unit at the same target, but would always be considered to have their attack hit last. During one of the revisions that seems to have gone away, though.

That's correct. I removed the original language because it didn't account for two units boosting each other, but it does still guide the way I resolve the combats.

Attacks that benefit from combat modifiers occur 'after' the attacks that boost them, even though they're still technically simultaneous. Simultaneous here simply means that there's not enough time to react between the individual attacks. They still resolve in a particular order, but you can't interrupt them before they all resolve.

In this combat's case, if 12 archers boost 4, the 12 unmodified attacks resolve 'first', then then modified ones. So, you can't just ignore the lesser attacks, and turn on the bats in time for the boosted ones. You also cannot let the bats absorb 14 of the 16 attacks, then ignore the last 2.

[ETheBoyce]

Then I shall wait for the Gumptions to move before attacking

Edit: Or the archers to fire

[BLANDCorporatio]

Skimming through the latest battle update, it seems like one Gump is almost firewood (no archer has yet fired on it, but surely any lower level archer can finish that job).

Will could strike at another, full health Gump ... or maybe I can start duking it out with their leadership and attack Armolad's mount. Thoughts?

[0beron]

I'd suggest going for Gump 8. I don't know the Elves' move stat, but assuming it's 8 like many units, then I believe only 2 of them could reach it to heal it, and doing so would put them far from the rest of the action and the archers who need them. So it's again a win-win for us, either Gump 8 falls because they don't heal it, or they do heal it and their archers are more vulnerable as a result.

[Lord of Monies]

Take pot-shots on Armolad's mount and you'll find an altruist elf or two moving next to it to remove the damage. If we wanted to move some of the altruists away from where they are now, then tis could be a good idea but currently I don't think that's the best thing. Might as well keep pounding at the gumps and their guards is my thought.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Ok then, Gump 8 it is.

Gosh darn those healers are annoying. Y'all do realize that Dying Cry is the only reason we aren't targeting them with maximum priority, right?

[Lord of Monies]

Hmmm, even if that weren't the case I'd think we'd still be going for the gumps first. They would be our second priority though.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Spoiler: show

Nope, first priority. Kill the healers first because they're squishy and thus won't get the chance to heal the Gumps.

ALWAYS attack Healers first ... unless they're rigged to not be attacked first, like these Elves with their Dying Cry. That ability was purposefully put there to make them longer lived, and from a game perspective is a very neat idea.

[Lord of Monies]

The altruists are nowhere near the gumps, and our biggest worry is them taking down our towers so that they make a nice big hole for their ground forces to run in. If anything, the altruists SHOULD be around the gumps so t-coil couldn't have used his spells on them as much. Hanging back like they are makes sense if they didn't have the dying cry ability as they would need to be screened, being as squishy as they are. Instead the gumps have guards which actually makes more sense. They have high hp and wards, on top of a good defense, so why not make that even better and be seriously tough to take down? Play the parson game. Make them unable to take the city, which means destroy the siege. In this scenario, healers are a second priority always. Actually, third priority after the flyers, but they're gone so secondary.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Play the parson game. Make them unable to take the city, which means destroy the siege.

I don't want to pursue a hypothetical tactical discussion for too long, but that particular kind of reference ("what would Parson do") really rustles my jimmies. Nobody knows what Parson would do, nor should anyone care because Parson has never demonstrated his vaunted skills in a verifiable manner. We've never seen Parson play in a system in which we know the rules, nor a situation in which we know the exact troop disposition, or at least, have the same knowledge of troop disposition that he does. Therefore we can never look at the possible options and check that he actually picked the best one.

Back to our hypothetical tactical discussion. If you have tough, but slow, siege units that our archers aren't likely to make much impact on because of the enemies' defense, then either we try to scratch the siege units and see the scratches healed away (bad) or kill the healers in the first round (since healers have less HP and much less defense). Even if that gives the Gumps one round to advance, they aren't at the walls yet, and the scratches we make on them don't get healed away.

That's why you need to Shoot the Medic First.

Also, fuck Parson.

Ok, jimmies unrustled.

[Lord of Monies]

Playing the parson game is a matter of working with logic. The best way to win is to make the enemy incapable of beating you. If you have a defense, like a wall, then that means taking down any means the enemy has of avoiding or removing said defense, in this case siege and flyers. Healers only become a target if they are aiding the first two problems, and even then the healer only becomes a target if the flyers or siege can't be taken down quickly enough. As it stands, the flyers were pretty simple to take down, and if the gumps had no guards either side of them, then it is possible to focus on one at a time and take it down (just had some unfortunate rolls is all) so healers still remain a third priority in regards to an attack on a city. Now, if this were a fight of forces on open ground, then healers are top priority, but not in a siege.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Playing the parson game is a matter of working with logic.

If it were a matter of mere logic, then it would be obvious that if an enemy's healers can negate the damage you do to their siege you'd target those healers first.

Since putting numbers on a discussion that's about another kind of healer than the one we're facing is rather diverting, let's agree to disagree for now and not hijack the thread. I'm sure we'll soon enough face another siege situation, hopefully with slow tough siege and squishy healers that -don't- have abilities like Dying Cry, so that we can put some numbers behind our approaches.

[Werebiscuit]

Ok then, Gump 8 it is.

Nope, first priority. Kill the healers first because they're squishy and thus won't get the chance to heal the Gumps.

You do realize your spoiler quote is almost the exact reason we're targeting guards on the gumps before shooting at the gumps themselves. Just replace healers with guards and heal with guard. Please target the gump after we've taken down the guard, both you and Cupid will do 12 more damage each resulting in a dead gump instead of an injured one.

Our rank and file archery can hit def 11 guards causing 2d6+3 damage or better... they would do 2d6-6 to def 20 gumps resulting in minimal to no damage on average. Note : 2 of the garrison archers ( phase 10) should do 2d6+8 each to the guard resulting in 30 damage on average ( the have 20 hits +8 ward) which should see him drop

P.S. Good to see you back, Bland

[BLANDCorporatio]

You do realize your spoiler quote is almost the exact reason we're targeting guards on the gumps before shooting at the gumps themselves.

Aye, then that is what William shall do. Wait for a Gump to become unguarded then, hopefully, send them to that log cabin in the sky.

P.S. Good to see you back, Bland

Lol, thanks. And first thing I do, I get in a shouting match with someone. Aaaah, reminds me of the good old days, when I -didn't- have the dubious distinction of being the forumite with the most posts.

[HerbieRai]

Is there a reason Cupid and his buddy aren't flying? If no one gives me one I'll fly above Yuri and my companion will go above Bill. That way if the tower nears distruction I may be able to help keep people from falling. To help clarify

We will continue to hold fire until a Gump is unguarded. Then, after Will fires Cupid will move above Yuri and fire at it well.

[The Colonel]

Yes, to avoid the deadly AA of the elf archers/

[ETheBoyce]

You're not flying because the Walls have Crenelations that give you an additional +4 Defense

[Werebiscuit]

Is there a reason Cupid and his buddy aren't flying? If no one gives me one I'll fly above Yuri and my companion will go above Bill. That way if the tower nears distruction I may be able to help keep people from falling. To help clarify

We will continue to hold fire until a Gump is unguarded. Then, after Will fires Cupid will move above Yuri and fire at it well.

If Cupid and Comet take to the air at the moment they will lose the +4 def bonus they recieve for the wall crenelations and will still be a valid archery target. It does not get them any attack bonuses or reduce enemy defence bonuses as their current targets are front line guards. So taking to the air makes their situation worse.
In fact Comet is advised to retreat at least one square so he cannot be a valid target for elven archery. Until such time as their archery is destroyed. At that moment nothing the enemy have can target them and they can attack with impunity.

[EDIT] ninja'd...TWICE

[HerbieRai]

I did not know about the Crenelations, I just thought it was giving us an elevation bonus. We'll stay put then, since I think I'm one of the most defended characters.