My Chessboard Theory

[Infidel]

Hey, I'm temporarily in port, so I can speculate a bit.

My personal image of Erfworld is as if everyone in the world were given an electronic chess set, with no rules included.

Over the years of people experimenting. E.g. trying to move the pieces and being dissallowed when making illegal moves, the would be players have all deduced certian rules.

1. Pieces move alternatively, one at a time, starting with white.
2. A piece kills another piece by moving into its space.
3. Each piece always moves the same. Bishops always move diagonally, kings always move one square per turn.
4. You can't exchange one piece for another.

These are the rules, they are known because many people have learned them the hard way. Then someone comes along and he knows all the same strategies everyone else knows but he also knows a few more rules. Either from more aggressive experimentation, or because he was the lone person with a rulebook.

1. How to kill a piece indirectly.
2. How to exchange a piece for another.
3. How to move two pieces at the same time.

None of these extra rules guarantee a win. But used on an unsuspecting enemy. They could grossly disrupt some well laid plans if the enemy were maneuvered into a situation where they could be exploited. But once they see the moves, they know it can be done, and can use it in return.

At some point, people are going to start throwing Parson's exploits right back at him. Then he'll have to play smartly, not cleverly.

I know some of you aren't groking the difference between smart and clever. Clever strategy depends on enemy ignorance and often introduces unnecessary risk in the hope of a quick victory. Clever is usually not reusable because there are safeguards a smart strategist can take to eliminate that weakness, once they become aware it exists in the first place. But smart strategists DO lose to clever strategies once in a while. If the smart strategiest survive though, that strategy will never work again. No one will ever be able to pull off another Trojan Horse again. Smart strategies are reusable. Concentration of forces, maintaining the initiative, maintaining a high degree of maneuverability, is Smart. Sticking your main forces in a wooden horse and leaving them on the battleground. That's clever. At least, if you're the first person who ever did it.

For a chess example of a Clever move, I give you the 3 move checkmate. It gambles on the ignorance of the opponent and can really impress the impressionable. But like most clever strategies, it also leaves the clever player in a weaker position if the opponent is wise to it. If the opponent does not fall for the trick, the clever player has two exposed high value pieces, and will lose the initiative while she scrambles to save them, or sacrifice them since they are also blocking the deployment of the other pieces, or just sacrifice them in the vain hope of maintaining the initiative.

[Althernai]

At some point, people are going to start throwing Parson's exploits right back at him. Then he'll have to play smartly, not cleverly.

He has always been playing "smartly". At the battle for Gobwin Knob, he milked the conventional tactics (take out the leadership, "fighting retreat", etc.) for all they're worth, but when you are outnumbered 20 to 1 or you are a sitting duck above a city of archers, the only thing that can save you is an unexpected tactic. Also, from a story telling perspective, reusable conventional tactics are a lot less interesting because the reader learns just as the enemy does.

[Infidel]

At some point, people are going to start throwing Parson's exploits right back at him. Then he'll have to play smartly, not cleverly.

He has always been playing "smartly". At the battle for Gobwin Knob, he milked the conventional tactics (take out the leadership, "fighting retreat", etc.) for all they're worth, but when you are outnumbered 20 to 1 or you are a sitting duck above a city of archers, the only thing that can save you is an unexpected tactic. Also, from a story telling perspective, reusable conventional tactics are a lot less interesting because the reader learns just as the enemy does.

I wasn't saying that he isn't. Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that he will not be able to continue to use exploits forever, there will come a point where he has to fight conventional battles.

[Sieggy]

It seems to me that through analysis, he's discovered how to castle and capture en passant. Who knows what else is out there for him to discover?

[Infidel]

It seems to me that through analysis, he's discovered how to castle and capture en passant. Who knows what else is out there for him to discover?

Probably more. But my point is basically, once you use a strategy in front of witnesses. You give them the opportunity to learn your strategies and use them against you.

[GaryThunder]

Well, that's part of Parson's genius, I think. He thinks of very specific solutions tailored exactly to the resources that he has available, so it's harder for enemies to adapt them. What can enemies learn from this falling trick? If you're off-turn in an enemy city's airspace and you have an artifact-powered Croakamancer in your group, you still have a shot? This strategy is stupid without Decrypted dwagons being available and without the fact that they're in a quite unlikely situation as it is. How many times do you think a side has voluntarily ended turn inside an enemy city's airspace? Charlie notwithstanding, he had a Coalition backing him up and knew the city couldn't possibly take down his units with their forces.

[Infidel]

Well, that's part of Parson's genius, I think. He thinks of very specific solutions tailored exactly to the resources that he has available, so it's harder for enemies to adapt them. What can enemies learn from this falling trick? If you're off-turn in an enemy city's airspace and you have an artifact-powered Croakamancer in your group, you still have a shot? This strategy is stupid without Decrypted dwagons being available and without the fact that they're in a quite unlikely situation as it is. How many times do you think a side has voluntarily ended turn inside an enemy city's airspace? Charlie notwithstanding, he had a Coalition backing him up and knew the city couldn't possibly take down his units with their forces.

I think you're applying too many limits to the strategy. The strategy of mounting upgradable-to-heavy units so they can assist if the the army is attacked in the field off-turn. Seems viable in just about any situation in which a split air-ground force is assaulted off-turn.

Some with the food-fight method. Of course it is more wasteful, but if you've light units, like a caster in the airspace and need to get them down to the main force in a hurry, a harvest option might be the best bet.

[GaryThunder]

It doesn't seem like it costs move for flyers to take off or land normally in the field, they just can't normally cross from airspace to garrison, from one city zone to another, without expending move. That's why it counts as a fall. I think.

[Sieggy]

It seems to me that through analysis, he's discovered how to castle and capture en passant. Who knows what else is out there for him to discover?

Probably more. But my point is basically, once you use a strategy in front of witnesses. You give them the opportunity to learn your strategies and use them against you.

That's assuming that anyone survives to learn from what you've done. The only person in Erf (other than GK units) who knows what Parson did, or even that Parson exists, is Charlie. And he only knows because he wasn't there to die along with everyone else. As far as the rest of Erf is concerned, all they know is that something *impossible* happened. "What" is open to speculation, but I doubt the idea of GK having a 'Perfect Warlord' who can find holes in their reality would cross their minds.

Charlie, under duress, shared *some* of what he knows with Trem. And with his +5 plot armor, Trem is likely to survive & escape, so word of this new threat will now spread, but still, Parson is an unknown quantity outside of an extremely limited circle. And given the extremely conservative nature of Erfworld, it will probably take a long time for them to really take him seriously.

[Tiger]

Personally, I would think it's more the other way around. Erfworlders seem to be popped with an intrinsic understanding of the rules of their world. They do have a rulebook, and that's exactly why they have so much trouble seeing the things Parson (and many of the people on this forum) are able to figure out - because they have an innate understanding of the way their world works, and anything that isn't strictly by the rules doesn't readily occur to them. It's perfectly sensible to most of us that when you have forces trapped in the air, unable to land, and urgently need to get them to ground, you should simply force them to fall down to it, but the thought doesn't even occur to an Erfworlder, because their instincts tell them that falling is something that happens when things go wrong, not something that you can use to your advantage. Similarly, it took the coalition warlords - even Vinny, who was the only one smart enough to figure out that something was up - quite a while to figure out that Gobwin Knob could be "losing" battles by the strict rules of the world, but actually winning because they destroyed valuable siege units before withdrawing, because their world has instilled them with a instinctive sense of what "winning" is.

But you're right, eventually Erfworlders are going to wise up and start copying Parson's tactics, if not applying his way of thinking to devise exploits of their own. After all, Vinny and Tram did figure out what was going on once they had all the pieces to the puzzle. Just because it's difficult for them to think that way doesn't mean it's impossible.

[Sylvan]

So, at first there was this world. And it was just... well, full of roaming barbarians, and some crappy level 1's, and maybe the occasional capitol site, ruined or whole, who knows? There were probably a lot of cities that popped with rulers... I mean, someone has to have gotten this royalty idea from somewhere, right?

So, all these cities were sitting with all their royals and living happy, pretty lives, watching the shmuckers flow into their treasuries, and discovering with delight that they could happily disband those troublesome roaming Barbarians who wanted a city of their own and get paid for doing so! And lo, what rejoicing there was to be had throughout the land! They drove off the Barbarian hordes, were fat and happy in their rich cities, and all was well.

......until they realized one quiet night, cold and alone with that beast called the truth, that their cities could not keep popping troops like this forever! And while it had been quiet amusing to watch that silly prat King K. Rool scramble around for cities in a jungle of all places, when he was defeated by the Barbarian hordes it had quiet ruined the local parade. Why, the commoners were even starting to prattle on about the royal decrees! "Why do we have to keep trading these cities", they whine! As if there were a way to pay for the ungrateful lot's upkeep any other way!

Oh, there was talk in the history books of legendary men, such as The Emperor. He was supposedly famous for commanding small amounts of men to perform miraculous amounts of damage, and retreating them with the smallest number of hits possible so that they could survive another day. Even though his score among commanders was unmatched, and the loyalty of his troops high, has even his mighty kingdom bested the reign of time?

No, the men who survived these turns in this world were not unipegataur-riding warrior kings. A magnificent empire draws many a greedy eye, and so the men with small ambitions were the men who survived. Many would try.... raiding cities for casters, or trying to set up an ambush with veiled kidnappers laying in wait. It was through these events that news would spread, slowly, and as a side gathered more and more knowledge its libraries would expand.

The first tri-mancer link was a laugh. It was known that a Thinkamancer could assist another caster, if a function was of vital importance, like the construction of a city. But to link three? Why, you could barely even speak to your casters, ask them questions about just what it was they gained by such a dangerous action! And the first fool to try lost his predictamancer and luckamancer in the same go! Damn fool was lucky he didn't lose his Thinkamancer too! Not all royals talk to their casters, but he should have let her gain at least one single level before attempting such a thing!

But no one could have foreseen the battle of rolfstomp. Who would have guessed that a Shockamancer and Turnamancer working in tandem could turn such a large number of troops against their commanders in such a short time! Even several warlords were said to have turned, which of course led the Hippiemancers to rush to see who can pin an exact number on "what sort of loyalty penalty the linked casters applied to the troops", and the Mathamancers to ponder whether it would have "worked better" if there were fewer troops in the hex.

Of course, it was sweet justice when the casters broke their link and were promptly stabbed by the very Stabbers they had corrupted. The general of Lolwut could only watch hopelessly as his incapacitated shockamancer failed to defend his low-level army from some "allies" who had just come to save them... and then his deranged turnamancer made a bad day a great deal worse by turning his leadership corp over to the enemy.

So, some of these casters in the magic kingdom, they're thinking to themselves "Hmmmm.... maybe we should play around with these links some more.... if we have discussions about magic theory, and we have a relatively safe idea sometime, or one that could net us the money to pay for several turns worth of upkeep, it *might* be worth implementing".

On a turn that doesn't appear to be particularly important to anyone else, a predictamancer decides to ask herself "If we could make just the right spell, could it maybe stop all this fighting in the first place? Turn us all to the same side?" When she found out the answer, she just had to talk to a certain Hippiemancer, who knew a certain Dirtamancer who enjoyed having theoretical magic discussions.

And then, can you believe it, a piker of all things found and attuned to an Arkentool! Ridiculous, but his leader used him to good effect. Under the reign of a competent tactician Stanly the tool won battle after battle, which made Saline IV so proud of this lucky little Piker, why, a brainless guy who just leveled his way straight into a command by being in the right places at the right times and not dying through a lot of battle where other people probably died, a lot.

So, he tells his ruler he's just gonna go out and "tame some dwagons", but really, he's actually going out to bust up a few "secret" cities. And then his ruler like, mysteriously croaks on the same exact turn? Psh, yeah right, we believe that story bunches. So everyone gets together to kill this guy, because he is obviously an asshole (did you hear about what he did to the Milquetoast clan? He wiped 'em out, thats what he did. And he hit the elves! The elves!)

One perfect Warlord and one Zombcano later, here we are.

TL;DR version : I think you are on the right track about Erfworlders, but that it is a little more sinister than you make it out to be since overlords have to worry about upkeep, and casters/warlords/leaders have to worry about earning it (or being disbanded). Units without some sort of leadership special can't even see each other's points, too! So yeah, some people are literally born with the rulebook, but the view is still different. Also, casters get an expanded rulebook. And maybe some Warlords are born with natural luckamancy(Stanly), or mathamancy(Ansom), or thinkamancy(A scouting warlord). But yeah.
Overlord sees - the troops move into an enemy square and vanish.
Troops sees - Dwagony death.

[Housellama]

Probably more. But my point is basically, once you use a strategy in front of witnesses. You give them the opportunity to learn your strategies and use them against you.

Ah, but there's the catch. The Erfworlders might have seen what he did, but only a very few like Tram and Charlie truly UNDERSTAND it. All someone like Slately saw was GK doing something completely bizarre, and suddenly Tram was telling him that they were in big trouble. Yes, you give the smart ones a chance to learn, but there are a whole lot of dumb ones out there, and most of them are in charge.

Seeing a tactic used and understanding the mechanisms that went into it, understanding how it worked and more importantly WHY it worked in that situation are very, very different things. The Allies saw the blitzkreig early in the war. But they didn't really understand the effective use of tanks until much later in the war. Just because you see a tactic doesn't mean you can use it.