Summer Updates - 010

[BarGamer]

Cesar certainly is a Jerk,

Be a jerk, get the perqs!

[Goshen]

Cesar certainly is a Jerk,

Be a jerk, get the perqs!

LOL

Let's not forget that Jillian recently tried to kill him with knife just for bringing her bad news. We can forgive him for not liking her too much.

Damn Vinnie is hot.

[BarGamer]

Damn Vinnie is hot.

So, what'd you think of the Twilight movie?

[Goshen]

Damn Vinnie is hot.

So, what'd you think of the Twilight movie?

The movie - Meh. Robert Pattinson - too young, but still hot.

[Arkenputtyknife]

I think the main issue is speed.

I doubt it. Speed is certainly an issue—that's why I said that such a setup wouldn't be as good as an eyemancer table—but it's no reason why it couldn't be done, nor why it might not have been tried. Since your opponents can't move by night, or during your own move (which is when the setup would likely be most valuable), speed is much less of an issue than it would be in a world where everything happens in real time.

There must also have been many situations, in the past if not the present, when a side has had a lookamancer but lacked the rest of the parts of the eyemancer table (which also requires a thinkamancer, a foolamancer, some understanding of what could be done when the three are linked, and the ruthless to actually do it, knowing that doing so stands a fair chance of doing considerable damage to the 'mancers involved). I would have reasonably expected such a side to set up a strategic display table under the command of the lookamancer. So unless there's some specific reason why it wouldn't work, there's no reason why it couldn't have been tried, given only a commander with the ingenuity to do it. Speed doesn't come into it, because they wouldn't have been able to set up an Eyemancer table anyway.

Now consider the cost of setting up an Eyemancer table. It's effectively trading three powerful 'mancers for one very powerful 'mancer. Looking at what Maggie and Jack could do by themselves, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. And given the emotional impact Misty's death had on Parson, it seems unlikely that he'd want to do it again. Recall that he's thrown his Ruthlessness into a lake of fire. The last time he ordered a link-up, the situation was desperate, and it worked out okay only because there were a lot of master-class 'mancers to hand to gently break the link afterward. He won't be able to count on that again.

If Stanley were to command the creation of a new eyemancer table (assuming, of course, that they found another Lookamancer), would Parson go along with it? Or would he say, “Hey, I have this really good idea that'll get you most of the benefits of the Table, but it only needs one 'mancer instead of three, you can continue to use Maggie and Jack to do all that other good stuff, and they won't die or go nuts if you decide you don't need it any more. How about it?” Would Stanley consider it?

Has it been done? If not, why not?

[Anton Gaist]

Has it been done? If not, why not?[/color]

I think it could work. It should work. As for unit stats, Maggie can use the minis in the table to focus on one and provide updates. It is a bit slower than the Eyemancer table, but I doubt the difference would be that big.

That setup is basically what we use here in the real world after all, Parson should be able to put it together provided he can get minis. And a lookamancer.

It all comes down to the mechanics for popping casters. Lookamancers are rare, there wasn't a single one in the Coalition after all. That means there's no chance of capturing one, so far. Maybe buy one in the Magic Kingdom? GK has the funds for it, that's for sure.

[trevron]

You know what I just thought of with this update?

What kind of diplomacy rules are there in Erfworld? We know sides can make and break alliances, but there are many degrees to which strategy games deploy Diplomacy as a mechanic, and I don't think we yet know how Erfworld handles it.

[SteveMB]

Parson should be able to put it together provided he can get minis.

Like these minis?

And a lookamancer.

It all comes down to the mechanics for popping casters. Lookamancers are rare, there wasn't a single one in the Coalition after all.

It's ambiguous whether none of the Coalition sides had a Lookamancer or whether the column didn't have a Lookamancer on the expedition. Even if they had casters available, they might have left them home -- this assault was supposed to be easy, so why risk losing a rare and valuable unit if the enemy gets one lucky shot?

[Bobby Archer]

There are a couple problems, as I see it, with trying to use a Lookamancer separately to make a makeshift Eyemancer table. Most of them have already been stated, but there's one more that I don't think has been mentioned. Juice. We have no idea how much energy it takes for a Lookamancer to spy on distant hexes and how many hexes she can spy on at once. While using a Lookamancer to get a read on forward formations and distant units could be useful for overall strategy, I doubt that a Lookamancer would have nearly enough juice to keep up with an ongoing battle. Without the added power of the link-up, the table would be of very limited use for tactics.

[Arkenputtyknife]

There are a couple problems, as I see it, with trying to use a Lookamancer separately to make a makeshift Eyemancer table. Most of them have already been stated, but there's one more that I don't think has been mentioned. Juice. We have no idea how much energy it takes for a Lookamancer to spy on distant hexes and how many hexes she can spy on at once. While using a Lookamancer to get a read on forward formations and distant units could be useful for overall strategy, I doubt that a Lookamancer would have nearly enough juice to keep up with an ongoing battle. Without the added power of the link-up, the table would be of very limited use for tactics.

The trouble with this is that the other 'Mancers in the link-up are using their own juice to fulfill their own parts of the deal. The Thinkamancer is holding the thing together, the Foolamancer is creating the illusion of the table. So unless the available juice follows a non-linear law (e.g. available power follows a geometric, rather than arithmetic, progression wrt the number of 'mancers), the Lookamancer should be able to view just as many units as she would as part of an Eyemancer.

Hmm… unclear. Sizemore was certainly able to see more when has was in a chain.

As for the others “that have been already stated”, I haven't seen one that can be considered a real objection to the strategy table concept. Still looking for reasons.

[moose o death]

the juice arguament has little merit as the table isn't used on such short timescales anyway.
enemy positions update ONCE at the start of the turn. then they stay there until their next turn, there is little use in updating more often than that as you can't do anything about it anyway.

back to caster discussion though

someone assumed casters pop as newb status. we have no relevant reason to believe that is the case. it seems caster level and combat level have little relevance to each other. it's entirely possible you pay for the difference in caster level with schmukers.
and gobwin knob has had quite a good treasury for quite some time.

my personal belief is you pop casters, the cast level is determined by the cost you'll pay, this explains maggie and sizemore having plaid eyes. the caster type is awarded seemingly at random. and there is hard limits to the number of mancers a city can host.

GK had 5 mancers, dirt, think, look, croak, and fool. the look is dead. so technically GK..assuming it's level isn't a refernce point to supported mancer total may be able to order one new mancer. if this happens it will either prove or disprove my theory. one way or another the winner is us. i'm hoping to see more of the construction queue process from stanley across book 2 as GK is in the position of needing to rebuild it's army. i don't count decrypted units as anything useful at all. and i fully expect them to be treated as connon fodder

[raphfrk]

Now consider the cost of setting up an Eyemancer table. It's effectively trading three powerful 'mancers for one very powerful 'mancer. Looking at what Maggie and Jack could do by themselves, I'm not sure it's worth the cost.

From a caster perspective, the only real cost is the loss of a foolamancer (though he could still probably cloak GK itself while linked). Both the thinkamancer and the lookamaner operate at full effectiveness, since they are inherently long-range casters. Being locked in the capital doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

Also, you get to create the eyebooks and presumably other abilities that aren't available without the link.

In addition, you lose the ability for the casters to act as advisors, i.e. they cease to be individuals.

And given the emotional impact Misty's death had on Parson, it seems unlikely that he'd want to do it again.

It is quite possible that Parson killed at least one of the casters in the linkup due to his error. Maggie just made the decision about which one would die (though it is possible a more equal division of the damage would have resulted in all 3 surviving, but damaged/inoperable).

If Stanley were to command the creation of a new eyemancer table (assuming, of course, that they found another Lookamancer), would Parson go along with it? Or would he say, “Hey, I have this really good idea that'll get you most of the benefits of the Table, but it only needs one 'mancer instead of three, you can continue to use Maggie and Jack to do all that other good stuff, and they won't die or go nuts if you decide you don't need it any more. How about it?” Would Stanley consider it?

He might. The main benefit is that it frees Jack as a field unit. This is at a cost of a lower quality table. Stanley may not see the benefit of allowing Parson handle tactical decisions as a benefit. Alternatively, he might instantly order the table reformed without giving it much thought, if they capture/pop a lookamancer.

On aircraft carriers, they apparently have a table like what you suggest. The theory is that if electricity is lost, a computer based table would not function. (I am not sure if it is just a backup though).

Also, Ansom created a table just like that before the donut of doom attack. They used Vinny's bats as scouts and then had markers to represent the different numbers of dwagons. Also, they showed the coalition column of troops. However, their lack of lookamancer meant that they didn't have many hexes to fill in.

In any case, they probably won't find a lookamancer very soon. Unless the other sides are crazy, they won't have moved casters up to any of GK's lost cities, and even if they did will pull them from danger before GK gets a chance at capture. (Ofc, maybe they could capture a retreating caster through luck).

The trouble with this is that the other 'Mancers in the link-up are using their own juice to fulfill their own parts of the deal. The Thinkamancer is holding the thing together, the Foolamancer is creating the illusion of the table. So unless the available juice follows a non-linear law (e.g. available power follows a geometric, rather than arithmetic, progression wrt the number of 'mancers), the Lookamancer should be able to view just as many units as she would as part of an Eyemancer.

I think that a lookamancer might have 2 spells types. There might be a scan hexes for units which just gives an empty/full report for many hexes. The caster then has to focus in on hexes to get a detailed report of what is happening there.

Speed isn't that important on your own turn as you can just wait for the lookamancer to describe everything before moving your units.

On the enemy's turn, it is all local tactics anyway, which is going to be weaker without the speed, as the in-hex warlord will have to make the decisions.

[raphfrk]

someone assumed casters pop as newb status. we have no relevant reason to believe that is the case. it seems caster level and combat level have little relevance to each other. it's entirely possible you pay for the difference in caster level with schmukers.
and gobwin knob has had quite a good treasury for quite some time.

Janis said that Sizemore leveled during the battle. He said that he never wants to level "like that" again.

It is likely that casters can level by other methods than just killing enemy units.

If not, then casters would level very slowly, since their abilities require them to stay out of battles.

Possibly, acting as a caster for a battle would allow them to level. A thinkamancer who conveyed commands would get exp if the battle is won, even if far from the actual battle.

my personal belief is you pop casters, the cast level is determined by the cost you'll pay, this explains maggie and sizemore having plaid eyes. the caster type is awarded seemingly at random. and there is hard limits to the number of mancers a city can host.

Maybe level 1 casters are next to useless, and it is very hard to level them up. A high level caster would then represent a huge amount of effort leveling them, and that is why they are rare.

GK had 5 mancers, dirt, think, look, croak, and fool. the look is dead. so technically GK..assuming it's level isn't a refernce point to supported mancer total may be able to order one new mancer.

If city level = number of casters, then most sides would have many more casters. Ofc, it could be level of your capital. That would mean that each side would be limited to 5 casters. (This might explain why Don King wants an ally rather than just capturing the Faq cities. An ally would be allowed 5 more casters.)

However, it might be something like 1 caster for every 5 city levels. This would mean that if GK had 10 cities at an average of level 2.5, then it would be allowed 5 casters. However, casters wouldn't de-pop if it dropped below the limit.

Also, Wanda and Jack were captured units, so it is unclear how they would fit in.

[Drissl]

May I ask a quick question? When has it become common knowledge in Erfworld that Jillian's a Royal and heir to Faq? I may be totally off my rocker, but I could of sworn she told no one but Ansom. Vinny was left in the dark, so how did Ceasar and Don King learn of it?

[raphfrk]

May I ask a quick question? When has it become common knowledge in Erfworld that Jillian's a Royal and heir to Faq? I may be totally off my rocker, but I could of sworn she told no one but Ansom. Vinny was left in the dark, so how did Ceasar and Don King learn of it?

Ansom told Vinny at some time before this page and he asks if Ansom really believes that she is a royal.

Also, everyone in the ambush would have known about Faq, though I guess she could have left out the detail about her being the Heir.

When Vinny is explaining it to Don King, he doesn't tell him about Jillian's connection. He just refers to her as "this barbarian chick".

Maybe, he didn't really believe, so wasn't going to tell Don King info he believed to be false. However, once he realised that she really was a Royal, he passed the info on.

[Bobby Archer]

Don King and Caesar would have been filled in on Jillian's Royalty and her relationship to Faq when they were planning the ambush for Stanley. After all, they had trouble believing that there was a capital side that close to them as it was. If Ansom hadn't told Don King who told him about the cities and how she knew, I doubt they would have gone along with it.

[SteveMB]

Don King and Caesar would have been filled in on Jillian's Royalty and her relationship to Faq when they were planning the ambush for Stanley. After all, they had trouble believing that there was a capital side that close to them as it was. If Ansom hadn't told Don King who told him about the cities and how she knew, I doubt they would have gone along with it.

Jillian tells Caesar that she's from Faq, but leaves out the fact that she's a royal. Apparently, the Transylvito group was given some but not all of what Jillian told Ansom.

The two possibilities are that Ansom broke his promise of confidentiality, or that he convinced Jillian that the expeditionary force had a need to know at least some of the story. The latter strikes me as more likely -- the former seems out of character for Ansom, and the latter fits with Jillian being willing to discuss the matter wtih Caesar.

[Arkenputtyknife]

From a caster perspective, the only real cost is the loss of a foolamancer (though he could still probably cloak GK itself while linked). Both the thinkamancer and the lookamaner operate at full effectiveness, since they are inherently long-range casters. Being locked in the capital doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

I don't buy that. It's not that they're locked in the capital, but that they're in the chain, and we've seen that once in the chain, it's extremely dangerous to treat them as individuals. So by forming the link-up, you've effectively lost all three 'mancers in terms of their individual powers.

Also, you get to create the eyebooks and presumably other abilities that aren't available without the link.

Oh, yes. No one's claiming that there aren't enormous benefits to the link-up. But I'm still not convinced that it's worth the cost.

It depends a lot on perspective. Ruthless Parson surely has different attitudes to this than normal Parson.

On aircraft carriers, they apparently have a table like what you suggest. The theory is that if electricity is lost, a computer based table would not function. (I am not sure if it is just a backup though).

It's an old idea. You can see it in some WW2 movies, such as (if I remember correctly) Sink the Bismarck!, in which such a table was shown in the British Admiralty's war room. It's a long time since I've seen that movie, so I may be remembering incorrectly, but such tables were a feature of many movies of that kind. I have no reason to believe that they were not based on reality.

On a more humorous level, there was a similar thing in the 1967 Bond spoof, Casino Royale, except they used a slot car race track to track their exploding milk float.

Also, Ansom created a table just like that before the donut of doom attack. They used Vinny's bats as scouts and then had markers to represent the different numbers of dwagons. Also, they showed the coalition column of troops. However, their lack of lookamancer meant that they didn't have many hexes to fill in.

Aha! Jackpot. So something like it has been tried. I'd forgotten about that. Thank you.

Now I have to remember why I raised this subject in the first place…

[raphfrk]

I don't buy that. It's not that they're locked in the capital, but that they're in the chain, and we've seen that once in the chain, it's extremely dangerous to treat them as individuals. So by forming the link-up, you've effectively lost all three 'mancers in terms of their individual powers.

You have lost the foolamancer.

However, what individual skills do the lookamancer and the thinkamancer have that you can't access?

The thinkamancer can still handle thinkamancy spells as part of command and control. Stanley received reports via thinkamancy from the table after the battle between Webinar and the Spidew scouting force.

It is possible that the thinkamancer cannot cast individual versions of the spells and the only reason that was possible was that it counted as part of the C&C system.

Also, lookamancers might have abilities other than ranged vision.

It depends a lot on perspective. Ruthless Parson surely has different attitudes to this than normal Parson.

OK, it depends on what you count as costs .

"Personal" costs to the casters aren't strategically important, but would likely be important to Parson.

Also, the risk of killing a caster should also go on the costs side. However, it looks like as long as you don't say one of the casters' names, then most of the risk is when the link is broken.

Also, Ansom created a table just like that before the donut of doom attack.

Aha! Jackpot. So something like it has been tried. I'd forgotten about that. Thank you.

Glad to help .

[Arkenputtyknife]

You have lost the foolamancer.

However, what individual skills do the lookamancer and the thinkamancer have that you can't access?

All of them.

How many times did Maggie use her Thinkamancy to send or receive an individual message while she was part of the link-up? When did she use a spell to heal someone's mind, as she did (if I recall correctly) to Parson, after she was unlinked?

How many illusions, which did not depend on the link, did Jack create while he was linked? How many units did he veil? That man could veil an entire city. He could certainly have set up something to confuse GK's approaching attackers. Why didn't he? Because he was linked, perhaps?

Of course, the fact that we didn't see any such things doesn't mean they couldn't have happened. But I'm willing to bet that asking Maggie to send a Thinkagram while she was linked would have had the same effect as Parson's talking to Misty. Ditto asking Jack to cast a veil.

Anything that involves the 'mancer acting on their own, without interacting with the rest of the link, is hazardous.

The thinkamancer can still handle thinkamancy spells as part of command and control. Stanley received reports via thinkamancy from the table after the battle between Webinar and the Spidew scouting force.

The key phrase here is ‘as part of’. It's the individual stuff, that isn't part of the link-up, that gets hosed—because to use those, you have to treat Maggie as an individual, and that's a no-no. As far as we know, while she was linked, Stanley never used Maggie to send or receive individual thinkagrams, cast mental healing spells, or do whatever other good things Thinkamancers can normally do.

Stanley received reports via thinkamancy from the table

The key phrase being ‘from the table’. He didn't get it directly from Maggie.

Also, lookamancers might have abilities other than ranged vision.

Quite likely. Which they wouldn't be able to use on an individual basis while linked. Or rather, they could, since we saw that Misty could still act as an individual, but asking them to do so would be very unwise.

However, it looks like as long as you don't say one of the casters' names, then most of the risk is when the link is broken.

Um, what? Wanda laid into Parson because he treated her as an individual, not because he called her by name. The business with the names only came about as a desperate measure to break Jack's insanity after the link was broken.

Hmm—I don't really have a lot else to say in this discussion, but if it goes on much longer, we should probably start its own thread. It doesn't have much relevance to the current update.