She could have simply disbanded the units via thinking about it. As Stanley has threatened to do many times. Furthermore she presumably had archers which can fire over hexes off turn. BTW, she had a hat. And gems.
Furthermore we commonly see payments to other sides with out any sort of gem movement. Now its possible that this could not be done in this case, but the gems could have been sent to TV.
I'm not sure what the mention of archers is supposed to bring to the discussion. Good catch on the hat and gems, but the update where the gems are mentioned says she used them promoting units, so they were not available to send to Jetstone or TV.
Could she have simply disbanded all of the garrison to save the expense? Perhaps. I'm not really sure. The rules are rather vague, even though they seem to be clear. No leader has disbanded a unit in the entire comic run, although many have spoken of it. Bea claims she almost disbanded a unit just for bringing her news she didn't want to hear. Stanley threatened to disband Wanda, Parson, or Sizemore if he saw them again before Stanley fled GK. The whole TV Don/Caesar/Ben circle, but no one has been disbanded. And there seems to be a royal sense of honor involved with Bea. She's willing to promote and send out of the city units to just depop, but perhaps not simply disband them and save gems to send to some other side. No matter how friendly the leaders may be, there must always remain some amount of tension between sides. The mechanics of Erfworld ensure it.
Lamech wrote:She fails compared to Stanley because suicide was her best option.
She was in an unwinnable situation and chose mass suicide as the way to avoid a horrible fate. You can claim that her decisions up to this point indicated a failure of leadership, that she should have maintained a stronger side, perhaps not participated in the RCC expedition, whatever. That is true, as the leader she is responsible for her kingdom, but it's not relevant to her decision to mass suicide.
Bea had a high degree of revulsion concerning the "uncroaked called decrypted", which seems to be shared by most royal sides. Dying and a mass suicide rather than allowing your subjects to be perverted into a horrible unholy state is tough but understandable call. It is a leadership call. Looking at it from the outside, as someone who is merely reading the story, it is too easy to say that alliance with the unholy is a perfectly valid option. But you're not putting yourself in Bea's shoes and trying to understand her from her point of view. You haven't been given a report that your dead daughter is uncroaked and working for the enemy. You haven't seen your dead daughter, spoken with her. And witnessed the horrifying likeness of the thing in front of you to your dead daughter along with the radical change in values even though the memories and experiences remain the same.
Stanley fled due to a failure of his leadership. He suffered one reverse and decided that his leadership cadre had either betrayed him or failed him utterly, and that it was time to run.*
oslecamo2_temp wrote:So, would you rather fight for the dude with the hammer that lets you to stand on your own feet and prove your worth, or the queen that orders you all to take cyanid pills?
I answered all of your other points in the response above. So I'll just take this final question here.
You're asking the wrong question. Taken out of context, you've set up a straw poll which if answered in the natural way will give you the result you want to arrive at.You should instead ask:
"Would you rather: Fight for the side with the arkenpliers attuned to a croakamancer (the "witch" who creates uncroaked "abominations") who will raise your fallen countrymen and convert and pervert them into horrifying and twisted versions of themselves who have all the memories and experiences of their former lives, but have their values and beliefs utterly perverted into the worship of that croakamancer. Or would you rather die, and thereby preserve your religious beliefs, your values, your morals, and prevent the perversion of your corpses by the enemy?"
Once the correct question is asked, the one which truly represents the choice Bea felt she was facing, her decision becomes more easily understood.*There is also the fact that the story required him to leave GK. Parson would never have been free to pull out the string of desperate last stands, and thereby both demonstrate his competence as a leader, and also suffer the consequences that all wartime leader suffer of knowing that your decisions and your plans are sending people to die regardless of whether you win, lose, or draw. This would never have happened unless Stanley was gone or otherwise (Maggie's suggestion spell) unable to second guess and therefore ruin Parson's plans. But I'll keep the meta out of the discussion going forward.