oslecamo2_temp wrote:Ok, now get out of Bland's imaginary world and go read the comic.
You see that side called Gobwin Knob?
The one where Hamster, chief warlord of Gobwin Knob didn't even blink when they lost half their airforce, and actualy wanted to press the attack?
The one where Stanley sacrificed a lookmancer to get a foolmancer to cover his retreat?
The one where Hamster throws everything he has at the RC meatgrinder whitout hesitation and then blows up their only city?
The one where Hamster then orders his troops to start butchering each other to perform an air assault, including risking two more mancers, when they could've tried diplomacy?
Well, that side, Gobwin Knob in case you forgot the name, the one who's being making sacrifices like crazy at every oportunity, it's the most sucessful one so far.
Enemies can't get you in future turns if they've been killed by your sacrificed units.
There is a reason I tried to emphasize the situational dependent part by capitalizing heavy
. GW was in a very different situation those times from where Jetstone is now. Lets go through them then.
First, for all the book one examples: when confronted by an overwhelming force like that, with only one city, the %chance of protecting your side is never very high. Parson managed to (according to the bracer) raise the odds to something above 50% on holding the city for a turn (forget the exact number and time sequence), and this was considered a miracle. So bear in mind, we are not talking about sacrifices that gained 1-2% of protection; each one probably was a 20-30% extra. But by each:
1) Losing the airforce: Parson had set it up so he would have two options on his turn. Either the enemy had found the wounded dragons, and he should be able to kill their leadership, or they had not found the dragons and he might both get the leadership and get the enemy siege. As waiting for the enemy to get to the city before striking was almost certainly a loss, the sacrifice increased long term survivability of the side. 40% of the enemy siege and their leadership for your air force is by no means a bad trade.
2)If Jack had been functioning, as Stanely expected, then having him along dramatically increases his survivability. He also probably planned on veiling his newly established capital when the time came. Misty, on the other hand, had no immediate use; but i do want to point out: the reason they had to capture Ossomer at the beginning of book two was that they lacked their table, and needed to rely on the old-fashioned scouting. They nearly fell into a trap because of it. So this is a good example of how a short term good sacrifice can make life harder long term. In this case, I would say it was worth it because you didn't know misty would die for sure.
3)Stanely's fate was unconnected to their own. Also, what happened to those units if Parson did nothing? they died. Burning through units that are doomed no matter your actions is not sacrificing them; its the inevitable occurring. At every step, he tried to minimize losses, so as to make it more likely he could live through the next engagement, but there are going to be losses. When fighting an overwhelming force, there are going to be overwhelming losses.
4)Wanda represents thousands of units. There was no diplomatic option that led to her being back in Jetstone hands; also, Parson had no idea that the negotiation offer would be in good faith. Remember we knew the diplomat son was in charge, but Parson did not. But Parson used a plan that assumed those units were dead already. Since they were doomed unless he took action, you take an action that is incredibly risky (there was a near 50% chance of losing Wanda to the fall). YOu increase the expected value, but only because the value of those troops if you did nothing was pretty much 0.
Trying to interpret this as an argument against making sacrifices is completely missing the point. What it is is pointing out that there is a balance between the long-term value of a unit and the short term value. The short term value can overwhelm that long term value, making the sacrifice worth it. Losing Misty is likely an example of this. But if Cubbins just gained 1-2% survival odds for the king this way, its almost certainly a bad move. Its about the math, not an imaginary world
. And GK is winning because they are doing that math, and making the good calls.