Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 028

[Whispri]

Citation, please. I know of no reference to Units being able to carry schmuckers. Only Warlords, and then only when they're working with the treasury.

Not schmuckers, coins. They can't be converted into schmuckers directly, but metal's metal and has it's uses. And it's worth.

[Kreistor]

Citation, please. I know of no reference to Units being able to carry schmuckers. Only Warlords, and then only when they're working with the treasury.

Not schmuckers, coins. They can't be converted into schmuckers directly, but metal's metal and has it's uses. And it's worth.

Upkeep is paid in Schmuckers from the treasury. There is no detectable economy outside the MK, and no references to dicing or other forms of interaction that require money in any form, especially not a form that can be converted to schmuckers or provisions. Even their equipment is useless, because equipment automatically repairs making replacement gear unnecessary.

[Lamech]

I think you are making a faulty assumption here: Namely that popping units (from a city) costs something.

I would be dumbfounded if popping units cost nothing, when we know that popping heirs does.

Do we now? Where? Here are the references to popping a heir that I recall.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -10-27.png Only talks of the extra turns allotted
http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2 ... ration.png Again only talk of 60 turns allotted.
There was a third reference (Translovito's heir) but that mentions not the cost.

Excellent! Now if only we had evidence that city sites occur in clumps, then my favourite explanation for certain features of Erfworld will have legs.

The closest thing we have to that is "desert wastes" Presumably that area is city free, which would imply some areas are free of cities, although we don't know if that actually makes clumps or not.

[kiyote]

Citation, please. I know of no reference to Units being able to carry schmuckers. Only Warlords, and then only when they're working with the treasury.

Not schmuckers, coins. They can't be converted into schmuckers directly, but metal's metal and has it's uses. And it's worth.

Upkeep is paid in Schmuckers from the treasury. There is no detectable economy outside the MK, and no references to dicing or other forms of interaction that require money in any form, especially not a form that can be converted to schmuckers or provisions. Even their equipment is useless, because equipment automatically repairs making replacement gear unnecessary.

There are actually two references to economies outside of the MK, though neither of them are nearly as developed, and probably very local. The first is in http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F028.jpg. There is mention of soldiers betting coins on Bogroll's gullibility. The second, more descriptive, is here: http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2011-02-27.png. King Slately mentions that coins are used as a currency for small items and favors amongst troops, but aren't worth any real shmuckers. If you could find somebody selling them, you can certainly use coins to buy provisions. What you can't use them for is to pay an upkeep, which means rations won't pop, so you would have to rely solely on provisions to keep from disbanding.

[Kreistor]

Do we now? Where? Here are the references to popping a heir that I recall.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -10-27.png Only talks of the extra turns allotted
http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2 ... ration.png Again only talk of 60 turns allotted.
There was a third reference (Translovito's heir) but that mentions not the cost.

Okay, I'm dumbfounded. I know what I read and misinterpreted to get to that conclusion.

"Vanna had been the perfect solution. Having a Turnamancer reduced the production of an heir by twenty turns, and with funds coming in from Transylvito, Vanna was able to boost Otoh and Kibo's production drastically."

I guess the first time I interpreted the money coming from Transylvito as funding the Heir, as well as Vanna.

[Rizban]

I still think the best option for attacking an enemy employing an eggshell defense would be to pierce the outer defense as mentioned then attack the weakly defended level 1s as Kreistor mentioned would be the only real option.

Actually, that was others. I never presented a strategy for actually defeating Haffaton. I've never really thought how I'd defeat it.

Look back to this:

I'd also have a secondary force that was heavier and slower. Say it takes five to six turns to cross the band. I'd send the secondary force in first.

Yeah, you're forgetting that this is asymmetric warfare, and I AM MUCH BIGGER THAN YOU. You just emptied your cities, started a war, and I'm taking your cities. I don't need to fight your armies, if you have no Capital. And I am MASSIVE. You aren't. I have MANY Capital sites. You get near the current one, I move it. I concentrate on wrecking your Siege, and you're nothing. Unlike GK, I have the capacity to replace losses. I CAN do the dwagon trick (albeit with gwiffons or some other unit), and leave you 6 Turns inside my territory with no capacity to harm anything but a Level 1 city. You can't replace losses.

I was referring to that earlier post and extrapolating to Haffaton.

I hope you don't mind if I reorder a few of your responses to group them in a more logical way for response.

You don't need siege or other slow units to trudge through the outer defenses.

Which is why I proposed razing 1's and 2's. The enemy has to face superior defenses for your low troop count.

But attacking 1's hurts Haffaton the least. You're destroying only 1 city level which was producing very diminished revenue.

A highly mobile force of heavy fliers, like megalogwiffs, could use the tactic that Housellama suggested very effectively.

Provide a sufficient force to be successful, and you can really mess up your enemy and give yourself a hefty boost in the process.

While you can easily make a profit, you won't mess up the enemy. You're doing the least damage by attacking Lvel 1's.

I strongly disagree with that. If they're struggling to maintain their production to support their units, which is what is implied, then any lost cities can be devastating. Especially if using tactics like this. Granted, that text update is against Gobwin Knob rather than Haffaton, but I'm sure you get the point. You find easy targets, take them out, capture and turn if possible, and otherwise take any cities possible.

You may not be doing major damage, but anything that destabilizes your opponent's infrastructure when they're already close to their limit will really hurt them. Another option would be to capture the city, shackle the surviving enemies, raze the city, then leave the site the prisoners there or in the next hex and release them. That way your target is still having to pay the upkeep for the units of that city, but they're down one city's worth of income.

Not everyone seems to have access to such forces, or at the least they don't produce them in large numbers. I suspect they're expensive, so difficult to fund. But you will face the problem of Tower defenses, and see your force erode.

Better yet, send two highly mobile forces in together and have them strike out in opposite directions once inside and coordinate with an ally to do the same from the enemy's other front.

I doubt one Small Side could afford two such airborne forces, but finding Allies against the massive Side will be absolutely necessary.

Well, obviously you wouldn't be attempting this particular tactic if your side wasn't capable of it or lacked heavy air units like dwagons or megas. Then paradigm was that you do have applicable units and can use them. If you don't have such units, then you'll obviously have to come up with different tactics. So, I think that, for the sake of this discussion, we can agree that the hypothetical side does indeed have access to such units.

make them scramble for a couple of turns as they devote resources to stopping the strike forces to prevent further losses before they can mount a retaliation against you.

Like I said, I'll threaten your cities instead. Capital falls, you disband.

Like Charlie did to Sammy? Yes, that works, in theory. You mount up your armies, deplete your own defenses, and spend several turns marching to my capital. In the meantime, I'll keep taking your cities and messing up your economy as much as possible. I might even send a small force with instructions to avoid engagements with your troops altogether and focus on razing farms and mines exclusively. By the time your army reaches my capital, you'll be struggling to finance the upkeep on your defenders, let alone your invading force. True, you could always just disband units elsewhere to make sure you take my capital, but then you're caught with your pants down when the other sides see how weak you're leaving your flanks in your effort to eradicate me me. Sure, you might kill my capital, but you'll very likely lose your side too after I'm done messing you up. I'm okay with that.

preventing them from using Kreistor's suggestion of massive troop popping to rush to the defense in the trouble spots.

I never made such a suggestion. What I said was that you will probably destroy more units in Upkeep than revenue from lost city levels, which means I have revenue space to pop troops again, so you'll be facing ever stronger defenses. Further, they'll be tailored to fight your specific units, instead of being general defensive types.

Someone suggested it. I had believed it was in one of your posts. Still, I believe that I addressed this in part above.

In fact, such a strategy would probably be key to defeating a side the size of Haffaton.

No. In this case, the microscopic contribution of the Level 1 cities you're destroying is not going to hurt the large Side as much as you contend.

And you seem to think it would have no effect whatsoever. I would greatly like to play this out and see which opinion is correct.

Destabilize the economy enough to make things hard, forcing them to disband and redistribute troops

Which presumes no treasury. Revenue problems can be handled with a deep treasury that can buy the time to recover from the lost income, without suffering any permanent losses.

They would obviously have a treasury. If they deplete it in their defense, then what do you think will happen with the cultures swoop in during the immediately following turns?

a couple of heirs

You can't have more than one heir, and so far, I don't think you've created a severe revenue issue. Every city you destroy can be retaken cheaply because you're not leaving forces behind to defend them.

Where is it stated that you cannot have more than one heir? I believed that Ansom and Ossomer both were popped as heirs. I'd like to see a quote limiting the number of heirs.

And that's all really rambling, but it's 2AM, and I'm still a little hazy from all the champagne at the wedding I attended earlier tonight.

How to defeat Haffaton:

1) You need an Alliance with as many Sides as possible. Critical for this may be Charlie, who has contact with everyone. Use him to find Sides on the far end of Haffaton to coordinate.

2) Attack as many Cities simultaneously as possible. Attacking 4's and 5's will take large numbers. Focus on 2's and 3's. By attacking from multiple directions, Haffaton has two poor choices: defend many places with middling defenses, or a few places with large.
2a) When you see large defenses, retreat from the attack.
2b) Where defenses are thin exploit.

3) Do not penetrate deep. Surgical strikes only. Your attackers are also your defenders, so if you let them go too far, your Side is made vulnerable.Strike and retreat.

4) Fight in the field, wherever possible. In cities, you have to attack defensive bonuses. Draw the enemy out into the field and you're not trying to overcome castle walls, even if you wind up losing more units than you kill.

5) Be unpredictable. Change tactics. Change army make-up. Don't let the enemy predict where you're attacking next.

5) Fight. Everywhere, fight. Turn the battle into a war of attrition. Haffaton's weakness is it have a smaller revenue stream than multiple small size. To make that work for you, you need to make Haffaton recruit constantly, so that you eat through its treasury, and make that revnue stream matter.

Attrition is the way to defeat Haffaton.

Isn't that basically what I was saying above? Yes, I believe it is. Still, I believe that a single smaller side should be able to do enough serious damage to a larger side as to destabilize them using appropriate tactics. That smaller side may not "win" in the end, but they can do more than enough damage to open up the bigger side to other enemies.

The times I've found myself in a losing position in a strategy game based on resources or economy factors, I've used very similar tactics very effectively. In several of those situations, they've tried the capital assault response you suggest. It usually leaves their rear open to attack as their other enemies see their territory as easy prey while their attention is diverted. I may also end up depleted, but I usually survive their response as they back peddle to prevent themselves being overrun.

Now, if you want a real world example of using speed, brutality, and strong communication lines to maximum effect, you have only to look to the Mongols.

[Kreistor]

I was referring to that earlier post and extrapolating to Haffaton.

No, you can't take a theory about Haffaton defending itself against invasion and twist that into me attacking Haffaton. THere is no parallel to extrapolate it along.

I strongly disagree with that. If they're struggling to maintain their production to support their units, which is what is implied, then any lost cities can be devastating. Especially if using tactics like this

1. We don't KNOW that they are struggling. Jillian thinks they should be.
2. As I said, destroying Revenue does not inherently create a problem. If you destroy more expenses than revenue, you free up revenue. For instance, if City Level 75 gives 1 Schmucker per day, but it is defended by units with 200 schmuckers per day upkeep, then 199 Schmuckers per day just got freed up for new units.

You may not be doing major damage, but anything that destabilizes your opponent's infrastructure when they're already close to their limit will really hurt them.

Very false. Note the example above.

That way your target is still having to pay the upkeep for the units of that city, but they're down one city's worth of income.

Not sure the game mechanics are going to work out for you that next morning when Upkeep is paid. They become pristine again, which may mean unbound and with weapons in hand. "Captured" may have a very strict definition.

Well, obviously you wouldn't be attempting this particular tactic if your side wasn't capable of it or lacked heavy air units like dwagons or megas.

*shrug* You think that way. Housellama doesn't always, I've noticed. He does trivialize some things when discussing his strategies.

make them scramble for a couple of turns as they devote resources to stopping the strike forces to prevent further losses before they can mount a retaliation against you.

Like Charlie did to Sammy? Yes, that works, in theory. You mount up your armies, deplete your own defenses, and spend several turns marching to my capital.

Ah, but I don't need those defenses at my border, do I? Your army is 4 turns into my territory when I start marching. Are you going to delay on your race back to take those weakened cities, knowing that any delay may increase your chance of disbanding?

But no, I *WILL* destroy your Capital. You get the chance to Turn just before it ends. That's the only deal you'll get, and there won't be negotiation.

In the meantime, I'll keep taking your cities and messing up your economy as much as possible.

Then you disband. Bye-bye. The Diminishing returns Jillian mentions ensures that you are only damaging the Cities that provide the least income, you're destroying upkeep at the same time, which may be much larger than the revenue, and I can retake those cities without a fight a few days later... with your Capital's treasury.

I might even send a small force with instructions to avoid engagements with your troops altogether and focus on razing farms and mines exclusively.

Yeah, you're not getting to those. You'd have to get a lot deeper to find them. I'm not stupid... the further they are from the enemy, then the less likely they are to be harmed.

By the time your army reaches my capital, you'll be struggling to finance the upkeep on your defenders

Somehow you can get to 20 cities by the time I can get to one? Don't be absurd. That's pure wishful thinking. And dont' forget that while I race for your Capital, you may be losing cities of your own along the way... and for a smaller side that isn't deep past the limit like Haffaton, you're losing a lot more schmuckers per day. How much more depends on the specifics of the equation, but if you're Gk with it's 14 city max, and I've got 50, each city level you lose is 3x as important as one I lose.

True, you could always just disband units elsewhere

You just don't get it. You're destroying units for me, and the equation probably gives them upkeep than the revenue you're destroying. In that case, I do NOT need to disband one unit, since I am adding money to my treasury next turn, not draining it.

but then you're caught with your pants down when the other sides see how weak you're leaving your flanks in your effort to eradicate me me.

Didn't need to drain flanks. I drained the border directly in contact with YOU. Further, you were the aggressor, so they are not going to fear me defending myself. And guess what? I have something to offer... a bunch of neutral cities to divvy up. Sure, they could attack me, or they could see my point of view and take the nearly free cities I can offer them.

Someone suggested it. I had believed it was in one of your posts. Still, I believe that I addressed this in part above.

That should have been an "I'm sorry", not a "It doesn't matter than I lied about what you said."

And you seem to think it would have no effect whatsoever.

No, I'm saying it could well have a positive effect on my treasury. I have mathematically demonstrated that it could.

They would obviously have a treasury. If they deplete it in their defense, then what do you think will happen with the cultures swoop in during the immediately following turns?

GK's treasury was 500000. How much damage would you have to do to burn through that? And that was the result of having only 14 cities.

Where is it stated that you cannot have more than one heir? I believed that Ansom and Ossomer both were popped as heirs. I'd like to see a quote limiting the number of heirs.

I'm sorry, I believe you are making a large assumption there. Ossomer was never named an Heir, only Chief Warlord. You might want to look into that example.

How to defeat Haffaton:

1) You need an Alliance with as many Sides as possible. Critical for this may be Charlie, who has contact with everyone. Use him to find Sides on the far end of Haffaton to coordinate.

2) Attack as many Cities simultaneously as possible. Attacking 4's and 5's will take large numbers. Focus on 2's and 3's. By attacking from multiple directions, Haffaton has two poor choices: defend many places with middling defenses, or a few places with large.
2a) When you see large defenses, retreat from the attack.
2b) Where defenses are thin exploit.

3) Do not penetrate deep. Surgical strikes only. Your attackers are also your defenders, so if you let them go too far, your Side is made vulnerable.Strike and retreat.

4) Fight in the field, wherever possible. In cities, you have to attack defensive bonuses. Draw the enemy out into the field and you're not trying to overcome castle walls, even if you wind up losing more units than you kill.

5) Be unpredictable. Change tactics. Change army make-up. Don't let the enemy predict where you're attacking next.

5) Fight. Everywhere, fight. Turn the battle into a war of attrition. Haffaton's weakness is it have a smaller revenue stream than multiple small size. To make that work for you, you need to make Haffaton recruit constantly, so that you eat through its treasury, and make that revnue stream matter.

Attrition is the way to defeat Haffaton.

Isn't that basically what I was saying above? Yes, I believe it is.

I still think the best option for attacking an enemy employing an eggshell defense would be to pierce the outer defense as mentioned then attack the weakly defended level 1s

It is nothing like your suggestion.

1) You're attacking level 1's. I'm attacking 2's and 3's. (I suspect 4's and 5's take multiple-Side combined forces.)
2) You're exploiting behind the band. I'm attacking the band. This keeps me close to attack any attempts to attack my cities.
3) You're stuck with one static force with no access to reinforcements. I can quickly reinforce because I'm on my own border without worries they'll get intercepted by Haffaton's forces, where your small reinforcement attempts will have to bypass the entire band to get to you. Haffaton may let your large force through, but they'll stomp small reinforcement armies.
4) You're attacking alone trying to do it all yourself. I'm attacking with others across a wide front to maximize the effectiveness of our revenue stream.

[Dark Exodus]

cool update!

[Lamech]

Do we now? Where? Here are the references to popping a heir that I recall.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -10-27.png Only talks of the extra turns allotted
http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2 ... ration.png Again only talk of 60 turns allotted.
There was a third reference (Translovito's heir) but that mentions not the cost.

Okay, I'm dumbfounded. I know what I read and misinterpreted to get to that conclusion.

"Vanna had been the perfect solution. Having a Turnamancer reduced the production of an heir by twenty turns, and with funds coming in from Transylvito, Vanna was able to boost Otoh and Kibo's production drastically."

I guess the first time I interpreted the money coming from Transylvito as funding the Heir, as well as Vanna.

Well that certainly isn't a reference to a popping a heir costing money so I guess I win the nitpick war. OTOH, it certainly sounds like Vanna is using funds to boost production and since turnamancers just make cities pop faster it appears that some units do cost money. In fact the very next line of what you quoted "Don King was very happy, though he would not be if he ever found out it was Charlie who had funded Vanna's contract." would mean that the Don King is NOT paying Vanna, but the funds from Translovito are being used by Vanna to boost production. So therefore it seems that popping units (or maybe just some units) costs money.
(I suppose technically it could be that Charlie paid Vanna's long term contract and then Vanna got a side job boosting production even further.)

So therefore while I have won the nitpick battle it appears I have lost the overarching point. It seems very likely units do cost shmuckers to pop.

[Kreistor]

I tink you're close with that. It looks like schmuckers can increase productivity, but the base cost is zero. So, you get a certain production for free, but you can increase production with schmuckers.

That hurts the sides attacking Haffaton. If schmuckers isn't necessary for base production, the sheer number of cities each producing at base can match a smaller number of cities producing with schmuckers assistance. If, say, Schmuckers can increase production up to +300% (4x normal rates), then if Haffaton has 4x the number of cities, Haffaton produces units at the same rate with 0 schmucker cost. Spend Schmuckers, and production is that much faster.

But that leads to a different strategy to the one Hafaton uses, specifically, the way to use that is to simply fight as much as possible and outproduce the enemy (the American style in WW2). Taking a peaceful approach would leave much of that production sitting unused, because you're hovering around the Revenue-Upkeep=0 mark.