Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 029

[Kreistor]

You- Lots of stuff

Me - Rephrasing other peoples words is selfish and disingenuous. You are repeating only your perception of what happened in the way you interpret what happened. I cannot control your interpretation, and will not defend your interpretation. Again, you can say whatever you want about what you think I said, but that does not actually say anything about my intent. And, since you can spin everything to your own advantage, all of that is wholly and utterly irrelevant. It's just a complex Strawman.

I hadn't read the klog before the post you mentioned the klog in, because it hadn't been mentioned before.

I don't do this often, but...

WTF!

Okay, you and I are DONE. Nothing you say is relevant until YOU HAVE READ THE ENTIRE COMIC. I am NOT wasting my existence rewriting what ROB already WROTE because YOU are too busy to read the comic! I am not here to TEACH you.

You've got a lot of catching up to do.

[drachefly]

... Thank you for being done, anyway.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Halleluiah. It's obvious we need another update if, in a world supposedly populated by colourful interesting characters and animated by lofty hefty themes, we have mere scout-n-siege mechanics to pick apart.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Halleluiah. It's obvious we need another update if, in a world supposedly populated by colourful interesting characters ...

Really? Where? Because last time I checked, Erfworld is populated mostly by almost mindless drones that see no other purpose in life than taking orders, kill, and be killed.

I read Erfworld because it's a world that works like a massive board game and the dark humor (and the cameos from other medias and art don't hurt either).

So yes, figuring out which rules Erfworld works by is (and has always been) the main topic of dicussion around here. Wanda is a manipulative bitch, royals will be royals, Jillian has always been a mercenary bitch, Hamster keeps leading troops into war because he can't feel motivated with anything else, Jack keeps messing with people's minds for the lulz, nothing more to dicuss about that really. When a new update comes out, what really captivates people is the glimpses at the mechanics of Erfworld, the characters being themselves is a nice extra, but nothing new when you think about it.

[DevilDan]

Did the prequel end and I didn't know it? (Not trying to be a jerk about it, but are there any news I missed?)

[BLANDCorporatio]

Well at least this is different.

Halleluiah. It's obvious we need another update if, in a world supposedly populated by colourful interesting characters ...

Really? Where? Because last time I checked, Erfworld is populated mostly by almost mindless drones that see no other purpose in life than taking orders, kill, and be killed.

Wow. So many ways to respond to that. In this post, I'll restrict them to answers that assume from the start that what you say is correct.

If what you say is true, then the claims of many here that they read Erfworld for the story, writing, characters, will be wrong, and in something so relatively subjective as aesthetic appreciation, argument from popularity has a slightly better weight than usual. If Erfworld is merely a massive board game, and all else like character and plot is secondary, then "Erf's not a game but a story" is suspect, and Erfworld is then merely a drawn out commercial for the trading card/video-game.

If Erfworld were a board game, it would also be an incredibly poorly designed one. The mere fact that years into the presentation, rather than clearly and confidently being able to extrapolate behaviour in new circumstances, we consistently revert to blank slates filled with assumptions and/or bickering arguments on minutiae speak of either a system that is byzantine beyond practicality, or the presentation of which has not been the main focus. Whereas, if Erfworld were a board game, I would expect us to be able to conduct reasoned, quantified discussions on best strategies the way it is possible to discuss any game from chess to poker.

Finally, and this of course is purely subjective and your mileage may vary, if yours were my reasons for reading Erfworld, I wouldn't read Erfworld.

Did the prequel end and I didn't know it? (Not trying to be a jerk about it, but are there any news I missed?)

Kickstarter updates reveal that work is done on side-things like merch, Book 2 will continue on June the 6th, and things are powering along behind the scenes. News as usual. Carry on.

[konmanrocks]

i dont know about the rest of you, but i love these text updates just as much as the regular comic.

[Karadan]

Sorry, I misphrased that one statement Kreistor. I meant I had not gone back to RE-read that klog, because you presented no indication that I might to, until you accused me of not reading 'the klog that you posted', despite not having posted one. And if you'd like to find a flaw in my interpretation of your arguments, well, I'm sure you'll twist them as you accused me of. Only a third party would really be able to tell how accurate my review of our arguments were, though I find such reviews to be an important part of a debate. I know I purposefully left out parts from both of us, and indeed large swaths from you as you seem determined to respond to individual sentences, instead of full ideas, and thus allow your arguments to wander in fairly random directions at times.

But if you're done, that's fine. It is tiresome debating someone who is more interested in picking apart the wording and idea of individual sentences, without regard for their relation to others, especially when you revert back and forth between doing that, and simply not responding to any of the arguments that have been made. For example, your last post in which the only thing you do is overreact to one misspoken word, ignoring that I had talked about Duty and Obedience before you mentioned the klog, though perhaps not before you claim to have first mentioned the klog.

Anyway, we can put your little semantics issue of the word scout behind us and get back to the question that was at hand: Can a lone unit without siege or flying special take an unmanned city? Well, I don't know. I kind of think they would be able to since Erfworld's rules are so strongly based on computer/tabletop game rules, and you can generally take undefended cities without any real trouble in those sorts of games. Still, there isn't anything definet one way or the other, so it's really all conjecture unless someone can find a strong indication one way or the other in the comics.

@Bland - The problem with a comparison to discussing Erfworld and Chess, is that we know all the rules of Chess. Erfworld has rules, we just haven't learned them all yet. It's rather more like we're discussing Chess, but the only thing we know about chess so far is that pawns can move forward 2 squares on their first turn, 1 on other turns, and that knights move in an L pattern, but nothing else. We might conjecture by the positioning of certain pieces how other pieces move, and might really wonder how someone got two pawns in the same column since we haven't learned that pawns take units diagonally yet, but I think such discussions would be every bit as odd as the ones we're having about Erfworld. Well, maybe not quite as much, but it would certainly be lacking in reasoned, quantified discussions on best strategies.

@Konmanrocks - I agree. They aren't as flashy, but you get even more story out of a single page. Having attempted to write a novel in a short time before, I know how hard turning out things like these text updates is, and I commend Rob for doing such a good job of it, and am not really surprised that Kickstarter has sucked up his ability to keep a regular schedule with them. I do look forward to Wanda's and Jillian's first meeting though.

[Balerion]

I don't even understand why that is the question under discussion, as it seems completely academic to the issue of if cities need token garrisons. There are high mobility flying units which could take empty garrisons (and which we see used on scouting missions). Hence, you need garrisons to deal with them. I don't think we have found a side without flyers yet actually (maybe haggar, but we didn't get a complete unit listing from them).

As to the issue of ground non-siege against walls, I think we can be almost certain they can't get through. Remember that GK could only send out flyers and tunnel capable for a long time because they didn't have a gate, and their other units therefore couldn't get through the walls to deploy. This lets us know that climbing/scaling is impossible, though I guess it doesn't answer the kicking the walls down question (though I would challenge anyone to kick down a wall without tools in 24 hours ).

To oslecamo2_temp: I would agree that low upkeep units seem to be somewhat diminished to what we would expect of people. But there are plenty of units with leadership that give color to the world, and do have personalities etc. Even higher upkeep units seem to start developing personalities (maybe the more specials you have, the more of a real person you are?). Certainly enough that there is a real story

[Kreistor]

Sorry, I misphrased that one statement Kreistor.

Of course, you did; however, what you wrote clearly meant something other than your intent. You should be very careful when selfishly interpreting others' statements the way you have been, because you open the door for them to treat you the same way. If you are not willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, then you will not receive it.

I meant I had not gone back to RE-read that klog, because you presented no indication that I might to, until you accused me of not reading 'the klog that you posted', despite not having posted one.

For that Klog, I shouldn't have needed to. The Obedience, Duty, Loyalty Klog is one of the most important and most frequently debated. That one you NEED to know. And you need to recognize that most people do not open it to interpretation.

And if you'd like to find a flaw in my interpretation of your arguments, well, I'm sure you'll twist them as you accused me of.

I don't play that game, except when others use it against me first. I do give the benefit of the doubt.

Only a third party would really be able to tell how accurate my review of our arguments were, though I find such reviews to be an important part of a debate.

Since the debate is there to be read, it's just an exercise in Spin. Such efforts are attempts to control the direciton of the debate, NOT review. If you want to review, you can go back and re-read it, which means such re-presentations are just a debating tool trying to spin perception. That's why I only reject such attempts wholesale.

I know I purposefully left out parts from both of us, and indeed large swaths from you as you seem determined to respond to individual sentences, instead of full ideas, and thus allow your arguments to wander in fairly random directions at times.

Like this?

But if you're done, that's fine.It is tiresome debating someone who is more interested in picking apart the wording and idea of individual sentences, without regard for their relation to others, especially when you revert back and forth between doing that, and simply not responding to any of the arguments that have been made.

Except that is not what I do. I don't treat each sentence individually and I retain the context in my discussions. I have seen people that do what you claim, but it's not what I do. Are any of my above retorts out of context?

For example, your last post in which the only thing you do is overreact to one misspoken word, ignoring that I had talked about Duty and Obedience before you mentioned the klog, though perhaps not before you claim to have first mentioned the klog.

That timing is not obvious from the statement. Your unintended sentence lacks the required timing to place it in the history where you want it, and can mean that you had not read the Klog before the subject of Duty came up.

Anyway, we can put your little semantics issue of the word scout behind us and get back to the question that was at hand: Can a lone unit without siege or flying special take an unmanned city?

Again, that is *NOT* the question. The fundamental question came from oslecamo (Page 5 on my list):

-If you don't have any defenders in the city, a lone enemy scout can just waltz in and take it.

The unit being a Scout was specified.

I kind of think they would be able to since Erfworld's rules are so strongly based on computer/tabletop game rules, and you can generally take undefended cities without any real trouble in those sorts of games. Still, there isn't anything definet one way or the other, so it's really all conjecture unless someone can find a strong indication one way or the other in the comics.

Everyone's knowledge of computer games is different. Some games let Roman Legionaries destroy WW2 Tanks, so computer games can't be used as guides for Erfworld rules. Until Rob tells us which games inspired his rules (which will never happen), we can't assume that one game or another provided Rules. Lots of people have suggested rules inspiration from tabletop war games, but Rob has stated he has played few of those. You see similarity because it's a natural human trait to find pattern in things. That you find similarity means little, since you can't know if Rob even played the games you are thinking of.

[VariaVespasa]

The fact is that it is somehow unsustainable, and we have no Rule that tells us why it is unsustainable.

People keep saying that. Where, EXACTLY, are you getting that from?

[BLANDCorporatio]

@Bland - The problem with a comparison to discussing Erfworld and Chess, is that we know all the rules of Chess. Erfworld has rules, we just haven't learned them all yet.

No disagreement, obviously true. Where we may differ, is in that I view that as a conditional flaw (the condition being, "if Erfworld is to be considered as a strategy game").

To clarify, it's more a matter of nuance than black and white logical necessity. It's not "if we are to take Erfworld as a strategy game, the fact that years after it started we don't know all the basic rules speaks to its detriment". It's more like ... well, recently, there was a discussion on the comparative merits of shell defenses, with historical parallels. That was cool.

What we have now is

-If you don't have any defenders in the city, a lone enemy scout can just waltz in and take it.

a very simple statement, which unfortunately isn't obviously wrong nor right, hence the last two pages in the thread. We've gone from discussing some pretty high-concept strategy to arguing over something that Heroes of Might and Magic 4 would dispel with a pop-up like "You need a Hero to claim a city".

Hence, my conclusion that a new update is needed to refresh the wheat for the forum mill.

Further,

I don't even understand why that is the question under discussion, as it seems completely academic to the issue of if cities need token garrisons. There are high mobility flying units which could take empty garrisons (and which we see used on scouting missions).

with which I agree wholeheartedly. The theme of discussion is what it is (what I quoted from Kreistor's quote from oslecamo2_temp), it's just not rich in tactical implications.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Wow. So many ways to respond to that. In this post, I'll restrict them to answers that assume from the start that what you say is correct.

If what you say is true, then the claims of many here that they read Erfworld for the story, writing, characters, will be wrong, and in something so relatively subjective as aesthetic appreciation, argument from popularity has a slightly better weight than usual.

Citatation(s) needed. There's plenty of atempts to replicate erfworld simulations going in this forum, and rules discussions oovershadow everything else last time I checked.

If Erfworld is merely a massive board game, and all else like character and plot is secondary, then "Erf's not a game but a story" is suspect, and Erfworld is then merely a drawn out commercial for the trading card/video-game.

Far from impossible.

If Erfworld were a board game, it would also be an incredibly poorly designed one. The mere fact that years into the presentation, rather than clearly and confidently being able to extrapolate behaviour in new circumstances, we consistently revert to blank slates filled with assumptions and/or bickering arguments on minutiae speak of either a system that is byzantine beyond practicality, or the presentation of which has not been the main focus. Whereas, if Erfworld were a board game, I would expect us to be able to conduct reasoned, quantified discussions on best strategies the way it is possible to discuss any game from chess to poker.

See, that's precisely part of the charm of Erfworld! The author delivers the rules trickle by trickle, keeping us thirsting. The warlord-archer (whatever's her name, who cares?) battle against dwagons and GK's dwagons and warlords (don't remember their names, don't care as well)for example had little images and zero character development, but hell yeah it had a lot of insight about Erfworld's rules, and produced plenty of dicussions around them.

Finally, and this of course is purely subjective and your mileage may vary, if yours were my reasons for reading Erfworld, I wouldn't read Erfworld.

If that was really true, you wouldn't be here. You would be in one of those suposed threads were people are happily discussing the story and character's personalities-except there aren't any alive really. So much for that being popular!

@Bland - The problem with a comparison to discussing Erfworld and Chess, is that we know all the rules of Chess. Erfworld has rules, we just haven't learned them all yet.

No disagreement, obviously true. Where we may differ, is in that I view that as a conditional flaw (the condition being, "if Erfworld is to be considered as a strategy game").

To clarify, it's more a matter of nuance than black and white logical necessity. It's not "if we are to take Erfworld as a strategy game, the fact that years after it started we don't know all the basic rules speaks to its detriment". It's more like ... well, recently, there was a discussion on the comparative merits of shell defenses, with historical parallels. That was cool.

What we have now is

-If you don't have any defenders in the city, a lone enemy scout can just waltz in and take it.

a very simple statement, which unfortunately isn't obviously wrong nor right, hence the last two pages in the thread. We've gone from discussing some pretty high-concept strategy to arguing over something that Heroes of Might and Magic 4 would dispel with a pop-up like "You need a Hero to claim a city".

If the story had such pop-ups, the comic would lose a good part of its charm, many people would stop reading it, and the author couldn't rely on it as an income source anymore. Can't blame him for keeping the rules hidden, if that's what's needed to keep us hooked.

[BLANDCorporatio]

There's plenty of atempts to replicate erfworld simulations going in this forum, and rules discussions oovershadow everything else last time I checked.

{snip}

See, that's precisely part of the charm of Erfworld! The author delivers the rules trickle by trickle, keeping us thirsting. The warlord-archer (whatever's her name, who cares?) battle against dwagons and GK's dwagons and warlords (don't remember their names, don't care as well)for example had little images and zero character development, but hell yeah it had a lot of insight about Erfworld's rules, and produced plenty of dicussions around them.

{snip}

If that was really true, you wouldn't be here. You would be in one of those suposed threads were people are happily discussing the story and character's personalities-except there aren't any alive really. So much for that being popular!

Still in "let's pretend that's true" mode, you write those things as if they were indicative of a healthily paced story with a thriving community picking interesting things apart.

They aren't. We're, or rather you're, discussing whether frigging scouts may take an unguarded city. A situation that is not likely to show up for a variety of reasons, and which at best is a one-line rule that really is not worth more than one pop-up.

But this meta-discussion is illuminating. Is this really what Erfworld's about? Is it really about every once in a blue moon throwing a small bone like "stack for stealth"? Is this what you think brings, or used to bring, people here? Are the Klogs the only, or even the main, reason why people bought Book 1? Could all of this exist as anything else but fluff to a story?

No way. On the top of my head I can only speak for myself of course, but no way.

[Kreistor]

The fact is that it is somehow unsustainable, and we have no Rule that tells us why it is unsustainable.

People keep saying that. Where, EXACTLY, are you getting that from?

That should be obvious from the last few Book 0 pages. I'm not going to re-read them for you, but note the point about diminishing returns from City Levels after having reached a certain point.

It goes back a long way, including some early statements by Parson when he was trying to find ways to generate positive revenue.

I cover a lot of the evidence in this thread:

http://www.erfworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4035

well, recently, there was a discussion on the comparative merits of shell defenses, with historical parallels. That was cool.

Our own history is infinitely more interesting than Erfworld's.

If Erfworld is merely a massive board game, and all else like character and plot is secondary, then "Erf's not a game but a story" is suspect, and Erfworld is then merely a drawn out commercial for the trading card/video-game.

Far from impossible.

No, there is one other important possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Parson can devolve into wish fulfillment for Rob. Many gamers think of themselves as far better players than they actually are. Erfworld can be Rob's "proof" of his own superior gaming/military skills.

Now, I'm not going to participate in any argument this inspires. Peopel will want to defend Rob by trying to prove that Parson's flaws aren't trivialized. Fine, go ahead. I'm not trying to prove this. I'm only presenting it as an alternate answer tot he question that should be considered by all readers.

See, that's precisely part of the charm of Erfworld! The author delivers the rules trickle by trickle, keeping us thirsting.

I don't think that was Rob's intent. OotS had already divorced itself from D&D rules, so I think he wanted the Rules to be tertiary or even lowe in importance, but the problem comes in when trying to identify with Parson. Parson needs to know the Rules to demonstrate his
superior capacity: we can't decide that Parson is a great Commander unless we can determine that he made the best choice, and we can't judge that choice without knowing the same Rules Parson does.

Giving us all the Rules (which Rob has stated he has never written anyway) would require an out-of-comic presentation. Authors don't like doing that, and they don't want the rules to overwhelm character development. So we get the Klogs, which are a mix of Parson's thoughts and Rules. Later, we get the text updates, which usually present a few new Rules hidden in the subtext of a side story.

He isn't teasing us: he simply hasn't developed rules that aren't important to Parson, and he doesn't want to overwhelm the story with irrelevant Rules.

They aren't. We're, or rather you're, discussing whether frigging scouts may take an unguarded city. A situation that is not likely to show up for a variety of reasons, and which at best is a one-line rule that really is not worth more than one pop-up.

I don't identify such things by some kind of "coolness" factor. It is a thought exercise, just like every other issue. You can't tell where such efforts will go when you start them, so you're always going to get some a reader doesn't like with some they do.

[BLANDCorporatio]

well, recently, there was a discussion on the comparative merits of shell defenses, with historical parallels. That was cool.

Our own history is infinitely more interesting than Erfworld's.

Amen. No offense to anyone, but c'mon. Stupidworld's a monster!

I don't think that was Rob's intent. OotS had already divorced itself from D&D rules, so I think he wanted the Rules to be tertiary or even lowe in importance, but the problem comes in when trying to identify with Parson. Parson needs to know the Rules to demonstrate his superior capacity: we can't decide that Parson is a great Commander unless we can determine that he made the best choice, and we can't judge that choice without knowing the same Rules Parson does.

We're going to have to stop agreeing, it is getting creepy.

I don't identify such things by some kind of "coolness" factor. It is a thought exercise, just like every other issue. You can't tell where such efforts will go when you start them, so you're always going to get some a reader doesn't like with some they do.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, right about now a new update would be welcome. I think all erf-junkies here would agree.

[DevilDan]

A game-like world.

Parson as an expansion. New rules, new abilities. Like swearing.

Unlocking of new rules and abilities, like decryption or automatic dwagon taming, when arkentools fall into the right (or wrong) hands.

Don't assume that the rules are in any way static.

A regular board game's rules are fluid anyway. Optional rules, house rules, etc.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Our own history is infinitely more interesting than Erfworld's.

This pretty much. As just as a history, Erfworld is hardly fascinating. Nobody needs to worry for injuries for more than a day. There's no children, things just pop up ready to use, waste disapears, and the best explanation we got for those is "titans lol!" Units have just basic attacks and the ocasional special (except for mancers, but those are a drop in the bucket). The main selling point is "this is a massive board game, and Hamster the player is inside it".

Whitout the rules glimpses, Erfworld wouldn't have half the sucess it has today. Why do you think the klogs and text updates are so freaking popular?

See, that's precisely part of the charm of Erfworld! The author delivers the rules trickle by trickle, keeping us thirsting.

I don't think that was Rob's intent. OotS had already divorced itself from D&D rules, so I think he wanted the Rules to be tertiary or even lowe in importance, but the problem comes in when trying to identify with Parson. Parson needs to know the Rules to demonstrate his
superior capacity: we can't decide that Parson is a great Commander unless we can determine that he made the best choice, and we can't judge that choice without knowing the same Rules Parson does.

Giving us all the Rules (which Rob has stated he has never written anyway) would require an out-of-comic presentation. Authors don't like doing that, and they don't want the rules to overwhelm character development. So we get the Klogs, which are a mix of Parson's thoughts and Rules. Later, we get the text updates, which usually present a few new Rules hidden in the subtext of a side story.

He isn't teasing us: he simply hasn't developed rules that aren't important to Parson, and he doesn't want to overwhelm the story with irrelevant Rules.

You may've been right about that way back in book 1. But then we got "Poof Kingworld!", and well, that's the kind of thing you do in a game promotional. Reveal some uber unit ability out of nowhere.

They aren't. We're, or rather you're, discussing whether frigging scouts may take an unguarded city. A situation that is not likely to show up for a variety of reasons, and which at best is a one-line rule that really is not worth more than one pop-up.

I don't identify such things by some kind of "coolness" factor. It is a thought exercise, just like every other issue. You can't tell where such efforts will go when you start them, so you're always going to get some a reader doesn't like with some they do.

If it's interesting enough for you to spend your precious life time talking about for no pratical gain, then it has "coolness" for you.

[VariaVespasa]

All that only means you cant grow beyond a certain number of cities before you start running at a loss, sort of how certain iterations of the Civ games try to implement, and you cant expand your military beyond a certain point (ie- what your citis can pay for) without finding extra sources of income. All that says nothing, nothing at all, about why you cant just reach max or near max efficient cities, max out or near max out your military strength for that budget, and then just stop and live in peace. I have seen nothing that says units continue to improve and thus become more expensive to maintain if you dont want them to, and I have seen nothing to suggest there isnt a level cap on units somewhere. Therefor it is perfectly possible to calculate precisely how much your income will be at your chosen number of cities and then design an optimal force with that budget, build the cadre for that force and then grow into it over time as it levels up through training to the desired level. The money thats not spent on upkeep (because your force isnt up to its final desired level/strength yet) is added to the treasury as a reserve fund. Do you have the ability to overgrow your budget and thus need to start finding new, probably violent ways to supplement it? Sure, but there is NOTHING that REQUIRES you to do so. You have not even remotely shown otherwise.

Even if units do keep levelling even when you dont want them to, thus messing up your budget, you *can* just disband extras to balance the budget as needed rather than going to war. You said a side could "murder" its own troops that way yourself, but you used that specific perjorative word and then decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that because murder was a bad word, that that somehow meant no side would ever do it. Complete hogwash. Heck, you could possibly even just sell the excess to another side for cash rather than just disbanding, if you felt it was safe to do so.

The whole ridiculous idea that Transylvito and that other side keep trading that city because it makes them both money is blatantly silly also. That is NOT whats going on there. Trans takes it because while it isnt worth it to keep for themselves, the ransom they get makes it valuable enough for the effort. The other guys buy it back because it IS worth it to them to have it due to their smaller size. As long as translvio doesnt take it so ofte that the other guys dont earn enough in the meantime to more than pay for the next ransom it can go on forever. But its not somehow generating extra money for both sides.

[Kreistor]

What if a particularly reactionary side reached the point of diminishing schmuckers, and then simply started killing and razing every city they encountered (and could take) after that? I imagine alliances such as the one in tBfGW would make this unlikely, but I personally would feel pretty safe with a dead zone ring of ten or twenty razed cities surrounding my whole empire.

Doesn't affect things in Erfworld. The concept of Supply that makes Scorched Earth effective is irrelevant in the face of upkeep that pops in your presence without supply wagons or forage. All you need is to have enough treasury to feed the troops through the dead zone.