Book 2 – Page 81

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby BrotherRool » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:47 pm

LTDave wrote:I don't get the whole "Stanley is an incompetent loser" thing. Sure, from our perspective he is less clever than Parson, but that's because Parson is "the best Warlord ever" or whatever.

Stanley had a large enough empire and was causing enough trouble to oblige the rest of the continent to form an alliance to unseat him. That's not the achievement of an incompetent.

Sure, in book one he gets his donkey handed to him, but that's like saying Belgium is poorly led because it hasn't conquered Europe recently...


I seem to remember that it was suggested most of it was luck though? Like he was the schmuck who walked right into Wanda's trap, it's just that he was lucky with the dragons and he fell into a Kingdom. And then that most of the time his casters and then warlords manipulated him and ruled the Kingdom and built it up for him. And although he's not as good as Parson, he was also unable to accept the value of Parson for a long time and put his trust in Ansom.

I agree with the interpretation that Stanley was a good warlord, very competent in battle and small level tactics who fell into a job one level too high for him, where he couldn't really understand the thinking (he'd had no experience of it) but had too much pride and had spent too long keeping control by being the best and not allowing others to see his mistakes, to understand that he needs to admit he's out of his depth before he can start to learn. As the story has progressed he's learnt more and more that he can't do that anymore and he's got to start trying to improve himself, and I figure the stories going to complete that course and by the end he'll be a competent leader, not as clever as Parson, but fully understanding Parson's cleverness and value and he'll regain the respect of those around him for it.

It's just that all the things we've had suggest he's on a journey and he's at the 'out-of-depth schmuck' level most of so far and 'out-of-depth-schmuck-who-realises-it' just at this moment.

I don't know where that rates him with the over leaders. Slately had more skill in leadership, but also had too much pride and was too confident in his abilities to see that he was only competent, not good, but he's realised that now and he's taken the courageous path to fixing that mistake, so I think he's higher than Stanley, although he hasn't got long to enjoy that.

Don, I'm not sure about. Whilst I don't think he had tactical brilliance and probably wasn't as competent as Slately, he was wiser and understood the path to good leadership better, he knew how people ran and he was the only one of the pre-Parson leaders who could see clearly enough to know what actual good leadership was, unblinded by tradition or pride but in picking those people who were best at their jobs, not matter what preconception. But now he's lost that and something happened and his decision making is awful and he doesn't have Slatelys competence to fall back on.

So pre-Parson, it would go for me Don, Slately, Stanley. But currently it's Slately, Stanley, Don. (Charlie would beat all of them each time, he's in a different league, whereas they are people muddling through, he's playing a game and he actually knows what he's doing)

That's my broad perspective, individually they've made lots of decisions recently which could be good or bad, some of those turned bad because of situations that they didn't control or know about, others went well when in the hard logic of the world they shouldn't, but I feel it's better to be broad and at least see if they're going in the right direction, even if they're making bad mistakes. None of them have ascended to the level of Parson, where we can expect clever, inventive and incredibly rational solutions from them, in fact currently it looks like only Tramenis, Jack and maybe Charlie have any slice of Parson in them

EDIT: Jillian might be even worse than Don, I'm not sure. She doesn't even seem to really be in control of her decisions, never mind whether they're good or not
BrotherRool
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:46 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Nnelg » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:51 pm

oslecamo2_temp wrote:
Oberon wrote:
oslecamo2_temp wrote:In contrast, you don't see Stanley bankrupting his side or ordering Hamster to perform suicide charges just because he's in a bad mood.
It's kinda funny to see you say that, when you consider that Wanda had to seduce Stanley to keep him from sending Parson into the front lines to die, just because Stanley was crabby about the Parson he got vs. the Parson he expected.

He was thinking about it yes, but went ahead and asked his subordinates for advice. And listened to it. Whitout Wanda needing to gather all of their officer corps and threatening a coup like it hapened with Don.

But if Wanda hadn't seduced Stanley, he probably still would've done sent Parson off into battle despite her advice. Also, if Stanley were in Don's position, he probably would've disbanded all the warlords that dared try to out-think him and done what he wanted to do anyways.

oslecamo2_temp wrote:
Oberon wrote:And Stanley also managed to lose, what? 14 cities, leaving him with only GK. That's not exactly the same as bankrupting the Side, but it's damn close. It's a near bankruptcy of cities. It's probably only the fact that GK sits on a major gem lode plus the good works of Sizemore which keeps GK in the black. And now, decryption making units with no upkeep.

Now that's truly hilarious from you! So now Stanley is incompetent because he makes good use of his mancers to keep GK's coffers full? Righhttt. Don managed to bankrupt himself even with a moneymancer on their side, Stanley is turning dirt into money.

So, Stanly gets credit for digging gems out of the ground, despite the fact that's something even an idiot would be able to do?

oslecamo2_temp wrote:Now Stanley tecnically lost 9 cities yes... Because Wanda herself advised him to start picking fights with everyone to see if she could score an arkentool of her own. Leading to Stanley suddenly facing a dozen or so of royal sides ganking on him.

But which one of those two was the ruler? Which had the final say in the manner? Even if you truly believe it's Wanda's responsibility, you can't deny the faults which she leveraged against (pride, ego, etc.).

oslecamo2_temp wrote:But even then Stanley made the correct choice of pulling back his main forces (mancers, KISS and dwagon fleet) to his biggest stronghold. No suicide charges, no "noble sacrifices", he turtled in and dared for his oponents to come get him.

You sure? We don't have many details of how the war before Parson showed up. It's quite possible if not probable that GK at one point had a fighting chance, but Stanley squandered it. (Either by attacking when he should have retreated, or retreating when he should have attacked.)

oslecamo2_temp wrote:And hey, in the end it all worked out!

So, by your logic: if Slately manages to collect the archon bounty and appoint Tramennis heir, who then escapes and successfully turns the tide of the war, then this suicide rush you now decry would be completely justified?

oslecamo2_temp wrote:Yes his subordinates helped him big time. But that's what a ruler is suposed to do. To gather competent people and make them work togheter.

If Stanley actually had a hand in making his underlings work together, then I'd have agreed with you here.

oslecamo2_temp wrote: Stanley was after all the first ruler using a tri-link on the comic.

"First in-comic" is a completely arbitrary cutoff point. Also, don't forget the risk involved in tri-caster links... Oh, and the fact that the loss of individuality is a fate you wouldn't wish on anyone you have any sort of feelings for at all.

oslecamo2_temp wrote:Contrast with the royal sides, which time and time again show that they have extremely competent people on their ranks... And then shove them into minor positions, like simple city administration.

As a reward for their hard service. It's a form of semi-retirement: the warlord gets to relax for a while, but can be recalled to the front whenever needed. Besides, Transylvito's the only one we know for sure that does that, and Jetstone at least uses their least competent warlords as administrators.



Sieggy wrote:Why would she have to do that? Individually, I mean - all she has to do is think it and it's done. or so I thought. Whether one or all, a disband order is a disband order. Either that, or since they had been promoted to field units,take them with you on a march to Transylvito or whatever closest ally she had and join them. That would have preserved their usefulness and kept them from being decrypted. Or, if you really wanted to be tricky,, would it be possible to raze your own city, then take the money and run? As it was, she left a perfectly useable city for GK to move into . . . if she was going to go for scorched earth, that would have done a much better job of it.

Let's say you have a dog. For whatever reason, the dog needs to be put down (say maybe a terminal disease that'll cause him a lot of pain). Now, do you send the dog off to be 'put to sleep', or do you put a gun to his head and pull the trigger yourself?

Different people may choose differently on this one, but Queen Bea seems to have been the kind of person who couldn't bring herself to choose the latter option.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Lamech » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:42 pm

Nnelg wrote:But if Wanda hadn't seduced Stanley, he probably still would've done sent Parson off into battle despite her advice. Also, if Stanley were in Don's position, he probably would've disbanded all the warlords that dared try to out-think him and done what he wanted to do anyways.
I doubt Stanley would have disbanded them all. More to the point, Stanley's ideas about Parson was based on Parson not knowing what the boop he was doing. The Don on the other hand, was simply worried that he would have an unhappy warlord once the prince popped. And he sacrificed a bunch of other warlords for his goal of killing of his chief warlord. That goes far and beyond Stanley having Parson fight in the front.


But which one of those two was the ruler? Which had the final say in the manner? Even if you truly believe it's Wanda's responsibility, you can't deny the faults which she leveraged against (pride, ego, etc.).
Again this is something the royals are responsible of as well. They picked a fight with GK, even when they didn't have any hope of defeating it. GK just wants an alliance, and to end the war. Oh, and Stanley did NOT pick a fight with Jetstone, the driving force behind the coalition, and the source of most of the units. Without Jetstone the alliance would have been crushed easily by Parson assuming that Stanley even needed to summon Parson in the first place.

So, by your logic: if Slately manages to collect the archon bounty and appoint Tramennis heir, who then escapes and successfully turns the tide of the war, then this suicide rush you now decry would be completely justified?
At best the archon bounty will pay for the cost of a new king. A cost Jetstone needs to pay because of the charge. And it won't bring back their warlords.




Sieggy wrote:Why would she have to do that? Individually, I mean - all she has to do is think it and it's done. or so I thought. Whether one or all, a disband order is a disband order. Either that, or since they had been promoted to field units,take them with you on a march to Transylvito or whatever closest ally she had and join them. That would have preserved their usefulness and kept them from being decrypted. Or, if you really wanted to be tricky,, would it be possible to raze your own city, then take the money and run? As it was, she left a perfectly useable city for GK to move into . . . if she was going to go for scorched earth, that would have done a much better job of it.

Let's say you have a dog. For whatever reason, the dog needs to be put down (say maybe a terminal disease that'll cause him a lot of pain). Now, do you send the dog off to be 'put to sleep', or do you put a gun to his head and pull the trigger yourself?

Different people may choose differently on this one, but Queen Bea seems to have been the kind of person who couldn't bring herself to choose the latter option.
She still at the very least could have ordered the casters to turn to Don, or Jetstone. Instead she had them join the MK.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Nnelg » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:38 pm

Lamech wrote:The Don on the other hand, was simply worried that he would have an unhappy warlord once the prince popped. And he sacrificed a bunch of other warlords for his goal of killing of his chief warlord. That goes far and beyond Stanley having Parson fight in the front.

Um, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Again this is something the royals are responsible of as well. They picked a fight with GK, even when they didn't have any hope of defeating it.

Wait, what? It was Gobwin Knob that didn't have a hope of winning. It was a miracle GK survived at all, let alone came back with overwhelming force.

At best the archon bounty will pay for the cost of a new king. A cost Jetstone needs to pay because of the charge. And it won't bring back their warlords.

But the point remains: if "it all worked out in the end" is sufficient justification for Stanley's actions, why couldn't it be for Slately's?

She still at the very least could have ordered the casters to turn to Don, or Jetstone. Instead she had them join the MK.

I would presume that she puts higher priority to the comfort of the casters who served her side so faithfully than to the success of other sides, even those actively seeking vengeance against GK. After all, it's already too late for Unaroyal.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Lamech » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:25 am

Nnelg wrote:Um, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Don's reasons for getting Ceaser killed is that he is worried that Ceaser will be angry when the prince pops. Stanley's reason for sending Parson to the front is that Parson didn't know what the boop he was doing as far as Stanley could tell. Furthermore Stanley was going to get rid of Parson by having him fight on the front line; what you do with every low level warlord. Don's plan not only was supposed to kill Ceaser, but numerous other units including valuable warlords.
Nnelg wrote:Wait, what? It was Gobwin Knob that didn't have a hope of winning. It was a miracle GK survived at all, let alone came back with overwhelming force.
Lamech wrote:GK just wants an alliance, and to end the war.
The royals don't need to fight. GK is perfectly happy to let the fight drop. Its the royals who are still picking the fight.

Nnelg wrote:But the point remains: if "it all worked out in the end" is sufficient justification for Stanley's actions, why couldn't it be for Slately's?
1) Things working out in the end aren't a justification for Stanley. 2) things won't work out in the end for Slately, best case he's down two high level warlords.

Nnelg wrote:I would presume that she puts higher priority to the comfort of the casters who served her side so faithfully than to the success of other sides, even those actively seeking vengeance against GK. After all, it's already too late for Unaroyal.
If she doesn't care about the other sides, why the hell didn't she take the damn alliance? Besides if she really did care about those casters more than the other sides, I think the casters would have been happier to have their friends from Unaroyal live.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby effataigus » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:21 am

Hmm, I don't see Parson's staff in this picture. Did something happen to that thing?

Seems like it would be useful if you're going to charge a bunch of thinkamancers.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Nnelg » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:35 am

Lamech wrote:Don's reasons for getting Ceaser killed is that he is worried that Ceaser will be angry when the prince pops. Stanley's reason for sending Parson to the front is that Parson didn't know what the boop he was doing as far as Stanley could tell. Furthermore Stanley was going to get rid of Parson by having him fight on the front line; what you do with every low level warlord. Don's plan not only was supposed to kill Ceaser, but numerous other units including valuable warlords.

What plan to get Caesar killed? I remember it being said that Don would prefer it if Caesar wasn't around anymore, but when does Don actively try to get rid of him?


Lamech wrote:
Nnelg wrote:Wait, what? It was Gobwin Knob that didn't have a hope of winning. It was a miracle GK survived at all, let alone came back with overwhelming force.
Lamech wrote:GK just wants an alliance, and to end the war.
The royals don't need to fight. GK is perfectly happy to let the fight drop. Its the royals who are still picking the fight.

That 'justification' has been used by dozens if not hundreds of conquering empires across the millennia. Just as the Romans' "Amicii" and "Socii" ("Friends" and "Associates") were in fact subjugated states, just as Vichy France was "allied" with Germany, just as the members of the Warsaw Pact were "independent" of the Soviet Union, "Alliance" in this case is equivalent to "Surrender". Ansom's the only one who thinks differently, which is why he's the only one who bothers to ask.


Lamech wrote:1) Things working out in the end aren't a justification for Stanley. 2) things won't work out in the end for Slately, best case he's down two high level warlords.

Fair enough, because you weren't the one who used it as such; however I think you underestimate Slately's chances. Best case is he has a net zero change in number of high-level warlords, can afford to appoint an heir, gains a powerful ally, "removed from the picture" a high-level enemy warlord, obliterated a ton of valuable units that his enemy can't replace, and above all manages to save the side from instant defeat.


Lamech wrote:If she doesn't care about the other sides, why the hell didn't she take the damn alliance? Besides if she really did care about those casters more than the other sides, I think the casters would have been happier to have their friends from Unaroyal live.

I didn't say she didn't care for the other sides, only that she cared for her casters as well. So she might be good friends with Slately, but still unable to bring herself to force any more hardship on her casters. It's never an easy decision, choosing between friends like that.

Also: I'm sure that nobody wouldn't want to see their friends live, but by that same token none would ever wish to see their friends unlive. Scoff if you will, but remember that decryption has almost exclusively been shown in a positive light in-comic, while Queen Bea has seen it in an extremely negative one.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby drachefly » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:30 am

Decryption has been shown in a positive light in-comic? I wouldn't say so. The turning of Ossomer demonstrated it's not as bad as it could have been...
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby MichaelR138 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:31 am

No one is saying that Stanley is great, but Bea, Don and Slately have just been worse so far in many of our opinions. Remember, Jetstone did not know exactly how the battle at GK ended, they just knew they had lost their whole army. Then GK started taking back their previous cities. IF RCC2 did not know or strongly suspect that GK was back to being a strong offensive power as they rolled through all those cities, they are bigger idiots then I am blaming them for. And even though Slately and King Don greatly valued Bea and counted her a strong ally, they sent NO help to her as GK bore down on her. None, zip, nada. Instead the RCC2 decided to hang separately and not help each other out this time, showing they lack strategic ability, intelligence, or cohesion as a group. There is little overall leadership in the RCC2. Don King bet his whole kingdom on Jillian defeating Wanda and winning the war. He lost, badly. Now his kingdom is facing bankruptcy and losing a war with a long time enemy. GK is not even a big problem for them anymore, they likely will not survive long enough for GK to come take them out the way Don has squandered his troops, warlords and treasury. He has exhausted his inner council's trust in his judgement and eroded their loyalty through his reckless actions that has ruined his side and gained their allies nothing except they now have a powerful new side on their border with an unstable barbarian queen who may now turn on them and help finish them off to pay her upkeep. The loan to be made in friendship to Slately was indefensible from any aspect of leadership. " I am going to give you my last reserves so that I have to disband my defensive forces and let my side be overrun so you can throw away your life and many of your high powered units to turn over your doomed side to your son so you won't have to stick around and see Jetstone be destroyed because of your poor decisions." Really? And you want to call that a better leader then Stanley? And if Jetstone has a reserve force as big at Jetstone as they do at Spacerock, then the whole family are idiots. They knew GK was coming with a large force. Military doctrine states you face the enemy with overwhelming force when possible. You do not spit your forces up and fight his one big column with several small ones in a series of battles. It is a losing strategy that most 5 year olds would see the flaws in. Spacerock was supposed to be the penultimate battle for the RCC2, pull out the stops, throw some surprises in ad crush GK's power once and for all. You do not do that with 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of your available forces, you hit them with everything you have if you have an IQ higher then 50. And if Bea was trying to be "considerate" of her troops feelings, she is unique in Erfworld and that in and of itself disqualifies her as a good leader. In that kind of position, you are like a carpenter and the troops are nails. A carpenter does not worry if he drops a nail, he just picks up the next one, if one is bent or destroyed, he throws it away with no feelings. Any leader that is thinking about how her troops feel has lost focus and will not be objective enough to be able to lead her side. I would say if that was how she was feeling, she had a breakdown and was no longer acting rationally, which explains her actions far better then trying to attribute them to any leadership ability or intelligent action.

So while I still only rate Stanley as a 3 out of 10, he is still confortably ahead of all the other leaders except King Dickey and Charlie IMHO.

Michael
MichaelR138
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby 0beron » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:39 am

MichaelR138 wrote:Even though Slately and King Don greatly valued Bea and counted her a strong ally, they sent NO help to her as GK bore down on her. None, zip, nada. Instead the RCC2 decided to hang separately and not help each other out this time, showing they lack strategic ability, intelligence, or cohesion as a group.

Don King is too far from Unaroyal to have offered help in time. Slately however, DID. Bea just declined.
Summer Update 43 wrote:Jetstone nobly offered assistance, but Slately is reeling. If we should fall, better for him that he might have all his men at hand for his own such moment of truth.

You can debate the wisdom of her decision to decline, but you can't say that they lack cohesion. Bea knew that if she accepted Slately's assistance, then there were only 2 possible outcomes.
1) Slately sends too few troops, and the result is just adding kindling to the bonfire.
2) Slately sends enough troops to make a difference, but in the process his own capital is left vulnerable.
She made the decision to sacrifice HER side so that all the others would have a considerably better chance of surviving. If that's not cohesion, I don't know what is.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Nnelg » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

You know, I think I'm going to get into a habit of spoilering these large responses.
Spoiler: show
MichaelR138 wrote:No one is saying that Stanley is great, but Bea, Don and Slately have just been worse so far in many of our opinions. Remember, Jetstone did not know exactly how the battle at GK ended, they just knew they had lost their whole army. Then GK started taking back their previous cities. IF RCC2 did not know or strongly suspect that GK was back to being a strong offensive power as they rolled through all those cities, they are bigger idiots then I am blaming them for.

Tell me how GK could possibly have come out of that battle stronger than ever before without decryption. Sure, the other sides knew Stanley had a Croakamancer, but uncroaked decay after a while -especially if they were mass-raised.

And even though Slately and King Don greatly valued Bea and counted her a strong ally, they sent NO help to her as GK bore down on her. None, zip, nada. Instead the RCC2 decided to hang separately and not help each other out this time, showing they lack strategic ability, intelligence, or cohesion as a group. There is little overall leadership in the RCC2.

Don King bet his whole kingdom on Jillian defeating Wanda and winning the war. He lost, badly.

He lost? No, by no means has Jillian failed him yet. She may have squandered her best chance to win the war in a stroke, but it isn't over yet. Even if Jetstone is destroyed in this battle, Faq still is possibly the strongest side on the RCCII. Her Gwiffons are fast, strong units that are well-suited to blitzkrieg tactics, and have proven themselves in aerial combat against dwagons in the past. No, Jillian still has time left to prove her worth.

Now his kingdom is facing bankruptcy and losing a war with a long time enemy. GK is not even a big problem for them anymore, they likely will not survive long enough for GK to come take them out the way Don has squandered his troops, warlords and treasury.

Now why are you saying that? Don hasn't committed any troops or warlords yet, and was kept from emptying his treasury. His side may be stretched to its limits, but it hasn't passed them just yet.

He has exhausted his inner council's trust in his judgement and eroded their loyalty through his reckless actions that has ruined his side and gained their allies nothing except they now have a powerful new side on their border with an unstable barbarian queen who may now turn on them and help finish them off to pay her upkeep.

Remember, nobody knows about Jillian's connection with Wanda. Therefore, they see no reason why Jillian would turn in a fight against Stanley, the one who destroyed her kingdom.

The loan to be made in friendship to Slately was indefensible from any aspect of leadership. " I am going to give you my last reserves so that I have to disband my defensive forces and let my side be overrun so you can throw away your life and many of your high powered units to turn over your doomed side to your son so you won't have to stick around and see Jetstone be destroyed because of your poor decisions." Really? And you want to call that a better leader then Stanley?

Oh, sure, strategically speaking it was a dumb move. Not because it was pointless, (because they'd be payed back a lot more) but because it was such a long-odds shot that no amount of interest would be worth the risk. But if you see loyalty and friendship as a form of ineptitude, then I cannot help you.

And if Jetstone has a reserve force as big at Jetstone as they do at Spacerock, then the whole family are idiots. They knew GK was coming with a large force. Military doctrine states you face the enemy with overwhelming force when possible. You do not spit your forces up and fight his one big column with several small ones in a series of battles. It is a losing strategy that most 5 year olds would see the flaws in. Spacerock was supposed to be the penultimate battle for the RCC2, pull out the stops, throw some surprises in ad crush GK's power once and for all. You do not do that with 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of your available forces, you hit them with everything you have if you have an IQ higher then 50.

I never said they didn't use all available forces. It's just that the other garrison's forces were unavilible, because Jetstone didn't have enough money to promote them to field units.

And if Bea was trying to be "considerate" of her troops feelings, she is unique in Erfworld and that in and of itself disqualifies her as a good leader. In that kind of position, you are like a carpenter and the troops are nails. A carpenter does not worry if he drops a nail, he just picks up the next one, if one is bent or destroyed, he throws it away with no feelings. Any leader that is thinking about how her troops feel has lost focus and will not be objective enough to be able to lead her side. I would say if that was how she was feeling, she had a breakdown and was no longer acting rationally, which explains her actions far better then trying to attribute them to any leadership ability or intelligent action.

Ok "Stalin", if you really think that then I have no idea what comic you've been talking about. The whole thing focuses around the morality of a wargame wherein the pieces are sentient. I'll give you that Queen Bea wasn't at her best towards the end there, but that's an entirely justifiable condition for her to have at that moment. You know, seeing as the daughter she had lost and mourned just came back singing the praises of her killers. If that failed to affect anyone, I'd have called them a complete monster.


EDIT:
I'm beginning to agree with you guys that none of the leaders (except charlie) are particularly competent in the field of warfare, but then that's why they have chief warlords. However, none of the rulers have been buffoons, and all of their actions are justifiable for someone of adequate (but not exemplary) competence. That's why I rate them based on more of a moral form of merit, such as how hard they try to be good rulers.

So then, a re-ranking of the major modern rulers, this time in order of supremacy rather than a graduated scale:
Spoiler: show
Slately:
Military - 4
Political - 3
Moral - 1

Slately is more the middle-of-the-road in competence, but he knows it. Which is why he decided to go after the archon bounty: so he could appoint a better ruler than himself. He has already committed himself to a noble sacrifice, giving him the slimmest edge in merit --balancing out his prejudice and tying him with Don on the moral scale.

Don:
Military - 5
Political - 2
Moral - 1

Don is an idealist. He treats his warlords well, well enough that they feel safe in formally mass-refusing an order. Don has not shown his military skill as of yet, but he knows he has little and wisely leaves the majority of decisions to his warlords. Warlords who may have lost faith in his decision-making capability, but who still know Don to be a just ruler.

Charlie:
Military - 1
Political - 1
Moral - 4

Charlie is by far the most competent of rulers, however he is self-serving and has no sense of honor beyond the letter of his contract.

Jillian:
Military - 3
Political - 4
Moral - 3

Jillian is a wildcard: we've seen her personal prowess in combat, but she has yet to show she can think on the large scale as well. Where her loyalties lie is anyone's guess as well, but since she's shown loyalty to her friends (if not always her friends' interests) she gets higher on the moral scale than Charlie or Stanley.

Stanley:
Military - 2
Political - 5
Moral - 5

Stanley has shown the least respect for others of all the major rulers; even Charlie knows well enough to be polite when ripping off his 'clients'. It was a hard decision between him and Jillian for second place in military skill, as both are implied good leaders but neither have had their skills directly shown, but I eventually decided on Stanley because of Jillian's shortsightedness.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby MichaelR138 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:24 pm

Jillian may prove her worth, but it is very unlikely it will be in time to save Transylvito from destruction, therefore she has to be seen as a huge failure for the amount of treasury Don King invested in her. And she may come back around and be the force that takes Transylvito out now to expand her side and find a way to pay her upkeep. She is just that unreliable and random. It was a terrible decision when he could have just used that money to buff his own troops and not have to have gambled on Jillians flakey and unreliable personality.

Michael
MichaelR138
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby MonteCristo » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:01 pm

LTDave wrote:I don't get the whole "Stanley is an incompetent loser" thing. Sure, from our perspective he is less clever than Parson, but that's because Parson is "the best Warlord ever" or whatever.

Stanley had a large enough empire and was causing enough trouble to oblige the rest of the continent to form an alliance to unseat him. That's not the achievement of an incompetent.

Sure, in book one he gets his donkey handed to him, but that's like saying Belgium is poorly led because it hasn't conquered Europe recently...


YOu have to remember that Stanely inherited his side from King Saline IV. There is nothing that says he built much on his own as opposed to just maintain what Saline left him. But we do know that after he conquered Faq (which was in large part due to a great deal of luck of finding hoards of dwagons along the way), Wanda egged him on to search for the other tools and he just kept on loosing. We also know that Stanely's favorite way to pick out a chief warlord is by picking based appearances, pushing forward the best looking units he's got. Ya Stanely doesn't know much about tactics... Just how to use the brute force of his dwagons and the rock out powers of his hammer...

Lamech wrote:
Lamech wrote:GK just wants an alliance, and to end the war.
The royals don't need to fight. GK is perfectly happy to let the fight drop. Its the royals who are still picking the fight.

No, Gk does not want alliance, it was servitude; They want all sides to bow down to the toolists. Stanely started this fight ages ago when he started hunting for the tools and the royals fought back; then after the decryption he kept the fight going this time with Unaroyal. Even when they offerred an alliance to Unaroyal, it was an alliance that was on gobwinknob's terms; and if they refused the alliance they would be croaked and decrypted... they were demanding that unaroyal surrender to Gowbinknob. hell they even worded it as such... "Whatever this mockery of my daughter was, she then asked me to SURRENDER Unaroyal and ally with Stanley." keyword being surrender... if all your aiming to do is bring an end to war, then you should be just asking for an "end to hostilities", not "surrender"; if you are surrendering then that means you are subjecting yourself to the enemy's terms... Gowbinknob might like to say the word "alliance" but an alliance that is built in the context of "join us or die" is conquest no matter what words they choose to use
User avatar
MonteCristo
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Salem » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:52 pm

I don't want to interject much in the huge disagreement I just wanted to point out two things I felt might be being overlooked.

1) Yes Stanley has picked his warlords based on how they looked. But we have speculated that it is possible that signamancy and how someone looks can represent something about their capabilities, their personalities, or some other deeper characteristic. Someone who looks courageous and daring might actually be a courageous and daring. Much like king Slately looks like a broken old man, who of course now has a spark of life. Part of why he may have been disappointed in Parson was because he had none of the signamancy of a good warlord. Which of course is because none of that makes any never mind in Stupidworld.

2) I may be wrong but I didn't think Don ever bet ON Jillian so much as he bet on the advice of a trusted friend and underling. I thought it was the assurance he was given about Jillian that drove his choice.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby gameboy1234 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:13 pm

Salem wrote:1) Yes Stanley has picked his warlords based on how they looked. But we have speculated that it is possible that signamancy and how someone looks can represent something about their capabilities, their personalities, or some other deeper characteristic.


I was just thinking about this. Want to be Slately was doing the same thing? Stanley seemed pretty pleased to have both Ansom and Ossomer on his side. They seemed to meet Stanley's criteria for a warlord to a T. And apparently Slately belatedly realized he'd been wrong about it, which he is now trying to rectify.
"Do it?" Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome?

I did it thirty-five minutes ago.

Avatar hoarked from PS238.
User avatar
gameboy1234
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 10:04 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby MonteCristo » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:10 pm

Salem wrote:1) Yes Stanley has picked his warlords based on how they looked. But we have speculated that it is possible that signamancy and how someone looks can represent something about their capabilities, their personalities, or some other deeper characteristic. Someone who looks courageous and daring might actually be a courageous and daring. Much like king Slately looks like a broken old man, who of course now has a spark of life. Part of why he may have been disappointed in Parson was because he had none of the signamancy of a good warlord. Which of course is because none of that makes any never mind in Stupidworld.

Nope, he's just thinking more about appearances than anything. While you do have a point about someone who looks heroic you have to also take into account that erfworld is powered by pop culture which also dictates that pretty people have an equal chance of being an airhead who gets by just on their looks. Someone who looks pretty can either be a great hero, or they can be a simple pretty boy who at best might have some charisma, but are devoid of anything else... And as Wanda pointed out Gobwinknob has been loosing battles constantly and she blames it on how Stanley picks his warlords, which is going by nothing more than picking the most "handsome and dashing"; Seems like all of stanely's warlords fell into the "pretty boy" half of the equation. He doesn't even take a moment to consider the REAL qualities needed in a chief warlord. Hell, if Stanley were so capable it would not matter as much that he was picking such flawed warlord's since he could make his own decisions on the best course of action.

When i think about it, the ONLY smart thing that Stanely has done was keeping Faq destoryed so that he had an evacuation plan; but even that we can not be sure was his plan as it could have been wanda's... other than that, we haven't really been given much indication that Stanely has any intelligence. We don't know why he was made a warlord but we do know that he was made chief warlord because he wielded the hammer, tame dwagons and won battles; but this may not be indication of intelligence but simply his ability to win through sheer brute force. Not to mention that Stanely's own signamancy wouldn't say anything good about him.
User avatar
MonteCristo
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Salem » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:46 pm

MonteCristo wrote:
When i think about it, the ONLY smart thing that Stanely has done was keeping Faq destoryed so that he had an evacuation plan; but even that we can not be sure was his plan as it could have been wanda's... other than that, we haven't really been given much indication that Stanely has any intelligence. We don't know why he was made a warlord but we do know that he was made chief warlord because he wielded the hammer, tame dwagons and won battles; but this may not be indication of intelligence but simply his ability to win through sheer brute force. Not to mention that Stanely's own signamancy wouldn't say anything good about him.


Just to tease I'd have to say it was also smart to take Jack with him. It's ALWAYS smart to have Jack with you.

That aside I assumed Signamancy wasn't the end all be all of people. Jack is contrary to apperances. And Signamancy doesn't change instantly, it seems to change in small ways, the Slately isn't suddenly more dashing. Most of all I was just saying it was a possibility. I feel that all the options should be on the table even if they only are 1% sometimes slim possibilities are there. For instance I never saw Stanley as particularly vain, I mean he's all about apperances. But for someone who only chooses pretty warlords, there's got to be a reason when he has some of the ugliest troops in existence.

I also personally think that by the end of this we're going to find out there is more to Stanley the tool than we think, I think there will be a more to a lot of people. A lot of character's know the names of minion types but don't seem to care, I get the impression that at least for our one Mr. T, Stanley actually seems to care, and he seems to care about Jack, I think him learning names of certain people means something.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby 0beron » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:52 pm

Salem wrote:A lot of character's know the names of minion types but don't seem to care, I get the impression that at least for our one Mr. T, Stanley actually seems to care, and he seems to care about Jack, I think him learning names of certain people means something.

I have to disagree slightly. Stanley does care about learning names, but I think this is more due to strategy than emotions. He realized that knowing Jack's name would have been important, so in his little deluded mind of "I know how magic works" he assumes all names could be important in the future. So however incorrect this notion may be, I do give him credit for this name thing...just from a strategic perspective rather than a moral one.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby Salem » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:33 am

0beron wrote:
Salem wrote:A lot of character's know the names of minion types but don't seem to care, I get the impression that at least for our one Mr. T, Stanley actually seems to care, and he seems to care about Jack, I think him learning names of certain people means something.

I have to disagree slightly. Stanley does care about learning names, but I think this is more due to strategy than emotions. He realized that knowing Jack's name would have been important, so in his little deluded mind of "I know how magic works" he assumes all names could be important in the future. So however incorrect this notion may be, I do give him credit for this name thing...just from a strategic perspective rather than a moral one.


I can definetly see that possibility. From now on I'll have to say I like to think Stanley cares about people. Because I like the idea of him warming up over a massive sandwich.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 81

Postby WarFAN » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:57 am

Pashalik Mons wrote:I'd say Stanley is pretty low. He's not a great ruler, though he is at least making strides toward becoming better. Gobwin Knob's success is mainly due to Parson and Wanda(and the 'pliers). At present, I'd give him the same rank as you, 3/10. Below average, but not quite rock bottom.

[...]

Jillian: One of the worse Rulers. She is still in the barbarian mindset, and hasn't quite adjusted to ruling yet. She could be decent, but has to get her head in the game. 4/10.



Are you sure Jillian is a better ruler than Stanley? That idiotic and capricious woman who has betrayed her sponsors and allies?
WarFAN
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ff6shadow, LTDave and 8 guests