How to defeat the perfect warlord.

[Ytaker]

Shouldn't have mattered. There were reserve dwagons at GK. Parson could have flown out a warlord, and repeated the strike. With a few more dwagons in fact. The siege would have been scrubbed.

They were out of warlords. All three were croaked. That meant they couldn't hit the siege selectively.

Parson failed to predict that the archons would hand out free help. His plans also didn't account for the lookamancers in the MK telling Ansom the location of the dwagons either. This isn't exactly something he should have reasonably planned for. You should allow for some give in your plans, but this wasn't exactly likely.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_64

He himself noted he was unsure how the spell worked. He was gambling his entire plan on a set of variables which he knew nothing about. As it happened, the variables went against him and the archons broke her out.

The chances of success could be anywhere between 0 and 100% as far as he knew. It was a very high risk gamble.

The things that needed to happen to lose the dwagons
1) Jillian finds them. 50% chance. (There were two equally short paths to Ansom.)

Yes. Although in fact the chance was likely 100%- the titans chose a path which would be well within probability and would be most dramatic.

Parson knows from his DMing days. The titans want to undermine him.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_134

Parson Gotti: So I was essentially gonna cheat them.

Undermine everything they tried.

Until they found a clever enough way to cheat me.
To break my rules, and win.

If the worst is likely to happen there's probably a higher than expected probability of it happening. When playing with a chaotic evil dm it's best not to trust them to play fair

3) She needs to break the spell and not get hit in the face by the backlash. 50% chance. We're being pretty generous here.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_84

From what we have in the comic, a novice thinkamancer has the spell snap back on them. Only a skilled one can make it rebound on the enemy.

4) They need to win the fight. Probably pretty high if Ansom comes, but only 60% if he doesn't.

With Charlie's angels there he's gonna be there unless they can hit Jill hard enough to croak her. Hence the extra dwagons I was suggesting, to screen enemy fire and help overwhelm the archons quickly.

So Parson's plan if Stanley wasn't a moron had either a 75% chance of ending the siege at 3 dwagon cost to GK, and even if they hit that 25% chance still would have handed the battle to GK at the cost of just under half the dwagons. The end result should have been an wipe of major airforce assest (Jillians, Vinny and Ansom) and GK acquiring the pliers and Ansom's corpse. Even the worst possible outcome (22 dwagons for the siege) would have been a GK victory. The fact that Stanley mucked it up is hardly Parson's fault. He isn't Maggie he can't simply control the Tool.

They couldn't hit the siege, they were out of warlords.

Parson didn't tell Stanley anything, so understandably Stanley had no idea of what was going on. It was a risky strategy, and it failed. And were I to want to defeat the perfect warlord I could do the same

Nnelg

Look again, I see three little brown splotches that are easy to miss, even under scrutiny. They're also shown (still somewhat indistinctly) here.

No such thing as brown dwagons. I saw them, probably just artifacts.

No, he would be even more likely to come to her rescue than otherwise.

He would only come to her rescue if Charlie's archons sent him a thinkamancy message. He couldn't tell what his allies were doing.

It would be a tricky affair to take advantage of this quality, to say the least. Whatever you do, you'll have to be as willing to take these risks as Parson is.

[/quote][/quote]

People have taken risks repeatedly against him and they've paid off.

There are ways to mitigate the risks though. Jetstone's attack on the archons would have gone fine if they'd buffed up a unit other than the king. If (Vinnie?) had spent a few more bats scouting he could have found the dwagons back in the assault. They then could have gotten the full army to the hex, killed everything in there, and had enough forces to hold off a full dwagon assault.

Scout with cheap expendable units and don't risk high value weak units.

Plus I'd have probably had Jill hit the three dwagons to check the central hex. She had 24+ move, she could escape more easily.

Parson took super high risks when high risks would have been enough and paid for it. He pays for it a lot.

[drachefly]

A lot. You keep saying that.

What other cases? Wanda rushing out to neutralize Ansom, and then getting blindsided by Kingworld, and... what? I don't think that pair of words means what you think it means.

[Nnelg]

They were out of warlords. All three were croaked. That meant they couldn't hit the siege selectively.

Must I point out that Ansom was a sitting duck over that lake? Even he expected to croak next turn. If not for Stanley's lashout, Parson would still have achieved a net positive.

Also:

Shouldn't have mattered. There were reserve dwagons at GK. Parson could have flown out a warlord, and repeated the strike. With a few more dwagons in fact. The siege would have been scrubbed.

I'm not sure about reserve dwagons, but I know at least two warlords were left at GK: Archduke Ferdinand and Ensign Toast.

He himself noted he was unsure how the spell worked. He was gambling his entire plan on a set of variables which he knew nothing about. As it happened, the variables went against him and the archons broke her out.

No, he did not gamble his entire plan on this one variable. There are plenty of other mitigating factors he can rely on. If you go look at that guesstimate I made of the odds of loosing that stack, I believe you'll still get 3% if you leave the 'brainwash' factor.

The chances of success could be anywhere between 0 and 100% as far as he knew. It was a very high risk gamble.

Your first statement contradicts your second. If the risk is known to be high, it cannot be unknown.

Yes. Although in fact the chance was likely 100%- the titans chose a path which would be well within probability and would be most dramatic

Oh, but if you bring meta into it, it wouldn't matter at all how many dwagons he leaves behind to guard the wounded; something has to go wrong for him or there's no story.

4) They need to win the fight. Probably pretty high if Ansom comes, but only 60% if he doesn't.

With Charlie's angels there he's gonna be there unless they can hit Jill hard enough to croak her. Hence the extra dwagons I was suggesting, to screen enemy fire and help overwhelm the archons quickly.

And if Jillian and her Gwiffons do the same to these healthy dwagons? Act as a screening force while the archons slaughter the wounded? No, putting one or two unwounded dwagons in the hex may "win" you the battle, but you'll still easily fail your objective: protecting the wounded.

If you wanted to completely vouchsafe the protection of the wounded, you'd need so many dwagons that you might as well give up the ambush plan entirely, and enacting Parson's original "fortress" idea.

So Parson's plan if Stanley wasn't a moron had either a 75% chance of ending the siege at 3 dwagon cost to GK, and even if they hit that 25% chance still would have handed the battle to GK at the cost of just under half the dwagons. The end result should have been an wipe of major airforce assest (Jillians, Vinny and Ansom) and GK acquiring the pliers and Ansom's corpse. Even the worst possible outcome (22 dwagons for the siege) would have been a GK victory. The fact that Stanley mucked it up is hardly Parson's fault. He isn't Maggie he can't simply control the Tool.

They couldn't hit the siege, they were out of warlords.

Parson didn't tell Stanley anything, so understandably Stanley had no idea of what was going on. It was a risky strategy, and it failed. And were I to want to defeat the perfect warlord I could do the same

Stanley, like you, sees a major defeat for GK, when in fact Ansom had just handed them his own head on a silver platter. Parson did tell Stanley what he was doing, and if Stanley was calm enough he would've noticed that Ansom was out of move. And he wouldn't have interrupted Parson explaining what he was going to do next.

Oh, and he means "the seige" as in the battle, not as in the towers. Croak Ansom, stop (or at least cripple) the siege. And I for one agree it'd be worth losing any number of dwagons.

Look again, I see three little brown splotches that are easy to miss, even under scrutiny. They're also shown (still somewhat indistinctly) here.

No such thing as brown dwagons. I saw them, probably just artifacts.

They're there. And they're in the same three hexes three different times. Even if the odds of one such artifact were as high as 50%, the odds of all nine of them being such would be less than 2%.

No, he would be even more likely to come to her rescue than otherwise.

He would only come to her rescue if Charlie's archons sent him a thinkamancy message. He couldn't tell what his allies were doing.

That does not contradict my statement.

Jetstone's attack on the archons would have gone fine if they'd buffed up a unit other than the king. If (Vinnie?) had spent a few more bats scouting he could have found the dwagons back in the assault.

Both of these efforts require expending resources that might be better spent elsewhere -if they were even available in the first place.

They then could have gotten the full army to the hex, killed everything in there, and had enough forces to hold off a full dwagon assault.

No, only those fliers with enough move. Which is pretty much what they did get there.

Scout with cheap expendable units and don't risk high value weak units.

I assume you're talking about the archons here. The problem is, you don't have cheap expendable units to scout with.

Plus I'd have probably had Jill hit the three dwagons to check the central hex. She had 24+ move, she could escape more easily.

Ansom chose to keep her in reserve (he wouldn't have risked her anyways). Besides, again they had no reason to suspect a trap.

Parson took super high risks when high risks would have been enough and paid for it. He pays for it a lot.

And yet, never have I seen him pay more than he could afford.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So then, assuming we haven't stayed too far from the original topic... I'm now going to say how I'd defeat Ytaker.

Well, all I've got is his suggestions on how Parson and others on Erf could have done better by committing more forces to defence. If I can extrapolate that he would therefore himself enact similar choices on a regular basis, then I know how I can beat him.

Assuming we start with equal forces, I will commit additional reserve forces forewards. As he would have held some of his own forces back, I will therefore have a numerical advantage on the front which will give me the edge in a war of attrition.

As his reserve units have been back for the express purpose of blocking holes in his defence, I will not attempt to break through any of them, instead concentrating on a less tangible opening. In this way, these reserve forces are squandered, for he would be reluctant to commit them for fear of leaving an opening.

Until he realizes what I am doing, I will slowly but steadily gain the upper hand on him, as my forces deal damage at a faster rate than his. If and when he does (and he probably will), I'll just adapt my strategy and the game would begin in earnest -but now I will have an advantage.


Of course, this presumes he doesn't seize the initiative from me by exploiting my weakened reserves. But in order to do that, he'd have to commit forces assigned to guard duty.

[Ytaker]

Must I point out that Ansom was a sitting duck over that lake? Even he expected to croak next turn. If not for Stanley's lashout, Parson would still have achieved a net positive.

You can point that out. But the enemy has a lot of warlords. They could hire archons. They had an enormous army. They likely would have regrouped and crushed Parson in time, even if Ansom was croaked. As happened.

He himself noted he was unsure how the spell worked. He was gambling his entire plan on a set of variables which he knew nothing about. As it happened, the variables went against him and the archons broke her out.

No, he did not gamble his entire plan on this one variable. There are plenty of other mitigating factors he can rely on. If you go look at that guesstimate I made of the odds of loosing that stack, I believe you'll still get 3% if you leave the 'brainwash' factor.

"You forget to include the odds of them finding that hex in the first place. Let's be generous and put it at 10%. Now that's a 6% risk to mitigate. Another dwagon or two might reduce that to 2%, which I think is being generous -especially if you're more worried about casualties than 'winning' the battle. Already the difference is less than the usual critical failure chance (on a d20, at least)."

There were two routes for Jill to take back through the lake. One led through the dwagon hex. This is assuming that Jetstone was stupid and did no scouting with bats (as happened).

Your guess that the odds of them finding that hex is 10% was wrong.

Also, the titans are out to screw parson over as he often notes, just as he was out to screw over his players (or, out of character, the author wants exciting comics)- when a decision comes down to a coin toss, and one side of the coin has more drama, it's likely that the drama filled coin toss will turn up.

The chances of success could be anywhere between 0 and 100% as far as he knew. It was a very high risk gamble.

Your first statement contradicts your second. If the risk is known to be high, it cannot be unknown.

An unknown risk is high risk. If we assume that in any risky situation there's a uniform distribution of probabilities of success or failure, on average a risky sitution will have a fifty percent chance of being wrong.

Yes. Although in fact the chance was likely 100%- the titans chose a path which would be well within probability and would be most dramatic

Oh, but if you bring meta into it, it wouldn't matter at all how many dwagons he leaves behind to guard the wounded; something has to go wrong for him or there's no story.

By being smart he can lessen the chances that what goes wrong is a catastrophic wrong. He can chose the easy way or the hard way. Some ways have less casulties. That lookamancer might still be alive if he'd been smarter.

It's best to not leave openings for the titans.

And if Jillian and her Gwiffons do the same to these healthy dwagons? Act as a screening force while the archons slaughter the wounded? No, putting one or two unwounded dwagons in the hex may "win" you the battle, but you'll still easily fail your objective: protecting the wounded.

The dwagons are still very strong, they can bum rush the archons. They'll take casulties but with some fire being absorbed by the healthy dwagons it'll be less.

If you wanted to completely vouchsafe the protection of the wounded, you'd need so many dwagons that you might as well give up the ambush plan entirely, and enacting Parson's original "fortress" idea.

I agree. It's unfeasible to have 100% safety. But a small tweak can make a big difference.

Stanley, like you, sees a major defeat for GK, when in fact Ansom had just handed them his own head on a silver platter. Parson did tell Stanley what he was doing, and if Stanley was calm enough he would've noticed that Ansom was out of move. And he wouldn't have interrupted Parson explaining what he was going to do next.

This is why you explain the risks before you lose tons of units.

Oh, and he means "the seige" as in the battle, not as in the towers. Croak Ansom, stop (or at least cripple) the siege. And I for one agree it'd be worth losing any number of dwagons.

I presume he meant the siege as in the siege capable units. They would still exist if Ansom was dead.

They're there. And they're in the same three hexes three different times. Even if the odds of one such artifact were as high as 50%, the odds of all nine of them being such would be less than 2%.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Brown_dwagon

Those rumours of brown dwagons are vicious lies told by the enemy.

"There are no black/brown dwagons in Erfworld. For the purposes of printing, all black/brown dwagons were Retconjured to purple. "

No, he would be even more likely to come to her rescue than otherwise.

He would only come to her rescue if Charlie's archons sent him a thinkamancy message. He couldn't tell what his allies were doing.

That does not contradict my statement.

The archons can't tell him where they are if they are busy being killed by dwagons. If there were enough dwagons there to croak them it'd been fine.

Jetstone's attack on the archons would have gone fine if they'd buffed up a unit other than the king. If (Vinnie?) had spent a few more bats scouting he could have found the dwagons back in the assault.

Both of these efforts require expending resources that might be better spent elsewhere -if they were even available in the first place.

Yes, those efforts would require expending resources, but when you're using your highest value units to attack an enemy and risking destruction (three high level warlords, numerous natural allies, numerous high value heavies) it's worth spending a single weak unit to scout. Or if the bats they sent to check stuff out had enough move, getting them to do more scouting before they were sent at the dwagons to die would have been worthwhile

Buffing up a unit other than the king would require a single additional trooper, but a single unit is less valuable than the king. Since the loss of a king means the loss of the side it's worth using one weak unit.

They then could have gotten the full army to the hex, killed everything in there, and had enough forces to hold off a full dwagon assault.

No, only those fliers with enough move. Which is pretty much what they did get there.

They sent some fliers elsewhere, could have probably picked up a few units to mount on their high move gwiffons, they got their fliers there sproadically.

Scout with cheap expendable units and don't risk high value weak units.

I assume you're talking about the archons here. The problem is, you don't have cheap expendable units to scout with.

I was talking about the bats. They are cheap expendable units. You could also use normal troopers and a thinkamancer. Send out a level 1 stabber, check on them once a hex, if they die you know there's an enemy in that hex.

Plus I'd have probably had Jill hit the three dwagons to check the central hex. She had 24+ move, she could escape more easily.

Ansom chose to keep her in reserve (he wouldn't have risked her anyways). Besides, again they had no reason to suspect a trap.

Ansom was stupid, you should always expect traps.

Parson took super high risks when high risks would have been enough and paid for it. He pays for it a lot.

And yet, never have I seen him pay more than he could afford.

He would have lost an entire side, were it not for the pliers. He was saved by the titans from his debts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So then, assuming we haven't stayed too far from the original topic... I'm now going to say how I'd defeat Ytaker.

Well, all I've got is his suggestions on how Parson and others on Erf could have done better by committing more forces to defence. If I can extrapolate that he would therefore himself enact similar choices on a regular basis, then I know how I can beat him.

Assuming we start with equal forces, I will commit additional reserve forces forewards. As he would have held some of his own forces back, I will therefore have a numerical advantage on the front which will give me the edge in a war of attrition.

You're welcome to have your numerical advantage. It's not really an issue for me. Numerical advantages are additive. I prefer multipliers.

I'd give all leadership clothamancy magical items to make them tougher (or weirdomancy specials, whatever I can manage). Protect them well. Have a small force of fliers to hit enemy leadership.

As his reserve units have been back for the express purpose of blocking holes in his defence, I will not attempt to break through any of them, instead concentrating on a less tangible opening. In this way, these reserve forces are squandered, for he would be reluctant to commit them for fear of leaving an opening.

Until he realizes what I am doing, I will slowly but steadily gain the upper hand on him, as my forces deal damage at a faster rate than his. If and when he does (and he probably will), I'll just adapt my strategy and the game would begin in earnest -but now I will have an advantage.

My first instinct is to play ender's game. I'd leave a token force to slow you down and force you to consolidate your troops for an overwhelming strike. Meanwhile, my actual army would do a capitol strike on your side, killing your king and murdering your casters. You'd become a barbarian and see your troops croak for lack of upkeep, far away from home, realizing the fallacy of a war of attrition with no reserves to protect the capitol.

If I chose to fight, I'd be sapping and taking out your leadership, bit by bit, while keeping my leadership safe with my reserves. I'd likely lose troops faster than you initially, but my bonuses would start to be stronger as my leadership would stay safe while yours got smashed. Battle after battle would turn into a rout for you as my extremely strong leadership hit your unprotected leadership, killed it, and annihilated the unled troops. Your armies would die around you as you realized that this was not stupidworld and that the only thing that really mattered was your leadership. No matter how many troops you kill, unless you can kill the leadership you can't win.

[Nnelg]

Ugh, you're uncroaking this old thread?...

All right, here goes: I'm going to say one thing, then try to keep my mouth shut and not respond to any further arguments.

My logic is as such:


1. The author is a writer, not a strategist.

2. Therefore, we shouldn't expect him to always get the best strategy, just as we wouldn't expect him to always strictly obey the laws of momentum.

3. Therefore, when the author says a character is a master strategist, we should give that character the benefit of the doubt wherever strategy is concerned.

4. Therefore, since we are giving this character the benefit of the doubt, whenever some detail is unknown to us, the readers, we should assume that it is such that would most favor that character's strategy being a good one.

5. Therefore, since the rules of Erfworld are unknown to us, we should assume that rules were such that putting unwounded dwagons in the hex with the wounded would not have made a significant difference, or the odds of that hex being attacked were low enough that the advantage of leaving them as part of the trap was worth the risk, or that the rules which made not putting healthy dwagons in the hex a bad idea were unknown to Parson at the time, or that some other extenuating circumstance of that nature existed; unless all such possible excuses result in logical contradictions with established canon.

[Ytaker]

Ugh, you're uncroaking this old thread?...

All right, here goes: I'm going to say one thing, then try to keep my mouth shut and not respond to any further arguments.

My logic is as such:


1. The author is a writer, not a statistician.

2. Therefore, we shouldn't expect him to always get the best strategy, just as we wouldn't expect him to always strictly obey the laws of momentum.

3. Therefore, when the author says a character is a master strategist, we should give that character the benefit of the doubt wherever strategy is concerned.

4. Therefore, since we are giving this character the benefit of the doubt, whenever some detail is unknown to us, the readers, we should assume that it is such that would most favor that character's strategy being a good one.

5. Therefore, since the rules of Erfworld are unknown to us, we should assume that rules were such that putting unwounded dwagons in the hex with the wounded would not have made a significant difference, or the odds of that hex being attacked were low enough that the advantage of leaving them as part of the trap was worth the risk, or that the rules which made not putting healthy dwagons in the hex a bad idea were unknown to Parson at the time, or that some other extenuating circumstance of that nature existed; unless all such possible excuses result in logical contradictions with established canon.

Gotcha, criticism of Parson's strategy is never valid unless all other possibilities have been exhausted because it was said he was a master strategist.

If Charlie does summon some of Parson's players, who presumably wanted to beat him, he should read this thread first though. Parson may be a master, but he has obvious tactical flaws that the author could use to make the comic more fun.

[drachefly]

Criticism of his strategies? Fair game. Criticisms that would indicate that he is actually really bad at strategy as a general rule, well, that is contraindicated by the SPW spell's primary criteria. For it to pass you have to claim that Wanda got so distracted that she completely forgot competence.

[Nnelg]

Gotcha, criticism of Parson's strategy is never valid unless all other possibilities have been exhausted because it was said he was a master strategist.

If Charlie does summon some of Parson's players, who presumably wanted to beat him, he should read this thread first though. Parson may be a master, but he has obvious tactical flaws that the author could use to make the comic more fun.

I hope you're not being sarcastic here, because I really can't tell...

Anyways, I'll give you that Parson's an aggressive player, and often risks overextending himself. However, I wouldn't call this a flaw so much as an exploitable personality trait, as it's an often effective tactic against those who aren't familiar with Parson's personality.

[Ytaker]

Criticism of his strategies? Fair game. Criticisms that would indicate that he is actually really bad at strategy as a general rule, well, that is contraindicated by the SPW spell's primary criteria. For it to pass you have to claim that Wanda got so distracted that she completely forgot competence.

Happily I never made the claim that he is really bad at strategy as a general rule so we are not in disagreement.

I hope you're not being sarcastic here, because I really can't tell...

Anyways, I'll give you that Parson's an aggressive player, and often risks overextending himself. However, I wouldn't call this a flaw so much as an exploitable personality trait, as it's an often effective tactic against those who aren't familiar with Parson's personality.

Is it often an effective tactic when he's aggressive? From what I've seen he's most effective when he rule hacks. He's good at seeing easy cheats that allow him overwhelming force against the enemy. He's most effective at ambushes and surprise attacks. Aggression hasn't worked out that well for him. I can't think of any times when enemies were surprised by his aggression. They are surprised by his ambushes and quirkly use of the rules.

Aggression seems to be the norm in erfworld.

[drachefly]

Spotty strategic thinking. He doesn't think ahead often and makes lots of stupid moves

?? What am I supposed to take from this?

[Nnelg]

Is it often an effective tactic when he's aggressive? From what I've seen he's most effective when he rule hacks. He's good at seeing easy cheats that allow him overwhelming force against the enemy. He's most effective at ambushes and surprise attacks. Aggression hasn't worked out that well for him. I can't think of any times when enemies were surprised by his aggression. They are surprised by his ambushes and quirkly use of the rules.

Rule hacking is just a tool, another weapon in his arsenal. But weapons alone do not win wars, they way they are employed do.

And bringing overwhelming force to bear on single targets, employing lighting strikes and keeping up the offensive are exactly what I mean by aggression. Parson doesn't wait to consolidate his hold on new-gotten gains for any longer than he needs to. Instead, he presses the attack and keeps the enemy on the back foot. This leaves himself vulnerable, but since his target is kept reeling this only matters if something comes at him from the sides.

So, by aggressive I mean that Parson seizes the strategic initiative whenever he can, and never lets go of it unless forced to.

[Ytaker]

Spotty strategic thinking. He doesn't think ahead often and makes lots of stupid moves

?? What am I supposed to take from this?

That he has spotty strategic thinking, doesn't think ahead, makes lots of stupid moves. That is what I said. Being a master strategist doesn't exclude this.

Napoleon is well renowned as an excellent general. He won many victories with his innovative thinking. He did though make many mistakes such as the well known invasion of Russia which lead to the mass starvation of his troops. Stupid move, good general.

Rule hacking is just a tool, another weapon in his arsenal. But weapons alone do not win wars, they way they are employed do.

And bringing overwhelming force to bear on single targets, employing lighting strikes and keeping up the offensive are exactly what I mean by aggression. Parson doesn't wait to consolidate his hold on new-gotten gains for any longer than he needs to. Instead, he presses the attack and keeps the enemy on the back foot. This leaves himself vulnerable, but since his target is kept reeling this only matters if something comes at him from the sides.

So, by aggressive I mean that Parson seizes the strategic initiative whenever he can, and never lets go of it unless forced to.

While how you bring weapons to bear is important, often the power of your weapons is the most important thing in a war

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/ ... mission_33

The column was three hexes long. No unit within it had less than eighteen move. No unit within it had lower than six base attack. This was a strike force. It was several strike forces.

His leadership would add three attack to all units on his side, five to those in his hex, and ten to those in his own stack. His mistress would add one to all Decrypted troops on her side, four to those in her hex, and eight to those in her stack.

And when Ansom, Chief Warlord of Gobwin Knob and a Decrypted unit himself, led a stack of six Decrypted heavies and knights with Wanda Firebaugh, Chief Croakamancer and attuned wielder of the Arkenpliers...

The worst unit in the stack had an attack of thirty.

Ansom himself attacked at thirty-three. The defenders would likely average three, or even two. He could take the carpet over the walls and seize this city with his own sword, in theory. His Overlord would probably like that.

But there were many cities to take after Warchalking. His mistress Wanda did not wish to make this a show, and he concurred. No unnecessary risk. No air attack. Gate, door, garrison. Claim it and move forward with the Titans' work.

No fancy tactics other than charging at the enemy are necessary with enough technological superiority. That sort of battle is the best sort of battle- a curb stomp.

Every time he has brought overwhelming force on the enemy and employed lightning strikes he has been burnt. He attacked with the dwagons against the siege, Ansom destroyed his dwagons, Wanda attacked Ansom with the decrypted fliers, Charlie intervened and knocked her out, he abducted Ossomer, Wanda learned about Jill and went to talk to her and had kingworld cast on her and then Ossomer betrayed him destroying his archons. His enemy does not stay on the back foot. He is facing overwhelming odds, the enemy always has more reserves.

Parson seizing the strategic initiative has a terrible history of many defeats. To my memory it has never worked and has never produced any gain for him. He has won when he's seen the value of powerful weapons- his dirtamancer's underground fighting, the value of breaking parley and negotiating in bad faith, his croakamancer's mass revive and artifact use, the dwagon's special abilities.

If you can only win if the enemy doesn't fight back you're not going to do well.

[Housellama]

Spotty strategic thinking. He doesn't think ahead often and makes lots of stupid moves

?? What am I supposed to take from this?

That he has spotty strategic thinking, doesn't think ahead, makes lots of stupid moves. That is what I said. Being a master strategist doesn't exclude this.

The column was three hexes long. No unit within it had less than eighteen move. No unit within it had lower than six base attack. This was a strike force. It was several strike forces.

No fancy tactics other than charging at the enemy are necessary with enough technological superiority. That sort of battle is the best sort of battle- a curb stomp.

Every time he has brought overwhelming force on the enemy and employed lightning strikes he has been burnt. He attacked with the dwagons against the siege, Ansom destroyed his dwagons, Wanda attacked Ansom with the decrypted fliers, Charlie intervened and knocked her out, he abducted Ossomer, Wanda learned about Jill and went to talk to her and had kingworld cast on her and then Ossomer betrayed him destroying his archons. His enemy does not stay on the back foot. He is facing overwhelming odds, the enemy always has more reserves.

Are you seriously suggesting that Parson's dwagon tactic was bad? Are you seriously suggesting that he should have seen Kingworld coming? Are you seriously suggesting that he could have predicted Ossomer's turning?

Parson's moves have all been absolutely excellent, when considered from the position of the information available to him.

In TBFGK, the only reason that the battle didn't end with the release of Jillian is that Ansom acted extremely out of character by A) not going himself and B) hiring Charlie, a non-Royal. With the dwagons, Wanda flat out told him that Jillian wouldn't do it. Since Wanda had been one of his main allies up to that point, he had no real reason to disagree with her. When Sizemore brought up the doubts, it was already too late for Parson to change it. Even then, the lead Archon of the group acted with what was obviously unusual generosity and kindness towards Jillian in pointing out the spell. That's a number of events that were, at the time, quite literally unpredictable to GK.

As far as the Battle of Jetstone, the only reason that GK is in such dire straits is due to Wanda's going off mission by negotiating with Jillian. If she had just wiped out the group, as was suggested, Kingworld might have never been triggered. And nobody predicted Kingworld. It took everyone except FAQ off guard. Ossomer's turning was also a surprise to everyone. No one at GK had any reason to believe that the Decrypted weren't 100% loyal to the 'Pliers like the Dwagons are to the 'Hammer.

If you are really saying that because Parson didn't predict three events (the spell breaking, Kingworld and Ossomer turning) that were believed by just about everyone to be actually impossible, you have lost a great deal of credibility in this discussion.

[Nnelg]

That he has spotty strategic thinking, doesn't think ahead, makes lots of stupid moves. That is what I said. Being a master strategist doesn't exclude this.

Um, yes it does?

Napoleon is well renowned as an excellent general. He won many victories with his innovative thinking. He did though make many mistakes such as the well known invasion of Russia which lead to the mass starvation of his troops. Stupid move, good general.

It was a risky move, but not a stupid one. Russia had defied Napoleon's continental system (where nobody on the continent was allowed to trade with England). If he let Russia go, then his authority would have been defied and his grip on Europe significantly weakened. Whereas if he had succeeded, he might very well have proceeded to conquer England itself afterwards.

While how you bring weapons to bear is important, often the power of your weapons is the most important thing in a war

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/ ... mission_33

No fancy tactics other than charging at the enemy are necessary with enough technological superiority. That sort of battle is the best sort of battle- a curb stomp.

This is exactly what I mean by overwhelming force! It isn't a tactic, but a strategy. This is still the result of clever maneuvering, just on a larger scale than you seem to have expected.

Every time he has brought overwhelming force on the enemy and employed lightning strikes he has been burnt. He attacked with the dwagons against the siege, Ansom destroyed his dwagons, Wanda attacked Ansom with the decrypted fliers, Charlie intervened and knocked her out, he abducted Ossomer, Wanda learned about Jill and went to talk to her and had kingworld cast on her and then Ossomer betrayed him destroying his archons. His enemy does not stay on the back foot. He is facing overwhelming odds, the enemy always has more reserves.

For one, the dwagons were acceptable losses. Parson was gambling them, in hopes to croak Ansom. He lost that bet, but he was prepared to accept the consequences. (Except perhaps for Stanly's reaction...)

And you seem to be focusing on tBfGK, where I was talking about GK's current offensive. Fighting as the defender is an entirely different kind of war from fighting as the attacker. As the defender, your enemy naturally has control of the strategic initiative most of the time. The trick is to get it back as much as you can, and try to keep the enemies on their toes, so they'll loose confidence and not strike with enough force. As the attacker, one must remain confident and not try to withdraw once forces have been committed; lest one loses forces for lack of reinforcements that were withheld for fear of losing them.

Parson seizing the strategic initiative has a terrible history of many defeats. To my memory it has never worked and has never produced any gain for him. He has won when he's seen the value of powerful weapons- his dirtamancer's underground fighting, the value of breaking parley and negotiating in bad faith, his croakamancer's mass revive and artifact use, the dwagon's special abilities.

Each time he uses those tools of his to their greatest effect is, by definition, an example of him seizing initiative.

If you can only win if the enemy doesn't fight back you're not going to do well.

I never said that. I only said that keeping the enemy from fighting back effectively is itself a very effective tactic.

[Lamech]

Every time he has brought overwhelming force on the enemy and employed lightning strikes he has been burnt. He attacked with the dwagons against the siege, Ansom destroyed his dwagons, Wanda attacked Ansom with the decrypted fliers, Charlie intervened and knocked her out, he abducted Ossomer, Wanda learned about Jill and went to talk to her and had kingworld cast on her and then Ossomer betrayed him destroying his archons. His enemy does not stay on the back foot. He is facing overwhelming odds, the enemy always has more reserves.

Parson seizing the strategic initiative has a terrible history of many defeats. To my memory it has never worked and has never produced any gain for him. He has won when he's seen the value of powerful weapons- his dirtamancer's underground fighting, the value of breaking parley and negotiating in bad faith, his croakamancer's mass revive and artifact use, the dwagon's special abilities.

If you can only win if the enemy doesn't fight back you're not going to do well.

His failures? Lets look at them
1) Ansom caught out over the lake and doomed. Stanley snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
2) Wanda's attack on Ansom. Had he held Wanda back the wall would have fallen for sure. As it was, they both fell, the only reason why Ansom made it out alive is because he lucked out. (Also notably Wanda didn't simply blast him after disarming him.) Parson chose the option that had the chance of victory over a sure defeat.
3) Wanda, instead of charging the garrison as Parson recommended decided to sit and talk. And then the impossible happened.
4) Ossomer turned, another thing that should have been impossible. Regardless the king is dead. The garrison is all but taken. Even if Jetstone does spend the last of its forces to try and take the garrison back the Reds will burn it and everything else inside. Leaving Tram a sitting duck for the dwagons to pick up. Also the capture of the garrison shouldn't even be within the realm of possibility since Wanda and the chief warlord should be there!

So if there's a theme with Parson's plans failing its his plans fail when they aren't followed. ...

Also seizing the initiative has worked repeatedly for Parson. It worked in the tunnel, it worked with the falling dwagons, it worked with the tri-link...