Book 2 – Page 91

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:23 pm

New idea:

1.) Stanley gets pissy about Wanda decrypting his dwagons, and orders her to start her own side. If she decrypts another dwagon, it's war.
2.) Sylvia gets promoted to CWL.
3.) If Wanda doesn't get the casters from Spacerock, she'll have to start popping her own, which means a pure Croakamancer may be in the makings. Maybe even start popping a royal heir. Goodminton would be considered a royal side (able to hire any or all of Unaroyal's former casters) and would be in possession of a tool.
4.) Instant alliance between Goodminton and Faq, with Faq pushing to annihilate GK.
5a.) Parson has to defend against a possible RCC II and a Decyrpted army, with even less resources than before, and against foes that know how he thinks.
5b.) Optionally, a race between Goodminton/Faq, GK, RCC II, and Charlescomm to secure the fourth known Arkentool.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby multilis » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:41 pm

In a world where a hippy mage can stop all combat for a turn, a linkup flip to next turn, etc, and where ally with another side can change turn order, and Wanda has the power to bring back to life the dead and then help them turn back to their original side, I think too early to say what options available to Parson if Charlie springs his trap. So much is possible including diplomacy.

Every archon Charlie loses in battle could suddenly turn against him.

What price would Hagar pay for their lost prince if Parson figured out he could offer him back, better than before (no upkeep?) Would Trem bargain for is father's return?
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:46 pm

bladestorm wrote:Same update also give credence to Wanda splitting off and forming her own side.
"Very large sides were hard to maintain, and had a habit of splitting off into new sides for the efficiency of it."

Wanda splits off and takes the decrypted with her, Stanley stays behind and still has his level 5(+) capitol, all the dwaons he can tame, and the hobgobwins.
Jack would likely split off with Wanda (his talents are too subtle for Stanley to employ correctly), Maggie stays, Sizemore stays.
If GK captures the Spacerock casters, Pierce would probably be better served in GK. Stanley would probably like Ace's accessories. The other two go with Wanda.

That brings up an eerie option- Pliers plus dittomancy. For every living unit that croaks, two stand up, and join Wanda's forces.

I also wonder if Croakamancy can be set up into a trap. Lace the garrison with Croakamancy traps so that any body that falls there instantly gets reanimated.

Okay, been thinking some more about it. Trimancer link croakamancer with a dittomancer. They cover the entire garrison in croakamancy traps that go off when a dead body is present, reanimating it and duplicating it. Enemy attacks from the air, and fills the garrison with new troops. Add to that some yellow dwagons dropping crap bombs, and having the dirtamancer instantly convert them into crap golems.

Now from that, IF Parson is able to get through the portal with his caster screen before Slately changes capitol sites, the battle is easily winnable. He'll have Sizemore with him, and the yellow dwagons have already crapped all over the atrium. Instant new opponent that Tram didn't know about. Plus, either Sizemore would be able to scout the rubble and find Cubbins, or Wanda's Croakamancer senses would detect the living flesh still in the area. Also, with a dirtamancer, they may be able to drop the walls, making it much easier to exit to an adjacent zone in Spacerock while the garrison burns (Sylvia is still fixated on her scorched earth battle plan).

Another complication may be that Jack and Wanda might not be able to go back through the portal, for some reason. Parson can negotiate that he won't be attacking, even volunteering for Janis's no-aggression for a round spell as proof that he won't attack (thereby not vioating MK's neutrality), but Wanda and Jack have already proven to be a part of the hostilities. They came into MK from battle, so going back into battle would be a violation of neutrality.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:56 pm

multilis wrote:In a world where a hippy mage can stop all combat for a turn, a linkup flip to next turn, etc, and where ally with another side can change turn order, and Wanda has the power to bring back to life the dead and then help them turn back to their original side, I think too early to say what options available to Parson if Charlie springs his trap. So much is possible including diplomacy.

Every archon Charlie loses in battle could suddenly turn against him.

What price would Hagar pay for their lost prince if Parson figured out he could offer him back, better than before (no upkeep?) Would Trem bargain for is father's return?

That's actually a decent bargaining chip. Pet Sematary style. Slately wouldn't 'have' to unpop at the end of this turn. Would Trem be willing to isolate his entire side from the RCC II in order to have his father back again? Negotiations could even be made for Ansom to be returned as well. Stanley would't like that, so he'd prolly demote Parson yet again and promote Vurp instead. Hobgoblin knight on dwagonback would make a good fit for CWL of GK.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby 0beron » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:56 pm

bladestorm wrote:Goodminton would be considered a royal side.
Except they wouldn't because Wanda is not a Royal herself.
"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: 3183
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:04 pm

0beron wrote:
bladestorm wrote:Goodminton would be considered a royal side.
Except they wouldn't because Wanda is not a Royal herself.

Pfft, please. Wanda's love child with Jillian would be consider royal enough to count. Or when Wanda seduces the heir to Faq like she seduced the queen, royalty is a sure thing. She'll be royalty by injection, and not even have to have a boob pics scandal.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Infidel » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:11 pm

Oberon wrote:You may want to read some history texts. Attacking during negotiations has been repeated again and again and again.


Having something happen again and again over the course of history by different sides is NOT comparable to something happening again and again by the same side in a single time frame. If you want to claim history is on your side, please provide me one sample of a general, admiral, or whatever attacking in negotiations again and again and again against enemies that were aware of the previous betrayals, that survived the backlash and had a happy retirement.

Sure, there will be examples of a some conquistadors and such betraying ignorant natives in far flung lands. But that is not even comparable to betraying civilizations tied into the greater trade networks that are in regular communication with other major powers, and and many cases allied with them.
Who is that beautiful red-headed devil,
Stabs you in the heart so that she can level?
It's Scarlet!
- BC
User avatar
Infidel
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Oberon » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:55 pm

multilis wrote:What price would Hagar pay for their lost prince if Parson figured out he could offer him back, better than before (no upkeep?) Would Trem bargain for is father's return?
Nothing, and no. Both are royal sides who consider the decrypted to be abominations. It's only a shame that we didn't get to see how Jetstone would have treated Ossomer if he had survived the battle and remained a Jetstone unit. My guess is that while they were happy enough to have his ossom leadership bonus during the aerial fight, his presence at court would have been just a bit strained during time of less necessity.
bladestorm wrote:Okay, been thinking some more about it. Trimancer link croakamancer with a dittomancer. They cover the entire garrison in croakamancy traps that go off when a dead body is present, reanimating it and duplicating it.
Why would you risk three casters in a link and spend a lot of juice to create limited lifespan uncroaked units when Wanda appears to be able to create permanent decrypted all day long with no cost but the waving around of the 'pliers?
Infidel wrote:If you want to claim history is on your side, please provide me one sample of a general, admiral, or whatever attacking in negotiations again and again and again against enemies that were aware of the previous betrayals, that survived the backlash and had a happy retirement.
First, I'm not going to do your research for you. There are multiple examples easily found. Second, by adding the "happy retirement" clause you are changing the scenario significantly. Who can know another man's heart? How do you define "happy"? Lots of people who live by the sword die by the sword. How can history know if they died happily in battle rather than miserable in old age, when they only died the once? An easy out for you when you can simply deny any example by claiming that the person was unhappy. And third, limiting the victims to "civilizations tied into the greater trade networks that are in regular communication with other major powers" is another major change to the scenario, and again remains significantly vague enough for you to also be able to deny just about any example I could provide simply by saying that some nation they were in communication with wasn't "major" enough for you, or that some trade route wasn't quite "greater" enough to qualify. And it's also a reasonably clever limitation for you to throw in, since it eliminates some of the examples you may have learned about in grade school. Seems to me you might be aware that you're wrong, but just want to add qualifiers to try to make it appear otherwise.

Seriously, if you really want to believe that never in history has any leader attacked during a truce, or assassinated leaders he was meeting with, and never did this successfully again and again and again, then go ahead. I'd hate to ruin your cozy world view. Or, you might want to read a book every now and again.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:32 pm

Oberon wrote:
multilis wrote:What price would Hagar pay for their lost prince if Parson figured out he could offer him back, better than before (no upkeep?) Would Trem bargain for is father's return?
Nothing, and no. Both are royal sides who consider the decrypted to be abominations. It's only a shame that we didn't get to see how Jetstone would have treated Ossomer if he had survived the battle and remained a Jetstone unit. My guess is that while they were happy enough to have his ossom leadership bonus during the aerial fight, his presence at court would have been just a bit strained during time of less necessity.
bladestorm wrote:Okay, been thinking some more about it. Trimancer link croakamancer with a dittomancer. They cover the entire garrison in croakamancy traps that go off when a dead body is present, reanimating it and duplicating it.
Why would you risk three casters in a link and spend a lot of juice to create limited lifespan uncroaked units when Wanda appears to be able to create permanent decrypted all day long with no cost but the waving around of the 'pliers?
Infidel wrote:If you want to claim history is on your side, please provide me one sample of a general, admiral, or whatever attacking in negotiations again and again and again against enemies that were aware of the previous betrayals, that survived the backlash and had a happy retirement.
First, I'm not going to do your research for you. There are multiple examples easily found. Second, by adding the "happy retirement" clause you are changing the scenario significantly. Who can know another man's heart? How do you define "happy"? Lots of people who live by the sword die by the sword. How can history know if they died happily in battle rather than miserable in old age, when they only died the once? An easy out for you when you can simply deny any example by claiming that the person was unhappy. And third, limiting the victims to "civilizations tied into the greater trade networks that are in regular communication with other major powers" is another major change to the scenario, and again remains significantly vague enough for you to also be able to deny just about any example I could provide simply by saying that some nation they were in communication with wasn't "major" enough for you, or that some trade route wasn't quite "greater" enough to qualify. And it's also a reasonably clever limitation for you to throw in, since it eliminates some of the examples you may have learned about in grade school. Seems to me you might be aware that you're wrong, but just want to add qualifiers to try to make it appear otherwise.

Seriously, if you really want to believe that never in history has any leader attacked during a truce, or assassinated leaders he was meeting with, and never did this successfully again and again and again, then go ahead. I'd hate to ruin your cozy world view. Or, you might want to read a book every now and again.

re: trimancer link -- because I wasn't using Wanda and the pliers as an example. Just A croakamancer. Wanda seems much more to prefer getting close and cuddly with the bodies. And she may not have the pliers much longer.

re: historical babbling -- Wasn't Japan in the middle of negotiations (that were going poorly for both sides) with the US to ease strict embargoes set upon Japanese expansion through Asia in December of 1941?
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Beeskee » Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:56 am

Re: Wanda turning on Stanley: Wanda just turned down her lover not too long ago, because she felt that keeping the tools together was more important. She's not about to split off from Stanley into an opposing side now. I could see her splitting to form a new side as a permanent ally of GK, as they need allies, and are up against the previously mentioned shmuckers threshold. I could also see Parson getting to start his own side. They may end up both founding a side of their own in the available capital city sites.


effataigus wrote:He has some redeeming qualities, but he's definitely at the center of his own world. Consider he had Misty killed in order to drag Jack out of a link so that he could run away after a bout of paranoia. He had lots of space on dwagonback that he could evacuate people with, and he left them all behind.


For the first, he didn't know which caster, if any, might croak when the link was broken. Regarding the troops he took, it hasn't been stated in the comic directly, but I am guessing based on other stuff we have seen that he couldn't afford the upkeep of any more units than that if the city fell. Which he fully expected would happen before he got to Faq.

Not that I am disagreeing in the slightest regarding Stanley's opinion of himself. :)

I do think that he could be convinced of the wisdom of letting his underlings split off from him to form their own sides. He gains permanent allies, new troop types, and a defended border. He loses nothing, since he never had that much control over Wanda to begin with and Parson is still magically bound to obey him.
User avatar
Beeskee
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Chernobyl » Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:03 am

I'm officially confused by the way.

I ordered my book (Book 2 of 2), yet the story arc continues....

Shouldn't this be book 3 already? Or are we going to have a book 3 of 2 (ahem, slight miscalculation).
Chernobyl
Tool + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Tool + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Whispri » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:53 am

Chernobyl wrote:I'm officially confused by the way.

I ordered my book (Book 2 of 2), yet the story arc continues....

Shouldn't this be book 3 already? Or are we going to have a book 3 of 2 (ahem, slight miscalculation).

It's Issue 3 of Book 2.

MonteCristo wrote:Well one thing you can't forget is that, at the moment, Jetstone has the advantage; as Trem pointed out in the previously the jetstone side as greater numbers and greater leadership (when assessing the situation, they advanatage of decryption was the only thing he could not properly gauge and is what he thought might turn the advantage over to GK). They have 1500 units made up of infantry, heavies and warlords; and even if Trem leaves the hex, the units should likely still benefit from Slately's bonus... GK at the moment, only has the dwagons, their riders, and whoever they managed to decrypt before wanda left; and they are seriously lacking in leadership with both Parson and wanda gone. Without decryption, Slately could do a lot of damage to GK's forces before parson comes through. In fact, if Parson is stalled for too long, Jestone could actually finish off all of their forces and get to the portal room so that Parson and Wanda will be alone when they arrive. Granted, their is still potential for things to not go quite a smoothly, like if Parson and wanda arrive soon enough to take part in the fight, or if Wanda manages to decrypt the fallen jestones right away as she comes through and thus restarts the fight; but still Slately DOES have a chance of pulling this off.

Jetstone had greater numbers and leadership before the Dungeon was lost and the Tower destroyed. The balance has changed since then. Not to mention the doomed charge of Countes Artemis, that cost Gobwin Knob seven Dwagons and a Heavy Knight iirc, but it cost Jetstone one of their best Warlords and a stack of Knights.

Oh and about the fifteen hundred Units thing, while Wanda was negotiating with a treacherously minded RCC leader, Ossomer contemplated the Disbanding of Jetstone Units when the Capital fell and iirc the phrase 'nearly six thousand' was used to count them. That really does suggest that Jetstone's losses have been terrible indeed.

Fourty eight Warlords. Plus Tremannis and three Casters. Plus whatever they had in the Garrison. Still, Antium spoke of slaughtering lower level Warlords in the Dungeon, Fud took a Warlord, Artemis fell, further losses in the Courtyard and Tower are possible and there may have been Warlord casualties at the Bridge.

0beron wrote:So I really hope that the throne thing is just for when you want to switch between existing Capitals, rather then retreat to a backup one when the original is taken.

I'm not seeing the point in having Slately leave the Capital if there's no way to activate a back up. And there was talk of that even after the Tower was lost.

Lamech wrote:
Beeskee wrote:As some have pointed out, technically Jetstone violated parley first when their ally, Faq, forced an end to GK's turn during negotiations. By the "anything goes" rules, Parson is justified in doing anything he likes after that point. Yes, he could have taken the high road and tried to chat with Tramennis, but we saw what Tram had in mind as a fair deal, and Parson couldn't possibly take it. Though if he gets an actual chance to talk with Tram, he might work out a New Deal.

Actually, the first violation was either Beau, or Jillian's attack on Jitterai. (Not sure which.) The second parley violation was the second of those. The third (although very minor) parley violation was Jillian attacking GK equipment when talking with Ansom. KIngworld was actually more a violation of an negotiated agreement.

You know the ironic thing is Parson can just lie about the treachery perpetrated upon Ansom, and claim the royals started it. "Charlie says I betrayed Ansom? Yeah, I dueled him. Kicked his ass, with my artifact sword."

On top of the various crimes the RCC II has committed with Jetstone's approval, the plain fact of the matter is that Jetstone has a reputation for using parley purely to insult their opponents. Why they expected Parson to listen I will never know.

You know, Ansom did bribe Charlie to shoot down Gobwin Knob's airforce after he'd agreed not to. That could be viewed as 'starting it'.
Last edited by Whispri on Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Whispri
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Infidel » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:25 am

Oberon wrote:
Infidel wrote:If you want to claim history is on your side, please provide me one sample of a general, admiral, or whatever attacking in negotiations again and again and again against enemies that were aware of the previous betrayals, that survived the backlash and had a happy retirement.
First, I'm not going to do your research for you. There are multiple examples easily found. Second, by adding the "happy retirement" clause you are changing the scenario significantly. Who can know another man's heart? How do you define "happy"? Lots of people who live by the sword die by the sword. How can history know if they died happily in battle rather than miserable in old age, when they only died the once? An easy out for you when you can simply deny any example by claiming that the person was unhappy. And third, limiting the victims to "civilizations tied into the greater trade networks that are in regular communication with other major powers" is another major change to the scenario, and again remains significantly vague enough for you to also be able to deny just about any example I could provide simply by saying that some nation they were in communication with wasn't "major" enough for you, or that some trade route wasn't quite "greater" enough to qualify. And it's also a reasonably clever limitation for you to throw in, since it eliminates some of the examples you may have learned about in grade school. Seems to me you might be aware that you're wrong, but just want to add qualifiers to try to make it appear otherwise.

Seriously, if you really want to believe that never in history has any leader attacked during a truce, or assassinated leaders he was meeting with, and never did this successfully again and again and again, then go ahead. I'd hate to ruin your cozy world view. Or, you might want to read a book every now and again.


Wow, what a weasely way to avoid admitting you are wrong. And your need to use insults only reveals the weakness in your argument, as someone with real support would not need to stoop to such to divert criticism. And Yes, I am very well read, ergo the reason I am not impressed with your arguments. I have read works of fiction where such an example happens, but I've not read any history where such led to long-term success among civilized nations.

No, I am not adding qualifiers so that I can deny any examples you might cite using nebulous logic. I'm simply demanding a standard of long-term success, and examples that are Germaine. Being banished to a island and spoon fed arsenic isn't happy. Killing oneself is not happy, being executed, being imprisoned for life, living the remainder of one's life in disgrace these are not happy. I know Columbus and other scoundrels took advantage of ignorant and weak natives in lands considered remote. I know many Americans abused the natives here. But this hardly compares to betraying powerful nations in the same general vicinity. Parson didn't betray a technologically inferior people that civilized nations would not acknowledge as anything approaching a nation in the "western" sense. He betrayed the leader of a major alliance of nations that were technological and economic peers. That is something different altogether.

bladestorm wrote:re: historical babbling -- Wasn't Japan in the middle of negotiations (that were going poorly for both sides) with the US to ease strict embargoes set upon Japanese expansion through Asia in December of 1941?


Yes, and the response went badly for them. Which is the point.

--
Alright, going to sea again for a bit, I'll try to look back on this thread to see if I get an interesting reply or just more snobbery and name calling. If I am missing someone important though, I'd appreciate a name so I can at least go look it up.
Last edited by Infidel on Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is that beautiful red-headed devil,
Stabs you in the heart so that she can level?
It's Scarlet!
- BC
User avatar
Infidel
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby bladestorm » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:19 am

Infidel wrote:
Oberon wrote:
Infidel wrote:If you want to claim history is on your side, please provide me one sample of a general, admiral, or whatever attacking in negotiations again and again and again against enemies that were aware of the previous betrayals, that survived the backlash and had a happy retirement.
First, I'm not going to do your research for you. There are multiple examples easily found. Second, by adding the "happy retirement" clause you are changing the scenario significantly. Who can know another man's heart? How do you define "happy"? Lots of people who live by the sword die by the sword. How can history know if they died happily in battle rather than miserable in old age, when they only died the once? An easy out for you when you can simply deny any example by claiming that the person was unhappy. And third, limiting the victims to "civilizations tied into the greater trade networks that are in regular communication with other major powers" is another major change to the scenario, and again remains significantly vague enough for you to also be able to deny just about any example I could provide simply by saying that some nation they were in communication with wasn't "major" enough for you, or that some trade route wasn't quite "greater" enough to qualify. And it's also a reasonably clever limitation for you to throw in, since it eliminates some of the examples you may have learned about in grade school. Seems to me you might be aware that you're wrong, but just want to add qualifiers to try to make it appear otherwise.

Seriously, if you really want to believe that never in history has any leader attacked during a truce, or assassinated leaders he was meeting with, and never did this successfully again and again and again, then go ahead. I'd hate to ruin your cozy world view. Or, you might want to read a book every now and again.


Wow, what a weasely way to avoid admitting you are wrong. And your need to use insults only reveals the weakness in your argument, as someone with real support would not need to stoop to such to divert criticism. And Yes, I am very well read, ergo the reason I am not impressed with your arguments. I have read works of fiction where such an example happens, but I've not read any history where such led to long-term success among civilized nations.

No, I am not adding qualifiers so that I can deny any examples you might cite using nebulous logic. I'm simply demanding a standard of long-term success, and examples that are Germaine. Being banished to a island and spoon fed arsenic isn't happy. Killing oneself is not happy, being executed, being imprisoned for life, living the remainder of one's life in disgrace these are not happy. I know Columbus and other scoundrels took advantage of ignorant and weak natives in lands considered remote. But this hardly compares to betraying powerful nations in the same general vicinity.

bladestorm wrote:re: historical babbling -- Wasn't Japan in the middle of negotiations (that were going poorly for both sides) with the US to ease strict embargoes set upon Japanese expansion through Asia in December of 1941?


Yes, and the response went badly for them. Which is the point.

If the bad response was of the calibre you mention, Japan would never have had any allies after that and their entire economy would have been in ruins, since no one would have bought any of their electronics. 40 years later, the US was one of Japan's biggest importers. Alliance can be reformed after the so-called sanctity of parley has been violated. A side isn't completely ostracized simply because it has broken parley, whether once or several times.

Betrayal may be expected after this, but Parson can use even that to his advantage. On the next parley, he can walk directly through the middle of an entire army, unattended, and not get so much as a scratch, because the enemy is expecting him to have some sort of trick up his sleeve. He's already used a duplicate veil, and has already done a significant amount of damage to an opponent after his turn was forcefully ended. Treachery is afoot, and whatever that fat potato thing is waddling down the parade field is just the distraction.

Also, with the Japan reference, the US was totally justified after that attack for any amount of overkill, excessive brutality, excessive violence, or completely uncalled for activity against Japan because of that. That pretty much gives Jetstone free reign to call in Charlie to use every ounce of overkill at his disposal to take down GK and anything associated with them. The rest of the royals will back them up, no matter how deplorable the war acts of Jetstone are.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby doran » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:51 am

One thing about Erfworld compared to real world nations is that genocide is guaranteed by conquering, rulers/heirs are absolute dictators who can execute anyone remotely on a whim, and sides are beyond ultranationalistic. Ruler are their sides.

You can only have a resistance centered on the heir if there is one, and you can't rely on pushing a nation until they are forced by their population to change their tune.

Because of all this, unlike the real world, where there is the possibility of a coup, the side is utterly controlled by a very small group of people. Therefore Parson cam treat them as players, and people to manipulate, and thus play into his gaming skills, rather needing politics and propaganda to persuade a large group of people.

Thus if he wants parley geniunely again, he only needs to understand and persuade those people it is in their best interests - after this turn, to persuade Jetstone, he needs to understand and persuade Tramennis. He doesn't have to worry about the opinions of Warlord Joe Q of Jetstone, as long as Warlord Joe isn't capable of persuading Tramennis more than he can.

This is unlike Earth where you need to worry about multiple factions, countries breaking up into smaller chunks, radicalisation etc, popular opinion...
Image
MarbitChow wrote: Don't you get it yet? WE ARE THE MAGIC KINGDOM.
We're the people sitting around discussing our pet theories based on nomenclature, citing references, discussing ad nauseum while Parson finds out how it works.
User avatar
doran
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby effataigus » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:37 pm

This comic isn't going to be set on Earth regardless who who wins the history-channel E-peen measurements, so I don't think either of you are likely to come up with any germane examples.

bladestorm wrote:re: historical babbling -- Wasn't Japan in the middle of negotiations (that were going poorly for both sides) with the US to ease strict embargoes set upon Japanese expansion through Asia in December of 1941?

Eh, there's a difference between attacking during a parley and attacking during a period of time in which some communications had been taking place. Notice Bogroll was the person in the negotiations AND Bogroll attacked. Ossomer was in the negotiations, but Ossomer did not attack. Jillian was in negotiations, but Jillian did not attack till they were done talking at Jetstone, while giving the command for betrayal during negotiations with Jitterati. If Japan told the US that those planes were just there to drop some para-ambassadors on the other hand...

Whispri wrote:On top of the various crimes the RCC II has committed with Jetstone's approval, the plain fact of the matter is that Jetstone has a reputation for using parley purely to insult their opponents. Why they expected Parson to listen I will never know.


I disagree. I think your characterization is fair for the examples we've seen in comic (which are indeed the gold standard for what we can believe), but Tramennis' backstory suggests that Jetstone has a long history of making a tidy profit off of letting go of other side's balls. Instead, I question why Maggie said that Jetstone wouldn't offer anything of substance. It sounds to me that she (like us) needs to bone up on Erfworld history before making such flat assertions.
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 91

Postby drachefly » Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:29 pm

effataigus wrote:If Japan told the US that those planes were just there to drop some para-ambassadors on the other hand...


... then the ultimate outcome would have been the same. They are delivered unconditional surrender, we build their next government the way we like.

20th century imperial Japan is not a great example of getting away with something.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Lamech » Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:51 pm

effataigus wrote:See above. Also, there's a difference between attacking during a parley and attacking during a period of time in which some communications had been taking place. Notice Bogroll was the person in the negotiations AND Bogroll attacked. Ossomer was in the negotiations, but Ossomer did not attack. Jillian was in negotiations, but Jillian did not attack till they were done talking at Jetstone, while giving the command for betrayal during negotiations with Jitterati. If Japan told the US that those planes were just there to drop some para-ambassadors, then you would have a point... sorta... see above.

Then Japan is a wonderful comparison for what Parson did. Other forces attacked during the negotiation.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Whispri » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:38 am

effataigus wrote:This comic isn't going to be set on Earth regardless who who wins the history-channel E-peen measurements, so I don't think either of you are likely to come up with any germane examples.

Eh, there's a difference between attacking during a parley and attacking during a period of time in which some communications had been taking place. Notice Bogroll was the person in the negotiations AND Bogroll attacked. Ossomer was in the negotiations, but Ossomer did not attack. Jillian was in negotiations, but Jillian did not attack till they were done talking at Jetstone, while giving the command for betrayal during negotiations with Jitterati. If Japan told the US that those planes were just there to drop some para-ambassadors on the other hand...

I disagree. I think your characterization is fair for the examples we've seen in comic (which are indeed the gold standard for what we can believe), but Tramennis' backstory suggests that Jetstone has a long history of making a tidy profit off of letting go of other side's balls. Instead, I question why Maggie said that Jetstone wouldn't offer anything of substance. It sounds to me that she (like us) needs to bone up on Erfworld history before making such flat assertions.

Even if we had historic Erf precedents, Jetstone and the RCC (which mean all of Gobwin Knob's neighbours and some of their neighbours) are already doing their worst. What more can they do?

Jillian did attack Ansom while he was signalling for parley. She and Tramennis had a good laugh about that as I recall, they certainly highly enjoyed it. Regardless, at this point the RCC is at best reduced to whinging about the 'wrong type of treachery'.

Thing is... And note that Jack had at least one former Jetstone Warlord at hand to contradict him, yet silence ensued. Bottom line, Gobwin Knob would have been fools to speak to Jetsone, let alone trust a word they said.
Whispri
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 91

Postby Beeskee » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:56 am

Whispri wrote:On top of the various crimes the RCC II has committed with Jetstone's approval, the plain fact of the matter is that Jetstone has a reputation for using parley purely to insult their opponents. Why they expected Parson to listen I will never know.

You know, Ansom did bribe Charlie to shoot down Gobwin Knob's airforce after he'd agreed not to. That could be viewed as 'starting it'.


I think the whole thing's just an anything-goes "Charlie Foxtrot" at this point. :D

Edit: Hehe. Charlie. :>
User avatar
Beeskee
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CarniDollMancer, Durmatagno, fjolnir, Lamech, zilfallon and 9 guests