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.