"Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Darkside007 » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Random thought:

If Stanley disbanded Parson, then the title (or the power, at least) of Overlord would most likely default to Stanley. That means GK is a led hex. Parson is a warlord. That means neither side would auto-attack if 'dis-band' meant 'eject from side', which means the threat of disbanding isn't. If the steps were "Disband Parson", "Kill Parson", then the threat would be "I could croak you with a word" not "I could disband you with a thought."
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:13 pm

Going to double quote here.

Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology.


That's... that's sad. You are so desperate to cling to a theorum that has positive evidence to reject it that you insist the author made a mistake and used the wrong term? Please note that all of Parson's words are written by Rob Baldur, jsut as are Wanda's and Sizemore's, etc. There is only one writer, and it is not Parson that you accuse of making a mistake, but the author. I dunno if it's just willful ignorance or ego protection. You just lost any respect I might have had for your ideas. And you seem to like this bright, shiny concept of Rob as idiot. When you're wrong, suck it up. This is just desperate.

Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:
Kreistor wrote:
Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:being left over after a side is left without a ruler.


What do we know about that? You're referring to Jillian, obviously, when Faq fell. Let's look at the rules that we do know.


Obviously nothing - I have to re-read my statement just to know what you're half-quoting here.


Yeah, I snipped too much. Sorry.

K wrote:Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".


Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology. Ruler-generated Disbanding and destroyed-side "disbanding" are probably different things. BUT if we assume they are the same mechanic being activated in 2 different ways, then what?


It's not an assumption to decide that the same word in two places means the same thing. It's an assumption that the author misused the term. I personally don't need to claim the author made mistakes. I kinda think that makes your position inferior, but let's let the readership decide that, eh?

1) Jillian is not an exception. If a Ruler disbands someone they become a Barbarian in the midst of a side, with all the issues that entails.


I limit it to Commander or higher, personally. I expect un-led infantry become tradesmen, miners, and farmers, but I can go with the idea.

2) Jillian is an exception, (possibly because she is Heir). If a Ruler disbands someone they are 'deleted,' and the same thing happens to field units when a side is finished, clearing up the whole issue of random unled troops of a specific Side seeking revenge, or huge Barbarian field armies wandering about looking to take a city after a Ruler is ganked. (Since we know the in-city units are frozen in time and can take no proactive actions). Essentially, a Ruler can't rule from the grave.


This fails to explain casters in MK when their Side falls. They become Barbarians, too. Or did you forget that one? Your theory is still incomplete. Wanna keep making more exceptions? That's complicating what's supposed to be a simple system, you know.

hmm... actually, I like #2. I would be willing to go with that, and say Barbarians only pop randomly unless they are Heirs of lost sides.


And so you just rejected the entire reason Parson sent the casters to MK. Clap. Clap. Clap.

K wrote:Though it's possible that this may have happened solely because she was an heir, I highly doubt it. It's a pretty specific exception.


Exceptions tend to be specific. If the loss of a Ruler means the destruction (in effect) of his side, having an Heir would be the exception to make (as opposed to Warlords, or Casters, or all Commanders, or Tribe Members, etc). If the Heir is only a few hexes away with a big army, they could retake the Capital and have the side going again on the next turn. In this way, the Heir away from home has to fight for it rather than just automatically keeping control of the whole side, and if the Heir was to disband as well, what would be the point of having one?


Sides are lost via two methods. First is the death of an heir-less Ruler. (Ie. Old Baldy. Get it, hunh, hunh? Hairless? Okay, lame pun.) Second is the loss of Capital. A Side must have a capital, or it becomes Barbarian. So, let's modify Stanley's situation when he fled GK and risked barbarism. No Parson, since he's totally exceptional and confuses the standard events. Manpower survived and is in the field, in a different location with a second army, and he's been made heir. GK falls. Who can become a barbarian side, and how many form? One under Stanley but Manpower disappears, two under each, or one with Stanley as leader with Manpower still working for Stanley? It has to be one of the three, since we know at minimum Stanley survives. Now, add a third field army under a non-heir Warlord. What happens then? An entire army disappears from the world just because the warlord wasn't an heir? We don't even know that de-popping exists, and here you're annihilating entire armies just because the Warlord wasn't set to Rule. and if that army doesn't disappear, then why would an army disappear, just because their Warlord loses his superor officer?

Remember, Barbarians can become Rulers without being declared Heirs. Barbarian Warlords exist and they can become a side by capturing or starting a city.

Take the case of Barbarian Warlord Attila under his leader Genghis. Genghis just captured Tokyo and is the Ruler of a Capital Side. Attila takes his army out and attacks Shanghai, so he's in the field this turn. Side Shiznit attacks Tokyo and captures it, destroying Genghis and ending the Side. Only two turns have passed. Two turns ago, Attila was a Barbarian Warlord. He knows how to do that job. Suddenly, under your rules, he disappears from the world, because for one Turn, he was on a Capital Side, despite having every bit of knowledge necessary to return to his previous state of Barbarian Warlord.

Don't you see how absurd de-popping of living beings is? It completely ignores teh realities of what is inside a unit's mind. It ignores what the unit is capable of being, and has proven he is capable of being. Erfworld, despite having certain magics, still tries to retain certain physical qualities of our world. Only inanimate objects that no one wants de-pop. Attila wants his body, so why would it de-pop? And why can't he return to his previous state as Barbarian Warlord, a task he has proven capable of?

If disbanding means "becoming Barbarian," then it only makes sense to bother popping an Heir if only an Heir can claim a city. Otherwise it's unwise (see Saline IV).


Obedience, Duty, and Loyalty should prevent heirs from supplanting you. Note that Stanley owns an Arkentool and we don't know what effects that may have on Natural Thinkamancy. With the upcoming fireworks between Stanley and Wanda, I'm deferring the rest of this discussion until after we see if any evidence comes out of that interaction. Banhammer popped an heir because he wanted his side to continue. Did you overlook that Jillian called Banhammer her father? There is a familial concept, despite the lack of genetic breeding. You pop an heir because you want someone to call you "Dad". You need a better reason that that? I don't.

And, it's defense against Assassination. Under your concept of de-popping, an assassination of a Ruler eliminates the entire side. With an Heir, assassination only changes leadership: you'd need to eliminate both in short order before a new heir can be named in order to wipe out the side. But I find even that too vulnerable. With de-popping as disbanding, why field an army at all, when a few good casters as assassins can eliminate the enemy Ruler and Heir, turn all cities Neutral, and de-pop all fielded units, ending the war in a stroke.

K wrote:And I can say the same about "de-popping." I see no reason to surmise the existence of a de-popping process unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic." I really can twist anything you say about this process and turn it right back against the unproven de-popping. That's a challenge of course. Can you come up with a statement I can't reflect right back at you?


Challenge rejected. I use my words to express my ideas and the reasons I've come to the hypotheses and conclusions I have, and why I think they're stronger than the alternatives I've been presented with. I don't use them to frustrate or aggravate an "opponent" or to sound smug or to "twist" someone's words. As you see above, I'm willing to re-think and re-shape my ideas, or at least seriously consider secondary possibilities as, well, possible. People who talk like you do in the quote above, in my experience, aren't, and therefore aren't worth the trouble of catering to.


That's grandiose, but doesn't defuse the threat. I literally can use anything you write as counter-proof of your own claims, because of the parallelism involved in the two claims. If you can't see that, then take a step back and reconsider the situation. When two ideas are parallel, a disproof of one can be used as a disproof of the other. It's inherent in the beast. To prevent it, one must find a dissimilarity that prevents association of similar concepts. No mean task..

"Enslaved?" Who would treat him worse than Stanley, his own "blood?" Sizemore could easily find "employment" in almost any side. Certainly someone as self-serving, business-savvy, and open-minded as Charlie would find some use for him, at least temporarily.


Parson. Or anyone like Parson. Sizemore enjoyed being peaceful, and if that meant living in a sewage tank, so be it. Parson caused him to kill, and that was much worse to him. Sizemore was blessed with Stanley's ignorance of his capabilities, and happy with that. Or had you forgotten? Anyone that knows what a crap golem can do would use Sizemore to kill, and that he would want to avoid.

Also, you're speaking to someone who doesn't believe in a future more horrible than death. And since there hasn't been any talk about "Going to be with the Titans" or any kind of nice afterlife, they may be inclined to agree, no matter how miserable they are.


Holy cow, can you miss anything bigger? Page 73, Panel 1: If we're standing in front of the Titans tomorrow night, I'll tell 'em, "I croaked five dwagons on the same turn. Five. And my boss here just nailed two warlords. So let us both into the City of Heroes please, thank you.

Or was that a test?

What could be worse than, or as bad as, being (effectively) killed?


Not being in the City of Heroes when you die? Oblivion? An opposite to the City of Heroes with punishment? All of you believing in de-popping of units for disbanding are sending those units to the afterlife and removing any further chance of improvement in their post-death situation. I doubt the Titans are interested in that concept. If they have a ity of Heroes, then they want Heroes, not vapourization just because you happen to be in the field when your Ruler croaks. Err on the side of more Heroes, not less.

Also, doesn't it bother you that if Disbanding turns units into Barbarians, there would automatically be a fight with their old side, unless they had a Commander and both sides would be willing to part ways?


No, since that's a big threat helping Natural Thinkamancy along. A power struggle over leadership by fielded newly barbarian units in response to the death of a nation's ruler is definitely consistent with Earthly ways and means, as well as the creation of Heroes for the City. Ignoble de-popping leaves an empty landscape devoid of units, and no chance for Heroism.

You didn't comment on that at all, but it's one of the main reasons I think that your idea is wrong. That and a sneak attack on a Capital could leave huge Barbarian armies out there.


With no income and no communications, and no centralized leadership? Yep. I'm perfectly happy with that. It's very realistic. Happened in our world all the time. Why would I dislike that? It errs on the side of more fighting. More fighting is cool in Erfworld. Pacifism isn't.

[quote=K]If and only if the creature is de-popped. If it remains popped but no longer a unit (a unit is a thing that fights... a thing that doesn't fight isn't a unit). A creature that isn't a unit might be recruited, although there are loyalty questions, so it would be rare if it did exist. Point is, we haven't seen farmers, but we have been assured they exist. Trades are real. There is a place for non-fighting units in Erfworld, but perhaps not in the comic due to constraints on time and story momentum.


Well, yes. I'm asking you to, for a moment, consider de-popping as a possibility long enough to see if the different pieces of evidence can add up. It isn't proof; even Sherlock Holmes repeatedly updates his theories as more information is added. The conclusion you come to with evidence A, B, and C will likely be far different than with A, B, C, and X. But your choices are to consider them and come up with a theory or deny anything is possible. It's clear you have a theory of your own, and yet you discount all other evidence as having no substance or "only working if X is true," but that's the idea. X can still be true in the light of the evidence at hand, and seems a certain amount more likely than Y. You can't say, "well the evidence for X isn't valid if we presuppose that Y is true," when Y and X are conclusions at odds with each other. The fact that a piece of evidence doesn't support your theory does not invalidate it in supporting other theories.[/quote]

The latest evidence is that farming and trades exist. That supported the belief that disbanding does not equate to de-popping, because Erfworld has a place for units that don't fight, where before it did not. Did you review the new evidence? Actually, you missed old evidence about an afterlife, with reward for combat prowess, so even if you had it was an incomplete and therefore faulty analysis.

Whew. That was convoluted.


But the comic is simple. So something is wrong if your concept is convoluted. Mine isn't. It uses known states and has no changes in existence. A unit is on a Side, and then it is a Barbarian if someone can pay it. Pretty simple. Without pay, it seeks to feed itself by farming or performing a trade. That's not a hard concept, and it doesn't have nastiness like people going to bad afterlifes when Rulers die of old age.

Anyway. "Popped but is no longer a unit." As in, not a Barbarian.

OK, let's look at this. In a vacuum, this would be at least as likely as 'de-popping.' Some games eliminate the unit with no immediate benefit. Some games actually increase your population when you disband units, so that's a wash.


More likely. Rob has stated that trades exist, but de-popping only occurs for garbage and "unclaimed" corpses so far.

So let's look at how it would happen and how it would be looked at by Erfworlders, and if there is any information for or against it in the comic.


Uh, how about, lay your sword on the ground and go dig in the dirt. I like simple processes. it really doesn't take magic, just the knowledge that the unit is no longer on a side, and needs to eat, but lacks the income to buy food. The process is, then, desperation not to starve. Do you seriously need to complicate this? I sure don't. You can't buy food, you forage or farm. Simple.

If you are "not a unit," what are you?


A civilian, by our terminology.

How do you interact with the world?


Hands, fists, mouth, etc. Seriously, are you just being dense? You need something magically complicated to explain a very mundane existence? You farm wiht tools you make yourself. A sword chops branches to make rakes. Bows allow you to hunt in woods until you find another means of survival.

Are you like a pigeon?


Pigeons are actually good evidence. They are creatures that are not units -- they do not fight, and are killed by units at whim. That's the state I needed right there. Thanks for the pointer. You've helped the case.

Or are they Units because they can be Hammered?


Units fight. Pigeons flee.

What have we seen that is Not A Unit?


Pigeons.

Anything alive? Not that I know of.


Actually, you did. Pigeons, if they were units, would be non-allied. this forces the auto-attack rule. Any un-led unit must auto-attack non-allied units. If pigeons were units, the garrison would spend 24/7 hunting down pigeons, or the Ruler would need to devote Warlords to keeping all units in position on the battlements. Armies couldn't sleep in the field for chasing squirrels.

It's possible that there are non-unit "people" living in the cities; that was my original belief, but since a city can go from ruins to city in one turn, from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one turn, with no labor and seemingly no resources; since there are no births, only "popping," and we can probably assume that every "person" popped is a Unit, since a city's production/economy is sent, in aggregate, to the Ruler's treasury, automatically, each turn; That no mention of "Civilians" or "Populace" or deaths other than the Units involved in the conflicts is ever made; That the world's pacifists are also combat troops; etc. etc., that either:


Rob specifically mentioned trades in a discussion about Gems and money. They do exist. He did not mention if the tradesmen were units doing a trade, or non-units.

1) Non-Unit "people" do not, and cannot exist. The world doesn't need them. Everything alive or Uncroaked is a Unit. Everything else is Terrain, Cities, Magic Items, and Food. "Everything that fights is a Unit," is not meant to mean that there are people who don't fight, just things that don't.


See previous reference to Rob's comments. Trades exist. They peform these functions to make money for their side. GK was mined out. It had to make money somehow or bleed Shmuckers until it decayed. So there is a source of income beyond gems. Gems are just one of the best. Farms make money. How? Moneymancy, but not the kind that requires a Moneymancer. Gems are converted to shmuckers by warlords. In the same way, farm goods are converted to shmuckers. There's no economy the way we know it. It's a magical process. Npo, you don't normally need construction workers to build a city, but a farm needs a farmhouse, and with no shmuckers to buy it, it must be built. Not all things are popped in this world. Hard work does exist.

2) In some sense or fashion, there are non-Unit people. They are an abstract of Erfworld, faded into its tapestry, like the Terrain itself; They don't speak to or interact with the Units in any real way; out of sight and out of mind; and that no Unit can become a non-unit (other than being croaked and left) or vice versa. In which case, disbanding wouldn't be the same as croaking, exactly, but it would be "like unto death."


That they have no presence in an entirely military comic up until this point is not evidence they don't speak or interact. Pigeons can coo, so a theoretical non-unit man could speak.

1) The idea that there could be an ex-Unit or would-be Unit, like a Unit but not, free from combat, is one of the bigger reaches I've heard.


Yeah, ther's no possibility of retirement from the military in Erfworld. Fight til you die, even if you're old and feeble. No, that's no reach. It parallels our world. Units age. You're suggesting only oblivion for the elderly that survive their youth in the wars. I can't imagine a more depressing world. Can't have children. Can't have a family. Only Natural Thinkamancy to force your will to action. So very bleak.

This is a world in which Sizemore is forced to kill - and for what? Obedience?


For King and Country. Many British men were forced into the army during 1500-1900 period, and forced to kill for their country. No conscientious objector clause in those days. Heck, there was conscription during WW1, and that was less than 100 years ago. Even now, the avoidance of combat requires a serious demonstration of abject peacfulness: you don't get it just by saying you're not violent, you have to prove it. Point is, you're finding fault in my view of Erfworld that parallels our own Earth. I'm presenting Erfworld as Earth-like wherever possible. It's you that are creating a fantasy version that coddles this extremely violent world. I expect anything that can happen on Earth can happen on erfworld, and right now, you can't have a rebellion, since rebels de-pop.

2) We have not been assured farmers exist.


Not in the comic. Rob stated it outside. Farming is one way Barbarians support themselves. It's in Word of the Titans in the Wiki, I think. I might look it up later. this has taken too long already. Maybe on one of the Wiki pages? Start at Gem I guess. Might lead to it. If you cna't find it, or don't want to, I'll track it down tomorrow or sometime this week. This one's not necessarily a short look like the comics.

K wrote:it is no more or less provable than my alternative


That's right, but you seemed to be demanding proof, whereas I want a logical approach that considers all the available information and makes the best guess, and I think my guess is better, and I want you to consider my guess and its evidence as possible, and not attempt to shout down the evidence as "not proof."


To consider all possible information, you need to have all the info. You clearly don't, even when it comes from the comic. You've overlooked a few things, and I cannot support your casual eviction of Erfworlders to the afterlife, just for being in the field at the wrong time.

And yes, I demand proof i someone wants to set something in stone. You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect me to agree if you can't demonstrate the burden of proof. If you just want to believe what you want, then stop arguing. Only debate with me if you think yours is the only possibility; otherwise, just ignore me or say you know it's not the only possibility, but it'sthe one you like. Oh, and don't call it the most likely, because no one individual makes that judgement. It's most likyl to you, not in general. The group decides what is most likely, not an individual.

De-Siding, or Barbarianating, (or de-Uniting, or Civilianning) depending on which theory we're talking about) is a process you've invented.


BEEP. Wrong twice. It happened to Jillian. She went from Sideed to barbarian overnight. If GK fell, it would have happened to Stanley. I merely extend what happened to an heir and a Ruler to all Warlords, sice it seems to me becoming a barbarian has to do with being able to lead, and all Commanders can give orders. I didn't invent the concept of a Sided unit surviving to beocome barbarian, I extended the concept beyond the evidence. Completely different beast. I noticed that "Disbanding" is what happens to Fielded units that lose a side, Jillian and Stanley were fielded when their side would have folded, and so Disbanding leading to Barbarism for Warlords in the field provides a result for the process of Disbanding. No invention. at all. Just hooking together two known concepts to close the gap.

De-popping doesn't "not exist," it just hasn't been seen or named. (Like farmers). But that's only "De-popping" as the result of Disbanding.


It has been mentioned, actually. In reference to Misty's corpse. Trash and corpses disappear at the beginning of turn (probably means beginning of what would have been their next turn, or Wanda wouldn't have had RCC corpses to Decrypt the next AM.

1) If I call it "Deletionism," suddenly it's an official, named Mechanic.


You don't need it. It exists. For dead things. Not living. Useless things. Even un-sided, a man is useful.

2) "De-Popped," as a state (and not a process) does exist, and we have seen it. It's what happened to Misty and every other Croaked person who isn't brought back. They cease to exist. It is because they don't exist that the state doesn't have a name. But that lack of a name doesn't mean the state isn't real.


Non-existence is a state? I'm pretty certain a state requires something to apply to. Non-existence isn't really a state of being, it's a state of non-being. that's just semantics, though.

And yet, Misty didn't "Disband", did she? Disbanding is a process for the living, not the dead. You're not Sided if you're dead. Your corpse may be owned or possessed by a side or an indivudal, but in the same way a brick is that Parson wants to throw off a rampart.

"But," you might say, "Disbanding doesn't Croak people." To that I say, "Disbanding doesn't Barbarian(ize) people."


But there is a process for people to revert to Barbarianism. That's for certain. It's unnamed, but it is consistent with the concept of "Disbanding" from a side. A group goes disobedient, flees their side's location, and becomes Barbarian when their leader disbands them. that makes the disobedient units a threat to their side, as they would be here on Earth. They're barbarians ready to attack and capture former allied territory, and they stand against their former ruler as traitors. I love that concept. I don't like the concept that a band of this type that flees from a tyranical ruler is suddenly non-existent and no threat to the cruel Ruler, rewarding cruelty. There should be consequences for Tyranny, but Disbanding as deletion eliminates any but abject loyalty. Would Wanda have said no to Stanley if she knew that when he disbanded her she stopped existing on that spot? Or did she feel safe knowing that if he did, she was alone with him, could cast some spells, and escape alive if he over-reacted?

If that is under-explained, let me expound. Side A has a tyrannical Ruler. He abuses his troops, underfeeds them to save money, tortures them for fun, and maims warlords that fail tasks. Under disbanding = de-popping, any unit that breaks and tries to kill the Ruler is disbanded on sight, and poofs... and can't kill the Ruler simply by being annihilated as he attacks. All units in the Garrison see loved ones sent to the field. With no heir, any successful attack that kills the Ruler un-pops those friends and relatives, since fielded units disband when their Ruler dies with no heir. The ultimate post-death insurance policy. It's rule by ransom. You're left with one or more "neutral" cities, which will be conquered at convenience by other sides when they discover the situation. Any rebellion, then, is ultimately suicidal for everyone in the nation. If one single unit goes insane and kills the heir-less Ruler, an entire Side is annihilated. Or, better yet, if a Ruler is assassinated, the Side is wiped out: we haven't mentioned that possibility. Someone like Sizemore could do it. Tunnel under the enemy courtyard, croak the King, and their entire side becomes de-popped or "neutral", consumed at convenience. Too convenient, for me. A side that loses its ruler shouldn't become a complete non-entity: those former units should need to be dealt wth to seize the territory. It's just too much of an "I win" button to gun the Ruler and watch your enemies turn to vapour.

If, on the other hand, disbanding can result in barbarianism, killing the tyrant only causes the units in the field to go barbarian: they can still fight against you, and try to restore their side. Warlords keep their troops under control, and so they can re-unite and assault their now-neutral capital, under an agreed upon Chief Warlord (violently vhosen, possibly). The defenders open the gates, and accept their new Ruler in a Bloodless take-over, and the side reforms under new leadership. That prevents this form of tyranny. Assasination of a Ruler is inconvenient for that Side, as it should be, but ultimately does not eliminate the threat of the enemy side in a single stroke (reducing the power of assassination as military tactic), and perhaps places a more competent Ruler in place over a Side.

That's what we're arguing, isn't it? Only I suggest a possibility and offer criticism on the alternatives, while you wave around "official" Language and decry made-up terms as if that means something.


Yes, I use official language. I trust the author. Yes, I decry anyone that makes things up and expects them to become canon. I am proud to. I am not here to cater to pet theories. I expect theory to meet the burden of proof. That's how we determine proposed canon.

You've overlooked evidence, dismissed counter-evidence off-hand as the author making a mistake, and created a situation where Rulers have no consequences for cruelty. Units disappear and go to the afterlife when they are still perfectly healthy and carrying weapons, capable of fighting, for no better reason that their bureaucracy just disappeared, even if the warlord with them has a sizable purse. And they are denied their ultimate reward in the City of Heroes because they didn't die gloriously in battle.

Yeah, I've got an "F" word for that concept. Ends in "ish".

Ultimately, the de-popping of any unit that leaves the side that hate a Ruler is just not going to fly for me, ever. If a Ruler treats his men poorly and creates the situation where disobedience results in willing disbanding, that Ruler needs to pay for his arrogance and stupidity, and the only way that happens is if those units become barbarians as a result of disbanding. Depopping just aids the tyrant too sweetly. Those barbarians at the gate must be there in order to check the power of Rulers, so that they treat their units with respect, or lose their side.

It's not the words, it's the concepts that are important. Words are a Tool. And so are some people. Like Stanley. But wait - how can Tool mean two different things? One must be wrong.


And you're right about that. I pointed that out already -- Erfworlders don't get a lexicon of rules, they get concepts. You've created a concept where living beings disappear at the convenience of their Ruler. You like that a Ruler can determine that someone goes to a negative afterlife simply by saying that they're disbanded? That's the ultimate threat -- "i can prevent you from going to the City of Heroes by disbanding you, so slave up." I'm not willing to give a Ruler that kind of control. He can disband, but a disbanded unit that shines in defending himself from the onslaught of auto-attacks gets to stand in front of the Titans a Hero, and gets a just reward, to spite his tyranical Ruler's whim.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Doktor Jones » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:46 pm

FOREWORD
I am not choosing sides here, I entertain all possibilities equally until a canonical explanation emerges from Rob/Jamie. Instead, I am just trying to point out some possible misunderstandings, and make a (perhaps futile) attempt at defusing this a bit...

Kreistor wrote:Going to double quote here.

Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology.


That's... that's sad. You are so desperate to cling to a theorum that has positive evidence to reject it that you insist the author made a mistake and used the wrong term? Please note that all of Parson's words are written by Rob Baldur, jsut as are Wanda's and Sizemore's, etc. There is only one writer, and it is not Parson that you accuse of making a mistake, but the author. I dunno if it's just willful ignorance or ego protection. You just lost any respect I might have had for your ideas. And you seem to like this bright, shiny concept of Rob as idiot. When you're wrong, suck it up. This is just desperate.


Where did he say the writer used the wrong terminology? Just because he says Parson made a mistake doesn't mean he's saying Rob's making a mistake. It seems much more likely to me that he's suggesting Rob may have intentionally made Parson use the wrong terminology, since he's relatively new to the mechanics of Erfworld? This'd suggest to me he's actually complementing the potential depth of Rob's writing.

Kreistor wrote:
K wrote:Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".


Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology. Ruler-generated Disbanding and destroyed-side "disbanding" are probably different things. BUT if we assume they are the same mechanic being activated in 2 different ways, then what?


It's not an assumption to decide that the same word in two places means the same thing. It's an assumption that the author misused the term. I personally don't need to claim the author made mistakes. I kinda think that makes your position inferior, but let's let the readership decide that, eh?


You proceed to base your arguments on what may be a fallacy, as I've pointed out above. Assuming your previous conclusion (that he is saying the author made a mistake) was incorrect, how now do you address this?

Kreistor wrote:Take the case of Barbarian Warlord Attila under his leader Genghis. Genghis just captured Tokyo and is the Ruler of a Capital Side. Attila takes his army out and attacks Shanghai, so he's in the field this turn. Side Shiznit attacks Tokyo and captures it, destroying Genghis and ending the Side. Only two turns have passed. Two turns ago, Attila was a Barbarian Warlord. He knows how to do that job. Suddenly, under your rules, he disappears from the world, because for one Turn, he was on a Capital Side, despite having every bit of knowledge necessary to return to his previous state of Barbarian Warlord.

Don't you see how absurd de-popping of living beings is? It completely ignores teh realities of what is inside a unit's mind. It ignores what the unit is capable of being, and has proven he is capable of being. Erfworld, despite having certain magics, still tries to retain certain physical qualities of our world. Only inanimate objects that no one wants de-pop. Attila wants his body, so why would it de-pop? And why can't he return to his previous state as Barbarian Warlord, a task he has proven capable of?


And how is de-popping any less absurd than popping? On Earth, people (units) are born and either are killed or die; is it too far to stretch that units in Erfworld are popped, and then either croaked or de-popped?

Not going to get into the rest... I need to get going now... but hopefully I this will help, even a little?
Last edited by Doktor Jones on Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Doktor Jones
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:01 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Kreistor, I'm not going to attempt a point-for-point quote and response, but I want to pick out a few basic points:

We know that units pop, we know that inanimate items pop, and we know that inanimate items de-pop. Why is having animate units de-pop such a stretch? It's a standard game mechanic, and Erfworld shows that it follows game mechanics. Saying that farms support the idea that units have a place to go when they're disbanded seems less logical than simply saying that farmers are popped, which seems more internally consistent.

Every mechanic about Erfworld that we've been shown leads to the idea that things pop and de-pop constantly, whereas we have no evidence at all that units can become other unit types, or at least that people in Erfworld don't normally think that way. Maggie and Sizemore seem to reject the idea of a non-archer using a ranged attack completely. They don't mention that the unit would have to become an archer first. This, in my mind, undermines the argument that disbanded units become farmers.

Kreistor wrote:All of you believing in de-popping of units for disbanding are sending those units to the afterlife and removing any further chance of improvement in their post-death situation.

Not at all. Low level infantry simply depop and repop again at level 1 (our equivalent of reincarnation) until they perform exceptionally enough to become 'unique' units, worthy of entering the City of Heroes. They just have no memory of their former incarnation, unlike decrypted units which are "popped again".

Kreistor wrote:With de-popping as disbanding, why field an army at all, when a few good casters as assassins can eliminate the enemy Ruler and Heir, turn all cities Neutral, and de-pop all fielded units, ending the war in a stroke.


If you go the caster-assassin route, and you eliminate the side, all of that side's defensive units still defend all of their cities, they're just 'frozen in time' until someone attacks them. Since there are a number of other players out there, if you haven't also fielded a sufficient army to defeat each city quickly, odds are good that they will beat you to them, strengthening their own side while you did all the hard work. Therefore, armies are most certainly required.

Assuming a simple fortress layout, the assassin route might be very difficult. Foolamancy might cause people to overlook trees in a forest hex, but it's highly unlikely that it would get you all the way to a moderately paranoid leader's inner sanctum. The alarms would be raised long before then, and casters are notably weak combat units, seemingly easily killed or captured. Bringing in a large enough number of supporting units to aid the casters, and you make the attacking force easier to spot.

It's not impossible, however, and I've already suspected Parson might use a tactic like this in the future. (I think I mentioned it in regard to killing and decrypting the ruler to potentially turn the entire side.) It's just a very high-risk scenario, because of the value of casters - if it fails, you've lost several unique and expensive units, and they may even be used against you now.

Kreistor wrote:Yeah, ther's no possibility of retirement from the military in Erfworld. Fight til you die, even if you're old and feeble. No, that's no reach. It parallels our world. Units age. You're suggesting only oblivion for the elderly that survive their youth in the wars. I can't imagine a more depressing world. Can't have children. Can't have a family. Only Natural Thinkamancy to force your will to action. So very bleak.

There's no evidence of aging in this world. There's counter-evidence, in fact, since there is no 'child' state. And yes, the world such a world would be very, very bleak. Find love where you can, usually only on your own side. Quick trysts with allied sides. Little free will, little hope, only basic daily pleasures.

That's kinda the whole point of the Hippiemancer speech to Sizemore. They can imagine a world without war, but they've NEVER SEEN IT. The universe's mechanics actively discourages it. It forces conflict. It forces limited resources, requiring warfare to sustain / expand your side.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:29 pm

That's... that's sad. You are so desperate to cling to a theorum that has positive evidence to reject it that you insist the author made a mistake and used the wrong term? Please note that all of Parson's words are written by Rob Baldur, jsut as are Wanda's and Sizemore's, etc. There is only one writer, and it is not Parson that you accuse of making a mistake, but the author. I dunno if it's just willful ignorance or ego protection. You just lost any respect I might have had for your ideas. And you seem to like this bright, shiny concept of Rob as idiot. When you're wrong, suck it up. This is just desperate.


Awww, how cute, he's projecting!

Anyways.

A large portion of Kreistor's most recent response (which conveniently ignored my post, I note) seems to be dependent upon the concept that Erfworld is both A) Very much like Earth, and B) A good place to live. To A, my only response is "have you even been reading this comic? Show me the dwagons and spidew-mounted gobwins on Earth. Show me the cities magically poofed into existence in a single day on Earth. Show me the artifacts of power capable of bring life to those who are dead."

For B, my response is "have you even been reading the comic? The whole point of the comic so far is that life in your average war game would suck."
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Daefaroth » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 pm

MarbitChow wrote:We know that units pop, we know that inanimate items pop, and we know that inanimate items de-pop. Why is having animate units de-pop such a stretch? It's a standard game mechanic, and Erfworld shows that it follows game mechanics. Saying that farms support the idea that units have a place to go when they're disbanded seems less logical than simply saying that farmers are popped, which seems more internally consistent.


This assumes that there even are such a thing as farmers. As far as I remember, the sum total of what we know about farms is that Faq had some. I don't think it is impossible, or even unlikely, that a ruler may just decide to pop a farm and every turn thereafter the farm generates x, y, and z resources.
*****************************************************
This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it.
*****************************************************
User avatar
Daefaroth
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:13 am
Location: California

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:03 pm

According to Kreistor, it's been confirmed outside of the comic that farms are farmed by farmers. I can find nothing on the subject of farms in the Words of the Titans post on the wiki, except that Natural Allies can mine, farm, or hunt to get the shmuckers needed to pop units. However we have seen, in comic, gobwins mining for gems in Gobwin Knob, as a flashback image when Sizemore was talking about how Erfworld's tunnles were created. What we don't know is whether or not those gobwins were combat units. I am assuming that they are, and that combat units in a garrison can be used to mine/farm/what-have-you whenever the area isn't under threat of attack, simply because most war games do not have civilian units, the workers were gobwins and not Men of the Plaid Tribe (who would be the logical workers in a Plaid Tribe city), and because we have already seen combat units but have not seen any non-combat units (beyond scenery like the pigeons) in-comic. Occam's Razor therefore dictates that they are most likely combat units.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Cmdr I. Heartly Noah » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:01 am

ARGH. Halfway through this monster and lost it all.

Going to try to be more pithy. Edit: FAILED. Congrats to everyone who countered him more adroitly while spending much less time.

1) I did not say Rob made a mistake, I said Parson used the wrong word, something we've seen before. Chill.

2) No, it's not an assumption to think that disband means the same thing in two different contexts. But that doesn't mean it's definitely the case. Words have multiple meanings, and one use was by a man who could do the thing, the other by an outsider trying to describe to himself how a separate event works itself out. Even if Ruler-created disbanding and Side Destruction-created disbanding resolve themselves the same way (I'm not sure they do), we have to look at the surrounding events in their own light, independent of each other, in determining what's the likely result, until we know Parson was using the right word.

Also, it becomes clear to me that I focus on the Disbanding that Stanley is threatening while you focus on the big side-disbandings, FWIW.

I limit it [Disbanding = Barbarianism] to Commander or higher, personally. I expect un-led infantry become tradesmen, miners, and farmers, but I can go with the idea.


Really? An interesting concept, though complete speculation. Except that Jillian is a Barbarian Warlord who runs around with a bunch of Gwiffons, who are clearly not Commanders. Do you think she popped them all post-Barbarianism? Not impossible, but I don't see why the Units stacked with an Heir wouldn't remain loyal to them (or Warlord or Caster, if they become Barbarians upon side endings, too)

This fails to explain casters in MK when their Side falls. They become Barbarians, too. Or did you forget that one? Your theory is still incomplete. Wanna keep making more exceptions? That's complicating what's supposed to be a simple system, you know.


Says who? What are you basing this on? Or do you just mean I covered Cities and Field but not MK? MK = field. Done. What exception? And who said the system was simple anyway?

And so you just rejected the entire reason Parson sent the casters to MK. Clap. Clap. Clap.


What? Parson sent the casters to MK to avoid Death By Volcano. The only way this would be a futile effort is if he was SURE that the RCC would conquer the Capital AND kill Stanley (or that Capturing the Capital would be enough) and that this would Delete the casters. He wasn't sure of any of these things, let alone all of them, and he's the gambling type. Sending the casters to MK doesn't support any theory, yours or mine.

Sides are lost via... the death of an heir-less Ruler [or] the loss of Capital. A Side must have a capital, or it becomes Barbarian.


Are you sure? Every defeated side has lost its Ruler. Do we know taking the Capital alone is enough? And what side has "become Barbarian?" We know Jillian became a Barbarian, but a Side she does not make. And the unconquered Cities of a conquered side become Neutral, which is wholly different from Barbarianism.

So, let's modify Stanley's situation when he fled GK and risked barbarism. No Parson, since he's totally exceptional and confuses the standard events. Manpower survived and is in the field, in a different location with a second army, and he's been made heir. GK falls. Who can become a barbarian side, and how many form? One under Stanley but Manpower disappears, two under each, or one with Stanley as leader with Manpower still working for Stanley? It has to be one of the three, since we know at minimum Stanley survives. Now, add a third field army under a non-heir Warlord. What happens then? An entire army disappears from the world just because the warlord wasn't an heir? We don't even know that de-popping exists, and here you're annihilating entire armies just because the Warlord wasn't set to Rule. and if that army doesn't disappear, then why would an army disappear, just because their Warlord loses his superor officer?


In your scenario, they both become Barbarian Warlords leading separate armies as long as their purses hold out, and either can claim a city. But maybe losing the city leaves them both still GK side as long as Stanley lives. They have no income and no production but are still the same side they were before and can join up to attempt to take Faq or GK. Or Manpower and his group are Deleted and Stanley and his become Barbarians, if losing the Capital destroys the side.

Remember, Barbarians can become Rulers without being declared Heirs. Barbarian Warlords exist and they can become a side by capturing or starting a city.


True. Barbarian Warlords can pop on their own and if they're really lucky, claim a city and start a side. Also, an Heir that lost Capital and Ruler becomes a Barbarian and can do the same. Anything else, we don't know.

Take the case of Barbarian Warlord Attila under his leader Genghis.


I don't accept that a Barbarian Warlord can have a leader. But I will play along for the rest of this. Let's say Attila is able to Turn and joins Genghis' side (I dunno if he can, but it's a possibility).

Genghis is the Ruler of a Capital Side. Attila takes his army out and attacks Shanghai, so he's in the field this turn. Side Shiznit attacks Tokyo and captures it, destroying Genghis and ending the Side. Only two turns have passed. Two turns ago, Attila was a Barbarian Warlord. He knows how to do that job. Suddenly, under your rules, he disappears from the world, because for one Turn, he was on a Capital Side, despite having every bit of knowledge necessary to return to his previous state of Barbarian Warlord.


Yeah, that would be a little weird and clunky. But what if he was in a city? Then he'd be frozen in time. Why not leave and be a Barbarian again? It would make sense. I guess that's the risk he takes in joining a side. Assuming he can.

Don't you see how absurd de-popping of living beings is? It completely ignores teh realities of what is inside a unit's mind. It ignores what the unit is capable of being, and has proven he is capable of being. Erfworld, despite having certain magics, still tries to retain certain physical qualities of our world. Only inanimate objects that no one wants de-pop. Attila wants his body, so why would it de-pop? And why can't he return to his previous state as Barbarian Warlord, a task he has proven capable of?


More absurd than popping living beings? More absurd than the dead de-popping, but CRAP remaining? "Only inanimate objects that no one wants de-pop." Cut "Only inanimate" and you've almost got it right. Why would a valuable corpse, that can be decroaked or made into a decoration, de-pop, but a useless, even dangerous unit can't be made to do that? I wanted my first draft of this response, but it de-popped.

Obedience, Duty, and Loyalty should prevent heirs from supplanting you. Note that Stanley owns an Arkentool and we don't know what effects that may have on Natural Thinkamancy. With the upcoming fireworks between Stanley and Wanda, I'm deferring the rest of this discussion until after we see if any evidence comes out of that interaction. Banhammer popped an heir because he wanted his side to continue. Did you overlook that Jillian called Banhammer her father? There is a familial concept, despite the lack of genetic breeding. You pop an heir because you want someone to call you "Dad". You need a better reason that that? I don't.


Okay, so it SHOULD be safe, but it's not cost-effective if any Commander can do the same. Especially in a world at war. Tribal ties are all but forgotten. Beyond Royals, people don't seem too sentimental. Jillian doesn't seem to care that Banhammer was her father.

And, it's defense against Assassination. Under your concept of de-popping, an assassination of a Ruler eliminates the entire side. With an Heir, assassination only changes leadership: you'd need to eliminate both in short order before a new heir can be named in order to wipe out the side. But I find even that too vulnerable. With de-popping as disbanding, why field an army at all, when a few good casters as assassins can eliminate the enemy Ruler and Heir, turn all cities Neutral, and de-pop all fielded units, ending the war in a stroke.


There are plenty of reasons, from Convention to taking Cities, to Casters being rare and/or expensive, hard to control, etc, to the repercussions of such actions from your neighbors... But I will give you that the Heir keeps the side going, assuming the Capital isn't taken. And keeps the side the same if he retakes it, whereas another Commander would start a new side in its place. Assuming they exist to do so, anyway.

That's grandiose, but doesn't defuse the threat. I literally can use anything you write as counter-proof of your own claims, because of the parallelism involved in the two claims. If you can't see that, then take a step back and reconsider the situation. When two ideas are parallel, a disproof of one can be used as a disproof of the other. It's inherent in the beast. To prevent it, one must find a dissimilarity that prevents association of similar concepts. No mean task..


Well it's not much of a threat if it doesn't sting. Your ability to counter-spin is of little concern to me. I realize that neither of us can prove our positions wholly, but I accept that and continue to present arguments based on observation and inference while you prefer to deny validity of one interpretation based on the inherent weakness of the evidence while supporting your own argument with the same weak evidence as if there's nothing wrong with it.

Parson. Or anyone like Parson. Sizemore enjoyed being peaceful, and if that meant living in a sewage tank, so be it. Parson caused him to kill, and that was much worse to him. Sizemore was blessed with Stanley's ignorance of his capabilities, and happy with that. Or had you forgotten? Anyone that knows what a crap golem can do would use Sizemore to kill, and that he would want to avoid.


Your double-edged sword cuts deep. Sizemore had no reason to believe that anyone would use him differently; making golems and collecting crap was all he knew. If Stanley the Tool didn't make him kill, who would? Also I'd venture no one ever used a Dirtamancer the way Parson did; most people would be content to keep him back pumping out golems, not risking him in battle. Plus by staying Sizemore faced a kill-or-die situation; release from it would be mercy, even if short-lived. Besides, he could probably ally himself to someone and pump out golems, and refuse to fight personally.

Holy cow, can you miss anything bigger? Page 73, Panel 1: If we're standing in front of the Titans tomorrow night, I'll tell 'em, "I croaked five dwagons on the same turn. Five. And my boss here just nailed two warlords. So let us both into the City of Heroes please, thank you.

Or was that a test?


No, just a lapse of memory. A bad one. Still, the fact that one character believes in an afterlife doesn't make it so. It doesn't even make it the only conception of afterlife. We know the Titans existed, but we don't know their minds, and neither do the Erfworlders.

Not being in the City of Heroes when you die? Oblivion?


Now that's a fate worse than death: Oblivion. De-Popping. No afterlife when afterlife is possible. That would put the fear of Stanley in Sizemore.

All of you... are sending those units to the afterlife and removing any further chance of improvement in their post-death situation. I doubt the Titans are interested in that concept. If they have a ity of Heroes, then they want Heroes, not vapourization just because you happen to be in the field when your Ruler croaks. Err on the side of more Heroes, not less.


Again, how do we know what the Titans want? How do we know most people want to be Heroes? Clearly, some do. But how many? How many truly believe it and don't just like the concept?

No, since that's a big threat helping Natural Thinkamancy along. A power struggle over leadership by fielded newly barbarian units in response to the death of a nation's ruler is definitely consistent with Earthly ways and means, as well as the creation of Heroes for the City. Ignoble de-popping leaves an empty landscape devoid of units, and no chance for Heroism.


Again with the heroes. And this is where I noticed you focused on the large-scale Disbanding, while I focus on individual (of course I consider they might be different, and we could both be half-right).

The point was that a Ruler disbanding a non-Commander faces an automatic combat; even against huge odds this could mean a casualty or two. If he disbands a Commander, they might fight him. Or they could leave, start a side, and seek revenge. That's a lot of hassle just to fire someone. If Stanley Disbanded Parson and Sizemore alone, in his robe, unarmed, they might have taken him. (!)

If a Ruler could choose, he'd want to just delete them from the planet. Of course they can't choose, but why wouldn't the Titans choose that for them? The easier and more efficiently a side can be run, the more carnage it can cause, if that is the Titans' will.

The latest evidence is that farming and trades exist. That supported the belief that disbanding does not equate to de-popping, because Erfworld has a place for units that don't fight, where before it did not. Did you review the new evidence? Actually, you missed old evidence about an afterlife, with reward for combat prowess, so even if you had it was an incomplete and therefore faulty analysis.


So I forgot one comment by one character for one minute and now all my arguments are invalid? Great. The latest evidence is that the result of farming and mining and hunting exist, but not farmers and miners and hunters. Cities exist, but architects, masons, and carpenters don't. Even if they did, that doesn't support Disbanding =/= De-popping, until we have evidence that soldiers can become farmers. That Units become non-units. That's right.
units that don't fight
"Everything that fights is a Unit." Did you forget that? No such thing as units that don't fight. That's old evidence. Besides, are you arguing Disbanding = Barbarian, or Disbanding = Civilian? Both? Based on that faulty Commander/non-com divide?

But the comic is simple. So something is wrong if your concept is convoluted. Mine isn't. It uses known states and has no changes in existence. A unit is on a Side, and then it is a Barbarian if someone can pay it. Pretty simple. Without pay, it seeks to feed itself by farming or performing a trade. That's not a hard concept, and it doesn't have nastiness like people going to bad afterlifes when Rulers die of old age.


My concepts aren't convoluted, just my argument. Your argument uses "known states," but you can't be sure what they mean. My concept is simpler than yours. A unit is on a side, and then it isn't. No messy afterlives. No Rulers dying of old age, because no aging.

More likely. Rob has stated that trades exist, but de-popping only occurs for garbage and "unclaimed" corpses so far.


Trades exist, but traders? Unknown. And becoming a Barbarian exists only for Heirs so far.

Uh, how about, lay your sword on the ground and go dig in the dirt. I like simple processes. it really doesn't take magic, just the knowledge that the unit is no longer on a side, and needs to eat, but lacks the income to buy food. The process is, then, desperation not to starve. Do you seriously need to complicate this? I sure don't. You can't buy food, you forage or farm. Simple.


Uh, you like nice wholesome ideas. Afterlives. Swords to Plowshares. More War = Better. Simple? Sure. But hardly supported by anything other than what you like to believe. This is Erfworld. Everything is magic. What's complicated about "A side needs you. You're popped. The side collapses. You're done?" That is a really simple process.

We know that a Barbarian can scrape a living in the wild, but we don't know how a Barbarian can be made, outside of two ways, and we don't know that any have, and the idea that it could work that way, in itself, isn't evidence that it does. If every Unit can become a Barbarian and live on its own, why aren't there more? I suppose there might be, but we've seen and heard nothing from them. As if they don't exist.

A civilian, by our terminology.


Whose? English-speaking Earth people? Certainly not Erfworlders, who have never mentioned a Civilian to my (shaky) knowledge.

Hands, fists, mouth, etc. Seriously, are you just being dense? You need something magically complicated to explain a very mundane existence? You farm wiht tools you make yourself. A sword chops branches to make rakes. Bows allow you to hunt in woods until you find another means of survival.


No, but you may be being obtuse. Tools you make yourself? Chopping branches with a sword? Making rakes? What world are you talking about? You don't make stuff in Erfworld, you pop it. And you can't interact with it if you don't exist. Where were the masons who built GK? Did they make their own tools? Can they go back to fighting if they want?

Pigeons are actually good evidence. They are creatures that are not units -- they do not fight, and are killed by units at whim. That's the state I needed right there. Thanks for the pointer. You've helped the case. ... Units fight. Pigeons flee.


Good to know you think I can come up with actual evidence that supports something. Of course, it would be your position. Units flee too. Pigeons getting whacked by a hammer might count as "fighting." Think Warcraft. (The old one). You'd still have to roll to hit. You could miss. They could peck you. And even if they're not Units, are they different from any other Food in Erfworld? (they do make a mean Pigeon Pie).

Of course you take my silly example as real. If I used it to support myself, I'm sure you'd have plenty of choice words of contradiction. Of course, I'm looking for a Man or a Dog or something - ANYTHING - that could be a Unit, but isn't. A Civilian. Show me one. That's a challenge.

Actually, you did. Pigeons, if they were units, would be non-allied. this forces the auto-attack rule. Any un-led unit must auto-attack non-allied units. If pigeons were units, the garrison would spend 24/7 hunting down pigeons, or the Ruler would need to devote Warlords to keeping all units in position on the battlements. Armies couldn't sleep in the field for chasing squirrels.


If pigeons are Units, the garrison we have seen has always been led. Combat from their side is unnecessary. For the pigeons, flapping around and Cooing may be the extent of their combat abilities. An unled army would be forced to "attack" them, but who's to say that doesn't take the form of a simple shooing?

If pigeons aren't Units, what are they? Food? Furniture? Do they count as anything? I don't know. But they're not really evidence that Farmers exist.

Rob specifically mentioned trades in a discussion about Gems and money. They do exist. He did not mention if the tradesmen were units doing a trade, or non-units.


Or any actual living thing at all, and not just moneymancy?

See previous reference to Rob's comments. Trades exist. They peform these functions to make money for their side. GK was mined out. It had to make money somehow or bleed Shmuckers until it decayed. So there is a source of income beyond gems. Gems are just one of the best. Farms make money. How? Moneymancy, but not the kind that requires a Moneymancer. Gems are converted to shmuckers by warlords. In the same way, farm goods are converted to shmuckers. There's no economy the way we know it. It's a magical process. Npo, you don't normally need construction workers to build a city, but a farm needs a farmhouse, and with no shmuckers to buy it, it must be built. Not all things are popped in this world. Hard work does exist.


GK was mined... by whom? Sizemore, and (presumably) Gobwins and maybe Plaid Units. Does a farm need a farmhouse? Does it need a farmer? Is it not just part of the City? We know that Cities all have incomes and that money automatically goes to the Capital's treasury every turn and then upkeep is paid out. If farming etc. is handled like this, automatically and wholesale, do you need a physical farm with a physical farmer? Why? Built? How? By whom? Not all things are popped? Other than something the Titans made, show me one thing that was definitely not popped. That's a challenge. Hard work exists? Okay, but the people who do it are Sizemore and Marbits and Gobwin Units who mine.

That they have no presence in an entirely military comic up until this point is not evidence they don't speak or interact. Pigeons can coo, so a theoretical non-unit man could speak.


That's still a very theoretical man. We've seen a pigeon, even though we don't know what it is.

Yeah, there's no possibility of retirement from the military in Erfworld. Fight til you die, even if you're old and feeble. No, that's no reach. It parallels our world. Units age. You're suggesting only oblivion for the elderly that survive their youth in the wars. I can't imagine a more depressing world. Can't have children. Can't have a family. Only Natural Thinkamancy to force your will to action. So very bleak.


Retire? Why? Old and feeble? Units age? Based on what? They pop full-grown; why don't some pop old-looking? Depressing? Sure. A world of nothing but war, little fun, no family, no sex, probably can't even please yourself before you die. Bleak? Heck yes. Is this a surprise? Does de-popping make it more bleak somehow?

For King and Country. Many British men were forced into the army during 1500-1900 period, and forced to kill for their country. No conscientious objector clause in those days. Heck, there was conscription during WW1, and that was less than 100 years ago. Even now, the avoidance of combat requires a serious demonstration of abject peacfulness: you don't get it just by saying you're not violent, you have to prove it. Point is, you're finding fault in my view of Erfworld that parallels our own Earth. I'm presenting Erfworld as Earth-like wherever possible. It's you that are creating a fantasy version that coddles this extremely violent world. I expect anything that can happen on Earth can happen on erfworld, and right now, you can't have a rebellion, since rebels de-pop.


Why would you assume that Erfworld mimics ours as much as possible? Is there any reason? It's supposed to be markedly different from our world.

Not in the comic. Rob stated it outside. Farming is one way Barbarians support themselves. It's in Word of the Titans in the Wiki, I think. I might look it up later. this has taken too long already. Maybe on one of the Wiki pages? Start at Gem I guess. Might lead to it. If you cna't find it, or don't want to, I'll track it down tomorrow or sometime this week. This one's not necessarily a short look like the comics.


I know. I read that. Barbarians do that. Barbarian Units. Fighting Units. How is this a support for non-Unit, Civilian, "Flesh and blood" farmers?

To consider all possible information, you need to have all the info. You clearly don't, even when it comes from the comic. You've overlooked a few things, and I cannot support your casual eviction of Erfworlders to the afterlife, just for being in the field at the wrong time.


All possible = all available. Anything else is impossible, since I'm not a Thinkamancer. There's nothing "casual" about their "eviction" to an "afterlife" that we don't know exists. It's clear you're more interested in making Erfworld like Earth than considering how it's like a real game or games, or seeing how it refers to and interacts with itself on its own terms, free of outside influence. Why else would you be hung up on Erfworld having an afterlife, and its importance to the Units there, and becoming Heroes? And we don't even KNOW that an afterlife exists in OUR world! (Please don't try to argue that here - if you think I'm wrong, just let it be). Slaying 5 dwagons gets you into the City of Heroes? And killing a busload of people gets you 72 virgins? Don't touch yourself and go to confession and you're golden? What does this have to do with Disbanding units in a wargame?

And yes, I demand proof i someone wants to set something in stone. You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect me to agree if you can't demonstrate the burden of proof. If you just want to believe what you want, then stop arguing. Only debate with me if you think yours is the only possibility; otherwise, just ignore me or say you know it's not the only possibility, but it'sthe one you like. Oh, and don't call it the most likely, because no one individual makes that judgement. It's most likyl to you, not in general. The group decides what is most likely, not an individual.


Who wants stone? I've been offering alternate possibilities mid-argument. You can't demonstrate any proof either, so why are you acting like yours is The Right Way? I'm not really interested in arguing and I don't care too much for debating you, I just wanted to give my perspective and ideas, and you got a little to vitriolic for my tastes. I should only debate with you if I'm certain my way is the only possibility? What in the Titans' name for? So you can attack me and remain unswayed? So we can both sit in our foxholes throwing arguments back and forth until Rob steps down and tells us which one of us guessed right? Of COURSE when I say "most likely" I mean to me. Who else can I be speaking for? The people who come in after and agree with me are speaking for themselves, and even they don't constitute "the group" of forumites or readers or whoever, and even if they did, it doesn't make them right, even if they have all the evidence. Even if they have the right answer, it doesn't mean they've asked the right questions or come at the question in the right way.

BEEP. Wrong twice. It happened to Jillian. She went from Sideed to barbarian overnight. If GK fell, it would have happened to Stanley. I merely extend what happened to an heir and a Ruler to all Warlords, sice it seems to me becoming a barbarian has to do with being able to lead, and all Commanders can give orders. I didn't invent the concept of a Sided unit surviving to beocome barbarian, I extended the concept beyond the evidence. Completely different beast. I noticed that "Disbanding" is what happens to Fielded units that lose a side, Jillian and Stanley were fielded when their side would have folded, and so Disbanding leading to Barbarism for Warlords in the field provides a result for the process of Disbanding. No invention. at all. Just hooking together two known concepts to close the gap.


I may have been looking at this angle wrong, and I think I understand now what you meant about the casters going to the MK. The dead RCC/gamble argument still works, but yeah, outside the city they risked being Disbanded, as opposed to Croaked/frozen in time.

Still, we know that Barbarian, non-Warlord units pop. That's the Word of the Titans. We also know Jillian controlled non-Warlord units. Barbarianism isn't connected to leadership.

Though this is your best, most succinct argument yet. You should have led with it. No, you should have let it stand alone. It's good evidence that in the context of a lost side, the fielded units become Barbarians. Unless being an Heir (or in its stack) is the exception. If it is true, I go back to my Disband/disband argument.

It has been mentioned, actually. In reference to Misty's corpse. Trash and corpses disappear at the beginning of turn (probably means beginning of what would have been their next turn, or Wanda wouldn't have had RCC corpses to Decrypt the next AM. ... It exists. For dead things. Not living. Useless things. Even un-sided, a man is useful.


Even a corpse is useful in Erfworld, but they still de-pop.

And yet, Misty didn't "Disband", did she? Disbanding is a process for the living, not the dead. You're not Sided if you're dead. Your corpse may be owned or possessed by a side or an indivudal, but in the same way a brick is that Parson wants to throw off a rampart.


I never said she did, I said she de-popped. 2 events with the same result. Just as you claim side disbanding and personal Disbanding do.

But there is a process for people to revert to Barbarianism. That's for certain. It's unnamed, but it is consistent with the concept of "Disbanding" from a side. A group goes disobedient, flees their side's location, and becomes Barbarian when their leader disbands them. that makes the disobedient units a threat to their side, as they would be here on Earth. They're barbarians ready to attack and capture former allied territory, and they stand against their former ruler as traitors. I love that concept. I don't like the concept that a band of this type that flees from a tyranical ruler is suddenly non-existent and no threat to the cruel Ruler, rewarding cruelty. There should be consequences for Tyranny, but Disbanding as deletion eliminates any but abject loyalty. Would Wanda have said no to Stanley if she knew that when he disbanded her she stopped existing on that spot? Or did she feel safe knowing that if he did, she was alone with him, could cast some spells, and escape alive if he over-reacted?


Way to load this paragraph. I like this concept. I don't like that one. "Flees from a tyrranical ruler." Cruelty rewarded? On Erfworld? Did you read the end of book 1? Wanda knew she could say no because she had a defense. She knew Stanley wouldn't disband her because he'd only treater her well 'til then, and she could manipulate him. Besides, even if disbanding means what you think it does, would she disobey him? It could mean a duel to the death with the Arkenhammer right there. Escape alive? She had no scrolls, so her spells would be limited. Who's to say she can use an enemy's portal? Could she escape the entire city Hex and all its troops? Even if she killed Stanley, the now-frozen city would still be a Combat Zone, and all the troops would auto-attack. Conversely, if she thought they were doomed but that he might let her leave, wouldn't she push him to Disband her?

Under disbanding = de-popping, any unit that breaks and tries to kill the Ruler is disbanded on sight, and poofs... and can't kill the Ruler simply by being annihilated as he attacks.


Wait, you think a unit can directly attack its Ruler while still under his control? If that's true, that's a big argument for letting a Ruler de-pop people.

All units in the Garrison see loved ones sent to the field.


Loved whats? Okay, I'm just being contrary. Clearly some units like each other.

With no heir, any successful attack that kills the Ruler un-pops those friends and relatives, since fielded units disband when their Ruler dies with no heir.


And? What happens when Barbarians can't pay their upkeep? Do they Croak of starvation, or just de-pop? Does it matter? And the ones at home are all frozen in time, doomed to a life of endless combat and dwindling numbers until they croak.

The ultimate post-death insurance policy. It's rule by ransom. You're left with one or more "neutral" cities, which will be conquered at convenience by other sides when they discover the situation. Any rebellion, then, is ultimately suicidal for everyone in the nation.


Yeah, man. You got it. This is why people Turn.

If a Ruler is assassinated, the Side is wiped out: we haven't mentioned that possibility. Someone like Sizemore could do it. Tunnel under the enemy courtyard, croak the King, and their entire side becomes de-popped or "neutral", consumed at convenience. Too convenient, for me. A side that loses its ruler shouldn't become a complete non-entity: those former units should need to be dealt wth to seize the territory. It's just too much of an "I win" button to gun the Ruler and watch your enemies turn to vapour.


It's only an "I win" button if you can successfully eliminate the Ruler and any Heirs. We don't even know that anyone in Erfworld has conceived of this, let alone attempted it. All dead Rulers so far came with conquered cities. And if you can do it to them, they can do it to you.

If, on the other hand, disbanding can result in barbarianism, killing the tyrant only causes the units in the field to go barbarian: they can still fight against you, and try to restore their side. Warlords keep their troops under control, and so they can re-unite and assault their now-neutral capital, under an agreed upon Chief Warlord (violently vhosen, possibly). The defenders open the gates, and accept their new Ruler in a Bloodless take-over, and the side reforms under new leadership. That prevents this form of tyranny. Assasination of a Ruler is inconvenient for that Side, as it should be, but ultimately does not eliminate the threat of the enemy side in a single stroke (reducing the power of assassination as military tactic), and perhaps places a more competent Ruler in place over a Side.


Restore the old side, or start a new one? Why have heirs, again? Re-unite? So no Barbarians fight each other? Bloodless take-over, eh? Does a side need a Capital? Wouldn't they need to take that from the invading army? If no heir, who becomes the New Ruler? The Chief Warlord? Appointed by Committee? Really? You seem really interested in preventing an occurence that hasn't been mentioned by anyone except maybe Parson (I'd have to check the strategy Klog).

Yes, I use official language. I trust the author. Yes, I decry anyone that makes things up and expects them to become canon. I am proud to. I am not here to cater to pet theories. I expect theory to meet the burden of proof. That's how we determine proposed canon.


You appropriate, possibly even misuse, the official language because you don't necessarily know what it means. You misunderstand the author while holding him up as infallible. Yours is a pet theory propping up a series of wishes and hopes and desires. Made-up stuff, too. That doesn't meet the burden of proof. And the author WANTS us to make stuff up. And to think about different possibilities, and get stuff wrong. And we'll get some right. And we'll eventually learn the difference. And maybe, just maybe, he'll like something we write enough to tweak something.

You've overlooked evidence, dismissed counter-evidence off-hand as the author making a mistake, and created a situation where Rulers have no consequences for cruelty. Units disappear and go to the afterlife when they are still perfectly healthy and carrying weapons, capable of fighting, for no better reason that their bureaucracy just disappeared, even if the warlord with them has a sizable purse. And they are denied their ultimate reward in the City of Heroes because they didn't die gloriously in battle.


I've allowed myself to forget something, understood that the author chooses to use an imperfect narrator, and lets people speak based on their own prejudices and in doing so miseducate Parson. I've created nothing, but interpreted what I've seen as a universe in which Rulers have no consequences for anything except their own mortality at the hands of their enemies and maybe a Unit or two attempting to Turn or double-cross, and the results of their own mismanagement dooming their side financially. I see a world with little morality and lots of convention. Units disappear when they're still capable of fighting. Units also get croaked when they might have kept fighting. One group may go to an afterlife; the other probably doesn't. I base this not on my wishes of what I'd like to happen, or what I once though probably happened, or what I would have done if I'd written it, but from what I have observed in the comic, tempered lightly by my knowledge of strategy games.

Yeah, I've got an "F" word for that concept. Ends in "ish".


I thought it ended in "air."

Ultimately, the de-popping of any unit that leaves the side that hate a Ruler is just not going to fly for me, ever. If a Ruler treats his men poorly and creates the situation where disobedience results in willing disbanding, that Ruler needs to pay for his arrogance and stupidity, and the only way that happens is if those units become barbarians as a result of disbanding. Depopping just aids the tyrant too sweetly. Those barbarians at the gate must be there in order to check the power of Rulers, so that they treat their units with respect, or lose their side.


If you had led with this, I wouldn't have had to bother with any of this. Secretly your whole argument was based on sand - the sand of what you FEEL is Right and Just. You assume Erfworld is either of these things, and that's hubris. Did Stanley pay for his arrogance and stupidity? Did Ansom? Mayyyyybe, depending on perspective, but only at the hands of his enemies, and with a healthy daily dose of Luckamancy.

And you're right about that. I pointed that out already -- Erfworlders don't get a lexicon of rules, they get concepts. You've created a concept where living beings disappear at the convenience of their Ruler. You like that a Ruler can determine that someone goes to a negative afterlife simply by saying that they're disbanded? That's the ultimate threat -- "i can prevent you from going to the City of Heroes by disbanding you, so slave up." I'm not willing to give a Ruler that kind of control. He can disband, but a disbanded unit that shines in defending himself from the onslaught of auto-attacks gets to stand in front of the Titans a Hero, and gets a just reward, to spite his tyranical Ruler's whim.


Wait. I LIKE it? Says who? Don't ever stoop to tell me how I feel, Jack. Also don't stoop to tell me what I believe, or what I think of another person or their work. I can do that on my own, just ask.

This isn't about what you will allow. It's about what is. Or at least, what might be. For all your talk of Proof, you've successfully undercut every argument you have made or could make by displaying your own bias for everyone to see. The ONLY way I'll ever believe you're right about anything is if I see the very proof in front of me, and even then, I'll assume you got lucky.
Last edited by Cmdr I. Heartly Noah on Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a: Chaotic Neutral Human Bard/Sorcerer (2nd/1st Level)
Str- 12, Dex- 15, Con- 12, Int- 14, Wis- 11, Cha- 13
Cmdr I. Heartly Noah
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:07 am

Doktor Jones wrote:Where did he say the writer used the wrong terminology? Just because he says Parson made a mistake doesn't mean he's saying Rob's making a mistake. It seems much more likely to me that he's suggesting Rob may have intentionally made Parson use the wrong terminology, since he's relatively new to the mechanics of Erfworld? This'd suggest to me he's actually complementing the potential depth of Rob's writing.


I'm going to point you towards teh Wiki. Rob wants us to write "Speculation" and "Proposed Canon". Once we have something, he (or a representative of Rob and/or Jamie) will advance that to Canon.

Or simply: Rob wants us to figure out the rules.

Look at this statement by Rob from the old forum:
5931853 wrote:p64 panel 3 seems to be a major hangup. Wasn't intentional and I agree that it's misleading. We'll clarify that for the book.

For the record, the rule is actually pretty simple and I am amazed it's been such a sticking point for people.

* You can move only on your turn, and you can cast only on your turn.
* When an enemy comes to you on their turn, you can engage, and you can cast. This includes when they are attacking your city.


Rob is trying to present the rules such that they can be puzzled out, and he admits when he has failed in his efforts. You are suggesting that Rob has now intentionally mislead us such that it is impossible to figure out the rule because he intentionally lied to us, and now that it doesn't matter, he isn't clearing up his intentionally misleading statements, despite his desire that we figure out the rules ourselves.

No. I cannot accept this. I can accept Parson slowly advancing his knowledge of details, such that a generality becomes increasingly complicated. (Our understanding of Turn order and GK's position in the Turn, for instance. Initially we thought all Rations popped at dawn, but now we know that it is actually Rations pop at Turn start, which for GK has been at dawn. A generality becomes a specific. What I won't accept is Parson stating something completely incorrect and not later correcting his mistake when he learns his error. So, if there is a solution whereby Rob is actually a good author that gives us hints to the rules and doesn't lie to us, then that's the version I will accept. I will not accept Rob being intentionally two-faced, in order to back up a theory that would otherwise be disproven.

And how is de-popping any less absurd than popping? On Earth, people (units) are born and either are killed or die; is it too far to stretch that units in Erfworld are popped, and then either croaked or de-popped?


In our world, a soldier at the front is handed a mortar round. To him, he did not see the manufacturing process, and so it is little different from popping. Others know more, and so know it didn't really pop, but from that end user perspective, it did pop. The battlefield after the battle s strewn with detritus and wrecage. In Erfworld, it de-pops. In our world, someone goes in and hauls it away. Again, the soldier doesn't see the mechanicsm whereby the wreckage disappears, but merely knows that someone came and moved it off for spare parts or scrap.

But what happens to Rebellious troops in our World. The de-poppers on disband contend that they simply disappear to never threaten their side again. Is our world so kind to their former side? Hardly. Those deserting or rebelling troops will be a thorn in tehir former ruler's side... possibly for years to come. De-popping them? That is far too kind to the Ruler, especially a Ruler that is tyrannical.

Not going to get into the rest... I need to get going now... but hopefully I this will help, even a little?


Eh, whatever. That one thing is absurd does not provide evidence that another exists because it is equally absurd. Erfworld has converted the military manufacturing and training process into a simple natural mechanic. It has turned battlefield clean-up into a simple natural mechanic. What you're suggesting is that it has also turned rebellion and disobedience and lack of leadership into an equally simple, and totally consumptive, mechanic. Popping is, essentially, manufacturing, and from the general's perspective, it's not that much different. Soldiers come off the production line and become available in order under both Erfworld and Earth systems. They are, to a general, parallel and identical in final result. Similarly, de-popping equates to battlefield clean-up. Trash and wreckage disappear vs. being hauled off and used for parts or scrap in manufacturing. To the general, only the battlefield being reported cleared is important, not the minutiae of how. Disappearning trash doesn't have a real consequence.

But in our world, a rebellious unit that goes AWOL is a threat to morale and the military situation. Under de-popping, rebellious units disappear and are nothing and can be dismissed offhand as irrelevant to the furture. This lacks the parallelism of popping vs. manufacturing and de-popping vs. battlefield clean-up. A general in our world worries about deserting troops. A general in erfworld doesn't. No symmetry, and so I can't support it. That's why I will not accept any but blatant evidence of de-popping of living creatures. Yes, popping is absurd, but it is parallel. Yes, de-popping trash is absurd, but it is parallel. Yes, de-popping of rebellious troops that are a threat to a side is absurd, but no, it is not parallel to how things work in our world, where deserting troops can be a plague to morale of their former side, inspiring further desertion, forcing a general to deal with thir former troops, or becoming the righteous army that sweeps aside a Dictator and installs an enlightened government.

Maldeus wrote:According to Kreistor, it's been confirmed outside of the comic that farms are farmed by farmers. I can find nothing on the subject of farms in the Words of the Titans post on the wiki, except that Natural Allies can mine, farm, or hunt to get the shmuckers needed to pop units. However we have seen, in comic, gobwins mining for gems in Gobwin Knob, as a flashback image when Sizemore was talking about how Erfworld's tunnles were created. What we don't know is whether or not those gobwins were combat units. I am assuming that they are, and that combat units in a garrison can be used to mine/farm/what-have-you whenever the area isn't under threat of attack, simply because most war games do not have civilian units, the workers were gobwins and not Men of the Plaid Tribe (who would be the logical workers in a Plaid Tribe city), and because we have already seen combat units but have not seen any non-combat units (beyond scenery like the pigeons) in-comic. Occam's Razor therefore dictates that they are most likely combat units.


Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Exactly. All I said was that farmers exist. Trades exist. I don't need Rob to have stated that they exist without being units, so long as he hasn't said that only units can perform trades. That's the wiggle room that allows a non-unit man to be a farmer without belonging to a side, allowing his life to continue after disbanding, albeit significantly altered in purpose.The outright disappearance of people due to the death of a third person seems cruel and unnecessary, in a world where farms and hard work exist. A disbanded unit can survive without a Side
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:37 am

Kreistor wrote:But in our world, a rebellious unit that goes AWOL is a threat to morale and the military situation. Under de-popping, rebellious units disappear and are nothing and can be dismissed offhand as irrelevant to the furture. This lacks the parallelism of popping vs. manufacturing and de-popping vs. battlefield clean-up. A general in our world worries about deserting troops. A general in erfworld doesn't. No symmetry, and so I can't support it. That's why I will not accept any but blatant evidence of de-popping of living creatures. Yes, popping is absurd, but it is parallel. Yes, de-popping trash is absurd, but it is parallel. Yes, de-popping of rebellious troops that are a threat to a side is absurd, but no, it is not parallel to how things work in our world, where deserting troops can be a plague to morale of their former side, inspiring further desertion, forcing a general to deal with thir former troops, or becoming the righteous army that sweeps aside a Dictator and installs an enlightened government.


You ignore symmetry WITHIN Erfworld (hint: popping inanimate objects is to de-popping inanimate objects as popping living units is to <blank>) because of an imagined symmetry between Earth and Erfworld?

You refuse to believe that the Mechanics of Erfworld differ from Earth except where they are explicitly shown to differ, even though you've already been presented with dozens of counter-examples ("boop"-censoring, people popping fully-functional, towns instantly going from ruins to pristine, MAGIC, seeing units' stats, leveling up, wounds instant-healing at the start of a turn...). NONE of these have Earth-equivalents outside of a game, but your burden of proof for de-popping requires symmetry with an imagined Earth desertion issue?

I don't think you make a very convincing argument, here. If you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, then enjoy, and I'm sure there will be more posts to respond to so you can continue the discussion, but personally, I've seen enough arguments in favor of 'de-popping' as a mechanic available to an overlord that I'm going to assume that's how it works until the comic proves otherwise.

You and I both see symmetry, but the symmetry I see lies only within Erfworld, while yours requires Earth-parallels which haven't been shown to actually exist. I'll grant that there's not a lot of evidence on either side ultimately, but what little there is seems to reinforce the de-popping view of the world to me, and clearly does not to you, so I guess there's nothing more to discuss.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:49 am

I've no interest in hiding my disdain for your lack of logic any longer. This is little more than idiocy at this point, and I intend to treat it as such.

Kreistor wrote:
Doktor Jones wrote:Where did he say the writer used the wrong terminology? Just because he says Parson made a mistake doesn't mean he's saying Rob's making a mistake. It seems much more likely to me that he's suggesting Rob may have intentionally made Parson use the wrong terminology, since he's relatively new to the mechanics of Erfworld? This'd suggest to me he's actually complementing the potential depth of Rob's writing.


I'm going to point you towards teh Wiki. Rob wants us to write "Speculation" and "Proposed Canon". Once we have something, he (or a representative of Rob and/or Jamie) will advance that to Canon.

Or simply: Rob wants us to figure out the rules.


Which is why he intentionally misleads us with statements from Bogroll like "rations pop at dawn." No. Rations pop at the start of your turn. For Bogroll, that's always been dawn, because he's a garrison unit. It was misleading information. It was wrong. Rob wants us to try to figure out the rules. He's going to have fun making sure we can't actually do so.

Look at this statement by Rob from the old forum:
5931853 wrote:p64 panel 3 seems to be a major hangup. Wasn't intentional and I agree that it's misleading. We'll clarify that for the book.

For the record, the rule is actually pretty simple and I am amazed it's been such a sticking point for people.

* You can move only on your turn, and you can cast only on your turn.
* When an enemy comes to you on their turn, you can engage, and you can cast. This includes when they are attacking your city.


Rob is trying to present the rules such that they can be puzzled out, and he admits when he has failed in his efforts. You are suggesting that Rob has now intentionally mislead us such that it is impossible to figure out the rule because he intentionally lied to us, and now that it doesn't matter, he isn't clearing up his intentionally misleading statements, despite his desire that we figure out the rules ourselves.


Rob cleared things up because he intended to communicate something and failed, so he remedied the failure. Earlier, with Bogroll, he had succeeded in misleading us concerning the exact nature of when rations pop, so he had nothing to remedy.

No. I cannot accept this.


Therein lies the problem. Learn to accept that life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, or else you'll live your entire life in a deluded fantasy.

I can accept Parson slowly advancing his knowledge of details, such that a generality becomes increasingly complicated. (Our understanding of Turn order and GK's position in the Turn, for instance. Initially we thought all Rations popped at dawn, but now we know that it is actually Rations pop at Turn start, which for GK has been at dawn.
What's ironic is that I just used this to prove your earlier points wrong...
A generality becomes a specific.
No. Rations pop at dawn, Bogroll said. This information was incorrect. A generality did not become a specific. An inaccuracy was corrected.
What I won't accept is Parson stating something completely incorrect and not later correcting his mistake when he learns his error.
You think, maybe, he hasn't learned his error yet? Or maybe he never made a mistake at all, and you're just taking the whole thing out of context?
So, if there is a solution whereby Rob is actually a good author that gives us hints to the rules and doesn't lie to us, then that's the version I will accept. I will not accept Rob being intentionally two-faced, in order to back up a theory that would otherwise be disproven.
So you're saying that red herrings are the hallmark of awful, horrible authors? Are you serious?

And how is de-popping any less absurd than popping? On Earth, people (units) are born and either are killed or die; is it too far to stretch that units in Erfworld are popped, and then either croaked or de-popped?


In our world, a soldier at the front is handed a mortar round. To him, he did not see the manufacturing process, and so it is little different from popping. Others know more, and so know it didn't really pop, but from that end user perspective, it did pop. The battlefield after the battle s strewn with detritus and wrecage. In Erfworld, it de-pops. In our world, someone goes in and hauls it away. Again, the soldier doesn't see the mechanicsm whereby the wreckage disappears, but merely knows that someone came and moved it off for spare parts or scrap.


Erfworld is not based on our world. Erfworld is based on strategy games. Rob wanted to deconstruct the strategy game genre. He made up a war game that was aimed at an audience of ten or eleven year olds. One with cute little monsters who fought cute little wars. Until you think about the details. Parson, on the ground level, doesn't have to think about the details because he can see the gruesome Hell that is Erfworld. The whole point of the comic is that war games are, inherently and independent of the atmosphere of the game itself, a horrible, horrible place to live, contrasted to real life, where living can be and frequently is tolerable and even pleasant.

But what happens to Rebellious troops in our World.
Usually they're captured and executed, or slaughtered in the field, but that's a moot point, see above.
The de-poppers on disband contend that they simply disappear to never threaten their side again. Is our world so kind to their former side? Hardly. Those deserting or rebelling troops will be a thorn in tehir former ruler's side... possibly for years to come.
So...Erfworld works differently from Earth? It works more like a war game, in fact? What a concept.
De-popping them? That is far too kind to the Ruler, especially a Ruler that is tyrannical.
That's the point, my slow-witted friend. The Rulers are the players and possibly their computer-generated opponents. Therefore, as far as the game is concerned, no one else matters. Everyone else is just a mechanic. Things need to be fair between the Rulers, but not between the Rulers and their subordinates. In fact, you want to give Rulers as much control over their own Side as possible, because it's a game. Until you come to Erfworld where all those units are real people. Then it's a nightmare.

Not going to get into the rest... I need to get going now... but hopefully I this will help, even a little?


Eh, whatever. That one thing is absurd does not provide evidence that another exists because it is equally absurd. Erfworld has converted the military manufacturing and training process into a simple natural mechanic. It has turned battlefield clean-up into a simple natural mechanic. What you're suggesting is that it has also turned rebellion and disobedience and lack of leadership into an equally simple, and totally consumptive, mechanic. Popping is, essentially, manufacturing, and from the general's perspective, it's not that much different. Soldiers come off the production line and become available in order under both Erfworld and Earth systems. They are, to a general, parallel and identical in final result. Similarly, de-popping equates to battlefield clean-up. Trash and wreckage disappear vs. being hauled off and used for parts or scrap in manufacturing. To the general, only the battlefield being reported cleared is important, not the minutiae of how. Disappearning trash doesn't have a real consequence.


Erfworld is a literal interpretation of the abstractions used by war games to simulate Earth or Earth-like warfare. There is a world of difference, there.

But in our world, a rebellious unit that goes AWOL is a threat to morale and the military situation. Under de-popping, rebellious units disappear and are nothing and can be dismissed offhand as irrelevant to the furture. This lacks the parallelism of popping vs. manufacturing and de-popping vs. battlefield clean-up. A general in our world worries about deserting troops. A general in erfworld doesn't.
Ayup.
No symmetry, and so I can't support it.
Neither can Parson. He doesn't plan on whining about it. He plans on doing something. Since you're a spectator, there's not much you can do about it except wait and hope. Or delude yourself into believing a version of reality that is clearly almost certainly untrue. Whatever floats your boat.
That's why I will not accept any but blatant evidence of de-popping of living creatures.
Because you're pitifully deluded concerning the nature of Erfworld? 'Kay. I can accept that.
Yes, popping is absurd, but it is parallel Yes, de-popping trash is absurd, but it is parallel.
It is an abstraction. See above.
Yes, de-popping of rebellious troops that are a threat to a side is absurd, but no, it is not parallel to how things work in our world, where deserting troops can be a plague to morale of their former side, inspiring further desertion, forcing a general to deal with thir former troops, or becoming the righteous army that sweeps aside a Dictator and installs an enlightened government.
Ahem, no. A cute thought, but no. The real world doesn't even work that way. In the real world, a deserting army is usually rapidly annihilated by their more competently led ex-comrades, who have the advantage of an established officers corp. And when soldiers do sweep aside a dictator, they usually install a military dictatorship in his place. Y'know, 'cause they're a military. Regardless, Erfworld isn't a parallel to Earth. It's a literal interpretation of war games, in which a unit disbanded is removed from play completely.
Maldeus wrote:According to Kreistor, it's been confirmed outside of the comic that farms are farmed by farmers. I can find nothing on the subject of farms in the Words of the Titans post on the wiki, except that Natural Allies can mine, farm, or hunt to get the shmuckers needed to pop units. However we have seen, in comic, gobwins mining for gems in Gobwin Knob, as a flashback image when Sizemore was talking about how Erfworld's tunnles were created. What we don't know is whether or not those gobwins were combat units. I am assuming that they are, and that combat units in a garrison can be used to mine/farm/what-have-you whenever the area isn't under threat of attack, simply because most war games do not have civilian units, the workers were gobwins and not Men of the Plaid Tribe (who would be the logical workers in a Plaid Tribe city), and because we have already seen combat units but have not seen any non-combat units (beyond scenery like the pigeons) in-comic. Occam's Razor therefore dictates that they are most likely combat units.


Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Exactly. All I said was that farmers exist.
Technically, that's only been implied by the comic, not explicitly stated. I'm guessing they do, but that they are an organized unit of troops who have not been disbanded. Most likely they're garrison units.
Trades exist. I don't need Rob to have stated that they exist without being units, so long as he hasn't said that only units can perform trades. That's the wiggle room that allows a non-unit man
There are no non-unit men
to be a farmer without belonging to a side, allowing his life to continue after disbanding, albeit significantly altered in purpose.The outright disappearance of people due to the death of a third person seems cruel and unnecessary,
Welcome to Erfworld
in a world where farms and hard work exist.
Hard work exists in our world. So does Africa.
A disbanded unit can survive without a Side
No, it can't. Your pathetic, idealistic delusions are entertaining, however.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:55 am

MarbitChow wrote:We know that units pop, we know that inanimate items pop, and we know that inanimate items de-pop. Why is having animate units de-pop such a stretch?


Because it's a) never referenced while being a very violent event, and b) happeneing at the thim of a third person who can be cruel and cannot be removed from power for having made use of this power. Both violate any concept of a reasonable existence where you control your own destiny and your own afterlife by being a good person.

It's a standard game mechanic, and Erfworld shows that it follows game mechanics.


No, Erfworld has game rules in its physics engine, but it is not a game to the participants. To them this is real, and arbitrary death from a Ruler's whim that also controls your afterlife is, well, unacceptable to me.

Saying that farms support the idea that units have a place to go when they're disbanded seems less logical than simply saying that farmers are popped, which seems more internally consistent.


Parson just demonstrated that basic physics exists with his "brick' discussion. Houses can be built, and so they will be. Why would a Ruler waste shmuckers on a farmhouse that the farmer can build himself when the physics of Erfworld permit him to not pop it and the farmer will build it anyway? Natural Sides must deal with this issue. Shmuckers will be hard to come by for them, and so a house that does not need to be popped will save them money and create them more units instead.

whereas we have no evidence at all that units can become other unit types


Jillian when Faq fell. Stanley if GK fell. Yes, we do.

Not at all. Low level infantry simply depop and repop again at level 1


Reincarnation mechanic? Yeah, that'll fly with me like a lead zepplin. Sorry, Mythbusters proved a lead zepplin could fly. Okay, like a solid block of lead hovering in space against the pull of gravity with no input of any other energy source or support. Flat rejection, of course. Dead is dead... didn't Misty demonstrate that clearly enough?

If you go the caster-assassin route, and you eliminate the side, all of that side's defensive units still defend all of their cities, they're just 'frozen in time' until someone attacks them.


Yeah, you go ahead and attack all those cities with their field units in support. I'll take them neutral without, thanks. And any sides that want to join in? Well, they can still join in after you've battered yourself on those hard defenses, expending and weakening yourself, suchthat those sides crush the same cities they would have if they were neutral, plus your weakened forces.

Assuming a simple fortress layout, the assassin route might be very difficult.


Of course. But check the risk vs. reward. Casters might be expensive, but we're weighing the loss of armies against the loss of individual casters, with the results of the former being captured ruins, and the rewards of the later the capture of poorly defended (demoralized netral troops), pristine cities. Risk vs. reward goes strongly with the assassination method.

Foolamancy might cause people to overlook trees in a forest hex, but it's highly unlikely that it would get you all the way to a moderately paranoid leader's inner sanctum.


Lookamancer to counter Foolamancer. All magic has it's opposite. Everything can be overcome by those that seek the path. It's been made abundantly clear that there is no perfect security. Wanda demonstrated that when she scuppered Banhammer's brilliant security from the inside. Nothing stops everything. Mathamancer to counter Predictamancer. Croakamancer to counter shockamancer. Massive numbers of cheap scouts to counter Linked Eyemancer table. Uncroaked volcano to counter overwhelming enemy numbers.

There's no evidence of aging in this world.


I thought so to, until someone pointed out the Transylvito chant during the beginning of the Faq intercept to me. "From your first startin' stat til the turn you decay." Page 111, panel 8. Strong suggestion that units do have a lifespan.

Maldeus wrote:A large portion of Kreistor's most recent response (which conveniently ignored my post, I note) seems to be dependent upon the concept that Erfworld is both A) Very much like Earth, and B) A good place to live. To A, my only response is "have you even been reading this comic? Show me the dwagons and spidew-mounted gobwins on Earth. Show me the cities magically poofed into existence in a single day on Earth. Show me the artifacts of power capable of bring life to those who are dead."


I'll show you a brick thrown from the top of a rampart that strikes Stanley dead. parson is demonstrating that certain basic physical realities of our world exist. Rab has clarified that farming exists and generates income. Yes, dwagons don't exist here and they do in Erfworld, but that brick still hits a guy in the head. And Erfworld isn't a game to thse living there, so casual dismissal of existence shouldn't exist for them any more than for us. especially at the mental whim of tyrants.

[quote=Noah]Congrats to everyone who countered him more adroitly while spending much less time.[/quote]

Chicken counting and all that.

I did not say Rob made a mistake, I said Parson used the wrong word, something we've seen before.


You're saying Rob intentionally mislead us so that we can't figure out the rule. That's no different, except semantically. It is still a desperate and unnecessary reach given that the statement can be explained reasonably without Rob lying to us.

Really? An interesting concept, though complete speculation. Except that Jillian is a Barbarian Warlord who runs around with a bunch of Gwiffons, who are clearly not Commanders.


You're forgetting Jack with Stanley. Vinnie made it clear that Jack would continue on side as Barbarian with Stanley as his leader until Stanley ran his purse dry. Units with a Warlord that goes barbarian go barbarian with him. Sorry for the confusion. Didn't think i really needed to point out what Vinnie explicitly stated on that subject. Guess I do. Page 138, if you needed it.

Says who? What are you basing this on? Or do you just mean I covered Cities and Field but not MK? MK = field. Done. What exception? And who said the system was simple anyway?


Right, okay, here's the issue. If Jillian is the exception to the rule that disbanding = depopping, because Heirs and former Rulers become Barbarian Warlords, then how do you explain the case of Casters in the MK? Casters in MK are in the field, and yet we know that they will become Barbarians in the MK: they disband,m for being in the field, but they do not de-pop, they go barbarian. All of these can be explained by a single, simple rule. "Any unit of at least Commander grade that is in the field when his side ends becomes a Barbarian." This explains all of Jillian, Stanley, and the Casters in MK, who are also Commanders. Simple, neat, and fits all known instances without any exceptions necessary. Further, from Vinnie, we know that Units in the presence of a former higher ranked unit remain in the employ of that unit, so also "Any unit of lower than Commander grade that is in the presence of a unit that becomes a Barbarian Warlord when their side ends becomes a barbarian in the service of that Warlord." This only leaves us with unled units to explain. My only speculative statement: "Units that are unlead (they're gassy, after all) at the time their side ends become lay down their weapons and cease to be units. They enter the environment as workers."

What? Parson sent the casters to MK to avoid Death By Volcano.


BEEP. Wrong again. He was wanting them to go through before ever revealing the uncroaked volcano plan. He sent them through for: Page 102. Panel 5. "I shouldn't tell you this, but if it looks like we're about to get crushed? I'm panning on sending you and the other casters through to the Magic Kingdom. When the city falls, you'll be barbarians." The alternative is capture. That's in a Klog, and I don't think I need to quote that one do I? Casters are the only units normally captured? You know how that one goes, right?

K wrote:Sides are lost via... the death of an heir-less Ruler [or] the loss of Capital. A Side must have a capital, or it becomes Barbarian.


Are you sure? Every defeated side has lost its Ruler. Do we know taking the Capital alone is enough? And what side has "become Barbarian?" We know Jillian became a Barbarian, but a Side she does not make. And the unconquered Cities of a conquered side become Neutral, which is wholly different from Barbarianism.


Yeah, I am. Check the WIki under "Side". All the known infformation is accumulated there. I'm not re-writing what is already adequately explained. There are Captial Sides with Rulers, and non-Capital Sides wihtout, and references in place for all information present. Have fun. I wrote most of it, actually.

In your scenario, they both become Barbarian Warlords leading separate armies as long as their purses hold out, and either can claim a city. But maybe losing the city leaves them both still GK side as long as Stanley lives. They have no income and no production but are still the same side they were before and can join up to attempt to take Faq or GK. Or Manpower and his group are Deleted and Stanley and his become Barbarians, if losing the Capital destroys the side.


So, you don't know. Good. But you could obfuscate a little less and say what you mean, instead of trying to look like you didn't just rewrite my question. BTW, you cna probably guess that I contend that all three armies become separate Barbarian sides, but if the Warlords leading those sides want to rejoin their former comrades into a single side, they're welcome to do so.

I don't accept that a Barbarian Warlord can have a leader.


They can make alliances and obey other warlords not on side, so why can't they obey Warlords on the same side? (Case in point, Jillian taking orders from Ansom, Caesar, or whoever she's working for. Jack taking orders from Stanley after a theoretical destruction of GK and Stanley becoming Barbarian. Casters are Commanders, after all.)

But what if he was in a city? Then he'd be frozen in time.


"essentially" frozen in time. They still move around the city, they just can't leave, attack, or change their state of being. Yes, I have a huge problem with this "neutral city" deal. A Warlord inside a neutral city should be able to seize the reins of power, IMO, but somehow, Rob disagrees. I don't understand the why, and I have asked him to clarify that very odd detail. A wa5rlord outside the city can come back and capture it to become a side again, so why is the Warlord inside the city so severely restricted? He's got units, some of which may normally be field units not garrison. The gates aren't physically locked shut. His troops he commanded before would still have loyalties to him, and should still take orders. If he wants to bloodlily crush the garrison with his troops and take the city, what Natural Thinkamancy stops him? It's the only thing that can explain the case, but all Natural Thinkamancies are non-absolute, allowing levels of compliance. This one is presented as an absolute.

Cut "Only inanimate" and you've almost got it right.


I want my own body, even if I have no side. So why am I ignored and disappear?

Okay, so it SHOULD be safe, but it's not cost-effective if any Commander can do the same. Especially in a world at war. Tribal ties are all but forgotten. Beyond Royals, people don't seem too sentimental. Jillian doesn't seem to care that Banhammer was her father.


Not sure what your "Commander can do the same" means. Only Rulers set production, so that's not it.

Btw, there are people in our world that don't care about their parents, too. Unfortunately.

Your double-edged sword cuts deep. Sizemore had no reason to believe that anyone would use him differently; making golems and collecting crap was all he knew. If Stanley the Tool didn't make him kill, who would?


Charlie.

Now that's a fate worse than death: Oblivion. De-Popping. No afterlife when afterlife is possible. That would put the fear of Stanley in Sizemore.


Which can be achieved by becoming a barbarian and being auto-attacked to death. De-popping to oblivion is not required to fulfill Stanley's threat. I simply don't think the Titans would give the power of choosing an afterlife to a Ruler, if it is they have chosen to judge their creations. With a disbanding=barbarian, at least the victim gets one last chance to prove their worth to the Titans. Wiht disbanding=de-popping, you're sentenced to a poor afterlife by the Ruler, not the Titans. It suggests that the Titans don't actually care about their creations, so why did they bother creating the world for judgment?

Again, how do we know what the Titans want?


We know:
a) Titans created the world. Unless you believe the first comic was a lie.
b) We know the Titnas revealed their existence to their creations. (Check the dome. It's accurate.)
So we can at least determine that the Titans want their creations to know they were created and wanted to exist.

We know Viinnie and Ansom at least believe in a "City of Heroes" for a positive afterlife. Given taht the Titans have reealed themselves, it is less likely that this idea is a creation of the Erfworlders than the Titans. We, the readers, ahave one benefit that natives do not. The author showed us the creation of the world, and we know that the Titans created it. The Erfworlders may be more like us, wihtout knowledge of pre-existence and so uncertainties of the Titans for them may exist, but we don't suffer that temporal restriction, thanks to Rob's revelations. About some things in erfworld, we actually do know more than Erfworlders and Parson do, though such are admittedly very rare cases.

The point was that a Ruler disbanding a non-Commander faces an automatic combat; even against huge odds this could mean a casualty or two. If he disbands a Commander, they might fight him. Or they could leave, start a side, and seek revenge. That's a lot of hassle just to fire someone. If Stanley Disbanded Parson and Sizemore alone, in his robe, unarmed, they might have taken him. (!)


Which I like. It prevents casual dismissals. You risk a good trooper or two every time you say, "Off with their head!" I ike mechanics that balance the power of Rulers. )BTW, Stanley may be an incompetent strategist, but he is a remarkable warrior. He's proven in the field for his combat prowess, so I doubt he'd see the fat man and the crap guy as any threat.

If a Ruler could choose, he'd want to just delete them from the planet. Of course they can't choose, but why wouldn't the Titans choose that for them? The easier and more efficiently a side can be run, the more carnage it can cause, if that is the Titans' will.


So you think the Titans crave blood sacrifice? may as well have modelled the world on Aztec culture instead. Lots more carnage, blood, and brutality. De-popping isn't carnage, BTW. It's inhenrely clean.

Even if they did, that doesn't support Disbanding =/= De-popping, until we have evidence that soldiers can become farmers.


Yeah, it does. It means that a non-sided man can exist without fighting as a tradesman. t might be hard, but since when was being a peasant easy?

"Everything that fights is a Unit." Did you forget that? No such thing as units that don't fight.


Only for that one sentence. Most places I used "men that don't fight". Thoguth I caught all the places I used that, but guess I missed one. Maybe others. No, if you look carefully you'll see I was pretty careful to try to avoid that combo of words. Didn't use it a lot of places it might have been used.

Besides, are you arguing Disbanding = Barbarian, or Disbanding = Civilian?


I think I clarified that above. I did say that disbanding may result in multiple end states before. Guess I culd have made those statements earlier in the thread, because I could have. I was always thinking that way. Obfuscating again... one of my bad habits. Sometimes it makes for a good tactic, since it suckers people into revealing ignorance. I wasn't trying to do that this time.

Your argument uses "known states," but you can't be sure what they mean. My concept is simpler than yours. A unit is on a side, and then it isn't. No messy afterlives. No Rulers dying of old age, because no aging.


You rely on all the same undefined states that I do, plus you ad de-popping of living creatures. that makes yours more complicated, not simpler. You can't tell me that I can't be sure that states have a particular meaning without also admitting that you can't know what those meanings are. Since if you know and can prove it, then I'll agree and we'd move on. we don't, so you don't, so you've got the same problem, plus an additional one of a lack of existence of a process vital to your contention.

Trades exist, but traders? Unknown.


We see goblins mining, so tools don't move themselves. You think ploughs move themselves where picks don't?

But hardly supported by anything other than what you like to believe.


Says the guy that needs Rob to lie to us to prove his case.

We know that a Barbarian can scrape a living in the wild, but we don't know how a Barbarian can be made, outside of two ways, and we don't know that any have, and the idea that it could work that way, in itself, isn't evidence that it does. If every Unit can become a Barbarian and live on its own, why aren't there more? I suppose there might be, but we've seen and heard nothing from them. As if they don't exist.


Yes, we've seen Jillian become Barbarian. Rob has stated that Barbarians pop. But we also know that Casters become barbarians when their captial falls, Rulers become Barbarians (as well as anything with him). All I've done is codified all of these into two staements -- one for Commanders and up, and another for less than Commmanders. The one creation is what happens to units away from leadership, and that's where I see the opportunity for tradesmen and farmers, miners and craftsmen. Life in Erfworldbeyond constant warfare, and a goal for the Hippiemancers that seem to want Parson to break teh world. A broken world with no one to fight in your concept has no life for anyone... just standing around watching rations pop. In my world, those men become tradesmen when parson unites the world into peacetime.

Certainly not Erfworlders, who have never mentioned a Civilian to my (shaky) knowledge.


And we just reached a stage where they might, since TBFGK was all about warfare, and now we're in a period between wars. We're finally in position to see Erfworld from a non-war perspective, so if it exists, now is where we'd see it. Bad time to place your bets on the table...

No, but you may be being obtuse. Tools you make yourself? Chopping branches with a sword? Making rakes? What world are you talking about?


The one where a brick thrown from a rampart kills, jsut as it would here. Basic mechanics still exist in Erfworld. Cooking exists in Erfworld. Why waste shmuckers popping what can be made by people that aren't fighting? Whether you agree with the existence of tradeesmen or not, troops do have periods between wars, and you only need so many guarding borders. The rest need activity to keep out of trouble, so why not have them turn enemy swords into knives, pots, pans, saving the treasury for the things that can't be made by hand, like dwagons.

Units flee too.


Not from combat, only from pseudo-natural events. If a unit is lead, it obeys orders to the death. If it is unlead, it auto-attacks. Even if it could flee, it slams into the hex wall. Erfworld is merciless to the losing defender: 100% casualties. There is no end to the attacker's turn, no slacking of their activity for exhaustion only Parson tires), and no need to end turn until they have you annihilated.

If pigeons are Units, the garrison we have seen has always been led.


Uh, where? Only five warlords to start, all uncroaked. Some lost to the deagon trap fiasco. Couple added in tunnels. Still, only a handful, all uncroaked, and incapable of speaking. You think five warlords can lead the entire garrison of thousands at all times, when if they are limited in function as maggie states, they are barely capable of leadership in the first place?

If pigeons aren't Units, what are they?


Animals. And potential food. Roast pigeon used to be a delicacy...

Does a farm need a farmhouse? Does it need a farmer?


Yes, and yes. Note miners mining, not tools moving themselves.

That's still a very theoretical man. We've seen a pigeon, even though we don't know what it is.


Winged warm blooded creature covered in feathers? Fly pretty well. Taste good, supposedly. Crap on statues. The onyl person that doesn't understand pigeons is you, and that only because you're retreating to where you need everythig proven to you , o it doesn't exist. Common sense. Pigeons are animals that fly, eat seeds, and crap white stuff on statues. they're nothing more or less than they are in our world. except that they might pop instead of be born from eggs. Jury's out on that for the moment.

Units age?


See above reference to Transylvito battle chant concerning decaying units.

Why would you assume that Erfworld mimics ours as much as possible?


Because if it doesn't, our Common Sense is useless, and Rob's been pretty clear that Common Sense is useful. A pigeon is a pigeon, unless otherwise specified. You're retreating into over-thinking, and that's a pitfall where that results in an incapacity to understand anything that Rob doesn't explain. Pull back, man. Common Sense is still useful, but not where you're tripping into.

How is this a support for non-Unit, Civilian, "Flesh and blood" farmers?


It provides sustenance for a non-fighting man. A non-fighter can farm to survive, so let him. If the Titans don't let him, then de-popping ends his existence, and they are cruel, malevolent beings with no interest in peaceful co-existence. If so, then parson has his work cut out for him. He needs to become more powerful than the Titans themselves to end the war these malicious being revel in. No, I can't accept that concept of Titans.

It's clear you're more interested in making Erfworld like Earth than considering how it's like a real game or games


Erfworld is not a game to the inhabitants. Parson sees the similarities to his game rules in the physics of Erfworld, but it's a mistake to think of Erfworld as a game. Erfworld is a struggle for dominance, in the same way as the War of the Roses was, with just about as much success. So, yes, I have shifted from my early days of being like you and viewing Erfworld as just a game to be puzzled out, to seeing it as a world with sme game-like aspects, but with inhabitants that need to live and survive just as we do. The more Erfworld is like our world, the easier it s to figure out, since our own frame of reference applies without the author expounding. It's clear that Rob thought we should have figured out the "casting off-turn" concepts wihtout explanation. He's wrong: we had too many absolutes from pParson being violated, without any reaction from him to indicate his absolutes really weren't. We do have to fight through that sometimes: Rob isn't good at seeing the comic from the eyes of a reader: that much is clear. I really think that he feels we have everything we need to know to understand Disbanding. If so, then it can't be de-popping, because that's not mentioned at all in reference to living creatures.

Who wants stone?


Not me. Well, I want it, but I don't have it yet. As I've said, I am a heavy WIki contributor, especially in the rules sections, and I have not placed these theories in the Wiki. (At least not in the main page. I may have something in Discussion, to head off changes by other contribs. That's what the Discussion page is for, after all.) I'm not that arrogant. I do hold myself to the burden of proof that I hold others to, and I can demonstrate it. Though the {disband = barbarian] concept is my favorite, I recognize other possibilities are plausible. I demonstrate the burden of proof with my own theories so that others know what I expect of them.

Though this is your best, most succinct argument yet. You should have led with it.


We try things. Sometimes they even work. When you fire a shotgun, you never know which pellet one will hit the target, and I hate shotguns bbecause sometimes they all miss, especially in Gears, except to anyone shooting at me, and... gripety gripe gripe. A different argument will sway a different person. I can't predict which will sway you.

Even a corpse is useful in Erfworld, but they still de-pop.


Unless they're claimed. I think I'll claim my own body...

Way to load this paragraph. I like this concept. I don't like that one.


Ahem, I believe it went: "hmm... actually, I like #2. I would be willing to go with that, and say Barbarians only pop randomly unless they are Heirs of lost sides."

Yes, that paragraph is a huge minefield. If it can happen, it will, no matter how improbable. Improbability only determines frequency of occurrence.

So, yes, there will be a tyrant that abuses his units, causes them to disobey, and they realize they'll be disbanded. They're no threat under the depopping version, ar ethey? As dissatisfied, as victimized, as they may be, their only hope in your Erfworld is oblivion. In mine, there's barbarism and reprisal against a tyrant. If the City of Heroes exists, they'd have a claim to it, especially if they offed the Tyrant and began a new side. Yours? Tyranny for all! You can keep yur Erfworld, thanks. I'm not interested in that kid of comic.

Wait, you think a unit can directly attack its Ruler while still under his control?


Loyalty is a stat, and not an absolute. The abuse by the Tyrant serves to lower Loyalty to zero: after all, who is loyal to someone that tortures and threatens him? Disobedience will follow, but without revealing the decision to be disobedient, it doesn't take place yet. With no loyalty and a decision to be disobedient bu killing the Tyrant, the unit instantly becomes disbanded. If in the presence of the Ruler at that moment, there is a single opportunity to kill the Tyrant as others react to the change in state to barbarian, but only if Disbanding does not mean de-popping. In your world, that moment of disobedience caused by years of victimization results in oblivion, despite the fact it would better the lives of all around if he slew the Tyrant and stood before the Titans with Justice as his defense and claim to the City of Heroes. Your world rewards the victimizer by annihilating any that decide to try to end his reign and bring justice to society.

Be careful with Natural Thinkamancy. Pason presents a lot of it as absolute, but it's not actually absolute. We see it applies as shades throughout the comic. If Wanda could only say "No" to Stanley when she had justification, Stanley would know immediately that she had a justification when she said it in comic 2, and she would not need to verbalize "I'm allowed. I'm convinced it would lead to your destruction.' That statement implies that she could say it even if she were disallowed, but it would have repercussions. Stanley could, for instance, simply disband her there, so under the de-popping version, Stanley would automatically know she had a reason wihtout getting angry about it. He saw disobedience, and needed the explanation to justify it.

Bah,. that's not well explained. It's too late. Basically review comic 5 and look carefully at Stanley's response to her iitial, unexplained disobedeince. He would only react like that if she could say "No" without justification. If with justification s the only possibility, then he would know right there that she had it.

What happens when Barbarians can't pay their upkeep?


You get a chance. You get hope, however fleeting. Best, if you're near a previously Sided city, you can walk to the gate, say, "We're all friends. You can't become a Side without us: you can ony remain neutral until captured by someone, and that means you will die in a bloodbath. We'll come in, start a side, and you know what you're getting, so just open the gate, order the defenders to the rear, we'll capture the city bloodlessly, and we're all one big happy side again. We can bring in other former Sided units to the side as they arrive. Or would you prefer the inevitable slaughter that will come when some side finally crushes you?"

Yeah, man. You got it. This is why people Turn.


Turn? And if you're not at War? There's no one to Turn to join.

It's only an "I win" button if you can successfully eliminate the Ruler and any Heirs. We don't even know that anyone in Erfworld has conceived of this, let alone attempted it. All dead Rulers so far came with conquered cities. And if you can do it to them, they can do it to you.


Vinnie discusses teh possibility of the dwagons targetting specific units and retreating just before Ansom gets the report of wrecked Siege Engines. It is a very short step from there to croaking a King to end the war quickly and with minimal blood on yur side. maximum for your enemies, but then, hey, who cares about them?

K wrote:If, on the other hand, disbanding can result in barbarianism, killing the tyrant only causes the units in the field to go barbarian: they can still fight against you, and try to restore their side. Warlords keep their troops under control, and so they can re-unite and assault their now-neutral capital, under an agreed upon Chief Warlord (violently vhosen, possibly). The defenders open the gates, and accept their new Ruler in a Bloodless take-over, and the side reforms under new leadership. That prevents this form of tyranny. Assasination of a Ruler is inconvenient for that Side, as it should be, but ultimately does not eliminate the threat of the enemy side in a single stroke (reducing the power of assassination as military tactic), and perhaps places a more competent Ruler in place over a Side.


Restore the old side, or start a new one? Why have heirs, again? Re-unite? So no Barbarians fight each other? Bloodless take-over, eh? Does a side need a Capital? Wouldn't they need to take that from the invading army? If no heir, who becomes the New Ruler? The Chief Warlord? Appointed by Committee? Really? You seem really interested in preventing an occurence that hasn't been mentioned by anyone except maybe Parson (I'd have to check the strategy Klog).


Why are you surprised that former friends would want to not kill each other over succession? Imagine Dora and Webinar in different armies when Jetstone's Ruler and Ansom croak, leaving them barbarians. You think they want to fight? Dora's a 2, so she knows she pretty much can't win, so why not surrender to he close friend Webinar and support his bid for leadership of a new Side? You'd have them all de-popped and lose all of this wonderful political intrigue. Why you want that to be the way of this world boggles me... it's just boring to see all this lovely, and plot-wse useful, conflict go poof. So, one at a time. The old side ended with the assassination, so yes, it must be a new side, but they might think of it as being restoring the old one. You have heirs to that the Side continues with your chosen successor, and no chance of bloodletting between ambitious commanders. Yes, friends that were separated by being in different armies at the time of Side ending are re-united with each other, and possible combine their barbarian sides if there is agreement on who is the best Ruler. Sure, barbarians fight each other, but these barbarians know each ther and have eaten at the same table for years. They might choose a more civilized approach to determining a replacement ruler than warfare. A game of chess, perhaps? And if a neutral city wants to survive with minimal casualties, they'd open the gates to a former friend from the same side -- bloodless return to a Capital Side... it's something the neutral city cannot do on its own. They get two choices: surrender and live or defend and die. They can never win in the long run. Sides don't need capitals, but a Capital Side with Ruler must ave a Captial, and all Capitals are cities. There are other Sides, like Ntatural Allies and barbarians, but they don't have Rulers. To be a Ruler, you must capture a city. No, you don't need to take a City from an invading army to become a Capital Side. If it's neutral, you only need to capture it while it's neutral, not wait until it becomes captured by a third party. Whomever the warlords decide on. By Committee, if that's theire choice, but maybe some would want to duel for it, or play chess, or whatever. There does not need to be a mechanic rule for people to use todecide who they think makes the best leader: everyone has their own opinions on leadership and their weaknesses. I don't know what occurance you think I'm preventing, except that I'm not forcing Barbarian Warlords to auto-attack each other. Being Warlords, they're leaders and so aren't required to auto-attack. You, on the other hand, have a few neutral cities sitting on the plains waiting for someone to notice they're easily captured, and miss out on all of the great intrigue as the newly barbarian factions jockey to form alliances and work out who takes over the side. See/ Your choice is boring. Paint drying sounds like more fun than watching Neutral Cities sit around waiting to get captured.

You appropriate, possibly even misuse, the official language because you don't necessarily know what it means. You misunderstand the author while holding him up as infallible. Yours is a pet theory propping up a series of wishes and hopes and desires. Made-up stuff, too. That doesn't meet the burden of proof. And the author WANTS us to make stuff up. And to think about different possibilities, and get stuff wrong. And we'll get some right. And we'll eventually learn the difference. And maybe, just maybe, he'll like something we write enough to tweak something.
[/quote]

Appropriate? No, not in this case. We know when disbanding happens -- when a Side ends and a unit is in the field. We know that Jillian was in the field and became a barbarian when her side ended. I'm putting the end-state together with the process name to determine a set of rules that fits all kown cases of these events. That's not appropriation.

You, on the other hand, have to appropriate an event known only to occur to objects for living things in order to provide a definition for Disbanding. Who's appropriating a mechanic?

No author is infallible, but Rob and Jamie post teir mistakes to a Blooper thread. If there was a mistake made, it would be there,and all of that thread went to Word of the Titans as a matter of record. They made no mistakes in reference to this issue.

You call my position a pet theory. Fact: Jillian became a Barbarian when her side ended. Fact: Stanley would have become a barbarian when his capital fell, ending his capital side. Fact; Units in the field disband when their side ends. Where's the pet theory? Disbanding resulting in barbarianism is a common sense connection of a known process that occurs when a side ends, and a known end state when a side ends. That's not a pet theory: it doesn't rely on any unknown knowledge: it's only putting a name to the process where Jillian became a barbarian and an end result for the process of disbanding.

What does not yet meet the burden of proof is only what I think happens to unlead units in the field, and I readily admit that. I've said it before: until recently, we didn't know that farmers existed, but now we do, so evidence is coming in on this subject, and it would be a poor bet to think that it's not going to continue to be expounded. Rob stated that he wanted to reveal a lot more rules this summer. I pray that this contentious issue will be laid to rest as one of them. Parson already knows what the rules concerning disbanding are, so why don't we?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Darkside007 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:44 am

Maldeus wrote:
Which is why he intentionally misleads us with statements from Bogroll like "rations pop at dawn." No. Rations pop at the start of your turn. For Bogroll, that's always been dawn, because he's a garrison unit. It was misleading information. It was wrong. Rob wants us to try to figure out the rules. He's going to have fun making sure we can't actually do so.


Actually, I always assumed he meant "Start of turn" when he said "Dawn".

But you're going to have to let Kreistor live in his own little universe where he is always right in everything he thinks and does. He's not stepping foot outside it, at any rate.
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Darkside007 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:45 am

Kreistor wrote:
MarbitChow wrote:We know that units pop, we know that inanimate items pop, and we know that inanimate items de-pop. Why is having animate units de-pop such a stretch?


Because it's a) never referenced while being a very violent event, and b) happeneing at the thim of a third person who can be cruel and cannot be removed from power for having made use of this power. Both violate any concept of a reasonable existence where you control your own destiny and your own afterlife by being a good person.


Correct. Welcome to Erfworld.
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:51 am

Maldeus wrote:I've no interest in hiding my disdain for your lack of logic any longer. This is little more than idiocy at this point, and I intend to treat it as such.


Been tried before. Only worked once, and that was 20 years ago, and it took two sentences. You ain't him. And I learned that lesson very, very well.

Kreistor wrote:Or simply: Rob wants us to figure out the rules.


Which is why he intentionally misleads us with statements from Bogroll like "rations pop at dawn." No. Rations pop at the start of your turn. For Bogroll, that's always been dawn, because he's a garrison unit. It was misleading information. It was wrong. Rob wants us to try to figure out the rules. He's going to have fun making sure we can't actually do so.


Pretty certain I was the first to point that out. But note that Bogroll never lied. His statement was true, but only because he never faced any other context. This demonstrates the superiority of certain sources. Bogroll makes a poor source, because he can't even figure out that GK is no longer first in the Turn order.

Rob cleared things up because he intended to communicate something and failed, so he remedied the failure. Earlier, with Bogroll, he had succeeded in misleading us concerning the exact nature of when rations pop, so he had nothing to remedy.


So? We dealt. I dealt. You can find it on this forum, in fact. I posted while figuring out Turn events for the Wiki, and posted both here, in the first days of the forum, and on the GitP site. I was looking for validation, since there'd been recent arguments. Everyone agreed, o it became proposed Canon and can be found on the Wiki. Yay, us!

But we're talking about a very specific word here: disbanding. The only reason to think it might be wrong in one instance vs. another is if it is impossible to resolve the multiple instances. They can be resolved without resorting to invention of unseen processes, so Rob did not mislead us in this case. You just don't like the solution because it doesn't agree with your opinion. That's not evidence of Rob misleading us, that's evidence of the deficiency of your position.

No. I cannot accept this.


Therein lies the problem. Learn to accept that life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, or else you'll live your entire life in a deluded fantasy.


Then prove your alternative. I don't accept anything that has no proof and relies solely on opinion. You'd have done it by now if you could.

K wrote:I can accept Parson slowly advancing his knowledge of details, such that a generality becomes increasingly complicated.


So you're saying that red herrings are the hallmark of awful, horrible authors? Are you serious?


There's a difference between a red herring, and a path that has multiple steps to reach the final version. Bogroll was not misleading: he was correct inside his own limited context. Red herring take you off the path, and Bogroll never did that. He really did say that everyone else, except GK, popped rations at the start of Turn. He did tell us the truth. The error was thinking that GK was the exception, when it was only exceptional at that one point in time, unfortunately, most of Bogroll's existence.

Erfworld is not based on our world. Erfworld is based on strategy games.


That's only true for us, not for Erfworlders. They live there, rules or no. To them, it is real, and it is a mistake to treat them as game pieces to be used and discarded like so much plastic. Yes, their physics has strategy game rules in it, but they do not have a set of rules in their head, just conceptualizations of the rules. They are, essentially, human despite physical deviations with more general world knowledge than a child would have, but a knowledge of their world equivalent to the knowledge we would have of Earth at that age.

K wrote:But what happens to Rebellious troops in our World.


Usually they're captured and executed, or slaughtered in the field, but that's a moot point, see above.


Or they create Great Nations like the USA, France, Soviet Union, China, etc., etc. They take over the UK and kill its King.

K wrote: The de-poppers on disband contend that they simply disappear to never threaten their side again. Is our world so kind to their former side? Hardly. Those deserting or rebelling troops will be a thorn in tehir former ruler's side... possibly for years to come.


So...Erfworld works differently from Earth? It works more like a war game, in fact? What a concept.


You like callous Titans? Then go with it. Still need to prove it, though. Depopping living creatures has still not happened, and units are disloyal and disobedient, which under that contention should result in instant oblivion. If disloyalty resulted in oblivion, then no one would ever worry about it, because it couldn't hurt the Ruler when it happened.

K wrote:De-popping them? That is far too kind to the Ruler, especially a Ruler that is tyrannical.

That's the point, my slow-witted friend.


Do that to anyone else, and I report you for flaming. I'll leave it to someone else to report you if they think I shouldn't be treated like that. Fair warning.

The Rulers are the players and possibly their computer-generated opponents. Therefore, as far as the game is concerned, no one else matters. Everyone else is just a mechanic. Things need to be fair between the Rulers, but not between the Rulers and their subordinates. In fact, you want to give Rulers as much control over their own Side as possible, because it's a game. Until you come to Erfworld where all those units are real people. Then it's a nightmare.


Then Parson should not view anyone as anything more than an avatar, should feel no remorse for his actions, and should treat all beings as mechanical toys. But he doesn't. Beginning with Misty, he sees them as humans trapped in a dangerous world of consequences and never-ending war. Why do you think he throws away his sword? SO that he knows from now on, anyone that dies from his choices die from his uninfluenced choices. Parson has decided this world is populated by intelligent, kind, compassionate people that deserve a better life without war. I'll go with him over your theory.

K wrote:Eh, whatever. That one thing is absurd does not provide evidence that another exists because it is equally absurd. Erfworld has converted the military manufacturing and training process into a simple natural mechanic. It has turned battlefield clean-up into a simple natural mechanic. What you're suggesting is that it has also turned rebellion and disobedience and lack of leadership into an equally simple, and totally consumptive, mechanic. Popping is, essentially, manufacturing, and from the general's perspective, it's not that much different. Soldiers come off the production line and become available in order under both Erfworld and Earth systems. They are, to a general, parallel and identical in final result. Similarly, de-popping equates to battlefield clean-up. Trash and wreckage disappear vs. being hauled off and used for parts or scrap in manufacturing. To the general, only the battlefield being reported cleared is important, not the minutiae of how. Disappearning trash doesn't have a real consequence.


Erfworld is a literal interpretation of the abstractions used by war games to simulate Earth or Earth-like warfare. There is a world of difference, there.


The physics of Erfworld are modelled on WarGames. The people are not. Parson chooses to see them as human. Gods interested in heroism do not ccallously disintegrate potential heroes just because they happen to be outside a city when their Ruler dies.

K wrote:But in our world, a rebellious unit that goes AWOL is a threat to morale and the military situation. Under de-popping, rebellious units disappear and are nothing and can be dismissed offhand as irrelevant to the furture. This lacks the parallelism of popping vs. manufacturing and de-popping vs. battlefield clean-up. A general in our world worries about deserting troops. A general in erfworld doesn't. No symmetry, and so I can't support it.

Neither can Parson. He doesn't plan on whining about it. He plans on doing something. Since you're a spectator, there's not much you can do about it except wait and hope. Or delude yourself into believing a version of reality that is clearly almost certainly untrue. Whatever floats your boat.


Invitation to a flame war? Testing the waters early, eh? Declined. The other readers are perfectly capable of determining if my position is unsupportable without this kind of comment. I'll trust to their opinion. Pretty certain that if you have to resort to this kind of name calling that you have no position to work from, so I'm not worried.

Actually, have you actual made any argument base don the comic yet? ... Hunh, no, you haven't. You've stated that Erfworld and Earth are different, but haven't shown any evidence of how. You suggest that I am wrong, but back nothing up with evidence fromthe strip. Surely, you have something concrete to throw at my face? And you made such a grand claim to begin with. Something about logic? Sure, Erfworld and Earth are different, but how? Show me. Where's the beef, man? All I see is bun. And cheese. Really cheesy.

K wrote:That's why I will not accept any but blatant evidence of de-popping of living creatures.

Because you're pitifully deluded concerning the nature of Erfworld? 'Kay. I can accept that.


Wow. Find the right button yet? Nope. I don't accept anything that lacks solid evidence, and this is no exception. It's not delusional to disbelieve in something that you never see, and can adequately explain without inventing the unseen. Delusion is believing in something you don't see in the face of explanations that don't require invention of the unreal... and that's "de-popping", isn't it? Haven't seen it? Hasn't been mentioned? But you believe in it anyway? Ya gotta be more careful with your insults.

K wrote: Yes, de-popping of rebellious troops that are a threat to a side is absurd, but no, it is not parallel to how things work in our world, where deserting troops can be a plague to morale of their former side, inspiring further desertion, forcing a general to deal with thir former troops, or becoming the righteous army that sweeps aside a Dictator and installs an enlightened government.


Ahem, no. A cute thought, but no. The real world doesn't even work that way. In the real world, a deserting army is usually rapidly annihilated by their more competently led ex-comrades, who have the advantage of an established officers corp. And when soldiers do sweep aside a dictator, they usually install a military dictatorship in his place. Y'know, 'cause they're a military. Regardless, Erfworld isn't a parallel to Earth. It's a literal interpretation of war games, in which a unit disbanded is removed from play completely.


Deserting armies are equally trained to non-deserting armies. they are merely underequipped since they abandon the field while dropping arms to run faster. The case I'm thinking of most specifically was the British amd French in Spain during the War of 1812. Lots of desertions on both sides, and they went on to be a plague to the local civilians. No one could go after them, because they'd weaken their own armies against the real enemy if any units broke off to hunt dserters, leaving the two forces to be faced by an unweakened enemy in turn. Deserters do [not want to fight, so they'll run at the first sign of aggression usually, making them notoriously difficult to deal with, except by cavalry, and that means pulling scouts out of tracking your enemy's movements. That leaves you vulnerable to a surprise attack. I do not know where you get the idea that deserters fight back against their original army and let themselves get easily slaughtered by stnading up to be murdered. They ran because they didn't want to fight, and once off the battlefield that fact isn't going to change. Most just wander back home, or find new lives wherever they desert to. Some become bandits,a nd those are the real problems... operating like guerrillas in the moutnains. Preying on poeple, but refusing to stand up to a real offer of battle, sniping from the forests, and not lining up in rank. But sometimes they join the other side, as in the American revolution, and help depose the formerly legitimate authority that conscripted them.

Serious rebellious armies, like Cromwell's, never deserted in the first place.

Aw, heck, I just remembered one of my ancestors deserted from Annapolis Royal. He just took up farming. That place bled men like no other. Poorly built fort. It was a torture chamber for the soldiers. Anyway, no, they didn't wind up being slaughtered. They just settled and populated Nova Scotia. No reprisals from the military when he was reported. Just given his walking papers. Wond up wiht his mother's maiden name, though. Still a Scottish one, though. Heh.

K wrote:Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Exactly. All I said was that farmers exist.


Technically, that's only been implied by the comic, not explicitly stated.


Technically, it was stated in the Wiki, not the comic. Maldeus stated that fact, but I guess you overlooked it. it's one way Natural Allies make Shmuckers.

I'm guessing they do, but that they are an organized unit of troops who have not been disbanded.


So? I only need farmers to exist and be self sufficient, even if sided. I'm not using farmers as evidence of non-unit men, I'm using it as evidence of the existence of a lifestyle outside of fighting that a non-unit man could take up in order to survive unsided. These Farmers not only are that, but they make a profit that can be used to create units, so a single Farmer could support more than just himself, permitting civilization without popping. (Civilization can occur whereever a farmer can feed more than just his family.) That means hope for Erfworld after Parson. Disbanding, then, can turn a unit into a non-unit, who takes up farming, and subsists without fighting, helping to create a non-violent civilization that can exist in the manner desired by Janus and her cronies. As I said in another thread... what are the Hiipppiemancers fighting for, if no one can exist without being on a side? If peaceful, sedentary life is not possible on Erfworld, Janus can never have her way, and Parson cannot break the world and have a peaceful result (though he might still break the world in other less desirable ways). Ultimately, there will be only a single side if Parson is to win. With no one to fight... and no reason to exist.

All things that fight are a unit, but what if there's nothing to fight? You don't fight. You can't fight. You cease being a unit if you can't fight. And then what happens? Oblivion? Erfworld ends? Parson wins, but all the world becomes void as a reward? One last cruel hoax from the callous uncaring Titans that prefer game rule semantics over a people that might know peace otherwise? Oblivion meted out randomly as Rulers die in accident or decay. Denial of heavenly rewards, merely because you were chasing down a fleeing enemy when the Ruler took a randomly fired arrow in the eye.

So, yeah, I don't accept the theory. I need some cold hard proof that de-popping units can happen, and no one has even tried to prove that yet. The implications are cruel and inconsistent, suggesting an uncaring and disinterested set of creators. Sure, I specualate that non-unit men exist, butif you fault me for that, you have to falt yourself for speculating that de-popping living beings exists. The two are equally speculative. I don't need mine, though. I cna simply say all disbanded units wind up barbarians like Jillian and Stnalye (who would have been) and the casters who would have been barbarians in MK when their capital fell. I don't actually need the non-unit men state to exist in order to have a Disbanding explanation that is consistent with the comic. In fact, that requires no invention at all, and thus is actually the superior one. All units that are disbanded become Barbarians. Simple. Consistent. Non-speculative, since the end result and process are both known to exist, and result from the same event -- a Side ending.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Darkside007 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:55 am

If disbanding is not de-popping, but becoming barbarian, why aren't there a large number of Faq survivors running around? I mean, large overflight of dwagons, worthless combat force, lots of tunnels nearby, an immediate evacuation or even mass fleeing to the tunnels (that the dwagons couldn't hit) would make sense.

And since Barbarian warlords can claim and build cities, and it's likely that some warlord units would flee to the tunnels, why hasn't Faq been rebuilt?
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:04 pm

Kreistor wrote:Because it's a) never referenced while being a very violent event, and b) happeneing at the thim of a third person who can be cruel and cannot be removed from power for having made use of this power. Both violate any concept of a reasonable existence where you control your own destiny and your own afterlife by being a good person.


And THIS is where we're never going to agree. Logic aside, you display here a fundamental assumption that I refuse to accept, so we can find no common ground.

In my view, Erfworld does NOT provide a "reasonable existence". 'Normal' People in Erfworld DO NOT control their own destiny. If they encounter someone from the other side, they are FORCED to fight unless a commander tells them otherwise. Commanders have more freedom, but only Overlords appear to have complete freedom, and even they are constrained because they are in a constant state of assumed warfare with their neighbors unless alliances are explicitly made.

For de-popping to be the natural result of disbanding, I only require that it be an internally consistent mechanic in Erfworld.

You, on the other hand, require that it is both internally consistent, and consistent with a "positive destiny" / "free will" / "benevolent higher power" scenario that we have no evidence of. I, personally, do not see a requirement for the latter, and I see sufficient evidence for de-popping as a simple, internally-consistent mechanic that I choose to accept it until further evidence presents itself.

Note that disbanding, under normal circumstances, would never be used. Units can be ordered to their destruction, so that even though they are eliminated, they may take opposing units with them, or at least provide corpses for becoming uncroaked. The scenarios where it would be very useful are few: (1) upkeep is too expensive to allow the units to continue, even for a single turn; (2) the unit is exceedingly powerful and has been shown to be disloyal. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Neither situation has shown itself in the current storyline, so there would have been no need to de-pop a unit. The implied threat is sufficient.

To me, "disbanding = de-popping" as a mechanic is symmetrical, internally consistent with the established universe, it has been alluded to (at least in the context of the summoning spell, which granted may be a one-off case), and these are sufficient for me to accept that it is the most plausible outcome.

Your counter-arguments require the addition of, essentially, a benevolent god who would not allow such an abomination to occur, and we have no evidence that the Titans are benevolent. You can't extend Earth's Christian / Jewish / Muslim God to have influence over Erfworld, because there is no evidence of His existence in the story. The narrative world must only be internally consistent - it doesn't automatically get to benefit from everything in our world unless the story explicitly makes it so.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:01 pm

I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal to this, but I was logged out before I could post it, and I haven't nearly got the patience to type it all up again. Instead, I'll just summarize my two main points and then pick apart whatever of your post I find most amusing.

The first point is that Erfworld is a literal interpretation of a war game, as is evidenced by Parson's magically appearing meals, the magic system, the spontaneous reconstruction of Gobwin Knob, the fact that units have quantifiable stacks, the fact they can only move on their turn, the fact that they have a certain, limited number of move points and that when they run out they remain as capable in combat as they were before they began their march, therefore showing no signs of fatigue, and probably some other things I've failed to mention.

My second point is that Rob's intention with the comic was to show that the most cute and cuddly of war games is, in fact, a nightmarish, perpetual Hell for its inhabitants, especially the grunt troops fighting the battles. One comment from a character who wouldn't know about an afterlife that may or may not actually exist cannot be expected to trump the constant cruelty that is the perpetual warfare of Erfworld. Is what happened to Misty fair? Did Manpower choose to be Stanley's chief warlord, and did he deserve to get shot? Did any of the units spontaneously annihilated by Parson's uncroaked volcano do anything to deserve it?

"What d'you have against obscenity, anyway? You're fine with this obscenity. You brought me here to do this."

Kreistor wrote:
Maldeus wrote:I've no interest in hiding my disdain for your lack of logic any longer. This is little more than idiocy at this point, and I intend to treat it as such.


Been tried before. Only worked once, and that was 20 years ago, and it took two sentences. You ain't him. And I learned that lesson very, very well.


I'm not sure what's more quaint, that you think I care or that you expect me to believe you're anything near that old.




No. I cannot accept this.


Therein lies the problem. Learn to accept that life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, or else you'll live your entire life in a deluded fantasy.


Then prove your alternative. I don't accept anything that has no proof and relies solely on opinion. You'd have done it by now if you could.


I did, actually. Do you remember the post I made about this earlier? Or the one I made after that, noting that you'd ignored it?



Or they create Great Nations like the USA, France, Soviet Union, China, etc., etc. They take over the UK and kill its King.


First off, the Soviet Union was so far from great it's laughable to call it such, second off, I've no idea what you capitalised "Great Nations," and finally, those were rebellious populations, not rebellious armies.


You like callous Titans? Then go with it. Still need to prove it, though. Depopping living creatures has still not happened, and units are disloyal and disobedient, which under that contention should result in instant oblivion. If disloyalty resulted in oblivion, then no one would ever worry about it, because it couldn't hurt the Ruler when it happened.


I do actually like the concept of callous, uncaring Titans, because I've always been something of a tragedian. In fact, that's the reason why I like the comic so much. Because the world so clearly has callous, uncaring Titans. It's evident by the immense cruelty encouraged by the system. It's an intentional deconstruction of war games. The purpose of the comic could be said to be to make all of us who've ever played war games look back and say "What have I done?!"

Unless, of course, you're a cruel, heartless person like me, in which case you'll just laugh maniacally and fire up one of your old war games to play again with your new, comfortingly morbid perspective.


Do that to anyone else, and I report you for flaming. I'll leave it to someone else to report you if they think I shouldn't be treated like that. Fair warning.


I'm not in the habit of being this blunt to people who are not arrogant narcissists, so this shouldn't be a problem.


Then Parson should not view anyone as anything more than an avatar, should feel no remorse for his actions, and should treat all beings as mechanical toys. But he doesn't. Beginning with Misty, he sees them as humans trapped in a dangerous world of consequences and never-ending war. Why do you think he throws away his sword? SO that he knows from now on, anyone that dies from his choices die from his uninfluenced choices. Parson has decided this world is populated by intelligent, kind, compassionate people that deserve a better life without war. I'll go with him over your theory.


Parson's words are my theory. Erfworld considers everyone except the Rulers to be gamepieces, even though they aren't. Erfworld is therefore a cruel, callous place to live.


The physics of Erfworld are modelled on WarGames. The people are not. Parson chooses to see them as human. Gods interested in heroism do not ccallously disintegrate potential heroes just because they happen to be outside a city when their Ruler dies.


All the gods interested in heroism are in the Order of the Stick. Given the world they created, these gods could clearly care less about 99% of the inhabitants of their world.


Invitation to a flame war?
No, actually, it was a response to yours, quoted below for your convenience.
That's... that's sad. You are so desperate to cling to a theorum that has positive evidence to reject it that you insist the author made a mistake and used the wrong term? Please note that all of Parson's words are written by Rob Baldur, jsut as are Wanda's and Sizemore's, etc. There is only one writer, and it is not Parson that you accuse of making a mistake, but the author. I dunno if it's just willful ignorance or ego protection. You just lost any respect I might have had for your ideas. And you seem to like this bright, shiny concept of Rob as idiot. When you're wrong, suck it up. This is just desperate.


Anyways.
Testing the waters early, eh? Declined. The other readers are perfectly capable of determining if my position is unsupportable without this kind of comment. I'll trust to their opinion.
Clearly you won't, because no one agrees with you except you.
Pretty certain that if you have to resort to this kind of name calling that you have no position to work from, so I'm not worried.


I had a position. Not my fault you ignored it.

Actually, have you actual made any argument base don the comic yet? ... Hunh, no, you haven't. You've stated that Erfworld and Earth are different, but haven't shown any evidence of how.
That's because it should be blindingly obvious.



Wow. Find the right button yet? Nope.
I don't need a reaction from you. I'm not a schoolyard bully. I'm having fun just being clever and blunt.
I don't accept anything that lacks solid evidence, and this is no exception. It's not delusional to disbelieve in something that you never see, and can adequately explain without inventing the unseen.
Given that the evidence for the Titan's benevolence comes entirely from a single comment by a character who wouldn't know, I'm going to have to say that this supports my position more than yours.
Ya gotta be more careful with your insults.
Evidently not.





Deserting armies are equally trained to non-deserting armies. they are merely underequipped since they abandon the field while dropping arms to run faster.
Correction. Underequipped, unfed, unled, and with no shelter or organization. The rest of this paragraph has to do with bandits and deserters who melt into the civilian population, neither of whom are very likely to be doing any righteous sweeping, so I'm just going to delete it.


Technically, it was stated in the Wiki, not the comic. Maldeus stated that fact, but I guess you overlooked it. it's one way Natural Allies make Shmuckers.


Too arrogant to even note the names of your opponents, I see. I am Maldeus, and I stated that farms exist, not that farmers do.

The rest of this isn't in the slightest bit entertaining, so I'm leaving it alone. To sum up; yes, Parson could create a peaceful world if he elminated every Side but his own. This is the direction the story appears to be heading in. The Titans didn't plan the world this way, but they don't appear to be present anymore. I've never seen any evidence of any Titanic intervention so far.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:24 pm

Darkside007 wrote:If disbanding is not de-popping, but becoming barbarian, why aren't there a large number of Faq survivors running around? I mean, large overflight of dwagons, worthless combat force, lots of tunnels nearby, an immediate evacuation or even mass fleeing to the tunnels (that the dwagons couldn't hit) would make sense.

And since Barbarian warlords can claim and build cities, and it's likely that some warlord units would flee to the tunnels, why hasn't Faq been rebuilt?


You want possibilities? There are dozens.

1) How many Warlords did Banhammer need inside Faq, if he never let anyone find him? One. Chief Warlord. He would have been in the city at home, expecting never to fight. So, there may have been no Barbarian Warlords in the field from Faq when it fell.

2) Stanley eliminated them after destroying Faq's cities, in order to ensure that his safety net remained unclaimed.

3) They lacked the purse to pay their troops. Faq was a poor state.

4) They killed each other trying to claim the crown.

5) They lacked any interest in a Pocket Kingdom that could not attack anyone, so left the region to start elsewhere.

Look, even after Faq fell, Transylvito scouts still didn't see wrecked cities in the region, so the place was pretty well hidden even without a Foolamancer.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:34 pm

I note with no small amount of smug satisfaction that you have completely ignored not only my post, but also MarbitChow's.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests