Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Mind-bogglingly popular game series that you follow from early on and cannot stop, waiting for new installment like a drooling addict.

Long-runner soap opera you're too invested into to just stop watching it.

A fun little comic strip in the daily newspaper that's been around forever.

3/6

Who said it's fun? I didn't for sure.

I'm just waiting here for it to die horribly already so it will stop showing on my Unread Posts list.

[Tiruin]

A, A, B.
We're not using our 1-time card on these folks :v they're like those lizards but...dead and cold and 600.
And this is a great time to test the Blackhearts! We're also going to charisma the stuffing out of this, because morale matters too D:

[Harry Baldman]

A, A and B sounds all right, while we don't provide a direct martial bonus it's nevertheless useful to be able to oversee tactics personally, if only because that might shield us better from one-and-done "you rolled a 1, get fucked" situations.

[Criptfeind]

if only because that might shield us better from one-and-done "you rolled a 1, get fucked" situations.

I'm not actually sure about this. It's really hard to tell obviously, and it could go either way. But it seems often in battles we seem to get a lot of rolls and any low roll starts stacking up penalties that lead to a death spiral. Like, if a 1 fucks us no matter when we roll it, rolling six times seems worse then rolling once. You get what I mean? Not to mention the more time we spend doing dangerous rolls, the higher chance of us getting a string of bad rolls, in a war that can be game ending, but it can sometimes not be too bad if they are related to individual macro events. Of course, sometimes we can recover from a low roll when we are out on a campaign, it's not a strictly worse thing. But I don't think it's as cut and dried as more rolls is more gooder.

[Tiruin]

if only because that might shield us better from one-and-done "you rolled a 1, get fucked" situations.

I'm not actually sure about this. It's really hard to tell obviously, and it could go either way. But it seems often in battles we seem to get a lot of rolls and any low roll starts stacking up penalties that lead to a death spiral. Like, if a 1 fucks us no matter when we roll it, rolling six times seems worse then rolling once. You get what I mean? Not to mention the more time we spend doing dangerous rolls, the higher chance of us getting a string of bad rolls, in a war that can be game ending, but it can sometimes not be too bad if they are related to individual macro events. Of course, sometimes we can recover from a low roll when we are out on a campaign, it's not a strictly worse thing. But I don't think it's as cut and dried as more rolls is more gooder.

I kindly feel like, after reading back on details and context and Haspen's pen-ning, that it really seems people forgot the army that fought against Estwalf...was mostly archers.

So it was flavor to do arrows, not so much the reasonable [rolls means what weapons are used :O] presumption instead!
So² there was a presumption that 'if roll = bad; maybe spear or non-arrow instead', in this case, could still make sense, however it seems that the roll is context-bound rather than the context being bound to the roll entirely.

[Criptfeind]

I can't parse what you just said in a way that relates to what I said and you quoted.

[Tiruin]

I can't parse what you just said in a way that relates to what I said and you quoted.

You were guessing rolls affect the flavor/scenario. I noted that Estwalf died to arrows...because the main army composition of our foe was archers. Context describes the roll value of the dice, not seemingly the other way around.

[Criptfeind]

What. No? I was guessing that rolls affect the outcome. IE: Roll bad a bunch in a war, and you die. I don't think that's a controversial statement is it? He died to an arrow because we rolled low there. But the arrow didn't matter. What mattered was the roll. If it was a spearman army we'd get speared, sworman army we'd get sworded, horseman army we'd get run down, etc etc etc. However this is all really disconnected from what I was talking about previously.

[omada]

ABB

Fire don't work against them, why use our Fireblood?

Use strategy and make they fight unfair numbers. guard the fireblood to when we seize oportunity to strike the cydwyll  If they roll bad against the frostlings.

[Harry Baldman]

Fire don't work against them, why use our Fireblood?

Well,

[...] Only by sheer numbers or awesome firepower, one can fell the Frostlings, your scholars say.

Can't imagine what else they could have meant by that second one.

[omada]

That's weird. the beginning of the phrase said fire don't work against them.

steel does not work against their dead bodies, nor fire is able to lick and consume their permafrozen flesh. Only by sheer numbers or awesome firepower, one can fell the Frostlings, your scholars say.

Our siege stuff is based on fire and the chaos that can't be extinguished easily (Quote from last game)

"A thick, greasy, reddish-black substance that can be made solid with help of certain powdered mixture. With proper care and handling, a length of rope can be attached, lit and the grease-ball tossed at one's enemies, setting their camp aflame. The substance is hard to extinguish and easily wreaks havoc upon the foes."

I think Firepower can mean others things like  stupid amounts of arrows, rocks falling, bullets from ak-47 or shit that can be thrown.

[Harry Baldman]

Blackhearts, I'm fairly sure, are just bombards with a sillier name, since they break walls according to this quote:

[...] and even more so a properly assembled team of Blackhearts, the siege engines in question producing lots of smoke, thunderous roars, not to mention they smash fortifications with ease.

And Fireblood by that measure is Greek fire that got turned into gunpowder along the course of technical innovation.

[Haspen]

//Detoxicated's vote not valid cuz he voted only on 2 of 3 decisions ;v

re: Flammable zombies&Blackhearts:

Technically if you apply Fireblood on Frostlings who aren't done in by fire, you would get well-armed tough zombies running towards you while on fire, and that's bad methinks v;

Blackhearts is indeed fancy name for bombards, or very large basilisks. Definitely a late Medieval cannon thing.


You decide to lead the Army yourself, backed by fearsome Blackhearts! The courtiers and officers cheer your name!


Congratulations! King Yoe embarks on his first military campaign!

During his absence, the Advisor and Queen Auga will take care of palatial matters, diplomacy and such.


It takes several days for the Blackheart units to roll northeast. Your people would be at the site of the silver mines at least a day earlier if not those heavy, cumbersome things they need to escort.

The silver mine is abandoned by your miners, wrecked beyond recognition and full of Frostlings milling about the place, say the scouts. It seems that the Frostlings are unaware of your presence, or aren't really in any haste to wreck the rest of your holdings.

A) Blackhearts away! Bombard the damned things with death from above!!
B) Time to harass them with horsemen and archers, while the rest of the Army waits nearby.
C) All units - chaaaarrrgee!
D) Let's wait for now and see what the Frostlings will do.

[Harry Baldman]

A

Well, if you've got artillery you might as well put it to use.

[NRDL]

A

[Kashyyk]

Seeing as the mind is already wrecked,  A seems reasonable.