Print

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

Tigra

5 (31.3%)

Wei He

9 (56.3%)

Sindhu

2 (12.5%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Voting closed: November 05, 2016, 04:00:47 pm

[Haspen]

You ask the Luathbas cavalry to strike the heart of enemy camp in glorious charge to threw the Parsians into chaos!

2*

The attempt goes poorly; while the charge took the Parsians by surprise, they managed to recoil; when Luathbas horsemen were nearing the tents of the officers, suddenly the mighty Parsian Cataphracts fell onto their flank, crushing the lightly-armored Luathbas riders into fine meaty paste.

Less than fifty horsemen returned from the charge.

One day after the unsuccessful charge, a messenger from Parsian camp have arrived at the gate. The gaudily colored man brings an invitation by Lord Amar, leader of Parsian Army, for negotiations.

Your commanders debate the proposal. During that, the commander stationed the longest in Augas and therefore having largest knowledge about their battle customs, explains:

"My liege, Parsians seldom agree to negotiate. If they do, then it's either because they plan a deception, maybe even assassination, or because they are suddenly in a dire need to stall, either to buy themselves time or to avoid fighting on two fronts. They do not negotiate for actual peace unless they're truly defeated and broken." After further debate with other commanders, you have a reply for the messenger, and that is...

A) You agree to meet with Lord Amar in his camp, with proper bodyguard detail at your side, of course.
B) You reject the proposal and advise Lord Amar to prepare for more bloodshed!

[somemildmanneredidiot]

B

While they've suffered decent loses, the recent attack would simply put them in a better negotiating position, presuming it isn't actually a trap. They started this war, they could have attempted diplomatic channels but they did not. Therefore they must see this through to the end.

[Taricus]

B, DEATH TO PARSIANS

[crazyabe]

A, we Are the Charismatic one, thus we convince those we CANT defeat with force with words.

[IamanElfCollaborator]

B, DEATH TO PARSIANS

[Tiruin]

Rule 1 of Haspen's games. When he mentions forces with specifics, those specifics matter, even when it may be a reference to real world forces that may be a nice nod to how his creativity is built. :I

* Tiruin bops charging our cavalry.

Also check back, Parsia has civil war issues, fragile peace issues, assassination issues, and land ownership vengeance issues. If we do die under diplomacy, let it be known worldwide because that's not our fault. :v

A. because we're noble and charismatic and have a benevolent scepter. Rather than our necklace which will probably be gotten back after we've insulted that OTHER LAND down south.
They'll just keep sieging us and we CAN'T afford being trapped I: (unless our other force comes in and rides down the enemy, but they've got nice cavalry, so :v)

Also our men are battered, dehydrated, and peasants. :I We can charm our way out of this, like Sun Tzu.
_{Dear gods please be a 6.}

[Chevaleresse]

A, even though we might get killed. This war isn't actually helping us, so even if they're just going to wait until the right time to strike, stalling kinda helps us too.

[Taricus]

See we do have forces outside the fortress, and we can be sure that they'll be able to hit the enemies flanks when they come charging in.

Also the sun tzu charm works with keeping our own men in fighting spirit, not for convincing the enemy to surrender.

[Haspen]

You tell the messenger to go back and advise Lord Amar to prepare for more bloodshed!

Next day, Lord Amar's forces listen to your advice and attack once again!

7!*

This attack is different, however; the Parsians soon into the attempt lose coordination and they break into retreat more easily, and more haphazardly. Something must've happened...

817 AD, Autumn

After a lull in the attacks for almost a week, one day, your sentries on the highest towers report that the Parsian Cataphracts were, for some reason, moved to the very opposite of the main camp; that being to the west of Abur Fortress. A small contingent of footsoldiers has been sent westwards with the Cataphracts as well.

This information stirs your commanders, who ask for a council. During the council, it is decided that...

A) Nothing will be done about this development.
B) The detached Parsian Cataphracts shall be attacked in hopes of crippling them!
C) The weaker protected main camp of the Parsians will be raided!

[TempAcc]

Might be a diversion, but we can't hold the siege forever, attack their main camp while its weakened and break the siege.

C

[Taricus]

Ah, I love the smell of dead parsians in the morning.

C, Let's see how they like shit being on ‼FIRE‼

[I, Writer]

I'm wondering if we can earn a reputation akin to having Swiss Mercenaries in our employ for quite some time given our army's recent score sheet of 'win win win win lose-probably and more win!

What is meant by 'Swiss Mercenaries'? Not trying to be funny.

[Taricus]

Basically having the best mercenaries in the entire region essentially.

[IamanElfCollaborator]

Swiss mercenaries were basically infamous to the point of people outright banning Switzerland from hiring out mercenaries because they were so brutally effective, people more or less thought they were game breakers.

[Tiruin]

I'm unsure if y'all noticed, but Abur is east of our homeland, and the Parsians and our probably-like-silk-road is to our East. The west of Abur Fortress is on the way towards our homeland, so the force being detected is generally in that direction, generally between that place in a general manner.

I grump at those letter C's in a general manner. :I We lack a homeguard.
But facing B or A is worse since our army is bad.

Let's go with C and probably go along with them while being charismatic. :v

Oooh, PPE:

I'm wondering if we can earn a reputation akin to having Swiss Mercenaries in our employ for quite some time given our army's recent score sheet of 'win win win win lose-probably and more win!

What is meant by 'Swiss Mercenaries'? Not trying to be funny.

This was me being lackluster in making specifics from examples I was trying to reference, meaning that a random thought poked me given how many things Haspen subtly references that is a very good point to his kudos.

Historically, the Swiss Mercenaries (in a generally summarized way) are referencing stuff predating Switzerland, basically the historical context of 'famous mercenaries because of neutrality of the state their people were in', so "we'll hire our people out because all this force and power can help other folks", and compare that to Houlandin's state of being right back there--we've had 0 idea on where our neutrality lies, but we've held no aggrievances towards others nor were we ever given a choice to hold any vengeful acts or otherwise be a jerk to our neighbor countries, so our main choice lay in either declining sending military aid to other countries, or sending aid in the form of sending a partial army or such. Basically it's a happening that was as the inbetween from being a soldier or 'soldiering' as a profession, and mere obligation for defense of a state and otherwise.

So it's a very loose connection, but something that has an impression based on the impression of this game's mechanics. I apologize ahead for my messiness of wording because it is 2:48am and I'm awake because of one cup of coffee that was gifted to me earlier. Edit: And I'm forgetful and probably giving inaccurate information because its incomplete, but the idea was in how impactful the reputation was. And we've been doing mercenaries and juggling our Army/Economy values ever since, until now. Ever since, those mercenaries+our army won pretty much everything but a couple or so battles (and our dad's death), but won everything where we sent them to help other folks.