Print

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

[andrea]

All those 6... used on minor revisions. I am sad that longbows turned out to be useless... if only we made some progress in negating their magic with all those awesome rolls!

[stabbymcstabstab]

Why don't we just revise the frost tower to control wind? We know it's possible and it would mess them up. Think of that why the he'll did we bother with minor anti-magic charms? We could have applied that knowledge to make a anti magic tower.

[FallacyofUrist]

Revise the frost tower... to control wind? How?

On a related note, I think we could remove their lightning ability by sapping moisture from the air using a fog variant.

[andrea]

wind control is a design, not a revision. it is far too different from heat manipulation ( unless you have an accurate model of weather and the computational power to use it, I suppose).

As for the anti magic tower, an anti magic charm allwos us to not block our own mages too much, while a tower is a complete denial. That said, experience with charms would surely have helped designing a successful large scale antimagic.

[FallacyofUrist]

You know what would be horribly awesome? Deploying a giant floating anti-magic tower over Moskurg's magical research laboratory.

Actually, there's an idea. A floating tower that can project zones of anti magic wherever we choose, not just in a specific area. Then the absorbed magic is turned into a heat ray.

Long term goal, though. Let's list what would be needed...

1. A way to float(hyper-dense fog?)
2. A way to control anti magic zones(?)
3. Heat control, we're pretty good on.
4. A way to make much larger anti-magic zones than right now.

[andrea]

4. A way to make much larger anti-magic zones than right now.

We can't make ANY anti-magic zone right now. Researching how to make them work is needed.

[Azzuro]

I have an idea. We have a tower. We have plentiful metal.

Make a lightning rod.

And yeah, we do not have any anti-magic capability AT ALL. The 'anti-magic charms' basically only work as crappy alarms, they don't do anything to stop enemy magic. That's why I voted for them to be revised. We have a lot of half-finished spells and projects in our arsenal (the tower of Forever Frost that does jack-shit in helping us, the anti-magic charms that aren't anti at all, crystal axes that are too expensive to be worth it, magic lances that are also expensive, etc.) The plate armour, fireballs and anti-wizard guard appear to be our only useful weapons. I'd argue that barring Moskerg unveiling some magical superweapon next turn, we should spend the next design phase on improving something again, like we did with the fireballs this turn.

Oh, and cheaper longbows won't do much good. By all measures we should already be beating Mossberg soldiers in physical battle excluding the use of magic: we have plate armour that renders (a third of) us invulnerable to arrows, longbows that outrange the enemy's, crystal axes for our officers and crystal lances for our cavalry that are quantitatively equal and qualitatively superior. The problem isn't that we're getting beaten by Muskergites in physical combat, but that we're not getting to do so with Muskberg magical interference before the combat, in the form of weather control and sleep spells allowing them to get the drop on us.

[andrea]

Actually, if moskurg develops a magical superweapon we probably should double our efforts on antimagic.
 In fact, lets build an anti magic spell so strong it actually removes magic entirely, then use the surplus energy to move the island to the southern hemisphere where it belongs.

[Roboson]

So is our main issue the melee or the skirmish phase?

[andrea]

I would say skirmish in which they make our people fall asleep.
But generally, their magic is a problem.

[Azzuro]

Casting a magic spell ... to remove magic entirely? GENIUS!

In all seriousness, anti-magic may or may not be the best way to counter a magical superweapon, depending on whether there's a mundane way to contain or mitigate its effects. And (somewhat meta) it'd be a pretty boring game if magic was removed entirely, so I'd hope the GM would limit anti-magic to perhaps be more expensive than the magic it's blocking, or some other way to limit anti-magic to tactical use only. I mean it's Wands Race, not Swords & Shields Race.

Oh, and reading the last turn, our issue is the skirmish phase in the jungle (we only had one successful skirmish, probably due to the sleep spells) and the melee phase in the desert (Mosskerg doesn't win any skirmishes but wins two battles).

Oh, and evictedSaint, could you clarify this paragraph:

Our biggest problem seems to be both our difficulty gain prisoners during a route and our tendency to trade troops back when we do.  It's impossible to gain ground when their ranks swell back to full strength after each and every fruitless battle.  Returning troops wouldn't be such a big deal if we could get more of them during each route, but at the moment both sides are fighting at full capacity - and have been for the past few years.

I was under the impression that as Moskberg had chivalry and we had pragmatism, we would effectively have reduced casualties of 2 armies per turn while they have a permanent morale boost. This paragraph makes it seem like we can't give the Mosbergians their prisoners back in exchange for ours because we haven't captured enough, but they should be giving our prisoners back anyway because they're chivalrous.

[evictedSaint]

You exchange prisoners with Moskurg.  If Moskurg has more prisoners, they release them anyways and both sides are back to full health.  If you have more prisoners, the remainder after trading is executed.  On top of that, both sides get +2 reinforcements per round to a max army size determined by how many territories you own.

To take a territory, you must first kill/capture (mechanically the same thing) all enemy troops in the area. 

[Andres]

I've just finished re-reading every battle report and nowhere does it state that their wind magic has ever negatively our arrows. I attribute this to the fact that longbows are very powerful bows, combined with the aerodynamically stabilising fletching of the arrows, means that a strong wind is insufficient to do anything significant to our missiles. It's a factor, but not a major one.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Azzuro]

You exchange prisoners with Moskurg.  If Moskurg has more prisoners, they release them anyways and both sides are back to full health.  If you have more prisoners, the remainder after trading is executed.  On top of that, both sides get +2 reinforcements per round to a max army size determined by how many territories you own.

To take a territory, you must first kill/capture (mechanically the same thing) all enemy troops in the area.

Is this the way it's supposed to work? Pragmatism should provide a -1 to our losses, but this way it's providing a -1 to both our losses and theirs, in effect doing nothing. Meanwhile Chivalry should provide a -1 to our losses and a morale boost to theirs, but crucially if Moskurg is losing (capturing less prisoners), it doesn't provide the -1 to our losses.

I.E. Moskurg gets the morale boost no matter what, but the downside of their bonus doesn't apply if they're losing. Whereas our bonus doesn't provide any upside or downside at all if both losses are reduced equally.

[evictedSaint]

Mechanically, yes that's how it works.  You get 2 back per turn due to prag and chiv, plus 2 reinforcements.  Moskurg gets 1 back per turn (if both sides cap'd prisoners) plus 2 reinforcements, plus a moral bonus from chivalry.