Warhammer Fantasy: A Dynasty of Dynamic Alcoholism

Reader mode
RabidAsparagus said:
As I said - Handgunners are going to be way more effective than archers. When it comes down to it bows just don't do that much damage and against nurglites you need that. One handgun ball is capable of removing things like hands, or smashing through an ankle to effectively amputate a foot. This is the sort of damage you need to do to disable a nurglite. An arrow by contrast, creates a narrow channel for a wound instead of smashing things. This is the wrong type of trauma to be effective.

In addition to that the logistics problems become exponentially worse with more men - again, especially when fighting nurglites because of the problem of sickness. Finally I wasn't proposing we play the "stay away game" - especially against an enemy whose forces probably have the ability to outlast us, merely that I believe we don't need more numbers to achieve our goals for the reasons above.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...
......
Have you played Warhammer?
Ever?

The Handgunners do not have AK47.
2000 Archers _will do more damage_ to a nurglite force than 1000 Handgunners.
Always.

And at the battle of Kislev there were way, way more men.
We are an Electir count with an extremely high martial stat and capable assistants who know how to handle a war.

To cite logistical consequences, for an extra 10000 men is not viable.
 
Last edited:
Derek58 said:
Uh...ok. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sorry, but school has begun entering the stressful phase and I am just so damn so tired of people repeating the same concerns over and over and over and over LONG after I've told them they're wrong about it.

So I apologize to you.

I do not apologize to the next person after this point who makes me repeat myself again.
 
tenchifew said:
Do you want to say that two archer units will do less damage than one Handgunner unit against Nurglites?
Really?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I've seen it happen. On multiple occasions.

Edit: And on the logistics front? 10000 men is a lot. That's about 10% of the modern British Army. Or two Roman Legions.
 
Last edited:
torroar said:
I'm sorry, but school has begun entering the stressful phase and I am just so damn so tired of people repeating the same concerns over and over and over and over LONG after I've told them they're wrong about it.

So I apologize to you.

I do not apologize to the next person after this point who makes me repeat myself again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you getting this stressed you might want take a break.
 
tenchifew said:
Do you want to say that two archer units will do less damage than one Handgunner unit against Nurglites?
Really?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, it'd actually depend on battlefield conditions. It's not actually a concern in this case, but often the trick is being able to effectively *deploy* your full forces. Depending on space, time, logistics and the shape of the battlefield, a larger force that's less powerful or a smaller force that can *concentrate* their power can be better or worse. After all, there is only so much space to put archers, and those outside of an area of effective attack are essentially doing nothing, in the same way that reserrves would be, or a line/column of troops that is too deep for all of them to meaningfully contribute.

Probably not the case here, but just saying.
 
Question.

Why are we even talking about this? It doesn't actually matter anymore, does it?

I mean, like, most of us already voted, right? It's not like we can actually change our votes due to the whole survey site thing, so it's sort of a moot point by now. It doesn't matter which one is better, because which one is chosen cannot be changed at this point.
 
torroar said:
I'm sorry, but school has begun entering the stressful phase and I am just so damn so tired of people repeating the same concerns over and over and over and over LONG after I've told them they're wrong about it.

So I apologize to you.

I do not apologize to the next person after this point who makes me repeat myself again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No worries torroar, I understand :)

I'll be careful not to repeat mistakes you all ready corrected.
 
RabidAsparagus said:
I've seen it happen. On multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, than dice were really strange that day then, or people did not know hope to position the archers properly.
Because statistics are really against this outcome.

But then we are talking about another 7000 soldiers and 1000 ogres.

We are going against a province.
A lot of land, huge army.

We will need the numbers.
 
luckybreak91 said:
Question.

Why are we even talking about this? It doesn't actually matter anymore, does it?

I mean, like, most of us already voted, right? It's not like we can actually change our votes due to the whole survey site thing, so it's sort of a moot point by now. It doesn't matter which one is better, because which one is chosen cannot be changed at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's already been 88 voters. I doubt its going to change anyones mind at this point.
 
tenchifew said:
Well, than dice were really strange that day then, or people did not know hope to position the archers properly.
Because statistics are really against this outcome.

But then we are talking about another 7000 soldiers and 1000 ogres.

We are going against a province.
A lot of land, huge army.

We will need the numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The stats aren't really - the handgun is more likely to wound than the bow - it has higher strength and that -1 to armor saves is really helpful against armored chaos warriors.

And finally - we are not alone. If we break Von Kessel out thats more men right there and IIRC mark of chaos aren't there some high elves around? I think the GM mentioned funny lights and stuff. Sounds elvish to me. Though as a dwarf player I have to say...who needs the pointy eared pansies anyway? They'll come after our beards.
 
RabidAsparagus said:
The stats aren't really - the handgun is more likely to wound than the bow - it has higher strength and that -1 to armor saves is really helpful against armored chaos warriors.

And finally - we are not alone. If we break Von Kessel out thats more men right there and IIRC mark of chaos aren't there some high elves around? I think the GM mentioned funny lights and stuff. Sounds elvish to me. Though as a dwarf player I have to say...who needs the pointy eared pansies anyway? They'll come after our beards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
all we need is guns beer and beards ... what we a empire game? now why would you do that when you can be a DWARF!
 
Eh, my reasons:
-It's still the cheaper option of the two.
--It's cheaper because of our Imperial Writ, the combination of lowered costs due to circumstances and the ability to spread knowledge of useful weaponry further throughout the empire are good things in my books.
--Because it is cheaper, we can keep building momentum as the war drags on.
-Guns means the demand for metals will increase making further mining expansion into the mountains potentially more profitable.
-More knowledge of guns will hopefully give us more insight into blackpowder in general.
--It stimulates the formation of a support structure for firearms.
---Said support structure hopefully means we get to upgrade our militia from spears to rifles eventually.

I mainly want to build up gradually, overcommitting can wind up really biting us in the ass.

While recruiting too many able-bodied men was a concern for me, it was more along the lines of "can't keep up this rate of recruitment for long, don't use it if it doesn't seem absolutely necessary".

Parts of the treasury should be used for the eventual (expensive) cleansing and rebuilding of Nordland, as well as being used to bring prosperity to Ostland.

RabidAsparagus said:
Because we all know how running a Dwarf Fortress ends.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Only because there is no win condition.

It is possible to maintain a stable fortress, hard but possible. Also boring, you play that game for the challenge it provides.
 
RabidAsparagus said:
The stats aren't really - the handgun is more likely to wound than the bow - it has higher strength and that -1 to armor saves is really helpful against armored chaos warriors.

And finally - we are not alone. If we break Von Kessel out thats more men right there and IIRC mark of chaos aren't there some high elves around? I think the GM mentioned funny lights and stuff. Sounds elvish to me. Though as a dwarf player I have to say...who needs the pointy eared pansies anyway? They'll come after our beards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm more of a dwarf fan too, but more help is always good.
 
Since the plan of action is to break the seige of those still fighting chaos in Nordland after that what will be the next course of action?

Will killing the Chaos champion win things for us? How will we deal with any remaining chaos elements in Nordland?
 
Needs must when demons drive.

It feels weird that the phrase is literal in this case.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top