- Location
- Italy
when "looking forward" isn't enough!
when "looking forward" isn't enough!
shit i didnt even notice rofl: oh well it still works.
Honestly at this point idk what vote is right anymore. Since it all really depends on the dice. And I doubt questor would give us a bad option to take so it's really all up to Lady Luck regardless of which option wins.
Firstly thank god you arent the gm since clearly your gonna be petty about this vote this is what happens on SV just because your vote that you think is right didnt win dosent mean you can bash the other vote now its picked the people have voted move on with your life and enjoy the thread. and secondly a gm shouldnt just give a vote where if they take it, its gonna pretty much ruin the game is what i was getting at.Hopefully we succeed and all, but I also hope people don't get the impression it was the right call if it does.
It's still a strategically unsound call when we had a perfect opportunity to disengage and replenish, instead of keeping going against a force that is more or less equal to our army with our only hope of victory resting on the results of a very new weapon used in a tactic we haven't tried before.
If I was the GM I'd hit us with all the maluses for this.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and something bugged at me that I just found the words for.
Why do you think they wouldn't give us bad options? Or at least suboptimal ones?
This is a quest. Choices are the main revolving bit about it being a quest and not a story. And characters can make bad decisions, as can voters. If all choices are equally good, why bother with votes at all instead of just telling a story?
Replenish from what? Replenish to what? And fight Sombra how much later? Not everybody is a griffon.Hopefully we succeed and all, but I also hope people don't get the impression it was the right call if it does.
It's still a strategically unsound call when we had a perfect opportunity to disengage and replenish, instead of keeping going against a force that is more or less equal to our army with our only hope of victory resting on the results of a very new weapon used in a tactic we haven't tried before.
If I was the GM I'd hit us with all the maluses for this.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and something bugged at me that I just found the words for.
Hear, Hear! Even if it works, I will still hold that attacking was a bad idea. It gambles too much for the entire empire's army on one situation when the situation is not yet desperate to warrant death or attack gambles. Now, the empire's fate is gambled on a few rolls in open battle. If we had retreated to the fortified city, we would have additional options and supplies even if the battle went poorly for us. Now the emperor shall be hailed as a military genius with a killer instinct or an fool who seized defeat from the jaws of victory. Hope the winds of fate and the dice are our side.Hopefully we succeed and all, but I also hope people don't get the impression it was the right call if it does.
It's still a strategically unsound call when we had a perfect opportunity to disengage and replenish, instead of keeping going against a force that is more or less equal to our army with our only hope of victory resting on the results of a very new weapon used in a tactic we haven't tried before.
The next fight is a few days from now if we had retreated. We would have rested and recovered at the prepared defenses of the city. That means more munitions for the balistas, cannon, flame weapons, archers. As well as time to set new traps and ways to funnel the army where we want them. As well as adding the forces in the city to our own.Replenish from what? Replenish to what? And fight Sombra how much later? Not everybody is a griffon.
If we retreated the avalanche would be useless, not hitting Sombra's forces deeply, Sombra could take a different journey away from the blocked pass....
Just calling out bad military action as it is bad military action, that risks a lot on one thing going extremely right and that being enough.Firstly thank god you arent the gm since clearly your gonna be petty about this vote
and secondly a gm shouldnt just give a vote where if they take it, its gonna pretty much ruin the game is what i was getting at.
Resources sent to the city that weren't able to come with our main army into the pass because of logistics reasons. For one they'd have more ballista ammo for certain.
To be able to use our siege weaponry on the enemy's forces that if they follow the path of the bigger imperfect ones are near invulnerable to our arrows and probably melee weaponry. If they're not even more able to just ignore physical damage due to not having crystals placed within them as the others did.
I'm not trying to magically undo the action, I'm trying to get people to avoid taking this as a excuse to continue to make poor military decisions in future engagements if they get lucky this time.
It depends on a number of factors. I'd say the odds of killing him permanently in this single battle are slim, though not impossible.
See that is what i mean though where not all military experts were not here to be the most min-maxing people we can be where here to have fun and enjoy the narrative of the story as it unfolds out before us. And saying if we get lucky this time is not helping either your basically calling people who voted for us to bury them idiots for choosing the lest optimal choice in your opinion.I'm not trying to magically undo the action, I'm trying to get people to avoid taking this as a excuse to continue to make poor military decisions in future engagements if they get lucky this time.
It depends on a number of factors. I'd say the odds of killing him permanently in this single battle are slim, though not impossible.
I'm not trying to magically undo the action, I'm trying to get people to avoid taking this as a excuse to continue to make poor military decisions in future engagements if they get lucky this time.
So it could be possible for him to actually have advantage over us in a siege and we will never know.
People keep saying siege. Could we not simply rest, rearm and face him again in the field when we don't have maluses?
The same thing would then apply to a pitched battle too. We will see what the outcome is. Like I keep saying we are very unlikely to kill or banish Sombra this time. So he will be back but we can kill his army which will take time for him to rebuild.The thing is that conventional medieval warfare might not be a thing here as we have magic, monsters and such so in that logic if this works it could be because Sombra was caught by surprise and wasn't ready for such action .
Don't forget that Unicorns can fly , teleport and so on. Unicorn of Sombras level can probably do even more if prepared.
So it could be possible for him to actually have advantage over us in a siege and we will never know.
it's more that there aren't outright "trap" options. I still believe staying and fight is not wrong, but simply higher risks higher rewards.Why do you think they wouldn't give us bad options? Or at least suboptimal ones?
This is a quest. Choices are the main revolving bit about it being a quest and not a story. And characters can make bad decisions, as can voters. If all choices are equally good, why bother with votes at all instead of just telling a story?
it was already said many times, he means restocking our ammunitions. We're nearly out of liquid fire/cannonballs/arrows/ballista's projectile/molotovs/. every ranged weapons basically. Which is fair as the battle has been going on for hours after allReplenish from what? Replenish to what? And fight Sombra how much later? Not everybody is a griffon.
the Avalanche would still block him and slow him, so that when we had to fight him we would have been back to 100%. We would have still ended this battle with 85% of his army dead in exchange for 25% of ours. WIth a 2:1 disadvantage.If we retreated the avalanche would be useless, not hitting Sombra's forces deeply, Sombra could take a different journey away from the blocked pass....
Magic would surely help, but i never thought it was absolutely necessary. We can always hit him BEFORE he goes all gas form. He HAS a body, and has to DECIDE to use magic to avoid a killing blow after all.This is definite proof than, that we don't need magic to defeat him.
And there is still a chance of his gas form being vulnerable to fire
teleport maybe. There has been exactly ONE unicorn flying (not counting that fragile wings spell), and Starlight is a genius in some ways even above Twilight. The only flying Sombra has ever shown was in his shadow/gas/bodyless form, and i'm not sure he can do it yet. It seemed like something he gained only after losing his body when he cursed the empire (though as everything it's up to Questor what THIS Sombra's powers are).Don't forget that Unicorns can fly , teleport and so on. Unicorn of Sombras level can probably do even more if prepared.
to be fair, it's not a "full army" anymore.But if we did that he would have had his full army as we wouldn't be able to bury them in the avalanche.
well, we do have decent range luckily. And yes, more fire options are always good, especially if we don't kill him once and for all yetToo bad our only fire option is stationary or near stationary really.
If he hoofs it out or clouds out we should probably invest in researching those into more portable units.
sooo... artificial crit to really weaken him (like "it will take years to recover" weak), natural crit to kill him, nat 100 to somehow kill him while freeing all the 15.000 surviving soldiers?It depends on a number of factors. I'd say the odds of killing him permanently in this single battle are slim, though not impossible.
you know, having pre-umbrum-revelation sombra resurface somehow would be pretty awesome and i could imagine that version of him doing that, he was a genuinely good kid back then, but that happening would take the ridiculous sort of miracles compounding upon miracles that would be a bit too much to ask for no matter how many natural criticals we get.I now have this image of a nat 100 having him surrender, cry and ask for forgiveness