[SPOILERS] - Tredje and Mardoc are Sheelba of the Clan of Embers

[Tredje]

Ok, I ran a small test.

It appears that the Archers will defend first in any case. Against C2/Cover they have 75% win chance, against C2 93,5%, against C1 99,1% and against a Warrior with no promotions an Archer has a 99,6% chance of winning. (This is with bronze weapons for Sareln and without fortification bonuses.)

If we remove the Archers the Warriors will defend. Unfortified they have 24,5% chance against a C2 Warrior, 31,7% against C1 and 67,1% chance against a Warrior with no promotions. I'm not sure how many Warriors with promotions Sareln has left, but he will be producing them with C1 after he got Apprenticeship.

What have we learned? Archers will get really good odds against anything that doesn't have Cover, and will defend first. Our Warriors will be outmatched by anything with a promotion, but they will inflict some losses on the enemy. More importantly: Our Sons will not defend until all of our Archers/Warriors are starting to get very bad odds (which means they all have to be injured.) When they do fight they have a >99,9% chance of winning.

[Mardoc]

Hmm - as long as you're running tests, another one comes to mind. What if we split the stack of warriors and give them time to fortify in the cities? Does that change the odds enough to be worth only having half the bodies around? I'm thinking no, but we're at that 30% victory range, and I have a feeling that fortification would boost us into the 60-70% victory range, which might be worth it.

The good news is, I don't expect to see many combat I warriors at all with only 14 turns to produce them and walk them over here.

Given the results of your test, I'm inclined to say yes, put the Sons on the front line, at least for now. We can always retreat them if Sareln's stack is just too huge, but having them visible ought to make him think twice about attacking, and any delay is to our favor now (ironic as the Clan, but still true).

Oh, also, Sareln messaged me last night.

2! Lucky Duck :P That is all .

Imagine how he'll react when he realizes it's actually 4 .

[Tredje]

Hmm - as long as you're running tests, another one comes to mind. What if we split the stack of warriors and give them time to fortify in the cities? Does that change the odds enough to be worth only having half the bodies around? I'm thinking no, but we're at that 30% victory range, and I have a feeling that fortification would boost us into the 60-70% victory range, which might be worth it.

The question is if we are better off with one Warrior within the 50-70% victory range, or two at 30%. I'll have to think about it. What we could do is fortify 2-3 Warriors in both cities and use the rest as a rapid reaction force.

Oh, also, Sareln messaged me last night.

Quote:
2! Lucky Duck :P That is all .

Imagine how he'll react when he realizes it's actually 4 .

Hehe, I think the D in Duck will be replaced by an F. Seeing as he has spotted our second Son I think it is safe to assume that he has upgraded one Adept to Metamagic I for scouting purposes. If that is the case he will know exactly where our forces are located, and he can maneuver between our two border cities. He might also have an Adept with Haste, which will make his force very mobile. All this makes me think that we can't possibly defend both cities, and that one of them will probably have to be sacrificed. It also makes our scouting Warrior very vulnerable and I will probably retreat him next turn. If he stays he probably won't see anything before he is dead.

[Mardoc]

Sacrificing cities is fine by me, so long as we make Sareln pay for the privilege, by causing casualties he has to walk replacements for all the way to our empire. Somewhere we've got to make a stand, though.

But yes, so long as we don't lose Braduk and its Warrens, replacing cities will be quick and easy.

[Tredje]

Turn 95:

Still no sign of Sareln. Here is a screenshot of our troop deployment:

My current plan is to fortify four Warriors in Shazak (to begin with.) The rest of our forces will be stationed 2SE of Renegade Hill. If he attacks Shazak (depending on if he has Haste or not), it might fall. But four Warriors should inflict some damage. And I am producing lots of Warriors. Our capital can almost do two per round, while Shazak can almost do one in two rounds. So for every turn that passes our defense grows stronger. I decided not to retreat the scouting Warrior. Yes, if Sareln has Haste he will die, but I really want to have some warning before his army shows up. In three turns the borders of Renegade Hill will expand, which will be really helpful for scouting purposes.

[Mardoc]

If you're leaving the scouting warrior in place, please also fortify him. Sareln's greatest handicap with this war is no collateral, so he can't kill anything without risking damage to his force.

Otherwise, it looks good to me; at least I can't think of anything better. Glad to see the clock ticking downward: 12 turns remaining.

[Tredje]

This is what I wrote Bob:

Hi Bob!

After some deliberation the Clan can offer the Balseraph the following deal:

A rolling 10-turn cooldown NAP, where 10 turns before our NAP is about to end each party can inform the other whether it wants the NAP to continue or expire. As I told you earlier we are vary of signing any longer NAPs at the current stage of the game, but we would like to continue the peaceful relationship between our two empires and we feel that this deal is a workable compromise.

Kind regards,

Tredje (& Mardoc), Orc (& Goblin)

Here is his reply:

Heya,


This rolling NAP would go into effect once our current one ends, correct? I mean, I'd assume so, but never hurts to be sure :P Anyway, if that's indeed the case then I'm agreed. Are the details of this NAP secret as well? I'm fine whether it is or isn't. I do appreciate having an excuse when people come running to me begging for me to invade you; "Sorry Sareln, my hands are tied!" "When does your agreement end?" "nobody knows!"


And I was being sincere when I said that I'm happy to work together in The Future, with all the vague promise of mutually-beneficial cooperation that statement entails If, for example, you wanted to trade your body mana for my entropy or chaos or whatever. Or I could eventually spread the Veil to some of your cities, if you adopt the faith & perhaps raise the AC a bit (which helps both of us- riders won't attack you, and my stigmata units get stronger). Or maybe we could kill dudes! Stuff like that. :D


Oh yeah, you'll see Loki on your border when you open the next turn. Don't worry, he can't cast any spells (not that I'd try to flip your cities anyway- surely that would be breaking our NAP). I'm trying to defog land right now, since he isn't able to conjure inspirations at the moment and isn't doing me any good just standing around. If you have a strong objection to him entering your land let me know, and I'll just skirt your borders instead as I send him towards Iskender / Sareln.


-Bobchillingworth

That's funny. From the tone he spoke in during our chat I was expecting a reply more along the lines of: "Do you take me for a fool? I know you just want ten extra turns so you can kill Sareln and then turn on me. I'll have none of that!" I'm genuinely surprised. I thought our ploy was obvious. If I was him I'd definitely try to cooperate with Sareln, and not just sell him down the river like this. In any case we have a NAP, and depending on how things go with Sareln and when Iskender will be ready I think we will end it on T120 or T130. We will see. Regarding his proposals about mana trade, AV spread and so forth I will be noncommital. "Yes, good idea, maybe at some point in the future etc."

I can't say I'm thrilled to have Loki scouting our lands, but I have an idea. The way Bob referred to Sareln earlier in the mail makes me think he won't do anything to aid him, and he might possibly even assist us. I think I will tell Bob that Loki can move through our lands on two conditions. 1: He doesn't provide Sareln with any information and 2: If he gets to the western side of our borders he will update us on Sareln's movements. We are taking a risk letting him move through, so he might as well offer us something in return for our goodwill.

[Tredje]

One argument against letting Bob move Loki through our lands would be that he will know that we have at least 3 Sons. But I'm not sure if that is very harmful, as Sareln will probably inform the others of the correct number of Sons once we march on his cities.

[Mardoc]

I...huh.

Yeah, I don't understand this deal from Bob's perspective. Which makes me wonder what I'm missing. Maybe he thinks Sareln's going to hold us off longer and then we want to just recover in peace?

He did manage quite a bit diplomatically in PBEM1 that I didn't think he should have been able to get away with; maybe he's just counting on his silver tongue?

Maybe he's getting close to something that would genuinely thwart the Sons? Has he gotten Trade yet, that we could examine his tech?

I would maybe be a bit more clear on the terms, something like "at any point, either of us can give notice, and the NAP will end 10 turns from the notice". The way you've laid it out, it sounds like every 10 turns, you have the option of cancelling, but not in between. Or is that what you want instead?

On Loki - I like your deal. Maybe he's just trying to remind us 'hey, look, I've got something nearly unkillable'. But of course, if anyone's capable of producing enough of a horde to surround a tiny clown, it's us.

[Mardoc]

You know, if Bob is interpreting the NAP as either party can unilaterally decide it continues, then that would explain why he wants it. Which occurs to me as another interpretation of your words.

Or, well, he did once talk us into going after Sareln instead of him. Maybe he's thinking this is the first step in pointing us to Iskender or Square Leg?