Book 3  Page 30  Agreement With Charlescomm, Page 1
Book 3  Page 30  Agreement With Charlescomm, Page 1

The Thing on the Garrison
By Falcon X Comments (8)
The bulk of our army retreated to the Garrison where we had greater control over the terrain. However, that is not what worried me. The beings roaming our halls worried me.


1. What's to keep Jillian compliant or outright refusing to comply even though she's not a signatory? Er, what kept Jillian compliant, I should say  looks like the pact held at least a couple of turns
2. What's also to stop Stanley from just running out and attacking again once the 30 turns are up? This seems like a temporary reprieve only to restart the fight later.
SNIP
Couldn't the 90 degree lines just be the folds from a paper/cardboard hex map?
Wait, that's not true... this page (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%201/66) shows everyone looking at the map from the same perspective, and, from that perspective, the pointed sides are leftright. Okay, so a lil' more evidence for pointy ends being oriented EW.
1. What's to keep Jillian compliant or outright refusing to comply even though she's not a signatory? Er, what kept Jillian compliant, I should say  looks like the pact held at least a couple of turns
2. What's also to stop Stanley from just running out and attacking again once the 30 turns are up? This seems like a temporary reprieve only to restart the fight later.
1. I'd say Charlie has enough pull with Jillian to make her comply without having to spell it out.
2. Nothing is to stop Stanley, Charlie, or Jillian from attacking again after the truce is up. In fact, from the look of it, one of them could amass an army 7 hexes away from the other's capital on day 29, and they wouldn't be in breach of contract. The purpose of this truce was simply to keep GK from killing Jillian. In exchange for that concession to Charlescomm, Parson:
a) Gets paid back all of the damages that Jillian has done against GK recently,
b) Gets out of having to do any more calculations for Charlie on his bracer,
c) Learns how his mystery scroll works,
d) Maybe some other stuff; I didn't reread the whole thing.
The point is, Charlie wants this temporary truce to keep Jillian alive, and Parson accepted it for the above reasons. The contract explicitly states that this is only a temporary truce, and that's exactly what it's gonna be.
It would cost two move to follow the trail to the southeast, toward home, leaving her one to hunt with. If she left the trail and cut into the wooded hexes to the south or northeast, she would have no move left for chasing game.
It sounds like Jillian is considering which direction she will move from her current hex, and neither east nor west are on the menu.
If east and west are up and down (or down and up) on maps in Erfworld, then can we be sure that X measures lefttoright and Y measure bottomtotop?
You know what? It seems you're right... Oh my...
I even tried to find something contradicting, but all I could dig up was this: http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%200/48 and its just filled with south, southeast and southwest.
It makes no sense that north is not up in the maps, but hey, whatcha gonna do? No map calculations for me anymore.
Couldn't the 90 degree lines just be the folds from a paper/cardboard hex map?
I guess.
3. Is this contract "secret" in any way? What's to keep the RCC from reacting negatively to this development and start wondering what's going on with Charlie visavis Jillian, or even GK?
4. (probably will see in the next pages) Does Jillian notice the dichotomy here in Charlie's attitude toward her versus actions on her behalf? After their relationship "Break", it must seem odd to Jillian that Charlie would negotiate such a contract; it would be hard to mentally "write off" the expenditure as an effort to keep her in the alliance, since the contract probably makes it look like a material loss to the sides opposed to GK.
Dang, Alzheimers. I'm pretty sure I had a longer list of questions....
so if the z tells the distance:
But in cube coordinates z doesn't tell the distance, z is a 3rd coordinate. you are basically conceptually pretending that each hex is a cube, like in a qbert arcade game.
http://www.redblobgames.com/grids/hexagons/#coordinates
Check again:
http://www.redblobgames.com/grids/hexagons/#distances
"An equivalent way to write this is by noting that one of the three coordinates must be the sum of the other two, then picking that one as the distance. You may prefer the â€œdivide by twoâ€ form above, or the â€œmaxâ€ form here, but they give the same result:"
I counted the X,Y position of a city compared to another city (0,0), and then counted the Z from X,Y to get the distance. If you were wondering why I got different distances than you, you calculated correctly, but chose the wrong axis from two of the results.
But you aren't using either of the equations in the quote you chose, you are just arbitrarily deciding that z is the distance when z is one of 3 axes. The longest of x y and z is going to be the distance (hence the max form).
To give an obvious example as to the issue with your calculation consider city A at 0,0 and city B at 100,100.
so if the z tells the distance:
x=100, y=100, z=0 (x+y=z)
Therefore these 2 cities have a distance of 0 and are in the same hex.
Somehow that just doesn't seem right...
MATHFIGHT!
Indeed
But you aren't using either of the equations in the quote you chose, you are just arbitrarily deciding that z is the distance when z is one of 3 axes. The longest of x y and z is going to be the distance (hence the max form).
To give an obvious example as to the issue with your calculation consider city A at 0,0 and city B at 100,100.
so if the z tells the distance:
x=100, y=100, z=0 (x+y=z)
Therefore these 2 cities have a distance of 0 and are in the same hex.
Somehow that just doesn't seem right...
MATHFIGHT!
Indeed
The equation was basically the same as the second one, with it one just counts the Z's before counting the differences, where I counted the differences before counting the Z's...
there was just on problem:
I can't even read anymore! (or think, it seems)
For some reason I just kept reading "one of the three coordinates must be the sum of the other two" as the Z and not the max value and not even thinking about it, even tough you pointed it out. And I even quoted it back to you and blamed you for choosing the wrong axis!
Good example with the 100, 100, 0 by the way, demonstrates the max vs Z beautifully.
You are indeed a clever fish. I had not considered the implication that it lacks ontological inertia. Your thought has strong support from Jack being excused from it after his temporary death.