11146 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

I didn't get it with either Udina or Anderson as Chairman. Xbox / PC difference?

It's not a Wong news, It's the Galactic News thing. But all the same I could be just wrong about it..( been a few months since I made a playthrough without a living Council )

Udina said in an interview that the Alliance is going to deal with any threat decisevely. Anderson expresses regret to civilian casualties and hopes the Batarian hegemony would collaborate in the future, but that's after attacking them which seems meeh.

Well, it seems clear the neither Anderson or Udina have any actual say about what the Alliance does.

He is still admiral and if need be, could rejoin the military.



I do not have a problem with Anderson as chairman, as there is little difference. But even with Anderson as Chairman, he relies on Udina to do most of the work. Hence why I think Udina is more qualified for the job.

Perhaps he does rely on Udina, or perhaps he doesn't. The point stands that Anderson will be far more willing then Udina to accept your ideas in the future. Which is the important part.



As for Anderson joining the fight...well apparently in the new ME novel, they plan on making Anderson able to leave his duties as Councilor. So he could do the same in ME3.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ok I got it. The difference is this. Anderson is trying to build trade relations. Udina's strong advocacy of human interests has led the Turians to dislike him. That's it and the details are pretty scarse. What did Udina do that made the Turians ticked off?

It's mostly irrelevent, as even with Anderson, the Turians refused to abide by their dreadnought limit and increase their military production. So it's mostly political BS.

Depending on perspective, both cases can be good or bad, we have too little details to judge. Udina is apparently only offending the Turians, but he could be expanding trade relations with other races. So we know very little. What we can say is that Udina has a more hardline position, while Anderson is more laxed. But that's mostly appearance, as both end up doing the same things and the political situation is msotly the same.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 03:49 .

[Vicious]

This became a Mass Effect thread, as if Mass Effect's forum wasn't active enough and DA:O's forum wasn't dead enough.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Perhaps he does rely on Udina, or perhaps he doesn't. The point stands that Anderson will be far more willing then Udina to accept your ideas in the future. Which is the important part.

Anderson, as chairman, does say that he can't deal with the political BS and that Udina knows how to make things happen and who to contact. He also says that Udina attends all the "formal diplomatic meetings I can't be bothered with".
So it's pretty clear to me that Anderson relies largely on Udina.

Costin_Razvan wrote...
As for Anderson joining the fight...well apparently in the new ME novel, they plan on making Anderson able to leave his duties as Councilor. So he could do the same in ME3.

My character couldn't know that. It's metagaming knowledge.

[Costin_Razvan]

Vicious wrote...

This became a Mass Effect thread, as if Mass Effect's forum wasn't active enough and DA:O's forum wasn't dead enough.

If you call the constant spamming of "insert favorite squad member name here" thread activity, then sure.

[Sarah1281]

Vicious wrote...

This became a Mass Effect thread, as if Mass Effect's forum wasn't active enough and DA:O's forum wasn't dead enough.

Not really. The ME debate will keep up for awhile and then we'll go back to talking about dwarves. In fact, look at the dwarf things on just the previous page.

Anderson, as chairman, does say that he can't deal with the political BS and that Udina knows how to make things happen and who to contact. He also says that Udina attends all the "formal diplomatic meetings I can't be bothered with".
So it's pretty clear to me that Anderson relies largely on Udina.

So basically the reason the decisions are so similar despite how different the two men are is because Udina is the one who is making the decisions and Anderson just has to okay them? 

Modifié par Sarah1281, 27 mai 2010 - 04:00 .

[Vicious]

I think Dwarf women are attractive.



But not real ones.

If you call the constant spamming of "insert favorite squad member name here" thread activity, then sure.

Nope, there are some actual interesting conversation going on over there. Here, it's like 3 threads. It saddens me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

This became a Mass Effect thread, as if Mass Effect's forum wasn't active enough and DA:O's forum wasn't dead enough.

Not really. The ME debate will keep up for awhile and then we'll go back to talking about dwarves. In fact, look at the dwarf things on just the previous page.

We are talking politics. And who are the masters of politics?

*nods* Dwarves. If I could make Bhelen the head of the Alliance, I would.

And I apologise Costin for faulting you. You were right about the trade thing. And while I appreciate Udina's hardline position, it might not be the best time to be that way. Perhaps after the Reapers are delt with.

Still, I don't regret my decision that much, as the difference is pretty small or vastly unexplained. Plus, the Turians getting angry and building a larger military (which happens regardless of chairman) is a good thing in the long run, as that will make sure they are ready to face the Reapers when they come.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 04:05 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 So basically the reason the decisions are so similar despite how different the two men are is because Udina is the one who is making the decisions and Anderson just has to okay them? 

No, I would not go that far. It's clear Anderson is the dominating one, if he is chairman. But Udina is the one doing most of the work.
And I am not surprised at the similarity. It's laziness / lack of development time out-game. In-game, it can be explained that in ME1, Udina and Anderson actually agreed on lots of things. Udina was just more aggressive in saying it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 04:07 .

[Sarah1281]

How do you think Bhelen and TIM would get along? Because, really, if dwarves and elves were around in the ME universe they'd be on Earth so would Cerberus lump them together under the 'Earth species must dominate' banner?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

How do you think Bhelen and TIM would get along? Because, really, if dwarves and elves were around in the ME universe they'd be on Earth so would Cerberus lump them together under the 'Earth species must dominate' banner?

Depends if they can be qualified as close or cousins to ******-sapiens. I don't think fantasy races suit this dichotemy. But I am sure TIM would realise the awesomeness of the Dwarves and would seek to promote them as the most badass short people who surpass all others, with the exception of the Volus BIOTIC GOD, as he is unrivalled.

[Sarah1281]

Poor guy. I wonder what happens to him if you don't step in and save him. It seems like it'd be pretty amusing.

[Costin_Razvan]

If I could make Bhelen the head of the Alliance, I would.

So would I...all the while me and TIM could control it from behind the scenes.

And I apologise Costin for faulting you. You were right about the trade thing. And while I appreciate Udina's hardline position, it might not be the best time to be that way. Perhaps after the Reapers are delt with.

You called me on the carpet about not knowing Wong's reports with Udina, and you were right. I simply had assumed based on the lack of Galactic News report regarding Udina, the fact Bailey says Anderson is trying to put humanity in a better light and that Anderson himself call Udina an ass, that he was simply incompetent.

Still, I don't regret my decision that much, as the difference is pretty small or vastly unexplained. Plus, the Turians getting angry and building a larger military (which happens regardless of chairman) is a good thing in the long run, as that will make sure they are ready to face the Reapers when they come.

True enough, but one thing to consider with leaving the Council alive or not is that with them alive, a peaceful resolution is reached with Batarians, and trade sanctions against them are removed in exchanged for them stopping production on the WMDs.

So while the Council fleet will not be as strong as it would be without a Council ( given that humanity lost less ships and the Turians are building more ), you will probably have an easier time convincing the Batarians to fight alongside you.

 My character couldn't know that. It's metagaming knowledge.

I am willing to bet Sanders herself will join you in ME3, as a fully fledged squad member. If she does, then she will tell you she fought alongside Anderson against Cerberus, as per novel story.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 mai 2010 - 04:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
True enough, but one thing to consider with leaving the Council alive or not is that with them alive, a peaceful resolution is reached with Batarians, and trade sanctions against them are removed in exchanged for them stopping production on the WMDs.

So while the Council fleet will not be as strong as it would be without a Council ( given that humanity lost less ships and the Turians are building more ), you will probably not have a good time convincing the Batarians to fight alongside you.

That is an interesting development. Of course, a peaceful resolution with the Batarians is only possible with a multi-lateral arrangement and not a unilateral one (subtle hints about the situation with Iran right now?). But a peaceful resolution does not necessarily mean a good one and it could simply be an appeasement, much like what happened at Munich. 

So I am not hard pressed to gain the Batarian's favor. They had financed attacks on human colonies and practise slavery on humans. Not in my galaxy they won't. I think it's good that the Alliance is flexing its muscles and is showing the others who is boss. Which in a way is diplomatic in and of itself. Use of force, or the presence of force as a potential detterrent is essential in diplomacy. But it depends on perspective. And yea, the Batarians would be more likely to join the fight, but I am not sure they would be that useful or decisive. And I doubt ME3 will talk much about the Batarians, but would focus on the Krogans, Geth and Quarrians more. 

EDIT: Oh and the Batarians retaining their WMDs, would actually make them more useful against the Reapers.

The reason I still favor a human led council is that humanity retains the vast majority of forces, which is pretty good and would ensure that humanity can still stay on top even after fighting the Reapers. Although one can argue that with the collector base, humanity's future is assured either way.

So I guess mostly all choices are valid and it depends on how much you want humanity to gain control. I personally want it to become the hegemonic power.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 04:35 .

[Costin_Razvan]

While I do want humanity to have power. I do not want it to become the intergalactic USA. ( As I despise the US utterly )

So yeah. 'Tis most interesting you have these choices really.

And I doubt ME3 will talk much about the Batarians, but would focus on the Krogans, Geth and Quarrians more.

Perhaps not, but they are still a major power in the Galaxy, as such I do suspect they will play a role.

Of course, a peaceful resolution with the Batarians is only possible with a multi-lateral arrangement and not a unilateral one (subtle hints about the situation with Iran right now?)

You mean like UN is trying to force Iran in giving up its enrichment program, and make them dependent on imported uranium?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 mai 2010 - 04:41 .

[Sarah1281]

While I do want humanity to have power. I do not want it to become the intergalactic USA. ( As I despise the US utterly )

Everything about it or just the international policy?

[Costin_Razvan]

The latter, with a small bit of the former. I can respect how they got in power, but doesn't mean I like it. I also despise how they washed their hands clean on the whole World War 2 thing.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 mai 2010 - 04:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

While I do want humanity to have power. I do not want it to become the intergalactic USA. ( As I despise the US utterly )

Yea that's the difference. I want humanity to be like the USA. What I describe as mostly a benevolent hegemonic power (minus the last 8 years, which were a complete mess).

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And I doubt ME3 will talk much about the Batarians, but would focus on the Krogans, Geth and Quarrians more.

Perhaps not, but they are still a major power in the Galaxy, as such I do suspect they will play a role.

They are not that major. The Batarians did not directly declare war on the alliance in 2160 because they knew they were weaker, and that's 20+ years before ME, when the Alliance was still relatively young. So they are not that powerful. Not saying they are compeltely useless either, but the real players are going to be Krogan, Quarians and especially the Geth (their potential is scary tbh, even if I love them).

Costin_Razvan wrote...
You mean like UN is trying to force Iran in giving up its enrichment program, and make them dependent on imported uranium?

What I meant is that the USA is trying to deal with Iran in a more multilateral way, instead of doing it by themselves. But yea it's still a mess and Iran probably won't agree until better conditions are offerred, or more credible threats are made.

But to be clear, I am not comparing the Batarians to Iran. Batarians financed and armed batarian slavers and terrorists to attack human colonies and abduct them for slavery on many occasions, while Iran did no such thing to Americans (they are slightly doing this in Iraq, but it's different. It's trying to secure an influence in its neighbouring Shia majority country).   

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The latter, with a small bit of the former. I can respect how they got in power, but doesn't mean I like it. I also despise how they washed their hands clean on the whole World War 2 thing.

What do you mean about the WWII thing? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The latter, with a small bit of the former. I can respect how they got in power, but doesn't mean I like it. I also despise how they washed their hands clean on the whole World War 2 thing.

What do you mean about the WWII thing? 

I think it's the fact that the USA allowed the USSR to practically conquer Eastern Europe, in exchange for its contribution to the war. But they could and would have done it with or without American approval.

I could be wrong though and he means something else.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 05:12 .

[Costin_Razvan]

(minus the last 8 years, which were a complete mess). But yea it's still a mess and Iran probably won't agree until better conditions are offerred, or more credible threats are made.

Bush was an idiot. Seriously, threatening to use nukes on Iran? Yeah go ahead and do that, but don't expect the rest of the world to be anything but pissed, ( and that's putting mildly ).

At least he wasn't THAT stupid, as to go ahead with that.

Conventional war would most likely be bloody for both sides, sure the US would win eventually, but at a heavy cost.

 I think it's the fact that the USA allowed the USSR to practically conquer Eastern Europe, in exchange for its contribution to the war. But they could and would have done it with or without American approval.

It is exactly that. Oh I know they would have done it anyway, doesn't excuse that the US allowed it to happen and then said they were the "good guys" in the war.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 mai 2010 - 05:16 .

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

(minus the last 8 years, which were a complete mess). But yea it's still a mess and Iran probably won't agree until better conditions are offerred, or more credible threats are made.

Bush was an idiot. Seriously, threatening to use nukes on Iran? Yeah go ahead and do that, but don't expect the rest of the world to be anything but pissed, ( and that's putting mildly ).

At least he wasn't THAT stupid, as to go ahead with that.

Conventional war would most likely be bloody for both sides, sure the US would win eventually, but at a heavy cost.

Technically he lost the race to Gore in 2000 but with the mess in Florida and Fox being run by his brother...and then in 2004 Kerry had such horrible PR people...

 I think it's the fact that the USA allowed the USSR to practically conquer Eastern Europe, in exchange for its contribution to the war. But they could and would have done it with or without American approval.

It is exactly that. Oh I know they would have done it anyway, doesn't excuse that the US allowed it to happen and then said they were the "good guys" in the war.

The way they taught WWII at my school was that we were trying to be isolationists but kind of failing with all the aid lent to Britain and then Pearl Harbor pissed people off and they had been wanting to go to war anyway so they did. Then came the WTF Japanese internment camps but really everyone focuses more on the Holocaust even though nobody really knew about that until they came by to liberate them, which was really incidental. I suppose if you look at it from the usual 'the Germans killed 6-12 million people in concentration camps and we eventually got around to liberating them' perspective then that would make us the good guys.

And then that whole thing with Russia just lead to a 40-year pissing contest between the two countries.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 27 mai 2010 - 05:23 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I suppose if you look at it from the usual 'the Germans killed 6-12 million people in concentration camps and we eventually got around to liberating them' perspective then that would make us the good guys.

Yeah...except that most of the German concentration camps were located in Poland...jews were freed by the Russians, and the Russians did NOT close the concentration camps ( I bet they don't teach you that at school ), and instead used them.

Hell. most people in the Eastern Bloc probably despise the US more then the USSR, at least the USSR was honest in trying to take over, while the US is just feeding us bull****, bull**** that many people in the native USA actually believe.

I even heard the USA is doing it's best to try and put the massive Russian contribution, in a dim light.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 mai 2010 - 05:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

It is exactly that. Oh I know they would have done it anyway, doesn't excuse that the US allowed it to happen and then said they were the "good guys" in the war.

I would attempt to explain my opinion on the matter in detail, but that would be too long and too off topic. But to sumarise, I think the USA had no choice in the matter and had no way of stopping the USSR, a valuable ally in the war, from doing what they did. Any military action such as what Churchill suggested was unfeasible. The prudent course of action was to appease the USSR and avoid war so soon.

The USA were not "good guys" in the sense of being morally unquestionable. They did pretty nasty things during the war. But when compared to others, they pale in comparision when it comes to destructive and harmful actions. In addition, if we are to compare ideologies, I would rather pick capitalist liberalism over totalitarian communism or a racist ultra-nationalist expansionist ideology. And if we are to compare both East and West during the Cold War, I'd say I would rather live in the West. And if we are to compare the USA's treatment of its allies and former enemies (Japan and West Germany) to what the USSR did (Hungary for instance), then the USA definately appears to be more benevolent.  

So the USA might not be "good". But it's definately better than the others and I am glad they won (which was mostly inevitable, the USA was an economic powerhouse, they just lacked the political will to lead).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2010 - 05:36 .

[Sarah1281]

No, they didn't. They kind of moved right on to the BS Red Scare and how everyone was afraid that the entire world would turn communist despite the fact that that was highly unlikely. Of course, by tha point they were usually running out of time so they just hit the big things...like Korea and Vietnam.



Besides, the fact that you live in Eastern Europe and I don't means that you're almost guarenteed to know more about that region's history and if you add to the fact that I was born after the USSR fell...I really can't understand the paranoia that older people have regarding that.