497 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Point me at something in the game that says the battle was WINNABLE please.

So, an Army commander draws up a plan, splits his forces to implement it, can't immediately tell it will work, it's okay to just pull out the second half of his men and sacrifice the first half?  THAT'S acceptable?  because that's what you advocate.

We don't know it's winnable, I admit that.  We do know that it is a sound strategy.  It MIGHT have worked.

To accept that Loghain did the right thing, we have to accept that he KNEW it was unwinnable.  To accept he was wrong, we only have to think it MIGHT have been winnable.

See the difference?

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Loghain is set up in this game as the villain.

Loghain can still be the villain through his poisoning Eamon, selling slaves, putting a bounty on your head, working with Howe, allowing Zevran to be sent after you, ect. without Ostagar being winnable or for his decision to retreat having been a smart one.

As to the 7-vs.-3 killers analogy...you can be both. Could you and the other person take the three killers? Would you have been killed and failed to save the other person had you fought the seven? If so, it's still a dick move but a smart one that saves as much as can be saved.

But . . but - when I pointed out Eamon's poisoning, you said the Eamon was never meant to die, so it was okay.

When I mentioned Zev, you told me Howe actually hired him, not Loghain, so I can't blame that on him.

When I mentioned what Howe did, you told me Loghain may not have known about it, so I can't blame that on him.

So, if none of that counts again him, and now the battle doesn't count against him, how can you agree that he's set up to be the villain????

And at least you admit it was a dick move - I consider that promising movement. 

[Giggles_Manically]

TJPags wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Point me at something in the game that says the battle was WINNABLE please.

So, an Army commander draws up a plan, splits his forces to implement it, can't immediately tell it will work, it's okay to just pull out the second half of his men and sacrifice the first half?  THAT'S acceptable?  because that's what you advocate.

We don't know it's winnable, I admit that.  We do know that it is a sound strategy.  It MIGHT have worked.

To accept that Loghain did the right thing, we have to accept that he KNEW it was unwinnable.  To accept he was wrong, we only have to think it MIGHT have been winnable.

See the difference?

So Loghain should have thrown everything into one giant gamble, that had a good chance at failing and leaving no soldiers to salvage Ferelden if he lost? And you think that is a wise solution? Loghain would have known if the battle was unwinnable and he did the hard descion of retreating instead of doing something idiotic to possibly save the king.

[Sarah1281]

To accept that Loghain did the right thing, we have to accept that he KNEW it was unwinnable. To accept he was wrong, we only have to think it MIGHT have been winnable.

I disagree. He may have believed it to be unwinnable at that point based on the fact that, say, there was a 99% chance that they'd have all gotten slaughtered and it was too much of a risk. I think part of the reason the situation even got to 'can we really win this' levels is our failure to light the beacon fast enough. Sure, there wasn't much we could do with the tower overrun as it was but Loghain already thought we were Orlesian spies, he probably decided that the beacon wouldn't be lit and then once it WAS wondered if we were trying to get him to charge in at the wrong time and get slaughtered.

[TJPags]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Point me at something in the game that says the battle was WINNABLE please.

So, an Army commander draws up a plan, splits his forces to implement it, can't immediately tell it will work, it's okay to just pull out the second half of his men and sacrifice the first half?  THAT'S acceptable?  because that's what you advocate.

We don't know it's winnable, I admit that.  We do know that it is a sound strategy.  It MIGHT have worked.

To accept that Loghain did the right thing, we have to accept that he KNEW it was unwinnable.  To accept he was wrong, we only have to think it MIGHT have been winnable.

See the difference?

So Loghain should have thrown everything into one giant gamble, that had a good chance at failing and leaving no soldiers to salvage Ferelden if he lost? And you think that is a wise solution? Loghain would have known if the battle was unwinnable and he did the hard descion of retreating instead of doing something idiotic to possibly save the king.

Again, your answer presupposes that they would have lost.  If they win, even if only 10% of the men live, THEY WON.  There's no need to salvage ferelden, is there?

And he threw HALF his men away on that gamble.  Half is okay, another 30% is not?

And again - he saw the beacon, he ordered a withdrawal, he never said to Cauthrien "it won't work, we're too late" or "It won't work, there's too many".  Had he said that, or something similar, I'd accept that he thought he was right, even if he was actually wrong.  But we never get that - that's all it would have taken for me to give him a pass on the battle issue.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Loghain is set up in this game as the villain.

Loghain can still be the villain through his poisoning Eamon, selling slaves, putting a bounty on your head, working with Howe, allowing Zevran to be sent after you, ect. without Ostagar being winnable or for his decision to retreat having been a smart one.

As to the 7-vs.-3 killers analogy...you can be both. Could you and the other person take the three killers? Would you have been killed and failed to save the other person had you fought the seven? If so, it's still a dick move but a smart one that saves as much as can be saved.

But . . but - when I pointed out Eamon's poisoning, you said the Eamon was never meant to die, so it was okay.

When I mentioned Zev, you told me Howe actually hired him, not Loghain, so I can't blame that on him.

When I mentioned what Howe did, you told me Loghain may not have known about it, so I can't blame that on him.

So, if none of that counts again him, and now the battle doesn't count against him, how can you agree that he's set up to be the villain????

And at least you admit it was a dick move - I consider that promising movement. 

Eamon was not meant to die which mitigates the poisoning from 'attempted murder' to just poisoning. That doesn't make it okay but that makes it less awful.

Howe hired Zevran and not Loghain so most of that culpability lies with him but Loghain does have some responsibility by agreeing to it although given his involvement was just 'fine whatever' instead of coming up with the plan and taking the steps to put it into motion that makes it less awful.

Loghain may not have known much of what Howe did but the mere fact he was so quick to hire assassins and crush the riots with a purge at the Alienage means that he knew he wasn't allying with a good guy. You can do something villainous like agree to overlook some things without knowing the full scope (in particular, about the tortured nobles) because you see it as necessary and have that still be awful but not 'OMG, we can transfer everything Howe does to Loghain since they were allies.'

They all count against him but they're not as bad as people were making them out to be. It was bad but it could have been worse. Sometimes the dick move optoin IS for the best. I mean, just look at Bhelen-the-walking-dick-move and how much better he ends up being for Orzammar than Harrowmont.

[Giggles_Manically]

You do realize that the horde at Ostagar was nothing compared to the rest of the horde mustering. Also the archdemon wasent there so they still wouldnt have won,



Win one battle and lose the war, or lose one battle and win the war?

-which is better?



In war you have to think of the campaign, not just the single battle you are fighting.

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

http://social.biowar...47/index/583297



Some compiled info on Loghain to consider. I always wondered how that thread died since Loghain seems to be brought up on a regular basis not as bad as it was months ago, but he is still very much discussed about.

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

edit double post

Modifié par Jacks Smirking Revenge, 31 juillet 2010 - 11:48 .

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Loghain is set up in this game as the villain.

Loghain can still be the villain through his poisoning Eamon, selling slaves, putting a bounty on your head, working with Howe, allowing Zevran to be sent after you, ect. without Ostagar being winnable or for his decision to retreat having been a smart one.

As to the 7-vs.-3 killers analogy...you can be both. Could you and the other person take the three killers? Would you have been killed and failed to save the other person had you fought the seven? If so, it's still a dick move but a smart one that saves as much as can be saved.

But . . but - when I pointed out Eamon's poisoning, you said the Eamon was never meant to die, so it was okay.

When I mentioned Zev, you told me Howe actually hired him, not Loghain, so I can't blame that on him.

When I mentioned what Howe did, you told me Loghain may not have known about it, so I can't blame that on him.

So, if none of that counts again him, and now the battle doesn't count against him, how can you agree that he's set up to be the villain????

And at least you admit it was a dick move - I consider that promising movement. 

Eamon was not meant to die which mitigates the poisoning from 'attempted murder' to just poisoning. That doesn't make it okay but that makes it less awful.

Howe hired Zevran and not Loghain so most of that culpability lies with him but Loghain does have some responsibility by agreeing to it although given his involvement was just 'fine whatever' instead of coming up with the plan and taking the steps to put it into motion that makes it less awful.

Loghain may not have known much of what Howe did but the mere fact he was so quick to hire assassins and crush the riots with a purge at the Alienage means that he knew he wasn't allying with a good guy. You can do something villainous like agree to overlook some things without knowing the full scope (in particular, about the tortured nobles) because you see it as necessary and have that still be awful but not 'OMG, we can transfer everything Howe does to Loghain since they were allies.'

They all count against him but they're not as bad as people were making them out to be. It was bad but it could have been worse. Sometimes the dick move optoin IS for the best. I mean, just look at Bhelen-the-walking-dick-move and how much better he ends up being for Orzammar than Harrowmont.

At least admit that, when you add everything up, Loghain does NOT deserve to be regent and run the country.

At this point, seeing I won't change your mind about anything else, I'll settle for that. 

[TJPags]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

You do realize that the horde at Ostagar was nothing compared to the rest of the horde mustering. Also the archdemon wasent there so they still wouldnt have won,

Win one battle and lose the war, or lose one battle and win the war?
-which is better?

In war you have to think of the campaign, not just the single battle you are fighting.

But - Loghain didn't believe it was an actuall blight, did he?  After all, the only ones saying so were those unreliable possible Orlesian spy Grey Wardens who probably had ulterior motives, right?

[Sarah1281]

Yeah, I don't think many people are saying that he was fit to be regent. That doesn't make him a lousy general or an evil person, though. He just fell into the same trap many military men do when handed political power: he tried to force his political opponents into submission and they were having none of it.

[Ulicus]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

You do realize that the horde at Ostagar was nothing compared to the rest of the horde mustering. Also the archdemon wasent there so they still wouldnt have won,

Actually, I suspect that the only reason Duncan thought "the plan will work, your majesty" was because he thought -- with Teyrn Loghain's men -- they could draw out the battle long enough for the Archdemon to make an appearance.

Duncan seems pretty convinced that the Archdemon has a chance of showing up, after all, and it's only after he's said this that he shifts his position from "The King is being stupid, he should wait for reinforcements from Orlais" to "the plan will work."

So I'm of the mind that the battle of Ostagar was winnable... but only in the sense that the Archdemon might have shown up and given the Grey Wardens a chance to strike it down. I can't see it being anything other than a pyrrhic victory for Ferelden, though. As such, given what he actually /knew/ -- and given how late the beacon was lit -- I think Loghain made the right call to withdraw.

[Khavos]

I'm still curious where in the game it's mentioned that more darkspawn showed up to Ostagar than were invited.

[TJPags]

Khavos wrote...

I'm still curious where in the game it's mentioned that more darkspawn showed up to Ostagar than were invited.

Well, that part is obvious:

Clearly, the darkspawn were running twoards Caillans men because they knew there weren't going to be enough tables due to the extras, and they were racing to get a good seat.

Remember - it's very important to RSVP, people!! 

[Persephone]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Um Khavos you are aware that there were too many darkspawn for Loghain to risk charging correct?

Also if you listen to his party banter you really seem him differently especially with Wynne.

What exactly makes you think this?

The plan hatched by Loghain - as he told it to Caillan - is actually sound strategy.  We have - I'm pretty sure - nothing that tells us it wouldn't work.

As for him and Wynne, personally, he still seemed like a bit of an arrogant ass for the majority of RTO.

Except that there was a sudden surge of darkspawn that no one was expecting.

You found LOGHAIN bad during RtO? I thought Wynne's: "OMG, Cailan and Anora were so happy together and I could tell that they were in love despite likely not having ever seen them together and what do you know about it? You were only Anora's father and all their problems were your fault! Now let me accuse you of not giving a damn about all the people you didn't save while I...wait, what? Why didn't I use my magic to save Cailan? Didn't you see the darkspawn hoarde? How was I supposed to get through...oh. Well, it's been a long day. I guess I can stop personally blaming you for everything wrong with the world until tomorrow" was much more grating.

THIS.

And Wynne's tactless "And what of peace? Would it not at least bring us that?" It being Cailan throwing Anora aside to marry Celene, and Orlais swallowing up Ferelden. If Cailan had not been dead by then, I'd have throttled him myself for wanting to ruin everything his father, Loghain and his entire counrty ever fought for. And HOW does she know the whole "Cailan luffed Anora. All that ever got between them was YOU!"??? 

[Khavos]

Persephone wrote...
THIS.

And Wynne's tactless "And what of peace? Would it not at least bring us that?" It being Cailan throwing Anora aside to marry Celene, and Orlais swallowing up Ferelden. If Cailan had not been dead by then, I'd have throttled him myself for wanting to ruin everything his father, Loghain and his entire counrty ever fought for. And HOW does she know the whole "Cailan luffed Anora. All that ever got between them was YOU!"??? 

No, not this.

We still need to see where exactly it's mentioned that there were more darkspawn in the darkspawn horde than expected.

Cailan "throwing Anora aside" is also only ever mentioned in one of Arl Eamon's letters, where he advises Cailan to do it, despite the fact that Cailan reacted badly to the suggestion the last time they spoke of it.  Cailan and Celene were discussing a permanent alliance, but there's nothing wrong with that.

[Giggles_Manically]

The mere fact that Loghain didnt charge and that Calian's army was mauled was that far to many Darkspawn showed up, beyond what they thought would.



If you talk to Sten about it he says that Darkspawn came out of nowhere and slaughtered many Qunari in a short time. Indicating that Darkspawn are good at sneaking and getting past detection. If some of the best warrios of the Beresad were wiped out, what chance to some random farmer have?

[Persephone]

Khavos wrote...

Persephone wrote...
THIS.

And Wynne's tactless "And what of peace? Would it not at least bring us that?" It being Cailan throwing Anora aside to marry Celene, and Orlais swallowing up Ferelden. If Cailan had not been dead by then, I'd have throttled him myself for wanting to ruin everything his father, Loghain and his entire counrty ever fought for. And HOW does she know the whole "Cailan luffed Anora. All that ever got between them was YOU!"??? 

No, not this.

We still need to see where exactly it's mentioned that there were more darkspawn in the darkspawn horde than expected.

Cailan "throwing Anora aside" is also only ever mentioned in one of Arl Eamon's letters, where he advises Cailan to do it, despite the fact that Cailan reacted badly to the suggestion the last time they spoke of it.  Cailan and Celene were discussing a permanent alliance, but there's nothing wrong with that.

1) Whether more DS appeared or not, the signal was lit too late. Besides, the whole army's as well as Cailan's reaction at the sight of the HUGE DS army speaks volumes....

2) Not only in Eamon's letter but it's also hinted at in the rest of the correspondence. The general tone of it... And Eamon's letter shows HIS agenda very nicely as well. Eamon, like Anora, uses the Warden and Alistair to further his political goals. Eamon may dress it up more prettily, but that's it.

[Khavos]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

The mere fact that Loghain didnt charge and that Calian's army was mauled was that far to many Darkspawn showed up, beyond what they thought would.

If you talk to Sten about it he says that Darkspawn came out of nowhere and slaughtered many Qunari in a short time. Indicating that Darkspawn are good at sneaking and getting past detection. If some of the best warrios of the Beresad were wiped out, what chance to some random farmer have?

Again, where did anyone other than Loghain himself - if Loghain even actually says it at any point - state that there were way more darkspawn than expected?  Simply pointing to his retreat as proof doesn't work; I think he retreated to kill off Cailan, the Wardens, and as many men loyal to those groups as possible.  See Howe's attack on Highever prior to the battle even starting.  A guy who had perfectly innocent reasons for retreating also doesn't have his allies killing off survivors of the battle.  

[Khavos]

Persephone wrote...
1) Whether more DS appeared or not, the signal was lit too late. Besides, the whole army's as well as Cailan's reaction at the sight of the HUGE DS army speaks volumes....

Yes, it does.  It speaks to the fact that the only individuals at the battle who'd had any experience fighting darkspawn hordes were the Wardens.  Again, Blights aren't common.  That they reacted isn't indicative of their being more than expected, it's indicative that it was the first time they saw an actual darkspawn army.  

 

2) Not only in Eamon's letter but it's also hinted at in the rest of the correspondence. The general tone of it... And Eamon's letter shows HIS agenda very nicely as well. Eamon, like Anora, uses the Warden and Alistair to further his political goals. Eamon may dress it up more prettily, but that's it.

Fortunately, Eamon's "goals" also include saving Ferelden from the Blight.  Loghain's included saving Ferelden from an entirely imaginary Orlesian invasion. 

[Giggles_Manically]

Khavos you are aware that plans go wrong in war all the time correct.

The signal was lit to late, which alistair alludes to after the ogre is felled.



The cutscene shows cleary that the entire valley was full of darkspawn and that the Ferelden forces were strectched to thin. Loghain could have charged, but if he had lost then what?

You lose your king, your army, your generals all in one battle.



Calian forced a bad plan, by not waiting for reinforcements from Redcliffe, and thus Loghain was stuck with a very bad plan.



While it seems harsh saving half your army is better than losing the whole army.

[Khavos]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Khavos you are aware that plans go wrong in war all the time correct.
The signal was lit to late, which alistair alludes to after the ogre is felled.

The cutscene shows cleary that the entire valley was full of darkspawn and that the Ferelden forces were strectched to thin. Loghain could have charged, but if he had lost then what?
You lose your king, your army, your generals all in one battle.

Calian forced a bad plan, by not waiting for reinforcements from Redcliffe, and thus Loghain was stuck with a very bad plan.

While it seems harsh saving half your army is better than losing the whole army.

What if the battle at Denerim had been lost?  That would've been pretty much everybody, and larger army than Ostagar.

And, again, if your motives are pure, you don't kill the survivors of the battle to prevent them from spreading word about what happened.  You also don't let your closest ally massacre the family of one of the king's allies.  You think Howe would have taken out the Couslands if he expected Cailan to be around past Ostagar?  What was he going to do, turn up in court and go, "Hey, I went to see the Couslands, and they've vanished!  So I took over all their lands." 

There's literally no evidence beyond Loghain's own assertions that there were "too many darkspawn" that suggests Ostagar was anything but a power play for control of Ferelden. 

[Giggles_Manically]

Loghain left Anora on the throne.

He didnt want to control Fereldan he just tried to use a military approach to politics and it failed. Also people like Howe, Uldred and others imploded his plans.

And yes I am taking his word over yours or anyone else's since he actually saw the battle, and knew whether was to many or not.

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 01 août 2010 - 03:36 .

[Sarah1281]

What if the battle at Denerim had been lost? That would've been pretty much everybody, and larger army than Ostagar.



And, again, if your motives are pure, you don't kill the survivors of the battle to prevent them from spreading word about what happened. You also don't let your closest ally massacre the family of one of the king's allies. You think Howe would have taken out the Couslands if he expected Cailan to be around past Ostagar? What was he going to do, turn up in court and go, "Hey, I went to see the Couslands, and they've vanished! So I took over all their lands."

The Archdemon was at Denerim. The Blight could have been stopped there. Two completely different situations.



And Loghain knew nothing about the massacre beforehand although it is POSSIBLE that Loghain allied with Howe and told him he was planning on removing Cailan from power - in a completely non regicidal political move - so he told Howe to do something to make their support of Cailan count less. Howe translated this to 'kill them all.' Yes, Loghain chose to do nothing about this after the fact and let Howe get away with it but we know that he had nothing to do with it BEFORE.