12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

I want Rome 2 and Medieval 3 personally.

[Giggles_Manically]

Rome 2 all the way for me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

With naval battles, they should surely make the Battle of Actium as a historical battle.

[Iosev]

I have a question: do we know what background is being used in the demo? If I'm not mistaken, should you not import a game from DA:O, you can choose between three backgrounds, either Hero of Ferelden (which is the default), The Martyr, or No Compromise (the build where Loghain is redeemed by sacrificing his life by killing the Archdemon).

If that's the case, wouldn't the default background (where Loghain is executed for his crimes) be used during the demo? Or are people somehow able to play the demo using the No Compromise build? I would suspect that certain dialogue would be altered depending on your imported game's actions, but without playing the actual game, it's still too early to tell, yes?

Modifié par arcelonious, 25 février 2011 - 05:54 .

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

With naval battles, they should surely make the Battle of Actium as a historical battle.

Oh the thought of doing an opposed naval landing during the Roman era is just.... so awesome.

[Joy Divison]

Addai67 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 Loghain is potrayed negatively bc/ the source of Varric's information is Hawke (and/or brother) who was abandoned at Ostagar.

I can understand Carver and Aveline.

But having your PC state it was a betrayal is what pisses me off the most.

Well, the PC did not read The Calling, was there at Ostagar left to be overwhelmed by darkspawn (or had family there), and is running for his life having to abandon his home.  Had the PC praised Loghain's strategy it would have broke immersion more than the 40 foot leaps he can execute as a rogue...

That was true of a lot of people in Lothering, I imagine, and yet the opinion we hear on the ground in Origins is mixed.  Not so much this time around.  If they had just one character say "the battle was a rout, we don't really know what happened"- which would indicate a sensible rather than an emotional reaction- then that would be enough.  Instead you have all the people who comment doing so with ironclad certainty when that is simply not possible for people who were fighting for their lives.

The Gossipers and people who weren't at Ostagar had a mixed opinion.  I've never been in combat nor served in the army, but the impression I get from reading memoir and historical accounts is that soldiers left in the lurch don;t exactly bring an objective understanding to withdrawals, even those that are done for sensible military reasons.

Even if w/ a redeemed Loghain ending, his name, especially in connection to Ostagar, is tarnished.  The wardens are given credit for uniting Ferelden which Loghain inadvertently divided.  Slaves, poisoning Eamon, interfering in chantry business, and Howe's dungeons are all layed upon him at the Landsmeet which would incline much of that mixed opinion of Ostagar to lean heavily toward Teegan or the Denerim's segeant's perspective.  Loghain is reedemed only because he is a grey warden - those in Ferelden who would still attribute Ostagar to grey warden treachery would be few and far between.

[Iosev]

Ultimately, like Wynne and Morrigan, I think Hawke (if a warrior or rogue), Carver, and Aveline were all at the battle of Ostagar, so they have a different perspective than that of the clueless refugees who did not witness Loghain leaving the battlefield.

In DA:O, a few of Loghain's men were left at Lothering to search for Ostagar survivors, who in turn tell the people you meet at Lothering that the wardens betrayed the king. Most of the people you meet at Lothering in DA:O are either civilians, or Templars and Chantry members who did not witness the battle, so their information regarding the battle is only known through Loghain's men.

It is important to note that the events that occur at Lothering in DA:O only capture a fraction of what happened after Ostagar. 

Modifié par arcelonious, 25 février 2011 - 08:27 .

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I want Rome 2 and Medieval 3 personally.

I don't care that much about Medieval history as a larger subject to be honest. I do like reading about the Byzantines, Hungarians and Bulgarians but not so much about the rest.

Of course there is also Medieval Romania, where pretty much every single bloody country in the east attempted to conquer us and we said **** you to all of them despite being:

Highly Outnumbered.
Inferior in every way you can think off in warfare except strategy.

We had some of the most revered leaders in the history of Poland, Hungary and Turkey come with massive armies in our land to be driven off like scared children. "Chuckle" Of course all that pales in comparison when our ancestors the Dacians initially beat the living hell out of the Romans and became a client state of Rome or simply said the Romans gave us money, craftsmen, and military trainers so we would stop being a bloody pain in the ass for them at the time when Rome had it's greatest power.

Oh the Dacians lost, to around thirty or so Roman Legions, but they never fully subdued us though they tried to do so.

I would so love Rome 2 to allow me to play as the Dacians...our biggest flaw was the we Romanians or our ancestors never were interested in conquest.....and that cost us dearly. Addai mentions how she hates countries that conquer too much I laugh because Romania once conquered all of modern Hungary after they delcared war on us after World War I. Eventually we lost territory to them during World War 2, thanks to Hitle's decision.

  I've never been in combat nor served in the army, but the impression I get from reading memoir and historical accounts is that soldiers left in the lurch don;t exactly bring an objective understanding to withdrawals, even those that are done for sensible military reasons.

I am sorry but no reading can ever come close to being a soldier on the front lines, just saying it. With that in mind if a portion of the army was abandoned by a general who had made a plan to flank the enemy then yes people would be pissed. however they wouldn't go around calling it a betrayal either unless they had reason to.

Since we know from Gaider directly that the Darkspawn were more then anyone expected one would think a soldier on the frontlines would realise the battle was and there was nothing anyone could do to save it. That's just my view on the matter.

If there is something I condemn Loghain for is that he did not assassinate Cailan before the battle so he could save his entire army. He hesitated because he believed he ownd Maric to be loyal to his son...and that cost the lives of his men.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 25 février 2011 - 07:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Costin
I mostly care about the medieval era because of the Arab / Muslim civilization.

There is so much potential that it's dissapointing that no game focused on it. So many things happening. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 février 2011 - 08:21 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I loved playing Egypt in Medieval 2.



Was a bit weird to see camels charging through London.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I loved playing Egypt in Medieval 2.

Was a bit weird to see camels charging through London.

Mamluks?

I want to play the early Muslims. The period of conquest (and the 2 civil wars), or the Umayyads (both in Damascus and Cordoba), Fatimids and Abbasids. Granted, expansions stopped with the end of the Umayyads, but there were still very interseting military and political dynamics all over the place.  Plus, leading the Abbasid revolution would be awesome.

[Costin_Razvan]

Not going to happen sadly. No company in the west in their right minds would ever make a game about Arabs right now and expect it to sell.

[Giggles_Manically]

It would be a fun project to mod though for Medieval 2.



Hell people have done mods for LOTR for it, why not this?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Not going to happen sadly. No company in the west in their right minds would ever make a game about Arabs right now and expect it to sell.

I know. It's annoying.
If only we had our own video game developpers. That are actually good.

Sigh, it would have been awesome. I think I found my alter-ego in terms of military strategy and that's Mu'awiyah really. He conducted war like a cautious politician during the first fitna / civil war. Avoiding a pitch battle after Siffin, relying on raids and bribery. And using negotiations to bolster his troops' moral and weaken his enemies (he chose the extremily cunning Amr Ibn al-'As as his representative in negotiations for a reason). He understood the concept of symbolic, diplomatic and political victory. And the way he took Egypt so easily from 'Ali, virtually without fighting, is the stroke of a genius. All this to strengthen his ranks and weaken that of his enemies and it paid off spectacularily.

So yea, I am like him. Not that aggressive.  Prefer to wait and see.

[Zjarcal]

arcelonious wrote...

I have a question: do we know what background is being used in the demo? If I'm not mistaken, should you not import a game from DA:O, you can choose between three backgrounds, either Hero of Ferelden (which is the default), The Martyr, or No Compromise (the build where Loghain is redeemed by sacrificing his life by killing the Archdemon).

If that's the case, wouldn't the default background (where Loghain is executed for his crimes) be used during the demo? Or are people somehow able to play the demo using the No Compromise build? I would suspect that certain dialogue would be altered depending on your imported game's actions, but without playing the actual game, it's still too early to tell, yes?

I don't think any background is really being used in the demo.

And yes, the background you import will definitely alter dialogues.

[Costin_Razvan]

Sigh, it would have been awesome. I think I found my alter-ego in terms of military strategy and that's Mu'awiyah really.

Mine is Ghenkis Khan. Aggressive yet cunning the way he organized his army was far ahead of it's time, his greatest generals chosen based on merit then birth. His conquests using every single trick ( no matter how brutal ) are testament to a man who was cunning and aggressive at the same.

No fool however, he attempted to establish a centralized government, created religious tolerance, and some even say that he was trying to created equality for all his people, even women, in an age where such things where unheard of.

Yes the Mongol Empire did fall quite quickly, but as you once said Knight a ruler can only do what he can during his lifetime and hope his descendants will continue his or her work. Sadly after a while they proved they couldn't manage it.

For me war is a matter not of limited gains but to completely and utterly crush your foes, to take whatever measures are needed for it, to destroy the enemy nation and then absorb them into your own.

There is a saying: "It is not necessary that I succeed, ALL others must fall."

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 25 février 2011 - 09:40 .

[Joy Divison]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I am sorry but no reading can ever come close to being a soldier on the front lines, just saying it. With that in mind if a portion of the army was abandoned by a general who had made a plan to flank the enemy then yes people would be pissed. however they wouldn't go around calling it a betrayal either unless they had reason to.

Since we know from Gaider directly that the Darkspawn were more then anyone expected one would think a soldier on the frontlines would realise the battle was and there was nothing anyone could do to save it. That's just my view on the matter.

If there is something I condemn Loghain for is that he did not assassinate Cailan before the battle so he could save his entire army. He hesitated because he believed he ownd Maric to be loyal to his son...and that cost the lives of his men.

Well, that's the important thing to remember, that it is your view on the matter.  I think regicide is overrated as far crimes go - I'm not keen on acting appalled just because some pampered aristocrat got what was coming to him - but Hawke and Aveline's perspectives are about what I would expect.

Also do not underestimate the power which battlefield losers cling to conspiracies and how rampant ridiculous rumors are on the battlefield.  Few Americans during the Second World War could believe the Japanese executed a surprise attack (and 70 years later there are still an unsetteling number of conspiracy theoriests), the Germans lost in Russia bc/ of the snow, the US could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for the politicians, etc., it's like nobody every lost a battle fair and square.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
For me war is a matter not of limited gains but to completely and utterly crush your foes, to take whatever measures are needed for it, to destroy the enemy nation and then absorb them into your own.

I personally prefer making them fight each other, pit them against one another, exhaust them, subvert them economically, and then quasi-peacefully absorb them once I know my chances of losing are almost nill.

But both styles have their pros and cons.  And are dependant on pre-conditions and the time we are talking about. 

I feel if we were to act like a duo, you would very much be the bad cop, while I'll be the good cop lol  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2011 - 04:29 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
I would so love Rome 2 to allow me to play as the Dacians...our biggest flaw was the we Romanians or our ancestors never were interested in conquest.....and that cost us dearly. Addai mentions how she hates countries that conquer too much I laugh because Romania once conquered all of modern Hungary after they delcared war on us after World War I. Eventually we lost territory to them during World War 2, thanks to Hitle's decision.

I am not against self defense, nor even a bit of strikeback if someone has stepped out of line.  That is the proper role of a military IMO.

But don't let me keep you from your megalomania.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 février 2011 - 04:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Was that really necessary?

[Addai]

Necessary for you two to snidely and passive-aggressively refer to me in posts about your ambitions of grandeur? Not at all, but you keep doing it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I referred to you? When?

[Addai]

Re the banns and decentralization.



Never mind, carry on.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I was simply stating what would ****** Costin off. I was not trying to snidely refer to you.

[Addai]

Alright, I apologize for including you.