195 réponses à ce sujet

[Quarian savant]

 Remember one thing about the battle of the CItadel: it was planned by the Reapers.  Who knows, perhaps they were counting on Shepard abandoning the Destiny Ascension?   In The Art of War, Sun Tzu pointed out that the best way to defeat an enemy is by destroying their alliances.  THe Reapers may have anticipated the Citadel races betraying each other in combat, thereby giving the Reapers themselves yet another advantage.  I think SHepard's calling in the cavalry was an essential move.

 

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Taking Vido down was more important than lives of a few bystanders (who by the way were welcome to man up and help themselves out, since their captors got busy). And I was sure that helping Zaeed take his revenge would insure his trustworthyness on my mission (while paragons got, as usual, an easy persuasion way out).

Doing everything Zaeed asks you too ensures he would trust you to follow his lead. Please explain how it ensures you can trust him to follow yours?

I saw it as a test of Zaeed's loyalty to Shep. If he had followed Shep's lead instead of setting fires or arguing over same, Vido might not have gotten away and the workers still saved. Instead of suddenly rushing through a flaming factory, they could have sniped Vido, or raced to the gunship before him. In fact,  if Shepard had been advised of the actual mission in advance, he could have found any of a dozen better approaches.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Look, try to understand this. EVERY SHIP ROAMS FREE. It is SPACE.  Ships are not tied down, glued down, chained together, they move.

If they move while fired upon, they are not clear. They are engaged. If the ignore enemy fire, they suffer more losses. That's why the Geth ships couldn't just fly away from the Turian ships and jump at Alliance's ships. Try to understand this.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

It also takes them energy to move and change relative positions. They also can only move in certain ways and certain directions: spacecraft are not omni-directional movers able to change easily and freely.[/quote]

.....

actually if you look at how the Normandy handles, yes, many of them can change easily and freely. If they are so incapable of movement though, how did they acquire any targets in the first place? Everyone flew in and conveniently were pointing in the right directions? [/quote]The Normandy is also a small ship, and even then is still limited in what it can do.

Moiaussi, limited freedom of movement has never stopped the ability for fights to occur. Maneuvering to get an optimum position is a constant of fleet warfare. It also has limits.




[quote]
And what makes the Alliance a better target when if they try and move they expose themselves to the very Council forces they're already fighting?

The Geth are already locked in a firefight with ships beside the DA. If they turn to maneuver away, they remove their own fire against the Council fleet and leave themselves open for the time it actually takes them to move. Disengaging isn't instant or easy or even always possible.

[/quote]

The Alliance's guns would be pointing at Sovereign instead of at Geth. Also, if Sovereign really is the only important target, then destroying anything shooting at Sovereign is the most important enemy goal.[/quote]But to get their own guns to point at the Alliance, the Geth would have to maneuver away from the DA... leaving themselves open to Council ships still in the fight, who don't only have to fire at the Geth ships firing at them.



[quote]
Some Geth are engaging council vessels, but the ships shooting the DA are not. They are shooting the DA. Once the DA blows, their fire is removed from it and they would seek new targets. Sheesh, it isn't that complex a concept.
[/quote]Indeed, which makes it so strange you'd ignore that there are more ships infront of them than just the Destiny Ascension. They aren't free to simply go and shoot wherever: they have to go through a maneuver process and disengage from the battle area they were at then, including other Council ships near and around the DA.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Taking Vido down was more important than lives of a few bystanders (who by the way were welcome to man up and help themselves out, since their captors got busy). And I was sure that helping Zaeed take his revenge would insure his trustworthyness on my mission (while paragons got, as usual, an easy persuasion way out).

Doing everything Zaeed asks you too ensures he would trust you to follow his lead. Please explain how it ensures you can trust him to follow yours?

Doing everything Zaeed asks me on his mission (plus TIM's money, of course) ensures that he will follow orders on my mission. It happens between real men. Trust. You help me with my problem, I'll help you with yours. You f*ck  up my business, expect me to f*ck up yours. But BioWare gave Zaeed a lot of forgiveness.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Quarian savant wrote...

 Remember one thing about the battle of the CItadel: it was planned by the Reapers.  Who knows, perhaps they were counting on Shepard abandoning the Destiny Ascension?   In The Art of War, Sun Tzu pointed out that the best way to defeat an enemy is by destroying their alliances.  THe Reapers may have anticipated the Citadel races betraying each other in combat, thereby giving the Reapers themselves yet another advantage.  I think SHepard's calling in the cavalry was an essential move.

 

The Battle of the Citadel was not planned out to a T by the Reapers.

Shepard was never supposed toget to, through, or past Ilos and through the Conduit, or to fight his way up and through the Tower. Saren was never supposed to buck indoctrination (or get killed) and allow Shepard a chance to open the relays to bring in reinforcements. Vigil was never supposed to exist and give a data file to Shepard which would overcome Sovereign's attempts to control the Citadel and open the Mass Relays. Sovereign's possessed-puppet was never supposed to die to Shepard, disabling Sovereign's shields, allowing the Alliance to be blown to pieces and prevent the return of the Reapers while the Council Races had the opportunity to prepare and organize in time to resist the Reapers. The Reapers were not supposed to be delayed and forced to go through alternate, inferior means of the Collectors before coming from Dark Space directly.

It was never a plan built around putting Shepard on the spot so he could possibly make a decision that might ruin galactic stability a half-dozen years down the road.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then if you don't accept snipets (that Shepard can't even see!) as the overall summary of concerns and events, what is your Shepard's basis for believing that the DA is alone and the only thing holding up the Geth forces?

It isn't holding up the entire Geth navy. It is holding up the portion firing on it. If the DA was suddenly not there to fire on, do you figure those ships would simply call it a day and go home?

They would still be engaged by the rest of the Council fleet they were engaged by.

Look, try to understand this. EVERY SHIP ROAMS FREE. It is SPACE. Ships are not tied down, glued down, chained together, they move. Changing targets is simply turning the ship.

Look, I hate to pull this card, but...

Seriously. Look up maneuvering of naval ships, and of aircraft, and look at the simularities. Moving a giant ship is not a simple matter, nor is it instant, nor is it free even when there are no obstacles.


There are also reasons why 'formation' and 'control' are so important. This doesn't change in 3-d either, as WW2 showed us in aerial warfare.

It is in a nebula so all targets are relatively close. It it was an air battle instead of a space battle, not only would the planes 'roam free', but if they tried to slow down too much they would stall and crash.

This is not a land battle. This is not a surface naval battle. Please try to understand that.

It doesn't need to be 2-D for concepts of naval warfare to still apply... as they do.

Zulu's piece is right on the money. They are still engaged. If they try to disengage for maneuver, they open themselves to fire even to ships trading fire with others.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Quarian savant wrote...

 Remember one thing about the battle of the CItadel: it was planned by the Reapers.  Who knows, perhaps they were counting on Shepard abandoning the Destiny Ascension?   In The Art of War, Sun Tzu pointed out that the best way to defeat an enemy is by destroying their alliances.  THe Reapers may have anticipated the Citadel races betraying each other in combat, thereby giving the Reapers themselves yet another advantage.  I think SHepard's calling in the cavalry was an essential move.

 

Bringing up Sun Tsu to advocate a paragon choice? Lol.

Sun Tsu also pointed out that it's necessary to concentrate on the main objective and not disperse or expend your forces on secondary tasks until victory is assured.

[Hyper Cutter]

tommyt_1994 wrote...But my main concern is, why are paragons ao often rewarded while renegades are not? Did you let the council die to concentrate on the greater threat?

That's not a Renegade choice, "Concentrate on Sovereign" is the neutral choice (Renegade is "Let the Council Die"), Bioware was just too lazy to make it different from the Renegade version for ME2 (ie give you the new human-led-but-still-has-alien-members Council this ending implies).

[Zulu_DFA]

Hyper Cutter wrote...

Bioware was just too lazy to make it different from the Renegade version for ME2 (ie give you the new human-led-but-still-has-alien-members Council this ending implies).

BioWare gave you the new human-led-but-still-has-alien-members Council.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

If they move while fired upon, they are not clear. They are engaged. If the ignore enemy fire, they suffer more losses. That's why the Geth ships couldn't just fly away from the Turian ships and jump at Alliance's ships. Try to understand this.

If they are avoiding enemy fire in the context you seem to be suggesting, i.e. a fighter jet with an enemy on its six, they are losing the fight. An evasive pattern is still just as evasive no matter what heading you set.

Personally I think you are too locked into some sort of old board game based zones of control.

[Dean_the_Young]

Even fighter warfare illustrates the dangers of people trying to break free and make a run on a target.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Doing everything Zaeed asks me on his mission (plus TIM's money, of course) ensures that he will follow orders on my mission. It happens between real men. Trust. You help me with my problem, I'll help you with yours. You f*ck  up my business, expect me to f*ck up yours. But BioWare gave Zaeed a lot of forgiveness.

And yet if you take the time to listen to his stories, Zaeed seems to end up the sole survivor of a lot of his missions.

You are simply taking it on faith and/or metagaming that Zaeed will obey your orders later.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why does 'Zaeed was the sole survivor' mean 'Zaeed will not follow orders'?



To paraphrase Shale from Dragon Age, how do you trust anyone without a Control Trip will carry out your orders?





Zulu's point is not unreasonable, and has good grounding in reality. Quid pro quo is as old as humanity itself.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Even fighter warfare illustrates the dangers of people trying to break free and make a run on a target.

And yet we are talking about ships that would no longer be engaged with the DA after blowing it up, and ships that are not engaged in the first place (the Alliance ships).

Regardless, these are not P-51's and Zeros. They are well beyond modern aircraft with vastly better targetting, weapons ranges and flight speeds.

To quote wikipedia on dogfighting:

With modern air-to-air AMRAAM guided missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, some experts hypothesize that dogfighting may be headed toward extinction, but others cite the occurrences in Vietnam as evidence otherwise. However, it is worth noting that there have been a great number of Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) kills occurring during and after Operation Desert Storm. This was due to the improved reliability of BVR missiles, radars, and most importantly, the integration of C3I assets such as AWACS aircraft into the realm of aerial warfare. This provided Coalition forces with a superior picture of the battlefield and in conjunction with airspace management allowed utilization of BVR weaponry.
Despite this the improvement of all-aspect IR, missiles coupled with helmet-mounted sights, has reduced the necessity of tail-chase attacks. In addition, Russian development of tail-mounted radar and rear-firing missiles has reduced Russian planes' vulnerability to tail-chase attacks.
Yet because this feature is only present on the most modern jets, and missiles are a finite resource, the US Navy (TOPGUN) and the US Air Force (Red Flag) continue to teach postgraduate-level classes in air-combat-maneuvering engagements. Russian aircraft manufacturers heavily emphasize supermaneuverability and dogfight capabilities in fighter design, with aircraft such as the Su-37 or the Su-30MKI demonstrating advanced thrust vectoring systems to achieve these goals, pushing the aircraft to its limits to give it an advantage in combat. USAF fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16, tend to favor higher speeds, because of their emphasis on high power-to-weight ratio and low wing-loading; although the F-22 has supermaneuverability with its own vectored thrust.

They still teach dogfighting, but it is becoming more and more in the same context as bayonnet drill, a technique that is still useful on rare occassion but is mostly outdated. And again, that is with modern aricraft subject to the limtiations of armospheric flight, not starships capable of much much higher velocities firing weapons whose speeds are measured in fractions of the speed of light.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Personally I think you are too locked into some sort of old board game based zones of control.

I never played board games with zones of control.

Moiaussi wrote...

And yet if you take the time to listen to his stories, Zaeed seems to end up the sole survivor of a lot of his missions.

Not true. Only on his "first impossible mission" he was sole survivor.

Moiaussi wrote...
You are simply taking it on faith and/or metagaming that Zaeed will obey your orders later.

Just as with any of the rest 12 possible squadmates.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why does 'Zaeed was the sole survivor' mean 'Zaeed will not follow orders'?

To paraphrase Shale from Dragon Age, how do you trust anyone without a Control Trip will carry out your orders?

Zulu's point is not unreasonable, and has good grounding in reality. Quid pro quo is as old as humanity itself.

You give them better reasons, such as honor, or in the case of a merc, money and back them up with good leadership. You teach them that you are the one providing that leadership because if they decide to act unilaterally it could mess up big time. Zaeed was lucky. Even if you follow his plan, the fire could just as easily covered his target's escape. He starts the fire from the front, between him and his target, not behind his target. It was a bad plan. The only reason for supporting it is metagaming, knowing it is his loyalty mission therefore concluding that  agreeing with him is likely going to work out well.

Being the sole surviivor means he is likely to pull that torch the refinery stunt any time regardless of whose orders he is under and without concern for the rest of the unit or what the real mission is.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Just as with any of the rest 12 possible squadmates.

Which of them challenge your decisions and/or authority as part of their loyalty missions or otherwise? They can challenge the results but that is a different thing. Garrus doesn't shoot through you to take down his target. Tali doesn't hack legion or otherwise sabotage him. Jack threatens Miranda but doesn't actually attack her (or vis versa). Legion even insists that you make the decision regarding the Heretics, even if you really would rather leave it up to the Geth.

They all accept that you are helping them and place themselves under your command in doing so.

Except Zaeed. Oh, and Joker, who refuses to lay in a course any time TIM is on the line.

[Zulu_DFA]

Jack disobeys the order to leave Aresh alone.



Miranda fails to tell Shepard the whole truth about her sister, and screws up the mission by trusting Niket, with Shepard complying.



Samara uses Shepard as nothing but a bait.



Kasumi also leads Shepard by the nose all the time on her mission.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Jack disobeys the order to leave Aresh alone.

Really? When my shep asks her to let him live, she does.

Miranda fails to tell Shepard the whole truth about her sister, and screws up the mission by trusting Niket, with Shepard complying.

Pardon, but given Shepard complies, that situation isn't the same. Besides, that isn't tactical but a personal judgement of someone Miranda in theory knows very well. As for not telling the whole truth, she didn't lie either. Personally, regardless of Shepard's reaction, I don't think she even materially omitted anything. She did have the right reasons for the initial abduction, her sister seems to have turned out well and there is every reason to believe she is better off regardless of financial situation. The sister's age was irrelevant.

Samara uses Shepard as nothing but a bait.

She asks Shepard to play that role and informs him in advance. She can hardly play that role herself and it is a good plan.

Kasumi also leads Shepard by the nose all the time on her mission.

Not done that DLC yet, so I can't comment on it, but it is possible that I would have the same reaction as to Zaeed. Note that even if there were other situations like Zaeed's you seem to be assuming that I wouldn't object to them too.

I do feel that Shepard did way too much pandering and not enough leading and have said so in other threads. In fact, the paragon route for Zaeed is an example of good leadership, as it accomplishes the mission Zaeed told Shep they were there for yet gains Zaeed's loyalty, and does so in a way that Shepard can feel Zaeed might actually be trustworthy.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Without a doubt.

The Collector Base decision is one of the few major choices in the second game where I'd say that the Paragon is the only right one, though.

Absolutely disagree with that one given what Shepard is up against.  The Reapers have a vast, perfect win record and have only made a tiny few mistakes.  Taking advantage of those mistakes has been the key to victory so far, destroying the final mistake the Reapers are known to have made when there's still nothing available to beat all of their weaponry would be an arguably bad idea.

Distrusting TIM to the point of destroying the base also could be questioned.  The only reason Shepard is alive is because of TIM (and lets not forget that Shepard was KILLED by the Collectors... game over part 1).  The only reason Shepard survived the suicide mission is because of TIM.  There's no reason to think TIM would stop being so helpful in combating the Reaper threat in the future.

Now while he may go for a power grab at some point, he's smart enough to know that winning against the Reapers come first.  He'll need to be dealt with eventually, but better to have him as an ally than an active an official enemy to you.


P.S. I won't make this an arguement thread so if this is responded to I won't make a reply here (or at all)... have at it if you feel the urge.