82 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Why exactly do you need to abandon the colony? They cant grow food there? They cant purify water there? They cant produce enough energy there? What exactly is the reason they cant stay and naturally rebuild?

They have no means of production and infrastructure anymore. It just got blown up.

It's the capital city!!! I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion they have no infrastructure outside the spaceport. Not everyone, or even a reasonable minority of the population, would be going to work in the spaceport.  They will have significantly more infrastructure in the capital.

[Loki330]

General User wrote...

If the Alliance military was truly dedicated to keeping the system safe they would absorb the loss and commit the resources to rebuild.

It was, after all, the Alliance military’s failure that made this necessary in the first place.

It's called a budget-no matter your choice in ME1 for the battle for the citedal, it's explicitly stated the alliance can't help you because they're still recovering from losses inflicted by Nazara. Ships and buildings are not cheap, and if the infastructure to protect the coloney is gone they won't be able to replace it, certainly not immediately.

After all, if the Alliance had the resources to protect all their colonies so easily, the Collectors would be cherry-picking colonies, would they?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Realistically, I can't think of any real justification that I'd buy for saving the spaceport instead of the Capital City. It's basically choosing between the incident being a major tragedy or a somewhat bothersome political setback. I did save the spaceport on my one renegade playthrough though.

[Vaenier]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Why exactly do you need to abandon the colony? They cant grow food there? They cant purify water there? They cant produce enough energy there? What exactly is the reason they cant stay and naturally rebuild?

They have no means of production and infrastructure anymore. It just got blown up.

So they cant export anything, that is all? They are complaining that they can no longer outsource jobs, not that they will starve or die of thirst...

[ISpeakTheTruth]

If the colony we saved from that mind controling plant monster (Whoose name I clearly can't remember) in ME! can survive after what happened to them than there's no reason this colony can't survive this.

[Crunchyinmilk]

It always struck me as a no brainer given the main story arc. Save the colonists and even if you cannot save the colony its self you have willing bodies ready to occupy those colonies targeted by the collectors.

[xxLDZxx]

the colny are run by companys.



An no company will give ground to a rival company. Space port blown.

to expensiv to rebuild, no interest, ppl left to root or go some where else.



City blown up, send new ppl.



The Me humans are no saints.Mony rules the univers and live is not more than a form of investment.



Its now on earth so and it will be in the futre, this is no Star Trek with some kind of utopia.



Safe the Space Port and we will have more resurces against the bad guy´s.

[General User]

Loki330 wrote...

General User wrote...

If the Alliance military was truly dedicated to keeping the system safe they would absorb the loss and commit the resources to rebuild.

It was, after all, the Alliance military’s failure that made this necessary in the first place.

It's called a budget-no matter your choice in ME1 for the battle for the citedal, it's explicitly stated the alliance can't help you because they're still recovering from losses inflicted by Nazara. Ships and buildings are not cheap, and if the infastructure to protect the coloney is gone they won't be able to replace it, certainly not immediately.

After all, if the Alliance had the resources to protect all their colonies so easily, the Collectors would be cherry-picking colonies, would they?

Whether it was originally a good idea or not for the Alliance to make the commitment to defend Watson is beside the point, the commitment was made. And it is indisputable that it was the Alliance’s failure that forced the crisis.
 
Even if it means weakening themselves elsewhere (a managable risk), the Alliance has a fundamental moral obligation to fulfill its promises and make up for its failures. The Alliance also has a basic political imperative to demonstrate to other colonies and foreign powers that the Alliance can be trusted to defend its colonies.

In this case, budgetary concerns, even military ones, must be suborned to political and moral concerns.

[Elite Midget]

Renegade - Bah! If they can't even defend themselves than they deserve their fate! Besides, they can just send in robots and a few personell and they should be find. Those resources would far better aid against the Reapers than a bunch of weaklings that waste their money of meager things that wont help in my fight. So, they all must die because I have deemed them unworthy of the resources it would take to exacuate them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Malanek999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Why exactly do you need to abandon the colony? They cant grow food there? They cant purify water there? They cant produce enough energy there? What exactly is the reason they cant stay and naturally rebuild?

They have no means of production and infrastructure anymore. It just got blown up.

It's the capital city!!! I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion they have no infrastructure outside the spaceport. Not everyone, or even a reasonable minority of the population, would be going to work in the spaceport.  They will have significantly more infrastructure in the capital.

And in the context of colonization, that makes sense. Young colonies, like  all human colonies are, are inevitably focused around centralized areas. There are areas outside, but these are not necessarily economically or infrastructurally significant to support the main population.

Human colonies aren't cases of 'let's dot lots of cities across the planet, and industry along with it.' They're in large part centrally planned and focused. Recall how in Bring Down the Sky over half of Terra Nova's population was in the city alone? That's reflected in a lot of planet scan data. Colony capitals are the colonies, for the most part. If it isn't  necessary for dispersion, early colonization rarely do

Industry and production centralizes. It's an economic asset to do so. When you're already widely constrained by limited resources, why would you needlessly duplicate your means of production and infrastructure when your main population center is in one place?

[Dean_the_Young]

Vaenier wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Why exactly do you need to abandon the colony? They cant grow food there? They cant purify water there? They cant produce enough energy there? What exactly is the reason they cant stay and naturally rebuild?

They have no means of production and infrastructure anymore. It just got blown up.

So they cant export anything, that is all? They are complaining that they can no longer outsource jobs, not that they will starve or die of thirst...

They can't make anything to export, and they also can't export it. It's not just a super-airport, it's the industrial/infrastructure heart of the colony.

[Vaenier]

If they abaondon the colony, what wil they do? They will just end up going to a new planet and building a new space port AND a new city... I fail to see how that is productive or reasonable. The only other alternative is to never colonise a planet again...

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]General User wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

When Andrew Jackson marched into Florida, the most remarkable thing he did wasn't to fight the Spanish (he didn't do much of that), but rather that he hung a small number of British citizens as spies, sparking a much graver diplomatic incident at the time.

[/quote]


Oh, good.  But that's all in the past.  So I can put my musket away?[/quote]It's easier to hang brits with a rope anyway, so sure.

[quote]
Exactly!  As you say, providing security is a key obligation of the Alliance, if they fail (as they did in Skepsis) and don’t make good, that will be noted.  By their own citizens and by others.[/quote]But being noted is not the same as changing views. I note that deaths follow in a war, but that does not mean I automatically turn against the conflict. You're assuming a much lower risk tolerance than I am, and yet in light of human colonization history I don't see much support for your position. Mindoir was enslaved, Elysium Blitzed, Eden Prime sacked, Feros wiped out, and a bunch of colonies kidnapped, and if those haven't disuaded people I don't think the economic evacuation of a colony will.
[quote]
Freakonomics taught me that everything is controlled by economics at some level.  And that economics is the study of incentives and how people respond to them.  Many organizations, the Alliance and Cerberus chief among them, have compelling incentives in Skepsis.[/quote]Compelling and that compelling are two different things. When the situation changes, the political/monetary economics that supported something initially do not necessarily support something afterwards.

This is simply one such case, as communicated in a five-minute side mission in which only twenty seconds is given to a summation of the cost/balances.

[quote]

Do you think Alliance citizens get that message?  I mean, “your military does not exist to protect you from foreign threats” seems like a hard sell.  [/quote]And that, my friend, is why you should remember Terra Firma. Because Terra Firma remembers you.

Seriously, it is cited as a common, significant criticism, but the Colonials don't have the sway to do much about it. They still benefit more, even if they have to (or can't) pony up the costs themselves.


[quote]
Right up there with: “if we do screw up and you get hit, we’re just gonna leave you holding the bag.”  Or even “if we do screw up and you get hit, the ride home is on us."[/quote]More like "if you get in trouble, we'll come running and wallop whoever did it, but we aren't going to stay at your house."

Which, actually, is how military defense usually works. You can't be strong everywhere, and those who try, fail. It's usually a lot less dangerous, though.



[quote]
The truth is, if the Alliance isn’t going to defend the colonies or isn't capable of doing so, then who will?[/quote]Cerberus.

[/pandering and rewriting]

Seriously, though, singular failures don't define trends. Watson didn't get screwed by accident: there was deliberate effort, and nothing says that the Alliance must and will win all the time against anyone at any time or place. The Alliance does it's best to defend its colonies, and it's usually successful. Even your being there to stop it, not-technically-Alliance as you mayh be, is a reflection of that.

For every Watson, there's more than one Terra Nova. For every Mindoir, there's a Skyllian Blitz and Torfan and more. The Alliance isn't just sitting on its ass not helping, and Human colonies aren't easy lowhanging fruit hoping not to be noticed. The Traverse is simply a dangerous place, in no small part because the Batarians are paying to keep it dangerous.

No, the Alliance isn't capable of defending every colony everywhere. But it is capable of providing general protection to most of its colonies most of the time, despite determined effort to the contrary, and failures are the exception, not the rule.

[quote]
Now, I’m not saying that, if the Alliance pulls out of Watson, other colonies will instantly rise in revolt. What I’m saying is that, if the Alliance pulls out of Watson, when it DOES come time for various colonies to declare their independence from the Alliance, “abandoned us to the predations of our enemies” will be item 1, and the separation will be far less amicable than it could be.[/quote]Well, if they do that, they'll have a large list of colonies above Watson's name to choose from, alphabetically and catastrophically.
[quote]
Oh, puh-leez! Cerberus found plenty of cash for zombie armies and mind-control rays!  [/quote]Back when it had money, sure.
 
[quote]
According to EDI, even Lazarus represented (at the very most) two years of Cerberus’ gross.[/quote]Two years is a lot, but Watson is now. By the time Cerberus recovers its financial feet, not only after Lazarus but after Ascension, Watson's fate will arleady have been decided. Either people will have begun moving back in, or people will have already left.

[quote]
And what about Cerberus’ contributors? They aren’t just sitting on piles of money back on Earth and writing a check to TIM once a year. They are wealthy people, with diverse interests active in the Alliance business community. At TIMs urging, they could easily be convinced to accept a temporary loss and sponsor a reconstruction effort on Watson.[/quote]Evidence of this persuasive capability being...?

You can always ask 'why don't people spend themselves dead to prove their ideals.' And there remain a lot of answers for it, but that doesn't change that few people, no matter how noble, do that.


[quote]
Given that we’re talking about developing an entire star system here, I find it hard to believe at even substantial investment will result in anything but a long term pay out.  Especially given Cerberus' "interests" in the region.[/quote]Which is, again, countered by a short-term capital shortage at the point of importance.

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

Loki330 wrote...

General User wrote...

If the Alliance military was truly dedicated to keeping the system safe they would absorb the loss and commit the resources to rebuild.

It was, after all, the Alliance military’s failure that made this necessary in the first place.

It's called a budget-no matter your choice in ME1 for the battle for the citedal, it's explicitly stated the alliance can't help you because they're still recovering from losses inflicted by Nazara. Ships and buildings are not cheap, and if the infastructure to protect the coloney is gone they won't be able to replace it, certainly not immediately.

After all, if the Alliance had the resources to protect all their colonies so easily, the Collectors would be cherry-picking colonies, would they?

Whether it was originally a good idea or not for the Alliance to make the commitment to defend Watson is beside the point, the commitment was made. And it is indisputable that it was the Alliance’s failure that forced the crisis.
 
Even if it means weakening themselves elsewhere (a managable risk), the Alliance has a fundamental moral obligation to fulfill its promises and make up for its failures. The Alliance also has a basic political imperative to demonstrate to other colonies and foreign powers that the Alliance can be trusted to defend its colonies.

In this case, budgetary concerns, even military ones, must be suborned to political and moral concerns.

You know what your dialogue really reminds me of?

Domino theory of containment. "If we back down or lose here, we lose everywhere."

Mind you, that didn't really come true when the US lost in Vietnam, or the Soviets backed down over Cuba, and even the loss in Afghanistan was a symptom of an overall systemic collapse.


Domino theory has more than a kernal of truth to it, but there are a lot of reasons people make and maintain alliances other than trust.

[Dean_the_Young]

Vaenier wrote...

If they abaondon the colony, what wil they do? They will just end up going to a new planet and building a new space port AND a new city... I fail to see how that is productive or reasonable. The only other alternative is to never colonise a planet again...

Return to Earth, where presumably most of them came from. Possibly resettle in existing colonies, which have the infrastructure.

Some might resettle in a new colony down the line, but that new colony only proves that it passes a cost-benefit on the part of its necessary supporters, not that Watson does.

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It's easier to hang brits with a rope anyway, so sure.

I was just worried that Andrew Jackson might lead an army of turians to come hang me.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But being noted is not the same as changing views. I note that deaths follow in a war, but that does not mean I automatically turn against the conflict. You're assuming a much lower risk tolerance than I am, and yet in light of human colonization history I don't see much support for your position. Mindoir was enslaved, Elysium Blitzed, Eden Prime sacked, Feros wiped out, and a bunch of colonies kidnapped, and if those haven't disuaded people I don't think the economic evacuation of a colony will.

The risks of frontier life are all well and good. People go out there looking for a better life, or new opportunities, knowing they might meet a sad end in the attempt.

But when those hopes fall in the crapper and it’s all someone else’s fault (especially when it’s someone you trusted), those people, and anyone who sympathizes with them, are going to resent the hell out of it, and will have every right to.
 
That righteous anger is dangerous.  Mostly to the Alliance.

Mindoir comes close to the Watson's situation. 

I think Elysium is a fine example of how to respond to the attack on Watson. Bolster the planet’s defenses and hit the batarians back. Hard.

And Feros is a fine example of how a colony can be utterly devastated and still rebuild with the help of a dedicated patron.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Seriously, it is cited as a common, significant criticism, but the Colonials don't have the sway to do much about it. They still benefit more, even if they have to (or can't) pony up the costs themselves.

Yet. The colonials (most of them) are stuck with the situation as it is for now. But that will not always be the case. The day will come when Earth and her colonies to go their separate ways. On that day colonists will remember past hurts and helps.

The Alliance's policies and priorities now will make the difference between the American Revolution and the Statute of Westminster later.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
More like "if you get in trouble, we'll come running and wallop whoever did it, but we aren't going to stay at your house."

Which, actually, is how military defense usually works. You can't be strong everywhere, and those who try, fail. It's usually a lot less dangerous, though.

Only in this case the Alliance was in Watson’s house, being right in orbit. Losing Watson would constitute more than a tragedy, it would be an embarrassment, and a sign of weakness.

And reconstruction is very much a part of military, diplomatic, and political policy. 

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, the Alliance isn't capable of defending every colony everywhere. But it is capable of providing general protection to most of its colonies most of the time, despite determined effort to the contrary, and failures are the exception, not the rule.

Well... isn't that part of the idea behind Cerberus?  Not only to do the things the Alliance can't, but to step in where they fail?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Evidence of this persuasive capability being...?

You can always ask 'why don't people spend themselves dead to prove their ideals.' And there remain a lot of answers for it, but that doesn't change that few people, no matter how noble, do that.

The fact that TIM's backers are willing to entrust him with giant sacks of money annually.

The thing about this case is, I'm not asking them (Cerberus and its backers) to sacrifice themselves on the alter of their own self-professed ideals (though, let's be honest, they could use the points).  Cerberus, and even Cerberus’ backers independent of Cerberus, have legitimate, practical, even critical, material interests in the Skepsis System. Thanks largely to Shepard.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Which is, again, countered by a short-term capital shortage at the point of importance.

And I don’t see any evidence of a capital shortage. Some severe losses and debits, yes. But the actual sources of Cerberus’ funding are to my knowledge (I didn’t read the books), untouched. 
 
Goodness! If you gave the Collector Base to Cerberus, then Lazarus either is (or will shortly become) Cerberus’ MOST profitable venture to date! Even if they spent themselves blind to do it, that level of success will only draw MORE investment capital.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Domino theory has more than a kernal of truth to it, but there are a lot of reasons people make and maintain alliances other than trust.

Wait...  Is the Alliance ALLIED to Watson? Or are the Watsons Alliance citizens? That makes a difference!

I’m assuming the later based on the colony being brokered and chartered by the Alliance and being under Alliance military protection.

Modifié par General User, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:16 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]General User wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
It's easier to hang brits with a rope anyway, so sure.
[/quote]

I was just worried that Andrew Jackson might lead an army of turians to come hang me.[/quote]We could arrange it, if you prefer.

We have the technology. etc. etc. old joke.
[quote]
The risks of frontier life are all well and good. People go out there looking for a better life, or new opportunities, knowing they might meet a sad end in the attempt.

But when those hopes fall in the crapper and it’s all someone else’s fault (especially when it’s someone you trusted), those people, and anyone who sympathizes with them, are going to resent the hell out of it, and will have every right to.[/quote]To be perfectly frank, I think we're at an impass of general thoughts here. While I do see where you're coming from, I don't share your belief that the colonies are as sensitive or receptive in the way that you fear (if that's the word). Yes, Watson is an embarassment, but embarassments happen, and not doubling down does not lead to disastrous results as surely as doubling down leads to better results. Doubling down has its own full set of problems, both morally and practically.

So, with all due curtesy, the 'heart' of the debate is one I'll just agree to disagree (though if you disagree, I'll just... disagree?). So from this point on I'll just pick out bits of interest to talk about on their own. No disrespect intended.
 
[quote]
I think Elysium is a fine example of how to respond to the attack on Watson. Bolster the planet’s defenses and hit the batarians back. Hard.[/quote]Did the Alliance bolster Elysium? Or did they just respond? I don't recall anything saying that Elysium became a garrison world.

Nothing says that the Alliance (or Cerberus) won't try to strike back after Watson. Torfan didn't follow Elysium immediately, there was some time after.

[quote]
And Feros is a fine example of how a colony can be utterly devastated and still rebuild with the help of a dedicated patron.[/quote]Feros can also be rightly called a scale of magnitude less costly than Watson. It was a tiny scavenging/xenobiology colony maintained for the main purpose of salvaging the Prothean tech (and studying the Thorian), not a major industrial focal point for the sector.

And if you don't convince ExoGeni to stay on (like, say, celebrating the pain and danger of the frontier as a tourist destonation, or simply as a propoganda victory), it doesn't, and the colony more or less withers on the vine without the support. Feros survives and prospers as a colony because ExoGeni can both afford it and profits from it, and for no other reason.
[quote]
Yet. The colonials (most of them) are stuck with the situation as it is for now. But that will not always be the case. The day will come when Earth and her colonies to go their separate ways. On that day colonists will remember past hurts and helps.

The Alliance's policies and priorities now will make the difference between the American Revolution and the Statute of Westminster later.[/quote]Or the Midwest Rebellion in the US, from all the indian attacks that succeded. (Yes, I know no such thing occured. That was the point.)

What you say does have some merit, but there's a lot, and I do mean a lot, of scope for variance in the populations. Colonies vary, in type, affiliation to the Alliance, politics, you name it. Some are going to be angry regardless. I don't think you can treat them as a single collective.
[quote]
Only in this case the Alliance was in Watson’s house, being right in orbit. Losing Watson would constitute more than a tragedy, it would be an embarrassment, and a sign of weakness.

And reconstruction is very much a part of military, diplomatic, and political policy. [/quote]It's an embarrassment regardless of what the Alliance does.

Reconstruction is indeed a part of all that, but so is cutting losses.

[quote]
Well... isn't that part of the idea behind Cerberus?  Not only to do the things the Alliance can't, but to step in where they fail?[/quote]In what respects we can, but we're back to the 'throw themselves on the sword' bit that's we'll be disagreeing on.

[quote]
The fact that TIM's backers are willing to entrust him with giant sacks of money annually.

The thing about this case is, I'm not asking them (Cerberus and its backers) to sacrifice themselves on the alter of their own self-professed ideals (though, let's be honest, they could use the points).  Cerberus, and even Cerberus’ backers independent of Cerberus, have legitimate, practical, even critical, material interests in the Skepsis System. Thanks largely to Shepard.[/quote]But those interests don't necessarily warrant the immediate and opportunity costs of funneling resources and money there now. Everyone has interests, but a large part of successful economics and politics is maximum utility. You'd need to show that re-investing in this colony, and sector of space, is more important than the investing/rebuilding/consolidation that would go on in other areas instead. Which, in the Alliance's situation, is difficult... thanks largely to Shepard.

If Shepard let the Alliance military maim itself at the Citadel, rebuilding Watson would be competing with rebuilding the Alliance Navy to meet its expanded responsibilities... like protecting colonies like Watson in the first place, and trying to be capable of mounting some sort of defense to the Terminus colony abductions. In this case, the Alliance is too weak already (thanks to Shepard), and Watson is one disappearance/proof of weakness/failure among many of the time.

If Shepard leads the Alliance to seize galactic power, the Alliance is preoccupied with firming its grip on the Council and Council space and the responsibilities (and privaleges) that come with it. Watson becomes comparative small change compared to the potential gains (and costs) of galactic leadership.

Again, thanks to Shepard.
[quote]
And I don’t see any evidence of a capital shortage. Some severe losses and debits, yes. But the actual sources of Cerberus’ funding are to my knowledge (I didn’t read the books), untouched. [/quote]In Ascension, a large part of Cerberus's support network (spies, monetary backers, front companies) are taken down.


 [quote]
Goodness! If you gave the Collector Base to Cerberus, then Lazarus either is (or will shortly become) Cerberus’ MOST profitable venture to date! Even if they spent themselves blind to do it, that level of success will only draw MORE investment capital.[/quote]In time, I certainly agree. But in time, over time, not necessarily now.

[quote]
Wait...  Is the Alliance ALLIED to Watson? Or are the Watsons Alliance citizens? That makes a difference!

I’m assuming the later based on the colony being brokered and chartered by the Alliance and being under Alliance military protection. [/quote]Ah, that did come off badly, but it reflected the less-than-absolute ties that bind the two. I meant it in the same sense that, say, large parts of what we consider the historic Roman Empire might have considered themselves Roman Allies instead. Part, but not necessarily incorporated. But this is sidetracking.

It was to make a more general point that absolute trust isn't the only reason why people stay linked together. There are many other, many more reasons why groups stay connected at any level.

[General User]

Pick and choose it is.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Did the Alliance bolster Elysium? Or did they just respond? I don't recall anything saying that Elysium became a garrison world.

I’m pretty sure the Alliance did bolster the colony’s defenses, at least in the short term. I remember Pressley talking about how the Agincourt was on station for a while after the battle ended, and how a larger relief force did arrive at some point. And, of course, if you’re a War Hero, the ground garrison never actually fell at all.
 
After the Blitz, Elysium took off like a rocket economically. I going under the assumption that the military preparedness of the colony increased accordingly to these two events.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But those interests don't necessarily warrant the immediate and opportunity costs of funneling resources and money there now. Everyone has interests, but a large part of successful economics and politics is maximum utility. You'd need to show that re-investing in this colony, and sector of space, is more important than the investing/rebuilding/consolidation that would go on in other areas instead. Which, in the Alliance's situation, is difficult... thanks largely to Shepard.

 
And Cerberus?


My point wasn’t that Watson is a perfect place in the galaxy for Cerberus to set up shop. Only that it is a good (even excellent) place, who’s main fault, the high start-up cost, should be at least partially offset by ideological concerns. Namely, securing human influence in a hithertofor alien dominated region of the galaxy.

No one says Watson has to be exactly what it was before the attack. Rather, under Cerberus' patronage, it could have a very bright future of a differnet sort, as could Cerberus.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
In Ascension, a large part of Cerberus's support network (spies, monetary backers, front companies) are taken down.

Well… so much of THAT idea.
 
I’m not angry at TIM, just disappointed.
 
No, wait. I am angry!
 
The one thing I trusted that snake to do was his job! And what does he do? Pisses it all away, along with half the damn Cerberus network, just so he can get revenge on some guy who spat in his eye ten years ago!?!

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

Pick and choose it is.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Did the Alliance bolster Elysium? Or did they just respond? I don't recall anything saying that Elysium became a garrison world.

I’m pretty sure the Alliance did bolster the colony’s defenses, at least in the short term. I remember Pressley talking about how the Agincourt was on station for a while after the battle ended, and how a larger relief force did arrive at some point. And, of course, if you’re a War Hero, the ground garrison never actually fell at all.

I'm not sure that it fell if your Shepard isn't a War Hero: I'm not sure it's ever been given one way or another if there was no Shepard in those positions: just that they didn't become Spectre and make the news like yours.

Nothing prevents a Sole Survivor AND the Hero AND the Butcher from existing at the same time. (And would even make some sic cammeo defaults if they had been included.)

My point wasn’t that Watson is a perfect place in the galaxy for Cerberus to set up shop. Only that it is a good (even excellent) place, who’s main fault, the high start-up cost, should be at least partially offset by ideological concerns. Namely, securing human influence in a hithertofor alien dominated region of the galaxy.

And if securing human interests here is offset by a loss of human interests there and there?

No one says Watson has to be exactly what it was before the attack. Rather, under Cerberus' patronage, it could have a very bright future of a differnet sort, as could Cerberus.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea (and you can certainly argue Cerberus would), but I truly doubt Cerberus can. Cerberus doesn't control the patrons it has, nor is it in the best position to force new massive sums out of them, and there are limitations on its resources.

By the time Cerberus could, I don't think there would be anything to salvage.

Well… so much of THAT idea.
 
I’m not angry at TIM, just disappointed.
 
No, wait. I am angry!
 
The one thing I trusted that snake to do was his job! And what does he do? Pisses it all away, along with half the damn Cerberus network, just so he can get revenge on some guy who spat in his eye ten years ago!?!

It's Anderson's fault, really. <_<

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm not sure that it fell if your Shepard isn't a War Hero: I'm not sure it's ever been given one way or another if there was no Shepard in those positions: just that they didn't become Spectre and make the news like yours.

Nothing prevents a Sole Survivor AND the Hero AND the Butcher from existing at the same time. (And would even make some sic cammeo defaults if they had been included.)

Now that DLC has my 540 Bioware points for sure!

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And if securing human interests here is offset by a loss of human interests there and there?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea (and you can certainly argue Cerberus would), but I truly doubt Cerberus can. Cerberus doesn't control the patrons it has, nor is it in the best position to force new massive sums out of them, and there are limitations on its resources.

By the time Cerberus could, I don't think there would be anything to salvage.

Maybe, maybe not.  The original investors in the Watson colony were drawn by something, that something will still be there.  Someone will be exploiting it at one level or another.  So, I say it is unlikley that the colony will be entirely extinguished under any circumstances.

Hell, if their security could be better guaranteed there's a better than average chance that the colony's original investors would, at least partially, sponsor a reconstruction effort.


Arguably the Collector Base has to be Cerberus’ number one priority under any circumstances, from now until the invasion at least. As it is the capacity of exploiting the Collector Base windfall (along with the fruits of Shepard’s other missions) that I see Skepsis and the Watsons serving, that makes a compelling argument to move them up the priority chain. 

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm not sure that it fell if your Shepard isn't a War Hero: I'm not sure it's ever been given one way or another if there was no Shepard in those positions: just that they didn't become Spectre and make the news like yours.

Nothing prevents a Sole Survivor AND the Hero AND the Butcher from existing at the same time. (And would even make some sic cammeo defaults if they had been included.)

Now that DLC has my 540 Bioware points for sure!

Want to muse it out? Maybe the when and how it would work?

Maybe, maybe not.  The original investors in the Watson colony were drawn by something, that something will still be there.  Someone will be exploiting it at one level or another.  So, I say it is unlikley that the colony will be entirely extinguished under any circumstances.

Hell, if their security could be better guaranteed there's a better than average chance that the colony's original investors would, at least partially, sponsor a reconstruction effort.

The initial Watson could have also been a small-scale affair that naturally grew big thanks to history. Too big to afford to fail, as it were.

Arguably the Collector Base has to be Cerberus’ number one priority under any circumstances, from now until the invasion at least. As it is the capacity of exploiting the Collector Base windfall (along with the fruits of Shepard’s other missions) that I see Skepsis and the Watsons serving, that makes a compelling argument to move them up the priority chain. 

While I agree with the first, the time it would take for the Collector Base to begin paying dividends, let alone economic dividends, let alone of the scale to be able to covertly refund Waston, isn't clear.

From a story perspective, the time between Watson's crisis and the resolution of the Collector Base could range anywhere from days in proximity to weeks/monthes behorehand, yet I doubt it would take long at all for an evacuation/abandonment process to go through. More relevantly, every mission in the game except the DLC more or less assumes a pre-Collector Base timing. The consideration of 'keep/lose' the colony isn't really one you can throw the Collector Base towards if you haven't known about the Collector Base yet. I think it's fair to posit that the game assumes you haven't.


The gains of the Collector Base, if they are as big as TIM implies they could be, would negate the need (and loss) of Watson as a factor. Galactic human dominance, once achieved, would also include dominance over the Watson sector, at which point Cerberus/the Alliance could well and go back and reclaim Watson, or something in the intermediate future.

[Nightwriter]

I am not sure OP's renegade logic applies, though I find it very interesting. It is hard to convince renegades to save the capital city using an argumentative scenario they know will never be. Renegades have no power to seize Watson as a branching off point for Collector base research.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

I am not sure OP's renegade logic applies, though I find it very interesting. It is hard to convince renegades to save the capital city using an argumentative scenario they know will never be. Renegades have no power to seize Watson as a branching off point for Collector base research.

My Renegade logic:

Watson is a bleeding ulcer to the Alliance, and exposed flank at a critical time, and woefully incapable of providing significant resistance to the Reapers on its own. It's value is idealistic and not beneficial in the necessary span of time.

Therefore, the colonial line should be reconsolidated into fewer, stronger colonies that can both be defended better and be more able to add to the war effort. Cut off the cancer that is Watson, and re-settle the colonists onto other colonies to boost their capabilities.

[Nightwriter]

I find your logic sound. Though I think countless other Terminus colonies are in need of the same tactical relocation.

[Phaedon]

I don't see how we can be talking about the flanks, or stronger colonies, when the Reapers are reaping Earth with little to no resistance. Larger concentration only means easier extermination.

Modifié par Phaedon, 07 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .