591 réponses à ce sujet

[Glorfindel709]

This guy seems sort of obsessed with the idea that the Dwarves will come streaming out of the Deep Roads and their nigh impregnable underground fortress city containing all of the supplies they could need to outlast any siege to futilely attack a fortified position outside of their doors manned by cold and starving lyrium addled templers and Orlesians.

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Whether or not they live underground does not change the fact that their enemy having the higher ground is an advantage for their enemy.
Soldiers will tire more quickly when fighting uphill, will move more slowly, and if fighting in formation will have little ability to see beyond the soldiers in front of them. Likewise, soldiers fighting on the hill won't get tired as quickly, will move faster, and will be able to see farther when in formation, aiding them in making smart tactical maneuvers. Furthermore, soldiers who are elevated above their enemies can get greater range out of low-speed projectiles like rocks and javelins. Likewise, rocks and javelins will have less range when thrown uphill. Having the higher ground also gives the chantry more strength for a forward push

Guy, do some reading, serve in the military and learn a few things.  It's true all other things being equal, you want the high ground, but all things here emphatically aren't equal.

1.  Choke Points favor the defender. Always.  Why?  A choke point (like the famous pass of Thermopylae) can reduce or even eliminate the advantage of numbers permitting the defenders to only have to engage a small fraction of the attacking force at any given time.  Better yet, the defenders will usually have superior position and thus be harder to engage than the attackers.  This is why when all other things are equal and you are on the attack, you want your overall combat strength that you can apply to be at least three times as much as what the defenders can manage...more if you are attacking fortifications (which the Chantry most definately would be).  Choke points keep you from having the necessary combat advantage to sucessfully go on offense.

2.  Dwarves are used to living underground and (apparently) can provide themselves with nearly unlimited provisions from various farms and other sources underground.  Dwarves might go broke from lack of a surface trade, but they would not starve (Kal Shirok is an even better example of this than Orazmmar in fact).   That makes beseiging Orzammar basically impossible.  The classic Seige is a contest between dwindling provender within the fortress against disease, starvation, and desertion outside, but Dwarves aren't faced with any realistic loss of provender from a seige AND the Templars lose lyrium they need in addition to all other factors.   That would mean the Chantry would have to storm Orzammar.....

3.  The Dwarves don't have to come out and play.  The Chantry would have to come through the main doors....or they could try to fight all the Darkspawn in the Deep Roads and THEN try Orzmmar from an inferior lower position.....right....moving on....   The Dwarves could easily fill the entire Hall of Heroes with rubble if they are feeling charitable....or molten lava if they are not!  Then the Chantry has to break through the next set of doors...all while Dwarven Engineers and Sappers are making their life miserable.  Then they come out into the Commons and the Dwarves hold the high ground there along with golems, apostate (and possibly blood mages) and the Chantry is facing yet another choke point where in naval terms the Dwarfves and allies automatically "cross their tee" (which means that all the dwarves and their allies can target the first few ranks of chantry troops coming in, while only a bare handful of chantry troops could answer back.

Yeah....good luck with that.......

Sorry, but Orzammar as long as it stays on defense is the next best thing to impregnable from the surface and every sane military general knows it!

-Polaris

[Elhanan]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Whether or not they live underground does not change the fact that their enemy having the higher ground is an advantage for their enemy.

Soldiers will tire more quickly when fighting uphill, will move more slowly, and if fighting in formation will have little ability to see beyond the soldiers in front of them. Likewise, soldiers fighting on the hill won't get tired as quickly, will move faster, and will be able to see farther when in formation, aiding them in making smart tactical maneuvers. Furthermore, soldiers who are elevated above their enemies can get greater range out of low-speed projectiles like rocks and javelins. Likewise, rocks and javelins will have less range when thrown uphill. Having the higher ground also gives the chantry more strength for a forward push

Perhaps the Chantry could provoke the Dwarves into a Proving match which would even the odds quite a bit, as Dwarven pride and arrogance could be exploited. Or Chantry mages could use spells to alter lava channels, destroy tunnel walls, bypass gates, destroy or taint lichen and ale, etc. Or while besieging Orzammar, go about reclaiming the Deep Roads, lytium fields, older Thaigs, etc, but this could be precarious; fighting in relatively unknown territory while maintaining the siege.

[Sarah1281]

I really wish I could tell when you were being serious. Mages using magic to get into Orzammar does seem like a reasonable plan but the Chantry challenging the dwarves to a freaking proving match... *facepalm*

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I really wish I could tell when you were being serious. Mages using magic to get into Orzammar does seem like a reasonable plan but the Chantry challenging the dwarves to a freaking proving match... *facepalm*

As I mentioned, exploit the weakness of Dwarven pride. If there be a historical prescendense for Surfacers to challenge the will of the anscestors, I know I would rather field a small team of four than try to battle said pride at the gates during Winter.

And I wish I could tell when Team Bhelen was not meaning to be as arrogant, condescending, and elitist as they seemingly present themselves; gave me the notion in the first place.

[Sarah1281]

I'm not trying to be condescending. I just honestly hope that you're NOT serious about the dwarves being stupid enough to open up their sealed-shut gates in order to fight a freaking proving. What would be the point of the proving? Whether the Chantry has a right to invade? Would they really be so naive as to believe that the Chantry would play fair and that if they won the Chantry would go away? Would they be so stupid as to take losing a proving match as an indication that they should all convert and immediately surrender the mages as well as probably giving the Chantry a far better deal on lyrium?



There is a difference between being proud and arrogant and being an absolute ******. I truly don't believe that any of the dwarves in the game would really think trying to settle a war with a hostile invading force by fighting a duel would be anything less than ridiculous.

[KnightofPhoenix]

....ok lol.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm not trying to be condescending. I just honestly hope that you're NOT serious about the dwarves being stupid enough to open up their sealed-shut gates in order to fight a freaking proving. What would be the point of the proving? Whether the Chantry has a right to invade? Would they really be so naive as to believe that the Chantry would play fair and that if they won the Chantry would go away? Would they be so stupid as to take losing a proving match as an indication that they should all convert and immediately surrender the mages as well as probably giving the Chantry a far better deal on lyrium?

 
They are proud enough to hold Provings to honor Wardens, princes, and dead Kings, as well as train for those that include Mages. They record almost everything of their history when it suits them, but omit Casteless and the occasional criminal charge. They are a nation of law except when they choose not to be, and banish the accused w/o representation. They hold up an election, and base the outcome on trivial matters and the supposed word of a Paragon. Etc.

I figure the Dwarves to be as stupid as one allows them to be. But I am not serious about it; tis a RPG after all.

There is a difference between being proud and arrogant and being an absolute ******. I truly don't believe that any of the dwarves in the game would really think trying to settle a war with a hostile invading force by fighting a duel would be anything less than ridiculous.

I rarely see such a difference when I read a post from Bhelen's Bunch. They assemble like 4th graders, poke, prod, and mock opponents while cheering their own with poster board art and high fives; just easier to bait by taking any varied POV be it whimsical or not....

[thegreateski]

Would the Chantry Defeat the Dwarves in an Exalted March?

No. It would end in a draw.



The Dwarves do not have the resources or troops to fight a war with the Chantry and the Chantry can't win because the Dwarves could just collapse the entrance to their city.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Elhanan wrote...

And I wish I could tell when Team Bhelen was not meaning to be as arrogant, condescending, and elitist as they seemingly present themselves; gave me the notion in the first place.

Someone who understands... 

<3

[BigBad]

Provings are used to settle major disputes when outright war is undesirable. But in a siege of Orzammar (or, less realistically, an attempted invasion from the surface), the dwarves are literally holding all the cards here. They have the advantage in training and equipment, mastery of the environment, knowledge of the area, tactics for resisting a hostile force on their very doorstep, and, when they get tired of playing around, the ability to roll their eyes and close the doors with a resounding "I say thee NAY!", and suddenly become the single most impregnable fortress in Thedas. The only possible advantage that the Chantry could field would be mages.



Magic is the only field applicable to this situation in which the dwarves are not superior, and even then they have a unique natural resistance to being the subject of spells. Magic could be a large equalizer for Chantry forces, yes, mostly in a non-combat role. Control and shaping of the environment allows the besiegers to somewhat offset their nigh-total lack of advantage in this ill-advised march. It may even provide an entrance into Orzammar that is not under the dwarves total control (unlikely, though, or at least impractical on the scale needed).



But we must remember that Orzammar sits, at least nominally, under Ferelden territory. Ferelden's Circle has been decimated and possibly even annulled. There are nowhere near the number of trained, Harrowed, loyal mages necessary to make them a significant force. And if other nations start marching their mages into Ferelden, even under orders from the Divine, I sincerely doubt that the proud, stubborn nation is going to be okay with that. And Ferelden is in no way going to condone a war against one of their key allies during the recent Blight. Neither Alistair nor Anora is quite that dense.



Not to mention, once the Templars start feeling the effects of lyrium withdrawal, I imagine that the mage contingent will begin to see massive desertions, possibly defections to Ferelden's Circle to avoid being labelled apostates.



So, again, the Chantry forces are absolutely no threat, as either invaders or besiegers. The dwarves, having suffered both states for thousands of years from darkspawn, are most likely amused at these irritating surfacers who think they know anything about true war. They have absolutely no incentive to call for a Proving. Dwarves are proud, but not stupid.

[Elhanan]

BigBad wrote...

Provings are used to settle major disputes when outright war is undesirable. But in a siege of Orzammar (or, less realistically, an attempted invasion from the surface), the dwarves are literally holding all the cards here. They have the advantage in training and equipment, mastery of the environment, knowledge of the area, tactics for resisting a hostile force on their very doorstep, and, when they get tired of playing around, the ability to roll their eyes and close the doors with a resounding "I say thee NAY!", and suddenly become the single most impregnable fortress in Thedas. The only possible advantage that the Chantry could field would be mages.

The Dwarves do have the advantage against the Chantry, but that is on top of current problems with the Casteless and Darkspawn.. That is the motivation for the Chantry to consider alternatives that are outside the norm solutions, such as the Proving, trade sanctions, etc.

Magic is the only field applicable to this situation in which the dwarves are not superior, and even then they have a unique natural resistance to being the subject of spells. Magic could be a large equalizer for Chantry forces, yes, mostly in a non-combat role. Control and shaping of the environment allows the besiegers to somewhat offset their nigh-total lack of advantage in this ill-advised march. It may even provide an entrance into Orzammar that is not under the dwarves total control (unlikely, though, or at least impractical on the scale needed).

But we must remember that Orzammar sits, at least nominally, under Ferelden territory. Ferelden's Circle has been decimated and possibly even annulled. There are nowhere near the number of trained, Harrowed, loyal mages necessary to make them a significant force. And if other nations start marching their mages into Ferelden, even under orders from the Divine, I sincerely doubt that the proud, stubborn nation is going to be okay with that. And Ferelden is in no way going to condone a war against one of their key allies during the recent Blight. Neither Alistair nor Anora is quite that dense.

Agreed, but the Chantry appears to do many things that are outside the realm of Ferelden rule, common sense, etc. And the epilogue is rather vague as to when this considered action will occur.

Not to mention, once the Templars start feeling the effects of lyrium withdrawal, I imagine that the mage contingent will begin to see massive desertions, possibly defections to Ferelden's Circle to avoid being labelled apostates.

So, again, the Chantry forces are absolutely no threat, as either invaders or besiegers. The dwarves, having suffered both states for thousands of years from darkspawn, are most likely amused at these irritating surfacers who think they know anything about true war. They have absolutely no incentive to call for a Proving. Dwarves are proud, but not stupid.

As Dwarves are becoming more and more dependant on the Surface trade as their numbers dwindle, they may be motivated to avoid war on three possible fronts (ie; Chantry, Casteless, and Darkspawn), and consider a Proving allowing further Chantry interactions at all, as well as healing the current rifts. Plus a ruler post-Bhelen/ Harrowmont may be more willing to seek diplomatic solutions.

[Costin_Razvan]

Oh alright a proving you say?

Bring out the Golem then, and good luck beating that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:01 .

[Elhanan]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh alright a proving you say?

Bring out the Golem then, and good luck beating that.

Considering that Shale and the remaining golems drop rather quickly, the Dwarves may wish to consider alternatives.

But some appear to becoming stuck on this Proving solution. This is only one possible idea among many the Chantry might pursue as opposed to a direct attack against a heavily fortified populace.

[BigBad]

Elhanan wrote...

As Dwarves are becoming more and more dependant on the Surface trade as their numbers dwindle, they may be motivated to avoid war on three possible fronts (ie; Chantry, Casteless, and Darkspawn), and consider a Proving allowing further Chantry interactions at all, as well as healing the current rifts. Plus a ruler post-Bhelen/ Harrowmont may be more willing to seek diplomatic solutions.

The important thing to remember here is that, despite their dwindling numbers (and dwarven numbers have been dwindling for literally centuries), and despite their increased contact and trade with the surface, Orzammar is still self-sufficient. They could close off Orzammar entirely, and have no contact with anyone on the surface for the next hundred years, and suffer little more damage to their way of life than a small decrease in luxuries.

Also, there is no real 'war on three fronts'. There is the eternal war with the darkspawn. The Chantry, as has been shown, can be easily locked out and more or less neutralized as credible threats. The casteless issue is more of a political and cultural dispute, and not actually a war.

Provings are an important part of dwarven culture, but they only go so far. No matter who you win the Proving for during the succession crisis, it doesn't help break the stalemate at all, and you still need to go find Branka.

[Elhanan]

BigBad wrote...

The important thing to remember here is that, despite their dwindling numbers (and dwarven numbers have been dwindling for literally centuries), and despite their increased contact and trade with the surface, Orzammar is still self-sufficient. They could close off Orzammar entirely, and have no contact with anyone on the surface for the next hundred years, and suffer little more damage to their way of life than a small decrease in luxuries.

Possibly true. But take away luxuries, raise prices, etc. and make the rest of Orzammar feel generally the same as Dust Town, and you may start unrest in the city via all the entitled. The Chantry is also not likely to act as stupid as some like to make them, and they may not present themselves as oppresssors, but more as victims.

Also, there is no real 'war on three fronts'. There is the eternal war with the darkspawn. The Chantry, as has been shown, can be easily locked out and more or less neutralized as credible threats. The casteless issue is more of a political and cultural dispute, and not actually a war.

Semantics. Closing the main gates, the gates of Dust Town, and facing the Darkspawn constantly would appear to diminish current resources, further restrict resupply lines, while having to maintain vigilence on the two "non-fronts". Given time, even a Grand Proving might look better and better.

Provings are an important part of dwarven culture, but they only go so far. No matter who you win the Proving for during the succession crisis, it doesn't help break the stalemate at all, and you still need to go find Branka.

It is more of a tool for simple solutions to larger matters (eg; honor Provings instead of war vs Houses). Given the right motivations to explore this as an option would seem to grow given time and inconvenience.

[Sarah1281]

As Dwarves are becoming more and more dependant on the Surface trade as their numbers dwindle, they may be motivated to avoid war on three possible fronts (ie; Chantry, Casteless, and Darkspawn), and consider a Proving allowing further Chantry interactions at all, as well as healing the current rifts. Plus a ruler post-Bhelen/ Harrowmont may be more willing to seek diplomatic solutions.

It the dwarves were the desperate to avoid a war, they'd just get rid of their mages and/or stop restricting the rights of the Andrastian dwarves as that was what caused the problem in the first place. A Proving wouldn't help anything as the Chantry wouldn't just back off if the dwarves won and if the Chantry won and the dwarves were planning on respecting that, they'd need to bow to the Chantry's wishes or else war was going to break out.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

It the dwarves were the desperate to avoid a war, they'd just get rid of their mages and/or stop restricting the rights of the Andrastian dwarves as that was what caused the problem in the first place. A Proving wouldn't help anything as the Chantry wouldn't just back off if the dwarves won and if the Chantry won and the dwarves were planning on respecting that, they'd need to bow to the Chantry's wishes or else war was going to break out.

If the Dwarves desired to avoid conflict, they would stop restricting the rights of the Casteless and Surface Dwarves, too; does not seem to occur unless the laws are changed within the palace, Assembly, Houses, and Shaperate.

A Proving seems to hold some influence in  Dwarven matters of politics and diplomacy. If the results were not honored, then further erosion of diplomatic and political ties would occur making matters worse for the groups involved. If they were honored, then both groups would gain credibility.

Of course, credibility and greater diplomatic rewards are not everyone's currency of choice, but it may suit others.

Modifié par Elhanan, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:11 .

[Sarah1281]

If the Dwarves desired to avoid conflict, they would stop restricting the rights of the Casteless and Surface Dwarves, too; does not seem to occur unless the laws are changed within the palace, Assembly, Houses, and Shaperate.

Surface dwarves don't live in Orzammar so it's not that big of a deal to make them draw a brand on their face when they come in. It's more of an inconvenience for the surface dwarves than anything and the casteless have no political power and are too thoroughly oppressed to have risen up (well, without the Harrowmont golem ending). If the Chantry decided on an Exalted March because there was an apostate circle or because the Andrastians had no rights then if there was a Proving and the Chantry won, they would get their way on the mages and/or rights or they would fight anyway.



I can see the dwarves being confident their champion could beat any surfacer champion but not that they would really believe that a huge invasion force would really go back home just because they lost a duel.



Provings are held so that there will not be blood in the streets every time anyone has any problem with each other. For instance, in the DN origin Lord Dace tries to trick you into supporting a vote that would cost your family money. If you call him out on this, you can fight his son in a proving match and kill him. Instead of full-scale fighting breaking out between Houses Aeducan and Dace over Mandar's death or the attempted trickery, a Proving is called and the matter is settled. Something as frivolous as being lied to shouldn't lead to a war anyway but without the provings it probably would. The dwarves don't fight provings because they are AFRAID to fight and something like a huge invasion force because the Chantry is trying to force its ways on Orzammar is not a frivolous matter and therefore a proving would not be called for.

[Elhanan]

The Dwarves would probably not call for a Proving, as they would be losing the current advantage. But given enough diplomatic and social pressure from the restricted trade with the Surface, if the Chantry offered to use the Proving to settle the matter and avoid further conflict, then the Dwarves may be more willing to see the matter ended as they still have an advantage, though a smaller one.

[Sarah1281]

The surface really can't afford to restrict trade with Orzammar. Orzammar is the only source of lyrium in Thedas and the Chantry desperately needs it. The dwarves can do without imports until the lack of lyrium breaks the Chantry's resolve. With the templars going mad and getting useless and the mages not being able to replenish their mana or to power more advnaced spells, they're not going to be able to hold out for very long once they run out of lyrium.

[Elhanan]

Blackmarket trade may likely be going strong, and the Deep Roads are still accessable even with the main gates closed via other fissures; same routes taken by Darkspawn.

[Sarah1281]

The black market can't possibly fill all of the Chantry's lyrium needs. Hell, the official trade isn't even enough or else the black market wouldn't be so profitable. And if they have to brave darkspawn-infested tunnels in order to do the trade, it's really going to fall off.

[Augustei]

Venturing back to the original topic just quickly, I just realised something.. Bhelen really seems to remind me of Emperor Commodus from Gladiator.. Young, Arrogant, Scheming bastard who trys to kill the awesome protagonist like.. the Dwarf noble being killed by Bhelen.



And although helping him now benefits Orzamaar. Would it not cause lots of problems for Orzamaar in the future. I mean nobles being killed for even questioning their ruler, Power descending from the crown. Bhelen gets this idea from a previous dwarven king he asked the shaper about doesn't he? So if he is made king it will inspire future generations to be evil little bastards?



Nobles being killed for speaking out and then nobody in the city has any say exept for the king.. Tis wrong

[Sarah1281]

And although helping him now benefits Orzamaar. Would it not cause lots of problems for Orzamaar in the future. I mean nobles being killed for even questioning their ruler, Power descending from the crown. Bhelen gets this idea from a previous dwarven king he asked the shaper about doesn't he? So if he is made king it will inspire future generations to be evil little bastards?

Evidence of Bhelen killing people who even question him? He does have Harrowmont supporters sent to the front lines during the Blight but he has to send SOMEBODY so why not his enemies? It's not like he's just having them all line up for execution. And evidence that this is unusual? I mean, no one seems to care if you publicly kill Bruntin Vollney for being a little rude to you in the origin. Bhelen doesn't ask about going power mad and killing everyone who looks crossly at him. He asks about dissolving the Assembly because that is really the only way to get anything done short of heavily bribing everyone. Would it have been more moral for him to have done that?