Oh wow, that's a super long post... I didn't think it was that long when I was typing it.
Is the Council really good?
Débuté par
Arijharn
, févr. 07 2011 08:12
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 10:13
InvincibleHero
-
- Members
- 2 676 messages
Nope. The council is totally self-serving. They set the rules to benefit their races and exclude the others. If humanity played ball the way the council wanted Shepard would have never made spectre. They'd still be waiting. The incriminating Saren evidence forced the issue.
What is amazing is the docility of the non-council races in accepting the yoke. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy, they will constantly yank the ball away from the Volus and elcor and any other "client race".
What is amazing is the docility of the non-council races in accepting the yoke. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy, they will constantly yank the ball away from the Volus and elcor and any other "client race".
#303
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 09:38
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
[quote]Arijharn wrote...
1) Dreadnoughts are slower, fighters are faster. This I would have thought to be pretty obvious even to the most casual observer. That's not to say that Dreadnoughts can't fly fast (FTL speeds, but FTL speeds are also speeds in which you can't do anything either other than to drop out of FTL speeds).[/quote]
Ships accelerate to FTL though. These aren't jump drives or wormhole drives. To be able to accellerate to FTL, they have to be able to go everything up to and including light speed. Fighters do have greater maneuverablility and acceleration/deceleleration, meaning the DN's aren't entirely risk free in that the fighter pack can play 'chicken' with the DNs trying to get them to guess wrong and end up in range. It is a question of how many fighters are lost before the DN makes a mistake.
[quote] 2) Carriers aren't designed in and of itself to outmatch Dreadnoughts, but by the sheer quantity of weapon systems it can bear (aka; the fighters/interceptors themselves). It's a Lion getting killed by swarms of angry bee's, or hornets or whatever.
3) Carriers are designed to maximise the effectiveness of Fighters by fielding comparatively 'a lot.' How is it comparatively 'a lot'? Because Carrier's themselves are apparently the size of Dreadnoughts. This means that even if a Carrier is destroyed, then chances are the fighters are still going to be operational (unless by some bizarre design capacity, the fighters are VI drones or whatever completely under the control of the carrier).
I believe that your argument that a Dreadnought will be able to constantly outrange Fighters to be completely stupid to be frank, because Dreadnought's do not make a habit of getting close for one, and fighters are intended to attack capital ships -- which implies to me quite strongly that fighters have the necessary capacity to get into range, and are capable of doing so to such a degree (or even simulated to such a degree) that eventually combatants had to develop Interceptors (in another words; entirely different ships) to deny them the capacity from effectively striking at the capital ships, because apparently GARDIAN batteries are not sufficient to the task, and/or admirals like to put as much protection in as possible.[/quote]
Fighter doctrine currently works because the other races aren't yet used to them and haven't yet developed appropriate doctrine. Whether they will depends on the writers, of course. That is the fun thing about fiction. It is always merely an assumption that the writing makes sense.
[quote]And yet we're back to square one then, because if Dreadnoughts are slightly more maneuverable than what I'm giving them credit, then because of that, then fighters must therefore be more maneuverable. This isn't that hard a concept to grasp surely?
I'll put it to you once again to try and hammer the point home into your skull. Fighters are designed to counter and destroy enemy capital ships. Ergo, they would be good at it.
Even if your Dreadnought is captained by the best captain in the universe, then if the fighters get close (because remember, Dreadnoughts rely on frigate wolf pack flotilla's and Interceptors for this role) then the Dreadnought is in big trouble, because short of it's GARDIAN batteries, it has pretty much nothing to deal with them.[/quote]
Which is why fleets need to develop doctirne that takes fighters into account. What they are designed to do and what they can manage against a fleet that adopts tactics that take them into account are not the same thing.
[quote]This is stated in the Codex, you're arguing against the 'rule of god' here... and that's surely an untenable position.[/quote]
The codex states current doctrine. It doesn't lay out all possible tactics or counter-tactics. It describes the systems that exist and how they have been used historicly, but the only battles that Carriers have been deployed in have been the first contact war (complete surprise with the Turians having no clue how to handle them and too green to devise strategy on the fly), and Citadel war (point blank in a neblua, ideal battleground for figthers).
[quote]/sigh. I'm saying that: THE THANIX SYSTEM INCREASES THE RANGE, THEREFORE CURRENT RANGE DEFENCES CAN NOT BE COUNTED ON.[/quote]
Which is still academic as long as there are weapon systems that out-range the Thanix. I agree completely that the Thanix makes the current gardian systems useless, but I am not counting them as particularly useful in the first place. You are the one caught up in old doctrine, taking the tactics of the past as gospel. That is exactly what caused the Turians grief in the first contact war. It is no different than assuming blitzkrieg will keep working forever, or coming back to the 'air power equals zero casualty wars' mantra.
[quote]Why is it so hard for you to accept that Dreadnoughts aren't designed to destroy Fighters other than with it's GARDIAN systems? And why is it seemingly so hard to accept that Fighters would be faster than Dreadnoughts?
And attackign from tangents is what I'd imagine (hope) fighters would be doing, which would make the Dreadnought's job even harder.[/quote]
Of course DN's aren't designed for that. That doesn't mean their guns cannot be used that way. It is hard to accept that fighters are faster than Dreadnaughts simply because the DN's would never be able to achieve FTL otherwise. Again, they accelerate to that speed.
And attacking at tangents is a technique to keep your distance. The fighters need an intercept course and want to stay close. If they can get behind the DN, their maneuverability wins.
[quote]o.0 Moi, you're losing it. So in your example your Dreadnought is allowed to move around the planet while the carrier isn't also allowed to move? Don't you think the Dreadnought has more pressing things to worry about (aka, the rest of the enemy fleet?)[/quote]
It doesn't have to move around the planet entirely. It only has to get a firing solution, which means part of the way around. Multiple DN's can split and each go opposite directions too, giving the carrier even less of a shadow. If the Carrier is too slow, it gets caught. If it is too fast, it comes around the other side and gets caught. Not to mention this is 3 d, not 2 d. there is over and under the planet too.
[quote]Debris seems like a pretty good screening thing to be honest, and we're talking about a whale guarding another whale from a whale in this sort of situation, and presumably each whale has a degree protection from the aggressive whale's teeth. Even if the guarding whale crosses the 'T' so to speak to the Carrier whale, it's still got it's main guns to bear on the Dreadnought (because... they'd be in range of each other, if all things are equal) and I would imagine that even if it does get destroyed, it's still got debris field to swim around in for a bit, and Carrier's would also have it's own share of shielding too. That's not to say though that the carrier will be completely protected from the Dreadnought, of course not, but it does buy time.[/quote]
The blocker has to stay not just in line with the DN's guns on an XY axis, but also on all angles. 3 dimensions, and it has to not just predict the DN's movements but be capable of small precise maneuvers to ensure it stays precisely in the right spot at all times.
[quote]It was firing all the way in, and yet Joker managed to dodge it (wow, is that maneovrable differences in advantage for the smaller craft over the larger one?
Moi, my example's are backed up by lore(lol) and by the 'evidence' shown in cinematics, whereas you seem to have a lot of 'what ifs.' This is why this argument is exasperating.[/quote]
Sigh, there was a whole stretch of time while it was closing where we only saw the interior of the Normandy. Noone mentioned it firing during that time. I get the feeling our definitions of point blank are different?
[quote]I'm honestly curious now why you don't think 'evasive maneouvre's' doesn't mean trying to get as much distance as possible, because, to me at least, they were running away, but evasive maneouvre's also means 'move-as-unpredictably-as-possible-so-bad-guys-can't-get-target-lock-on-us.'
Kinda incredibly academic for a moment, but I thought what Joker was trying to do was to get close to the planet and go around it (putting it between them and the cruiser) and when that happens, they could have the freedom to plot a course to go into FTL, because apparently it's complicated and takes time.
I drew this conclusion because Joker later asks EDI to do it, when he says 'anywhere but here' EDI takes advantage of the fact that it is a computer, and has oodles of information that can be crunched at will to take care of it.[/quote]
We know for a fact (from the later encounter with the Collector cruiser) that the Normandy can literally disengage on a dime. It went from stationary beside the shut down collector ship to FTL pretty much instantly. If Joker had done that as the enemy was bearing down on the SR1, they wouldn't have had to have gone far, and could have slowed to sublight and re-engaged. There was zero need to let the enemy close on their tail like that, and zero need for evasive anything, since the enemy would never have closed in the first place.
[quote]Why we didn't attack the cruiser beforehand is sorta baffling to me as well, perhaps Shep and co thought they could just sneak in and sneak out of the Cruiser in time for their data-mining, only having to deal with any surviving Collector's inside the vessel, and presumably they didn't attack the Cruiser on Horizon because it was hovering directly over the colony seemingly only a couple hundred metres or so -- ergo, destroying it would also flatten the colony underneath it -- and that's ignoring all the other colonists that could either be on the vessel itself or still on the ground.[/quote]
It is even more baffling when the enemy vessel is wounded and still taking hits from the ground based gun. It was taking off and vulnerable at the time, and Shepard and crew eren't on it. they could have hit it immediately as it broke the atmosphere. Presumably it was limited in speed within the atmosphere or else there wouldn't be an atmosphere left.
[quote]My thoughts are pretty much predicated on this philosophy: Dreadnoughts have a lot of targets they need to be able to neutralise for their fleet to [i]prevail over another fleet. That means taking out other Dreadnoughts first and foremost, and working down the list from there. If you think that a Dreadnought captain is going to [i]prioritize it's assets onto a fighter squadron beelining them, then I'd say it's you who has 'no clue' as to well, reading, because that's also pretty much spelled out in the fact that 'no one would think about taking a Dreadnought on with anything other than a Dreadnought.'
Now before you chortle too much thinking of how I just handed your point to you, consider that fighters are primarily geared to destroy these sort of targets, [i]specifically[i] because prior to their joining the Council, they didn't have enough Dreadnoughts because they were signatories to the Treaty of Farixen (and therefore occupied the 1 slot on the 5-3-1 ratio) and because they were worried about the Batarians (who were no longer Council associates and therefore not bound by the Treaty of Farixen). Therefore, to make some sense I think, they couldn't outright break their Treaty, but sought to circumvent it via their 'new' carrier design.
You think in a fight between two lions one is going to purposely strike a wasp while they are busy flashing their teeth at one another.
I will concede that a Dreadnought will target a Carrier as an act of opportunity, but I'm also saying that it's likely that he's got more pressing details to look out for (such as other Dreadnoughts primarily), and it's not the Carrier in and of itself that is threatening.[/quote]
What things are designed for is academic. Get the old doctrine out of your head. Rule of thumb is that you take out the greatest threat you can one-shot, since sheilds regenerate and any enemy vessel can always disengage and repair if it needs to. Normally the greatest threat is the largest ship you can one-shot, but incoming fighters could easily qualify if they are forcing you to move your gun out of effective range of the rest of the battle. Old doctrine cost the Turian considerable ships and men in the First Contact War. It cost various nations considerably facing the German's new 'blitzkrieg' tactics. Adapt or die.
[quote]And then, if the Fighter is getting good information, it would just redirect itself in a much smaller turning arc, making the Dreadnought 'waste' thruster burn at best, and time at worst. The Dreadnought also wouldn't want to be turning too much because it may have other bad guy Dreadnoughts bearing down on him, and who do you think he's going to prioritize in that sort of situation.[/quote]
Of course. The fighters will need to adjust their doctrine too, and it becomes a great cosmic game of chicken. The DN can always (and likely will always) have secondary targets too though, and if the fighters aren't able to get shots in, they are wasted.
1) Dreadnoughts are slower, fighters are faster. This I would have thought to be pretty obvious even to the most casual observer. That's not to say that Dreadnoughts can't fly fast (FTL speeds, but FTL speeds are also speeds in which you can't do anything either other than to drop out of FTL speeds).[/quote]
Ships accelerate to FTL though. These aren't jump drives or wormhole drives. To be able to accellerate to FTL, they have to be able to go everything up to and including light speed. Fighters do have greater maneuverablility and acceleration/deceleleration, meaning the DN's aren't entirely risk free in that the fighter pack can play 'chicken' with the DNs trying to get them to guess wrong and end up in range. It is a question of how many fighters are lost before the DN makes a mistake.
[quote] 2) Carriers aren't designed in and of itself to outmatch Dreadnoughts, but by the sheer quantity of weapon systems it can bear (aka; the fighters/interceptors themselves). It's a Lion getting killed by swarms of angry bee's, or hornets or whatever.
3) Carriers are designed to maximise the effectiveness of Fighters by fielding comparatively 'a lot.' How is it comparatively 'a lot'? Because Carrier's themselves are apparently the size of Dreadnoughts. This means that even if a Carrier is destroyed, then chances are the fighters are still going to be operational (unless by some bizarre design capacity, the fighters are VI drones or whatever completely under the control of the carrier).
I believe that your argument that a Dreadnought will be able to constantly outrange Fighters to be completely stupid to be frank, because Dreadnought's do not make a habit of getting close for one, and fighters are intended to attack capital ships -- which implies to me quite strongly that fighters have the necessary capacity to get into range, and are capable of doing so to such a degree (or even simulated to such a degree) that eventually combatants had to develop Interceptors (in another words; entirely different ships) to deny them the capacity from effectively striking at the capital ships, because apparently GARDIAN batteries are not sufficient to the task, and/or admirals like to put as much protection in as possible.[/quote]
Fighter doctrine currently works because the other races aren't yet used to them and haven't yet developed appropriate doctrine. Whether they will depends on the writers, of course. That is the fun thing about fiction. It is always merely an assumption that the writing makes sense.
[quote]And yet we're back to square one then, because if Dreadnoughts are slightly more maneuverable than what I'm giving them credit, then because of that, then fighters must therefore be more maneuverable. This isn't that hard a concept to grasp surely?
I'll put it to you once again to try and hammer the point home into your skull. Fighters are designed to counter and destroy enemy capital ships. Ergo, they would be good at it.
Even if your Dreadnought is captained by the best captain in the universe, then if the fighters get close (because remember, Dreadnoughts rely on frigate wolf pack flotilla's and Interceptors for this role) then the Dreadnought is in big trouble, because short of it's GARDIAN batteries, it has pretty much nothing to deal with them.[/quote]
Which is why fleets need to develop doctirne that takes fighters into account. What they are designed to do and what they can manage against a fleet that adopts tactics that take them into account are not the same thing.
[quote]This is stated in the Codex, you're arguing against the 'rule of god' here... and that's surely an untenable position.[/quote]
The codex states current doctrine. It doesn't lay out all possible tactics or counter-tactics. It describes the systems that exist and how they have been used historicly, but the only battles that Carriers have been deployed in have been the first contact war (complete surprise with the Turians having no clue how to handle them and too green to devise strategy on the fly), and Citadel war (point blank in a neblua, ideal battleground for figthers).
[quote]/sigh. I'm saying that: THE THANIX SYSTEM INCREASES THE RANGE, THEREFORE CURRENT RANGE DEFENCES CAN NOT BE COUNTED ON.[/quote]
Which is still academic as long as there are weapon systems that out-range the Thanix. I agree completely that the Thanix makes the current gardian systems useless, but I am not counting them as particularly useful in the first place. You are the one caught up in old doctrine, taking the tactics of the past as gospel. That is exactly what caused the Turians grief in the first contact war. It is no different than assuming blitzkrieg will keep working forever, or coming back to the 'air power equals zero casualty wars' mantra.
[quote]Why is it so hard for you to accept that Dreadnoughts aren't designed to destroy Fighters other than with it's GARDIAN systems? And why is it seemingly so hard to accept that Fighters would be faster than Dreadnoughts?
And attackign from tangents is what I'd imagine (hope) fighters would be doing, which would make the Dreadnought's job even harder.[/quote]
Of course DN's aren't designed for that. That doesn't mean their guns cannot be used that way. It is hard to accept that fighters are faster than Dreadnaughts simply because the DN's would never be able to achieve FTL otherwise. Again, they accelerate to that speed.
And attacking at tangents is a technique to keep your distance. The fighters need an intercept course and want to stay close. If they can get behind the DN, their maneuverability wins.
[quote]o.0 Moi, you're losing it. So in your example your Dreadnought is allowed to move around the planet while the carrier isn't also allowed to move? Don't you think the Dreadnought has more pressing things to worry about (aka, the rest of the enemy fleet?)[/quote]
It doesn't have to move around the planet entirely. It only has to get a firing solution, which means part of the way around. Multiple DN's can split and each go opposite directions too, giving the carrier even less of a shadow. If the Carrier is too slow, it gets caught. If it is too fast, it comes around the other side and gets caught. Not to mention this is 3 d, not 2 d. there is over and under the planet too.
[quote]Debris seems like a pretty good screening thing to be honest, and we're talking about a whale guarding another whale from a whale in this sort of situation, and presumably each whale has a degree protection from the aggressive whale's teeth. Even if the guarding whale crosses the 'T' so to speak to the Carrier whale, it's still got it's main guns to bear on the Dreadnought (because... they'd be in range of each other, if all things are equal) and I would imagine that even if it does get destroyed, it's still got debris field to swim around in for a bit, and Carrier's would also have it's own share of shielding too. That's not to say though that the carrier will be completely protected from the Dreadnought, of course not, but it does buy time.[/quote]
The blocker has to stay not just in line with the DN's guns on an XY axis, but also on all angles. 3 dimensions, and it has to not just predict the DN's movements but be capable of small precise maneuvers to ensure it stays precisely in the right spot at all times.
[quote]It was firing all the way in, and yet Joker managed to dodge it (wow, is that maneovrable differences in advantage for the smaller craft over the larger one?
Moi, my example's are backed up by lore(lol) and by the 'evidence' shown in cinematics, whereas you seem to have a lot of 'what ifs.' This is why this argument is exasperating.[/quote]
Sigh, there was a whole stretch of time while it was closing where we only saw the interior of the Normandy. Noone mentioned it firing during that time. I get the feeling our definitions of point blank are different?
[quote]I'm honestly curious now why you don't think 'evasive maneouvre's' doesn't mean trying to get as much distance as possible, because, to me at least, they were running away, but evasive maneouvre's also means 'move-as-unpredictably-as-possible-so-bad-guys-can't-get-target-lock-on-us.'
Kinda incredibly academic for a moment, but I thought what Joker was trying to do was to get close to the planet and go around it (putting it between them and the cruiser) and when that happens, they could have the freedom to plot a course to go into FTL, because apparently it's complicated and takes time.
I drew this conclusion because Joker later asks EDI to do it, when he says 'anywhere but here' EDI takes advantage of the fact that it is a computer, and has oodles of information that can be crunched at will to take care of it.[/quote]
We know for a fact (from the later encounter with the Collector cruiser) that the Normandy can literally disengage on a dime. It went from stationary beside the shut down collector ship to FTL pretty much instantly. If Joker had done that as the enemy was bearing down on the SR1, they wouldn't have had to have gone far, and could have slowed to sublight and re-engaged. There was zero need to let the enemy close on their tail like that, and zero need for evasive anything, since the enemy would never have closed in the first place.
[quote]Why we didn't attack the cruiser beforehand is sorta baffling to me as well, perhaps Shep and co thought they could just sneak in and sneak out of the Cruiser in time for their data-mining, only having to deal with any surviving Collector's inside the vessel, and presumably they didn't attack the Cruiser on Horizon because it was hovering directly over the colony seemingly only a couple hundred metres or so -- ergo, destroying it would also flatten the colony underneath it -- and that's ignoring all the other colonists that could either be on the vessel itself or still on the ground.[/quote]
It is even more baffling when the enemy vessel is wounded and still taking hits from the ground based gun. It was taking off and vulnerable at the time, and Shepard and crew eren't on it. they could have hit it immediately as it broke the atmosphere. Presumably it was limited in speed within the atmosphere or else there wouldn't be an atmosphere left.
[quote]My thoughts are pretty much predicated on this philosophy: Dreadnoughts have a lot of targets they need to be able to neutralise for their fleet to [i]prevail over another fleet. That means taking out other Dreadnoughts first and foremost, and working down the list from there. If you think that a Dreadnought captain is going to [i]prioritize it's assets onto a fighter squadron beelining them, then I'd say it's you who has 'no clue' as to well, reading, because that's also pretty much spelled out in the fact that 'no one would think about taking a Dreadnought on with anything other than a Dreadnought.'
Now before you chortle too much thinking of how I just handed your point to you, consider that fighters are primarily geared to destroy these sort of targets, [i]specifically[i] because prior to their joining the Council, they didn't have enough Dreadnoughts because they were signatories to the Treaty of Farixen (and therefore occupied the 1 slot on the 5-3-1 ratio) and because they were worried about the Batarians (who were no longer Council associates and therefore not bound by the Treaty of Farixen). Therefore, to make some sense I think, they couldn't outright break their Treaty, but sought to circumvent it via their 'new' carrier design.
You think in a fight between two lions one is going to purposely strike a wasp while they are busy flashing their teeth at one another.
I will concede that a Dreadnought will target a Carrier as an act of opportunity, but I'm also saying that it's likely that he's got more pressing details to look out for (such as other Dreadnoughts primarily), and it's not the Carrier in and of itself that is threatening.[/quote]
What things are designed for is academic. Get the old doctrine out of your head. Rule of thumb is that you take out the greatest threat you can one-shot, since sheilds regenerate and any enemy vessel can always disengage and repair if it needs to. Normally the greatest threat is the largest ship you can one-shot, but incoming fighters could easily qualify if they are forcing you to move your gun out of effective range of the rest of the battle. Old doctrine cost the Turian considerable ships and men in the First Contact War. It cost various nations considerably facing the German's new 'blitzkrieg' tactics. Adapt or die.
[quote]And then, if the Fighter is getting good information, it would just redirect itself in a much smaller turning arc, making the Dreadnought 'waste' thruster burn at best, and time at worst. The Dreadnought also wouldn't want to be turning too much because it may have other bad guy Dreadnoughts bearing down on him, and who do you think he's going to prioritize in that sort of situation.[/quote]
Of course. The fighters will need to adjust their doctrine too, and it becomes a great cosmic game of chicken. The DN can always (and likely will always) have secondary targets too though, and if the fighters aren't able to get shots in, they are wasted.
Modifié par Moiaussi, 09 mars 2011 - 09:44 .
#304
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 09:52
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
InvincibleHero wrote...
Nope. The council is totally self-serving. They set the rules to benefit their races and exclude the others. If humanity played ball the way the council wanted Shepard would have never made spectre. They'd still be waiting. The incriminating Saren evidence forced the issue.
What is amazing is the docility of the non-council races in accepting the yoke. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy, they will constantly yank the ball away from the Volus and elcor and any other "client race".
Since it was entirely the Council's decision on that, how was the issue 'forced?" They have other Spectres they could have assigned to investigate. They could alternatively have assigned one to Shepard, since they never got Nihlus' assessment.
The non-council races accept the Council's authority for the same reason the nations of the UN accept security council vetoes. How do they expect to force larger, more powerul nations to do anything they don't want to do? If any given nation on the security council votes against sending troops into, say, Rwanda, what do you do? Send troops into Russia or the US to try to force them to send troops into a much smaller nation that you also can't handle on your own? Convince everyone else, including your own people, to stop trading with those nations, even though that will mean great hardship?
How do you make a larger nation do anything, other than convince them it is somehow in their own best interests?
#305
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 10:02
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
Since when did coercion stop being coercion the moment someone submitted to it?Moiaussi wrote...
Since it was entirely the Council's decision on that, how was the issue 'forced?" They have other Spectres they could have assigned to investigate. They could alternatively have assigned one to Shepard, since they never got Nihlus' assessment.
Answer, it doesn't
The Council was responding to a number of Alliance pressures on a number of Alliance issues: assigning Shepard was a solution to many of these.
#306
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 10:21
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since when did coercion stop being coercion the moment someone submitted to it?
Answer, it doesn't
The Council was responding to a number of Alliance pressures on a number of Alliance issues: assigning Shepard was a solution to many of these.
So any time anyone changes their mind and agrees with anyone else they have submitted to coersion? And you are saying that the Alliance was trying to coerce the Council into making Shepard a Spectre, that the whole Eden incident was just convenient leverage?
#307
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 10:38
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
If the pressures that the 'anyone else' was threatening or applying in a dedicated attempt to change the 'anyone' qualifies as coercision, then yes. It does.Moiaussi wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since when did coercion stop being coercion the moment someone submitted to it?
Answer, it doesn't
The Council was responding to a number of Alliance pressures on a number of Alliance issues: assigning Shepard was a solution to many of these.
So any time anyone changes their mind and agrees with anyone else they have submitted to coersion?
Yes. That's pretty much what Anderson and Udina both tell us when they say that the Alliance had been pushing for a human spectre for a long time. Eden Prime was convenient, especially as an outright softball first mission: despite the disclaimers infront of Nihlus, Humanity could have gone and kept the beacon a secret... but played good citizen instead. Quid pro quo implication being obvious.And you are saying that the Alliance was trying to coerce the Council into making Shepard a Spectre, that the whole Eden incident was just convenient leverage?
#308
Posté 09 mars 2011 - 11:02
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Moiaussi wrote...
And you are saying that the Alliance was trying to coerce the Council into making Shepard a Spectre, that the whole Eden incident was just convenient leverage?
Yes. That's pretty much what Anderson and Udina both tell us when they say that the Alliance had been pushing for a human spectre for a long time. Eden Prime was convenient, especially as an outright softball first mission: despite the disclaimers infront of Nihlus, Humanity could have gone and kept the beacon a secret... but played good citizen instead. Quid pro quo implication being obvious.
And as I pointed out the Council had other alternatives. It is normal to avoid sending a victim to investigate their attacker, and at the very least they could have held off with the appointment until they had a proper observation of Shepard in the field.
Most of your arguement isn't coersion though, it is convincing arguement. Handing over the beacon as a sign of goodwill didn't force the Council to do anything, but it did give them more reason to trust the Alliance. They never actually got the Beacon, though, so despite Saren's activities, it could still have additionally been an Alliance trick to try to curry favour with a non-existant artifact.
#309
Posté 10 mars 2011 - 03:26
DPSSOC
-
- Members
- 3 033 messages
Moiaussi wrote...
InvincibleHero wrote...
Nope. The council is totally self-serving. They set the rules to benefit their races and exclude the others. If humanity played ball the way the council wanted Shepard would have never made spectre. They'd still be waiting. The incriminating Saren evidence forced the issue.
What is amazing is the docility of the non-council races in accepting the yoke. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy, they will constantly yank the ball away from the Volus and elcor and any other "client race".
Since it was entirely the Council's decision on that, how was the issue 'forced?"
The evidence Shepard discovered forced the Council to do something (anything really) the strong implication being that without it they wouldn't have pursued the issue further (and why should they). The recording Shepard found meant the Council couldn't just ignore what happened on Eden Prime. I think that's what IH meant by forcing the issue (could be wrong).
Moiaussi wrote...
They have other Spectres they could have assigned to investigate. They could alternatively have assigned one to Shepard, since they never got Nihlus' assessment.
True but if your most trusted agent has turned on you can you really trust any of the others?
#310
Posté 10 mars 2011 - 03:32
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
DPSSOC wrote...
True but if your most trusted agent has turned on you can you really trust any of the others?
As opposed to a total stranger from a competing empire? And they could have sent C-sec (someone more senion that Garrus, and sent officially) as another alternative, or appointed Shepard to C-sec rather than to the Spectres, with or without accompaniment.
#311
Posté 11 mars 2011 - 05:51
InvincibleHero
-
- Members
- 2 676 messages
Moiaussi wrote...
InvincibleHero wrote...
Nope. The council is totally self-serving. They set the rules to benefit their races and exclude the others. If humanity played ball the way the council wanted Shepard would have never made spectre. They'd still be waiting. The incriminating Saren evidence forced the issue.
What is amazing is the docility of the non-council races in accepting the yoke. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy, they will constantly yank the ball away from the Volus and elcor and any other "client race".
Since it was entirely the Council's decision on that, how was the issue 'forced?" They have other Spectres they could have assigned to investigate. They could alternatively have assigned one to Shepard, since they never got Nihlus' assessment.
The non-council races accept the Council's authority for the same reason the nations of the UN accept security council vetoes. How do they expect to force larger, more powerul nations to do anything they don't want to do? If any given nation on the security council votes against sending troops into, say, Rwanda, what do you do? Send troops into Russia or the US to try to force them to send troops into a much smaller nation that you also can't handle on your own? Convince everyone else, including your own people, to stop trading with those nations, even though that will mean great hardship?
How do you make a larger nation do anything, other than convince them it is somehow in their own best interests?
The council was forced to give humanity what they wanted. Do you think they wanted Udina to expose a corrupt Spectre to everyone? Certainly not. The council wants an illusion of infallibility. So they gave them what humanity was pushing for.
Assigning another council stooge even Spectre #2 in rank to investigate their number #1 would not pass the smell test not only for humanity but the whole galaxy if news ever got disseminated.
In doing so they were hoping humanity failed spectacularly. The other races became much more acrimonoius to humanity because them upstarts wouldn't wait their turn and got things centuries before their races started the process and they are still waiting for their spectre and council rep seat still.
In the back of their mind I truly believe the council still was not convinced of a rogue Saren. It would have made humanity look the fools if their fears proved unfounded. It was all a game within a game for the council.
Except every nation has votes in the UN except those that refuse to recognize the UN. Do you seriously think the security council can act with impunity. allies on all sides have pressure and support that weigh what the US votes. Seriously if it came down to it the rest of the world vs. the five SC members would not even be a contest barring a nuclear armageddon.
