27 réponses à ce sujet

[AC5]

Exactly both are a tactical risk but, I think the problem with this debate is that the question was presented as saving the council or not rather than two different methods of solving the same problem.

[SovietCyborg]

But you get a more militarized and less complacent galaxy if you sacrifice the Council despite being less united. You could actually point out that your actions have resulted in a galaxy more eager to wage war, an attitude that is needed more than ever. Call it a shock therapy. The Turians, for example, start ignoring the Treaty of Farixen that limits their Dreadnought production so in the end you get a far stronger Turian force.

We can also discuss the usefulness of the Ascension. To me, the Ascension is no better the Real life Japanese Battleship Yamato. The resources used in making and maintaining the Ascension could be better spent in making more Dreadnoughts that could be deployed in multiple fronts instead of one. Plus losing it in the middle of the war would be a very hard blow to the moral. Also the Ascension proved to be completely powerless in close combat and the Reapers are not above ramming your ship.

Also there is the thing that for each month that passes a new Sovereign-class Reaper is born due the enormous population on Earth.

[nitrog100]

We're probably not going to get that kind of depth in dialogue until we have holodecks.