201 réponses à ce sujet

[Van Der Muchbetter Cosanostra]

daqs wrote...

What you're suggesting sounds more like what Stalin did with the NKVD during the Great Patriotic War. They formed the "State" line of defense, behind the front lines of the Red Army - anybody who retreated from the FEBA was gunned down. NKVD detachments were also assigned to chivvy the infamous penal battalions forward. 

You are not exactly right-NKVD detachments' mission was stopping retreating men, but lethal orce was used only if deserters wouldn't obey orders to stop and, accordng to documets, most of deserters were returned into action.
There is a thing though, that those special forces were formed in 1943 mimicking german ones, which were created in 1941.

[Ricvenart]

daqs wrote...

It wasn't genocide, that's silly. Killing off ten percent of a given military unit has nothing to do with large-scale ethnic violence. And it's not really mass murder, either. Outrageously excessive punishment? Well, yeah. If you ride your men too hard, they'll just figure they've got nothing to lose by fighting against you instead of the enemy. 

Sorry for the misuse of term but frankly why even argue against me if you don't agree with the practice. Why not take issue over the original misuse of the term as a way to deem it alright to kill non-soldiers or weak links.

Good thing ammo makes itself these days or he'd be screwed for people to run things...

Modifié par Ricvenart, 10 février 2012 - 10:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

slimgrin wrote...

Gotta be honest here. The whole Renegade/ Paragon mechanic is a cancer that should have been cut out of the ME series. It undermines any sense of moral ambiguity.

QFT

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Gotta be honest here. The whole Renegade/ Paragon mechanic is a cancer that should have been cut out of the ME series. It undermines any sense of moral ambiguity.

QFT

Yes it is done weakly.

I like few aspects of John Dewey's pragmatism ... But I still think that few moral laws can be used in all situations based on Kant and Aristotle philosphy.
Most of moral decisions are based on conditions and are dependent to the role one acquires. Ethics is the 'code of conducts'.

[Costin_Razvan]

didymos1120 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Yes.  It's an obsolete practice.

Obselete? LOL

Tell that to the Russian soldiers in WW2, if they retreated they would get shot. It was a common practice, far more then decimation actually and you know what it did.

It won the war for them. As Stalin himself put it: "In the Red Army it takes more courage to retreat then advance."

[Aimi]

Van Der Muchbetter Cosanostra wrote...

You are not exactly right-NKVD detachments' mission was stopping retreating men, but lethal orce was used only if deserters wouldn't obey orders to stop and, accordng to documets, most of deserters were returned into action.
There is a thing though, that those special forces were formed in 1943 mimicking german ones, which were created in 1941.

I'm mostly a nineteenth century specialist, definitely not a World War II person, so I freely admit that I don't have the whole story there. You probably could've dropped the comparison to the Hitlerites, though; the worst history message board topic ever is the constant dong measuring over the Eastern Front, and we don't need to bring it here, too. This forum is bad enough as it is. 

Ricvenart wrote...

Sorry for the misuse of term but frankly why even argue against me if you don't agree with the practice. Why not take issue over the original misuse of the term as a way to deem it alright to kill non-soldiers or weak links.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was just elucidating a topic about which you seemed to have been confused. Not every quote response on the internet is NO U.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Yes.  It's an obsolete practice.

Obselete? LOL

Tell that to the Russian soldiers in WW2, if they retreated they would get shot. It was a common practice, far more then decimation actually and you know what it did.

It won the war for them. As Stalin himself put it: "In the Red Army it takes more courage to retreat then advance."

Interesting movie with interesting music. The characters actually look like real persons. Hitler voice is so similar to him, despite that film is russian

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 10 février 2012 - 10:51 .

[Wolf]

Maybe that specific conversation has something you need to decide prior to being in that situation.
Something along the lines of, at the beginning of the mission you decide if it's better to have that squad of asari commandos help you out.

Option A) Taking them with you for support. You would have to decide between demanding that they help you without giving a reason for you goal.

Option Not taking them with you or taking somebody else. Same principle.

I don't know if the system is that flexible but it seems compelling to me.

[Dave of Canada]

SirEtchwart wrote...

Hey, if those cowards and weaklings can kill at least 2 enemies before they die, why not? That's something.

Except their lives can cost more down the line, it's why desertion is punished as severly as it is. Abandoning your post and getting others killed because of it, failing your mission or worse could very well result in more deaths. It's why you don't want cowards in your team, they place everybody at risk.

Defeatist attitude isn't going to help anybody and can only get worse if they get indoctrinated, simply because their behavior would be replaced completely with devotion to the cause of extinction. You'd lose the cowardly soldier and gain an enemy, one who probably knows intel.

No way in hell would my Shepard allow these Asari to abandon their posts.

*takes out gun* "You're either going to get shot in there or get shot back here, no retreat."

[DJBare]

I've always figured so called cowards can be used else where, I say "so called" because we each have an in built fight or flight mechanism and for some the flight mechanism is over powering, it's a survival mechanism, you need every asset you can get in a war of survival, and that's what ME3 is about, a good commander maybe able to spot those who are likely to take flight and place them where they would be more useful, prehaps in the medical core or something similar, I'm not saying you gotta be soft on those people, in fact I'd say quite the reverse, but if you as the commander don't have it in you to motivate those people to be more productive in some other role then you should not be in command.

[General User]

Modifié par General User, 10 février 2012 - 01:55 .

[Dean_the_Young]

daqs wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This may be true (or may not, depending on what her orders actually are), but...

Frankly, I think it'd be entirely irrelevant to what could have been: Gestapo-Renegade!Shepard shooting defeatism in the face of retreat and putting more fear in the Asari of him than the Reapers.

Sure, put some consequences down the road (less Asari support later), but that'd be a wicked-evil scene.

APPROV'D.

Just imagine.


"We fight or we die. She chose not to fight."


or, even better,

"She was clearly indoctrinated, to be abandoning the fight to the Reapers."

[Hyrist]

*looks at the arguing going on*

... why am I saving earth again?

[Barquiel]

I would simply order her to stay behind and enjoy the show, just like I did in Mass Effect 2 on Haestrom.

[General User]

If I did that I don't think I'd be able to resist taking a couple digs at ol' Lt. Keirnan on the other side. I mean I'd like to think I could resist, but I probably wouldn't.

[Arppis]

DJBare wrote...

I've always figured so called cowards can be used else where, I say "so called" because we each have an in built fight or flight mechanism and for some the flight mechanism is over powering, it's a survival mechanism, you need every asset you can get in a war of survival, and that's what ME3 is about, a good commander maybe able to spot those who are likely to take flight and place them where they would be more useful, prehaps in the medical core or something similar, I'm not saying you gotta be soft on those people, in fact I'd say quite the reverse, but if you as the commander don't have it in you to motivate those people to be more productive in some other role then you should not be in command.

This,  you said it better than I could have.

Barquiel wrote...

I would simply order her to stay behind and enjoy the show, just like I did in Mass Effect 2 on Haestrom.

"I order you to chill!":police:

Modifié par Arppis, 10 février 2012 - 02:50 .

[Labrev]

I can get why the first thing didn't work - she had doubts and didn't want to lose more of her troops, and then what Shepard says doesn't allay any of her concerns at all.

What doesn't work for me is why telling her there's a relic would just change her mind completely, though.

On second thought, it sounds like there may have been more to that conversation that they left out, but just skipped right to the "consequence" scene. Probably not wanting to spoil, or reveal what else you have to select to make it work.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 10 février 2012 - 02:56 .

[snfonseka]

-Skorpious- wrote...

People react differently. That Asari may have been offended by Shepard's arrogance, but I'm sure a Krogan would respect a more demanding and forthcoming Shepard.

^Ths.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The Paragon favoritism seems to continue in that example (even though it wasn't the "red"/"blue" buttons...)

Plus, the new morality/reputation system looks like it'll handle outcomes better than previous efforts in the series...

In that particular case though, I agree that if they're already cutting their losses and deciding to high-tail it out of there... yelling at them to get back there/keep fighting isn't going to help anything. Context is very important... no real surprise that the more aggressive option backfired on that one.

... hopefully though... some of the aggressive choices also win out over the softer alternative(s).

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I can get why the first thing didn't work - she had doubts and didn't want to lose more of her troops, and then what Shepard says doesn't allay any of her concerns at all.

What doesn't work for me is why telling her there's a relic would just change her mind completely, though.

Judging by the editing, it was only a snippet of that conversation.

[KamenRiderW]

Arppis wrote...

KamenRiderW wrote...

G3rman wrote...

Pure Renagade and Pure Paragon worked in the previous games to be fair to both sides. ME3s system has changed the para/rena system to focus less on conversational outcomes but more on the major decisions and reputations that follow it.

If you continue to play Pure Renegade or Pure Paragon without any thought of what kind of language you should be speaking, the game will actually punish you in some cases. If you don't think that's a good change from the previous games then don't bother with it and continue to play Pure Renegade, see what happens.

It is actually making everything more realistic whether you like it or not.

Good point. Since I'm a Paragade (but mostly Paragon), I'll have to carefully consider my decisions in ME3 as I would really like to work towards the perfect ending.

Yep, same here. It is a good change.

I sometimes do renegade sollutions, but mostly Paragon. Because there is no need to be a dick at people unless they really deserve it.

Hearts and minds are never won by bullying. And diplomacy hardly works from gunpoint.

Indeed. Since I'm a nice guy who wants peace in real life, I'll be a nice guy who wants peace in ME. But I will have to be a dick at times.

[Poison_Berrie]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

... hopefully though... some of the aggressive choices also win out over the softer alternative(s).

I really don't think they'd have this always favor the soft approach.

[Adanu]

Arppis wrote...

KamenRiderW wrote...

G3rman wrote...

Pure Renagade and Pure Paragon worked in the previous games to be fair to both sides. ME3s system has changed the para/rena system to focus less on conversational outcomes but more on the major decisions and reputations that follow it.

If you continue to play Pure Renegade or Pure Paragon without any thought of what kind of language you should be speaking, the game will actually punish you in some cases. If you don't think that's a good change from the previous games then don't bother with it and continue to play Pure Renegade, see what happens.

It is actually making everything more realistic whether you like it or not.

Good point. Since I'm a Paragade (but mostly Paragon), I'll have to carefully consider my decisions in ME3 as I would really like to work towards the perfect ending.

Yep, same here. It is a good change.

I sometimes do renegade sollutions, but mostly Paragon. Because there is no need to be a dick at people unless they really deserve it.

Hearts and minds are never won by bullying. And diplomacy hardly works from gunpoint.

Fear is easier to gain than respect.

[SubZeroMaster]

guess she didnt wanna HOLD THE LINE