84 réponses à ce sujet

[Darks1d3]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

how did a Samara romance thread turn into a gum-flapping about Sovereign? and what is it with people always quoting the entire page?

You've been here while, so you must know that sort of thing happens all the time on BSN. Besides, atleast it didn't devolve into a geth vs quarian debate.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Darks1d3 wrote...

TheGarden2010 wrote...

how did a Samara romance thread turn into a gum-flapping about Sovereign? and what is it with people always quoting the entire page?

You've been here while, so you must know that sort of thing happens all the time on BSN. Besides, atleast it didn't devolve into a geth vs quarian debate.

Haven't had one of those in a while.

What's the point of anonymity on the internet if you can't rage at people?

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 17 février 2014 - 03:44 .

[Remix-General Aetius]

Darks1d3 wrote...

TheGarden2010 wrote...

how did a Samara romance thread turn into a gum-flapping about Sovereign? and what is it with people always quoting the entire page?

You've been here while, so you must know that sort of thing happens all the time on BSN. Besides, atleast it didn't devolve into a geth vs quarian debate.

it's retarded.

[congokong]

katamuro wrote...

you dont just ignore it. It is quite clear what happens. The citadels arms are still closed so the fleet cant attack sovereign so you can just sit by and let a ship with the council and a lot of asari die or you can save it. Then when the citadel opens and those Ships attack Sovereign that it cuts more of them up because some of them were probably damaged in saving the Destiny Ascension. So since the Sovereign is inside the Citadel the fleet is fighting the geth ships and not sovereign. Hence destrying geth first seems like a good idea because then Sovereign is left with less support. 

In real fleet battles of World War 2, you had your large battleships and carriers able to destroy many smaller ships at a distance and you had your cruisers, destroyers and frigates that are like a defence screen against enemy ships and planes. To destroy the battleship you dont just attack it straight away because then the supporting ships would inflict heavy losses on your forces. To succesfully destroy it you first attack the support ships to clear out a path for your torpedoes or bombers or to bring your own battleship closer so that it can inflict damage without worrying that some destroy with a rack full of torpedoes going to get close enough to fire them upon your big expensive battleship. 

There is no overthinking it, its simple tactics.

There's nothing "simple" about this. It is overthinking because when Shepard has to consider the decision
geth fleets overcoming the Ascension and then pursuing the Alliance
fleets are never mentioned. You only get the comments from squadmates
about saving your reinforcements for Sovereign or doing the idealistic
thing in saving alien races.

Like I said, the geth fleets will be distracted by trying to take down the Ascension giving the Alliance fleets free reign to focus on Sovereign once the arms open. If you choose to save the council the Alliance loses a third of its ships. That's A LOT. Yet this doesn't happen if you focus on Sovereign so there's no geth fleet sneaking up from behind as you envision.

[katamuro]

congokong wrote...

katamuro wrote...

you dont just ignore it. It is quite clear what happens. The citadels arms are still closed so the fleet cant attack sovereign so you can just sit by and let a ship with the council and a lot of asari die or you can save it. Then when the citadel opens and those Ships attack Sovereign that it cuts more of them up because some of them were probably damaged in saving the Destiny Ascension. So since the Sovereign is inside the Citadel the fleet is fighting the geth ships and not sovereign. Hence destrying geth first seems like a good idea because then Sovereign is left with less support. 

In real fleet battles of World War 2, you had your large battleships and carriers able to destroy many smaller ships at a distance and you had your cruisers, destroyers and frigates that are like a defence screen against enemy ships and planes. To destroy the battleship you dont just attack it straight away because then the supporting ships would inflict heavy losses on your forces. To succesfully destroy it you first attack the support ships to clear out a path for your torpedoes or bombers or to bring your own battleship closer so that it can inflict damage without worrying that some destroy with a rack full of torpedoes going to get close enough to fire them upon your big expensive battleship. 

There is no overthinking it, its simple tactics.

There's nothing "simple" about this. It is overthinking because when Shepard has to consider the decision
geth fleets overcoming the Ascension and then pursuing the Alliance
fleets are never mentioned. You only get the comments from squadmates
about saving your reinforcements for Sovereign or doing the idealistic
thing in saving alien races.

Like I said, the geth fleets will be distracted by trying to take down the Ascension giving the Alliance fleets free reign to focus on Sovereign once the arms open. If you choose to save the council the Alliance loses a third of its ships. That's A LOT. Yet this doesn't happen if you focus on Sovereign so there's no geth fleet sneaking up from behind as you envision.

Third of its ships? Its the retcon of ME3 that did it, in ME1 and ME2 only 8 cruisers,considering how many ships we see jump in in ME1 and ME3 its NOT the third of all alliance ships. Yes a costly measure but far from crippling like the retcon of ME3. 

Lets see it this way, US navy has 22 active duty cruisers and 62 destroyers that are almost the size of cruisers. And this is considered "peactime" fleet. Losing 8 cruisers would be quite a blow but this is todays navy of only one naval power. Considering the Alliance fleet should have hundreds if not thousands of cruisers losing 8 would be sure costly but far from crippling. Dont confuse the numerous retcons of ME3 to force the player into siding with the catalyst's logic to what was written in ME1&2 and was simply shoe-horned in ME3. 

Another example would be WW2 fleet size, At its peak in 1943 US navy had 72 cruisers and losing 8 while it would hurt would not be crippling. In 2183 the Alliance fleet was at its peak. 

Retcon does not equal logic. Logic dicated that while sacrifice of 8 cruisers and its 2400 crew was costly it was a good exchange compared to losing the Destiny Ascension dreadnaught with 10000 crew, and in a reaper fight a dreadnaught the size and power of Ascension is more effective than 8 cruisers. 

[congokong]

katamuro wrote...

congokong wrote...

katamuro wrote...

you dont just ignore it. It is quite clear what happens. The citadels arms are still closed so the fleet cant attack sovereign so you can just sit by and let a ship with the council and a lot of asari die or you can save it. Then when the citadel opens and those Ships attack Sovereign that it cuts more of them up because some of them were probably damaged in saving the Destiny Ascension. So since the Sovereign is inside the Citadel the fleet is fighting the geth ships and not sovereign. Hence destrying geth first seems like a good idea because then Sovereign is left with less support. 

In real fleet battles of World War 2, you had your large battleships and carriers able to destroy many smaller ships at a distance and you had your cruisers, destroyers and frigates that are like a defence screen against enemy ships and planes. To destroy the battleship you dont just attack it straight away because then the supporting ships would inflict heavy losses on your forces. To succesfully destroy it you first attack the support ships to clear out a path for your torpedoes or bombers or to bring your own battleship closer so that it can inflict damage without worrying that some destroy with a rack full of torpedoes going to get close enough to fire them upon your big expensive battleship. 

There is no overthinking it, its simple tactics.

There's nothing "simple" about this. It is overthinking because when Shepard has to consider the decision
geth fleets overcoming the Ascension and then pursuing the Alliance
fleets are never mentioned. You only get the comments from squadmates
about saving your reinforcements for Sovereign or doing the idealistic
thing in saving alien races.

Like I said, the geth fleets will be distracted by trying to take down the Ascension giving the Alliance fleets free reign to focus on Sovereign once the arms open. If you choose to save the council the Alliance loses a third of its ships. That's A LOT. Yet this doesn't happen if you focus on Sovereign so there's no geth fleet sneaking up from behind as you envision.

Third of its ships? Its the retcon of ME3 that did it, in ME1 and ME2 only 8 cruisers,considering how many ships we see jump in in ME1 and ME3 its NOT the third of all alliance ships. Yes a costly measure but far from crippling like the retcon of ME3. 

Lets see it this way, US navy has 22 active duty cruisers and 62 destroyers that are almost the size of cruisers. And this is considered "peactime" fleet. Losing 8 cruisers would be quite a blow but this is todays navy of only one naval power. Considering the Alliance fleet should have hundreds if not thousands of cruisers losing 8 would be sure costly but far from crippling. Dont confuse the numerous retcons of ME3 to force the player into siding with the catalyst's logic to what was written in ME1&2 and was simply shoe-horned in ME3. 

Another example would be WW2 fleet size, At its peak in 1943 US navy had 72 cruisers and losing 8 while it would hurt would not be crippling. In 2183 the Alliance fleet was at its peak. 

Retcon does not equal logic. Logic dicated that while sacrifice of 8 cruisers and its 2400 crew was costly it was a good exchange compared to losing the Destiny Ascension dreadnaught with 10000 crew, and in a reaper fight a dreadnaught the size and power of Ascension is more effective than 8 cruisers. 

Fact: Sovereign was the main threat. Those 8 cruisers lost trying to save the council (or a third of the Alliance's ships; whatever canon you want to use) and the others used to save the Ascencion could have been the difference between Sovereign unleashing the reapers or not. Yes, 2400 for 10000 is a good trade but jeopordizing the galaxy to make that trade is stupid.

Even if the Ascension was saved, it was in no position to fight Sovereign effectively at that moment. That's why it was asking for rescue. It was about to be destroyed.

Modifié par congokong, 17 février 2014 - 04:08 .

[Barquiel]

Saving the Destiny Ascension is certainly not stupid from a strategist's point of view...or Hackett would not have given the order to save the asari dreadnought. I think he knows more about leading space battles than Shepard could ever hope to and if he thinks it's not a stupid idea to save the ship...Well, I tend to believe him. There're military justifications for going either way. The alliance fleet would've been slaughtered if it ended up caught between Sovereign and the geth, so quickly destroying them when they're distracted makes perfect sense. You also save a powerful ship (If you saved the council Hackett says in Arrival "It took multiple fleets and the Destiny Ascension to bring Sovereign down, and that was just one Reaper") for the battle against an unkown dreadnought.

[congokong]

Hackett follows whatever decision Shepard makes without argument. "Focus on Sovereign. Nothing else matters." "Save the Ascension." Whatever. The Ascension may have helped against Sovereign but it was hardly at its prime after the beating it took and being near destruction. You don't save it because you need the ship. It's clear you save it because the council is onboard.

The geth fleets being an obstacle for the Alliance attacking Sovereign is not a variable the game wants you to consider. The game makes the strategy clear. It's about idealism vs practicality. Do you sacrifice reinforcements to save the council or hold them back to focus on Sovereign once the arms open? There's no "taking out the geth fleets now is a good tactic" dialogue consideration. It's just BS. It's not even an issue if you focus on Sovereign.

[katamuro]

congokong wrote...

Hackett follows whatever decision Shepard makes without argument. "Focus on Sovereign. Nothing else matters." "Save the Ascension." Whatever. The Ascension may have helped against Sovereign but it was hardly at its prime after the beating it took and being near destruction. You don't save it because you need the ship. It's clear you save it because the council is onboard.

The geth fleets being an obstacle for the Alliance attacking Sovereign is not a variable the game wants you to consider. The game makes the strategy clear. It's about idealism vs practicality. Do you sacrifice reinforcements to save the council or hold them back to focus on Sovereign once the arms open? There's no "taking out the geth fleets now is a good tactic" dialogue consideration. It's just BS. It's not even an issue if you focus on Sovereign.

Even if it was damaged, its central main gun, which is the main power of the dreadnaught would have been still online, considering its the main reason to have dreadnaughts it would have been better protected than anything else apart from engineering on the ship. Anyway you are simply arguing about the presentation of the problem rather than thoughts and ideas behind it. The basic thought there was either to save the Ascension from the geth attack or use them as decoy to let the Alliance fleet get past them to destroy Sovereign. Its an RPG game situation where the starship tactics were not included, but if it was a real world decision on a real world battle you would never sacrifice a dreadnaught and turn your back on a hostile fleet especially considering that while you conectrate your forces on the Sovereign the geth fleet would not simply scatter but harass and counterattack from behind the lines. So in real world situation you would let a dreadnaught get destroyed and then leave your own rear open to attack from the geth fleet. 

But yes if talking simply about game choice presented then sure geth fleet just vanishes as soon as alliance fleet jumps in. AND THAT IS BS.

[Han Shot First]

Barquiel wrote...

Saving the Destiny Ascension is certainly not stupid from a strategist's point of view...or Hackett would not have given the order to save the asari dreadnought. I think he knows more about leading space battles than Shepard could ever hope to and if he thinks it's not a stupid idea to save the ship...Well, I tend to believe him. There're military justifications for going either way. The alliance fleet would've been slaughtered if it ended up caught between Sovereign and the geth, so quickly destroying them when they're distracted makes perfect sense. You also save a powerful ship (If you saved the council Hackett says in Arrival "It took multiple fleets and the Destiny Ascension to bring Sovereign down, and that was just one Reaper") for the battle against an unkown dreadnought.

Not to mention that having the heads of your government bumped off by the enemy during wartime potentially causes political disorder. Imagine if Germany had managed to somehow assassinate Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta. Sure, the war would have continued. But it would have been a massive blow to the Allies.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 février 2014 - 05:26 .

[congokong]

katamuro wrote...
Even if it was damaged, its central main gun, which is the main power of the dreadnaught would have been still online, considering its the main reason to have dreadnaughts it would have been better protected than anything else apart from engineering on the ship. Anyway you are simply arguing about the presentation of the problem rather than thoughts and ideas behind it. The basic thought there was either to save the Ascension from the geth attack or use them as decoy to let the Alliance fleet get past them to destroy Sovereign. Its an RPG game situation where the starship tactics were not included, but if it was a real world decision on a real world battle you would never sacrifice a dreadnaught and turn your back on a hostile fleet especially considering that while you conectrate your forces on the Sovereign the geth fleet would not simply scatter but harass and counterattack from behind the lines. So in real world situation you would let a dreadnaught get destroyed and then leave your own rear open to attack from the geth fleet. 

But yes if talking simply about game choice presented then sure geth fleet just vanishes as soon as alliance fleet jumps in. AND THAT IS BS.

Or on the flipside you'd never turn your back on the reaper trying to unleash every other reaper to take down geth ships. Timing was critical too. Even if the geth were an obstacle afterwards they had to stop Sovereign ASAP. They had to be on Sovereign the moment the opportunity presented itself. Using the Asension as a decoy was a necessity.

If saving the Ascension was such a win-win decision then why was it even up for debate? Unless Shepard is a full-blown racist why wouldn't they save the council? "Let the council dies" comes across this way but "Focus on Sovereign" comes across as a strategic, practical, and necessary decision. "Save the council no matter the cost" is idealistic. What if the cost is the galaxy?

The game presents it as: Do you sacrifice reinforcements to save the council at the risk of Sovereign succeeding or do you focus on Sovereign increasing your chances at the cost of the council? That's how you should decide. It's shown in-game that the geth fleets are distracted by the Ascension as the Alliance takes down Sovereign.

[congokong]

Han Shot First wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Saving the Destiny Ascension is certainly not stupid from a strategist's point of view...or Hackett would not have given the order to save the asari dreadnought. I think he knows more about leading space battles than Shepard could ever hope to and if he thinks it's not a stupid idea to save the ship...Well, I tend to believe him. There're military justifications for going either way. The alliance fleet would've been slaughtered if it ended up caught between Sovereign and the geth, so quickly destroying them when they're distracted makes perfect sense. You also save a powerful ship (If you saved the council Hackett says in Arrival "It took multiple fleets and the Destiny Ascension to bring Sovereign down, and that was just one Reaper") for the battle against an unkown dreadnought.

Not to mention that having the heads of your government bumped off by the enemy during wartime potentially causes political disorder. Imagine if Germany had managed to somehow assassinate Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta. Sure, the war would have continued. But it would have been a massive blow to the Allies.

And you see the great payoff that huge sacrifice/gamble provided for the war effort in ME2.

"Ah yes, reapers."

And again in ME3.

"The cruel and unfortunate truth is that while the reapers focus on earth, we can regroup." Hmmm. Using earth as a distraction. Reminds me of the Ascension scenario.

You have to twist the alien races' arms no matter what to get them to help with the crucible at all regardless of if you save the council. But political backlash wasn't the priority. Stopping Sovereign from ending the galaxy was.

Modifié par congokong, 17 février 2014 - 05:53 .

[katamuro]

congokong wrote...

katamuro wrote...
Even if it was damaged, its central main gun, which is the main power of the dreadnaught would have been still online, considering its the main reason to have dreadnaughts it would have been better protected than anything else apart from engineering on the ship. Anyway you are simply arguing about the presentation of the problem rather than thoughts and ideas behind it. The basic thought there was either to save the Ascension from the geth attack or use them as decoy to let the Alliance fleet get past them to destroy Sovereign. Its an RPG game situation where the starship tactics were not included, but if it was a real world decision on a real world battle you would never sacrifice a dreadnaught and turn your back on a hostile fleet especially considering that while you conectrate your forces on the Sovereign the geth fleet would not simply scatter but harass and counterattack from behind the lines. So in real world situation you would let a dreadnaught get destroyed and then leave your own rear open to attack from the geth fleet. 

But yes if talking simply about game choice presented then sure geth fleet just vanishes as soon as alliance fleet jumps in. AND THAT IS BS.

Or on the flipside you'd never turn your back on the reaper trying to unleash every other reaper to take down geth ships. Timing was critical too. Even if the geth were an obstacle afterwards they had to stop Sovereign ASAP. They had to be on Sovereign the moment the opportunity presented itself. Using the Asension as a decoy was a necessity.

If saving the Ascension was such a win-win decision then why was it even up for debate? Unless Shepard is a full-blown racist why wouldn't they save the council? "Let the council dies" comes across this way but "Focus on Sovereign" comes across as a strategic, practical, and necessary decision. "Save the council no matter the cost" is idealistic. What if the cost is the galaxy?

The game presents it as: Do you sacrifice reinforcements to save the council at the risk of Sovereign succeeding or do you focus on Sovereign increasing your chances at the cost of the council? That's how you should decide. It's shown in-game that the geth fleets are distracted by the Ascension as the Alliance takes down Sovereign.

And so the whole part about Citadel being CLOSED, doesnt faze you? The fact that you simply delay when they jump in and heat towards the citadel? No of course not, since in the game the passage of time is not shown to you. Same as in battle for Earth from Charon relay to Earth in what 30 seconds? Considering at that time they were going slower than light it should have been at least 5 hours even at speed of light. So considering that, the major choice really was you either wanted to sacrifice ships to save the council or not. You dont give Sovereign more time by saving the council and you dont get to him any faster by sacrificing it. You still win and destroy it but with slightly bigger losses than if you did not save it. So your argument about "turning your back" towards the Reaper does not work. 

[congokong]

You might be right that they can be on Sovereign at the same time with less ships if they save the council but they're still turning their back on Sovereign figuratively by using their reinforcements to save the Ascension and not using it as a distraction for the main objective. Those "slightly bigger losses" could be the difference between victory and defeat. If you're role-playing you don't know and there's no bigger gamble than the galaxy.

[themikefest]

Hackett should've looked over the battle to see if saving the Destiny Ascension could be saved or not over riding what Shepard says.

The Alliance losing ships while fighting Soveriegn is Hackett's fault. Why didn't he have the fleet fire at the reaper from behind minimizing the losses? Because he is an idiot.

The Alliance would've had a lot more ships if Humanity didn't sign that stupid treaty 30 years ago with the Council.

The Destiny Ascension didn't help in any way by not firing back when being attacked.. The Commander had a panic attack and didn't know what to do even if the ship was surrounded.

[Barquiel]

congokong wrote...

Or on the flipside you'd never turn your back on the reaper trying to unleash every other reaper to take down geth ships. Timing was critical too. Even if the geth were an obstacle afterwards they had to stop Sovereign ASAP. They had to be on Sovereign the moment the opportunity presented itself. Using the Asension as a decoy was a necessity.

If saving the Ascension was such a win-win decision then why was it even up for debate? Unless Shepard is a full-blown racist why wouldn't they save the council? "Let the council dies" comes across this way but "Focus on Sovereign" comes across as a strategic, practical, and necessary decision. "Save the council no matter the cost" is idealistic. What if the cost is the galaxy?

The game presents it as: Do you sacrifice reinforcements to save the council at the risk of Sovereign succeeding or do you focus on Sovereign increasing your chances at the cost of the council? That's how you should decide. It's shown in-game that the geth fleets are distracted by the Ascension as the Alliance takes down Sovereign.

At that moment in the battle, Sovereign was zero threat to the galaxy. Shepard has control of the station and Sovereign can't control the Citadels systems from the outside. That's why it resurrected Saren: Sovereign needs an inside man to open the portal...and Saren was death when Shep makes the decision to save the DA or not.

And Shepard and her squaddies have absolutely no tactical information aside from what's happening to the Destiny Ascension (that's why Shepard really isn't the right person to make the call). Joker says the Alliance can save the Ascension. Sure it might be a risk (just like sacrificing the ship), but the moment given is the right time to take that risk.

[themikefest]

Barquiel wrote...

And Shepard and her squaddies have absolutely no tactical information aside from what's happening to the Destiny Ascension (that's why Shepard really isn't the right person to make the call). Joker says the Alliance can save the Ascension. Sure it might be a risk (just like sacrificing the ship), but the moment given is the right time to take that risk.

That's why Hackett, the moron that he is, should've decided if the ship was worth saving or not since he has a better view of the battle instead of listening to Shepard. 

[congokong]

Barquiel wrote...

At that moment in the battle, Sovereign was zero threat to the galaxy. Shepard has control of the station and Sovereign can't control the Citadels systems from the outside. That's why it resurrected Saren: Sovereign needs an inside man to open the portal...and Saren was death when Shep makes the decision to save the DA or not.

And Shepard and her squaddies have absolutely no tactical information aside from what's happening to the Destiny Ascension (that's why Shepard really isn't the right person to make the call). Joker says the Alliance can save the Ascension. Sure it might be a risk (just like sacrificing the ship), but the moment given is the right time to take that risk.

That whole scenario with the Saren-Husk was retarted. They just wanted a boss fight. I don't know if what you're saying is true regarding Sovereign but if it can control dead people and if only one got to the controls that makes it a huge threat. Why is Sovereign even there if it can't unleash the reapers itself? Shepard does know that Sovereign is there to unleash all reapers as well as knowing that the Ascension is under fire. That's the worst time to take the risk of saving the Asension with the fate of the galaxy on the line.

This is getting too technical with too many what-if scenarios. Would someone even think to consider situations like what you're describing with Saren-Husks if this was immediate? When I look at the decision I decide based on what I know and what the game/squadmates tell me. "Concentrate on Sovereign", "Let the council die", or "Save the council." Considering the stakes, "Concentrate on Sovereign" seems like the logical choice. And come on, "we need to save the council no matter the cost" just sounds stupid.

[Han Shot First]

congokong wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Saving the Destiny Ascension is certainly not stupid from a strategist's point of view...or Hackett would not have given the order to save the asari dreadnought. I think he knows more about leading space battles than Shepard could ever hope to and if he thinks it's not a stupid idea to save the ship...Well, I tend to believe him. There're military justifications for going either way. The alliance fleet would've been slaughtered if it ended up caught between Sovereign and the geth, so quickly destroying them when they're distracted makes perfect sense. You also save a powerful ship (If you saved the council Hackett says in Arrival "It took multiple fleets and the Destiny Ascension to bring Sovereign down, and that was just one Reaper") for the battle against an unkown dreadnought.

Not to mention that having the heads of your government bumped off by the enemy during wartime potentially causes political disorder. Imagine if Germany had managed to somehow assassinate Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta. Sure, the war would have continued. But it would have been a massive blow to the Allies.

And you see the great payoff that huge sacrifice/gamble provided for the war effort in ME2.

That hardly works as an argument against saving the Council.

Sacrificing them doesn't net any great benefits either in subsequent games.

[congokong]

Han Shot First wrote...

congokong wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Saving the Destiny Ascension is certainly not stupid from a strategist's point of view...or Hackett would not have given the order to save the asari dreadnought. I think he knows more about leading space battles than Shepard could ever hope to and if he thinks it's not a stupid idea to save the ship...Well, I tend to believe him. There're military justifications for going either way. The alliance fleet would've been slaughtered if it ended up caught between Sovereign and the geth, so quickly destroying them when they're distracted makes perfect sense. You also save a powerful ship (If you saved the council Hackett says in Arrival "It took multiple fleets and the Destiny Ascension to bring Sovereign down, and that was just one Reaper") for the battle against an unkown dreadnought.

Not to mention that having the heads of your government bumped off by the enemy during wartime potentially causes political disorder. Imagine if Germany had managed to somehow assassinate Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta. Sure, the war would have continued. But it would have been a massive blow to the Allies.

And you see the great payoff that huge sacrifice/gamble provided for the war effort in ME2.

That hardly works as an argument against saving the Council.

Sacrificing them doesn't net any great benefits either in subsequent games.

Citing the political benefits in risking the galaxy to save the council is false because as I noted in future games they are just as worthless regardless. Still, if I was role-playing I wouldn't know just how worthless they would be nor would I factor political backlash in my decision. I'd have to consider the immediate threat. It would come down to if I can accord to sacrifice vital assets to save one ship that would otherwise be focused on the reaper trying to bring about the end of the galaxy.

[congokong]

StreetMagic wrote...

I try not to justify the destruction of the DA for strategic purposes. I prefer that they die anyways (I'd prefer it even more if they simply went away). And what people say in ME2 fits well enough. The accusations that Shepard cares more about human interests than galactic interests are all true.

Even my Paragon Shepard sounds proud of it to Vasir. "I let the DA go down and unleashed the rachni. What do you think I'll do to you?" -- That's a Paragon line. lol

Yeah, sacrifice/save the council or exterminate/release the rachni both show up as an intimidating paragon response. I actually prefer the renegade one that insults a spectre hiding behind a hostage followed by some racist comments about asari with Liara right beside you. Renegade responses are usually funnier.

My Shepard concentrated on Sovereign because it seemed safest considering the stakes. It was annoying in ME3 when the asari counselor claims I "sacrificed the council to protect human interests." As usual in ME3 your role-playing is very limited and Shepard stays silent instead of saying "I did that to stop Sovereign! If it succeeded none of us would be here right now! I gave those idiot councilors repeated warnings and they ignored me!"

[Reorte]

Getting as many friendly forces into the battle as soon as possible tactically makes sense. What are those geth ships that you've let blow the crap out the DA going to be doing whilst you're shooting at Sovereign? It's not really any different from all those fights in loads of games where you can defeat the enemy easily enough because the forces turn up a few at a time whilst the rest of them lurk around minding their own business until you've advanced a bit more.

Obviously that's not how the game wants you to view it but if it wants something else then it should've thought out its choices better. Doing anything else is to play by second-guessing the game mechanic, not treating it at face value, and that's bad (and why ME2's reputation system jars badly). The only way holding back would actually make sense is if you're angling for human control - you might lose more forces overall but a smaller percentage would be Alliance, leaving the Alliance relatively stronger than the Council.