36 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprea]

As the Inquisitor is a military leader I wonder if they're going to have to ask any of their soldiers, or order, to take a crap job. Now by crap job I mean something awful. For example. In World of Warcraft there is one daily where you're being swarmed by humanoid bugs. You use a cannon to repel them. Now here comes the crap part. The bugs organize themselves in clusters with a few on the outside of it to take the initial hit to protect the more tightly pact interior. This diminishes overall losses but pretty much guarantees those on the outside of the cluster are going to die.

 

What would you think if the Inquisitor needed to order soldiers to take an equally horrible assignment? Your position is being over run for example and you need to retreat. However, if you go into a full retreat you're going to get over taken. So do you order some of your soldiers to stay behind and hold the line while the others withdraw.

[Demondragon24]

I would think this should be a possible choice during a quest. As in:
1 you order a full retreat but leave behind regular soldiers
2 same as above but risk losing elites instead
3 deal with the enemy yourself to save as many troops as possible

[Master Race]

It would give the game alot of depth imo. At the end of the day soldiers are pawns meant to be played on the board. Pawns are very important pieces as they can serve many purposes...one of the main ones being sacrifice.

 

They knew what they signed up for. Sacrifice a few to save many, or sacrifice some soldiers to save something the Inquisition needs is worth it and i think it would be really cool to have a choice like that in game.

[Nashimura]

"Vivienne, clean out the toilets. Dorian, you help her."

[Dio Demon]

I would think this should be a possible choice during a quest. As in:
1 you order a full retreat but leave behind regular soldiers
2 same as above but risk losing elites instead
3 deal with the enemy yourself to save as many troops as possible

3 isn't a really good option considering the other ones you've put down.

 

Maybe if you fight them yourself a companion may die? Or without you leading the retreat the soldiers get ambushed and lose some of the regular and elite soldiers.

[Inprea]

I would think this should be a possible choice during a quest. As in:
1 you order a full retreat but leave behind regular soldiers
2 same as above but risk losing elites instead
3 deal with the enemy yourself to save as many troops as possible

 

I like the third option in some ways but I don't like it in others. Given that we can lower the game difficulty whenever we want I believe it'd become the easy way out that everyone use. Bioware would need to do something to put some difficulty there so it wasn't the easy option. That or perhaps without the Inquisitor to lead them the retreating soldiers get flanked and suffer even greater losses.

[FiveThreeTen]

"Vivienne, clean out the toilets. Dorian, you help her."

With all the troops sationed in Skyhold, you might want to get more people to help them...

[Giant ambush beetle]

Napoleon issued orders like that all the time, on the battlefield it is necessary, often there is no choice but sacrifice. He used entire platoons of soldiers as decoy or distraction which usually ended in their complete annihilation. The soldiers probably knew it, they died for Napoleons idea of a bigger, better France. 

So, for a charismatic and successful inquisitor ordering troops to their certain death shouldn't pose a problem. In wars people die. And especially in an apocalyptic scenario people are more willing to sacrifice their lives because losing the war would mean death and agony for each and everyone. 

[Demondragon24]

All 3 options were to to show what could be a choice at that given time as you would be weighing the possible consequences against each other. I was thinking of something unforseen being there so 3 is not as good as it seems. Flanking being one of them. In essence out of the 3 choices #3 seems best, take the crap yourself and risk nothing but where 3 could end up being the worst choice do to something like flanking and you don't know. The awesome part would be if bioware did something like this in one quest but not in others, giving players a pause and ponder as to what to do best.

[Icy Magebane]

It's unfortunate, but if that's the only way to escape without taking massive casualties, it has to be done.

[Navasha]

I would be more surprised if there wasn't things like that.   That's part of warfare.   Its not supposed to be pretty or clean.   If you have to take a castle, do you lose 100 men or 1000?     Hopefully, the options will allow you to ask for volunteers.    Somehow that seems much more palatable and heroic than simply ordering the 16 year old conscripted farm hands to hold the line.  

[themikefest]

 If its something worth helping in closing the breach fine, but I won't throw their lives away for whatever reason because I can.

[Karlone123]

Latrine Duty. You've got to love it.

 

2 things I hated about being a soldier, sitting at the guard gate on christmas eve thinking "so, this is my career" or cleaninf crap.

[Medhia_Nox]

I am all for this option, within reason.  

 

People who fancy themselves grimdark pragmatists might say: "This is how it should be.  Sacrifice for the blah blah blah." 

 

But it's simply not true - sometimes, there's a reason to sacrifice men so that the great body can retreat.  Other times, a retreat is "everyone more slowly" - wherein you still loose more than you'd want, but it's a unified effort - not simply throwing a group to the wolves while everyone else flees like cowards.  

 

Honestly - I'd also hope for "stand your ground" options where you fight an incredibly difficult conflict, risk loosing A LOT, and the mission is genuinely (not superficially) very difficult to succeed in... but the glory of succeeding would be great.  (And I would make it a part of the game you cannot save within once you commit to it). 

 

So yes, there should be moments where you can give your people dangerous jobs - but it should bring down morale.  If they're going to emulate real troops at all - they'll need something to give them a reason to do this.  Having them do increasingly dangerous jobs should cost you tons of gold in booze and entertainment - or efficiency as your soldiers become more and more willing to abandon you and your cause. 

[hexaligned]

Sacrificing or using less important/expensive assets to protect more important ones is pretty basic bare bones military strategy. I'd be surprised if we didn't get options along those lines if we are actually given control of commanding troops.

[rocsage]

My guess is that survivors receive promotion.

[Nukekitten]

What would you think if the Inquisitor needed to order soldiers to take an equally horrible assignment? Your position is being over run for example and you need to retreat. However, if you go into a full retreat you're going to get over taken. So do you order some of your soldiers to stay behind and hold the line while the others withdraw.

Break contact? Odd numbered units fall back and stop and provide cover fire, then even numbered units fall back past them and stop and provide cover fire... Repeat.

I'd try to avoid ordering anyone to their deaths or anything like that. And I think if I did it I should feel bad about it. People who can order folks to go off and die and then shrug and be all 'For the greater good. More ale anyone? What excellent cigars we have here...' *wince* It's like throwing your conscience out the window.

That's the sort of situation that should have some follow up if the choice really has to be made and there's not some way around it. Where if you want to play the sociopath hard arse then you can, and if you want to play someone with a bit more humanity you can. What I wouldn't want to see is that choice presented with no follow up whatsoever - kinda massive break in immersion there me thinks.

I'm find with the choice being there - that could be very interesting. But it's one of those 'Do it well or not at all' sort of things for me.

[X Equestris]

Break contact? Odd numbered units fall back and stop and provide cover fire, then even numbered units fall back past them and stop and provide cover fire... Repeat.I'd try to avoid ordering anyone to their deaths or anything like that. And I think if I did it I should feel bad about it. People who can order folks to go off and die and then shrug and be all 'For the greater good. More ale anyone? What excellent cigars we have here...' *wince* It's like throwing your conscience out the window.That's the sort of situation that should have some follow up if the choice really has to be made and there's not some way around it. Where if you want to play the sociopath hard arse then you can, and if you want to play someone with a bit more humanity you can. What I wouldn't want to see is that choice presented with no follow up whatsoever - kinda massive break in immersion there me thinks.I'm find with the choice being there - that could be very interesting. But it's one of those 'Do it well or not at all' sort of things for me.

Well, you can't really provide covering fire with a sword or spear. Fire and maneuver tactics weren't utilized until around the time of the Franco-Prussian war. It's part of the reason that most of the casualties in ancient battles occurred when one army broke and ran, and why the victors could have preposterously low losses. Armies of that time period often didn't have the discipline to withdraw in a decent order. Your levies would break and run, and your more elite troops might stand their ground or withdraw in an orderly fashion, but they would be massively outnumbered.

[TheJediSaint]

The primary crap job for my soldiers will be digging latrines.

[Inprea]

I am all for this option, within reason.  

 

People who fancy themselves grimdark pragmatists might say: "This is how it should be.  Sacrifice for the blah blah blah." 

 

But it's simply not true - sometimes, there's a reason to sacrifice men so that the great body can retreat.  Other times, a retreat is "everyone more slowly" - wherein you still loose more than you'd want, but it's a unified effort - not simply throwing a group to the wolves while everyone else flees like cowards.  

 

Honestly - I'd also hope for "stand your ground" options where you fight an incredibly difficult conflict, risk loosing A LOT, and the mission is genuinely (not superficially) very difficult to succeed in... but the glory of succeeding would be great.  (And I would make it a part of the game you cannot save within once you commit to it). 

 

So yes, there should be moments where you can give your people dangerous jobs - but it should bring down morale.  If they're going to emulate real troops at all - they'll need something to give them a reason to do this.  Having them do increasingly dangerous jobs should cost you tons of gold in booze and entertainment - or efficiency as your soldiers become more and more willing to abandon you and your cause. 

 

I tend to hate it when events completely ignore your character or how they're prepared so I agree to an extent. Perhaps if you devoted enough resources to upgrading your soldiers weapons and armor they don't need to retreat but can take up a defensive position. I believe that your idea of rolling retreat would be possible if you had enough mobile firepower such as mages. They could be throwing fireballs or perhaps even creating walls of ice and fire storms to delay the enemy.

 

They were compared to qunari cannons after all. I got the image of mages setting in a wagon throwing spells over their allies heads while it's pulled along to keep the enemy from over taking them. You might even be able to kite your enemy to death.

[teenparty]

My faith was strong, but I needed proof. I saw some chick bathing on the roof. I sent her husband away to die in the war. Hallelujah!

[deuce985]

Well, someone has to be in my doghouse and take one for the team.

[Han Shot First]

It kind of goes with the turf if you're going to be a soldier. It's a dangerous job and sometimes you got to put your life on the line. Also, it's a commander's responsibility to be able to make those tough calls.

 

Had I lived in that era I would have been a Union man myself, but Robert E. Lee has a great quote that applies:

 

"To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."