I may not agree with absolutely everything about the Chantry, but it's been around for a thousand years for a reason. We need the Chantry. If not we'll descend into chaos and who will oppose the Qunari?
You shouldn't oppose the Qunari. The Qun is love. The Qun is life.
You shouldn't oppose the Qunari. The Qun is love. The Qun is life.
Hmmm. The more I think about it. The similar the Qunari become to the Templars in AC. I don't mean that as an insult. I personally prefer the Templars to the Assassins. I might have to rethink my affiliations.
Though I'm not the biggest fan of the Chantry, it is definitely not the worst group out there. I have some issues with the corruption and abuses that occur, but at it's core the Chantry is alright by me. I'm far more concerned with the Imperium and the Qunari whom I believe to be far more dangerous.
Huh? Modern morality?
Yup. Modern (generally western) conceits of how war should be waged and how resources (such as lives and manpower) should be used.
Take what you put here-
I was talking war tactics and use of mages in combat, and the logistics using mages in battle. Simply put, what I was talking about is that there aren't enough mages to build an army of them, or to use them as shock troops or canon fodder, but acting in support of a regiment or as part of a specialized ops team can be a huge advantage to any country. A good healer in the army will reduce deaths by infection or injury by a substantial amount. A mage skilled in entropy can have the enemy missing with nearly every swing, suffering waking nightmares and illusions, or forced into slumber, thus making them easier to be dispatched or captured. Mages skilled in primal skills deal so much damage from a distance that any follow up combat is much simpler for the soldiers on the front lines.
This is, in no way, reflective of any sort of universally agreed upon military doctrine or tactics. Ignoring the exaggerations and questionable gameplay-as-lore argument, every argument you make can be applied in favor of high-impact/high-attrition roles and non-support functions- starting from 'can be a huge advantage to any country' to 'reduce deaths.'
Mages are obviously force-multipliers, but force multiplication doesn't exist solely (or even most effectively) in the rear- which is where your argument, centered around low-risk support roles with minimal attrition, focuses on. Not all force multipliers are equal, nor are all force multipliers equally important. A single small force multiplier in a decisive place and time can outweight far larger force multipliers in non-decisive places and times. What you think is the most relevant and effective place is a matter of doctrine, which itself derives from culture.
To make an example for how doctrine reflects morality and culture, take a hypothetical training scenario-
You are Blue Force, defending the decisive terrain from Red Force in the decisive battle of the war. You must hold the line at all cost- failure on any one front means the end of the war. Both forces are roughly equal in size with ten units: 2 on each of three fronts, and four in the rear to serve as reinforcements.
On the north front, Red Force had a minor victory, making modest gains but at a cost of heavy casualties. The current allocation of forces is approximately 1.5 to .9 in favor of Blue. Your commander believes he can hold the current enemy without any further losses.
On the southwest front, Red and Blue were at a stalemate, with no meaningful territory lost or gained. Heavy fighting on both sides means the current B:R ratio is 0.5:0.8 in Red's favor. Your commander is begging for reinforcments to recoup heavy losses.
On the eastern front, Blue Force led a stunning defensive operation and won a major victory. Not only did Blue Forces come out ahead in a ratio of 1.5:0.6, but terrain was gained. Your commander requests reinforcements to route the remaining enemy.
It is now time to allocate the reserve units. Both sides can allocate their four reserve units to any front they want. Reserve units can not be partially allocated (you can't commit 1.5 units), and leaving any unit in reserve provides no future benefit.
How do you allocate of forces? What is pragmatic for both you, and Red Force?
(Red Force has a fixed answer based on Soviet doctrine. I will not change the answer regardless of what you offer.)
Because of their numbers and the amount of time it takes to train mages, I was commenting that they cannot be capable or highly utilized shock troops at all. But the army that has the most, well-trained mages will always have the advantage because of their versatility and utility.
The first is an opinion of merit masquerading as a fact, reliant on acceptance of your personal evaluation of how mages should be used. The second is also an opinion masquerading as a fact by ignorring all other contexts that determine what gives a military force an advantage.
Modern morality has nothing to do with being pragmatic in the use of mages, so I have no idea where you even got the notion that was what I was talking about.
What you consider pragmatic is a reflection of morality. There's nothing bad about that, so long as you remember that pragmatism is in many respects a cultural concept reflecting subjective evaluations and standards.
"Weaponized abomination" is perhaps one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. It goes way beyond scorched earth strategy. Not only can't you be certain that the Abomination won't destroy the entire region it is released in, rendering the area uninhabitable, you can't even be sure the Abomination won't turn around and destroy your own army.
Simply put the risks and potential damage, far outweighs the potential rewards.
Good thing no one ever uses WMD's, huh?
Good thing no one ever uses WMD's, huh?
No one ever does no. Especially not WMDs that may not even hit the target, but instead decide to hit yourself.
WMD's.....
I going to guess that Anders' bomb counts as one. Saar-qamek could be seen as a chemical weapon, like mustard gas. I imagine that the Dwarves or the Qunari could build a large enough explosive device, given enough time and resources.
Magical wise? Any Abomination, Blood Mage or a powerful Demon.
Nature? Dragon. 'Nuff said.
Good thing no one ever uses WMD's, huh?
Depending on your definition of WMD, that can be the most ironic understatement of the century or a serious and well-thought truth.
the only problem i have with the chantry, which i supported in all dialogue ways, ect legacy, is that its so big that theres no way to stop some corrruption. elincia earned her spot as grand cleric, but because her underlings disagreed with her she had no real power, it was only the respect merideth and orisino held for her that gave her any say. once anders killed her there was no stopping that massacre. the chantry needs the purity of elincia and the leadership and iron grip of a strong leader to keep the corruption to a minimum.
Depending on your definition of WMD, that can be the most ironic understatement of the century or a serious and well-thought truth.
There have been TWO uses of WMDs in the history of mankind.... No.. No one ever uses them. They are STOCKPILE D, but they are never used.
the only problem i have with the chantry, which i supported in all dialogue ways, ect legacy, is that its so big that theres no way to stop some corrruption. elincia earned her spot as grand cleric, but because her underlings disagreed with her she had no real power, it was only the respect merideth and orisino held for her that gave her any say. once anders killed her there was no stopping that massacre. the chantry needs the purity of elincia and the leadership and iron grip of a strong leader to keep the corruption to a minimum.
keep in mind though that in da2 we didn't really play much of a political sort of character, at least not compared to what we are going to do in Inquistion. There will always be corruption in any organization, no matter what. However that doesn't mean reform movements can not start up to counter it.
As an example during the middle ages, the most successful were the cluny reforms, which had monks and other similar lay-priests and scholars start a grass roots movement to counter corruption and help make both laity and clergy more devoted. A similar movement in the chantry might very well be just as successful.
No one ever does no. Especially not WMDs that may not even hit the target, but instead decide to hit yourself.
#exceptallthosetimespeopletotallyhavedonethat
#exceptallthosetimespeopletotallyhavedonethat
Two? Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I see that history is basically OVERFLOWING with the multitude of uses of WMDs....
Depending on your definition of WMD, that can be the most ironic understatement of the century or a serious and well-thought truth.
Don't be so limited- it could well be both!
Kidding aside one hand, there is the argument that we haven't used any civilization-destroying weapons because civilization still exists. (Please ignore all the civilizations that do not exist anymore.) Some people think a WMD has to have a massive amount of damage to warrant the 'W', and disagree on what counts. My personal favorite is the ULEFANSWWTTVBIED.
On the other hand, strictly categorical classification can be underwhelming. More people died when the Banqiao Dam burst in 1975 in China than died in either atomic bombing (and, depending on the estimates you use, possibly all atomic bombings combined), and that wasn't even a deliberate attack, whereas dam-busting (admittedly in much smaller dams and better conditions) was often used as a defensive measure in WW2. Considering how incredibly dangerous weapons can be really circumstantial, even incredibly dangerous things (like Sarin nerve gas) can do minor damage.
Personally, I subscribe to the US and Western consensus of WMD's as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, keeping in mind the potential damage rather than reliable- city-busters certainly count, but things like CBR can be more about area denial or resistable with smaller counts if prepared.
WMD's.....
I going to guess that Anders' bomb counts as one. Saar-qamek could be seen as a chemical weapon, like mustard gas. I imagine that the Dwarves or the Qunari could build a large enough explosive device, given enough time and resources.
Magical wise? Any Abomination, Blood Mage or a powerful Demon.
Nature? Dragon. 'Nuff said.
In that respect, I consider Abominations analogous to Biological category weapons- less because they are alive and more because an abomination can have similar casualty counts and affects to ebola. Sometimes it's just a few people who get killed, sometimes a village dies before it burns itself out, and rarely a pandemic can engulf an entire region.
Two? Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I see that history is basically OVERFLOWING with the multitude of uses of WMDs....
Dude, there was enough anthrax mailed around in Washington D.C. to kill every person in the American capital, and enough sarin in the Tokyo subway attacks in 2012 to wipe out metropolitan Tokyo, and those were just domestic terrorist attacks. Inept, to be sure, which is why bodies aren't still being discovered, but seriously- those are city-killing potency right there.
That's not even addressing the numbers that actually were killed during the routine use of chemical warfare in WW1, various bouts in Yemen and the middle east in the 60's, Iran-Iraq, the Kurdish insurrection in Iraq, and of course most recently in Syria.
Then, of course, there's the historically tricky issue of plague warfare, something very far back and which remade the demographic face of the western hemisphere through both deliberate and accidental means.
And that's just the 'traditional' WMDs of CBRN. If we define it further to, say, arson, fire-bombing in WW2 could likewise make a strong claim.
There have been TWO uses of WMDs in the history of mankind.... No.. No one ever uses them. They are STOCKPILE D, but they are never used.
If you use your own fancy definition of what a WMD is, sure. I'm not sure how many other people would agree- the people stockpiling those nukes don't.
18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;(such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or(4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government,shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.(© Definitions.— For purposes of this section—(1) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(22));(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—(© any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
WMD's aren't just nukes.
what does wmd have to do with the chantry?
WMDs are multitudes of things. But there hasn't been used actual WMDs more than TWICE in human history. Anthrax, contrary to popular belief (apparently) is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. It is a disease. If it had been weaponized (which it wasn't) it could have qualified as a WMD (by some standards). Doesn't change the fact. Nor does ANY of what you try to peddle even counter my original point. Trying to weaponize abominations is one of the stupidest ideas ever to have crossed the human mind.
what does wmd have to do with the chantry?
We need some, that's what.
We need some, that's what.
NEVER. THE CHANTRY SHALL BURN!!!!
We need some, that's what.
I thought you left the Chantry.
I wouldn't know. But generally any kind of "suicide bomber" is a tatic born of desperation and stupidity.
Desperations, a bit yes, but it worked pretty well, for a while. The Awakened Beings were capable of killing, at least two, Descendants of Dragons at the same time which gave their side the edge.
There were risks, of course. The soldiers could Awaken amidst their troops or kill all the enemies, survive and decide to come back. The whole story is pretty much dealing with the disaster their side created while trying to perfect the Awakening process so someone could keep the power and retain their humanity. Didn't work; they created the Abyssal Ones instead who decided to just divide the continent into three pieces but, anyway, spoilers.
NEVER. THE CHANTRY SHALL BURN!!!!
That's not fair, I can't post anything against Azula. She's too awesome.
That's not fair, I can't post anything against Azula. She's too awesome.
Good, then you cede victory to me! 
WMDs are multitudes of things.
Yes.
But there hasn't been used actual WMDs more than TWICE in human history.
No.
Anthrax, contrary to popular belief (apparently) is NOT a weapon of mass destruction.
It is.
It is a disease.
Diseases are not mutually exclusive with being weapons of mass destruction.
If it had been weaponized (which it wasn't)
It was.
it could have qualified as a WMD (by some standards).
It does.
Doesn't change the fact.
Your claim of what is fact is what is in dispute.
Nor does ANY of what you try to peddle even counter my original point.
It does.
Trying to weaponize abominations is one of the stupidest ideas ever to have crossed the human mind.
Hardly.
Gentlemen, perhaps move the WMD discussion elsewhere? I don't think my brain can handle another Dean Logic Bomb without frying.
Retour en haut