460 réponses à ce sujet

[Eliastion]

There are probably a lot of mage-knights in DA Rome. Hooray for mage-knights!
 
"There are no borders for the mage who wields a spectral blade. There is respect, and there is fear.”
 
Seriously though, who need a Chevalier spec when you have that?

Spectral blades were so stupid That was the amazing part of Arcane Warrior, he was different from the rest of the mages, it wasn't just "I use other spells", it was "I slice your ass to pieces with my sword, while clad in proper armor and I do it so well because magic". Then comes DA:I and the arcane warrior/knight enchanter is no warrior anymore, just a mage with a stupid close-range offensive spell and as much armor as any other spellslinger.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Spectral blades were so stupid That was the amazing part of Arcane Warrior, he was different from the rest of the mages, it wasn't just "I use other spells", it was "I slice your ass to pieces with my sword, while clad in proper armor and I do it so well because magic". Then comes DA:I and the arcane warrior/knight enchanter is no warrior anymore, just a mage with a stupid close-range offensive spell and as much armor as any other spellslinger.

This sadly they pretty much crush old good lore where AW was an extinct class now pretty much everyone has arcane warriors tevinter , elves and circles.

[Master Warder Z_]

Consistency?

From Bioware?

[Eliastion]

This sadly they pretty much crush old good lore where AW was an extinct class now pretty much everyone has arcane warriors tevinter , elves and circles.

That's true, but I'm still more bitter for making AW just another kind of mage. But you're right, they pretty much took everything that made AW special and threw it into garbage bin - it being a lost discipline along with the rest.
Although, admittedly, even in Origins they seemingly were not as extinct as they would seem... I'm pretty sure you met one at Orzammar during the Proovings.

[The Baconer]

Spectral blades were so stupid That was the amazing part of Arcane Warrior, he was different from the rest of the mages, it wasn't just "I use other spells", it was "I slice your ass to pieces with my sword, while clad in proper armor and I do it so well because magic". Then comes DA:I and the arcane warrior/knight enchanter is no warrior anymore, just a mage with a stupid close-range offensive spell and as much armor as any other spellslinger.

 

Mm, I suppose in concept. In gameplay, it amounted to "I'll slice your ass up 40% of the time unless I pump Dex", with boring autoattacks nonetheless because the spec literally had no active abilities. Compound that with awkward spell-casting because of staggering fatigue costs (mitigated with Blood magic) and spells randomly being castable or not castable with a melee weapon, including the bugged Spellweaver.

 

I will agree that I prefer having a conventional melee weapon on hand to be enhanced by magic, but I think the Knight Enchanter was an overall better-made spec than Arcane Warrior.

[Master Warder Z_]

Knight Enchanter makes more since then Arcane Warrior lore wise at least.

Many Nations have battle magi.

[Eliastion]

(...)

I will agree that I prefer having a conventional melee weapon on hand to be enhanced by magic, but I think the Knight Enchanter was an overall better-made spec than Arcane Warrior.

And I think I would just shrug if it was only the Knight Enchanter - it's just a mage, based somewhat on the idea of Arcane Warriors, but still conforming to the mainstream belief of what mages can/should and can't/shouldn't do, his melee fighting is still more spellcasting than actually fighting with a sword. And I would be ok with that, I think, I would miss a bit the Arcane Warrior, but not being able to learn their craft would fit well with the idea of them being extinct, or almost extinct.

But then we get that Arcane Warrior in multiplayer - and he's pretty much the same. Spectral Blade and staff all the way. I don't play multiplayer, but it still makes me sad that they butchered the very idea of Arcane Warriors as weapon-wielding magical knights.

 

EDIT: Either way, we seem to be drifting away from Chevaliers, perhaps someone should put this discussion back on its tracks?  

[The Baconer]

And I think I would just shrug if it was only the Knight Enchanter - it's just a mage, based somewhat on the idea of Arcane Warriors, but still conforming to the mainstream belief of what mages can/should and can't/shouldn't do, his melee fighting is still more spellcasting than actually fighting with a sword.

 

How so? It involves a sword, and hitting things with it. In many ways it's actually much better than a conventional auto-attack because it has an area of effect and ignores armor. As someone who plays Dota 2, it functions a lot like an "orb", or a unique attack modifier. I would want more potential to focus on or enhance this aspect of a melee mage (something even the Arcane Warrior was severely lacking), but it unfortunately seems like we're going to receive less and less active abilities if they follow DA:I's example. I would also like the option to ditch the staff completely and use a martial weapon, with the "Spirit Blade" ability functioning as a kind of steroid.

 

 

But then we get that Arcane Warrior in multiplayer - and he's pretty much the same. Spectral Blade and staff all the way. I don't play multiplayer, but it still makes me sad that they butchered the very idea of Arcane Warriors as weapon-wielding magical knights.

 

Superstition. Dragon Age has no multiplayer mode.

 

 

EDIT: Either way, we seem to be drifting away from Chevaliers, perhaps someone should put this discussion back on its tracks?

 

"The people are less inclined to celebrate those backhanders"

 

It's just the truth, both in the game and in real life :>

[Iakus]

Gaspard wasn't enough?

Gaspard certainly had a sense of fair play, yes.  And I do like how he despises the Game.  I could admire him as an adversary.  But I'd be looking for someone less eager to declare war on all of Thedas.  Someone who is interested more in protecting Orlesians and sees even commoners as people.

[Master Warder Z_]

This modern lense in which we view expansionism is slightly odd in a fictional medieval setting.

War is profitable for a Empire.

Not only is it profitable but it's a viable option for dealing with the rest of Thedas. It's hard to gain holdings in other provinces without it.

[Steelcan]

This modern lense in which we view expansionism is slightly odd in a fictional medieval setting.

War is profitable for a Empire.

Not only is it profitable but it's a viable option for dealing with the rest of Thedas. It's hard to gain holdings in other provinces without it.

where is Eirene when you need her....

 

In short, war is rarely profitable in its own right, plunder and raiding and such can offset the costs of it, but it is rare for the actual war to be profitable, it may pay for itself in later years, ie Carthage and Rome and their little spats, but in the short term, not so much

[Master Warder Z_]

In short, war is rarely profitable in its own right

Quite; but if you think the addition access to taxable trading cloisters, New sources of taxable industry, population and my favorite bit of it, Centralized local and outgoing goods being taxed and if you go by the Persian methodology you have a recipe for extremely profitable long term occupation.

[Steelcan]

Quite; but if you think the addition access to taxable trading cloisters, New sources of taxable industry, population and my favorite bit of it, Centralized local and outgoing goods being taxed and if you go by the Persian methodology you have a recipe for extremely profitable long term occupation.

you also have the enormous costs of maintaining a garrison, reconstruction, lost revenues from harvests and trade and so on

[Ashagar]

where is Eirene when you need her....

 

In short, war is rarely profitable in its own right, plunder and raiding and such can offset the costs of it, but it is rare for the actual war to be profitable, it may pay for itself in later years, ie Carthage and Rome and their little spats, but in the short term, not so much

 

Not everyone takes everything not nailed down like the romans did including the people resisting them like the romans did either which one of the things that made Rome's wars so profitable though the romans had a big carrot as well for those who didn't fight them that made things profitable for both sides.

[Steelcan]

Not everyone takes everything not nailed down like the romans did including the people resisting them like the romans did either which one of the things that made Rome's wars so profitable though the romans had a big carrot as well for those who didn't fight them that made things profitable for both sides.

*facepalm*

[Master Warder Z_]

you also have the enormous costs of maintaining a garrison, reconstruction, lost revenues from harvests and trade and so on

Yup.

It's expensive in the short term, but plunder and salvage will likely recoup a bit of that, but honestly.

Invasion is an investment.

[Eliastion]

Yup.

It's expensive in the short term, but plunder and salvage will likely recoup a bit of that, but honestly.

Invasion is an investment.

A risky investement. I'm quite curious about the economical results of Orlesian occupation of Ferelden and frankly? I'd be surprised if they got any profit out of it. Some people definitely did (and even Amaranthine, despite being under occupation, actually prospered) but generally speaking? The cost of maintainig occupation in its later years must've skyrocketed, when you factor in the cost of troops lost to the rebellion... Gaspard's ideas about recapturing Ferelden seem to have more in common with wounded Orlesian pride than with any rational economical calculation.

[MoonDrummer]

It ruined orlais to the point were Celene has been credited for rebuilding it.

[Ashagar]

A lot of that likely has to with one lack of investment in both the local authorities and populations as well in infrastructure build by the roman army. The romans for instance made major infrastructure investments such as roads, aqueducts, baths, amphitheaters and other structures and made the locals want to be romans and willing to pay taxes to the empire. The Orlaisians on the other hands apparently spent their time alienating the locals and that's about it.

[Aimi]

Gaspard's ideas about recapturing Ferelden seem to have more in common with wounded Orlesian pride than with any rational economical calculation.

Yes.

Plunder was certainly a Thing, and sometimes quite large sums could be plundered. But it was not an effective mechanism of financing state expenses. That old Schumpeterian canard was disproven quite comprehensively over the last couple of decades with respect to the classical and medieval eras; subsequent time periods, in which war always coincided with massive state debt, are even easier to dismiss. It's easy to look at the individual haul of, say, some of the Roman conquests (like the sack of Korinthos in 146 BC) and say "well gee war really does pay". But such windfalls were few and far between, and rarely covered the cost and opportunity cost of fighting the war in the first place. For every Achaian War there was a Hannibalic War, or an Asiatic Vespers, or a Social War.

From time to time, the notion of making war pay for itself on a fiscal level cropped up again in government circles. It was popular during the First World War for governments to claim that all expenses would be recouped by an indemnity extracted from the loser at war's end (although this is quite different from plunder or conquest). In none of those cases did the promise come to fruition.

Conquest, at least, offered the chance of eventual tax receipts and excise. Sometimes this actually did happen; like Warder says, conquest could be an investment. Depending on the conquest, it could even turn a profit somewhat quickly. Usually, however, it wouldn't; war brought economic dislocation, destruction of crops, death of taxpaying subjects, and destruction of national production through the normal practice of fighting. If the territory was successfully conquered, it might not yield positive results for decades. And if the territory was distant, or surrounded by enemies, or intrinsically poor, it might never yield those results at all.

[Master Warder Z_]

Fereldan by itself is no prize, it's poor and resources of value few and far between.

But it's position on the map make it incredibly valuable.

It's a trading magnet or could be if the proper measures taken, it's position between North and South is a interesting one.

[Aimi]

Fereldan by itself is no prize, it's poor and resources of value few and far between.

But it's position on the map make it incredibly valuable.

It's a trading magnet or could be if the proper measures taken, it's position between North and South is a interesting one.

South of Ferelden are the Korcari Wilds, and nobody wants to sell to the Chasind, who don't have money anyway. Ferelden itself isn't useful for trade because even its 'civilized' people are poor. Ferelden does stand at the mouth of the Waking Sea, but so do the Marches, and their port facilities are presumably much better-developed than Ferelden's are; Kirkwall and Ostwick certainly seem to enjoy more sea-trade than Denerim does. I wouldn't count on turning Denerim into a global entrepôt anytime soon.

[Ashagar]

Well Amaranthine is a major trade port with a deep water port and is a major pilgrimage site as where andraste's forces launched their invasions of the north which also brings in wealth though its status as a pilgrimage site pales to Deneirim which as the birthplace of andraste makes it perhaps the holiest city in the Andrastian faith which would make it a major prize in of itself.

 

So other than a source of food, wood, valuable herbs and a few valuable metal mines, Ferelden's main value would be in the wealth from pilgrimages.

[Eliastion]

Well Amaranthine is a major trade port with a deep water port and is a major pilgrimage site as where andraste's forces launched their invasions of the north which also brings in wealth though its status as a pilgrimage site pales to Deneirim which as the birthplace of andraste makes it perhaps the holiest city in the Andrastian faith which would make it a major prize in of itself.

 

So other than a source of food, wood, valuable herbs and a few valuable metal mines, Ferelden's main value would be in the wealth from pilgrimages.

But it doesn't seem to be happening on greater scale. On scale that benefits the cities, sure, but on one that would really benefit Orlais?

And Amaranthine became a wealthy city only during/after occupation, precisely because Orlesians used it a lot and directed most of their activity through there. Its wealth was a result of invasion and new organization it enforced, it was no prize in the beginning. If you need to quickly grow a city to accomodate your needs, that means more expenses, not revenue.

[Ashagar]

Deneirim was likely the main prize as being holy city, it was already a sizable city built around a impressive fortress having started as a Tevinter outpost and then between becoming the capital and being a holy city gathered a sizable amount of prestige and wealth. Controlling Deneirim mean Orlais controlled all both the religious capital and the faith's holiest city.