253 réponses à ce sujet

[Arttis]

Most genlocks and hurlocks are mindless berserkers.Just adding that.

[MindYerBeak]

Alexander the Great's strategies are taught in military academies to this very day. The American Commander in the Gulf War used tactics based on Alexander's strategies. Prior to Alexander battles were disorganised free for alls. Alexander changed the face of warfare. After the Battle of Gaugamela chariots were never used again, because Alexander had shown how easily they could be defeated. Alexander took risks. If he saw an opening he went for it. In fact he made the opening occur deliberately at Gaugamela by forcing the Persian cavalry to follow him, did an about turn and attacked from the rear while his phalanx fought from the front.

Hannibal was a better strategist than Alexander the Great. The Battle of Cannae was an absolute masterpiece. Hannibal annihilated a larger Roman army via a "double envelopment". The Romans thought they had broken through the middle of the Carthaginian lines, but Hannibal had actually pulled the Romans into the middle so that they could be surrounded on all sides. Hannibal's victory was mitigated by Roman military engineering; he could not force the walls of Rome.

Modifié par MindYerBeak, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:40 .

[Gaxhung]

If the mages there had cast some AoEs around the time the arrow wave was fired, that would do some major harm, but noooooOOOoooo.And should there be a healer assigned to the King of all people. Sigh, I hate nitpicking this sh*t.

[AlanC9]

MindYerBeak wrote...
Hannibal was a better strategist than Alexander the Great. The Battle of Cannae was an absolute masterpiece. Hannibal annihilated a larger Roman army via a "double envelopment". The Romans thought they had broken through the middle of the Carthaginian lines, but Hannibal had actually pulled the Romans into the middle so that they could be surrounded on all sides. Hannibal's victory was mitigated by Roman military engineering; he could not force the walls of Rome.

You're saying "strategist" when you mean "tactician." I'm not sure Hannibal was all that great as a strategist -- it's not quite clear what he thought he was going to accomplish in Italy. Kinda like Lee invading the North without any real plan for what would happen when he did get up there, or maybe Napoleon in Russia.

[Arttis]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

And anyone who knows anything about strategy can see what a stupid strategy the king used in the Ostagar attack. I remember thinking that the first time I saw that cutscene. Mages should be healing and placing glyphs if they can't get a good AoE in there without hurting troops. Archers should be higher up. They did indeed have a fortress right behind them they could have used. There isn't a single barricade built by the non darkspawn forces.

Mages do not have infinte mana you know.
Only blood mages that take thier mana from someone elses life would keep destruction constant.
1 mages goes with you to the tower if you are not a mage yourself.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

 I was more annoyed that they only had the archers fire one volley instead of like a dozen.

[NKKKK]

Horses, seriosuly

[Demonic Spoon]

Well...

I think I -did- see archers firing multiple volleys. There also were archers up on the wall as well as down below. Holing up behind the walls wouldn't have worked too well as the darkspawn could simply have blown the fortifications apart.

Of course there was plenty of other stuff that was off...the use of dogs, the fact that they charged haphazardly into the darkspawn...but I think everyone's overthinking it. Look who was leading them. Cailan. Fighting battles to him was all about charging in and looking like a badass...Hell, a major part of the pre-battle plot was Loghain trying to get Cailan to adopt some small degree of strategy and being told to STFU because it wasn't glorious enough. Even the "hammer and anvil" they tried to do only happened because Loghain kept insisting. I could easily see a leader as delusional as Cailan doing something retarded like sending waves of guys charging into superior numbers and avoiding strategy like the plague.

Military leaders do stupid **** when they are convinced they can win. The Russians during the Winter War in Finland (WW2) did hilariously stupid things that resulted in asinine losses against a vastly inferior opponent, so there's certainly historical precedent. No really, look up the Winter War in Wikipedia and check out the Russian losses. It's so bad that it's funny. Military leaders aren't always intelligent.


Personally I don't see this as oversight on Bioware's part. On the contrary, I think it shows the brilliance of DA's writers. Cailan was shown as a fool who read too many fairy tales as a kid, and consequently he got ganked in his moment of glory, as if the writers were saying "See these fantasy glory-types stereotypical in fantasy? Yeah, this is what happens to those retards".

Modifié par Demonic Spoon, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:27 .

[Arttis]

I think Bioware need to hire a veteran soldier to command the CG men in order to please the audience.I assume soldiers study the history of wars and so on...could be wrong.

Modifié par Arttis, 02 juillet 2010 - 04:32 .

[Demonic Spoon]

I assume soldiers study the history of wars and so on...could be wrong.

Nope, only officers.

[Aratark]

I feel the need to make one small point here. Babylon 5 fans may be aware that when one of the writers was asked how fast the Starfuries were, he answered that they fly at the speed of narrative, so if they were meant to be somewhere on time they will be, if they are supposed to be late, they will be.



The story needed Cailan to lose, so it was written for him to lose. Otherwise, DS are held back, Duncan kills AD, PC ends up being needed to make cheese on toast for Alistair and game ends after 2 hours.



But maybe this is just me being pernickity

[Demonic Spoon]

Well of course, but a story needs to make sense otherwise immersion flies out the window.

[Aratark]

My issue is that people are arguing over something that is setting up the story. If it was something toward the end that makes a massive effect on gameplay/story then it's more valid. We have limited information at that point of the game, and we have little information on why certain decisions are made. We can extrapolate that Cailin is a fool and Loghain is a treacherous snake, at that point in the game, but we lack information necessary to definitively say it.



We are projecting motive on why certain things are done, which is valid, but different people project different motives, which could be why we have different theories.



But hey, I was just expressing my personal view here, not trying to start a new flame war:)

[MindYerBeak]

Could the problem have been that the battle was bugged and needed a patch?

[Gaxhung]

@Aratark
Well said!

Demonic Spoon wrote...

Well of course, but a story needs
to make sense otherwise immersion flies out the window.

*** SPOILERS ***

Cailan underestimated the DS, see the scene where you first meet him at Ostagar. And his surprise when he first sees the massive DS horde approach, and later when he died at the hands of the Ogre.

No amount of realistic Sun-Tze like tactics will change the outcome of the battle, it can only change the cut scene. The main plot needed Cailan and Duncan dead (and how they died shown). Cailan seemed to realise he bit off more than he could chew at his last moments, crushed in one hand, then flung off like a toy (king), while Duncan's death signified the actual end of the battle (the end of the cut scene).

Modifié par Gaxhung, 02 juillet 2010 - 11:47 .

[Kail Ashton]

I'll just write it off as Loghan intentually throwing the battle as he planned to, i'm sure the great feralden stratergist would've come up with much better plans had he any actual intention of winning the battle

[Gaxhung]

Kail Ashton wrote...

I'll just write it off as Loghan intentually throwing the battle as he planned to, i'm sure the great feralden stratergist would've come up with much better plans had he any actual intention of winning the battle

Are you trolling or just stupid? The story depends on Loghain's betrayal to work.

[MysteriXOX]

Loghain was a bad dude from the time I first saw him. Caillan was a kid playing as a grown up. Without Loghain's treachery, and Caillan's naivety most of the underlying story for DA:O wouldn't exist. It is one thing to fight a blight, but to also do it while trying to avoid being killed by your fellow countrymen and stop a usurper is something else entirely. If Loghain hadn't betrayed the king and tried to usurp the throne, then a lot of what the player did wouldn't have happened and I doubt I would have enjoyed it enough to play through once let alone the 6 times thus far that I have.

Just my opinion though - Have fun

[soteria]

You're saying "strategist" when you mean "tactician." I'm not sure Hannibal was all that great as a strategist -- it's not quite clear what he thought he was going to accomplish in Italy. Kinda like Lee invading the North without any real plan for what would happen when he did get up there, or maybe Napoleon in Russia.

I agree with your terminology. I think he just expected Rome to capitulate after he defeated her armies--perhaps a reasonable expectation, looking at history. He underestimated Rome's resolve and overestimated Carthage's willingness to support him.

Alexander the Great's strategies are taught in military academies to this very day. The American Commander in the Gulf War used tactics based on Alexander's strategies. Prior to Alexander battles were disorganised free for alls. Alexander changed the face of warfare. After the Battle of Gaugamela chariots were never used again, because Alexander had shown how easily they could be defeated.

Well, to be honest, in a lot of battles his plan was very straightforward: engage and defeat the enemy at their strongest point, causing a rout. At the time military doctrine was to put your strongest and most prestigious fighters on the right flank, meaning your best always faced the enemy's worst. He relied on superior technology, training, and leadership to do the rest. In general I'd say you're right about most battles before Alexander, but I wouldn't be too sweeping, as the Bible has examples of tactical maneuvers such as the pincer that predate Alexander by a long time.

Also, I believe what really ended the dominance of the chariot was the breeding of larger horses that could support an armed and armored rider. Most people just hadn't realized the chariot was dead, yet.

[OneDoesNotSimplySlipAndSlideInto-Mordor]

I think its funny how people assume cavalry could have been used at ostagar. How could they harass the side of the darkspawn if there were woods on each side?



Theres already a thread about this and this in turning into a historical discussion about Alexander the Great V Hannibal where you cannot compare the two as they both fought under certain circumstances and against different foes.



Anyway of course they had to make the battle seem epic and standing there in a shield formation breaks the feel of the battle. The soldiers at ostagar had to die and they did

[Livemmo]

They wouldve torn down the walls eventually and once they were inside the keep, the flank attack would have been useless at that point. If the flank attack wouldve gone as planned, I see them winning the battle.

[Arttis]

MysteriXOX wrote...

Loghain was a bad dude from the time I first saw him. Caillan was a kid playing as a grown up. Without Loghain's treachery, and Caillan's naivety most of the underlying story for DA:O wouldn't exist. It is one thing to fight a blight, but to also do it while trying to avoid being killed by your fellow countrymen and stop a usurper is something else entirely. If Loghain hadn't betrayed the king and tried to usurp the throne, then a lot of what the player did wouldn't have happened and I doubt I would have enjoyed it enough to play through once let alone the 6 times thus far that I have.
Just my opinion though - Have fun

Well duncan still could have sent you to gather all your allies while the other greywardens fight the main horde.Although the circle would need some other big problem.Orzammar could stay the same.Might lose some quests in denerim.Connor might have still summoned a demon and become an abomination.So red cliffe could still be close to the same.Maybe make the sacred ashes have some other big useful purpose.Elves would still have the werewolf problem.I think that covers most of the major plots.Add more optional side quests to make up for the quests you have lost and you can get close to the same game.Maybe?

[Pandinos]

For me, Loghain intentionally came up with this plan, knowing that none would dare question his tactical genious.So, he came up with a plan that looked good but was actually a death trap for the king, not the darkspawn.

[Livemmo]

Pandinos wrote...

For me, Loghain intentionally came up with this plan, knowing that none would dare question his tactical genious.So, he came up with a plan that looked good but was actually a death trap for the king, not the darkspawn.

I really dont think it was Loghains plan to have the King killed. The man seems genuine in his thoughts and beliefs rather than someone who would kill the King just to take the throne. With that said, I dont think Loghain is actually the evil character most people make him out to be. Yeah he screwed up that battle and made a bad decision but he did warn Calin not to be so trusting of the Wardens and to have patients rather than dance around in his fairy tale that he insisted on making reality.

Truth is, if Calin werent such an idiot he would still be alive.

[Domyk]

Andorfiend wrote...

I just bought DA:O. I'm really enjoying it (although the loading times are long enough to make me think I should spend them productively, by learning another language for example.)

Loading times?   Me thinks you need to upgrade your computer.