253 réponses à ce sujet

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

The 7 mages were probably too busy smoking some lyrium bongs to do anything else...

[atheelogos]

bassmunkee wrote...

I love how it's so real. To all of us.

[soteria]

Interesting discussion. Just responding to various posts from a few people...

Well the thing you have to understand about Ferelden is that the place is almost literally run by barbarians. Even those of the highest status in Ferelden are about ten hairs away from being apes. They're very conservative about their traditions and have animalistic brutal punishments for those that stray away from them. That includes their warfare strategies.

The Mongols and Huns were barbarians, literally. Their warfare may have been barbaric, but ask the civilized Persians and Russians and Chinese about how effective they were in war.

Slings weren't "utilized very effectively" during Alexanders time. They were used by small skirmishing forces and skirmishers are generally unimportant in military engagements. Maybe slingers ruled the battlefield back in 6,000 B.C. but your example is dumb.

This is illogical. If skirmishers were generally unimportant in military engagements, then why use them at all? From the books I've read, all the best commanders of antiquity used skirmishers, and thought they were important enough to hire and/or train. I guess you know better.

Also contemporary historians only. Ancient biographers, however seasoned they may be, are not very reliable (especially when documenting things before their own times).

I guess you've reneged on this point, but I'm still quoting it for stupid. Modern historians rely on ancient historians for source material. Sure, an ancient historian can't compare Alexander to Napoleon and say who was the better general, but that's not what you said. If you consider ancient historians to be unreliable, then you can't trust the modern ones either, since they base their information off the ancients' reports.

Retard is a common term and since I have no illusions that I'm arguing in anything but an internet video game forum I will not mask my wit with formalities and political correctess.

Cry some more, plebian, I care not for your butthurt

Well, by all means, since this is the internet, no need to be polite and abide by common human courtesies, right? You're anonymous here, so why not act like a douchebag? Insults are, after all, the time-honored tool of the person who knows less than he thinks and has run out of actual arguments.

Also, attackfighter, you clearly don't know very much about grass fires. I mean, first you admitted to not having any personal experience with them, and claimed no one else did either. Then, when someone called your BS your best response was to say, "Well, you're a retard." You're the one that looks like an idiot, here. 

The funny thing is you could actually make some legitimate arguments against a grass fire being dangerous in this case, but you haven't.  Instead, you have pretended that all the grass in the area is the two-inch-high lawn variety.  Apparently you haven't lived in an area with wild grass or seen a grass fire.  I have; they are dangerous.  Also, fires are still dangerous to inhabitants of a stone castle for a variety of reasons.

I believe Ferelden was based off of Medieval England. They didn't have very much tactical sense back then

This is just an example of the arrogance of the modern man, of any time period. The good folks of the medieval period no doubt said the same thing about their predecessors, too, but I don't buy it. In any period of history you can find both incompetent and great generals. I'm not saying that because they did things a certain way it was always the best way, but military doctrine becomes doctrine for a reason--it works.

Modifié par soteria, 26 février 2010 - 07:28 .

[zaim298]

^ FTW

[Realmzmaster]

attackfighter wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

@attackfighter,
You have no idea what I have done in my life. But I assure you I have the burns to prove it. So speak about what you know and inch high flaming grass spreading across an area does prove a very significant problem.

If you have burns from a grass fire then you're likely retarded.

Also the grass wouldn't burn all at once as you seem to think; it would slowly spread across the field as a thin line. Again, only a retard could be burned by 2 inch high flames moving 1 km/h.

@attackfighter,
You have shown your true colors by calling me retarded. No where in my responses did I denigrate your intelligence. But you wish to engage in an ad hominem attack, obviously you lack the ability to hold a civil discussion.

[Realmzmaster]

Loghain plan was for Cailan's forces to draw the darkspawn to them. Those forces would then signal the tower for the beacon to be lit. Loghain would charge from the flank upon the lighting of the beacon. The darkspawn would be caught between the Anvil and the Hammer. This is the plan that is discuss in the war council where the King has the Grey Wardens light the beacon. I just started a new rplaythrough using the dalish elf origin.

[Vuokseniska]

soteria wrote...

Interesting discussion. Just responding to various posts from a few people...

Well the thing you have to understand about Ferelden is that the place is almost literally run by barbarians. Even those of the highest status in Ferelden are about ten hairs away from being apes. They're very conservative about their traditions and have animalistic brutal punishments for those that stray away from them. That includes their warfare strategies.

The Mongols and Huns were barbarians, literally. Their warfare may have been barbaric, but ask the civilized Persians and Russians and Chinese about how effective they were in war.

Actually, The mongols and the Hun wheren't  Barbarians.  Ghengis and Kublai khan allowed  all religion in their nation. tried not the destablize local politics. They even had set up the best information network in the whole world through pony express.

They where only viewed barbarians by the European Christians. Try reading marco polo's adventures and you will know

[soteria]

Actually, The mongols and the Hun wheren't Barbarians. Ghengis and Kublai khan allowed all religion in their nation. tried not the destablize local politics. They even had set up the best information network in the whole world through pony express.

They where only viewed barbarians by the European Christians. Try reading marco polo's adventures and you will know

I've read Travels, as well as a few others on the subject. The book you're referring to comes from a later time period--Genghis Khan was dead and buried by the time Polo reached Cathay, some seventy years later. Before they left the steppes of Mongolia, they were disparate tribes of nomads, barbarians by modern standards, as well as those of the time.

However "enlightened" and liberal they may have been in their later rule doesn't change the fact that they were and are perceived as a tribe of barbaric horsemen. Besides, out of the Russians, Chinese, and Persians, none of them are European and only one could be considered Christian by any standards.  The non-Christian nations they conquered--especially China--thought of them as barbarians.

Point: barbarity is in the eye of the beholder, yes?  And besides, my whole point was that being a barbarian doesn't make you stupid or unsuccessful.

Also, I like how you said "The Mongols and Huns weren't barbarians," and then talk about the Mongolians.

Modifié par soteria, 26 février 2010 - 10:35 .

[Destrier77]

Yorick of the Damned wrote...



I believe Ferelden was based off of Medieval England. They didn't have very much tactical sense back then

Ouch take that back sir. Medieval england had no tactics?? Richard the lionheart. The black prince, Agincourt, 100 years war, 1066 (yes they went a bit wrong near the end) i could go on.



English have always been amazing warriors even as far back as Roman times, granted they had more "brave" than skill back then, but still just no no no to your comment.

[Astranagant]

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.) But I'm fairly well convinced I could conquer Ferelden with a pack of cub scouts. None of these people seem to have the tactical sense of George Custer.

I'm speaking only having seen the battle of Ostramar and the preparations for the defense of Redcliff, but Yikes! These people seem to have no clue to the tactical value of a wall! (Except the Darkspawn. They use them against me. *facepalm*)

It's a minor gripe in a fantasy game I suppose, but if you've got a brilliant defensive advantage like, oh say, a fortress then leaving it's walls and charging a hundred yards to meet an enemy that's already advancing towards you is really stupid. So is throwing away wardogs against disorganized but aggressive infantry. You use dogs to destroy archers or breakup formations. Darkspawn don't use formations, so you save the dogs to harry flanks, or attack the rear.

Yeah, and Loghain is supposed to be some kind of genius strategist, yet he violates every possible instruction of Sun Tzu's Art of War at every step possible.

It's pretty clear that Ferelden is not a land of great intellectuals.

[Fluffykeith]

Here's a thought, maybe Loghain did it on purpose...after all, he wanted the King dead...



Here's another point about fires. they produce smoke, and forest fires, especially when the trees are covered in leaves, produce a hell of a lot of smoke. If the wind blows that smoke towards your fixed defensive position, your screwed. It'll reduce visabity, make it hard to breathe etc. That's why lighting a forest fire next to your fortress is a bad idea unless the wind is in your favour.

[Mlai00]

Also Ostagar is high elevation compared to the forest... the smoke will be drifting up into the ramparts of Ostagar. It's like trying to defend the top floors of a skyscraper by lighting a fire on the ground floor...

Yes, Cailan severely underestimated the Darkspawn. The strategy was hammer & anvil. But even if Loghain was loyal and stuck to the plan, Cailan's gross misexecution of tactics might have caused the plan to fail on his end.

I had thought that Cailan's forces were standing in front of the fortress because he was ready to pull them back behind the gates at a moment's notice, in order to trap the horde inside a little funnel with nowhere to go, nobody to fight, with arrows and lightning bolts raining down on them from 100 feet above. Then, when I saw Loghain betraying Cailan, I was thinking "Pull back! Pull back behind the gates! Oh noes did Loghain lock the gates?!"

[wowpwnslol]

It's a game. Every little thing does not have to make sense and the Darkspawn battle was the way it was for epic feeling. If the people of Ferelden were smart, they would have a dozen mages obliterate the entire area with AoE, leaving a bunch of smoking craters for several square miles. Armies are pointless where one person has the power to inflict massive casualties upon it with a wave of his hand and that is precisely why in real world having armies made sense, while in fantasy worlds, completely unrealistic.

[Fluffykeith]

That only holds true if magical destruction on that scale is possible within the setting, given the power level of the mages involved and the limitations placed upon them by the way the magic is portrayed. Given what a Player Mage is capable of by the end of the game I doubt that the mages present at Ostagar would have been able to AOE the Darkspawn horde before they got overrun. The sheer number of Darkspawn would have been too many.

[Andorfiend]

wowpwnslol wrote...

It's a game. Every little thing does not have to make sense and the Darkspawn battle was the way it was for epic feeling. If the people of Ferelden were smart, they would have a dozen mages obliterate the entire area with AoE, leaving a bunch of smoking craters for several square miles. Armies are pointless where one person has the power to inflict massive casualties upon it with a wave of his hand and that is precisely why in real world having armies made sense, while in fantasy worlds, completely unrealistic.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. A Mage is less effective than a cannon. He does less damage, has less range and is much more vulnerable. Cannons changed mass warfare, they did not eliminate it. 7 cannon, or mages cannot defeat 10,000 men.

And the general Hammer and Anvil strategy of the battle was not a bad plan, although unneeded. If the Darkspawn are constrained by the terrain so that they need to funnel through Ostagar then all the humans need to do to win is hold the fortress. So your sole strategic goal is holding the fortress and crushing the enemy is secondary. So what would I have done to defend the fortress better? Lots.

Depending of the time and labor available there would have been a series of mound and ditch fortifications with wooden spikes and organised retreat paths. The arches sit behind these protected by walls and pikemen and burn through the prestashed arrow supplies then retreat to the next row back, followed by the pikemen. The fortifications break the enemies momentum and inflict some casualties while the archers do their work, and pikemen behind a breastwork are lethal to swordsmen. Even better this is also an optimal way to employ the mages while protecting them. (And their Templar 'guardsmen' serve as shocktroops to repulse any holes in the defenses. Also a good use for the Mabari.) After about three of these lines of defense have been gone through the Darkspawn line will be completely broken up and disorganised. Meanwhile the defenders have retreated with minimal losses back through the gates of the fortress and the troops above are raining arrows and rocks down on the beasties. That's when Loghain's troops should have come. And even if they hadn't the King would have had a good chance to win with such a strong defensive position. Chargeing out of the fortress to attack was ... gloriously assinine.

And yes we can blame Calin for being stupid, but who advised him as his chief strategist? And while Duncan had his ear I'm under the impression that Duncan only had experience with small unit 'adventuring band' style tactics. No, the whole mess was Loghain's fault.

[Evolution33]

We know somethings about Calien's relationship with a certain country that Loghain hated from RTO. Loghain isn't an idiot and probably knew about Calien's escapades. It could also be that Howe had Loghain's ear and knew what he knew and was the true power hungry one as Eamon said Loghain was never interested in power. Loghain then advised Calien to show himself to the darkspawn making them think (if they can) that they had a huge advantage and then he would flank them from the rear and they would win. Loghain knowing that Calien would have no advantage and would be crushed by the time the signal fire could be lit felt this strategy would help him to get rid of the Wardens and Calien who he viewed as Orlesian threats to Ferelden. Calien is no strategiest and Loghain is smarter than to just use such a simple manuaver when an entire fortress and potention bottleneck strategy is handed to him in Ostagar. Just imagine how slowly the darkspawn would have to move across the bridge that leads into Ostagar, and how they can be blasted with balist and fireballs thinning their numbers and the few that do make it to the gates can only fight in rows of two.

[wowpwnslol]

Andorfiend wrote...


Sorry, but that's nonsense. A Mage is less effective than a cannon. He does less damage, has less range and is much more vulnerable. Cannons changed mass warfare, they did not eliminate it. 7 cannon, or mages cannot defeat 10,000 men.

Lolwhat? Mage is less effective than a cannon? Do you realize your stupidity in even trying to compare the two? A mage can do whatever the creator of a particular setting allows him to do, cannons are things existing in real life, which do not and cannot change for obvious reasons.

From what I've seen in DA, mages in fact CAN nuke a large area down very easily (just an example, in the Mage origin, Jowan's girlfriend says something like: "This tower has enough magical power to destroy half of Ferelden".). Even taking your main character - by the end you could kill Darkspawn in vrtually limitless numbers - my character could literally hack Darkspawn all day and never die, I could win the war by myself. Are you seriously suggesting that entire Ferelden could not muster a few dozen mages to clear away the mindless trash that was attacking them?

People think this game's mages are as useless and weak as Gandalf. They are wrong.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 26 février 2010 - 03:24 .

[booke63]

attackfighter wrote...

Stoomkal wrote...

...

Calling somebody "a retard" does not strengthen your point about having a brilliant tactical mind...

It does make you offensive and childish, though.

Retard is a common term and since I have no illusions that I'm arguing in anything but an internet video game forum I will not mask my wit...

Despite your vow, saying "retard" thoroughly masks your wit.  I can believe you have plenty of wit, but "retard" shows none of it.

[Curlain]

In regards to medieval tactics and the battle of Otragar, one of the things that always makes me cringe a bit when watching allot of fantasy and 'medieval' battles in movies and game (such as Ostragar) is to see warriors just running at an enemy in a disorganized horde, particularly when fighting against superior numbers or intending on holding ground. What happened to the shield wall (a tactic well used by infantry based troops of the early into mid medieval period, such as the English of the Anglo-Saxon or the Vikings, where soldiers stood in ranks, shields overlapping and spears thrust out awaiting the oncoming enemy), which could become a wedge formation, or the Boar's Tusk. At least they had some archers troops in place, and sadly the lack of being able to represent horses in the game also create this disorganized barbarian horde image, as there are no co-ordinated charges from heavy cavalry that were also a mainstay of much of medieval pitched battles.



At least LOTR battles actually showed troops (even orc troops) using formations and tactics somewhat, even if a little unrealistically at times (such as the Rohan cavalry charging straight through a pikeman formation), but it was far better then what happens in many depictions of medieval and fantasy medieval battles, when once battle is joined everyone seems to forget tactics and/or formations and just fly into a general melee/brawl.

[Fluffykeith]

"by the end you could kill Darkspawn in virtually limitless numbers"



yes. There's a reason for that...the trash Darkspawn (the ones with their names in white) were artificially weakened into one-hit-wonders so that the game can put you up against big swarms of them, as I found when I used holy smite on a hurlock emissary and killed all the guys round him. If they were presented the same as the ones you fight before the Landsmeet, the final battle section wouldn't be as much of a walkover.



And it doesn't change the simple fact that the Darkspawn at Ostagar massivly outnumbered the defenders...and they had mages of their own. The "use mages to nuke the army themselves" idea that you propose has big problems with it. Like power levels, casting times, disruption from enemy mages, the sheer size of the horde etc etc

[Ahisgewaya]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...


Sorry, but that's nonsense. A Mage is less effective than a cannon. He does less damage, has less range and is much more vulnerable. Cannons changed mass warfare, they did not eliminate it. 7 cannon, or mages cannot defeat 10,000 men.

Lolwhat? Mage is less effective than a cannon? Do you realize your stupidity in even trying to compare the two? A mage can do whatever the creator of a particular setting allows him to do, cannons are things existing in real life, which do not and cannot change for obvious reasons.

From what I've seen in DA, mages in fact CAN nuke a large area down very easily (just an example, in the Mage origin, Jowan's girlfriend says something like: "This tower has enough magical power to destroy half of Ferelden".). Even taking your main character - by the end you could kill Darkspawn in vrtually limitless numbers - my character could literally hack Darkspawn all day and never die, I could win the war by myself. Are you seriously suggesting that entire Ferelden could not muster a few dozen mages to clear away the mindless trash that was attacking them?

People think this game's mages are as useless and weak as Gandalf. They are wrong.

Damn right!

[Mlai00]

You seem to overestimate the mages of Fereldan.

Even Morrigan and Wynn, arguably the strongest mages in Fereldan at that time, cannot wipe out a level-scaled group of Darkspawn with 1 AoE spell.

The weak grunts that you mow through at the end stage of the game is not representative. They're made weak in order to show how badass your party is. But, the soldiers in the battle at Ostagar aren't that badass... they cannot 1-shot the 10,000 Darkspawn charging them. That includes the Ostagar mages.

[Andorfiend]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...


Sorry, but that's nonsense. A Mage is less effective than a cannon. He does less damage, has less range and is much more vulnerable. Cannons changed mass warfare, they did not eliminate it. 7 cannon, or mages cannot defeat 10,000 men.

Lolwhat? Mage is less effective than a cannon? Do you realize your stupidity in even trying to compare the two? A mage can do whatever the creator of a particular setting allows him to do, cannons are things existing in real life, which do not and cannot change for obvious reasons.

From what I've seen in DA, mages in fact CAN nuke a large area down very easily (just an example, in the Mage origin, Jowan's girlfriend says something like: "This tower has enough magical power to destroy half of Ferelden".). Even taking your main character - by the end you could kill Darkspawn in vrtually limitless numbers - my character could literally hack Darkspawn all day and never die, I could win the war by myself. Are you seriously suggesting that entire Ferelden could not muster a few dozen mages to clear away the mindless trash that was attacking them?

People think this game's mages are as useless and weak as Gandalf. They are wrong.

" A mage can do whatever the creator of a particular setting allows him to do, cannons are things existing in real life, which do not and cannot change for obvious reasons."

Right. And? We know what the creators of this setting let mages do, and they are less effective than cannon. No spell has 1/10th the range of a cannon ball. A fireball has less range and maybe equivalent power compared to  an explosive shell. Cone of Cold has less range, less breadth and less lethality than grapeshot.

So given that Mages are a known quantity and cannons are a known quantity I fail to see the stupidity in comparing them.

As for badmouthing Gandalf....  Enjoy a life eating flies.

And the fact remains that almost no game or setting has mages powerful enough to obsolete an army or mass warfare. At best a really powerfull mage is usually the equivalent of a fighter/bomber. Capable of destroying almost any single target or providing some support but of little impact to a line of men a mile across and certainly not capable of actually taking and holding land in the long term. That requires troops on the ground, as even the vaugest awareness of modern history should tell you. If not... go watch the history channel for a couple of weeks and come back.

[Ahisgewaya]

Clearly you have never tried using "storm of the Century".

[krylo]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

Clearly you have never tried using "storm of the Century".

See, on the one hand this.

If all seven mages had been capable of layering some "Storm of the Century" all up in the darkspawn's bizness before they reached the troops, the battle would have been over right then and there.

On the other hand: Have you looked at Jowan, Irving, the Ishal Mage, Wynne or Morrigan's intial spell sets?

The vast majority of mages in Thedas have no idea how to build a proper mage.

Modifié par krylo, 26 février 2010 - 06:28 .