135 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

I also thought the court scenes were marvelous. I truly enjoyed meting out justice and 'ruling' over my people - better than Howe ever did imho.

I was a little creeped out when one of the nobles I killed as part of the conspiracy showed up later to lay claim to some guy's bridge, though. Ah, well. He should get it back once she realizes she's dead.

[KnightofPhoenix]

errant_knight wrote...
Er, so if I don't agree with you I will only be happy slaying god? I dealt with some issues, and a lot of it felt good. Until the end when virtually everything I'd worked for was destroyed. Rebuildable, yes. The stuff of legend, yes. Most of those people I tried to help, who i equipped? Dead.

But you can't really be trying to tell me what I should and should not find fulfilling, can you? That's like telling me what kind of beer I like, or what religion I should be.

Well people die in wars.

No I am not telling you that you should be fullfilled.
But that's like reading Romeo and Juliette and then being depressed that it ended tragically (which isn't the case in Awakening anyways).

Anyways I digress. You are entitled to your opinion of course.
But I think you are slightly exagerrating. In fact, you shoudl try not upgrading your kjeep at all and see what happens, maybe that will change your prespective.  

[Noir201]

krylo wrote...

The OPTIMAL choice would be to defend the city with patrols along the roads defending trade.  Perhaps those patrols could occassionally defend farmland near the road.

However, that choice wasn't available, and as that defending any ONE area is relatively useless/pointless, the only real option is to defend all three and hope you can recruit.  And sending a few troops out into the farmlands will probably help the peasants be happier and more loyal to you.  That's good, I guess.

That was my point, middle of the road choice, which isn't there, regradless yes i can see how somethings are pointless, i could list number of things which you could do to improve and save almost everything, but it's late and i'm tired, and it wouldn't add much too this topic if i typed a wall of text about it.

[WuWeiWu]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...
better than Howe ever did imho.

Not that that's particularly difficult, given his track record.

True xD

Sarah1281 wrote...

I also
thought the court scenes were marvelous. I truly enjoyed meting out
justice and 'ruling' over my people - better than Howe ever did imho.

I
was a little creeped out when one of the nobles I killed as part of the
conspiracy showed up later to lay claim to some guy's bridge, though.
Ah, well. He should get it back once she realizes she's dead.

Yeah,
I killed that female dog after the court scenes so was spared that
massive oversight... however, I did catch a glimpse of her in the
cutscene before fighting for the Keep/Amaranthine.

Modifié par WuWeiWu, 22 mars 2010 - 01:32 .

[WuWeiWu]

Modifié par WuWeiWu, 22 mars 2010 - 01:31 .

[errant_knight]

Noir201 wrote...

Something i have noticed also, your warden is always too late, everything that happens, the keep, countryside, the city, always too late, while one could say "thats the point, you can't save everything" but the fact you're not given a choice to even try, does take away the players warden's control, something origins didn't do.

Agreed entirely, I got very tired of arriving when everyone was dead, be it in a quest or the main plot. It got to the point of being, 'Ah. Of course every one is dead. Why would I expect otherwise?' I should be relieved that Alistair didn't show up as he led me to believe he might. He probably would have gotten killed. Just before I could get to him.

A note about the court scenes.... I enjoyed those very much, as well. I would definately have liked more of that.

[sylvanaerie]

WuWeiWu wrote...

As Alistair would say "Creepy"...well shoot you edited as i quoted...but it was in regards to the dead woman making her court claim and then being seen later in the siege scene.  Zombies sure get around in DA

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 22 mars 2010 - 01:34 .

[sylvanaerie]

errant_knight wrote...

Noir201 wrote...

Something i have noticed also, your warden is always too late, everything that happens, the keep, countryside, the city, always too late, while one could say "thats the point, you can't save everything" but the fact you're not given a choice to even try, does take away the players warden's control, something origins didn't do.

Agreed entirely, I got very tired of arriving when everyone was dead, be it in a quest or the main plot. It got to the point of being, 'Ah. Of course every one is dead. Why would I expect otherwise?' I should be relieved that Alistair didn't show up as he led me to believe he might. He probably would have gotten killed. Just before I could get to him.

A note about the court scenes.... I enjoyed those very much, as well. I would definately have liked more of that.

Of particular disappointment was the quest to go rescue the farm family.  No matter WHEN you do it, they are already dead in addition to the templar who helped them out.  Seeing as I got all these pointless quests would have been freaking nice if ONCE in a while I actually DID help someone out instead of finding them dead/cheating/insert bad thing here result.

[WuWeiWu]

errant_knight wrote...

Noir201 wrote...

Something i have noticed also, your warden is always too late, everything that happens, the keep, countryside, the city, always too late, while one could say "thats the point, you can't save everything" but the fact you're not given a choice to even try, does take away the players warden's control, something origins didn't do.

Agreed entirely, I got very tired of arriving when everyone was dead, be it in a quest or the main plot. It got to the point of being, 'Ah. Of course every one is dead. Why would I expect otherwise?' I should be relieved that Alistair didn't show up as he led me to believe he might. He probably would have gotten killed. Just before I could get to him.

A note about the court scenes.... I enjoyed those very much, as well. I would definately have liked more of that.

I only remember three distinct times where I came too late.... the farmstead with the templar that 'occasionally checks in on the family', the Legion of the Dead misshap at Kal'Hirol, and Amaranthine at the end there.  Doesn't seem /so/ bad, considering that I didn't even know there was an unearthed entrance to the deep roads out there, let alone what amounted to a long-lost, giant college for the shaperate.

Heading off to that farmstead was literally the very first thing I did, before I made any keep upgrades or cleared out the basements. I was sad that they were all dead

Modifié par WuWeiWu, 22 mars 2010 - 01:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

krylo wrote...

Like I said in another thread, I found it to be the most prudent of those offered.

Defending the farm land?  Completely pointless.  You have limited troops, and you're trying to defend a huge wide open farmland with no walls, and no individual points of interest?  Impossible.  The farmlands will fall regardless.

Agreed.

krylo wrote...
Defending the city alone?  Pointless.  All you are defending is a limited number of civilians and a trade center.  The trade center would be important except if you aren't defending the road there is no trade.  You NEED trade at this point, as you NEED food.  With the farmlands in peril from constant darkspawn raids and no realistic way to protect them, trade is the only way to get food.

Amaranthine is a costal city. Supplies can be ferried via the sea. Plus, it's a symbol. Symbols matters greatly in war. Plus keep in mind that you do secure a trade route (the wending wood) area whether you put troops there or not. It's just not as safe as it could be.

krylo wrote...
Defending the trade route alone?  Least pointless, but still sub-optimal.  You have trade, but no trade center.  The only thing it is good for now is getting food and supplies to your keep.  This leaves you with the option of either dealing with more revolts than you'll already have as your people are going to be the only ones who are eating (and the French taught us this leads to guillotines), or overly straining your soldiers and men with supplying food to other areas.

Vigil's keep is a trade center, since you recruit several (well two) traders.
The revolts can be delt with peacefully or violently, that always happens in war ,regardless of where you position your forces. They can try and they would be put down.

krylo wrote...
The OPTIMAL choice would be to defend the city with patrols along the roads defending trade.  Perhaps those patrols could occassionally defend farmland near the road.

Like I said, you already secure a trade route once  you deal with Velanna. It just isn't protected as much as it could be.

krylo wrote...
However, that choice wasn't available, and as that defending any ONE area is relatively useless/pointless, the only real option is to defend all three and hope you can recruit.  And sending a few troops out into the farmlands will probably help the peasants be happier and more loyal to you.  That's good, I guess.

You have to take into account the very limited forces you have at your disposal. To disperse them like this would ensure that none of the areas are well defended. In essence, they become useless.

So while protecting the city and trade can be seen as a prudent decision, dispersing your men to defend everything is not in my opinion.

Protecting the city or protecting trade are the two best options imo.

[Legbiter]

I thought my ending was all bunnies and sunshine. My PC saved Amaranthine, the Vigil withstood the darkspawn horde, Orzammar links up with Kal'Hirol permanently, the Mother and Architect were both brutally slain, etc, etc. Oghren becomes the model Warden and a good dad, Nathaniel saves my PC's brother from bandits and redeems his family name and Anders thrives as a warden. Sigrun gets her good death fighting at the Vigil as does Justice, although it's left vague whether he's really gone from Thedas. Oh, and Velanna buggered off which was fine with me.



All of the above would have been enough for me without Bioware having to go on about how the peasants loved my Warden, how areas visited recovered, etc. And as a cherry on top my PC rejoins Lelianna to adventure some more.



Now all that's missing is a pony. A rainbow-colored pony. Which craps gold.

[krylo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Amaranthine is a costal city. Supplies can be ferried via the sea.

But those supplies aren't cutting it.  When you arrive the guard captain tells you in no uncertain terms that people are starving and the lack of supplies from the Pilgrim's Path is a large reason for it.  Only the smugglers (whom are probably committed to a joint venture of small sea faring craft and trading with Wending Woods scavengers) have any real wealth/supplies.

Plus, it's a symbol. Symbols matters greatly in war.

True, but your troops having full bellies and sharp swords matter more.

Plus keep in mind that you do secure a trade route (the wending wood) area whether you put troops there or not. It's just not as safe as it could be.

We only know that from a metagaming perspective.  Our character only knows that these darkspawn are intelligent, can speak, and can set up complex and devastatingly successful ambushes which means they can use strategy.

Strategy during any 'siege' operation, or, really, at any time when it is possible, dictates that one hits an opponents supply routes.  This keeps your own troops supplied while harming theirs.

Therefore, the warden would have to--assuming they thought things through/listened to the old lady--assume that even if they clear out ONE nest of darkspawn raiders in the Wending Woods, more will take their place.  If not in the woods than all along the route.  They don't even have to catch every merchant--just enough of them to make the merchants afraid to travel through anymore.

Vigil's keep is a trade center, since you recruit several (well two) traders.

True--but it's not one that is in any position to deliver supplies to the civilians.  And if you let the civilians starve they will revolt.  Like rats, they will fight when backed into a corner--and if their only options are die or raid the keep for food and probably die, well every day with an empty stomach the latter seems more tempting, if only because the death would be quick and clean.

A civilian revolt is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a government during war time.  Especially when you have limited troops.  Fighting one enemy is hard enough, fighting two is terrible.

The revolts can be delt with peacefully or violently, that always happens in war ,regardless of where you position your forces. They can try and they would be put down.

True, but I didn't know that playing the first time (or even that there would BE a revolt), and it would be metagame knowledge anyway.

You have to take into account the very limited forces you have at your disposal. To disperse them like this would ensure that none of the areas are well defended. In essence, they become useless.

I do take it into account, but I don't think either Amaranthine or the road truly need many troops.  The entirety of Ferelden is roughly 5-600 miles across.  Amaranthine (the arling, not the city), therefore, couldn't be very large, and thus the section of the pilgrim's path that needs to be patrolled wouldn't be either.   Small patrols, maybe five of them, of 5-10 men, should be able to provide adequate protection for travellers/merchants.

Amaranthine, in the meanwhile, is a walled city with gates with its own dedicated guard force that could suplement defending soldiers in a pinch.  So long as they have time to close the gates, a small force SHOULD be able to defend it adequately until reinforcements can arrive to flank the invaders.  This isn't what happens in game, but it's what should happen if the defenders weren't incompetent.

So long as the forces to the farmland are a small token force (smaller than the force dedicated to the trade route), made up mostly of scouts--thus allowing them to perform a duel function of making the peasants feel better and providing me/my military with valuable intelligence on darkspawn movement across the Arling--I think that the dispersal could work quite well.

So long as I have over 50 men.

I'd have liked the ability to alter laws, to replace the penalty for most 'light' crimes (theft and the like, which will often happen out of need) with conscription, to start a recruitment drive, and or to draft the majority of the peasantry into the armed forces (You get clean beds, food, and your families may move to the keep if they are near enough to darkspawn activity), to supplement the forces as well, but those were, sadly, not options.

Modifié par krylo, 22 mars 2010 - 02:17 .

[SirOccam]

Efesell wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
 Apparently I talked to her during the final battle in Denerim and that reset me to "friend" status or something...so now I have to go back and redo the entire last battle of Origins and then redo all of Awakening, just so I can get that mention.

You should really try giving her the mirror gift after she switches to see if that will reset the proper flags.

Lots of people wanting to know.

Sadly, I think on that playthrough I've already given her the mirror. I'm on the verge of starting over and playing a 99% identical playthrough JUST to choose a different voice for my PC.  If sanity doesn't prevail, I'll let you know how that goes.

[SirOccam]

I think this expansion could have been really great if it were a full-sized sequel. If the court politics were given more depth (think how much more amazing that conspiracy subplot could have been), Origins companions/romances could have been put in, and the companions were given more dialogue and their quests expanded, it would have been amazing.

Anders' personal side quest especially is just begging for a continuation. I mean his phylactery is still out there, plus how are the templars going to react to me killing a pair of them after they claimed they have the right to take him anyway? Seems like some major-league politics could be about to explode there.

I was a little bummed to see that our Wardens stay as commander at Vigil's keep only for a short time, though I would want to be back to the search for Morrigan anyway. I liked being called "Commander" instead of "the Grey Warden" (especially when other Wardens are around), and I think the intrigue and politics aspect of the game really needs to be revisited in a full-size game.

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]krylo wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Amaranthine is a costal city. Supplies can be ferried via the sea.[/quote]But those supplies aren't cutting it.  When you arrive the guard captain tells you in no uncertain terms that people are starving and the lack of supplies from the Pilgrim's Path is a large reason for it.  Only the smugglers (whom are probably committed to a joint venture of small sea faring craft and trading with Wending Woods scavengers) have any real wealth/supplies. [/quote]

It wouldn't cut it if the war raged for a couple of months. But it would be sustainable for a couple opf weeks. Sure, people might die starving, but that happens. No sense trying to change that. 

The refugees are the ones who are starving at the moment, or so I have understood. Tragic, but it happens. The city as a whole though is somewhat managing, especially if you bring order to it and deal with the criminals.


[quote]krylo wrote...

[quote]
Plus, it's a symbol. Symbols matters greatly in war.[/quote]True, but your troops having full bellies and sharp swords matter more. [/quote]

I am not so sure. Moral is the food of any army. With no moral, an army can't fight regardless of how well it's fed.

And equipments is another matter. They are manufactured at the vigil and they need mines. They aren ot depedent on either trade or the city.

[quote]krylo wrote...

[quote]
Plus keep in mind that you do secure a trade route (the wending wood) area whether you put troops there or not. It's just not as safe as it could be.[/quote]We only know that from a metagaming perspective.  Our character only knows that these darkspawn are intelligent, can speak, and can set up complex and devastatingly successful ambushes which means they can use strategy.

Strategy during any 'siege' operation, or, really, at any time when it is possible, dictates that one hits an opponents supply routes.  This keeps your own troops supplied while harming theirs.

Therefore, the warden would have to--assuming they thought things through/listened to the old lady--assume that even if they clear out ONE nest of darkspawn raiders in the Wending Woods, more will take their place.  If not in the woods than all along the route.  They don't even have to catch every merchant--just enough of them to make the merchants afraid to travel through anymore.[/quote]

Which is why I think securign the trade routes is the best option.

Yes we know that through meta-gaming, because the game can't be a strategy simulation. But the old lady said that the merchant whose caravans were hit is in Amaranthine and she bascially tells us that if the woods are secure, he can recieve the caravans, without mentioning the need of soldiers patrolling. So the game is telling you not to worry about it.

Sure, in RL, I would be alot more worried. But here, I can see the prudence of just defending the city, since the trade routes would be relatively secure anyhow. We can't escape meta-gaming, no matter how hard we try.

Plus the position of the Vigil in and of itself is designed to secure trade. So while darkspawn raids would be destructive, they wouldn't that decisive. Had there been no keep, then it would have been a problem.

[quote]krylo wrote...


[quote]Vigil's keep is a trade center, since you recruit several (well two) traders. [/quote]True--but it's not one that is in any position to deliver supplies to the civilians.  And if you let the civilians starve they will revolt.  Like rats, they will fight when backed into a corner--and if their only options are die or raid the keep for food and probably die, well every day with an empty stomach the latter seems more tempting, if only because the death would be quick and clean.

A civilian revolt is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a government during war time.  Especially when you have limited troops.  Fighting one enemy is hard enough, fighting two is terrible.[/quote]

Revolts happen almost during any war, especially in a medieval setting. So I wouldn't try too hard to avoid it.

Amaranthine too won't be able to provide supplies to the bulk of the population who live outside the city.
But if the trade routes are securted, then both Amaranthien and the Keep can recieve supplies and those forutnate enough to live in or near these two locations can get some of them.
Too bad for the rest.

Yes revolts are a bad thing, but they are mostly unavoidable in war. They in fact happen reagarldess of your choices in the game. 

[quote]krylo wrote...


[quote]The revolts can be delt with peacefully or violently, that always happens in war ,regardless of where you position your forces. They can try and they would be put down.[/quote]True, but I didn't know that playing the first time (or even that there would BE a revolt), and it would be metagame knowledge anyway.[/quote]

It's a risk, and war is all about risks. But revolts can be put down, you don't need meta-gaming for that. It's easy. You just kill them all or frigthen them. Whether that would succeed or not is another thing, but like I said, war is risk and you can't please everyone.

[quote]krylo wrote...

[quote]You have to take into account the very limited forces you have at your disposal. To disperse them like this would ensure that none of the areas are well defended. In essence, they become useless. [/quote]I do take it into account, but I don't think either Amaranthine or the road truly need many troops.  The entirety of Ferelden is roughly 5-600 miles across.  Amaranthine (the arling, not the city), therefore, couldn't be very large, and thus the section of the pilgrim's path that needs to be patrolled wouldn't be either.   Small patrols, maybe five of them, of 5-10 men, should be able to provide adequate protection for travellers/merchants.

Amaranthine, in the meanwhile, is a walled city with gates.  So long as they have time to close the gates, a small force SHOULD be able to defend it adequately until reinforcements can arrive to flank the invaders.  This isn't what happens in game, but it's what should happen if the defenders weren't incompetent.

So long as the forces to the farmland are a small token force (smaller than the force dedicated to the trade route), made up mostly of scouts--thus allowing them to perform a duel function of making the peasants feel better and providing me/my military with valuable intelligence on darkspawn movement across the Arling--I think that the dispersal could work quite well.

So long as I have over 50 men.

I'd have liked the ability to alter laws, to replace the penalty for most 'light' crimes (theft and the like, which will often happen out of need) with conscription, to start a recruitment drive, and or to draft the majority of the peasantry into the armed forces (You get clean beds, food, and your families may move to the keep if they are near enough to darkspawn activity), to supplement the forces as well, but those were, sadly, not options.

[/quote]

Scouts are present whether you decide to protect the famrland or not. Fielding scouts is different than dedicating your army to protect the farms.

I think we mostly agree and had I the choice, I would have made sure that both the city and the trade routes are secured. But since we do not have that option, throwing away some of my men to die in the farm is utterly pointless. So I see protecting the city or trade as the only two rational solutions. Because they inevitably benefit the other.

If you protect the city, you protect a trade center, both coastal and inland. With the presence of the keep and the clearing of the wending woods area (which is the single largest threat to trade), trade is relatively secured (and forces can be redopleyed at any time in RL).

If you protect trade, you ensure that both the Keep and the city are supplied. The city has walls and gates, it doesn't need that many men, like you said.

So those are the two options I would consider, as they are intertwined.

Protecting the farmlands is completely pointless. And even sending some of the men, while the rest are protecting trade and the city is pointless. They will die for nothing.

And keep in mind that the bulk of the darkspawn horde is to the east. They only managed to attack the Vigil from underground. So the trade route from Amaranthine - Vigil - Denerim, is not urgently threatened by the darkspawn. They are too busy devasting the country side.
 
The single largest threat to trade is the Wending Woods problem. Once that is delt with, trade is relatively secured. And if another threat arises, then forces can be redeployed.

[Marso40]

SirOccam wrote...

 
Anders' personal side quest especially is just begging for a continuation. I mean his phylactery is still out there, plus how are the templars going to react to me killing a pair of them after they claimed they have the right to take him anyway? Seems like some major-league politics could be about to explode there.

Agreed that there is more to resolve there, but legally you are okay. The Wardens DO have the right of Conscription, and King Alister / Queen Anora themself granted you custody of Anders. Remember that in a feudal society the word of the monarch was law, especially when they were considered to rule by Divine Right. We don't know if the Andastrians believe in that or not, but it was clear that there was no involvement regarding Anders by the Grand Cleric or anything like that. That smarmy little templar just didn't want to lose, and tried to end run the king. Bad idea, as it turned out for her.

I was a little bummed to see that our Wardens stay as commander at Vigil's keep only for a short time, though I would want to be back to the search for Morrigan anyway. I liked being called "Commander" instead of "the Grey Warden" (especially when other Wardens are around), and I think the intrigue and politics aspect of the game really needs to be revisited in a full-size game.

Agreed 100%. I'd like to see an expansion/DLC/sequel/whatever with a new character doing all these things.

[SirOccam]

Marso40 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Anders' personal side quest especially is just begging for a continuation. I mean his phylactery is still out there, plus how are the templars going to react to me killing a pair of them after they claimed they have the right to take him anyway? Seems like some major-league politics could be about to explode there.

Agreed that there is more to resolve there, but legally you are okay. The Wardens DO have the right of Conscription, and King Alister / Queen Anora themself granted you custody of Anders. Remember that in a feudal society the word of the monarch was law, especially when they were considered to rule by Divine Right. We don't know if the Andastrians believe in that or not, but it was clear that there was no involvement regarding Anders by the Grand Cleric or anything like that. That smarmy little templar just didn't want to lose, and tried to end run the king. Bad idea, as it turned out for her.

You could be right. I agree the Wardens are definitely in the clear legally, but it seemed to me that the Templar you killed was representing all the Templars, and whether we are right or not, whether or not they do something about it depends on whether or not THEY think we are right. But maybe she was just acting on a personal level; that would fit too. Still, it would be cool to see a group like the Templars/Chantry or some other large organization try to take on the Wardens politically.

[Addai]

I agree to feeling rather flat about the story, errant_knight, though playing a Warden Queen, there was some grim satisfaction in being able to save the town of Amaranthine.  I also don't stress too much about the "disappearing," because I figure it for a hook and otherwise don't rate it much.

What felt flat was hardly being able to get to the surface of my companions and the fact that the Architect was so little fleshed out in-game.  I thought it was a story that had potential, but largely unfulfilled and rushed in execution.

The up side is that I felt the same about Return to Ostagar, but was still able to pull some roleplay threads from it.  Awakening is mostly forgettable to me and I don't particularly look forward to replaying it (I probably will to see if I can get more out of the companions).  However, there are story threads I like.  For instance, my current Origins character is a blood mage and as she prepares for the Blight, it's apparent to her that the darkspawn emissaries are more powerful than Ferelden's pathetic Circle mages and its few apostates who have to fight for survival.  This RP thread from Origins will be confirmed for her when I take her to Awakening, where darkspawn magic takes front and center.

Modifié par Addai67, 22 mars 2010 - 03:54 .

[Marso40]

SirOccam wrote...

 
You could be right. I agree the Wardens are definitely in the clear legally, but it seemed to me that the Templar you killed was representing all the Templars, and whether we are right or not, whether or not they do something about it depends on whether or not THEY think we are right. But maybe she was just acting on a personal level; that would fit too. Still, it would be cool to see a group like the Templars/Chantry or some other large organization try to take on the Wardens politically.

I think a political catfight that denigrated to skirmishing/ open combat between the Chantry (and the Templars by extension) and the Grey Wardens would make for an EXCELLENT expansion/sequel. Imagine if the Divine called for an Exalted March against the Grey Wardens. Shades of the Pope vs. the knights Templar back in 1314 or whenever it was Jacque de Molay was burned at the stake and the Templar Order outlawed.

You may be onto something really good here. The templar does remark that the wardens have always been a haven for criminals and apostates, and based on most of our companion choices I would have to agree.

[krylo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It wouldn't cut it if the war raged for a couple of months. But it would be sustainable for a couple opf weeks.

I didn't know how long the war would last.  If it was just weeks I'd probably have enough in storage to support my troops, and thus supplies are hardly an issue at all.

The refugees are the ones who are starving at the moment, or so I have understood. Tragic, but it happens. The city as a whole though is somewhat managing, especially if you bring order to it and deal with the criminals.

I am not so sure. Moral is the food of any army. With no moral, an army can't fight regardless of how well it's fed.

Well, if you're playing the Orlesian this might be an issue, but with an imported PC, your character and vigil's keep are also both powerful symbols.

Plus I had four points in coercion.  I'm pretty sure I could have given a rousing speech if necessary.

Revolts happen almost during any war, especially in a medieval setting. So I wouldn't try too hard to avoid it.

I would try to avoid a large and/or organized one.

The larger it is the more likely it is to actually kill some of your remaining soldiers, not to mention cause morale loss and desertion amongst those who survive.  Soldiers don't like killing civilians in their own lands.  Some of them are friends and family, after all.

A few rabble rousing peasants is one thing, but treating the peasantry like total dirt and letting them starve... well, kings have been brought low more than once for this.  And they didn't even need to be distracted by another war or the loss of most of their troops.

It's a risk, and war is all about risks. But revolts can be put down, you don't need meta-gaming for that. It's easy. You just kill them all or frigthen them. Whether that would succeed or not is another thing, but like I said, war is risk and you can't please everyone.

Ah, you were speaking generally.  Misread and thought you were speaking of our specific tiny little revolt.

Well, either way, my answer is in the above.

Scouts are present whether you decide to protect the famrland or not. Fielding scouts is different than dedicating your army to protect the farms.

Yeah, but my point is that were I able to actually control my troop dispersal I'd have them keep concentrated groups in Amaranthine, at a few points in the road, and in the keep.  I'd then have the entirety of the farmlands 'protected' by scouts.  If they located darkspawn preparing to attack a village and there was time, a group could be dispatched.

It would allow me to 'protect the farmlands as best I was able' without actually taking troops away from the other two more important tasks.

As that I hate the choices provided, I choose to believe this is how the farmlands are protected.


Next time I probably WILL protect the trade routes, though, as that I know--through metagame--that the only time Amaranthine is attacked the soldiers stationed there are useless as hell, anyway.  The city still gets taken, and it's not like I actually needed their help to wipe the floor with the darkspawn.

[WuWeiWu]

Aside: I find the assumed poetic inference in the title of this thread quite pleasing.

[Ceridraen]

I noticed the adultery angle, too.  And I thought, 'is someone having trouble with their marriage???'  The ending is depressing, & definitely negates the happy feeling at the end of Origins & at the beginning of this one. Gee, thanks, Bioware! 

[TiaraBlade]

See, that's the thing, I played Origins five times in a row without even taking a day or two off between startups, and I really can't say that I feel the need to play Awakening again. The story elements that I found interesting (Architect, Urtha, Broodmother, the nature of the darkspawn, dealings with the companions from both Awakening and Origins) were barely touched on, and a lot of the rest was a matter of accumulating goods or pretty depressing. The difference between the two is fairly vast.

Good point on some missed story telling opportunities. I haven't read the Calling yet so quite a bit of the story I missed. It would have been interesting to have delved more deeply into the battle between the Architect and the Mother, including more of a team up (for example, in some of the end game, it appeared that the dark spawn were fighting amongst themselves and then whoever remained went after ME!  Umm... your boss did send me here, ya know. Maybe you should be HELPING me?!?!?

A pact between Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens, what a concept! Obviously not a popular one (Justice and Sigrun freaked on me when I didn't try to kill the Architect and I'm still wondering if I did the right thing) but I believe that he wanted to truly end the Blight. I still think it wierd that it didn't occur to him that sending enough Dark spawn to the Vigil to take it over (as they did) was a BAD idea! At least he learned when he sent the messenger to the city during the end game.

Definitely fun but I missed the greater complexity of the character interactions from the first game. Also, the lack of voice acting for the main character still rankles, as I saw when the Joining was conducted by the Senchal rather than the Commander as appropriate.

Anyway, still a great deal of fun. I am a little sad that I was never able to complete Oghren's quest though- it was open but it never let me talk to him about it. Or maybe I hit the wrong conversation option. I dunno. He seemed a hard one to make happy in this game.

[errant_knight]

WuWeiWu wrote...

Aside: I find the assumed poetic inference in the title of this thread quite pleasing.

I'm glad you find it so.

[KnightofPhoenix]

krylo wrote...

Revolts happen almost during any war, especially in a medieval setting. So I wouldn't try too hard to avoid it.

I would try to avoid a large and/or organized one.

Yes, but throwing your men to die in the farmlands isn't accomplishing that. They revolt because of the lack of food. No matter what you do, they revolt.

Sending them men to die isn't going to create food...except if they are cannibals.

krylo wrote...

As that I hate the choices provided, I choose to believe this is how the farmlands are protected.

I too choose to believe that dedicating the bulk of the army to protect the city, would not impede the keep's ability to secure the trade routes and mining operations.

And, I choose to believe that protecting the trade routes would in fact benefit both the keep and the city, both of which do not need that many men to protect anyhow.

And at the end, that choice is mostly irrelevent sadly. As you said, it doesnt' matter one bit if you put your troops to defend Amaranthine. Protecting the trade routes gets you new gear at the merchant within the keep, mostly useless anyhow.

In general though, I personally think that protecting the city or trade are the most prudent options given to us. Protecting the farmland is completely and utterly useless.
Protecting all three, if done like you said, is better, but I am still not comfortable with wasting ressources and men trying to protect farmlands that would be lost anyhow. If the darkspawn ate crops, I would most likey burn the land anyhow. 

My main problem with the third option is that some soldiers die needelessly. Whereas in the first and second option, they are used for something useful and necessary.