230 réponses à ce sujet

[Ardonia]

I save the council as they took a chance on me and sure they are arrogant and annoying but show me a high ranking politican who isn't and i like like the asari and salarian representatives, they are on a very powerful ship which has many lives onboard.

[Alanosborn1991]

You cant rally a galaxy to one cause without a diverse council of species representing everyone.



The human council I hear people get when they dont save them dont even want to see Shephard.

[TMA LIVE]

I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do. I figured my job was to protect and save as many lives as possible, even if it meant sacrificing human lives in the process. Also, I figured saving their lives might finally make them trust me (which they "kind of" do, though not as much as I hoped. However, better then them not talking to you at all (aka, like the stupid human council).) Realistically, I might have told the fleet to concentrate on Sovereign, but also to send anyone they can spare to help the council. But again, I did it because it felt like the right thing to do.

However, I will say that me not wanting a "all human" council might have also played a factor.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 24 mars 2010 - 01:25 .

[Raphael diSanto]

Indeed. Sometimes the morally correct decision is the tactically unsound one. That, there, is the difference between Paragon and Renegade.

Modifié par Raphael diSanto, 24 mars 2010 - 01:17 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

- the DA is the most powerful ship of the Council races; it could be useful
- I save 10000 crewmembers
- The geth worship Sovereign, the fifth fleet is going to attack Sovereign...I think it's a poor tactical decision to ignore them
- I ensure political stability
- the asari councilor is hot

That, and the tactical axiom of not holding back reinforcements. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and continue to say it until every dunce who pretends to know basic military tactics acknowledges this: if you are in a desperate battle and suddenly receive a glut of reinforcements, you DO NOT hold them back in order to wait for the "right moment". That is a surefire way to see those reinforcements destroyed and your side defeated in detail.

Napoleon got lucky at Austerlitz. Had his opponents not gone for the gambit, he'd have committed sooner, and still won the battle.

The difference is that you're not sending the fleet into the main battle.  If you tell them to wait until the Ward arms are open, then they literally go around the battle and focus on the only threat that matters.  This has nothing to do with holding reinforcements for the right opportunity.

Hypothetical Example(and a pretty horrific thought):  USA vs China.  There's a massive aerial battle going over the South China Sea.  The battle is going poorly for the USA, and beyond the battle, on the shore, a large number of nuclear weapon silos are powering up.  The heat spikes are noticible, but the openings to the silos themselves are unable to be pinpointed.  Ignore anything not given in the example(anti-missle defense systems, etc). 

Now, your new fleet of Aircraft carriers are just arriving on the scene, they're far enough that they aren't a part of the battle yet.  Do you launch all of your aircraft to join in the dogfighting, or do you hold them back to wait for those silos to reveal their locations and prepare to fire so that your planes can bomb them into oblivion before they can get their missiles into the air?

[Jamelo]

My first time I let the council die..The first thing that always popped in my mind was that if too many ships were lost trying to protect the ascension that I might not have enough to take down Sovereign. This erased any thought I gave to trying to save the council. Not to mention I really couldn't care if any of those ****s died.

[CmdrFenix83]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Landline wrote...

Okay, last time I checked if you don't save the DA the council isn't all human, it's just human lead.

That depends on your alignment.

Paragon Shepards who don't save the council form a new human-led multi-race council.

Renegade Shepards who don't save the council form a new all-human council.

Is that really how it worked out?  I didn't think the paragon/renegade points mattered for the import beyond giving you a starting point.  That's interesting... though, when talking to the reporter on the Citadel in ME2, the charm option shouldn't be talking crap about 'creating an opportunity' and stuff then, and more about dealing with the threat.

[FlyinElk212]

I saved the council so I could kill their dumb asses myself.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 24 mars 2010 - 01:40 .

[Chamberboozer]

Regardless of whether or not the destiny ascention would have been useful in combat, the political rammifications of a human ordering that the council be left behind would have been terrible. I chose to save them because they're the political leaders and the galaxy needs stability at this time, not power struggles.

[CmdrFenix83]

Chamberboozer wrote...

Regardless of whether or not the destiny ascention would have been useful in combat, the political rammifications of a human ordering that the council be left behind would have been terrible. I chose to save them because they're the political leaders and the galaxy needs stability at this time, not power struggles.

And what if the ships lost attempting to save the Council resulted in Sovereign obliterating the Arcturus Fleet?  Reaper Fleet inc, then and galactic extinction.  I know I wasn't the only one looking at this specific battle tactically and not about what the political implications of it would be *if* we survived...

[Goodwood]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

- the DA is the most powerful ship of the Council races; it could be useful
- I save 10000 crewmembers
- The geth worship Sovereign, the fifth fleet is going to attack Sovereign...I think it's a poor tactical decision to ignore them
- I ensure political stability
- the asari councilor is hot

That, and the tactical axiom of not holding back reinforcements. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and continue to say it until every dunce who pretends to know basic military tactics acknowledges this: if you are in a desperate battle and suddenly receive a glut of reinforcements, you DO NOT hold them back in order to wait for the "right moment". That is a surefire way to see those reinforcements destroyed and your side defeated in detail.

Napoleon got lucky at Austerlitz. Had his opponents not gone for the gambit, he'd have committed sooner, and still won the battle.

The difference is that you're not sending the fleet into the main battle.  If you tell them to wait until the Ward arms are open, then they literally go around the battle and focus on the only threat that matters.  This has nothing to do with holding reinforcements for the right opportunity.

Hypothetical Example(and a pretty horrific thought):  USA vs China.  There's a massive aerial battle going over the South China Sea.  The battle is going poorly for the USA, and beyond the battle, on the shore, a large number of nuclear weapon silos are powering up.  The heat spikes are noticible, but the openings to the silos themselves are unable to be pinpointed.  Ignore anything not given in the example(anti-missle defense systems, etc). 

Now, your new fleet of Aircraft carriers are just arriving on the scene, they're far enough that they aren't a part of the battle yet.  Do you launch all of your aircraft to join in the dogfighting, or do you hold them back to wait for those silos to reveal their locations and prepare to fire so that your planes can bomb them into oblivion before they can get their missiles into the air?

Your analogy, unfortunately, is flawed for two reasons. First, American aircraft carriers carry a variety of combat aircraft, most of which are multirole. In the example you provide, a compatent admiral would send the fighters to reinforce the air battle and the strike aircraft to the nuclear silos, where they will orbit until they can pinpoint the launch tubes. The Chinese would have to divert fighters from the main battle to protect the silos and ensure a successful launch, thus further shifting the odds. Second, the Battle of the Citadel is taking place in space, between starships of cruiser weight since the distances involved are too small for dreadnoughts to fight (and for cruisers, this is pushing it), and that fighters are not as crucial to that kind of warfare as they are terrestrial conflicts.

We know that it was cruisers involved from dialogue between Shepard and that reporter in Zakara Ward, and that Sovereign and the Destiny Ascension were the only dreadnoughts in the battle. Given the "map" of the Serpent Nebula provided in ME2's galaxy map, along with the cinematics in ME1, we have a rough idea of the layout of the battlefield. Given that, we know from approximately where the Alliance fleet would have come from to join the fight. Since the Ascension is trying to escape the Citadel fight with the Council on board, they'll be heading for the relay on or near the entry vector for the Fifth Fleet, with geth ships in pursuit. It makes logical sense for the Fifth Fleet to engage the geth harrassing the Ascension for two reasons: to save the Ascension and to ensure that those same geth won't be able to attack the rear flank of the Alliance forces if the Ascension is allowed to be destroyed.

You never leave your flank exposed to the enemy, just like a combat pilot should never allow an enemy aircraft to see his tail.

[TMA LIVE]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Is that really how it worked out?  I didn't think the paragon/renegade points mattered for the import beyond giving you a starting point.  That's interesting... though, when talking to the reporter on the Citadel in ME2, the charm option shouldn't be talking crap about 'creating an opportunity' and stuff then, and more about dealing with the threat.

Yeah, I'm now playing paragon with the default background, and I "really" did not like that as my paragon answer. I'd would have rather "I was trying to save as many lives as I could. If we didn't focus on Sov, more lives would have been lost." Instead, I got, "It wasn't out of spite... it was to create an opportunity." aka, I did it to give humans more power. I never felt more detached from my character then when I heard that.

[Goodwood]

I freely admit, however, that a pure tactical analysis of the battle and choice is difficult to make, even with meta-gaming, because of the paucity of details available. A lieutenant commander in the Systems Alliance military would have been in a much better position to give more specific orders than the BioWare writing department...

That is a joke...

Modifié par Goodwood, 24 mars 2010 - 02:05 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

The difference is that you're not sending the fleet into the main battle.  If you tell them to wait until the Ward arms are open, then they literally go around the battle and focus on the only threat that matters.  This has nothing to do with holding reinforcements for the right opportunity.

Hypothetical Example(and a pretty horrific thought):  USA vs China.  There's a massive aerial battle going over the South China Sea.  The battle is going poorly for the USA, and beyond the battle, on the shore, a large number of nuclear weapon silos are powering up.  The heat spikes are noticible, but the openings to the silos themselves are unable to be pinpointed.  Ignore anything not given in the example(anti-missle defense systems, etc). 

Now, your new fleet of Aircraft carriers are just arriving on the scene, they're far enough that they aren't a part of the battle yet.  Do you launch all of your aircraft to join in the dogfighting, or do you hold them back to wait for those silos to reveal their locations and prepare to fire so that your planes can bomb them into oblivion before they can get their missiles into the air?

Your analogy, unfortunately, is flawed for two reasons. First, American aircraft carriers carry a variety of combat aircraft, most of which are multirole. In the example you provide, a compatent admiral would send the fighters to reinforce the air battle and the strike aircraft to the nuclear silos, where they will orbit until they can pinpoint the launch tubes. The Chinese would have to divert fighters from the main battle to protect the silos and ensure a successful launch, thus further shifting the odds. Second, the Battle of the Citadel is taking place in space, between starships of cruiser weight since the distances involved are too small for dreadnoughts to fight (and for cruisers, this is pushing it), and that fighters are not as crucial to that kind of warfare as they are terrestrial conflicts.

We know that it was cruisers involved from dialogue between Shepard and that reporter in Zakara Ward, and that Sovereign and the Destiny Ascension were the only dreadnoughts in the battle. Given the "map" of the Serpent Nebula provided in ME2's galaxy map, along with the cinematics in ME1, we have a rough idea of the layout of the battlefield. Given that, we know from approximately where the Alliance fleet would have come from to join the fight. Since the Ascension is trying to escape the Citadel fight with the Council on board, they'll be heading for the relay on or near the entry vector for the Fifth Fleet, with geth ships in pursuit. It makes logical sense for the Fifth Fleet to engage the geth harrassing the Ascension for two reasons: to save the Ascension and to ensure that those same geth won't be able to attack the rear flank of the Alliance forces if the Ascension is allowed to be destroyed.

You never leave your flank exposed to the enemy, just like a combat pilot should never allow an enemy aircraft to see his tail.

See the bolded statement.  Don't bring in anything that wasn't in the example.  You cannot change the analogy, just like you cannot change the situation in-game.

First off, heading to the Relay means plowing through the Geth fleet.  Suicide for the Destiny Ascension.  Second, The Arcturus Fleet *does* go around the battle and into the Citadel area.  The Geth aren't hitting their flank, they're tied up with the remains of the Citadel fleet whether or not you saved the Destiny Ascension.  Even if you do save the Council, the Geth fleet isn't obliterated by the Alliance moving through.  They're still there, and the fighting continues between them and the Council fleet. 

So again, just like *both* teammates explain to you as you make the decision... what if BioWare hadn't idiot-proofed the decision, and those 8 cruisers lost(that we know due to hindsight, but at the time, the losses could have been even larger) were the difference between losing to Sovereign or winning?  All your attempts to save the Council did was delay the inevitable for them, and cause galactic extinction.  Stopping Sovereign was the only thing that mattered at the time, and with knowing nothing about his possible defenses and weaponry, could you legitimately conclude that you could handle the fight after taking several losses?

[Destinfire]

When saving the council allot of things came to mind many of which has already been brought up, proving humanity can sacrifice for the greater good, stability, ect. But one reason I did it seems to be missing here and I will put it in more local terms. If the President was in danger and under attack on an aircraft carrier while a large scale assault was being done on the United States, what military commander wouldn't divert forces to save the President weather they agreed with his policies or not.

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

I freely admit, however, that a pure tactical analysis of the battle and choice is difficult to make, even with meta-gaming, because of the paucity of details available. A lieutenant commander in the Systems Alliance military would have been in a much better position to give more specific orders than the BioWare writing department...

That is a joke...

Well, truthfully, Shepard's response should have been... "Why the hell am I deciding?  Is Admiral Hackett drunk up there or something?!"

[Splinter Cell 108]

I left them alive to prove that humanity isn't a bunch of racist bastard interested in their own good and not the good of the galaxy. Besides I can save the council and get rid of Sovereign. Why not do it if it's possible? Besides if you save them they're more helpful in ME2 than the other council. Sure they don't give you much but the other council doesn't even bother to meet with you to see why Shepard is working with Cerberus. They don't care and that shows how much more useless an all human council is at least if you were renegade.

[Vaenier]

Looking at the situation tactically, holding back your fleet makes the fight harder. To get to Sovereign, you have to go through the Geth fleet. If you leave your force divided, the concentrated fire of the Geth would inflict more casualties, leading to less ships capable of shooting at Sovereign.

You gota kill them eventually, might as well do it sooner than later.

[Sigma Tauri]

I saved the Council only because not importing forces you to play in Renegade-leaning events. Otherwise, it was enjoyable to see the Destiny Ascension get blown up. I don't like the pure renegade path. Shepard is a traitor no worse than Saren, and a mass murderer for thinking he can be judge, jury, and executioner to anyone associated to Saren. But, I hate the Council also for its inability to act except, and when Sovereign arrives with its fleet, all the DA can do is take hits.

[Ahglock]

Goodwood wrote...

I freely admit, however, that a pure tactical analysis of the battle and choice is difficult to make, even with meta-gaming, because of the paucity of details available. A lieutenant commander in the Systems Alliance military would have been in a much better position to give more specific orders than the BioWare writing department...

That is a joke...

While it is a joke it shows a point.  We the players have crap information and really can't make tactical decisions.  The characters in the game though do have tactical information, and there information lets you know the best chance at taking out soverign is waiting for the opening and letting the council die.  Now if you want you can pretend you are a master tactician a modern day sun tzu or whatever and with the limited information you had you can make a better deicsion than the characters who have all the informaiton in the game.  It being a game no matter whast you choose there wont be any real negative consequence in the game or any of its sequels. 

[Goodwood]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

The difference is that you're not sending the fleet into the main battle.  If you tell them to wait until the Ward arms are open, then they literally go around the battle and focus on the only threat that matters.  This has nothing to do with holding reinforcements for the right opportunity.

Hypothetical Example(and a pretty horrific thought):  USA vs China.  There's a massive aerial battle going over the South China Sea.  The battle is going poorly for the USA, and beyond the battle, on the shore, a large number of nuclear weapon silos are powering up.  The heat spikes are noticible, but the openings to the silos themselves are unable to be pinpointed.  Ignore anything not given in the example(anti-missle defense systems, etc). 

Now, your new fleet of Aircraft carriers are just arriving on the scene, they're far enough that they aren't a part of the battle yet.  Do you launch all of your aircraft to join in the dogfighting, or do you hold them back to wait for those silos to reveal their locations and prepare to fire so that your planes can bomb them into oblivion before they can get their missiles into the air?

Your analogy, unfortunately, is flawed for two reasons. First, American aircraft carriers carry a variety of combat aircraft, most of which are multirole. In the example you provide, a compatent admiral would send the fighters to reinforce the air battle and the strike aircraft to the nuclear silos, where they will orbit until they can pinpoint the launch tubes. The Chinese would have to divert fighters from the main battle to protect the silos and ensure a successful launch, thus further shifting the odds. Second, the Battle of the Citadel is taking place in space, between starships of cruiser weight since the distances involved are too small for dreadnoughts to fight (and for cruisers, this is pushing it), and that fighters are not as crucial to that kind of warfare as they are terrestrial conflicts.

We know that it was cruisers involved from dialogue between Shepard and that reporter in Zakara Ward, and that Sovereign and the Destiny Ascension were the only dreadnoughts in the battle. Given the "map" of the Serpent Nebula provided in ME2's galaxy map, along with the cinematics in ME1, we have a rough idea of the layout of the battlefield. Given that, we know from approximately where the Alliance fleet would have come from to join the fight. Since the Ascension is trying to escape the Citadel fight with the Council on board, they'll be heading for the relay on or near the entry vector for the Fifth Fleet, with geth ships in pursuit. It makes logical sense for the Fifth Fleet to engage the geth harrassing the Ascension for two reasons: to save the Ascension and to ensure that those same geth won't be able to attack the rear flank of the Alliance forces if the Ascension is allowed to be destroyed.

You never leave your flank exposed to the enemy, just like a combat pilot should never allow an enemy aircraft to see his tail.

See the bolded statement.  Don't bring in anything that wasn't in the example.  You cannot change the analogy, just like you cannot change the situation in-game.

First off, heading to the Relay means plowing through the Geth fleet.  Suicide for the Destiny Ascension.  Second, The Arcturus Fleet *does* go around the battle and into the Citadel area.  The Geth aren't hitting their flank, they're tied up with the remains of the Citadel fleet whether or not you saved the Destiny Ascension.  Even if you do save the Council, the Geth fleet isn't obliterated by the Alliance moving through.  They're still there, and the fighting continues between them and the Council fleet. 

So again, just like *both* teammates explain to you as you make the decision... what if BioWare hadn't idiot-proofed the decision, and those 8 cruisers lost(that we know due to hindsight, but at the time, the losses could have been even larger) were the difference between losing to Sovereign or winning?  All your attempts to save the Council did was delay the inevitable for them, and cause galactic extinction.  Stopping Sovereign was the only thing that mattered at the time, and with knowing nothing about his possible defenses and weaponry, could you legitimately conclude that you could handle the fight after taking several losses?

You're giving an example that leaves out a great deal; I can't recall the exact logical fallacy, but you're basically setting up a strawman example that, really, doesn't have that much relevance and doesn't hold water. I can't debate a flawed analogy when you impose that kind of rule. In any case your argument, and mine as well, are just layers on top of the axiom of commitment of reserves and/or reinforcements. The simple truth is that when help arrives, you pick a spot and send them in right away; the escape route of the Ascension is that logical spot in this instance. The Arcturus Fleet has to get to the main fight somehow, and punching through the geth line at or around the Ascension -- saving it in the process -- is a simple expedient. To not go in at that time is to risk facing more geth ships occupied by less remaining Council forces, so the argument again returns to "what if the Alliance doesn't have enough ships left, after punching through a consolidated geth screening force, to take down Sovereign?"

On top of that, you (Shepard) are a Spectre, sworn to protect galactic stability, and vetted by the Council. I've said this before as well, particularly on the old forums. This essentially makes you not only an extrajudicial law enforcement officer, but a de facto Secret Service-type agent. You answer to the Council, and are also sworn to protect it; sending the Alliance ships in to rescue the Ascension is not unlike having the willingness and ability to throw yourself between the Council and a hail of gunfire.

[Goodwood]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

I freely admit, however, that a pure tactical analysis of the battle and choice is difficult to make, even with meta-gaming, because of the paucity of details available. A lieutenant commander in the Systems Alliance military would have been in a much better position to give more specific orders than the BioWare writing department...

That is a joke...

Well, truthfully, Shepard's response should have been... "Why the hell am I deciding?  Is Admiral Hackett drunk up there or something?!"

Because Shepard is the ranking Alliance officer on the scene (Spectre status notwithstanding) , and is theoretically in the best position to direct the incoming reinforcements. It's the same thing for the forward observer for an artillery battery: though he may be an enlisted man, he's giving spotting orders to the battery's commanding officer.

Modifié par Goodwood, 24 mars 2010 - 02:24 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Vaenier wrote...

Looking at the situation tactically, holding back your fleet makes the fight harder. To get to Sovereign, you have to go through the Geth fleet. If you leave your force divided, the concentrated fire of the Geth would inflict more casualties, leading to less ships capable of shooting at Sovereign.
You gota kill them eventually, might as well do it sooner than later.

No, you don't.  Space has 3 dimensions, not 2.  In the event of letting the Council die, the Arcturus fleet flies *around* (we watch them doing this) the battle.  This leaves the Citadel fleet playing distraction for the Geth forces while the Alliance focuses on the main threat.  Sovereign is the only thing that matters in the battle itself.  If he lives, the Relay opens and the Reapers come en masse and wipe out the galaxy.  Playing politics in the middle of a situation like that is absurd.

[Vaenier]

Oh ya, I also want to add that Sovereign staying alive would not mean the relay gets activated. That was Saren's job. Shep took care of Saren, thus denying access to the "on" switch. Sovereign could cry all he wanted after that, but the relay wouldnt open.

[Sikayda]

Because i didn't want to lose my Spectre status amd i don't like the Alliance


Yes my Shep is to the Alliance what Golo is to the quarians.

And i hoped the hot Asari council member would give me some Thank you sex.

Modifié par Sikayda, 24 mars 2010 - 02:30 .