230 réponses à ce sujet

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

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.

So I guess the galaxy would be pretty stable when all the organic races are extinct.  Again, you have to make the decision based on whether or not you believe you can take an unknown enemy of obscene, yet unquantified power, while taking an unknown number of losses on approach.  You simply cannot guarantee that you're able to take Sovereign out even *if* you saved every single ship for the fight.  How can one honestly believe sacrificing any ships in this situation to be acceptible?

[Goodwood]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

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.

You don't honestly think that the geth are screening in three dimensions as well? Again, the Alliance forces will have to punch through at some point, whether or not they save the Ascension. As for the situation itself, thanks to Vigil's program, Shepard does have Sovereign locked out of the system; sure it's temporary, but we don't know just how temporary. Then Sovereign makes the fatal mistake of putting its essence into Saren's corpse and attacking Shepard...

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

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.

What are you talking about?  Admiral Hackett is with the fleet that comes through the Relay, that's why he's commanding the battle up there.  That entire decision to bring the fleet in or not should be his call, not Shepard's.

[CmdrFenix83]

Vaenier wrote...

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.

Joy, so he exterminates every single ship in the area, and the remnants of the Geth fleet can move in at once, blow out the windows to the Council Chamber, and move in with everything and press the 'on' switch.  With the entirity of the Citadel and Arcturus fleets obliterated, it's only a matter of time until he gets that relay on.  Hell, he could just sit there and wait for someone to board him then indoctrinate, or just send out armies of husks.

Sovereign surviving the battle would result in galactic extinction.

[Goodwood]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

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.

What are you talking about?  Admiral Hackett is with the fleet that comes through the Relay, that's why he's commanding the battle up there.  That entire decision to bring the fleet in or not should be his call, not Shepard's.

And Hackett is indeed in command of the fleet once it passes through the mass relay. Until then, he's flying blind as a bat, and needs someone who is in a position to know what's going on in-system to give him guidance. Shepard is that someone.

Respectfully, where do you get your ideas about strategy and tactics?

[c0rps3f4ctory]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Because in the short term, sacrificing functional ships to save one that's moments from exploding isn't a very wise decision. Don't think about this in a game sense(BioWare wouldn't give you the decision like that at the apex of the game just to have it result in game over), but rather from the perspective of Shepard.

What if those ships lost saving the Ascension were enough lost firepower that Sovereign won? That single question was the reason my first Shepard told the fleet to Concentrate on Sovereign.

thats exactly what I kept thinking till my friend said "oh you have enough firepower to save them AND kil sovrigen!"

<_<

[Speakeasy13]

I was thinking like a diplomatic. I didn't know I could choose to put Anderson on council at the time and thought it would be Udina I had to deal with. So I thought, well I didn't want to deal with the repercussion of being blamed for the death of the council (which was in fact the case if you let em die) and Udina wasn't gonna back me up. So saving the council could probably make me (and humanity) look better.



On retrospective I'm glad I made that decision. Humanity does NOT deserve to be leading the galaxy. And I don't think I can live with unwillingly starting a tyranny.

[primero holodon]

so I can Drop the galaxies biggest "I told you so"

[Sigma Tauri]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
On retrospective I'm glad I made that decision. Humanity does NOT deserve to be leading the galaxy. And I don't think I can live with unwillingly starting a tyranny.

No one should. Neither humanity nor the Council.

[8erserker]

I'm role-playing as James Bond in space, and Bond would be annoyed by the publicity of being the guy who caused the death of the galaxy's leaders. Plus he's not stupid enough to want the 3 most powerful alien races known to be a security risk to humanity.

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

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.

You don't honestly think that the geth are screening in three dimensions as well? Again, the Alliance forces will have to punch through at some point, whether or not they save the Ascension. As for the situation itself, thanks to Vigil's program, Shepard does have Sovereign locked out of the system; sure it's temporary, but we don't know just how temporary. Then Sovereign makes the fatal mistake of putting its essence into Saren's corpse and attacking Shepard...

So now you're makign things up to support your argument.  They're engaged with the Council fleet, the Ward arms are closed.  The Council fleet has no where to retreat to except FTL... which leaves them in the middle of no where and the Geth in control of the Relay.  The Geth can afford to spread their fleet out all over and attempt to block the Alliance fleet from going completely around them to a closed Citadel?  The Ward arms didn't even open until the fleet was right on top of the Citadel.

Again, if they didn't go around the Geth fleet, this would have been mentioned *somewhere*.  It wasn't.  They show zero combat before the Alliance fleet enters the opening Ward arms.  None.  No fighting.  THEY.  WENT.  AROUND.  Unless you've got data that isn't mentioned in the game, you're pulling your 'Geth screening' out of your ass.  If you've got proof, present it, and I'll conceed the point.

Sovereign dying due to Cyborg-Zombie-Saren's death wasn't known at the time, and you cannot know whether or not those 8 cruisers lost during the move to save the Ascension are critical to stopping Sovereign.  It's a split-second tactical decision that has to be made immediately.  Political ramifications are irrelevant if Sovereign wins.  The *only* thing that matters at the time, is stopping Sovereign.  Sacrificing ships to save the Council, is a tactically stupid, yet politically correct move. 

[J.G]

Because i was young and stupid.

[Speakeasy13]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...
On retrospective I'm glad I made that decision. Humanity does NOT deserve to be leading the galaxy. And I don't think I can live with unwillingly starting a tyranny.

No one should. Neither humanity nor the Council.

I agree. But at least the Council has demonstrated a bigger degree of selflessness and care to the welfare of all galactic citizen than the alliance; that and the Council is made up of 3 (4 now) races, so it's still better than 1 race leading the entire galaxy.

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

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.

What are you talking about?  Admiral Hackett is with the fleet that comes through the Relay, that's why he's commanding the battle up there.  That entire decision to bring the fleet in or not should be his call, not Shepard's.

And Hackett is indeed in command of the fleet once it passes through the mass relay. Until then, he's flying blind as a bat, and needs someone who is in a position to know what's going on in-system to give him guidance. Shepard is that someone.

Respectfully, where do you get your ideas about strategy and tactics?

Except, Shepard knows just as little as Hackett does.  (S)he's inside the Citadel with the Ward arms closed, remember?  Shepard can only know what the radio is telling him, just like Hackett knows, since Joker says 'Just caught that distress call...'  Shepard is in no position to be giving orders to a fleet being commanded by an Admiral.  Even less considerign that Shepard's on the ground with zero knowledge of the fleet's positioning and what not. 

Shepard can recommend a course of action, but it's up to the Admiral to decide what to do after passing through the Relay.  He's an Admiral, being able to assess the situation quickly is part of his job.

To your last question, I have zero military training, or anything of the sort.  All I can do is assess the situation logically through the available information.  Those being the keywords available information.

[CmdrFenix83]

c0rps3f4ctory wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Because in the short term, sacrificing functional ships to save one that's moments from exploding isn't a very wise decision. Don't think about this in a game sense(BioWare wouldn't give you the decision like that at the apex of the game just to have it result in game over), but rather from the perspective of Shepard.

What if those ships lost saving the Ascension were enough lost firepower that Sovereign won? That single question was the reason my first Shepard told the fleet to Concentrate on Sovereign.

thats exactly what I kept thinking till my friend said "oh you have enough firepower to save them AND kil sovrigen!"

<_<

Metagaming, sure "BioWare won't screw us like that".  At the time, you can't know what Sovereign's specs are.  It was completely possible that nothing the Fleets did up there could dent Sovereign.  We simply don't know.  Which again brings me back to... "Then how can we justify risking ships and losing firepower before engaging him?"

[Goodwood]

Making things up? Of course I am. Nowhere does it state how the battle actually played out, and the cutscenes we do see are scant in that regard. The only things we know for certain during the first game is that the Council fleet are being battered by Sovereign and the geth, unable to prevent it from entering the station prior to closing the ward arms (which Saren did, not Sovereign). Then the Alliance comes in and, depending on your choice, smashes the geth line to save the Ascension, taking casualties in the process, or loitering outside the engagement zone until the arms open. Maybe we're watching different cutscenes, or maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see the Alliance fleet going around anybody.



My whole stance of citing sound tactical doctrine is based off of educated guesswork, to this I freely admit. Yes, the choice has to be made in a split second, I'm not arguing that, and yes, the choices aren't written all that well. But the OP asked why I saved the Council, so I gave my reasons.

[Raphael diSanto]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...


Except, Shepard knows just as little as Hackett does.  (S)he's inside the Citadel with the Ward arms closed, remember?  Shepard can only know what the radio is telling him, just like Hackett knows, since Joker says 'Just caught that distress call...'  Shepard is in no position to be giving orders to a fleet being commanded by an Admiral.  Even less considerign that Shepard's on the ground with zero knowledge of the fleet's positioning and what not. 

Shepard can recommend a course of action, but it's up to the Admiral to decide what to do after passing through the Relay.  He's an Admiral, being able to assess the situation quickly is part of his job.

To your last question, I have zero military training, or anything of the sort.  All I can do is assess the situation logically through the available information.  Those being the keywords available information.

Eh, the game's (both games are, really) full of situations like that, asking Shepard to make the big decisions when maybe he shouldn't be. I guess it's supposed to empower us as gamers, or something.

Why should I have to decide what to do with the last remaining Rachni, for example? All the comms are turned back on, can't I just call the council and let them decide?

[Destinfire]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

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.

It isn't really playing politics if you are trying to save the leadership of the galaxy. Any US soldier worth thier salt would put thier life down for the President no matter how they felt about him even at great risk to both country and fellow soldiers. In this case the stakes are all that greater as changing leadership, especialy such powreful leadership, in the midst of a galactic crisis is not taticaly sound. Plus I must repeat that any comander who would allow the deaths of thier head of goverment when an opertunity to save them is presented isn't much of a soldier, (unless the leaders are totalitarian but in this case they are not). Also I think it preobebly sets a bad precedent for the next leaders to trust you.

[Vaenier]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

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.

Joy, so he exterminates every single ship in the area, and the remnants of the Geth fleet can move in at once, blow out the windows to the Council Chamber, and move in with everything and press the 'on' switch.  With the entirity of the Citadel and Arcturus fleets obliterated, it's only a matter of time until he gets that relay on.  Hell, he could just sit there and wait for someone to board him then indoctrinate, or just send out armies of husks.

Sovereign surviving the battle would result in galactic extinction.

Devide and counquer. You have soverign trapped inside the closed citadel, unable to aid the Geth outside. you take out all geth outside before opening up the arms and using the combined firepower of the alliance and citadel fleets on the single ship...

You even bother thinking this through yet?

Dont forget that just because Soverign is dead doesnt mean the geth cant open the relay. You have to remove all enemies to make sure no Reapers visit from dark space.

Please dont make me rewrite the entire situation out because you keep overlooking parts... i am getting tired of having to explain every single little detail.

Modifié par Vaenier, 24 mars 2010 - 02:59 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Goodwood wrote...

Making things up? Of course I am. Nowhere does it state how the battle actually played out, and the cutscenes we do see are scant in that regard. The only things we know for certain during the first game is that the Council fleet are being battered by Sovereign and the geth, unable to prevent it from entering the station prior to closing the ward arms (which Saren did, not Sovereign). Then the Alliance comes in and, depending on your choice, smashes the geth line to save the Ascension, taking casualties in the process, or loitering outside the engagement zone until the arms open. Maybe we're watching different cutscenes, or maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see the Alliance fleet going around anybody.

My whole stance of citing sound tactical doctrine is based off of educated guesswork, to this I freely admit. Yes, the choice has to be made in a split second, I'm not arguing that, and yes, the choices aren't written all that well. But the OP asked why I saved the Council, so I gave my reasons.

You watch the Alliance fleet flying laterally from the battle.  Battle in front of us, Normandy flying to the left side of the screen.  There's absolutely nothing here that states that the Alliance fleet engaged the Geth once.  Not once.  So why would you assume they did? 

Shepard:  "Don't waste ships, we have to focus on Sovereign!"
Joker:  "Okay!"  ::Waits five minutes for ward arms to open before plowing through the Geth fleet, sustaining casualties just as badly as they would if they had gone in earlier.::
Shepard:  "WTF?!  Why didn't you go around them?  You're in space!  Literally infinite directions to go around them, and you go *through*?!  How did you graduate from the Academy?!"

[Sigma Tauri]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
I agree. But at least the Council has demonstrated a bigger degree of selflessness and care to the welfare of all galactic citizen than the alliance; that and the Council is made up of 3 (4 now) races, so it's still better than 1 race leading the entire galaxy.

Sorry, but I disagree. The Council seeks to preserve itself, its monopoly on intergalactic power, and the order it imposes above all else. The Council never protected human citizens in the Traverse at the risk of war. The Council also voted against investigating missing colonies near the Terminus Systems. You had to take the initiative for the first and with Cerberus's help for the second. There's also the Spectres, who are exempt from local prosecution and answers only to the Council. These are the same people who was willing to turn a blind eye on Saren so long as the job gets done.

The Council itself isn't tyrannical, but it's aristocratic and elitist.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 24 mars 2010 - 03:01 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Eh, the game's (both games are, really) full of situations like that, asking Shepard to make the big decisions when maybe he shouldn't be. I guess it's supposed to empower us as gamers, or something.

Why should I have to decide what to do with the last remaining Rachni, for example? All the comms are turned back on, can't I just call the council and let them decide?

I agree.  I think it's dumb that Shepard makes many of these choices.  Rachni was indeed a great example.  Comms work just fine, and the Queen's in a giant jar, she's not going anywhere.  Have Joker fire up the FTL comms and ask the Council to make the decision.

[Raanz]

Commander_David wrote...

I only saved the Council because political instability is the LAST thing you need when trying to organize a defense against the reapers... but in ME 2 the stupid council act like soverign was just a simple geth dreadnaught.. idiots that they be

^This  when you don't have political stability, you have anarchy (or Detroit)..  I kid!  I promise, just a joke.

[Ulicus]

I saved the Ascension. The Council were lucky to be on board. Not that I have a problem with the Council, you understand, just that the decision was about saving the most (absurdly) powerful ship in the Citadel fleet rather than three elected officials who could be replaced.

Modifié par Ulicus, 24 mars 2010 - 03:12 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Destinfire wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

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.

It isn't really playing politics if you are trying to save the leadership of the galaxy. Any US soldier worth thier salt would put thier life down for the President no matter how they felt about him even at great risk to both country and fellow soldiers. In this case the stakes are all that greater as changing leadership, especialy such powreful leadership, in the midst of a galactic crisis is not taticaly sound. Plus I must repeat that any comander who would allow the deaths of thier head of goverment when an opertunity to save them is presented isn't much of a soldier, (unless the leaders are totalitarian but in this case they are not). Also I think it preobebly sets a bad precedent for the next leaders to trust you.

The President is being held at gunpoint in Bunker A.  There's a nuclear missile silo saturating the entire USA from Bunker B.  If you go for Bunker B, they will shoot him.  You have a matter of minutes before the nukes hit and they execute him anyway.  The timeframe is short enough that you don't even know if you go straight for Bunker B, that you'll make it in time.  Do you risk going for Bunker A and letting the entire population die, or sacrifice the superficial leader with a large list of replacements to save millions?

This is *not* a political decision.  As your squad tells you "The Council must be sacrificed for the greater good."