Games where characters make dreadful tactical choices.

Recommended Videos

joshuaayt

Vocal SJW
Nov 15, 2009
1,988
0
0
Dragon Age, huh? Why the bollocks did the signal givers need to be signaled to signal the other guys? Hell, why couldn't the signal have been a single beam of flame upwards? The camp was *full* of Mages.

These are questions that we must simply ignore.

Actually, that game (And, yes, I did still love it) was terrible for tactics. I remember that it would often force you to start a battle clumped in front of the enemy, rogues uncloaked and warriors unbuffed. So, my characters were also bad at tactical engagements.

And don't get me started on the Tactics system.
 

Javarock

New member
Feb 11, 2011
610
0
0
Mine would be Fire Emblem: Sacred Stone:

The princes descision to charge a castle with him and two knights?, I mean Seriously... Dumb Idea... If the princesses army had not came and saved their asses they would have died.
 

Ice Car

New member
Jan 30, 2011
1,980
0
0
Seives-Sliver said:
Fallout New Vegas: Thinking that two bullets were enough to kill you.
It was a headshot. Who WOULDN'T think that would be enough to kill someone? Let alone two headshots.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,367
0
0
HankMan said:
All poor decisions pale compared to not acknowledging the existence of the Reapers!
Reapers?

Phhht.

Conspiracy to take full control of my bank account so that Volus politicians can get breast enhancement for their Asari "escorts."

No such thin- ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
HankMan said:
All poor decisions pale compared to not acknowledging the existence of the Reapers!
If you mean Reapers then you are officially a ninja.
I mean, at least acknowledge the possibility that they exist. I understand the skepticism, but Sovereign made it pretty damn hard to ignore.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,660
0
0
DeathWyrmNexus said:
Big problem, his mechanizations weren't sound. He attacked a powerful lord and divided the country.
The country was divided before he "attacked" any lord. The attacks were made in order to force compliance with his rule in the time of crisis.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
He quit the field after he received the signal.
Yes, he received the signal but my argument is that the signal arrived too late. The fixing force had been destroyed and should he commit his army to the fight the numerically superior darkspawn army could have simply turned their primary axis of attack and defense against the threat and the fixing force would be unable to contest this turn. Thus Loghain would be throwing his smaller army against a larger one across a wide front. That is, from a tactical standpoint, suicide.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
So while you make a good argument for the necessity of multiple signals, one proved enough.
As I pointed out the problem was that the signal was disrupted by enemy action causing it to arrive late. A message that arrives late is no better than one that doesn't arrive at all.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
He quit the field when he could have made a difference.
His assault would have made a difference. It would, almost certainly, result in the destruction of both his and the King's force. He would have caused casualties in the Darkspawn army but it would seem that such a thing is trivial at best. The King's army won three battles decisively already and their strength only continued to grow. Even should he have pulled a victory out of the ordeal his force would be badly attritted and they would have to quit the field anyway as reinforcements were days if not weeks away.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
Leaving the Wardens to die nearly doomed the country.
My argument was that he had no reason to believe the Wardens were actually necessary to defeat the darkspawn. The last blight was 400 years prior to the events of the game and any stories of the Wardens had passed from history into legend.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
His assassination attempt caused an intracountry power play, doing nothing to stop it.
That power play began with the death of the king. The king was important not because of his skill at rule but because his heredity was of historical significance (the first king had united the kingdom)

DeathWyrmNexus said:
So I don't quite get the whole Loghain was right side of things, I'm afraid.
I'm not saying that he was correct, I'm simply saying that he did not make the grievous tactical and strategic errors people accuse him of.

Because the signal was late, Loghain had to quit the field leaving the King to die. Because the King was dead he had to act quickly to keep the nobles in line in order to preserve their combined strength to face the Darkspawn horde. He had no reason to believe the Wardens were necessary or useful. What's more, given their history of high treason (the reason Warden's keep is a tomb for example), why would Loghain believe that the assistance from Orlais would be anything other than an excuse for them to reassert their rule (which he had spent much of his life overthrowing).

Of his actions, only one of them could be considered even remotely irrational (trying to assassinate the surviving Wardens) and even then, considering his experiences, even that was perfectly rational.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
EDIT: Also, his solution to dealing with people he considered treasonous is more treason?
Without a King (the person against whom treason is committed in the governing system in the game), it is impossible to commit treason. Was quitting the field treason? Probably. But it was also the only intelligent move to make. You do not reinforce a failed effort; such a path is foolhardy.

My point, in fact, is that Loghain made reasonable choices when handed the situation. I'm perfectly willing to believe that committing his force would not have saved the king or allowed the garrison to hold Ostagar for reasons I've clearly stated. Killing a single Arl to keep the nation from plunging into civil war would have been a perfectly reasonable exchange considering the circumstances. And, if killing the Grey Wardens ensured Orlais kept out of the matter (keeping in mind that Loghain had no reason to believe the Wardens were actually anything more than skilled warriors), that works too. After all, what use is saving the nation if you just give it right back to a hated enemy?
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
In saints row 2 DO NOT let your homies get their hands on rocket launchers...it does not end well

In Fallout New vegas if you give your companion a fat man to carry don't give them mini nukes to go with it, It may not kill you but a nuclear explosion out of nowhere will scare the crap out of you
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
Ice Car said:
Seives-Sliver said:
Fallout New Vegas: Thinking that two bullets were enough to kill you.
It was a headshot. Who WOULDN'T think that would be enough to kill someone? Let alone two headshots.
Benny didnt realise that courier number 6 was special.....they were the Player charachter, therefore already stronger than your average NPC
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,361
3
43
Eclectic Dreck said:
And, if killing the Grey Wardens ensured Orlais kept out of the matter (keeping in mind that Loghain had no reason to believe the Wardens were actually anything more than skilled warriors), that works too. After all, what use is saving the nation if you just give it right back to a hated enemy?
Not to mention that the Wardens were forbidden from entering Ferelden for a long time because of a past attempt to try to overthrow a king (Sophia Dryden was the Warden-Commander the, I believe, and the King was Arland). Cailan's father, Maric was the first to allow them back, and Loghain was distrustful of them then.
 

Flukyjoker

New member
Dec 24, 2010
22
0
0
You can argue whether this is a good or bad decision, but Rico causes Killzone 3 by being an impulsive blunderfuck...no spoilers of course.

Still, he caused the 3rd game, and Killzone 3 is rockin'. So perhaps it was his plan all along.
 

MrJKapowey

New member
Oct 31, 2010
1,668
0
0
Vault101 said:
Ice Car said:
Seives-Sliver said:
Fallout New Vegas: Thinking that two bullets were enough to kill you.
It was a headshot. Who WOULDN'T think that would be enough to kill someone? Let alone two headshots.
Benny didnt realise that courier number 6 was special.....they were the Player charachter, therefore already stronger than your average NPC
More dreadful tactical decisions - attacking the guy with either a camera in his glasses or a camera following a meter or two behind him.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
MrJKapowey said:
Vault101 said:
Ice Car said:
Seives-Sliver said:
Fallout New Vegas: Thinking that two bullets were enough to kill you.
It was a headshot. Who WOULDN'T think that would be enough to kill someone? Let alone two headshots.
Benny didnt realise that courier number 6 was special.....they were the Player charachter, therefore already stronger than your average NPC
More dreadful tactical decisions - attacking the guy with either a camera in his glasses or a camera following a meter or two behind him.
you know I imagined that it would look like ED-E from fallout:new veags
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Irridium said:
Nylis said:
Yeah the turian on the Purgatory messed up, but they had good reason for destroying that reaper. When Shepard got on the reaper, something caused the reaper's kinetic barriers to activate, making it impossible for the Normandy to get Shepard off of the reaper. And remember, the whole reason they were there was to get the reaper IFF so they could get past the Omega 4 Relay. So the only way to shut down the barriers and get back to the ship, was to destroy the main power source.
TIM told you the Reaper was there. You could have flown in, saw it, capture video evidence(after all, if some voice files from a random Quarian are enough evidence to get them to discharge their greatest agent, without bringing him into the conversation to defend himself, then I think video evidence from their second greatest would be fine. If anything Anderson will believe the hell out of you and help), fly away, then come back with lots of Council dudes.
That stretched my suspension of disbelief. They were convinced by a single audio file? They were so set on defending Saren, then immediately caved. The fake Shepard anti-virus showed they can duplicate voices in this future. It always bugged me. And making staying loyal to Cerberus mandatory was a facepalm on Bioware's part.
 

Brownie101

New member
Feb 10, 2009
414
0
0
Most Command and Conquer games have horrible tactical decisions, mostly made in the name of story. I mean, honestly, the A.I of your enemies makes better decisions than most of the people in the cutscenes.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
DeathWyrmNexus said:
I always scratched my head and asked where the mage volley was. There was such a big stink about the mages saving their spells for the darkspawn and I don't recall a single damn fireball, Inferno, tempest, Blizzard, or Earthquake. I just saw typical catapult barrages.
. I can agree with this in it's entirety. The mages could have done any number of things to turn the tide with devastating AOE attacks and the like but they appear to do absolutely squat in the course of the battle.

DeathWyrmNexus said:
Loghain could have won the day, despite Cailan's tactical errors, by simply doing what he was told.
Actually, he almost certainly could not.

The strategy being employed is a variation of a pincer movement. Such a strategy relies on a number of facts:
1) Any arrangement of troops where offensive/defensive power is directed along the same axis is stronger than when offensive and defensive power are split into different axis.
2) A force, once committed to a close fight, cannot withdraw from the engagement without significant casualties.
3) A force committed to a close fight, when attacked on a flank, is forced to split its axis of attack and defense.

The strategy thus relies on two distinct components: the fixing force (or the anvil if you prefer) and the attacking force (or the hammer). For this stratagem to be successful, an enemy must be lured into attacking the fixing force and committing to the action (i.e. the battle is joined with main troops and support rather than just skirmishing troops. Skirmishing troops exist primarily to gauge the preparation of a defender and slow any attack on a flank long enough for the main element to respond). The fixing force must then manage to hold the enemy in close combat.

Once the critical moment is reached (the enemy is committed to their attack on the fixing force), the second element comes into play and the enemy is attacked on an additional side. Fully enveloping an army is a dangerous maneuver because, once all hope of retreat is cut off a force will fight far more desperately (thus dramatically increasing casualties on the side accomplishing the envelopment) thus unless the force attempting the envelopment has dramatically superior numbers it is generally considered prudent to allow the enemy a means of escape. Since the enemy can retreat, if his ranks are broken they will take enormous casualties trying to disengage on two fronts.

So, that begs the question "Just why wouldn't it have worked"? The strategy was, at the outset, sound. The fixing force had an advantageous position and the enemy quickly committed to the attack. The plan fell apart for a single reason: the command and control of the King's army was disrupted. This illustrates the key problem: the King's Army had but a single means of relaying the message. A better option would to be to have multiple methods of communicating this information to Loghain's force. Because of the disruption, by the time the message had been received by Loghain, the fixing force had been "destroyed" (a military term that means the force was no longer capable of fighting at a given level of strength. A division that has been destroyed may only be able to fight at the effective level of a Brigade where a company that has been destroyed may only be able to maneuver effectively as a platoon). Thus, had the enveloping force committed themselves to an attack, the likely result would be that the majority of the strength of the darkspawn force could turn to face the attack along a wide front (where their superior numbers would prove an enormous advantage) while the fixing force would no longer be able to sufficiently contest this turn. The probable result would be the annihilation of both the enveloping force and the fixing force.

Loghain, as a result, made the sound strategic maneuver. He conceded the field but maintained a significant portion of his army. Even his future maneuverings (which many would question) were strategically given that he had no reason to know (or believe) that the Grey Wardens were actually necessary to win the war. The Wardens were outcast for a number of reasons including convincing the King to make various decisions in spite of his advice to do otherwise, the fact that they requested aid for Orlaisian Wardens (Whom Loghain had plenty of reason to distrust) and the fact that Wardens had, historically, exhibited a propensity for high treason (thus why the had only recently been allowed to return to Ferelden). In trying to murder the Arl of Redcliffe, he sought to end any intra-kingdom fighting before it began by taking out the ring leader of the most powerful faction. This would allow him to muster a stronger force to face the Darkspawn.
Excellent explanation, btw. That was a stupid mistake on Duncan's part. "Shouldn't we tell someone that a Grey Warden has to slay the archdemon?" "No, we will act when the time comes."
"How about telling someone we know an archdemon is here because we can sense it?" "No, that is classified." Having read The Stolen Throne, I wouldn't have trusted the Orlesians not to take advantage of a weakened Ferelden either.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,091
0
0
Irridium said:
ecoho said:
Irridium said:
Nylis said:
Yeah the turian on the Purgatory messed up, but they had good reason for destroying that reaper. When Shepard got on the reaper, something caused the reaper's kinetic barriers to activate, making it impossible for the Normandy to get Shepard off of the reaper. And remember, the whole reason they were there was to get the reaper IFF so they could get past the Omega 4 Relay. So the only way to shut down the barriers and get back to the ship, was to destroy the main power source.
TIM told you the Reaper was there. You could have flown in, saw it, capture video evidence(after all, if some voice files from a random Quarian are enough evidence to get them to discharge their greatest agent, without bringing him into the conversation to defend himself, then I think video evidence from their second greatest would be fine. If anything Anderson will believe the hell out of you and help), fly away, then come back with lots of Council dudes.
yes lets take a video of the reaper and bring back a bunch of council dudes who will then stop you from takeing the iff and then try to study it therefore getting brain washed. yes they should have taken video of it but leaveing the thing standing would be a no no. While were on the subject why the hell would you not wait to install the iff till your at the citidal? you know were theres a large fleet that could keep your ship safe while your doing this.
I was actually at the Citadel when the Collectors attacked. Found that rather funny...

Also, we would bring them to the Reaper, we would figure out about Cerberus/indoctrinating and all that, then figure out we can't leave, and have to destroy it. Yes its the same result and outcome, but its a much better way of doing it. And we have the added bonus of now proving the Reapers exist.
would you realy want a citadel lacky with you when you borded that ship? also do you realy think theyed let you just take the IFF?
im with you in the fact that shep should have just showed them proof before he borded it but then hed have to go through sooo much red tape.
 

xdiesp

New member
Oct 21, 2007
446
0
0
Aknowledged that this seems like a trope from horror movies, where people always do stupid stuff and be butchered.

But think how cleverly this was reverted in Soul Reaver: right in the intro movie as soon as Kain notices that you are the new main character this time, he kills you.
 

Danceofmasks

New member
Jul 16, 2010
1,511
0
0
80% of the conversations in DA:O.

My archer is going to walk into a situation that has a very good chance of turning hostile, and has an insult competition at stabbing distance.

I mean, really?

At least let me talk from BEHIND THIS ROCK.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,485
0
0
xdiesp said:
Aknowledged that this seems like a trope from horror movies, where people always do stupid stuff and be butchered.

But think how cleverly this was reverted in Soul Reaver: right in the intro movie as soon as Kain notices that you are the new main character this time, he kills you.
This turned out to be a dreadful tactic choice in the end for nearly three games until the two finally got on the same side again.

OT: Final Fantasy 8. All of it. Need an explanation? Give me three hours and a Dr. Pepper.