11/03/2018 07:06 AMPosted by
Droité
Yes, the Alliance could likely defeat the Horde should it commit to a war of annihilation against them (that is true, sorry fellow Hordies ... it would be bloody and long, but I don't doubt the Alliance would win should they commit to such a goal).
I disagree. The only time the Alliance has a clear advantage over the Horde is when half of the Horde itself is actively helping them against the other half(Wrathgate, Siege of Orgrimmar, etc.). The rest of the time, both sides are evenly matched. Neither side could wipe out the other even if it wanted to.
11/03/2018 07:07 AMPosted by
Mannec
If it was written well and made sense, but this is just … just … I don't know what to make heads or tails of it. … Alliance can't win because of a single person? Even though they have all these super weapons.
The Horde has just as many dumb superweapons.
11/03/2018 06:49 AMPosted by
Mannec
OH and let's not forget a working, operating, GIANT SPACESHIP! That was the key instrument in defeating the Burning Legion! Though the Legion became a sad joke long before the Legion expansion.
[/quote]
Can you guys get off the case of the Vindicator? It's just a crystal version of a standard Horde/Alliance Skyship. It has ONE count it, ONE gun, and not a particurlarly impressive one at that. It most definitely does not have anything even close to a "nuke from Orbit' capability and it's more powerful sister ship was brought down in one shot.
I think its more Anduin realizing Slyvanas is willing to go to places that he could never bring himself currently to go or command the Alliance to do, and that leaves him at a key strategic disadvantage that Slyvanas is all too willing to exploit again and again.
Been awhile since I checked in here, noticed new cinematics, and lol my prediction was right that the "Alliance" cinematic would still be centered around a Horde character. Just like last time when Alliance got an abrupt stop after Teldrassil burning and the Horde got this amazing cinematic to tell them how Saurfang and the young Horde might feel about the situation
I'll begrudgingly admit they tried with the Night Elven one at least, but killing three people and flexing your muscles isn't all that fantastic. Especially considering the in-game event shows them being weak and incompetent again (somehow Nathanos managing to hold against a super-god powered Tyrande and Malfurion and completing his objective regardless)
11/03/2018 09:46 AMPosted by
Galka
Anduin said to Saurfang what he thought he needed to say to get him outside the door. You don't have to take his "I can't" as a hard statement if you don't want to.
It would be in the alliance and specifically Anduins best interests to have a succession plan in the event Sylvannas is defeated, because he's not willing (or realistically able) to outright annihilate the horde you run with the old roman philosphy of leaving the conquered people with a "king" they can trust but is actually more amicable to his own terms.
Its not very smart to kill Sadam and his son's while having nobody else to stablize the country in which the locals trust.
PS: This is the first time the game cannon has hinted the alliance do not or no longer have the numbers to keep up the War. That is actually a bigger eyebrow raising moment than anything else (assuming the dialogue between genn and Anduin is representative of the alliance populace at large)
@OP:
It's never easy to fight the undead. The Scourge turn Lorderon into dust in a matter of days and psycho Sylvie has no qualms of using such tactics.
Honestly at this point the as long as psycho Sylvie is in charge the Horde's living races are just like members of the Cult of the Damned. If we want to break this Horde-Scourge it will take both the Alliance and living Horde member races to do it before we all become her zombies.
i was thinking that this could be also one of the three anduin's lies :')
i was thinking that this could be also one of the three anduin's lies :')
That case it would have to be one of Greymane's as well, since he's the one who delivers the report from which Anduin makes his conclusion from. When your advisor tells you that you're running out of soldiers, you don't conclude that things are going well.
11/03/2018 09:46 AMPosted by
Galka
Anduin said to Saurfang what he thought he needed to say to get him outside the door. You don't have to take his "I can't" as a hard statement if you don't want to.
It would be in the alliance and specifically Anduins best interests to have a succession plan in the event Sylvannas is defeated, because he's not willing (or realistically able) to outright annihilate the horde you run with the old roman philosphy of leaving the conquered people with a "king" they can trust but is actually more amicable to his own terms.
Its not very smart to kill Sadam and his son's while having nobody else to stablize the country in which the locals trust.
PS: This is the first time the game cannon has hinted the alliance do not or no longer have the numbers to keep up the War. That is actually a bigger eyebrow raising moment than anything else (assuming the dialogue between genn and Anduin is representative of the alliance populace at large)
I could not imagine the Horde taking anything worse than a Chief (The Alliance would obviously do away with the "War" prefix) imposed by Anduin. That choice would either have to come from the Horde itself or presented as a leader the bulk of the Horde would follow naturally, such as Saurfang or Baine.
And the problem with Iran was not the elimination of Saddam. it was when the United States broke it's promises by disbanding the Iraqui military which had done it's bit by standing aside as the Americans steamrolled their way into Baghdad. It had the double effect of eliminating the only working enforcement structure in the country and putting a lot of men trained in the arts of war into unemployment... making them resentful and ready recruits for what came in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise, a military government would have been in place for a post-Saddam transition... and the U.S. prefers military dictatorships as partners. Saddam was one himself... who'd been placed in power by the U.S.
^^^
If your going to use real world references at least get your countries right. Saddam was the leader of Iraq not Iran.
It would be in the alliance and specifically Anduins best interests to have a succession plan in the event Sylvannas is defeated, because he's not willing (or realistically able) to outright annihilate the horde you run with the old roman philosphy of leaving the conquered people with a "king" they can trust but is actually more amicable to his own terms.
Problem here is Anduin already has his best friend Baine if he plans on imposing a leader favorable to him.
You cut it off.
I cant.. not alone.
It surprises you that a child who has no business commanding an army and still forces his soldiers to fight with both hands tied behind their backs is getting outplayed by experienced tacticians/strategists? The worse part is Anduin doesn't have the wisdom to step down and let someone who's willing to get their hands dirty end it quickly.
It was inevitable that the alliance would win something, but not through skill or tactics, but merely rolling over the horde with bodies. Small wonder Tyrande walked out, its the blind leading the blind.
It surprises you that a child who has no business commanding an army and still forces his soldiers to fight with both hands tied behind their backs is getting outplayed by experienced tacticians/strategists? The worse part is Anduin doesn't have the wisdom to step down and let someone who's willing to get their hands dirty end it quickly.
Considering a new big bad is coming soon, fighting a war of annihilation was never realistic. Sure, we wipe out the Horde, there has never been any doubt in my mind the Alliance could do it, but it would sap too much of the Alliance strength that will be needed to deal with other threats.
11/03/2018 08:49 AMPosted by
Bronnix
War is not the place for idealism its a dark and dirty business. The only good war is a quick one something Saurfang and Anduin both fail to understand. Both of them are doing nothing but prolonging the war with half measures and every day it drags on hundreds more die.
Idealism is the only thing that has managed to keep all of us alive. Hell if not for "Alliance idealism" the entire Horde would have been executed post warcraft 2, possibly leading to the death of Azeroth once the Legion returned.
Hell, even not out rightly killing Garrosh lead to its own boon. Thanks to him the Legion plan accelerated and because of it we got to stomp Sargeras before he created his Dark Parthenon.
11/04/2018 04:08 PMPosted by
Treng
11/03/2018 06:49 AMPosted by
Mannec
Sylvanas is a god compared to every faction leader we have.
No she isn't.
Probably not but when War of Thorns Novellas put her and Malfurion fighting it was a lot less in Malfurion' favor than in game looked, meaning she is likely on par with the Alliance heavy hitters.
Idealism is the only thing that has managed to keep all of us alive. Hell if not for "Alliance idealism" the entire Horde would have been executed post warcraft 2, possibly leading to the death of Azeroth once the Legion returned.
Considering
A. Sparing the Orcs is what drove Gilneas, Kul Tiras, and Quel'thalas away from the Alliance.
B. Daelin wasted the Kul'tiran Fleet to persecute Orcs and Trolls instead of fight the Scourge.
C. Terenas ignored Medivh's warning and putting more attention on the Plague early on when it was more containable, because he was more concerned about the Orcs breaking out.
D. The resources spent on the camps could have been used to help rebuild reducing the number of desperate peasants who turned to Kel'thuzad and the Cult of the Damned.
E. The Silver Hand could have been dealing with problems other than Orcs.
The idealism cost as much as it brought, and knowing now that there was an uncorrupted Black Dragon who could have taken up the Earth Warder mantle, we didn't need Thrall.
The idealism cost as much as it brought, and knowing now that there was an uncorrupted Black Dragon who could have taken up the Earth Warder mantle, we didn't need Thrall.
There's nothing in canon to indicate that said uncorrupted Black Dragon could have simply taken up the mantle of Earth Warder while Deathwing lived. And even if so, that Earth Warder would not have been available during the third war, or the first time the orcs saved the planet.
Idealism saved all life on Azeroth from the Burning Legion. That is far more than it costed.
11/04/2018 07:32 PMPosted by
Roghter
The idealism cost as much as it brought, and knowing now that there was an uncorrupted Black Dragon who could have taken up the Earth Warder mantle, we didn't need Thrall.
There's nothing in canon to indicate that said uncorrupted Black Dragon could have simply taken up the mantle of Earth Warder while Deathwing lived. And even if so, that Earth Warder would not have been available during the third war, or the first time the orcs saved the planet.
Idealism saved all life on Azeroth from the Burning Legion. That is far more than it costed.
If Kel'thuzod is never raised, Archimonde never has a caster strong enough to bring him to Azeroth. No Archimonde, Night Elves keep their immortality and Eastern Kingdoms have no distraction from fighting the Scourge.
No Orcs means no distraction for the Cult of the Damned, meaning Lorderon isn't rolled over as easy and Quel'thalas has time to see the threat the Scourge possess. We know if Quel'thalas was able to fully deploy our army the Scourge fail to take the Sun Well, hence why Slyvanas warning Silvermoon is a defeat condition.
Orcs were as much a problem as they were an aid. Let alone as I brought up the situation is far less favorable for the rise of the Cult of the Damned if Alliance doesn't fall apart at the end of the war, soldiers are available to clean up the wilds, and resources are available to rebuild.
If Kel'thuzod is never raised,
I'm sorry, I'm opting to not go down this string of hypothetical assertions passed off as fact.
We have the actual lore. And we have you saying, "Well yeah, sure, maybe, but like, what if the Scourge fails to overrun Lordaeron, and then Silvermoon?"
The actual lore matters, the other thing may be fun to think about but should never be passed off as a rebuttal. Like you are doing now.
Pretty sure a fair amount of Alliance characters could beat Sylvanas in a 1v1. She and Nathanos have dat plot armor guarding their asses.
11/04/2018 08:03 PMPosted by
Roghter
If Kel'thuzod is never raised,
I'm sorry, I'm opting to not go down this string of hypothetical assertions passed off as fact.
We have the actual lore. And we have you saying, "Well yeah, sure, maybe, but like, what if the Scourge fails to overrun Lordaeron, and then Silvermoon?"
The actual lore matters, the other thing may be fun to think about but should never be passed off as a rebuttal. Like you are doing now.
To judge if the Orcs were needed to save Azeroth you have to look at the costs of them being interned instead of the alternative. Since in the lore we know there are clear negative costs that led to the situation where they were needed to save Azeroth you then logically have to ask the question would their absence have led to the same scenario where they were needed.
You can't ignore the alternatives when your argument is X leads to Y . What you are trying to do is say correlation equals causation which isn't always true. Only way to prove as causation or disprove as causation is to look at other scenarios and judge if they logically lead to the same or different results.