Major victory in Standoff?

That is what some people have suggested would have happened, yes. Would it really be all that likely? I don't know. Personally, I don't think the Emperor would ever have executed him, regardless of his previous threats - if he didn't execute him after the failure of the Battle of Terra in the official storyline, he wouldn't have executed him just because it turned out to be a somewhat bigger failure in this storyline.
 
CT25 said:
Thanks for replying guys. I checked the Flight History section and the epilogue read "Next Year In Kilrah" so I presume I got the best ending. (It was tough saving the Saratoga I'll admit). ;)

Now I have to go back and lose on purpose in certain spots to see the "okay" and "losing" parts right? :D
Click to expand...

Honestly, I found that the Kilrathi go after the cruiser more so then the Saratoga. So I defended her first. Sure enough, if you defend the Saratoga, you lose the cruiser. If you defend the cruiser, both ships appear to survive... not really sure why.
 
Quarto said:
That is what some people have suggested would have happened, yes. Would it really be all that likely? I don't know. Personally, I don't think the Emperor would ever have executed him, regardless of his previous threats - if he didn't execute him after the failure of the Battle of Terra in the official storyline, he wouldn't have executed him just because it turned out to be a somewhat bigger failure in this storyline.
Click to expand...

I always had an impression that by Battle of Terra Thrakath is Emperor's last living direct descendant, all other possible Heirs are offspring of his siblings and/or cousins, so despite Thrakath's repeating lack off competence the Emperor is not willing to kill the last of his bloodline
 
That may well be the case. But it's difficult to say.

On the one hand, he did order the execution of his own son (and watched it!), and he does threaten to kill Thrakhath at at least two points (one at the end of SO2, and the other... hmm, somewhere in SO1?), so clearly, he could be pretty ruthless. On the other hand, who can tell? Maybe as time went on, he became increasingly attached to Thrakhath.

It is also possible that after all those setbacks, the Emperor just wouldn't be able to execute Thrakhath and stay in power. Executing Thrakhath would mean taking personal responsibility for all the defeats - based on what we read about the interactions between the Emperor and the clans (and particularly Baron Jukaga), this could have been the final straw leading to an overthrow. We'd already seen Khasra attempt to kill Thrakhath. In that situation, the Emperor probably would have remained alive... but would he retain any power? And that was in the family, Khasra was Thrakhath's cousin - what would happen if the other clans simply refused to accept another heir from the Kiranka clan?
 
Just to be sure, it looks like there are three endings (these aren't their official names obviously, just general terms I gave):
Losing
Pyric Victory
Victory

I've seen the 'Victory' ending, and 'PV' people have said is the events of Fleet Action so I can imagine that one. What happens in the 'worst' ending though? Does it show Earth getting sterilized (strontium 90) or something?


And to add to Quarto's first post, I think you can also save the Leyte Gulf in addition to the Saratoga can't you?
 
CT25 said:
I've seen the 'Victory' ending, and 'PV' people have said is the events of Fleet Action so I can imagine that one. What happens in the 'worst' ending though? Does it show Earth getting sterilized (strontium 90) or something?
Click to expand...
The losing ending (which, sadly, is very difficult to see - IIRC, it's only possible to see it in a few missions on the losing path) doesn't show Earth getting nuked, though it's implied that this has indeed happened.
Instead, you see Bradshaw sitting in a fighter and running out of life support, recording his final entry.
 
I'd like to discuss what you said, how does one do 'spoiler' text like you did?

And, I apologize if this comes across as rude or anything, but do we really need spoiler text at this point? Hasn't Standoff been out long enough? Your call though.
 
Well, no, you probably don't need spoiler tags - but you never know, there's always the chance that someone will read this who hasn't played Standoff. So, it's only polite to use it. Anyway, to start a spoiler, just put the word spoiler in square brackets. Then, at the end of the spoiler, do the same, except with a / before the word spoiler.
 
You said the 'losing' ending implied Earth got nuked. Does Bradshaw say that in said final journal entry that you mentioned? Does he say something like "humanity's lost, Earth's gone..." that sort of thing?
 
Just fail one of the critical missions on the losing path to find out. :)

I don't really think you can call the secondary or 'middle' victory ending a pyrrhic victory. To me that implies the sort of victory where you have won the battle but lost the war - and it is, I believe, the ending that most closely follows the events of Fleet Action. Well, I suppose it does explain the dire situation the Confederation is in by WC3, but it wasn't the completely ruinous victory that a 'pyrrhic' label implies.

Well, this is just semantics, I suppose. I know what you meant. :)
 
Wedge009 said:
I don't really think you can call the secondary or 'middle' victory ending a pyrrhic victory. To me that implies the sort of victory where you have won the battle but lost the war - and it is, I believe, the ending that most closely follows the events of Fleet Action. Well, I suppose it does explain the dire situation the Confederation is in by WC3, but it wasn't the completely ruinous victory that a 'pyrrhic' label implies.
Click to expand...
I think, in order for the 'pyrrhic' label to be appropriate, this would have really had to have been an offensive action. Pyrrhus' victory was pyrrhic because he would have been better off had he not gone to war. Obviously, this is not the case for Confed - they had no choice but to fight this battle, and all things considered, any amount of casualties was a small price to pay for saving Earth.

Getting the winning ending in Standoff, but having the Rigakhs succeed in nuking Earth - now that would have been pyrrhic.

CT25 said:
You said the 'losing' ending implied Earth got nuked. Does Bradshaw say that in said final journal entry that you mentioned? Does he say something like "humanity's lost, Earth's gone..." that sort of thing?
Click to expand...
The "yeah, hope" bit, and the way he says it, is a giveaway (
at that point, we originally planned to show the Earth, but for various reasons, we ultimately decided against it
).
 
Sorry for using wrong semantics. I guess I was operating off a connotation. What I meant was that while it didn't completely ruin Confed, they couldn't afford such heavy casualties in many more battles.

But I think we all understand each other in any case right? :)

How about "Light Victory" and "Victory" for the two endings then? ;):p
 
In my ending I didn't confront thrakhath, or meet blair.. But I just fly out the game to the best of my abilities at the time and never "restore" unless I die.

I'll try it again sometime next month and see if I end up different. At one point I wished I did everything I ever did carried over through all the games, but that would have made the sequels way to complicated and they would have offered me a free CD-Rom multiloader with WC3!
 
The mission in which Blair appears is, IMO, the hardest in Standoff. I eventually had to give up and knock the difficulty down to Hero in order to get through it (keep meaning to go back and have another attempt at Nightmare, not gotten around to it yet). It is also sufficiently epic that everybody should have at least one go at it, mind.

Mace said:
At one point I wished I did everything I ever did carried over through all the games, but that would have made the sequels way to complicated and they would have offered me a free CD-Rom multiloader with WC3!
Click to expand...

I don't know...I mean it sound difficult, but if you think about it:
If you lose WC1 or SM1 the Confederation is likely to lose the war in short order and you won't even get to WC2. Likewise you can't lose WC3 and continue the war.

If you lose SM2 then, well that's really a minor defeat, however horrendous the situation is for the Firekka. The situation could well be essentially identical by the time of WC2 ten years later.

WC2's winning and losing endings are fairly similar, it's just than the major Confed victory happens closer to Sol in the losing case. This may actually matter, but I doubt it, since Vukar Tag is away on the other side of the Galaxy from Enigma so everything that happens post-WC2 can probably still happen.
 
It's a very brief cameo.

Basically, you just hear his ejection speech taken straight from WCP, then Stingray exclaims that Maverick is down and he's taking control of the wing.
 
Wedge009 said:
It's a very brief cameo.

Basically, you just hear his ejection speech taken straight from WCP, then Stingray exclaims that Maverick is down and he's taking control of the wing.
Click to expand...


well he gives some orders first, and taunts some cats - these are generic coms from WC3. it happens around halfway through the ep5 winning path
 
I don't recall the attack orders. And the taunts could be random. But I'm pretty sure it's just the one mission.
 
Yeah, he's a fully-fledged pilot, which means he's got all the comms that other pilots have - with taunts taken from WC3 and all the other comms straight from WCP (no points for guessing why we didn't use the WCP taunts ;) ).

It just occured to me now how funny it is that we actually scripted Blair to eject in order to conform with a minor detail of the WC3 novel. You can change the established timeline by destroying a bunch of supercarriers and achieving a decisive victory - but there's nothing you can do to save one pilot from bailing out :). Oh, well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top