WC4 ending

Originally posted by Shane
junior, I think you pretty much restated my point about the games and the game novels. Yeah Catscratch did vanish from the novel, I guess to give Blair a romatic interest in the form of Sosa. That's one element I wish would have been consistent from game to novel. Over in the WCIII novel, you fail to stop the bioweapons (which I think was partly used as a plot device to justify the use of the Behemoth and/or Tremblor) and end up with Rachel among other things. Those also appear as references to events in later games and novels, another reason why those paths are considered canon. At least that is my impression of things.
Click to expand...

Yup. I tend to think of the novelizations as the rough literary equivalent of the Hollywood version of history. It may not match up directly, but it follows the history. So unless it directly contradicts something that occurs in game, or is mentioned in the manual, its canon.
So Rachel did hook up with Blair (something mentioned in the WC3 and WC4 novels, and hinted at in the WCP manual), and unless a later WC game (or attached manual) says otherwise, that's the way things stand. Note that it didn't require a hint in the WCP manual (which by itself could arguably be used to refer to hard feelings on the Victory between the two - say if Blair didn't end up hooking up with Rachel) in order to make that 'canon'. The important thing is that there is nothing to contradict it within the game.
I may think the idea of Blair bungling the bio-weapons attack in WC3 is ridiculous, but unless something within one of the games directly contradicts it, the botch is canon (and if a later novel says Blair succeeded, the earlier source takes precedence - i.e. Blair botched it).

On a completely off-topic, but somewhat tangent note, we have the Macross Continuity(s).
Macross TV show - the original story, used as the baseline continuity.
Macross Plus - Side story within continuity (set much later).
Macross 7 - Second TV series, set within same continuity, featuring characters and equipment from the other two series.
Macross Movie (DYRL) - the dramatization of the original TV series story, released during Macross 7 (actually created years earlier in the real world before anyone knew there would be a Macross 7). It can be considered accurate in the parts where it does not contradict the original TV show (which is just about everywhere, actually, although the basic plot is very similar).
Macross 2 - a story which utilizes elements from Macross, but divurges from and does not affect the 'true' Macross continuity in any way, shape, or form.
 
Hah, I was just watching Macross Plus. I gotta say their missiles are useless - literally hundreds of launches and the only thing they hit were a couple of satellites, like the turret mines in WC4.

Anyways I think the games and attached materials take precedence over the novels. But then considering that I've only read Pilgrim Stars I've never had to deal with continuity problems ;)

I also got the admiral ending first time around. Personally I think instructing and flying is the better option then flying a desk, but face it - Hawk's right most of the time anyway.
 
The Bearcat rocks! Tachyons never fail :D

As for the "Blair + Rachel being canon," the WC4 "Price of Freedom," booklet that came with the game has a part with a holovid from Rachel explaining that she left him because of his apparent drinking problem (she says she didn't like the way he "crawled into the bottle," or something to that effect).

I'll post the part word-for-word... just let me dig it up....

But, point being, in order to leave him she had to be with him.

Agreed, Penguin, Hawk is right most of the time.

Macross: DYRL was an incredible dramatization of the events from the Macross TV show. However, I am more a Robotech fan.

Sorry! Topic drift! Time to combat it!

I too am in disbelief that Blair could possibly botch up the Locanda mission and allow the bio-tipped warheads to slip through. Boo :mad:
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom
The Bearcat rocks! Tachyons never fail :D

As for the "Blair + Rachel being canon," the WC4 "Price of Freedom," booklet that came with the game has a part with a holovid from Rachel explaining that she left him because of his apparent drinking problem (she says she didn't like the way he "crawled into the bottle," or something to that effect).

I'll post the part word-for-word... just let me dig it up....

Click to expand...

Let me save you the trouble. Here it is word for word.

"Chris I can't do this anymore. I can't spend my life on a backwater, and I can't stand the way you've crawled into that bottle ( I think what she means here is that Blair has closed himself off from everyone including Rachel, i.e. sealing himself in a bottle). You won't let me help you and I can't live this way. (tear) Chris, I love you, but goodbye."
 
I got the Instructor ending first time I played.

As for Hawk being right or not, I think it depends on whether we're looking at it in terms of *fighting* a war or*preventing* a war. I went with Panther's choices because they were what I would do in those situations, but they also make sense in terms of what we're trying to do in the game.

Flashpaking Ella, for example, will not only leave you with civilian blood on your hands, but will kill hundreds or thousands of Confed soldiers. Given that this is exactly the kind of attack that the BW is being framed for by Tolwyn and co (eg the Orlando depot), right down to using the flashpak used by the Black Lance in their attacks, it would make it much harder to prove to the Confed senate that the BW was innocent of those charges. The same goes for raiding Confed facilities in Speardon, which is almost certain to be interpretated as a very aggressive and warlike action by the Confed senate, giving further credence to Tolwyn's claims that the Border Worlders were warmongers.

The way I see it, while Panther might come across as being the "softie" of the two, I think her choices are tactically and politically smart in the context of WC4. In an all out war, Hawk's choices would make more sense, but if it came to that, the Border Worlds would be doomed in any case.

As for the cannonity of the Admiral ending, it would mean that Blair would have to be demoted between WC4 and WC:p, as the lowest "admiral" rank in Confed's chain of command is Rear Admiral (08), while the rank Blair holds in WC:p is Commode (07). As was hashed on another thread on this subject, Confed doesn't use the rank of Rear Admiral Lower Half. Maybe Blair took his habit of fraternising with enlisted women a step too far. :D

Best, Raptor
 
Maybe he was voluntarily demoted so he could get out from behind his desk? Tolwyn spent a large amount of the games there.
 
Well, you have your theory and I have mine. I still prefer the theoryof Blair being caught in a compromising situation with Panther *and* Sosa, and feeling getting busted in rank was well worth it..... :D

Seriously, though, we do need a clear canon path between WC4 and WC:p. We started talking about this in another thread a while back, but then got distracted over where the rank of Commodore slotted in to the British and US Navies. LOAF, could you provide some answers on how the various WC4 endings slot in with each other, and the path taken by Blair's career? Does he become a flight instructor, an Admiral commanding the Black Lance or a Brigadier General commandin the frontier forces? Does he do two or more of these, and if so which ones?


Best, Raptor
 
Oh, sure, ask me <G>

Firstoff, a final commentary on the rank of commodore in the Wing Commander universe -- it seems to be the equivalent of a rear admiral lower half, as commodores are often referred to as "admiral"... this happens a bit with Tolwyn pre-WC1 and in a few other instances.

As for WCIV, my take has always been the following:

Immediately following WCIV, Blair is promoted to General and takes command of the Intrepid for the peace cruise mentioned at the end of the novel. When he returns, he's offered some similar position of high-importance... but he takes an assignment as flight instructor instead -- prompting Paladin's line. (Afterall -- he's Wing Commander's Chuck Yeager... he loves to fly and even as a General he'd rather be somewhere where he gets a chance to do that).
 
Originally posted by Raptor
I got the Instructor ending first time I played.
Click to expand...

Big surprise ;)

Originally posted by Raptor
The way I see it, while Panther might come across as being the "softie" of the two, I think her choices are tactically and politically smart in the context of WC4. In an all out war, Hawk's choices would make more sense, but if it came to that, the Border Worlds would be doomed in any case.
Click to expand...

This is simply one of those cases where if it works then you're right and if it doesn't then you're wrong. IMHO taking Hawk's advice gives you the best bet to strengthen the UBW's position and the best chance to penetrate Ella. There may not be a declared war, but when someone's shooting live ammo at you - that means war and you've got to take the appropriate steps.
 
Originally posted by Penguin

There may not be a declared war, but when someone's shooting live ammo at you - that means war and you've got to take the appropriate steps.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Penguin.

Besides, Panther was way too *cute* to be fighting a war :D

... although she did chum around with pirates and privateers in her earlier days; that little vixen ;)
 
The point is though, what happens in WC4 is simply a border skirmish as far Confed's military power goes. The forces the Border Worlders faced were only the tip of the iceberg, and if the full weight of those forces had been thrown at the BW ( as we saw in the losing endgame), then the Border Worlders would be crushed. If you can't survive a balls to the wall fight with Confed, then it makes no sense to do things that would provoke such a war. Seeing as the best chance the BW had of surviving was in *preventing* a war declaration from going through, it makes no sense to me to play into Tolwyn's hands by doing exactly the the things he's framing the BW for.

Best, Raptor
 
Raptor: I agree with what you're saying Raptor. In a straight fight the UBW would get it's butt kicked. But here's where we deviate. You're saying that they shouldn't have blown up Ella to avoid provoking Confed. But Confed has already been provoked. If not for Blair's intervention war would've been declared, regardless of Ella's situation. Therefore although the loss of the Ella personnel is regretable it is justified on the grounds that it was Blair's best chance to reach the Confed Grand Assembly to expose Tolwyn.

Col.Dom: During combat Panther wears a helmet which obscures her cuteness. Therefore not a problem. However Lt Zofia from Red Alert 2 is a different story ;)
 
Originally posted by Penguin
Col.Dom: During combat Panther wears a helmet which obscures her cuteness. Therefore not a problem.
Click to expand...

But the helmet makes her sound like she's got the sniffles, which multiplies her cuteness... well, to me, anyway....

As for destroying Ella, I am against that. Even during a war, civilian casualties (epsecially so many) are a terrible thing to intentionally inflict. "Accidents," are one thing but to blow up a super base knowing there are innocent noncombatants aboard is... a little cold blooded.

Plus, I'm sure there's some sort of Geneva Code in place and that it most likely prohibits the blatant infliction of unnecessary suffering on civilian lives. Now, if the UBW were to violate an article like that... there would be perfect justification to wage war on them.
 
From a moral point of view there's no way to justify killing the Ella civilians. It is undoubtedly cold blooded. But what is more cold blooded is letting a declared war occur, in which more people will die. Unfortunately you just have to do the math. Destroying Ella is Blair's best bet for getting to the Grand Assembly to expose Tolwyn. Sure he could pick the harder, more moral way of forging a path past Ella, but the chances of success are slimmer, therefore the chances of formal war occurring are that much greater.

Finally if Confed chooses to declare war on the UBW in revenge for the destruction of Ella, despite the exposure of Tolwyn's activities, then they're the ones who have lost the moral high ground.

One last thing I want to make clear. I'm not trying to say destroying Ella IS the right thing to do. If there was a better option, or if the situation were not so grave, then yeah I would pick the other option. But considering the circumstances...

"It takes a certain sort to be an Admiral." - Captain Eisen, WC3.
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom


But the helmet makes her sound like she's got the sniffles, which multiplies her cuteness... well, to me, anyway....

As for destroying Ella, I am against that. Even during a war, civilian casualties (epsecially so many) are a terrible thing to intentionally inflict. "Accidents," are one thing but to blow up a super base knowing there are innocent noncombatants aboard is... a little cold blooded.

Plus, I'm sure there's some sort of Geneva Code in place and that it most likely prohibits the blatant infliction of unnecessary suffering on civilian lives. Now, if the UBW were to violate an article like that... there would be perfect justification to wage war on them.
Click to expand...

Sure, we raided your ships and flash-fried your civilian facilities. But it was in self-defence, so it was okay.
Yeah, that's REALLY gonna go over well...
Remember that irregardless of what actions you take in the game, it ultimately comes down to getting Tolwyn to expose himself that does the trick. I suppose one way to look at the argument over the in-game choices would be this.
When Tolwyn gets captured, he tells Blair that he's attempting to get to the bottom of the conspiracy and find those responsible for what was going on. By the time you reach Earth, you already know that's a blatant lie, but suppose instead that Tolwyn had actually been in the dark. Minutes before he walks up to the podium to deliver his opinion (he doesn't have all the facts yet) on why the UBW is not behind the recent spate of attacks, he's handed a note saying that the Ella Starbase was flashpacked, and thousands of innocent civilians in the Sol system were killed.

True, that's not the way it happens, but thats also the same frame of mind most Confed Senators are going to have. The UBW claims that they're the ones being attacked, and yet they're murdering civilians.
 
Really, I think hearing about Ella would make most any senator want to do something against the UBW, and believe War-hero Tolwyn over supposed traitor ex-war hero Blair.
 
Originally posted by junior


When Tolwyn gets captured, he tells Blair that he's attempting to get to the bottom of the conspiracy and find those responsible for what was going on. By the time you reach Earth, you already know that's a blatant lie, but suppose instead that Tolwyn had actually been in the dark.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to burst your bubble but if Tolwyn had been in the dark then that means he wasn't masterminding the BL. If that is so then the WC4 scenario would never have come to pass because the BL would never have gained the resources to do what they did without Tolwyn. Which finally means Ella would never have been destroyed.

In the game this is what happens: Blair reaches the Grand Assembly chambers. He exposes Tolwyn's plot. Tolwyn also corroborates Blair's testimony when he loses his self control. The senators have to consider the following: Tolwyn, recently promoted to the highest position in the military, has been breaking laws left and right. He has used his authority to fund innumerable illegitimate projects, like the bio weapons and the GE program. Subsequent inquiries into the true depth of Tolwyn's activities will reveal numerous examples of the most heinous crimes - Telamon, sponsoring merc/pirate attacks, sanctioning testing of the flashpak on the very civilians he was/has sworn to protect, etc.

What this adds up to is that Tolwyn has used his position to undermine the legitimate authority of the Confed government. His actions were going to propel Confed into war with the UBW, in which the influence of the military would've skyrocketed. The extract of the WC4 novel that came with the game notes that Blair had his doubts over the transfer of power from the military back to the civilian government, which suggests friction between the civilian and military hierarchies. What the senators (whose power rests on the electorate) will note first is that their authority has been directly challenged by Tolwyn. Therefore they're most likely to neutralize Tolwyn and his powerbase. Their inquiries will finger the BL as the perpetrators and war will not be declared on the UBW, if only to avoid strengthening the military.

The destruction of Ella will not sit well with any Confed citizens, but how is Ella more consequential than Telamon, Circe or a host of other atrocities committed against the UBW? Considering the nature of Tolwyn's plot, how can the senators indict him and then declare war anyway? Finally thanks to WCP we know that the senators were level headed enough not to declare war on the UBW.
 
Originally posted by Penguin

*snip*
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical.
It was pointed out to be a hypothetical.
It was meant to get you to understand the frame of mind the destruction of Ella might put someone in.

sheesh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top