Basically, if you hover over one of your weapons, a little tool-tip will appear over all the enemies showing the chance that the weapon will hit, as well as their various armor ratings. I only literally just this second as I was writing this managed to decipher this paragraph. Be careful when you’re using your kinetic type weapons especially, because armor’s twice as effective against kinetics! I think that these particular capital ships have an armor rating about the same as the ryders, but fair enough.Īsaga: If you select a weapon, the third number listed on the enemy unit is that unit’s armor rating. It’s a good way to deal reliable damage against units with high evasion like ryders.Īsaga: Watch out though! They’re totally useless against units with armor, like capital ships. Rarely will everything you're supposedly saving actually outweigh all these impacts.Asaga: Some weapons like assault rifles don’t deal much damage, but shoot multiple times in a single attack. Doing ill tends overall to simply have ill results it creates hatred, encourages corruption, destroys social bonds and order, causes chaos. And for this reason and many others, expedient actions rarely in fact have that many of the good results they are supposed to, and usually have bad results that the expedient actors fail to take into account. If the people in charge are the kind who are willing to do evil in the name of future good, the more they do it the less likely they are to start doing any good in the future. And second, people willing to kill are affected by that willingness. What if the benefits fail to materialize? Then you've done evil for nothing. And we can't predict the future very well. First of all, the death is now, while the benefits are, well, in the future.
But in general I'm very suspicious of the expedient approach, of justifying death, torture etc. You have to have some flexibility-there are times when the costs of failing to compromise can be overwhelming. For me personally I favour the first approach, nearly all the time. To me the core distinction is between a people-first orientation where ends rarely justify means, and a results-first orientation which aims to maximize long term benefits but is willing to sacrifice pretty much arbitrary amounts of other people's welfare in the name of those benefits. Then there's the axis of the captain's ethical choices. I certainly don't have a problem with it. I'm not sure there's really a political statement here beyond "dictatorship and oligarchy are bad", and I forget when that became controversial.
#Sunrider mask of arcadius liberty for free#
But there is never an argument made for free markets in particular, or against taxation, or for the primacy of private property. You fight against dictators, you're suspicious of generals meddling in politics and the spectre of military rule, you meet persuasive arguments that official benevolence can mask control by elites for elites (OK, arguments made a by a madwoman, but she makes strong points for all that). But a better description would be anti-authoritarian. In general I feel like the game tends to the small "l" libertarian, but not big "L" Libertarian.
So to stretch a point, you could be left thinking "Wow, if only the Big Bad hadn't taken over that promising Soviet Communist system, it might have been OK". And it feels to me as if the game presents it in such a way as to allow a certain sympathy for PACT's core egalitarian ideals, even if they've been rather Sovietized in the execution.
At that point, in theory PACT becomes the only political grouping we know isn't infiltrated by the enemy at the top level. There's an odd counterpoint at the very end, when Veniczar Fabulous rants about the big bad betraying the values of PACT, which seem to be very theoretically egalitarian with rigid hierarchy, and then shoots the local incarnation of the big bad.
0 kommentar(er)
