I always order my men to shoot Aleksandra and it’s a decision I am sticking to, so I’m afraid it’s unavoidable to avoid Renards wrath in my playthrough.
How do I join the partisan hunt?
There is a frustrating tendency among many to romanticize events, nations or individuals because they have some sort of affection for them. The fact that you often acknowledge your own biases before uttering an opinion, makes your writings better than some people i know with degrees. History has an especially nasty tendency to be biased, and you avoid that (or at least attempt to). So for what it’s worth, as someone who has studied and is actively studying history at an academic level, it isn’t necessary for you to preface your posts with that.
Observe Cazarosta training his unit, and later in the story Caz will send a letter and invite you to hunt the partisans.
You could play as a Disgrace. That way Renard doesn’t know about it.
Perhaps not, but I would be uncomfortable implying I have more knowledge or training on this than I actually do.
Anyone reading even just the wikipedia article on the Siege of Badajoz could make the same statement I did. Someone who actually studied it could give a better description on why those men at that time believed that, and what factors lead to that point.
Maybe even what has changed since, and what’s part of “human nature” independent of era.
Are there any printed materials regarding the lore? PDFs or similar
I could but it’s not worth it, plus instead of Renard hating you he would simply view you as a dishonorable scoundrel.
I doubt that Renard will view disgrace MC as a scoundrel because not even Cunaris or Havenport know the true objective and full detail of the mission they will know only what RTI told them. That Lady Aleksandra were unfortunately caught up in the crossfire between the ‘Brave’ Tierrans soldiers and Antari defenders and become a ‘collateral damage’.
What Renard would view as dishonorable would be his desertion at blogia, not the RTI mission.
Maybe he will or maybe not. As the grenadier square already clear of any wrongdoing for MC when he accepted RTI offer and the Forlorn Hope already redeem and clear the cowardice from MC name after he done it.
I would imagine that if you have a (otherwise) good relationship with his father, Lord Renard will probably not particularly despise a PC who redeems himself at the Forlorn Hope.
I doubt it’s a good way to his good opinion, but it’s rather better than “The only reason I’m not ruining your life is that I don’t want to shame the regiment or my father.”
Frankly, I’d expect non-chalance from Renard if he met a disgraced MC in Lords, whether he is interested in figuring out how we got back in the regiment or not.
When I go on the secret mission, I usually capture Aleksandra.
This is a two-way street of kinds. There is a tendency by some historians to emphasize certain aspects of historical events in order to juxtapose them with what is occurring in the present. Sometimes that asymmetrical presentation comes in the form of a romantic telling of an event and in others it comes in the form of heavy moral criticism. One note on demonizing contemporary societies for their past actions is that it’s rare that any society acts 100% decisively along a particular course of action. I think that most of us understand that when we say “they” did this or nation “X” did that we are talking about it in general terms even if grammatically our words implicate everyone involved. At the same time we should all be realistic about understanding how the past led to societies’ current structures and how that negatively and positively affects all of us.
What I find the most interesting about history is less of what happened during a particular event and more what causal forces were behind the event. What is more entertaining, knowing the final score to a sports match or watching the match as if unfolds? For example, why was the Siege of Badajoz so bloody in the first place? Why did the British officers lose control of their men? What lessons did the British learn and did they successfully act on them? Please note that these questions are rhetorical and I do actually know the answers to them (sorry, just saving someone a little bit of typing).
Edit: I may as well pile on, but I also appreciate your thinking on most matters Elfwine. No need to predicate your thoughts with your own perceived lack of formal training. That being said, having grown up in the Upper Midwest, I always appreciate a little humility
It’s very nice to hear you and others say you appreciate what I think, but it’s good as me to know my limits.
Although since you brought up what’s most interesting about history to you, something I’d add on what interests me:
Cataphrak would probably describe, for example, Sir Guy Carleton differently than I would, even if it was purely in the sense that Carleton is a bigger figure in Canada’s history than America’s history, both as in “the attempt/s to present a coherent description of the past” and as in the events we’re discussing.
Speaking as me, that sort of thing leads to the most fun parts of talking about the past. I’m not entirely sure how to explain it, but it’s fascinating to hear how other people look at things, and what elements of what things provoke what kind of responses.
“How does this infinitely vast and complicated thing work?” rarely leads to boring places.
That kind of cultural context is always interesting and illuminating. We all have massive holes in our understanding of historical events and those holes tend to be strongly driven by what culture we grew up in. For an example of some fun, get an American and a Canadian talking about the War of 1812.
Yeah. Even after you filter out/account for the unthinking jingoism kind of stuff…well…
It’s certainly very much a thing.
And as an American, I’m not sure “sympathetic to the Royal Navy’s desertion issues” makes me more objective as opposed to even more anti-Jefferson/Madison than I’d be anyway.
Knowing that there’s a difference is something, but it doesn’t mean I’d swear to everything I might write on the War of 1812 US Navy as even honestly trying to be detached from biases and emotions.
cough Canada won cough
As someone who doesn’t know that much about the naval side of the war of 1812, could you explain this?