Time for the post-mortem!
---
Other than trying to screw us over repeatedly, what was the purpose of all this?
Probably easier to answer than before because things are clearly now becoming more directly dramatically relevant.
Obviously, we demonstrate the true nature of the Fortress- far more important for what is within than how it seems without. Had you tried to go to the Fortress earlier, the doors would have simply opened to the inside of the wall- more useless mountainside.
Then we have a look at Sennacherib himself. Conversation with him is merely of background interest to the Combat Path; it's vital to the Philosophy. Sennacherib is number three of three people that have given you ideas, insights and opinions that are very important to shape your experience; they are basically giving you the background and context inside which you must arrange your own thoughts.
Sennacherib himself may or may not have surprised people; the intention was to show him as well educated, entirely socially capable, far from psychopathic, but absolutely focused and dedicated to his goal. He is extremely literate- the counter-reference to people quoting comic books at him was not meant to be staggeringly significant other than to further allude to the fact that he has read, basically, everything.
He made a couple of uses of Tennyson poetry- one, the end of the poem Ulysses, used both because it is indeed apt to the situation of Zion, and also just to link into the Cyclops vibe, though that link is merely trivial. The second quote was indeed from Charge of the Light Brigade and was indeed, as commented upon, a comment upon Dallas' tactics. Read into it what you will.
Sennacherib basically does not give one solitary crap about any of you. But he's just not the type to kill on sight. If his sentinels wanted to eat you, fine by him, and it just seemed to make him happy at the time to make it harder for you.
More on him later.
As for the sentinels- well, that was basically just to give a decent combat setup. Incidentally, the idea of mass sentinel progression into the Matrix led by a General has been stolen by the Matrix Online, as my brothers RPs carry on a long tradition of having ideas stolen (and presented first, due to long gaps between writing and playing) by the source material.
The combat setup was originally designed as a paradise for gunners. In the end, there were other people suited top it as well, but an Eagle Eyed CCed gun set-up remained absolutely the best approach. It was meant to be very poor and frustrating for those that were good duellists. It takes all sorts, after all. Naturals, meanwhile, are showing a certain vulnerability that shows how important it is for them to get their character design right, Naturals should definitely be making heavy use of defensive powers, continual taps of which can keep them close to invulnerable for many turns in a row. This sort of continual useful tap ability is what makes a Natural lethal. The problem with offensive powers is that you can wait forever for the right chance to use them; defence is almost always tap-useful. In THIS situation, it was close to vital.
People COULD die in this mission, that was for sure. And it came very close. Which is not to say it was meant to be definitely lethal; some issues contributed to it becoming difficult- especially the early loss of Ares, who by my calculation should have gone on to kill another 14 Sentinels had he stayed standing, which is a big difference.
Other things were in your favour. For Marduk, in particular, this was a chance to shine in a game normally dominated by Dallas. Here Marduk was on top. Dallas hadn’t had a chance to ‘plan’ anything so Marduk had a free hand. Dallas’ own tactical approach was not very effective in this situation (nonetheless it was important that people DID go with him, or the gate would not be open in time. You have to have faith in Dallas, really, and that his charge was undersupported was an issue). Marduk’s own formation approach was considerably more effective. Furthermore, Marduk is a gunner perfectly designed for this scenario, and he accounted for over thirty kills, which it has to be said saved you.
The situation may have looked chaotic but was very simple; started with six sentinels in each of the fifteen areas. Each area was reinforced by one sentinel per turn. Each sentinel group moved directly towards the nearest threat. Simple as that. The situation was balanced so that so long as the average kill rate was one sentinel per rebel per turn, sentinel numbers would decrease and escape was possible. If that equation failed you would be in trouble.
After that, was just the escape, the removal of the Combat Path, the return of the Hunter (I feel some may have forgotten he existed), the revelation that he is in cahoots with the Monks, and furthermore that, for some of the Monks at least, there is more to them than just being quiet religious types. Answers were not very forthcoming because… it’s not time yet.
Then there was your journey to the door of course. A-ha…
Is what you said about the battles true?
Ah, well, here is a thing.
Obviously, things like battles are open to continual re-thinking and revisionism and can only be presented from a certain focus and in a certain way. Furthermore, our understanding of battles like Poitiers/Tours is so poor that definitive statement is almost impossible.
It was certainly intended that each battle should reflect the issue being demonstrated- battles upon whose result future history depended, and that went one way or another due to issues of leadership. Some battles also gave other hints.
The first battle was the odd one out because it never happened, but is the explanation of Sennacherib’s name, and what he means by taking it. The breathtaking possibility that there was a chance to destroy Judaism in antiquity that was never taken makes you wonder how fragile things we take for granted really are. The world would be incalculably different. And yet, how many beliefs and cultures WERE destroyed that might have had an equal effect if they stood? Almost worrying to consider.
Granicus River is the battle that Alexander came closest to dying. His final cultural effect is hard to quantify but his life and achievements are possibly the most significant in the ancient world. If he had died there it would never have happened. Of course, this isn’t a comment on Generalship at all- maybe luck? But Sennacherib just really likes it- an insight into his personality. His version doesn’t even change the result.
Poitiers/Tours is one of the most academically discussed battles ever. For centuries it was taken as absolute fact in the west that if that battle had been lost, Christianity would have been destroyed and Europe Muslim in the Middle Ages, and perhaps for all time. Hence it was known as the most important battle in history, and furthermore it’s never been entirely clear how the greatly superior Muslims lost, but the loss of their General was a major contributory factor, surely. But this is definitely a battle we really know very little about, and revisionism on the west and influx of ideas from the East has lessened its potential importance somewhat- not that anyone denies it being an important value, but perhaps not it’s total world-shifting greatness. But then again, some do still believe that.
Bunker Hill is often taken as the true birthplace of the Revolution, and its inclusion here may be because it relates to Sennacherib as being a pyrrhic victory- won to no good effect by the British,. Much as his victory over the Humans didn’t get him what he wanted. Alas, if only the total lack of co-ordination with the navy and the artillery having the wrong size ammunition had been in any way rare occurrences for the British; in fact, throughout Imperial history the British army (as opposed to its much more professional navy) fought with appalling shortages, organisation, error and corruption. Nearly everything the redcoats did was improvised, which sometimes led to shattering victory but just as often led to utter defeat.
Borodino is legendary in Eastern European history; harder to keep track of if you are, say, American, but is generally taken at the point where Napoleon (the Hitler of his era in many ways) was finished. Again, a battle won by Napoleon but to no great effect, and where it is almost certain he could have won a smashing victory if he had done it right.
The lack of modern battles is because the idea of ‘a’ battle begins to fade at this point- the American Civil War had several but that was a little bit too local for the point that was trying to be made. Instead, whole campaigns lasting weeks or months with small amounts of fighting never ceasing become the true focus. The Marne is the closest we can get in the 20th century that still makes the point (for example, Verdun was just too much of a horrible grind to make any point; Stalingrad was not lost or won by leadership, it’s hard to be sure how much of a reversal a D-Day failure really would have been etc.). Here we can see a German army that was actually on a verge of defeating France in the first year of the war, but muffed their opportunity at the point of command. Incidentally, Sennacherib made a comment about this that should have been very significant for any Philo player paying attention, but that everyone missed.
Now, of course, you, and academics, may disagree with any of these conclusions. We’ll just cover that by saying it is Sennacherib’s opinion and if necessary we will alter the history of the world in the Matrix to make it fit what he says.
A more significant problem is whether you think battles make any darn difference at all. History always used to think they did, but more modern ideas have often seem them as symptoms of trends that are far more cultural and economically caused. Sometimes a mixture of the two approaches is taken.
So, could the Jews ever really have been exterminated? Maybe the survival of some thread of their genetic line could never have been done. Alexander’s victories were impressive, but other than making him and his army famous, what difference did they really have on the world? Were the Muslims really stopped by one battles at Poitiers, or did much more broad issues of culture and supply (economics) cause their expansion to shrink? Was the American Revolution really about battles, or who had the support from the colonists? Would any victory Napoleon ever won really have given him Russia? And the results of 20th century warfare, are they really down to Generals at all, or just the potential of the moment? After all, 25 years later, the Germans, despite having lost the First World War, this time executed the same plan with better technology and this time won it. What difference did messing up in 1914 make?
But Sennacherib clearly believes that it is indeed big battles that make the difference, and the thrust of that whole segment of the story was based on that belief. Make of it what you will.
Why a Cyclops?
Feel free to make your own conclusions. I will not answer as it can be discussed in game.
How hard is Sennacherib?
It was originally made possible to fight him, and a Path under the old rules was in development for him. Eventually it wasn’t worth it. Still, maybe we aren’t finished here yet.
Is he really a perfect General?
Well, Philo guys, that depends on how you define ‘perfect’. Again, this can be discussed in game so I will say little, but he definitely is INCREDIBLY good.
Does he understand Humans?
Again, it can be discussed in game. But the thrust of the answer is that he has a capacity via which understanding Humans is important to him in a way it is not for many other Machines- it is part of his purpose. But the shortest answer is- well, do HUMANS understand Humans? It’s hard to define the question, really.
What is the deal with the Hunter?
Yeah right. Big clues have been given though.
Why didn’t he kill Heph and take the key? Had he been able to do so at the Museum he was obviously going to do it.
Just to confirm about the Museum- yes, the Hunter left heph with the key there in order to stop the System getting it. Better you had it than the Agents. After all, he can always get it off you again…
So, good question. But the Monks gave you the answer.
What’s with the flames???
It’s not a party trick he does. There’s reason for that and the most important clue was missed in a way that surprised me.
Why can’t we kill him???
Well, if he IS a Mummy, how can you kill that which is already dead?
Still, something is clearly wrong there, especially as he does not regenerate (like the Vamps did- the contrast of Vamp, Werewolf and Hunter was very deliberate). There is an allegory to his behaviour that has maybe been missed.
Why would anyone create a programme that needed a synthesiser to speak? That makes NO logical sense. Why would a throat synthesiser make any difference to a Programme?
Damn good question, and I am doing you a favour in asking it. Or maybe I just asked it to add to the mystery.
So, the Door leads to the backdoor system of the Matrix?
Really we are just interpreting the white corridor/green door thing as being evidence as part of the inner working of the Matrix, beyond the ‘veil’ of the simulated reality, yet still a simulation of a computer function.
And as a clue, just as was done in the films with talk of mainframes and back doors, it’s important to remember that this is a computer system.
What the hell did we find in there?
You’ll find out soon.
But I will make one comment. Those looking for a deep spiritual significance to the door… might want to remember it is not a random occurrence. It was built- intentionally programmed into the Matrix.
Sorry… won’t three thousand sentinels definitely kill us?
I’ll admit it doesn’t look good.
But you know what? Soon enough you’re going to be feeling thankful, as the more fortunate Path…
Well, I'm going back through for clues on the Hunter since we missed a bunch, apparently, plus I'm really kinda keen to find anything that substantiates this Phoenix idea of mine...
I'm assuming the Hunter didn't just kill Heph before because of what the monks said, that Lo Qi doesn't like killing.
Also, Rex had the idea on MSN that the Hunter may have been created by another Exile - this could explain why his code is so ****ed up. The surfer monks say they are programmers, and that they were created to help Lo Qi, so I am going to assume/guess from that that Lo Qi was also some sort of programmer. The Hunter is "someone Lo Qi knows", as they put it, and seems to listen to him (as I said above). The Hunter also refused to answer any questions about himself. Could the Hunter have possibly been created by Lo Qi himself?
Also, about the point that I think Klez brought up in the game, about how both Sennacherib and the Hunter think we should open the door...yes, it could very well be a trap that could destroy mankind or something like that. Sennacherib certainly believes that humanity should be destroyed, and the Hunter seems to personally have no qualms about killing and only didn't do so because Lo Qi doesn't like that (again, going by what I said earlier). However, Sennacherib also greatly dislikes the System. The Hunter let Heph get away with the key in the Museum (instead of letting Agents get it) and helped the Philo guys get past the Agents to the door. I really don't think they'd have done that if what was behind it was something that could help the System. And then there was also the fact that the Hunter said that we won the war when the Philo people opened the door. Not 'you' as in just us, but 'we', including himself.
Hell, this one's REALLY out there, but considering what we've seen so far in this game (and the Hunter saying "we won the war" can support this), he could have at one point been a human who's coding got massively screwed up or something.
And there was that bit when Heph turned the key with Neo saying that something's changed...that HAS to be important. Especially considering that bit in the first post of the first assignment.
And then of course my Phoenix idea. The fact that the Hunter does not regenerate like the other Exiles we've come across fits in with this, as one of the things in the myths was that the Phoenix would burst into flames and return to life once it was injured enough where it could die. Of course, it did sort of happen at random...but he WAS fine once he revived.
Rex thinks he hit a firewall and that's why he burst into flames, but I like my idea better.
Wooooo. Loads of wild speculations here, but it does all fit in with things in the thread. For the most part.
Though I would not at all be surprised if I'm just completely and totally off-base 😛
Following on Lana's thoughts about the Hunter being created by Lo Qi...
Perhaps the Hunter was one of Lo Qi's earlier works, and possibly buggy. We don't know if the Hunter actually intended to revive like that, and simply catching on fire is, well, pretty random. It could have simply been a glitch in his programming. That would also explain the Hunter's weird coding.