"This lightsaber was stolen from your Jedi Temple by my ancestors during the fall of the Old Republic. Since then many Jedi have died upon its blade. Prepare yourself to join them!" ―Pre Vizsla to Obi-Wan Kenobi on the Darksaber, during Clone Wars

I never made the connection between Shae Vizla and the Deathwatch (founded by Tor Vizsla and led by Pre Vizsla) before. That's a neat little connection.

I doubt they'd actually go so far as to have the Empire win, but it would be interesting if they went that route to see how the Imperial seal we have in this game morphs into the seal of the Republic by the time of the Prequels - maybe set up a theme of eternal reccurrence: (Original) Republic -> (Sith) Empire -> (Old) Republic -> (Galactic) Empire -> (Galactic Alliance) Republic -> (Fel) Empire -> (Triumvirate) Republic. A sort of inevitable cycle of civilization.

This would be a nice little things to make this game's story really stand out from others. In every fight with Sith the Republic/Jedi come out on top, and people kind of annoyed knowing that their imperial character is inevitably fighting for the losing side. Something like that would show that the good guys don't always win, even if we know that some day they will.

Then the next game could have a similar feel to KOTOR 2, with the Jedi on the retreat and the Republic barely holding itself together (if at all).

BioWare has been saying all along that this is the third KotOR game. Admittedly, that's subject to change, but I'm unaware of anybody in the industry suggesting that such a change is imminent.

I would be disappointed in the writers if they did elect to nakedly play up to the Empire fan base, and I would be disappointed in the ridiculous storyline that they created by doing so. So I'd probably lose interest in the time period and stick to better Star Wars writing and games.

I never made the connection between Shae Vizla and the Deathwatch (founded by Tor Vizsla and led by Pre Vizsla) before. That's a neat little connection.

 

I doubt they'd actually go so far as to have the Empire win, but it would be interesting if they went that route to see how the Imperial seal we have in this game morphs into the seal of the Republic by the time of the Prequels - maybe set up a theme of eternal reccurrence: (Original) Republic -> (Sith) Empire -> (Old) Republic -> (Galactic) Empire -> (Galactic Alliance) Republic -> (Fel) Empire -> (Triumvirate) Republic. A sort of inevitable cycle of civilization.

Doesn't make much of a cycle when, of those, the "Original" and "Old" Republics last for nearly 25,000 years combined, while the various Empires together rule the galaxy for maybe 1% of that number at its most charitable. Benedetto Croce would be disgusted.

Insert also my usual complaints about greater lore problems being created by an Imperial conquest of the galaxy than solved, and about the inherent military implausibility of such a thing occurring. They've been repeated enough times in enough threads that I doubt anybody wants me to repeat them in their entirety.

Doesn't make much of a cycle when, of those, the "Original" and "Old" Republics last for nearly 25,000 years combined, while the various Empires together rule the galaxy for maybe 1% of that number at its most charitable.

In real-life history, sure those spans of time are incredibly relevant, but in a fictional narrative the difference between "25,000 years of peace and prosperity" and "100 years of peace and prosperity" is minimal, it's just different ways of saying "all was well in the world, until..." and then getting into the actual story of conflict and transition, which is where the real drama is. (The only real difference that comes into play is when they decide to actually fill in the gaps in the history they're working with when telling new stories.)

The Galactic Empire existed as the dominant government for, what? .09% of the lifespan of the Republic? In real life history that would be a statistical blip, but in the Star Wars mythology the Galactic Empire is a hugely important part of the lore, because it's central to so much of the actual story content we get set in the Galaxy Far, Far Away. By contrast the 25,000 years of the Republic is just something that happened in the background.

Insert also my usual complaints about greater lore problems being created by an Imperial conquest of the galaxy than solved, and about the inherent military implausibility of such a thing occurring. They've been repeated enough times in enough threads that I doubt anybody wants me to repeat them in their entirety.

I agree that the Empire pretty much couldn't win once it signed the treaty and made it an endurance contest, but I would maybe throw the imperials a bone and give the empire a mighty victory if not an absolute one.

If I was going to write for a KOTOR 3 I would have the mmo story end with the republic defeating the empire after what they say is a glorious campaign, but really only doing it after making deals with members within their enemy's organization. Maybe someone from the dark council goes to the republic's leaders and makes a deal with them, ensuring the empire's defeat through mysterious means aided by the emperor, who would be directing from wherever he's hidden.

Then I would have KOTOR 3 be the player finding out how the republic really won the war and dealing with anti-Jedi sentiment, fighting the emperor and his remaining hidden underlings, and helping a galaxy that is still finding it hard to recover from the devastating previous war.

I always found it interesting to read about conflicts between the republic and Jedi, and I've always wondered why there wasn't more discrimination against them since a majority of the wars in the galaxy have had some force-user behind it. It would be interesting to see the leaders of the republic take it to a dangerous level and see how the Jedi would eventually overcome it to bring them together again while wiping out the last remnants of the former empire.

In real-life history, sure those spans of time are incredibly relevant, but in a fictional narrative the difference between "25,000 years of peace and prosperity" and "100 years of peace and prosperity" is minimal, it's just different ways of saying "all was well in the world, until..." and then getting into the actual story of conflict and transition, which is where the real drama is. (The only real difference that comes into play is when they decide to actually fill in the gaps in the history they're working with when telling new stories.)

 

The Galactic Empire existed as the dominant government for, what? .09% of the lifespan of the Republic? In real life history that would be a statistical blip, but in the Star Wars mythology the Galactic Empire is a hugely important part of the lore, because it's central to so much of the actual story content we get set in the Galaxy Far, Far Away. By contrast the 25,000 years of the Republic is just something that happened in the background.

That's all very nice and yet has nothing to do with whether it's a "cycle" or not.

I agree that the Empire pretty much couldn't win once it signed the treaty and made it an endurance contest, but I would maybe throw the imperials a bone and give the empire a mighty victory if not an absolute one.

If we were judging things by a standard of realism, the probability of the Empire having 'won' any conflict against the Republic is infinitesimally low, full stop.

Signing the treaty was in fact a fantastically good move for the Empire, because it managed to escape the war with unwontedly large gains, and the domestic consequences of the treaty caused the Republic incredible problems with separatism. The Empire, on the other hand, gained breathing space to try to integrate its gains and crush dissent. That the Imps did not make particularly good use of this breathing space isn't a fault of the treaty itself. Anyway, the treaty did not make the conflict into a contest of endurance; all wars are contests of endurance, especially ones that last for twenty-eight years, like the first war did.

Fundamentally, the Empire is a pocket realm in the Outer Rim; its population is low and its resource wealth is relatively small. The Republic is an enormous polity that controls the economic and industrial motor of the galaxy, and outpopulates the Empire to a rather incredible degree. Resources and population alone do not make or break a war, true enough. The Rebel Alliance, starting from a position nearly as weak as the Sith Empire, comprehensively defeated the Galactic Empire in the years immediately after Endor. But the Rebels were united, and the Galactic Empire tore itself apart in the worst fratricidal war in galactic history. By comparison, in the SWTOR setting, it's the Sith Empire that spends as much time fighting itself as it does fighting the Republic. The Sith were already at a disadvantage, and the Sith civil wars compound that disadvantage.

It's hard to see the Sith enjoying any advantages over the Republic. Both sides have reasonably competent leaders, and each has a brace of heroes to individually turn the tide of any battle. Man for man, the Sith Empire's military isn't any better than the Republic's. Technology would probably be a wash, apart from isotope-5 - which is an Imperial advantage, albeit one that the Republic ought to be aware of after Oricon, and one that by itself is not sufficient to win a war.

In fact, the only plausible reason to write the Empire winning the war over the Republic is the one you mentioned: throwing the Imperial players a bone. Which isn't really a good way to write history or fiction, and the Star Wars EU has to be both. And it's doubly bizarre in light of the fact that ever since the first war started, the Sith Empire has outperformed any reasonable expectations for its success.

That's all very nice and yet has nothing to do with whether it's a "cycle" or not.

It matters because in a fictional setting, the amount of 'filler' time is irrelevant between changes, what matters is that the changes keep happening. Whether the Old Republic stood for 25,000 years or 100 years doesn't matter in the least if it was all "off screen".

What we see is "Oh, the Old Republic is falling and the Galactic Empire is being established" then "Oh, the Galactic Empire is falling and the New Republic is being established" then "Oh, the Galactic Alliance is falling and the Fel Empire is taking over" then "Oh, the 'One Sith' Empire is falling and the Galactic Triumvirate is being established".

You disqualified it as being a 'cycle' because of the 25,000 years that the Old Republic stood, but that 25,000 years "off screen" is no different than the 22 years "off screen" that the Galactic Empire stood. What matters for establishing a narrative theme in fiction is what the viewer actually sees, not the backdrop.

If we were judging things by a standard of realism, the probability of the Empire having 'won' any conflict against the Republic is infinitesimally low, full stop.

 

Signing the treaty was in fact a fantastically good move for the Empire, because it managed to escape the war with unwontedly large gains, and the domestic consequences of the treaty caused the Republic incredible problems with separatism. The Empire, on the other hand, gained breathing space to try to integrate its gains and crush dissent. That the Imps did not make particularly good use of this breathing space isn't a fault of the treaty itself. Anyway, the treaty did not make the conflict into a contest of endurance; all wars are contests of endurance, especially ones that last for twenty-eight years, like the first war did.

 

Fundamentally, the Empire is a pocket realm in the Outer Rim; its population is low and its resource wealth is relatively small. The Republic is an enormous polity that controls the economic and industrial motor of the galaxy, and outpopulates the Empire to a rather incredible degree. Resources and population alone do not make or break a war, true enough. The Rebel Alliance, starting from a position nearly as weak as the Sith Empire, comprehensively defeated the Galactic Empire in the years immediately after Endor. But the Rebels were united, and the Galactic Empire tore itself apart in the worst fratricidal war in galactic history. By comparison, in the SWTOR setting, it's the Sith Empire that spends as much time fighting itself as it does fighting the Republic. The Sith were already at a disadvantage, and the Sith civil wars compound that disadvantage.

 

It's hard to see the Sith enjoying any advantages over the Republic. Both sides have reasonably competent leaders, and each has a brace of heroes to individually turn the tide of any battle. Man for man, the Sith Empire's military isn't any better than the Republic's. Technology would probably be a wash, apart from isotope-5 - which is an Imperial advantage, albeit one that the Republic ought to be aware of after Oricon, and one that by itself is not sufficient to win a war.

 

In fact, the only plausible reason to write the Empire winning the war over the Republic is the one you mentioned: throwing the Imperial players a bone. Which isn't really a good way to write history or fiction, and the Star Wars EU has to be both. And it's doubly bizarre in light of the fact that ever since the first war started, the Sith Empire has outperformed any reasonable expectations for its success.

There is one edge the Empire might have: stupidly overpowered destructive Force magic. While the Emperor's "kill everyone" agenda isn't actually helpful for the Empire, if he deems that a too-swift Republic victory would be unworkable for this, he might step in more directly. And, then, if the Dark Council unites properly, their combined power could probably lead to some unpleasant happenings.

I also think that the Republic's military is vastly smaller than its size would suggest. If the prequel trilogies are any precedent, the Republic there didn't even have an army, relying on the mysteriously gifted clones. I think the Empire may have been winning the initial war because the Republic was scrambling to actually build up a military good enough to face the Empire's; of course, after the treaty, the Republic may be able to use its size advantage properly, which might lead to the doom of the Empire. But we'll have to see what happens.

Perhaps if the Republic falls into internecine conflict and the Sith pull together somehow.

I'm sure the Empire will win

in the non canon Emperial side ending.

I don't know why, but I found that incredibly hilarious

Signing the treaty was in fact a fantastically good move for the Empire, because it managed to escape the war with unwontedly large gains, and the domestic consequences of the treaty caused the Republic incredible problems with separatism. The Empire, on the other hand, gained breathing space to try to integrate its gains and crush dissent. That the Imps did not make particularly good use of this breathing space isn't a fault of the treaty itself. Anyway, the treaty did not make the conflict into a contest of endurance; all wars are contests of endurance, especially ones that last for twenty-eight years, like the first war did.

I disagree because the sack of Coruscant was most likely a huge blow to the morale of the republic, and continuing the war would have allowed the Sith to take advantage of it. The republic would still have to deal with separatism with people either trying to break away or side with the empire, who looks almost unbeatable in taking the enemy's capital-world. They would then be forced to redirect their forces in retaking the planet, allowing the empire to try and win everywhere else. And while wars are about endurance they are about a lot of other factors as well that can either circumvent the enemy's endurance or break it down. The peace simply allowed the empire's weaknesses to fester and become it's downfall.

Fundamentally, the Empire is a pocket realm in the Outer Rim; its population is low and its resource wealth is relatively small. The Republic is an enormous polity that controls the economic and industrial motor of the galaxy, and outpopulates the Empire to a rather incredible degree. Resources and population alone do not make or break a war, true enough. The Rebel Alliance, starting from a position nearly as weak as the Sith Empire, comprehensively defeated the Galactic Empire in the years immediately after Endor. But the Rebels were united, and the Galactic Empire tore itself apart in the worst fratricidal war in galactic history. By comparison, in the SWTOR setting, it's the Sith Empire that spends as much time fighting itself as it does fighting the Republic. The Sith were already at a disadvantage, and the Sith civil wars compound that disadvantage.

The Sith during the war probably had a lot less infighting since they were fighting a direct enemy, which is once again why the treaty was a mistake to me. Sith like Malgus would not have broken away from the empire, the emperor would have had time to complete his ritual anyway, and for people looking to gain power victories in war is a great way to build support for yourself.

It's hard to see the Sith enjoying any advantages over the Republic. Both sides have reasonably competent leaders, and each has a brace of heroes to individually turn the tide of any battle. Man for man, the Sith Empire's military isn't any better than the Republic's. Technology would probably be a wash, apart from isotope-5 - which is an Imperial advantage, albeit one that the Republic ought to be aware of after Oricon, and one that by itself is not sufficient to win a war.

It is true that military wise the empire and republic are similar, but it was their initial advantage of surprise mixed with subterfuge and brutality that gave the empire an edge in the war against the endurance of the republic. The dread masters could be considered an advantage though, since it was said they could turn the tide against an entire fleet.

In fact, the only plausible reason to write the Empire winning the war over the Republic is the one you mentioned: throwing the Imperial players a bone. Which isn't really a good way to write history or fiction, and the Star Wars EU has to be both. And it's doubly bizarre in light of the fact that ever since the first war started, the Sith Empire has outperformed any reasonable expectations for its success.

To me the republic can lose, but only if you can get people to want to break away. After the attack on Coruscant, the empire should have been encouraging people to break away from the republic while still fighting those that stood with them. Using their usual subterfuge mixed with some diplomacy and using their Chiss allies as an example of their willingness to cooperate instead of conquer along with their occupation of Coruscant I'm sure some of the republic would try and either leave to join the empire or try and make deal with them.

At this point there is no victory for the empire since it gave the republic breathing room and turned it into a one-upsmanship contest while facing its own weaknesses, but I think that if they didn't sign the treaty they could have held onto their gains (maybe lose Coruscant to the republic after their counterattack) and force the republic against the wall before the empire's own weaknesses had the time to eat it from the inside.

Empire overtaking the galaxy at any point in SW history is unacceptable for me. It would be another element from EU that would undermine Palpatine's character.

Um, why? Palpatine did overtake the galaxy, and did it with only two Sith.

Um, why? Palpatine did overtake the galaxy, and did it with only two Sith.

I think he means if the galaxy was ruled by an empire at any other point apart from Palpatine taking over because it would cheapen his victory as the Sith lord who took over the entire galaxy, if any empire before his achieved it, his own victory wouldn't be as big of an achievement as it would be if he was the first to achieve it.

Um, why? Palpatine did overtake the galaxy, and did it with only two Sith.

 

I think he means if the galaxy was ruled by an empire at any other point apart from Palpatine taking over because it would cheapen his victory as the Sith lord who took over the entire galaxy, if any empire before his achieved it, his own victory wouldn't be as big of an achievement as it would be if he was the first to achieve it.

This.

That being said, there is a long time frame between the events of KOTOR/SWTOR and the Battle of Ruusan; about two thousand years. But according to Wookieepedia while a lot happens during that time, a takeover of the Galaxy by the Sith is not one of them.

I think he means if the galaxy was ruled by an empire at any other point apart from Palpatine taking over because it would cheapen his victory as the Sith lord who took over the entire galaxy, if any empire before his achieved it, his own victory wouldn't be as big of an achievement as it would be if he was the first to achieve it.

Revan did it, Nihilus did it, Caedus did it, Krayt did it. More to the list?

Revan did it, Nihilus did it, Caedus did it, Krayt did it. More to the list?

Revan only controlled a third of the galaxy, and Nihilus didn't take over the galaxy either (not to mention that he didn't want to).

I think he means if the galaxy was ruled by an empire at any other point apart from Palpatine taking over because it would cheapen his victory as the Sith lord who took over the entire galaxy, if any empire before his achieved it, his own victory wouldn't be as big of an achievement as it would be if he was the first to achieve it.

Exactly.

There are several plausible reasons why the Sith Empire has been successful during the war:

1. Planning: they have been building up a navy and refining their military forces in general for over a thousand years. In the space of two decades the Galactic Empire built millions of ships, think how many the Empire could have built, they would have had a considerable numbers edge at least in terms of naval forces against the Republic. On top of that they have been strategising how to take over the Republic for just as long, they knew exactly how to win. On the opposite side the spectrum the Republic were completely unprepared and it took them a long time to get properly organised.

2. Superior Forces: All you need to do is place a Harrower alongside a Valor to see which one is superior, with the former being regarded as one of the most powerful and deadly warships to ever be designed. The Sith Empire are a highly militant society, so one would expect such superiority. And the same I feel applies to soldiers as well, every Imperial citizen does military service, and one can just imagine how strict the Imperial training regime is. A population with war in their blood is going to be much more effective than the Republic, which gives them further advantage. And finally I feel this applies to tacticians as well, the Sith Empire was described as a place of tactical brilliance, and has a great deal of experience with war where the Republic has little.

3. Captured Territory: The Sith Empire didn't just sit in Sith Space twiddling their thumbs, they conquered large portions of the galaxy including much of the Outer Rim which is incredibly rich in resources. Lets not forget that it was the primary territory of the CIS. They also sabotaged much the the Republic's infrastructure and supplies.

Altogether I think that if the Mandalorians and the ancient Sith can challenge the Republic. The Sith Empire can. Will they win? Well they are certainly losing now but really I'm not sure how much flexibilty BioWare have within the context of an MMO, at least in game they cannot fall on any one side. All I hope is that we get a resolution.

Empire overtaking the galaxy at any point in SW history is unacceptable for me. It would be another element from EU that would undermine Palpatine's character.

I think he means if the galaxy was ruled by an empire at any other point apart from Palpatine taking over because it would cheapen his victory as the Sith lord who took over the entire galaxy, if any empire before his achieved it, his own victory wouldn't be as big of an achievement as it would be if he was the first to achieve it.

Uh, did you not watch Episode III?

It's kinda weird that you're a fan of palpatine when you're ignoring his own quote.

I think the best result of the Galactic War would be the Sith Empire taking over, but crumbling in a few decades, or perhaps being reformed. If the Republic won, however, it would be too dull and predictable. Also, I was under the impression that the Core worlds ended up being populated with a lot of Imperial citizens in the end, thus creating a population with the Imperial accent seen in the movies.

That would require a miracle of demography, considering that the Core Worlds' population numbers in the high trillions and the Outer Rim's is orders of magnitude smaller than that. Migratory activity doesn't have a consistent effect on linguistics anyway, so even if there were kajillions of former Imps that decided to pack up for the Core, there's no guarantee that other people would adopt their accent. Prestige accent wouldn't fit, either.

Besides, you can already see quasi-RP "Core Worlds" accents in media published before SWTOR. In KotOR, we had Bastila; in KotOR 2, we got Mical and Atris.

The real reason that the Imps have a vaguely RP accent has nothing to do with lore.