V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...
At the cost of TWO fleets - the Alliance 5th fleet and the Citadel defense fleet. And the Alliance 5th had the jump on Sovereign, fighting it at close quarters (which is a great equalizer in all kinds of military combat) within the arms of the Citadel.
And this cost would be much lower if we have Reaper tech.
At the same time, Sovereign was fighting Shepherd via its avatar within the Citadel to open up the relay for other Reapers - i.e. he was distracted.
That is how we beat Sovereign.
And if we had the secrets of the base, we might know that the whole avatar deal is the way to beat Reapers.
What? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You still need some kind of military application to defeat the Reapers, even after you learn how to build one. Thus making it a good idea to invest in the military by giving them WEAPONS and training their TACTICS.
The base builds Reapers. It must have data on how to do that.
Knowing the structure of something is a pretty good way to determine a weakness in that structure, be it physical, electronic, organic, etc. This could be anything from a Death Star Exhaut port weakness, like where to focus fire (if you really must have a military application), or knowing that Reapers have a certain runtime that controls their base operations (like a mode for sleep, or what not.)
Or it could be a weakness that a Geth virus may exploit. Or a certain element/compound that is like Reaper poison. It could be really anything that doesn't have a direct military application (like a ship, or a missile, etc.) Now that could be turned into a military application, but that's not exactly the point, cause then one would be speculating on an if, which is silly.
Who says defeating the Reapers will be a military operation?
Dude, I stated that the base has military value, and I know it. That doesn't mean that the base would be useful against the Reapers - it's just an asset that has tactical/strategic value; effectively, I consider it like all other current military assets at Shepherd's disposal. However, for the reasons I stated above, I don't think it would be of much use against the Reapers - again, because I don't think we can "beat the Reapers with their own toys" or "kill Chuck Norris with his own roundhouse kick." They'll ALWAYS be better than us at what they do best, at least in Shepherd's lifetime - there is NOTHING to suggest otherwise.
It does? I don't know exactly how it would. It's a base that makes Reapers. Does it make the Reaper ships as well? Maybe. If so, then yes, it would have military value. I could argue its position in the galaxy as having military value. It most likely has knowledge on the Reapers itself, which can then be learned from and applied to a military application; that is possible.
They will not "always" be better at us. Again, if you take their technology, you're at the same level.
However, as a military asset, the Collector base would (normally) be worth keeping. I mean, why not? If nothing else, it can serve as Shepherd's base of operations, or something. I actually consider it more valuable as a possible base of operations for Shepherd, then the technology we are likely to derive from it (which will be inferior to the stuff being used by the Reapers).
Oh, so you think it is useful merely as a location, not as a storehouse of technology advancement.
Somehow I think TIM has better plans.
That same technology, which I think is of little use against the Reapers, will however, secure Cerberus' dominance over its contemporaries, like the STG, the Alliance, the Spectres, etc.
The fact that I don't like TIM is irrelevant.
The fact that you don't like TIM is relevant, else you wouldn't have gone down this line of reasoning in the first place to defend yourself. I've always stated that people who blow up the base primarily do it to snub TIM, for obvious reasons, and you are an example of that.
Speculating on speculative technology because it won't be as good is, well, double speculation. The fact is we don't know what potential weapons/defenses we'll find there, and to say it won't be as good as Reapers is nonsensical. If a tool is more useful than your current tool to do the same task, you use it; you do not argue or complain away that your smarter inventor-opponents can use it better. (And you most certainly do not concoct some illusionary other technology that MUST be better at fighting your opponents.) Better yet if you're talking a weapon, you've just upped your arsenal. Who cares that the enemies weapons/defenses are superior/the same as yours? I mean you're arguing that we're weak, and we should be weaker, simply because.
Modifié par smudboy, 07 juillet 2010 - 06:13 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
