143 réponses à ce sujet

[Hoki]

General User wrote...

Why can't a missile have an FTL drive? Can anyone explain that? Cause I'm stumped. I mean it seems perfect, since Mass Effect doesn't have FTL sensors, the targets of such a missile would (in theory) be destroyed before they realized they were under attack. Even the Reapers, who are easy prey when their barriers are down.

Hehe, if you want to get down to it, once the mass effect is discovered there probably would be no more war as it is the ultimate weapons delivery system. There'd be some mighty polite politicians if they didn't want some angry renegades FTL'ing a moon into the citadel. 

If our current military (im in the US) had mass effect drives, our airforce and navy would consist of thousands of scouts, each equiped with mass effect drives and light firepower (if any). Weapons would simply be kept in mobile armories which also warp around with mass effect drives and weapons would be delivered remotely and instantly to their intended target. There wouldn't be battleships or frigates or dreadnaughts, you'd have redundant strategic centers warping around all over the place every so often to keep their locations secure (sort of like an RSA keyfob). 

So I mean, we've seen sovereign fight and you have to suspend disbelief or else you have to feel sorry for the reapers.
"We are beyond your compre*BOOM*". 
Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration??

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

Why can't a missile have an FTL drive? Can anyone explain that? Cause I'm stumped. I mean it seems perfect, since Mass Effect doesn't have FTL sensors, the targets of such a missile would (in theory) be destroyed before they realized they were under attack. Even the Reapers, who are easy prey when their barriers are down.

Presumably, scale. You could just as easily ask 'Why can't a toothpick have an ftl drive?' The answer is that presumably there is some minimum size for the drive. If it was possible to get ftl drives that small, they wouldn't bother with mass drivers.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 04 novembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[General User]

fongiel24 wrote...

General User wrote...

Why can't a missile have an FTL drive? Can anyone explain that? Cause I'm stumped. I mean it seems perfect, since Mass Effect doesn't have FTL sensors, the targets of such a missile would (in theory) be destroyed before they realized they were under attack. Even the Reapers, who are easy prey when their barriers are down.

I think it has to do with the fact that if the missile needed an FTL drive to get to the target, the target is likely beyond detection range for the firing craft. Even if the missiles were blind fired in the general direction of where the shooter thinks the enemy is, the missile would still have to drop out of FTL to find and engage targets. Missiles would need FTL sensors to directly engage targets at FTL speeds.

That’s true, the theoretical FTL “Reaper-Killer”, the GRIM (Guidance Required Inter-ship Missile) couldn’t have sensors itself for any sort of guidance, and probably wouldn’t be useful against a maneuvering enemy. But as a first strike weapon… and if your first strike is powerful enough…
 
I guess I didn’t see calculating targets and trajectories as such a big problem for a navy that uses kinetic projectiles as their main armament. I also sort of envisioned Normandy-class ships, operating in an “artillery spotter” role.

Hoki wrote...
(snip)

So I mean, we've seen sovereign fight and you have to suspend disbelief or else you have to feel sorry for the reapers.
"We are beyond your compre*BOOM*". 
Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration??

Now see I kinda like that idea! It fits rather nicely with a pet theory of mine that the Reapers are a stagnant form of life, and that “we” (organics) being dynamic, are inherently superior, if at a temporary physical disadvantage. 
 
There’s also an edge of poetic justice to it. The Reapers never miss an opportunity to proclaim their own superiority, destroying them in a way THEY cannot comprehend could be quite satisfying.

Moiaussi wrote...
Presumably, scale. You could just as easily ask 'Why can't a toothpick have an ftl drive?' The answer is that presumably there is some minimum size for the drive. If it was possible to get ftl drives that small, they wouldn't bother with mass drivers.

Well, the Kodiak is relatively small, apparently you can shoehorn an FTL drive, basic “space-proofing” (radiation shielding, heat shielding, life support, etc), and still have room left over for half the Normandy’s crew... 
 
And besides miniaturization is something that usually doesn’t happen with first generation technologies (missiles in this case, not FTL drives). Should missiles become popular, I’m sure more specialized (read smaller) models of FTL drives would become available.  Much as military chemical rocket technology proceded on Earth.

[esigma444]

I think the Ship battles will be video. Your job will be going inside the reapers and destroying or reprogramming them.

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

That’s true, the theoretical FTL “Reaper-Killer”, the GRIM (Guidance Required Inter-ship Missile) couldn’t have sensors itself for any sort of guidance, and probably wouldn’t be useful against a maneuvering enemy. But as a first strike weapon… and if your first strike is powerful enough…
 
I guess I didn’t see calculating targets and trajectories as such a big problem for a navy that uses kinetic projectiles as their main armament. I also sort of envisioned Normandy-class ships, operating in an “artillery spotter” role.

Bases or anything static would be pretty much indefesnible though. You don't even need an FTL drive on the missile. It could be launched from a ship already at FTL speeds and simply coast to target with minor course corrections.

This would also be a reason why they would want to avoid war. Any side willing to engage in planetary bombardment could launch from FTL and be effectively invulnerable, their ordinance undetectable (which the writers obviously haven't realized since it makes BDtS pointless. The Batarans could have used that tactic and simply hit the planet hard with scores of FTL speed cheap dumbfire missiles).

[General User]

Aren’t groundside bases more or less indefensible now? I mean, if a given force controls the space around a given planet, isn’t it only a matter of time before any groundside resistance is pacified, ala Shanxi, and Taetrus? Sooner, rather than later on non-garden worlds, where the use of WMDs is less restricted.



I don’t know why exactly Balak opted to crash an asteroid into Terra Nova vice some other tactic. I reckon he just saw an opportunity and took it.



Maybe, in ME, objects in FTL enter some sort of “hyperspace” where they cannot interact with normal matter? The codex seems to imply the exact opposite, when it describes what looking out the window of a ship traveling at FTL speeds. It describes the external environment as being “shifted” or distorted, and distortion curves can be calculated.



There are many, many, many reasons to avoid war. I’d make the point that any side willing to engage in FTL planetary bombardment would only be invulnerable to bodies that did not have that capability. Mutually assured destruction and all that.

[Dean_the_Young]

While bioware has yet to address the issue, the general fan consensus is that the Cerberus Daily News's mention city-scale mass-effect barriers which can stop issues like the kamizake craft are why surface installations aren't pointless. (That and the capability for resistant structures.)



Put a mass effect barrier over a base/city, and the city can shoot up, into space, with whatever power its planet-based mass effect drivers can supply, while the ships are limited to what they come with. Planets can still shoot up, without having to just take it.



The presumed counter to this is being able to land forces groundside where there aren't defenses, march through the barriers, and kill the generators, leaving the planet open to fire.

[Elyvern]

Yes, but it was also stated that citywide kinetic barriers are extremely expensive, and no one actually thought they would be needful until the turian seperatists crashed a starship onto a colony capital. In 2185 (during the time the CDN is reporting), major cities are now scrambling to equip themselves with giant kinetic barriers. Which means the possibility that planetary bombardment or even simply crashing ships crusing at near-FTL speeds would remain become a valid worry in the ME universe or even in ME3.

[General User]

I can see how planet-side kinetic barriers could prevent random terrorist acts, just not how they could even inconvenience a serious military action.



Given that planet-side facilities can’t dodge, what’s to stop an attacking force from launching their bombardment (sub-light in this case) from beyond the effective range of any ground-based counter batteries?



So what that planet-side barriers are orders of magnitude (even suspending disbelief long enough to disregard internal volume x surface-area issues) stronger than their space-based cousins? Force still equals mass x acceleration, and E still equals MC squared. The attackers are still as powerful as they want to be. Just “drop a bigger rock” so to speak.



Kinetic barriers have several vulnerabilities, objects moving slowly enough can pass right through, sufficient force applied directly can overload them and cause them to collapse, and they are completely worthless against heat and radiation. In other words they are very effective against a very specific type of attack. I contend that any strategist or tactician who lets herself be restricted to using only they attacks against which her adversaries are most prepared, isn’t worth her uniform!



Is the idea for planetary defenders to be able to hold out just long enough for a relief force to arrive, while hoping that the hostile navy in the sky cares more about its image than it does about their lives?

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

Aren’t groundside bases more or less indefensible now? I mean, if a given force controls the space around a given planet, isn’t it only a matter of time before any groundside resistance is pacified, ala Shanxi, and Taetrus? Sooner, rather than later on non-garden worlds, where the use of WMDs is less restricted.

I don’t know why exactly Balak opted to crash an asteroid into Terra Nova vice some other tactic. I reckon he just saw an opportunity and took it.

Maybe, in ME, objects in FTL enter some sort of “hyperspace” where they cannot interact with normal matter? The codex seems to imply the exact opposite, when it describes what looking out the window of a ship traveling at FTL speeds. It describes the external environment as being “shifted” or distorted, and distortion curves can be calculated.

There are many, many, many reasons to avoid war. I’d make the point that any side willing to engage in FTL planetary bombardment would only be invulnerable to bodies that did not have that capability. Mutually assured destruction and all that.

It depends on how large the population to suppress and the willingness to fire at the planet. Firing on planets is the equivalent of WMD's. It is great in theory, but if you do it then the enemy will do it and soon neither side has planetary populations and both become migrant fleets with no inhabitable worlds at all.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

While bioware has yet to address the issue, the general fan consensus is that the Cerberus Daily News's mention city-scale mass-effect barriers which can stop issues like the kamizake craft are why surface installations aren't pointless. (That and the capability for resistant structures.)

Put a mass effect barrier over a base/city, and the city can shoot up, into space, with whatever power its planet-based mass effect drivers can supply, while the ships are limited to what they come with. Planets can still shoot up, without having to just take it.

The presumed counter to this is being able to land forces groundside where there aren't defenses, march through the barriers, and kill the generators, leaving the planet open to fire.

I am not sure you understand the scale this is possible on. Missile boats designed for this purpose could unleash untargetable barrages that are vastly more devistating than anything used ship to ship. Building ground screens capable of stopping any real attempt at bombardment is likely very impractical. The screens might be good against smaller terrorist attacks though (although large asteroids would be another matter).

[atheelogos]

I like the idea of a Dreadnaught. One of favorite places to be is on my ship, it would be nice if they upgraded us to a bigger and badder ship.



Besides it kinda feels like we have to give the Normandy back in ME3. Shepard doesn't seem to be as connected to it as the first Normandy when he calls it just a copy and I have a feeling Shepard and TIM will part ways, at least for a time. I just have a feeling that Shepard is going back to the council races and the Alliance.



And that Normandy is constantly being watched by TIM. I don't like that at all. So yeah OP I'm with you. If we can take EDI and go to a new ship or at the very least upgrade the Normandy to a bigger and better ship then that would be good imo. I don't know how TIM would feel if we tried to take EDI though...

[Sursion]

Normandy SR-3. It's as big as the friggen citadel >_>

[Sursion]

General User wrote...
Maybe, in ME, objects in FTL enter some sort of “hyperspace” where they cannot interact with normal matter? The codex seems to imply the exact opposite, when it describes what looking out the window of a ship traveling at FTL speeds. It describes the external environment as being “shifted” or distorted, and distortion curves can be calculated.

Actually, in real life if you travel faster then light, you can pass through solid matter. I'm pretty sure the "warp bubble" method is no different.

[Landon Frost]

If you get a dreadnaught, your going to lose speed, stealth, and maneuverability. There is no possible way that a giant dreadnaught could have navigated itself to the collector base. I was actually thinking the SR-1 would have fared better in that mission (with upgraded weapons,etc).

[Undertone]

Shepard should get a Super Star Destroyer - in it should have a club like Omega, a brothel with Asari and Humans, personal apartment for Shep, spa center, swimming pool, zoo to collect all the species you encounter. /sarcasm



Shepard doesn't have the military training to have a dreadnought. The Normandy is the perfect ship for a Spectre. Which brings me to another point, considering how famous and well known Shepard is, you would think being a Spectre would be a total failure unless his/her face is hidden.

[Sinapus]

Undertone wrote...

Shepard should get a Super Star Destroyer - in it should have a club like Omega, a brothel with Asari and Humans, personal apartment for Shep, spa center, swimming pool, zoo to collect all the species you encounter. /sarcasm

Are you sure you didn't mean Spaceball One? 

[Landon Frost]

Undertone wrote...

Shepard should get a Super Star Destroyer - in it should have a club like Omega, a brothel with Asari and Humans, personal apartment for Shep, spa center, swimming pool, zoo to collect all the species you encounter. /sarcasm

Shepard doesn't have the military training to have a dreadnought. The Normandy is the perfect ship for a Spectre. Which brings me to another point, considering how famous and well known Shepard is, you would think being a Spectre would be a total failure unless his/her face is hidden.

Not really...  you have to tell people your a Spectre anyways to get them to do what you want. There are lots of "I am a Spectre" convo options.