152 réponses à ce sujet

[Phategod1]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

 I actually know that nukes were mentioned in the ME1 WMD Codex entry, so they are part of the universe, but it appears that they are going to quietly ignore them for Mass Effect 3. Cuz come on, giant machine devils, as cool as they are, don't really compete with a good multiple warhead nuclear bomb. 

P.S. While typing this I remembered Virmire. I apologize for this momentary lapse in ME nerdiness.

So what do people think of the Reapers decision to forego nuclear (or orbital mass accelerators, or Anti-Matter) weapons in favor of the more outdated "stomp around and shoot lasers like a War of Worlds tripod" method?

Mt guess they don't radiate the planets

Modifié par Phategod1, 13 décembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[OnionMan26]

Darth_Ultima wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Anyhow, the way I see it. If point defense lasers didn't exist, we could just nuke the reapers and that would be the end of that.

Darth_Ultima wrote...

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the explosive potential of 10,000,000 tons of TNT.

Maybe you should learn what a kiloton is before you go around calling people stupid.

Darth_Ultima wrote...
If a real world WWII battleship can survive a direct nuclear impact then so could a fictional futuristic 2 kilometer long sentient starship.  Look up videos of the Operation Crossroads test at Bikini Atoll on youtube and see for yourself.  Moron.

Maybe if you actually looked at the videos you were talking about you noticed none of those ships were directly hit by the bombs. One was detonated in the air and the other was detonated under water. If either of those bombs had been on the deck of any of those ships, that ship would have been vaporized.

Anyhow, as for the rest of your posts. Half of them are nonsensical trolling and your attitude is terrible. I don't know if you're always like this or if you just had a bad day, but if you can't stop being a jerk just leave.

I know what a kiloton is and that a megaton is over a thousand kilotons.  The bomb dropped on the Bikini atoll and the largest bomb the US ever produced, which is 25 megatons, had entirely different yields yet people seem to think I am talking about the same bomb.  Plus people seem to think that when they use a nuclear warhead that the bomb actually hits something to detonate meaning it makes physical contact.  Only conventional bombs need to hit something to be triggered.  Nuclear bombs never physically hit anything they detonate a few hundred feet near their target because with of the magnitute of the explosion a few hundred feet means nothing.  When he started to give me attitude I gave it right back.  I gave up arguing however.  Whats the point.   Enough people believe that view that there is no convincing them.

What? Where has anyone said that nukes can't be air burtsed(Hiroshima was at 1100 feet iirc). We are talking about destroying a singular target, in which case you would detonate on contact to deliver the most energy possible to the target- especially if it was some big powerful space ship demi-god.

It was also you yourself that that the ships survived a "direct hit" so where this crap about distance comes from I don’t know.

What has happened here is you disagreed wrongly with someone, got miffed that he actually knew more about the subject than you appear to( it was you that made the mistake about kilo/mega, more than one person has called you out in it, and more than one person has questioned your facts), and could deliver a more reasoned argument than you could muster, and then you started to get abusive and tried to feint superiority with your IQ posts to everyone else when you started to look like a ******. He didn't start being abusive- you did. Then when others came on and actually agreed with the  other dude and gave compelling factual evidence (how’s it going explaining how steel is going to survive 300,000 degrees + going?) you now come out making up some excuse that we were arguing that nuclear weapons "had to hit their target to do damage" and that, once again we are all wrong and you in your superiority where trying to show us the errors of our ways and you are throwing in excuses saying you weren’t talking about the same bomb, and how trying it has been for you so you are now going to give up

Shame, in future, stick to "wizards" did it, it'll be easier.

Modifié par OnionMan26, 13 décembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Darth_Ultima]

Inverness Moon wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

It's the future for one, and for two they use ships that have to travel through space at a speed that makes the speed of light look like a friggin turtle. That and go through atmospheric entry multiple times over. Like seriously....I am pretty sure they are capable of good protective results.

"It's the future" isn't a good reason for anything.

Secondly, FTL travel happens inside a mass effect field, we don't know how they use this to deflect particles away from the ship, which is probably exactly what they do. Assuming that they're just ramming into that stuff at beyond the speed of light is silly.

Also, being able to go through atmospheric reentry doesn't really prove much. Space shuttles can do that pretty easily and they're not future tech.

Atmospheric reentry doesn't even come close to the heat generated by a nuke.

CodyMelch wrote...

oh rly? Wheres the source that says they can't defend against it? Your
GREATLY underestimating the strength of their plating. Take over 100
ships  that can fire a 20 kiloton nuke every 2 seconds. Now add up the
amount of fire power to a whole one minute worth. Then you will have a
somewhat good view of what soveregn went though, and he was tanking it
as if it were nothing. He probably would of been fine too if it weren't
for Shepard.

First of all, a 20 kiloton nuke is nothing compared to our largest nuclear devices. Secondly, there were no Alliance dreadnoughts at the Battle of the Citadel so your point is moot.

Darth_Ultima wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Anyhow, the way I see it. If point defense lasers didn't exist, we could just nuke the reapers and that would be the end of that.

Darth_Ultima wrote...

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the explosive potential of 10,000,000 tons of TNT.

Maybe you should learn what a kiloton is before you go around calling people stupid.

Darth_Ultima wrote...
If a real world WWII battleship can survive a direct nuclear impact then so could a fictional futuristic 2 kilometer long sentient starship.  Look up videos of the Operation Crossroads test at Bikini Atoll on youtube and see for yourself.  Moron.

Maybe if you actually looked at the videos you were talking about you noticed none of those ships were directly hit by the bombs. One was detonated in the air and the other was detonated under water. If either of those bombs had been on the deck of any of those ships, that ship would have been vaporized.

Anyhow, as for the rest of your posts. Half of them are nonsensical trolling and your attitude is terrible. I don't know if you're always like this or if you just had a bad day, but if you can't stop being a jerk just leave.

I know what a kiloton is and that a megaton is over a thousand kilotons.  The bomb dropped on the Bikini atoll and the largest bomb the US ever produced, which is 25 megatons, had entirely different yields yet people seem to think I am talking about the same bomb.  Plus people seem to think that when they use a nuclear warhead that the bomb actually hits something to detonate meaning it makes physical contact.  Only conventional bombs need to hit something to be triggered.  Nuclear bombs never physically hit anything they detonate a few hundred feet near their target because with of the magnitute of the explosion a few hundred feet means nothing.  When he started to give me attitude I gave it right back.  I gave up arguing however.  Whats the point.

Well the bomb dropped on Hiroshima is certainly not as powerful as you said, so I'm going to assume you got that mixed up with something else.

Also, it is true that atmospheric detonations happen a few hundred feat above ground, because you have to do that to achieve maximum blast effect. In space, if you're firing at a ship, you would want the detonation to be as close as possible to focus as much power as you can onto the ship.

In that case, a direct hit from a nuke would mean the bomb is a meter or less away from the ship when it explodes. No ship on Earth would survive an nuclear explosion at that distance, and I find it hard to believe a reaper would either. Cruisers were able to tear Sovereign up pretty easily once its shields went down. We all know that kinetic barriers would not stop that release of energy.

So, like I said before, if ships did not have point-defense lasers, they would be pretty easy to destroy with nukes, even reapers, in my opinion.

I'm not convinced.  One would think that ships that are that advanced would be hardened against an attack like that so even if they were hit it wouldn't do that much damage, otherwise nukes would be their primary offensive weapon.  It took the entire fifth fleet to take down one Reaper.  While we don't know how many ships that are in the fifth fleet or what kind of ships made up the fifth fleet.  We do know that its flagship is the deadnought Everest so there was at least one one human dreadnought fighting.  There was also the Destiny Ascension which was in the fight initially however whether it stayed in the fight after it was saved by the Geth is anybodies guess.

[TornadoADV]

Nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon because of the relative complication compared to firing a solid piece of metal really fast, can't be used on or around garden planets and would have a hard time getting through GARDIAN defenses if deployed in similar fashion to Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles.

It has nothing to do with relative firepower, of which there is no contest.

There were no Alliance Dreadnoughts present at the battle of the Citadel, only Alliance Cruisers and even then, we only lost 7 of them when punching through the Geth Armada and then mixing it up with Sov.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 13 décembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Darth_Ultima]

OnionMan26 wrote...

Darth_Ultima wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Anyhow, the way I see it. If point defense lasers didn't exist, we could just nuke the reapers and that would be the end of that.

Darth_Ultima wrote...

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the explosive potential of 10,000,000 tons of TNT.

Maybe you should learn what a kiloton is before you go around calling people stupid.

Darth_Ultima wrote...
If a real world WWII battleship can survive a direct nuclear impact then so could a fictional futuristic 2 kilometer long sentient starship.  Look up videos of the Operation Crossroads test at Bikini Atoll on youtube and see for yourself.  Moron.

Maybe if you actually looked at the videos you were talking about you noticed none of those ships were directly hit by the bombs. One was detonated in the air and the other was detonated under water. If either of those bombs had been on the deck of any of those ships, that ship would have been vaporized.

Anyhow, as for the rest of your posts. Half of them are nonsensical trolling and your attitude is terrible. I don't know if you're always like this or if you just had a bad day, but if you can't stop being a jerk just leave.

I know what a kiloton is and that a megaton is over a thousand kilotons.  The bomb dropped on the Bikini atoll and the largest bomb the US ever produced, which is 25 megatons, had entirely different yields yet people seem to think I am talking about the same bomb.  Plus people seem to think that when they use a nuclear warhead that the bomb actually hits something to detonate meaning it makes physical contact.  Only conventional bombs need to hit something to be triggered.  Nuclear bombs never physically hit anything they detonate a few hundred feet near their target because with of the magnitute of the explosion a few hundred feet means nothing.  When he started to give me attitude I gave it right back.  I gave up arguing however.  Whats the point.   Enough people believe that view that there is no convincing them.

What? Where has anyone said that nukes can't be air burtsed(Hiroshima was at 1100 feet iirc). We are talking about destroying a singular target, in which case you would detonate on contact to deliver the most energy possible to the target- especially if it was some big powerful space ship demi-god.

It was also you yourself that that the ships survived a "direct hit" so where this crap about distance comes from I don’t know.

What has happened here is you disagreed wrongly with someone, got miffed that he actually knew more about the subject than you appear to( it was you that made the mistake about kilo/mega, more than one person has called you out in it, and more than one person has questioned your facts), and could deliver a more reasoned argument than you could muster, and then you started to get abusive and tried to feint superiority with your IQ posts to everyone else when you started to look like a ******. He didn't start being abusive- you did. Then when others came on and actually agreed with the  other dude and gave compelling factual evidence (how’s it going explaining how steel is going to survive 300,000 degrees + going?) you now come out making up some excuse that we were arguing that nuclear weapons "had to hit their target to do damage" and that, once again we are all wrong and you in your superiority where trying to show us the errors of our ways and you are throwing in excuses saying you weren’t talking about the same bomb, and how trying it has been for you so you are now going to give up

Shame, in future, stick to "wizards" did it, it'll be easier.

The the thermal output is only 300,000 degrees C at ground zero.  Within 50 meters its more like 9,000- 11,000 degrees.  Thats a huge drop off.  I don't know how far the temperature drops after that as you get further away but I doubt its enough heat to vaporize two kilometers worth of metal if you consider the boiling point of steel is 3000 degree C.  You have mis-read most of what I wrote.  I said nuclear weapons did not have to hit their target, conventional weapons do.  Which is why I got tired of it because my beef wasn't with you it was with TornadoADV and when other people started attacking my posts when they didn't even read them right I gave up.  You can't reason with that.  Its pointless.  So go ahead and believe whatever you want because its all make believe anyway and I feel really retarded for taking it as far as I did.  But don't construe that for me realizing I am wrong because I am not.

[Darth_Ultima]

TornadoADV wrote...

Nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon because of the relative complication compared to firing a solid piece of metal really fast, can't be used on or around garden planets and would have a hard time getting through GARDIAN defenses if deployed in similar fashion to Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles.

It has nothing to do with relative firepower, of which there is no contest.

There were no Alliance Dreadnoughts present at the battle of the Citadel, only Alliance Cruisers and even then, we only lost 7 of them when punching through the Geth Armada and then mixing it up with Sov.

Creating nukes would be nothing to a society as advanced as those in Mass Effect.  Considering that, what is to stop them from mass producing nukes instead of Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles and blanketing the target trying to overwhelm the missle defense batteries which is the tactic they use with the weapons you mentioned?

Man I really need to shut up.  But something about you just pisses me off.  Oh well, I'm done for the night.  Goodbye.

Modifié par Darth_Ultima, 13 décembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[TornadoADV]

Darth_Ultima wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon because of the relative complication compared to firing a solid piece of metal really fast, can't be used on or around garden planets and would have a hard time getting through GARDIAN defenses if deployed in similar fashion to Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles.

It has nothing to do with relative firepower, of which there is no contest.

There were no Alliance Dreadnoughts present at the battle of the Citadel, only Alliance Cruisers and even then, we only lost 7 of them when punching through the Geth Armada and then mixing it up with Sov.

Creating nukes would be nothing to a society as advanced as those in Mass Effect.  Considering that, what is to stop them from mass producing nukes instead of Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles and blanketing the target trying to overwhelm the missle defense batteries which is the tactic they use with the weapons you mentioned?

Man I really need to shut up.  But something about you just pisses me off.  Oh well, I'm done for the night.  Goodbye.

Nukes need to be maintained, a lump of metal does not, this is not rocket science. Also, there is nothing to say they DON'T mass produce nuclear weaponry, they just don't use it on Garden Planets (forbidden by convention.) or in ship to ship combat. (existing weaponry is good enough for non-reaper threats.)

As for you not shutting up, it's because I'm right and you're trying your damnedest to not look like the complete and utter moron you truly are.

But you'd best leave out the fact that even at the edge of the explosion foot print, the absolute edge of the fireball at ground level is 6000 degrees C, still more then enough to melt practically everything.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 13 décembre 2010 - 05:29 .

[Bogsnot1]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Good point, nukes would leave fallout radiation that would prevent new life from flourishing after the extermination.

http://news.national..._chernobyl.html

I quote 2 rules from the "Science of Discworld"
Rule 5: Life turns up everywhere it can.
Rule 6: Life turns up everywhere it can't.

[Darth_Ultima]

TornadoADV wrote...

Darth_Ultima wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon because of the relative complication compared to firing a solid piece of metal really fast, can't be used on or around garden planets and would have a hard time getting through GARDIAN defenses if deployed in similar fashion to Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles.

It has nothing to do with relative firepower, of which there is no contest.

There were no Alliance Dreadnoughts present at the battle of the Citadel, only Alliance Cruisers and even then, we only lost 7 of them when punching through the Geth Armada and then mixing it up with Sov.

Creating nukes would be nothing to a society as advanced as those in Mass Effect.  Considering that, what is to stop them from mass producing nukes instead of Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles and blanketing the target trying to overwhelm the missle defense batteries which is the tactic they use with the weapons you mentioned?

Man I really need to shut up.  But something about you just pisses me off.  Oh well, I'm done for the night.  Goodbye.

Nukes need to be maintained, a lump of metal does not, this is not rocket science. Also, there is nothing to say they DON'T mass produce nuclear weaponry, they just don't use it on Garden Planets (forbidden by convention.) or in ship to ship combat. (existing weaponry is good enough for non-reaper threats.)

As for you not shutting up, it's because I'm right and you're trying your damnedest to not look like the complete and utter moron you truely are.

Your logic is so flawed and you don't even realize it.  All machines need to be maintained including the weapons they use in that time which one would assume is much more advanced.  Which would mean a 20th century technology like nukes would be cheaper and easier to maintain.   I am not even going to justify that last part with a response.  Which I was in the process of writing when I decided to stop because I could care less what you think.  I just know that you are wrong and it bugs the hell out of me. Why?  I don't know, it just does, so believe what you want you smug s.o.b.

Modifié par Darth_Ultima, 13 décembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[TornadoADV]

Darth_Ultima wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Darth_Ultima wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

Nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon because of the relative complication compared to firing a solid piece of metal really fast, can't be used on or around garden planets and would have a hard time getting through GARDIAN defenses if deployed in similar fashion to Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles.

It has nothing to do with relative firepower, of which there is no contest.

There were no Alliance Dreadnoughts present at the battle of the Citadel, only Alliance Cruisers and even then, we only lost 7 of them when punching through the Geth Armada and then mixing it up with Sov.

Creating nukes would be nothing to a society as advanced as those in Mass Effect.  Considering that, what is to stop them from mass producing nukes instead of Disruptor torpedos and Javelin missiles and blanketing the target trying to overwhelm the missle defense batteries which is the tactic they use with the weapons you mentioned?

Man I really need to shut up.  But something about you just pisses me off.  Oh well, I'm done for the night.  Goodbye.

Nukes need to be maintained, a lump of metal does not, this is not rocket science. Also, there is nothing to say they DON'T mass produce nuclear weaponry, they just don't use it on Garden Planets (forbidden by convention.) or in ship to ship combat. (existing weaponry is good enough for non-reaper threats.)

As for you not shutting up, it's because I'm right and you're trying your damnedest to not look like the complete and utter moron you truely are.

Your logic is so flawed and you don't even realize it.  All machines need to be maintained including the weapons they use in that time which one would assume is much more advanced.  Which would mean a 20th century technology like nukes would be cheaper and easier to maintain.   I am not even going to justify that last part with a response.  Which I was in the process of writing when I decided to stop because I could care less what you think.  I just know that you are wrong and it bugs the hell out of me. Why?  I don't know, it just does, so believe what you want you smug s.o.b.

Yes, because the number of nuclear capable countries has so grown over the years they have existed...oh wait...no it hasen't. If you can't understand how truely complex and expensive it is to maintain a nuclear stockpile, much less build a single warhead, you can just go on your merry way.

[Darth_Ultima]

TornadoADV wrote...

Yes, because the number of nuclear capable countries has so grown over the years they have existed...oh wait...no it hasen't. If you can't understand how truely complex and expensive it is to maintain a nuclear stockpile, much less build a single warhead, you can just go on your merry way.

You seriously don't give up do you.  If a country tries and the international community gets wind of it they get santioned into economic ruin not because of the technical difficulty involved.  In Mass Effect technology that is capable of breaking the speed of light is common place which would be way more complicted then a weapon of mass destruction that was made before computers existed.  Its not that big a stretch of the imagination to believe that  in a culture with technology that much more advanced then ours it would be a pretty inexpensive endeavor to recreate 200 year old devices.

Modifié par Darth_Ultima, 13 décembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[TheNexus]

There was that mission in ME1 where you had to disable the nuke, as BOOM is still BOOM.



But yeah, for the most part it's pretty obsolete considering the weaponry that exists at that point.

[OnionMan26]

Darth_Ultima wrote...
The the thermal output is only 300,000 degrees C at ground zero.  Within 50 meters its more like 9,000- 11,000 degrees.  Thats a huge drop off.  I don't know how far the temperature drops after that as you get further away but I doubt its enough heat to vaporize two kilometers worth of metal if you consider the boiling point of steel is 3000 degree C.  You have mis-read most of what I wrote.  I said nuclear weapons did not have to hit their target, conventional weapons do.  Which is why I got tired of it because my beef wasn't with you it was with TornadoADV and when other people started attacking my posts when they didn't even read them right I gave up.  You can't reason with that.  Its pointless.  So go ahead and believe whatever you want because its all make believe anyway and I feel really retarded for taking it as far as I did.  But don't construe that for me realizing I am wrong because I am not.

That last sentence can basically be summed up as shut up I'm right and you are wrong. TBH it wont come as a surprise to the others partaking on this thread. You also show more of your suprior "inteligence" by once again resorting to calling people a 's.o.b' and typing sentances like " I just know that you are wrong and it bugs the hell out of me"- Who are you to think you are so superior to others and can be "bugged" by them disagreeing with you on a computer game forum. Its just sad. Lets not forget the kilo/mega faux pas

Firstly, wrong- the temperature is at the heart of the fireball and does not drop of that much to the edge of the fireball, outside the fireball you are correct in that the temps drop of quickly. However the 300,000 degrees you reference is for a small fission bomb, the temperature in a fusion blast is tens of millions degrees celsius, it is the same temperature as the center of the sun for crying out load. A Multi megaton warhead will have a fireball several miles in diameter, which have vaporised islands. If the nuke dropped in ABLE was a 25MT warhead it would have "deleted" anything within its fireball, that would include a hyperthetical ship 2 miles in diameter as it would be completely enveloped by the fireball. Hell I could get Oppenheimer himself to try explain this to you but you'd still argue with him. 

Seriously, stop looking like a ****** like everyone already thinks you are, and stop insulting everyone, as someone already said, you are doing perfectly well insulting your intelligence yourself without any help from anyone else.

This would have been a fun debate, which it should be considering it is a gaming forum and everything is hyperthetical anyway, but you have pretty much destroyed that by your hostility because it "bugged" you. Anyway I'm done here , just remember the wizards 

[AlexXIV]

They 'harvest people' like vegetables. You wouldn't use a nuke to harvest vegetables.

[Inverness Moon]

CodyMelch wrote...

Cool story bro.

Do you always act with such maturity when you loose an argument?

And one more thing on this point. In Mass Effect 1, Joker is worried about the Normandy being damaged by a volcano on Therum I believe it was. If their armor was as strong as you keep saying, this wouldn't be a problem.

Darth_Ultima wrote...

I'm not convinced.  One would think that ships that are that advanced would be hardened against an attack like that so even if they were hit it wouldn't do that much damage, otherwise nukes would be their primary offensive weapon.  It took the entire fifth fleet to take down one Reaper.  While we don't know how many ships that are in the fifth fleet or what kind of ships made up the fifth fleet.  We do know that its flagship is the deadnought Everest so there was at least one one human dreadnought fighting.  There was also the Destiny Ascension which was in the fight initially however whether it stayed in the fight after it was saved by the Geth is anybodies guess.

There is no way any armor could survive at the temperatures found at the center of a nuclear explosion. This is what Joker says after the Therum mission: "Too close Commander, 10 more seconds and we would have been swimming in molten sulfur. The Normandy isn’t equipped to land in exploding volcanoes. They tend to fry our sensors and melt our hull. Just for future reference."

if the heat from a volcano could melt their hull then there is no way they could survive an explosion that is 1,000+ times hotter than lava at ground zero.

The reason nukes aren't the primary offensive weapon was explained plenty of times in this thread. Point defense lasers make it nearly impossible and highly costly to hit a ship with a missile of any sort.

There was also no Alliance dreadnought present at the Battle of the Citadel.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 13 décembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[OmegaXI]

CodyMelch wrote...

Darth_Ultima wrote...
Seriously if you people are the product of Americas education system then no wonder China is kicking our ass.

Thats enough with the insults. This is getting rediculous. If you are getting angry in a debate do not lash out with insultts. It is a childish behaviour and is totaly un cool o_o.

That isn't directed at only him though people. Anyone in this thread that have dished out an insult of any kind to one another is acting just as childish. Enough is enough. Grow up guys come on.

This.

And one thing about nuking that would be a side effect would that the human armies would not beable to recapture the territory lost to the reapers as fast because of the radiation and its effects on biological life forms. So while the may take a hit from the blast, humans could not recapture the occupied area, while the repears could advance out of it.

And please remember people in the ME universe humanity is united as a race and this isn't about this country or that country. That's one of the things I liked so much about mass effect universe is that humanity has cast off its petty difference to unite for the greater good and survival of the human race and look how far the human race has gotten by doing this. againist the Reapers humanity has to band together

[Cody]

Inverness Moon wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

Cool story bro.

Do you always act with such maturity when you loose an argument?

And one more thing on this point. In Mass Effect 1, Joker is worried about the Normandy being damaged by a volcano on Therum I believe it was. If their armor was as strong as you keep saying, this wouldn't be a problem.

1. No, i was just ending it because of your poor reasoning. You keep comparing the real life capabilities of today to what is in a fictional sci-fi story. See how that is a moot point on your side? I never lost any arguement. I just decided to step out to let the kids rant.

2. There is a difference between radiation protection and heat protection. The ship could be better protected against one thing but not so much against the other. That and seeing as the normandy has glass on it. That could be the main reason if Jokers concern, the glass may not of held out and thus would have let the lava swarm right in.

That and we are talking about the reapers protection. Not the normandy's. There is a huge difference.

Lastly. The "its the future" arguement works perfectly well here. Mainly because in this fictional futuristic setting. We don't know everything about their technology nor their capabilities. Which is why the above argument ended with "a wizard did it".

Which in the end is another reason as to why I said "cool story bro" because you kept arguing on something that is incredibly futile to argue about and disregard anything that is said.

Also funny how you said that I was the one acting immature when several posts ago you were dishing out insults along with the others. Funny how you take a little thing that I said and say that I am being immature when in the end you are acting like the kind of person who,after a while, likes to insult those who do not agree with him, and take little things such as "cool story bro" to heart. Chill out mate.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 13 décembre 2010 - 04:09 .

[Inverness Moon]

CodyMelch wrote...

1. No, i was just ending it because of your poor reasoning. You keep comparing the real life capabilities of today to what is in a fictional sci-fi story. See how that is a moot point on your side? I never lost any arguement. I just decided to step out to let the kids rant.

2. There is a difference between radiation protection and heat protection. The ship could be better protected against one thing but not so much against the other. That and seeing as the normandy has glass on it. That could be the main reason if Jokers concern, the glass may not of held out and thus would have let the lava swarm right in.

That and we are talking about the reapers protection. Not the normandy's. There is a huge difference.

1. If I have poor reasoning, then feel free to point out where.

2. I don't know about the SR1, but the SR2 has armor plates that will cover any windows. Also, since I was originally arguing about the susceptibility of mass effect ships to nuclear explosions at close range, them having windows is a good point for my argument. But anyways, Joker said melt the hull, not the windows. I think it is pretty obvious to almost everyone that the armor is not as invincible as you seem to think.

Finally, Sovereign's protection apparently wasn't different enough to keep the fleet from tearing it apart once its shields went down. Now lets remember that the fleet had no dreadnoughts, but was able to destroy Sovereign despite any armor it had. And then lets remember that we have nukes today that can release 1,000 times more energy than the main cannon of your average dreadnought.

CodyMelch wrote...

Lastly. The "its the future" arguement works perfectly well here. Mainly because in this fictional futuristic setting. We don't know everything about their technology nor their capabilities. Which is why the above argument ended with "a wizard did it".

We know enough about that technology to make sensible arguments about it which is what we're doing here. "It's the future" is just your excuse for lack of better argument. What we do know about Mass Effect is that dreadnought main cannons release the force equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT. It's pretty easy to argue that one of today's higher yield nukes would be able to take out any Mass Effect ship at close range based on that.

Edit: Btw, another thing we know, GARDIAN lasers are capable of boiling away ship armor if a ship gets too close.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 13 décembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[Cody]

Inverness Moon wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

1. No, i was just ending it because of your poor reasoning. You keep comparing the real life capabilities of today to what is in a fictional sci-fi story. See how that is a moot point on your side? I never lost any arguement. I just decided to step out to let the kids rant.

2. There is a difference between radiation protection and heat protection. The ship could be better protected against one thing but not so much against the other. That and seeing as the normandy has glass on it. That could be the main reason if Jokers concern, the glass may not of held out and thus would have let the lava swarm right in.

That and we are talking about the reapers protection. Not the normandy's. There is a huge difference.

1. If I have poor reasoning, then feel free to point out where.

2. I don't know about the SR1, but the SR2 has armor plates that will cover any windows. Also, since I was originally arguing about the susceptibility of mass effect ships to nuclear explosions at close range, them having windows is a good point for my argument. But anyways, Joker said melt the hull, not the windows. I think it is pretty obvious to almost everyone that the armor is not as invincible as you seem to think.

Finally, Sovereign's protection apparently wasn't different enough to keep the fleet from tearing it apart once its shields went down. Now lets remember that the fleet had no dreadnoughts, but was able to destroy Sovereign despite any armor it had. And then lets remember that we have nukes today that can release 1,000 times more energy than the main cannon of your average dreadnought.

CodyMelch wrote...

Lastly. The "its the future" arguement works perfectly well here. Mainly because in this fictional futuristic setting. We don't know everything about their technology nor their capabilities. Which is why the above argument ended with "a wizard did it".

We know enough about that technology to make sensible arguments about it which is what we're doing here. "It's the future" is just your excuse for lack of better argument. What we do know about Mass Effect is that dreadnought main cannons release the force equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT. It's pretty easy to argue that one of today's higher yield nukes would be able to take out any Mass Effect ship at close range based on that.

Edit: Btw, another thing we know, GARDIAN lasers are capable of boiling away ship armor if a ship gets too close.

Your proving my point with your replies. You put words into my mouth as well, seeing as I never said the armor plating was invincible just that they are stronger than we know. That and seeing as we know next to nothing about them. It is safe to say they can take a lot of damage. 

Also, who is to say that the kinetic barriers on each ship is not powerful enough to take a nuke? Other than what infantry uses. It is barely anything to what a ship would have.

Finally, no we don't know enough to make a proper judgement on the ships capabilities. Especially seeing as you, and others keep using real life examples of what ships of today can use. We do not know that much about the fleets the species of the galaxies use and even less than what the reapers use. So it is a moot point to argue about it. Especially when you honestly think that a weapon of today would have that much effect on what it used in mass effect. A fictional futuristic setting. Which is why saying "its the future" is as fine as saying "because bioware said so", mainly because we don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement.

Also their is a difference between what Joker said about the SR1, a small ship that isn't all that in a head to head fight, and the SR2. Which is more or less a lot more durable in armor plating and shields.

Whether or not a direct hit from a nuke would have any effect at all on a reaper or any ship in mass effect. They are agile enough to easily maneuver out of the way very quickly. That and any explosion after the nuke lands would more or less not effect the ships mainly because they are protected in terms of radiation and such. But in the end neither of us can make a good guess because we do not know enough about the tech used in mass effect. Even less about the reapers who are far more advanced.

[Darth_Ultima]

OnionMan26 wrote...

That last sentence can basically be summed up as shut up I'm right and you are wrong. TBH it wont come as a surprise to the others partaking on this thread. You also show more of your suprior "inteligence" by once again resorting to calling people a 's.o.b' and typing sentances like " I just know that you are wrong and it bugs the hell out of me"- Who are you to think you are so superior to others and can be "bugged" by them disagreeing with you on a computer game forum. Its just sad. Lets not forget the kilo/mega faux pas

Firstly, wrong- the temperature is at the heart of the fireball and does not drop of that much to the edge of the fireball, outside the fireball you are correct in that the temps drop of quickly. However the 300,000 degrees you reference is for a small fission bomb, the temperature in a fusion blast is tens of millions degrees celsius, it is the same temperature as the center of the sun for crying out load. A Multi megaton warhead will have a fireball several miles in diameter, which have vaporised islands. If the nuke dropped in ABLE was a 25MT warhead it would have "deleted" anything within its fireball, that would include a hyperthetical ship 2 miles in diameter as it would be completely enveloped by the fireball. Hell I could get Oppenheimer himself to try explain this to you but you'd still argue with him. 

Seriously, stop looking like a ****** like everyone already thinks you are, and stop insulting everyone, as someone already said, you are doing perfectly well insulting your intelligence yourself without any help from anyone else.

This would have been a fun debate, which it should be considering it is a gaming forum and everything is hyperthetical anyway, but you have pretty much destroyed that by your hostility because it "bugged" you. Anyway I'm done here , just remember the wizards 

I love that you are still arguing with me.  The initial blackbody temperature is 10^6 degrees K at the epicenter but that is attenuated into the atmosphere and re-directed at much lower temperatures.  TornadoADV gave me attitude right from the getgo i was just responding to his attitude.

Modifié par Darth_Ultima, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:16 .

[TornadoADV]

Darth_Ultima wrote...

OnionMan26 wrote...

That last sentence can basically be summed up as shut up I'm right and you are wrong. TBH it wont come as a surprise to the others partaking on this thread. You also show more of your suprior "inteligence" by once again resorting to calling people a 's.o.b' and typing sentances like " I just know that you are wrong and it bugs the hell out of me"- Who are you to think you are so superior to others and can be "bugged" by them disagreeing with you on a computer game forum. Its just sad. Lets not forget the kilo/mega faux pas

Firstly, wrong- the temperature is at the heart of the fireball and does not drop of that much to the edge of the fireball, outside the fireball you are correct in that the temps drop of quickly. However the 300,000 degrees you reference is for a small fission bomb, the temperature in a fusion blast is tens of millions degrees celsius, it is the same temperature as the center of the sun for crying out load. A Multi megaton warhead will have a fireball several miles in diameter, which have vaporised islands. If the nuke dropped in ABLE was a 25MT warhead it would have "deleted" anything within its fireball, that would include a hyperthetical ship 2 miles in diameter as it would be completely enveloped by the fireball. Hell I could get Oppenheimer himself to try explain this to you but you'd still argue with him. 

Seriously, stop looking like a ****** like everyone already thinks you are, and stop insulting everyone, as someone already said, you are doing perfectly well insulting your intelligence yourself without any help from anyone else.

This would have been a fun debate, which it should be considering it is a gaming forum and everything is hyperthetical anyway, but you have pretty much destroyed that by your hostility because it "bugged" you. Anyway I'm done here , just remember the wizards 

I love that you are still arguing with me.  The initial blackbody temperature is 10^6 degrees K at the epicenter but that is attenuated into the atmosphere and re-directed at much lower temperatures.  TornadoADV gave me attitude right from the getgo i was just responding to his attitude.

Does baby want his bottle? I didn't "give you attitude" which besides being a general reality of the internet, I simply proved you wrong. But what was this about you leaving? You still seem to be here.

Also, who is to say that the kinetic barriers on each ship is not powerful enough to take a nuke? Other than what infantry uses. It is barely anything to what a ship would have.

A Turian Cruiser crumpled like a tin can when Sov plowed right through it during the Battle of the Citadel.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:28 .

[supakillaii]

Even if humanity/other races would be STUPID enough to use Nuclear Weapons, they would first have to go through their Kinetic Barriers, which is nigh impossible, and when that's done, it's easily ripped apart with "conventional" weapons. And before Nuclear Weapons are even a possibility, they'd have to disable/confuse their equilevant of GARDIAN. And yes, the heat would get through, at least partly, but it would still be able to work, with catastrophic overload/suicide things, ramming, etc.

[Jebel Krong]

nukes are too primitive to be used in most circumstances. we have better things than that already, let alone by mass effect's time: fire a lump of metal at the ground from orbit and you'll have the same effect but no fallout.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[Pwner1323]

You need a killstreak of 300,000,000 in ME3 to call in a tactical "intergalactic super dooper mungo aweasome nuka-bomb" to kill a single Reaper. We should be done with the war in about 800 years. ME4 will be called; ME4: Fallout Galaxy. Shepard gets the new Vats sistem to bang alien ass.



Piece of cake (cake=lies!)

[Cody]

TornadoADV wrote...

Also, who is to say that the kinetic barriers on each ship is not powerful enough to take a nuke? Other than what infantry uses. It is barely anything to what a ship would have.

A Turian Cruiser crumpled like a tin can when Sov plowed right through it during the Battle of the Citadel.

there is a difference in resistance....that and shields do not work to well for those types of head on attacks.