310 réponses à ce sujet

[PatT2]

Ok. I thought I was adding to a public thread that had something to do with the title of the thread. Actually, I was intruding in a private argument.

This isn't about anything but arguing with one another. *sigh* Nevermind.

[Prince of Kemet]

I think that the council are a bunch of traitors. Go back to Mass Effect right after saving Eden Prime. Remember the conversation between Benezia and Saren? How did they know that is was a human vessel that saved EP? How did they know who the captain was? How did they know that the beacon had been used? My theory is...the report sent by Anderson to Udina (who then shared it with the council) somehow found its way back to Saren and Benezia. Also, remember the conversation that Shepard had with the council where the turian counselor indicated that Saren still had "contacts" on the citadel. I think that the writing is on the wall. I'm still reminded of the conversation where Kaidan brought up the fact that he felt the council was still protecting Saren. Why would the council still protect Saren after declaring him a traitor? I hypothesize that they have known about the reapers all along. They are simply trying to find a way to save their own asses. It's a win/win situation for them. Had Tali not recovered evidence of Saren's guilt, the council would have "openly" supported him all the way.....BUT.....since Saren had been exposed, that had to do the "right" thing and throw him under the bus. Having stated all this...I don't trust the council at all. I agree with Cerberus but, I don't agree with all their methods.

Modifié par Prince of Kemet, 05 mars 2011 - 07:17 .

[Arijharn]

I find it more amazing that Saren was suspected of being, I dunno, a traitor, and despite that Nihilus' 'notes' went to him even though the whole investigation was to answer whether Saren had wrong-doing.

I mean, that's just plain stupid, even if they fully backed Saren and presumed him innocent, he was still the subject of an investigation. It's as moronic as trusting a suspected drug user with vast quantities of drugs, because he also just happens to be a policeman.

[chester013]

Slidell505 wrote...

Anarchy is a cute concept for your angsty teen but **** in practice. The council (like all governments) is necessary to maintain balance. If you want a real representation of anarchy check out Afghanistan or half of Africa.

This

[chester013]

Prince of Kemet wrote...

I think that the council are a bunch of traitors. Go back to Mass Effect right after saving Eden Prime. Remember the conversation between Benezia and Saren? How did they know that is was a human vessel that saved EP? How did they know who the captain was? How did they know that the beacon had been used? My theory is...the report sent by Anderson to Udina (who then shared it with the council) somehow found its way back to Saren and Benezia. Also, remember the conversation that Shepard had with the council where the turian counselor indicated that Saren still had "contacts" on the citadel. I think that the writing is on the wall. I'm still reminded of the conversation where Kaidan brought up the fact that he felt the council was still protecting Saren. Why would the council still protect Saren after declaring him a traitor? I hypothesize that they have known about the reapers all along. They are simply trying to find a way to save their own asses. It's a win/win situation for them. Had Tali not recovered evidence of Saren's guilt, the council would have "openly" supported him all the way.....BUT.....since Saren had been exposed, that had to do the "right" thing and throw him under the bus. Having stated all this...I don't trust the council at all. I agree with Cerberus but, I don't agree with all their methods.

Hmm, the council colluding with the Reapers to save their own skin? Their obvious inaction and denial of the threat? Marginalising the only people willing to stop it? Would make one hell of a plot twist!

Like Miranda said, some people are far too trusting to see it comming. Maybe us Paragons will get stabbed in the back, who knows.

Modifié par chester013, 05 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[Prince of Kemet]

chester013 wrote...

Prince of Kemet wrote...

I think that the council are a bunch of traitors. Go back to Mass Effect right after saving Eden Prime. Remember the conversation between Benezia and Saren? How did they know that is was a human vessel that saved EP? How did they know who the captain was? How did they know that the beacon had been used? My theory is...the report sent by Anderson to Udina (who then shared it with the council) somehow found its way back to Saren and Benezia. Also, remember the conversation that Shepard had with the council where the turian counselor indicated that Saren still had "contacts" on the citadel. I think that the writing is on the wall. I'm still reminded of the conversation where Kaidan brought up the fact that he felt the council was still protecting Saren. Why would the council still protect Saren after declaring him a traitor? I hypothesize that they have known about the reapers all along. They are simply trying to find a way to save their own asses. It's a win/win situation for them. Had Tali not recovered evidence of Saren's guilt, the council would have "openly" supported him all the way.....BUT.....since Saren had been exposed, that had to do the "right" thing and throw him under the bus. Having stated all this...I don't trust the council at all. I agree with Cerberus but, I don't agree with all their methods.

Hmm, the council colluding with the Reapers to save their own skin? Their obvious inaction and denial of the threat? Marginalising the only people willing to stop it? Would make one hell of a plot twist!

Like Miranda said, some people are far too trusting to see it comming. Maybe us Paragons will get stabbed in the back, who knows.

Oh, a fellow paragon..cool. If it turns out that my hypothesis IS true.......I will kill the council with no hesitation. 

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

No, it's both, fighters and frigates. But what if frigates and fighters (fighters moreso) were able to swarm targets? The GARDIAN systems eventually burn out from overuse after-all, so what if the Alliance start making fighters with better ablative armour?

You will lose Fighters, I'm not going to argue that, but the fact is, fighters are much cheaper to produce than Dreadnoughts, and yet their combined tonnage now outclasses cruiser weight (because apparently each fighter or frigate now equals a cruiser) and to me, that seems like it must revolutionize space combat.

And what if the enemy just retrogrades in front of the fighters just outside their range? The fighters have to be in close enough that their quick acceleration can close them with the enemy before the enemy can take countermeasures.

And that is assuming there are no other countermeasures, such as an indoctrination field set to 'area brain fry' instead of 'indoctrinate', or just strong enough jamming to counter the fighter's targetting control, since the size of the sensor array that a fighter can be fitted with isn't going to be comperable with the engine output of a DN.

Not to mention it is not a given that fighters are eezo efficient. They might have a more costly ratio, and it isn't thaaat common a substance.

You could be completely right, but if it turns out you are not, then the writers will have plenty of viable explainations.

Somewhat off topic, though.. shouldn't this be in the DN thread whereever it is? Or an alliance military doctrine thread?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 05 mars 2011 - 10:21 .

[Prince of Kemet]

chester013 wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Anarchy is a cute concept for your angsty teen but **** in practice. The council (like all governments) is necessary to maintain balance. If you want a real representation of anarchy check out Afghanistan or half of Africa.

This

Not to get off topic Slidell but, the destabilization of Africa was done by design. Africa is a continent rich in mineral wealth.....destabilize the government of certain countries that won't "play ball" and you can simple waltz in and take what you want. You sound like an intelligent person...simply review Africa's past and you will see what I mean. This started way back when the hyksos, greeks and romans invaded Kemet (Egypt), raped, pillaged and plundered the land and people and then had the gall to call themselves Kem Au (Egyptians).

[Praetor Knight]

^ don't get me started... that continent has such a messed up history. Colonial Europe only made things worse.

[Prince of Kemet]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

^ don't get me started... that continent has such a messed up history. Colonial Europe only made things worse.

You Sir are correct!!!

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Was actually referring to the Turian quarantine of Tuchanka.  The Council was not content to stabilize Krogan reproduction and refuse trade, they are not allowed to develope any kind of fleet, with orbital bombardment being the response for trying.

However there are Krogan off Tuchanka too. It isn't much of a quarantine. Furthermore, even if they were all trapped on world, if their population got high enough, then they might end up having to resort to orbital bombardment as a counter, which would be arguably as bad or worse than the genophage.

The whole 'quarantine' suggestion is not well thought out anyway, and isn't really there in practice. Wrex was there pre-ME1 before giving up on leadership and running off to play freelance merc, then returned to take over leadership again. He was never challenged in leaving nor in returning. Quarantine? What quarantine?

 
Please read the bolded portion of your quote and then re-read mine (also from the Codex, enjoy).  The Batarians "moved" from Citadel Space when they refused to acknowledge the Council's authority anymore, so the Batarian systems were no longer considered part of Citadel space.

They closed their embassy. How do you suggest they moved their home system? There is nothing in the codex saying they abandoned their homeworld ala the Quarians.

And yet when one member nation is at war they can, and do, request assistance from the UN.  The UN is obligated to offer assistance either through use of it's peace-keeping forces or by imposing sanctions.  The Russia, Georgia incident comes to mind.

And there is a vote, rather than the UN being obligated to simply support them and the security council nations each have a veto, meaning that instead of having to convince 2/3 of the RL 'council' (or 3/4 after ME1), in RL a requesting nation has to convince the ENTIRE 'council.' Historicly, either the US or Russia usually vetoes. There have been exceptions, but they have been exceptions.

Except it's not contested, humanity needed the Council's permission to colonize in the Attican Traverse and the Skyllian Verge, they've openly declared those regions as belonging to them.

The Alliance asked rather than playing hardball and simply settling there (there is no 'humanity' nation). Others who did so on their own are treated differently by the council and actually with more respect.... but then they haven't begged the council for privelledges either.

Far from it I want them to give something in return for the concessions we've made.  They've demanded we limit our military production and in return give us...what exactly?  Trade?  I'm sure we had to make trade concessions too, accepting racial monopolies on products and/or services (such a thing is brought up on Noveria I believe).  We've also given them border concessions (effectively allowing them to dictate where we can colonize), and all we seem to have to show for it is trade.  I'm not trying to say they should take on all our military demands and expense but the odd bit of assistance (say in response to an unprevoked attack by the Geth?) isn't unreasonable, or at least I don't think so.  Hell I'd be happy if they simply offered to act as mediators in brokering a Batarian/Human cease fire.  Non-military intervention into interspecies conflicts would suffice as adequate compensation for the military concessions we've made (they've limited our ability to address armed conflict in return they offer to mitigate and mediate said conflicts should they arise).

It is always easy to make such statements without actually seeing the agreements in question. Based on how other political entities in the Traverse are treated by the Council (Noveria, Vermire), it is quite possible that it isn't the Council being agressive so much as Udina being nowhere near the diplomat he claims to be. Of course it is easy to 'get things done' on the Citadel if you sell out those you represent at every opportunity in return for personal perks. We know for an absolute fact that they are unlikely to send the fleets into the Traverse after the Alliance when they are unwilling to police the area with respect to known threats, so why was the Alliance (presumably via Udina) so quick to concede?

Unless you are maintaining that the Alliance should have been allowed agressive expansion into 'safe' areas of space already cleared and policed by the Council.... in which case again, why should they agree to that?

The full force of the Citadel fleet was not present at the battle of the Citadel, nor was the bulk of the Geth forces.  The Geth had the advantage of surprise, just as humanity did when it arrived, and was able to press it.  Allow me to put it this way, at present the Turian Hierarchy has at least 5 DN's to every 1 the Systems Alliance has.  If they ever got it in their heads to go to war with us we would be crushed.  Even if the Asari or Salrians did it the result would be the same.  We have signed away our ability to adequately defend ourselves from a pack of genocidal lunatics.

The 'Citadel' fleet was. Pulling the forces from the rest of the empire would have meant free targets for any outside power that wanted to raid. As for 'genocidal luntics' I am pretty sure that humanity has committed and/or attempted genocide more times in our last 2000 years than the Council has, and in the cases in Earth history it wasn't even remotely in self defence. I guess we should disarm because we are 'genocidal lunatics' who might kill ourselves? Frankly, based on our history, I think the council's treaty limits are more justified that we would want to admit. I certainly wouldn't want to try that arguement as a diplomatic ploy.

And there is a LOT more to interstellar war than DN vs DN. In fact, the equivallent to guerrilla war using hit and run bombing in cheap fast ships is really hard to defend against. Small unguided missiles can be launched at a planet from nowhere near it, and being small and needing no energy signature past the intitial launch, are virtually impossible to detect short of dumb luck. When you have anything you wish to defend, you really want to avoid interstellar war whenever you can, and if you do go to war, you really want to pray that the other side wants your planets relatively intact.

Not extinction, poverty.  Without our agreements with the Council we wouldn't have been allowed to colonize many (if any) suitable planets, this would have limited our production, which limits expansion, and the whole thing snowballs from there.  The Batarians and Quarians demonstrate that without siding with the Council a species cannot grow, they've designed the system that way.  Now if we could find some partners who hadn't encountered the Council yet we might be able to achieve a measure of growth but unfortunately all roads lead to rome (or the Citadel in this case).

P.S. This is fun, I like you.

I don't think we have any good data on how the Batarians are doing. The terrorist factions are those who never accepted the war was lost, just like any similar situation. That doesn't mean the Batarian worlds have no resources and no trading partners. Heck, consider the resources the Normandy 'finds' in the Traverse in such a short time, using a scout vessel rather than a formal survey ship (although frankly given some of them are found on inhabited worlds, it really does seem out of whack, lol).

The Quarians are doing rather well actually considering. They are stagnant because they have refused to settle down (other than one attempt to claim a high gravity world, which made no sense whatsoever. Why that world?). Most of the galaxy is unexplored, but instead of finding real new territory to call their own, they just boot about here, talking at length about how they will take their home systems back while fielding the least capable ground troops anywhere, even against Geth. Other than that they have maintained a stable appearantly healthy population, and are tech leaders in certain areas.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
And what if the enemy just retrogrades in front of the fighters just outside their range? The fighters have to be in close enough that their quick acceleration can close them with the enemy before the enemy can take countermeasures.

Moi, think it through, even in space things have mass. A fighter, by its very design is supposed to be efficient in comparison to something as huge and lumbering as a Dreadnought. As in, a fighter is built to hunt for capital ships, that's their entire purpose, it's why frigates (and interceptors) exist to prevent fighters from crippling and destroying the larger vessels by 'screening' them. It says it all there in the Codex if you can be bothered to read it.

And that is assuming there are no other countermeasures, such as an indoctrination field set to 'area brain fry' instead of 'indoctrinate', or just strong enough jamming to counter the fighter's targetting control, since the size of the sensor array that a fighter can be fitted with isn't going to be comperable with the engine output of a DN.

And a fighter doesn't operate independently, are you even trying anymore, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? A Fighter doesn't exist on itself, it's backed up with a fleet, the same as a Dreadnought, but fighters are built to take them out, whereas a Dreadnought comparatively isn't. That's not to say that a Dreadnought doesn't have any protection (it does; GARDIAN's), but Fighters are designed for attritional warfare in regards to GARDIAN battery's.

Not to mention it is not a given that fighters are eezo efficient. They might have a more costly ratio, and it isn't thaaat common a substance.

What's the point you're trying to make? Fighters are, even if less 'eezo efficient' they're still cheaper to produce. It's safe to assume that the economics are in place to support production of fighters, frigates, cruisers or whatever. What you're basically saying is that no service should make cruisers or frigates either because the Dreadnought represents the best 'bang for your buck.' But we aren't even arguing that isn't the case, we're arguing that the Dreadnought superiority isn't necessarily as such a superior position anymore in the advance of Thanix mountable fighters (and frigates).

You're right thought, it is off topic, but it's still fun to debate... other than with you to be honest, because you aren't really putting a decent effort in this time. 

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Moi, think it through, even in space things have mass. A fighter, by its very design is supposed to be efficient in comparison to something as huge and lumbering as a Dreadnought. As in, a fighter is built to hunt for capital ships, that's their entire purpose, it's why frigates (and interceptors) exist to prevent fighters from crippling and destroying the larger vessels by 'screening' them. It says it all there in the Codex if you can be bothered to read it.

Lower mass, but much smaller engines too. I did acknowledge relative acceleration differences, but top speed in space is FTL, to which all captial ships are capable of accelerating, at least unless they are foolish enough wait til the drive cores need discharging before engaging.

As for what they are built for, that is a meaningless statement. I can make a harpoon, an old fashioned pointy stick 'for hunting capital ships.' That doesn't mean it will be effective. What it says in the codex is academic. This is relatively new tech ot the Council and related races, and it takes time to develop doctrine and countermeasures.

The Reapers have had that time. As I said though, it is in the hands of the writers.

And a fighter doesn't operate independently, are you even trying anymore, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? A Fighter doesn't exist on itself, it's backed up with a fleet, the same as a Dreadnought, but fighters are built to take them out, whereas a Dreadnought comparatively isn't. That's not to say that a Dreadnought doesn't have any protection (it does; GARDIAN's), but Fighters are designed for attritional warfare in regards to GARDIAN battery's.

But the fighter still has to see. Either it is using its onboard sensors, which are less powerful than those of its prey as I explained, or it is using those of the fleet, in which case there are transmissions of telemetry that can be jammed. Unless of course the pilot is going to try to find the target my their own natural eyesight over thousands of kms of space there are targetting systems that can be hacked and/or jammed. What the fighter is 'built to do' doesn't change the nature of the battlefield itself. Many weapons have been built do do things over the years that simply have not been practical in the field.

What's the point you're trying to make? Fighters are, even if less 'eezo efficient' they're still cheaper to produce. It's safe to assume that the economics are in place to support production of fighters, frigates, cruisers or whatever. What you're basically saying is that no service should make cruisers or frigates either because the Dreadnought represents the best 'bang for your buck.' But we aren't even arguing that isn't the case, we're arguing that the Dreadnought superiority isn't necessarily as such a superior position anymore in the advance of Thanix mountable fighters (and frigates).

That is only true if there is infinite eezo, or at least a sufficient temporary surplus. That is hardly a given. Eezo is found in much lower quantites when the Normandy surveys and Omega specificly is mentioned as being strategicly important due to its eezo reserves. If you can only afford, say, 1000 fighters vs 100 dreadnaughts, are the fighters still the best weapon? There are ratioes of needed resources and it is not a given they favour the fighters.

You're right thought, it is off topic, but it's still fun to debate... other than with you to be honest, because you aren't really putting a decent effort in this time. 

There is an annoying trend in modern military doctrine to treat air power as some sort of universal solution, utterly dismissing its drawbacks. This feels a lot like that debate. Have you ever heard of a game called 'star fleet battles?' It was an old set of rules for simulated combat between ships based on Star Trek.

The ships had similar properties to the ships in ME. Most had identical maximum speeds. Anyway, it was a pretty good game, and gave a good sense of what tactics between ships such as these would really be like.

Just because something seems to work based on tech or stats descriptions doesn't mean it lives up to its hype in an actual (or properly simulated) battle.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Was actually referring to the Turian quarantine of Tuchanka.  The Council was not content to stabilize Krogan reproduction and refuse trade, they are not allowed to develope any kind of fleet, with orbital bombardment being the response for trying.

However there are Krogan off Tuchanka too. It isn't much of a quarantine. Furthermore, even if they were all trapped on world, if their population got high enough, then they might end up having to resort to orbital bombardment as a counter, which would be arguably as bad or worse than the genophage.

The whole 'quarantine' suggestion is not well thought out anyway, and isn't really there in practice. Wrex was there pre-ME1 before giving up on leadership and running off to play freelance merc, then returned to take over leadership again. He was never challenged in leaving nor in returning. Quarantine? What quarantine?

Yeah I think quarantine's a bad word for it too.  My guess is the fleet is there to keep the Krogan from building vessels (either for war or colonization).  Individuals may come and go but the race is staying right where they are.

Moiaussi wrote...

 
Please read the bolded portion of your quote and then re-read mine (also from the Codex, enjoy).  The Batarians "moved" from Citadel Space when they refused to acknowledge the Council's authority anymore, so the Batarian systems were no longer considered part of Citadel space.

They closed their embassy. How do you suggest they moved their home system? There is nothing in the codex saying they abandoned their homeworld ala the Quarians.

 
Ok this is proving more difficult than it reasonably should be.  Citadel space is loosely defined as any region of space controlled by a species that acknowledges the authority of the Council.  Now when the Batarians closed their embassy and cut ties with the Council the regions of space they control no longer acknowledge Council authority and therefore were no longer part of Citadel space.  Think of it like a state breaking away.  They haven't gone anywhere, but they're no longer part of their old country.  The borders of Citadel space changed when the Batarians decided to take their ball and go home, not the geography of the galaxy. 

Moiaussi wrote...

Except it's not contested, humanity needed the Council's permission to colonize in the Attican Traverse and the Skyllian Verge, they've openly declared those regions as belonging to them.

The Alliance asked rather than playing hardball and simply settling there (there is no 'humanity' nation). Others who did so on their own are treated differently by the council and actually with more respect.... but then they haven't begged the council for privelledges either.

Keep in mind what happened when the Quarians tried to colonize a world without getting the Council's permission.  Do we know for sure that any race has just set down and said this is ours.

Moiaussi wrote...
Unless you are maintaining that the Alliance should have been allowed agressive expansion into 'safe' areas of space already cleared and policed by the Council.... in which case again, why should they agree to that?

Being allowed to colonize in safer areas would be nice but no.  The Council has asked humanity to secure the frontier, the very borders of their control.  We've agreed and are beginning to set up shop.  Now answer this; what does the Alliance get that's comparable to the service they provide as a buffer between the Council races and the Terminus?  Or for any of the agreements we've made thus far?  The only benefit I've seen is that of not being curb stomped by the Turians.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 05 mars 2011 - 07:21 .

[vkt62]

Any form of council is going to be biased towards the members in power. If you want an impartial perfect system, you would have to go to something along the lines of the world computers in I Robot book (Not the movie). Even then someone is always going to be unhappy because his spaceship is not as big as the next one or he lives in an apartment and not in a beach house. You can also find a real life earth situation for any of the points you mentioned.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Lower mass, but much smaller engines too. I did acknowledge relative acceleration differences, but top speed in space is FTL, to which all captial ships are capable of accelerating, at least unless they are foolish enough wait til the drive cores need discharging before engaging.

...I'm just going to repeat what I said before then, if the fighters have managed to route the Dreadnought, then in effect the fighters have won the engagement. Complete extermination isn't absolutely necessary.

Moi wrote...
As for what they are built for, that is a meaningless statement. I can make a harpoon, an old fashioned pointy stick 'for hunting capital ships.' That doesn't mean it will be effective. What it says in the codex is academic. This is relatively new tech ot the Council and related races, and it takes time to develop doctrine and countermeasures.

Not quite. Fighters aren't a new development, dedicated Carrier's are. At the moment, most navies have a small compliment of fighters in their Dreadnoughts to be launched as needed, but the Systems Alliance was the first to 'innovate' with dedicated carrier battlefleets... as such, I think it reasonable to assume that Carriers exist to make up for most deficiencies, such as armament restocks during combat (although in relative safety) and disseminating useful information (for example, scanner range for a Carrier would be much larger than say that of a Fighter).

The Reapers have had that time. As I said though, it is in the hands of the writers.

Which is true... but no one ever said anything about the Reapers in this thread.

But the fighter still has to see. Either it is using its onboard sensors, which are less powerful than those of its prey as I explained, or it is using those of the fleet, in which case there are transmissions of telemetry that can be jammed. Unless of course the pilot is going to try to find the target my their own natural eyesight over thousands of kms of space there are targetting systems that can be hacked and/or jammed. What the fighter is 'built to do' doesn't change the nature of the battlefield itself. Many weapons have been built do do things over the years that simply have not been practical in the field.

There is such thing as ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) and ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter-Measures) -- I know bizarre, you'd think that ECM would sorta make ECCM's acronym redundant, but apparently not. But like I said before though, I would imagine that carriers would be made to fulfil as many shortcomings as possible, because otherwise... well, it would be pretty moronic in all honesty.

That is only true if there is infinite eezo, or at least a sufficient temporary surplus. That is hardly a given. Eezo is found in much lower quantites when the Normandy surveys and Omega specificly is mentioned as being strategicly important due to its eezo reserves. If you can only afford, say, 1000 fighters vs 100 dreadnaughts, are the fighters still the best weapon? There are ratioes of needed resources and it is not a given they favour the fighters.

I don't believe this is an appropriate distinction to make, because I think it would be completely stupid to have a mathematical model in which you could only build 1000 fighters or 100 dreadnoughts... Even then, I probably wouldn't build as many Dreadnoughts as I would now with the Thanix and the options it opens up. Dreadnoughts occupy their niche, Fighters occupy their own, but Fighters are tailor made to destroy capital ships, so I would indeed commit a swarm of fighters against a Dreadnought, because statistically speaking they would win. I will lose fighters true, but in terms of sheer material assets and resources lost, you are going to lose more with a Dreadnought than I would with fighters.

Also bear in mind that Dreadnoughts are the pride and joy of fleet operations, they are 'precious' resources, so losing a Dreadnought is also going to have a detrimental effect on the enemy's morale.

Moi wrote...
Just because something seems to work based on tech or stats descriptions doesn't mean it lives up to its hype in an actual (or properly simulated) battle.

True, but you're doing the exact same thing...

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Yeah I think quarantine's a bad word for it too.  My guess is the fleet is there to keep the Krogan from building vessels (either for war or colonization).  Individuals may come and go but the race is staying right where they are.

Which still doesn't stop the Krogan from sending some individuals just off into deep space and starting fresh outside Council reach. If they were far enough and isolationist enough, they might even avoid Genophage adjustments and get past the Genophage by out-evolving it, as was already happening when Morden n crew had to step in.

Ok this is proving more difficult than it reasonably should be.  Citadel space is loosely defined as any region of space controlled by a species that acknowledges the authority of the Council.  Now when the Batarians closed their embassy and cut ties with the Council the regions of space they control no longer acknowledge Council authority and therefore were no longer part of Citadel space.  Think of it like a state breaking away.  They haven't gone anywhere, but they're no longer part of their old country.  The borders of Citadel space changed when the Batarians decided to take their ball and go home, not the geography of the galaxy. 

Pardon, but that is exactly what I said. It just took you longer to agree with me for some reason. Sorry if I was unclear.

Keep in mind what happened when the Quarians tried to colonize a world without getting the Council's permission.  Do we know for sure that any race has just set down and said this is ours.

Yes, a world obviously much better suited to the Elcor (being high gravity) that may well have been slated for the Elcor before the Quarians tried moving in. I suspect that was a Quarian political ploy on behalf of Quarian leaders who benefit from the fleet staying Migrant (basicly, the Admiralty, since they become a lot less important if the Quarians ever settle down again).

Noveria and Vermire don't get those kinds of threats.

Being allowed to colonize in safer areas would be nice but no.  The Council has asked humanity to secure the frontier, the very borders of their control.  We've agreed and are beginning to set up shop.  Now answer this; what does the Alliance get that's comparable to the service they provide as a buffer between the Council races and the Terminus?  Or for any of the agreements we've made thus far?  The only benefit I've seen is that of not being curb stomped by the Turians.

But how much of that is service to the Council? Illium is obviously far more established than any Alliance colony, and isn't actually considered a Council world, IIRC. Other than that, there is no evidence of the Council benefitting from the Alliance's colonization. The Alliance wanted to expand, and the Council said, 'you can't go this way, it is ours. How about that way?'

Keep in mind that the Alliance wasn't a member yet when they said that. Given the Alliance could choose to break off at any time (ala the Batarians), what was the Council really gaining besides the risk of angering other races/political entities?

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

[...I'm just going to repeat what I said before then, if the fighters have managed to route the Dreadnought, then in effect the fighters have won the engagement. Complete extermination isn't absolutely necessary.

Depends. Who has the greater fuel capacity? Is the DN incapable of hitting the fighters at all as it retreats? Keep in mind it only has to stay just outside their effective range, and has bigger guns. The DN retreating doesn't signify the battle is over.

Not quite. Fighters aren't a new development, dedicated Carrier's are. At the moment, most navies have a small compliment of fighters in their Dreadnoughts to be launched as needed, but the Systems Alliance was the first to 'innovate' with dedicated carrier battlefleets... as such, I think it reasonable to assume that Carriers exist to make up for most deficiencies, such as armament restocks during combat (although in relative safety) and disseminating useful information (for example, scanner range for a Carrier would be much larger than say that of a Fighter).

The early pre-carrier uses of fighters in RL were mostly as spotting/scouting instruments. They didn't have enough mass firepower to do much more. Carriers have yet to be tested under sustained conditions past their initial engagements in the First Contact War. Due to the nebula, the Citadel War was entirely close range so it is atypical. I wouldn't be surprised if Carriers are seen as being wonderful, since they were important in both wars, but again, anything that is that initially effective tends to get hype beyond its actual worth. Again, look at the insistance that Afghanistan and Iraq could be won essentially solely on air power.

Which is true... but no one ever said anything about the Reapers in this thread.

Lol we aren't saying much about the Council here either, what is your point? Mine was that doctrine needs to be adaptable not just to immediate enemies, but also to those you don't know about yet. The obvious answer to carriers is cruisers or frigates with medium range weapons, that can match the fighter's acceleration and maneuverability well enough that the retrograde technique works well for them. They are out of the fighter's effective range, the fighters are within their effective range, and suddenly a couple of escort ships are enough to stymie a carrier's entire complement. If the fighters stay back, the DN advances and takes out the carrier, fighters and all.

There is such thing as ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) and ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter-Measures) -- I know bizarre, you'd think that ECM would sorta make ECCM's acronym redundant, but apparently not. But like I said before though, I would imagine that carriers would be made to fulfil as many shortcomings as possible, because otherwise... well, it would be pretty moronic in all honesty.

And again, what the carrier is made to fulfil is completely independant of the real challenges faced in such a design being successful. It is simply not a given that they are effective at all against any force that takes them into account when designing their own ships.

I don't believe this is an appropriate distinction to make, because I think it would be completely stupid to have a mathematical model in which you could only build 1000 fighters or 100 dreadnoughts... Even then, I probably wouldn't build as many Dreadnoughts as I would now with the Thanix and the options it opens up. Dreadnoughts occupy their niche, Fighters occupy their own, but Fighters are tailor made to destroy capital ships, so I would indeed commit a swarm of fighters against a Dreadnought, because statistically speaking they would win. I will lose fighters true, but in terms of sheer material assets and resources lost, you are going to lose more with a Dreadnought than I would with fighters.

Also bear in mind that Dreadnoughts are the pride and joy of fleet operations, they are 'precious' resources, so losing a Dreadnought is also going to have a detrimental effect on the enemy's morale.

The point is that there is a ratio, and whatever it really is has to be taken into account in any cost benefit analysis. Wanting carriers to work simply because they are 'cool' or 'sound good' doesn't make them work. Nor does saying 'they must because they built them.' Do a google search for "British Columbia Fast Ferry Fiasco." Governments do build white elephants all the time. Well thankfully not ALL the time

And the carriers were a good idea in the First Contact War and would have been at the Citadel too. Above and beyond those wars, they do provide something else very useful. Superior ground support. Fighters are small enough that they can easily be built to handle atmosheres, meaning air support for ground troops, which CAN be invaluable and decisive. That gives carriers an important role irrespective of any roles in space. They likely are best for searching systems efficiently too.

True, but you're doing the exact same thing...

Not really. I am saying they might work, but not to count them as a certainty. You seem to be saying they definately do work. The difference is in degree of certainty.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Depends. Who has the greater fuel capacity? Is the DN incapable of hitting the fighters at all as it retreats? Keep in mind it only has to stay just outside their effective range, and has bigger guns. The DN retreating doesn't signify the battle is over.

Ahh, I see the problem now. You're looking at it in a vacuum. If a Dreadnought (or carrier) are committed in battle, then they wouldn't be done so just by themselves. Each side will be occupying a position in a fleet which means strategy is going to be pretty much on the fly (what's the sayin'? No plan survives first contact with an enemy?).

A dreadnought is not going to waste its main gun trying to swat the fighters, it's going to use it's GARDIAN batteries. Meanwhile, they're going to be useful, but as long as the fighters can keep the pressure up, the GARDIAN's are going to overheat and shut down, meanwhile, the GARDIAN batteries will be overwhelmed presumably with target acquisition between the fighters themselves, and Torpedo's (especially since now the Alliance has Javelin's, which I believe can be mounted on fighters, or maybe that's just frigates and cruisers?). 

Also, the point also remains that fighters can be equipped with Thanix weapon systems, which means that fighters should be able to engage at longer range (and remember, Thanix utilizes heat as much as impact force, and heat isn't going to be blocked by Kinetic barriers) as before, because previously Torpedo's where a fighters main armament... and torpedoes were by convention fired close so as to prevent GARDIAN batteries from locking on and destroying them mid flight.

Moi wrote...
The early pre-carrier uses of fighters in RL were mostly as spotting/scouting instruments. They didn't have enough mass firepower to do much more. Carriers have yet to be tested under sustained conditions past their initial engagements in the First Contact War. Due to the nebula, the Citadel War was entirely close range so it is atypical. I wouldn't be surprised if Carriers are seen as being wonderful, since they were important in both wars, but again, anything that is that initially effective tends to get hype beyond its actual worth. Again, look at the insistance that Afghanistan and Iraq could be won essentially solely on air power.

Once again, I wouldn't be utilizing fighters and carriers solely on themselves in engagements against Dreadnoughts, namely because by convention Dreadnoughts are never fielded by themselves either. I'm not sure about your argument about RL fighter systems in detailing the comparison with those of the Mass Effect universe simply because they mention fighters are primarily used to bomb capital ships (which implies to me they had to be appropriately outfitted for the task) -- and fighters were presumably effective enough to see Interceptor's (aka; fighters dedicated to destroying other fighters) being developed. Honestly I see it as evidence of an arms race at its purist:

Dreadnoughts effective but large targets -> Saw development of fighters to ensure another avenue of attack
Fighters proving to be effective -> Saw development of Interceptors (and frigates?) to... intercept fighters before they could successfully sink ships.

Now the alliance comes along and with a bit of old fashioned 'human ingenuity' decided to build dedicated carrier spacecraft presumably filled to the brim with fighters and interceptors (or better yet, multirole fighters that can perform both functions as needed)

Moi wrote...
Lol we aren't saying much about the Council here either, what is your point? Mine was that doctrine needs to be adaptable not just to immediate enemies, but also to those you don't know about yet. The obvious answer to carriers is cruisers or frigates with medium range weapons, that can match the fighter's acceleration and maneuverability well enough that the retrograde technique works well for them. They are out of the fighter's effective range, the fighters are within their effective range, and suddenly a couple of escort ships are enough to stymie a carrier's entire complement. If the fighters stay back, the DN advances and takes out the carrier, fighters and all.

My point is that the Thanix further diversifies and strengthens the position of fighters in comparison to all threats. Fighters now have longer range because they aren't limited to close range to ensure maximum lethality for their torpedo weapons. Thanix weapons are currently only mountable on fighters and frigates, and we know that currently not even Dreadnoughts can penetrate Reaper defences.
If computer systems can not accurately model the flight capabilities (aka; jinxing movements) of Joker, then it stands to reason to me at least, that at range Fighters are practically bulletproof, because GARDIAN weapons are short range and any sane commander would want fighters to be taken out if possible before they even reach GARDIAN range, because then it becomes attrition warfare (hence the development of Interceptors).
Sure, if Fighters can't use their torpedoes to bomb planetside targets, then they wouldn't be used for it, but you still have cruisers, frigates and yes, even Dreadnoughts to do that.

Moi wrote...
And again, what the carrier is made to fulfil is completely independant of the real challenges faced in such a design being successful. It is simply not a given that they are effective at all against any force that takes them into account when designing their own ships.

They had to have been effective enough for fighters to of being developed (and sustained in that development) up to the point that the Alliance decided to implement carrier systems. I will concede that carriers aren't as of yet proven technology, but fighters are, and a carrier just lurks somewhere and not get in the way. As I see it, a carrier in active battle performs as a glorified AWACS or JSTARS in a nutshell.

The point is that there is a ratio, and whatever it really is has to be taken into account in any cost benefit analysis. Wanting carriers to work simply because they are 'cool' or 'sound good' doesn't make them work. Nor does saying 'they must because they built them.' Do a google search for "British Columbia Fast Ferry Fiasco." Governments do build white elephants all the time. Well thankfully not ALL the time

Already answered above (but for brevity: You're confusing carriers with the fighters themselves).

And the carriers were a good idea in the First Contact War and would have been at the Citadel too. Above and beyond those wars, they do provide something else very useful. Superior ground support. Fighters are small enough that they can easily be built to handle atmosheres, meaning air support for ground troops, which CAN be invaluable and decisive. That gives carriers an important role irrespective of any roles in space. They likely are best for searching systems efficiently too.

Yep, neither a carrier nor a Dreadnought are really developed to be used everywhere, they would only really exist as part of fleet operations. I don't know the maximum distance for Fighters (lets say though it's 'far enough') but that's what makes them part of fleet operations, not as some sort of universal bandaid.

Not really. I am saying they might work, but not to count them as a certainty. You seem to be saying they definately do work. The difference is in degree of certainty.

I don't mean to give the impression that they're a certainty, I'm only saying that carriers now fulfill a pretty useful niche and probably opens up more options than say a Dreadnought. I'm not saying a carrier will necessarily win one on one with a Dreadnought, because the carrier itself depends on hiding itself from combat, entrusting it's fighters to do the deed.

However, if I'm right in that eventually fighters to be capable (aka; a proven design) and have gotten to the point where they're effective, then while it's practically assured that GARDIAN batteries will destroy some fighters, then eventually the combined weight of fighters will overwhelm and 'sink' the Dreadnought. Why? Because fighters are designed to swarm GARDIAN batteries, so therefore is it not safe to believe that smart boffins in a lab somewhere knows at what frequence GARDIAN lasers fire at, and make composite materials to dampen it? Is it safe to assume that the Dreadnoughts fight in principally the same manner (aka; align main gun to target, await firing solution, fire?). It is almost as if Dreadnoughts can be accurately predicted (and move) in certain ways, and due to this, tactics can be developed.

I'm also saying, that due to the development of the Thanix systems, then essentially fighters can now strike from BVR, because GARDIAN's have a set range, and any thing else is more likely to miss due to the relative velocities of both vessels, the small size of fighters,, electronic support from the carrier and the human 'unpredictability' in the flying element.

Lemme try and illustrate an example

|---------------->            x A Dreadnoughts maximum range of it's GARDIAN batteries.
|<-------------------------x A fighters increased range due to its brand spanking new Thanix weapon systems.
It can now engage from further away, so what happens if the fighters now start 'swarming' from this range as opposed to before? the Dreadnought essentially becomes hopeless because it can't engage with it's GARDIAN's, and the fighters are swarming and attacking from all angles.

The sheer mass displacement between a Dreadnought and fighters means that fighters will easily be able to keep up with a Dreadnought attempting to run, and since I believe one of those 'omni-directional' smaller mass relays must exist (and be within range) in order to escape to FTL (or alternatively, it's engines must remain operational - if this was retconned?) then it appears to me that if so inclined, fighters can capitalise on the DN's engines to make it stationary (while remaining away from it's heat wash, which would quickly vaporise the fighter craft).

Having said that though, even if the Dreadnought does manage to limp off, then that's a victory too, because you've denied the 'airspace' to the enemy.

[jamesp81]

If the concern for a carrier commander is GARDIAN batteries destroying his fighter squadrons, the solution is simple. Time fighter attack runs to coincide with missile strikes. This will force the defenders to choose between shooting down missiles or fighters.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Ahh, I see the problem now. You're looking at it in a vacuum. If a Dreadnought (or carrier) are committed in battle, then they wouldn't be done so just by themselves. Each side will be occupying a position in a fleet which means strategy is going to be pretty much on the fly (what's the sayin'? No plan survives first contact with an enemy?).

A dreadnought is not going to waste its main gun trying to swat the fighters, it's going to use it's GARDIAN batteries. Meanwhile, they're going to be useful, but as long as the fighters can keep the pressure up, the GARDIAN's are going to overheat and shut down, meanwhile, the GARDIAN batteries will be overwhelmed presumably with target acquisition between the fighters themselves, and Torpedo's (especially since now the Alliance has Javelin's, which I believe can be mounted on fighters, or maybe that's just frigates and cruisers?). 

Also, the point also remains that fighters can be equipped with Thanix weapon systems, which means that fighters should be able to engage at longer range (and remember, Thanix utilizes heat as much as impact force, and heat isn't going to be blocked by Kinetic barriers) as before, because previously Torpedo's where a fighters main armament... and torpedoes were by convention fired close so as to prevent GARDIAN batteries from locking on and destroying them mid flight.

Given that the 'bullets' are incredibly cheap lumps of iron, and given the DN can use its main gun completely safely, yes it will use its main gun rather than let forces sufficient to damage it into their effective range. The prescense of a fleet doesn't change that. If the GARDIAN systems are in range, so are the fighters. Why let the fighters get in range if if can be avoided? It isn't the anti fighter systems overheating that the DN is worried about, it is the DN taking actual shield damage from point blank coordinated fighter strikes and torpedoes. The thanix packs a punch (although not neccessarily the same caliber on a fighter as on a frigate), but again it seems a relatively close in weapon.

Once again, I wouldn't be utilizing fighters and carriers solely on themselves in engagements against Dreadnoughts, namely because by convention Dreadnoughts are never fielded by themselves either. I'm not sure about your argument about RL fighter systems in detailing the comparison with those of the Mass Effect universe simply because they mention fighters are primarily used to bomb capital ships (which implies to me they had to be appropriately outfitted for the task) -- and fighters were presumably effective enough to see Interceptor's (aka; fighters dedicated to destroying other fighters) being developed. Honestly I see it as evidence of an arms race at its purist:

Dreadnoughts effective but large targets -> Saw development of fighters to ensure another avenue of attack
Fighters proving to be effective -> Saw development of Interceptors (and frigates?) to... intercept fighters before they could successfully sink ships.

Now the alliance comes along and with a bit of old fashioned 'human ingenuity' decided to build dedicated carrier spacecraft presumably filled to the brim with fighters and interceptors (or better yet, multirole fighters that can perform both functions as needed)

You can't screen in space, though, the way you can with surface vessels. Ensuring a DN has no firing solution is nigh impossible short of being out of its effective range. That means modern carrier group analogies don't apply. In a modern carrier group vs a conventional battle group, the mobility of the aircraft give the carrier group a huge effective range, far greater than that of any battleship's guns, and the battleship simply cannot field enough anti air systems to deal with enemy aircraft.

As for the escorts, the fighters take on the outer escorts first, thus facing only a portion of the full anti air capacity of the fleet. The surface ships are slow, being limited by water, and thus are sitting ducks.

The main guns of the battleship have been replaced by the cruise missles of the missile frigate or missile cruiser, cheaper faster ships firing longer range weaponry at, again, stationary or near stationary targets.

None of that equates to war in space where every ship (at least every capital ship) can accelerate to FTL if it needs to, and force missiles and/or fighters to lose tracking, while staying out of their range and sniping.

Systems and bases remain static insanely vulnerable targets. Any attacker with nothing to lose (like the Reapers, unless we can find a way to their home systems) has a huge advantage as long as they are willing to bombard. Thankfully the Geth didn't seem to be willing to go that far.

My point is that the Thanix further diversifies and strengthens the position of fighters in comparison to all threats. Fighters now have longer range because they aren't limited to close range to ensure maximum lethality for their torpedo weapons. Thanix weapons are currently only mountable on fighters and frigates, and we know that currently not even Dreadnoughts can penetrate Reaper defences.
If computer systems can not accurately model the flight capabilities (aka; jinxing movements) of Joker, then it stands to reason to me at least, that at range Fighters are practically bulletproof, because GARDIAN weapons are short range and any sane commander would want fighters to be taken out if possible before they even reach GARDIAN range, because then it becomes attrition warfare (hence the development of Interceptors).
Sure, if Fighters can't use their torpedoes to bomb planetside targets, then they wouldn't be used for it, but you still have cruisers, frigates and yes, even Dreadnoughts to do that.

A lot of assumptions regarding the figher mounted thanix cannons, and the thanix generally. The Normandy only seemed to use it point blank. That might have been respect for the collector vessel's shields and might have been Joker trained as a frigate pilot rather than a cruiser pilot, but they might also just be very powerful short range guns (which makes sense given that unlike kinetic weapons, energy weapons do lose energy over distance)

They had to have been effective enough for fighters to of being developed (and sustained in that development) up to the point that the Alliance decided to implement carrier systems. I will concede that carriers aren't as of yet proven technology, but fighters are, and a carrier just lurks somewhere and not get in the way. As I see it, a carrier in active battle performs as a glorified AWACS or JSTARS in a nutshell.

They 'proved' they are a great surprise weapon against the Turians, and are great in a nebula. Given the way doctrine gets promoted in the real world, that is more than enough for their supporters to shout down any opposition and for politicians to order more. Incidentally that kind of thinking led to the Turians being surprised in the first place.

Beyond that, I did suggest roles in which they could be invaluable.

Already answered above (but for brevity: You're confusing carriers with the fighters themselves).

No I am not, I am treating carrier and fighter as a combined weapon system. Fighters without carriers are not going to have the range to be of much use, and carriers without fighters is just silly lol. If the fighters do have range and sensory capacity without carriers, then why would they build carriers?

Yep, neither a carrier nor a Dreadnought are really developed to be used everywhere, they would only really exist as part of fleet operations. I don't know the maximum distance for Fighters (lets say though it's 'far enough') but that's what makes them part of fleet operations, not as some sort of universal bandaid.

The problem is that the roles they excell at are not likely to be a big factor against the Reapers. Against the Council, the ground support capacity alone could be decisive. It is also a role which takes the enemy DN out of the battle, since they would have to bombard their own world to try to save it from the fighters.

However, if I'm right in that eventually fighters to be capable (aka; a proven design) and have gotten to the point where they're effective, then while it's practically assured that GARDIAN batteries will destroy some fighters, then eventually the combined weight of fighters will overwhelm and 'sink' the Dreadnought. Why? Because fighters are designed to swarm GARDIAN batteries, so therefore is it not safe to believe that smart boffins in a lab somewhere knows at what frequence GARDIAN lasers fire at, and make composite materials to dampen it? Is it safe to assume that the Dreadnoughts fight in principally the same manner (aka; align main gun to target, await firing solution, fire?). It is almost as if Dreadnoughts can be accurately predicted (and move) in certain ways, and due to this, tactics can be developed.

I'm also saying, that due to the development of the Thanix systems, then essentially fighters can now strike from BVR, because GARDIAN's have a set range, and any thing else is more likely to miss due to the relative velocities of both vessels, the small size of fighters,, electronic support from the carrier and the human 'unpredictability' in the flying element.

Clipped your example. There is no reason at all for the DN to want the fighters in range of its GARDIAN systems. None. If the fighters aren't in range of those systems, the fighters are out of their effective range too. Either anti-fighter escort ships can handle them or the DN can use its main gun. The anti fighter systems are a holdout weapon in case all else goes wrong, just like the AA guns on a cruiser or carrier are their in case missiles and/or aircraft get past the escort ships. They are the last line of defence, not the first or preferred.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Given that the 'bullets' are incredibly cheap lumps of iron, and given the DN can use its main gun completely safely, yes it will use its main gun rather than let forces sufficient to damage it into their effective range. The prescense of a fleet doesn't change that. If the GARDIAN systems are in range, so are the fighters. Why let the fighters get in range if if can be avoided? It isn't the anti fighter systems overheating that the DN is worried about, it is the DN taking actual shield damage from point blank coordinated fighter strikes and torpedoes. The thanix packs a punch (although not neccessarily the same caliber on a fighter as on a frigate), but again it seems a relatively close in weapon.

Because in fleet operations, Dreadnoughts have other things to worry about, such as other Dreadnoughts, and if it doesn't, then fighters attack in packs. Also, pivoting in space isn't somehow immediate like you seem to be suggesting. Remember, Joker remarks "[sic]Sovereign just executed a turn that would have sheared one of our ships in half." It's not immediate in real life, it certainly isn't immediate in Mass Effect either, because even the Destiny Ascension moved like a lumbering beast.

As to your thing about the GARDIAN batteries and range... well... I already answered that and don't see the point in rehashing it (see my illustration! It's a work of art!) The range disparity between Torpedo's and Thanix I think was shown quite conclusively in the scene where the SR-2 and the Cruiser were trading fire. In the scene without the Thanix, the cruiser was able to get shots off while Joker had to maneouvre close in and fire the javelin's practically point blank.

Speaking of relative turning speeds, consider the maneovrability portrayed by the SR-1 in comparison to the Collector Cruiser in the opening cinematic (sure, the Cruiser could modify the angle of it's main weapon (which was pretty awesome in and of itself, because conventionally these are co-axially mounted, which to me at least means pretty minimal amount of independent movement). The Normandy was shot down, but the actual cruiser itself could not keep to pace.

If this is indicative of the disparity between say a Cruiser and a Frigate, then the sheer tonnage difference between a Dreadnought and a fighter should be even more marked.

A Dreadnought is worried about it's shields, but it also is worried about it's GARDIAN's, because if you recall, Torpedo's are designed to 'puncture' kinetic barriers by warping mass of both itself and eventually its target when it detonates. Failing that, a fighter is going to be putting pressure on it's shields regardless, so ergo it depends on it's GARDIAN's to take them out. I would have thought this principle to be pretty obvious Moi

Moi wrote...
None of that equates to war in space where every ship (at least every capital ship) can accelerate to FTL if it needs to, and force missiles and/or fighters to lose tracking, while staying out of their range and sniping.

How on earth is a Dreadnought supposed to move, change direction (necessarily) and snipe in one fluid motion? It can't pivot that quickly. Also, in an area where say both parties must engage (over say a planet), then the carrier can lurk out of the way or even by hiding behind the planet.

A ship generates heat by active combat by thruster burns, firing it's weapons etc, etc... this would mean that because a carrier doesn't do any of these things, then it automatically has a degree of stealth (and if the fighters have gotten the drop on the Dreadnought, then the Dreadnought has other things to worry about in the immediate sense). If a carrier is actively mobile, then it it could just be physically hiding behind other ships (I know, not very heroic!) or hell, is guarded by another Dreadnought, because Dreadnoughts fight at kilometre distances (of course, depending on the flight range of the fighters themselves). All things considered, I'd imagine the Carrier to be decidedly unlucky if despite everything the Dreadnought captain aims towards the carrier.

Moi wrote...
A lot of assumptions regarding the figher mounted thanix cannons, and the thanix generally. The Normandy only seemed to use it point blank. That might have been respect for the collector vessel's shields and might have been Joker trained as a frigate pilot rather than a cruiser pilot, but they might also just be very powerful short range guns (which makes sense given that unlike kinetic weapons, energy weapons do lose energy over distance)

See above for my theories about relative range capacity between Thanix and torpedo's, and the options seemingly now available.

Moi wrote...
Beyond that, I did suggest roles in which they could be invaluable.

I know, but I'd like to reiterate that they were designed to maximise the effectiveness of fighters themselves.

Moi wrote...
The problem is that the roles they excell at are not likely to be a big factor against the Reapers. Against the Council, the ground support capacity alone could be decisive. It is also a role which takes the enemy DN out of the battle, since they would have to bombard their own world to try to save it from the fighters.

Maybe, but I'm not going to reject them straight out of hand. If Dreadnoughts aren't up to the task to defeating the Reapers (as EDI tells us), then frankly our odds look even bleaker. Ordinarily, I would doubt that Fighters (as is) would have any better chances either except for one thing; the Thanix gave the Normandy the capability to outgun a foe that drastically exceeded it's weight. It is also worth mentioning that while the Javelins allowed this as well, the Javelins also aren't 'stock' equipment either.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that a Thanix on a fighter isn't going to be as capable as the one on the Normandy, because... well, that seems to be common sense if nothing else. However, Thanix already partially bypasses traditional limitations in Kinetic Barriers, namely it fires a molten slug. If you remember your lorelol, Kinetic Barriers aren't supposed to protect against temperature, radiation and some other stuff (lol...), the Codex says that the Thanix overwhelms it's targets armour by a combination of impact force and irresistable heat.

Moi wrote...
Clipped your example. There is no reason at all for the DN to want the fighters in range of its GARDIAN systems. None. If the fighters aren't in range of those systems, the fighters are out of their effective range too. Either anti-fighter escort ships can handle them or the DN can use its main gun. The anti fighter systems are a holdout weapon in case all else goes wrong, just like the AA guns on a cruiser or carrier are their in case missiles and/or aircraft get past the escort ships. They are the last line of defence, not the first or preferred.

Who said anything about what a Dreadnought 'wants' is what they're going to get? I don't want to pay my taxes, I do anyway.

It's absurd (and impossible) to believe that a Dreadnought would have the maneovrability to enable for one to hit a Fighter in mid flight, not counting things like 'incidental' hits (like the fighter pilot being plain unlucky). Even if the Dreadnought wants to be able to do this; it's physically impossible. A fighter isn't a stationary target, and I doubt any fighter pilot is going to charge a dreadnought head on, and the dreadnought isn't going to go one on one against anything because no Dreadnought is fielded that way (hell, I doubt Reapers will be either, with the exception of say isolated systems (which no carrier, and certainly no naval forces, will be guarding anyway -- at least, not in my playthrough if I can help it).

Dreadnoughts depend on Interceptor's and frigates to destroy enemy Fighters (and... presumably Interceptor's are used against other Interceptor's for when Fighters want to push into the other side? -- unless Fighters are by their nature multirole), Dreadnoughts while having GARDIAN batteries (against frigates and fighters) are otherwise defenseless, because otherwise, if they could 'pivot' at will, then they wouldn't have GARDIAN batteries in the first place.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Because in fleet operations, Dreadnoughts have other things to worry about, such as other Dreadnoughts, and if it doesn't, then fighters attack in packs. Also, pivoting in space isn't somehow immediate like you seem to be suggesting. Remember, Joker remarks "[sic]Sovereign just executed a turn that would have sheared one of our ships in half." It's not immediate in real life, it certainly isn't immediate in Mass Effect either, because even the Destiny Ascension moved like a lumbering beast.

As to your thing about the GARDIAN batteries and range... well... I already answered that and don't see the point in rehashing it (see my illustration! It's a work of art!) The range disparity between Torpedo's and Thanix I think was shown quite conclusively in the scene where the SR-2 and the Cruiser were trading fire. In the scene without the Thanix, the cruiser was able to get shots off while Joker had to maneouvre close in and fire the javelin's practically point blank.

Speaking of relative turning speeds, consider the maneovrability portrayed by the SR-1 in comparison to the Collector Cruiser in the opening cinematic (sure, the Cruiser could modify the angle of it's main weapon (which was pretty awesome in and of itself, because conventionally these are co-axially mounted, which to me at least means pretty minimal amount of independent movement). The Normandy was shot down, but the actual cruiser itself could not keep to pace.

If this is indicative of the disparity between say a Cruiser and a Frigate, then the sheer tonnage difference between a Dreadnought and a fighter should be even more marked.

A Dreadnought is worried about it's shields, but it also is worried about it's GARDIAN's, because if you recall, Torpedo's are designed to 'puncture' kinetic barriers by warping mass of both itself and eventually its target when it detonates. Failing that, a fighter is going to be putting pressure on it's shields regardless, so ergo it depends on it's GARDIAN's to take them out. I would have thought this principle to be pretty obvious Moi

If the DN is retrograding from the fighters it is also doing so from the DN's. If the enemy DNs also advance, then the retrograding DN can fire on them instead, but then you still have a situation where the side with no carriers has more DNs, because they didn't buy carriers, and the fighters are not relevant because the attacking DN doesn't let them get in range. It retreats and/or engages in tangental attack runs, either way simply kiting the shorter range craft. Such attack runs don't involve pivoting, they involve a flyby course that maintains your distance.

As for Joker's combat technique, he was also doing barrel rolls and other silly maneuvers, and was inexperienced or arrogant enough that he let the SR 1 get shot down rather than simply maintain distance. As for modifying firing angle, there is a huge difference between a few fractions of a degree and a snap turn of the likes Sovereign performed. The ships are much more maneuverable than you give them credit for being.

And you keep going on about torpedos, and the GARDIAN systems. You have been reading too many pamphlets rather than thinking like a real ship's commander. IF THE ENEMY CAN"T GET IN RANGE, THEY CAN"T HURT YOU. It is not a difficult doctrine. It is one of the main reasons air power is so useful.

How on earth is a Dreadnought supposed to move, change direction (necessarily) and snipe in one fluid motion? It can't pivot that quickly. Also, in an area where say both parties must engage (over say a planet), then the carrier can lurk out of the way or even by hiding behind the planet.

A ship generates heat by active combat by thruster burns, firing it's weapons etc, etc... this would mean that because a carrier doesn't do any of these things, then it automatically has a degree of stealth (and if the fighters have gotten the drop on the Dreadnought, then the Dreadnought has other things to worry about in the immediate sense). If a carrier is actively mobile, then it it could just be physically hiding behind other ships (I know, not very heroic!) or hell, is guarded by another Dreadnought, because Dreadnoughts fight at kilometre distances (of course, depending on the flight range of the fighters themselves). All things considered, I'd imagine the Carrier to be decidedly unlucky if despite everything the Dreadnought captain aims towards the carrier.

Battles are not instantaneous things. Ships (yes, dreadnaughts too) are fast, and you don't have to charge directly at an opponent and keep coming. They aren't like chess pieces either, they are not moving on a board. You come in on an attack angle, and veer off. You only need a tangent, you don't need to completely reverse course. And we are talking thousands of kilometers to 10s of thousands. There are modern infantry weapons with a km+ range.

Hiding behind other ships is completely impractical. Behind a planet might be possible, but the carrier would have to be pretty much stationary and it wouldn't be that hard for an enemy to get a firing angle. Again, this isn't surface ships we are talking about. It is like you are talking about screening Air Force 1 with other aircraft somehow. Good luck with that.

See above for my theories about relative range capacity between Thanix and torpedo's, and the options seemingly now available.

In terms of starship combat, that entire scene was point blank. The Collector Cruiser fired on the SR1 at point blank too. A mass driver based cruiser would have been firing on the way in.

Maybe, but I'm not going to reject them straight out of hand. If Dreadnoughts aren't up to the task to defeating the Reapers (as EDI tells us), then frankly our odds look even bleaker. Ordinarily, I would doubt that Fighters (as is) would have any better chances either except for one thing; the Thanix gave the Normandy the capability to outgun a foe that drastically exceeded it's weight. It is also worth mentioning that while the Javelins allowed this as well, the Javelins also aren't 'stock' equipment either.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that a Thanix on a fighter isn't going to be as capable as the one on the Normandy, because... well, that seems to be common sense if nothing else. However, Thanix already partially bypasses traditional limitations in Kinetic Barriers, namely it fires a molten slug. If you remember your lorelol, Kinetic Barriers aren't supposed to protect against temperature, radiation and some other stuff (lol...), the Codex says that the Thanix overwhelms it's targets armour by a combination of impact force and irresistable heat.

EDI also seemed to advise against firing on the Collector cruiser, but we know as of the battle outside the base at the end, that the SR2 could have taken it on anytime. The SR1 might have too, if Joker didn't think showing off his skill at 'evasive maneuvers' was more important than getting distance until he could point the ship's guns at the enemy.

Who said anything about what a Dreadnought 'wants' is what they're going to get? I don't want to pay my taxes, I do anyway.

It's absurd (and impossible) to believe that a Dreadnought would have the maneovrability to enable for one to hit a Fighter in mid flight, not counting things like 'incidental' hits (like the fighter pilot being plain unlucky). Even if the Dreadnought wants to be able to do this; it's physically impossible. A fighter isn't a stationary target, and I doubt any fighter pilot is going to charge a dreadnought head on, and the dreadnought isn't going to go one on one against anything because no Dreadnought is fielded that way (hell, I doubt Reapers will be either, with the exception of say isolated systems (which no carrier, and certainly no naval forces, will be guarding anyway -- at least, not in my playthrough if I can help it).

Dreadnoughts depend on Interceptor's and frigates to destroy enemy Fighters (and... presumably Interceptor's are used against other Interceptor's for when Fighters want to push into the other side? -- unless Fighters are by their nature multirole), Dreadnoughts while having GARDIAN batteries (against frigates and fighters) are otherwise defenseless, because otherwise, if they could 'pivot' at will, then they wouldn't have GARDIAN batteries in the first place.

You have no clue how good the targetting systems have to be on these ships, do you? They have to be able to predict the movements of ships that are flying a LOT faster than any conventional aircraft. And the fighters are going to be rather closer than the normal long ranges for the DN. As for the GARDIAN systems, stop thinking of them as something that you want to use and start thinking of the tactics you would use with your longer range systems. The GARDIAN systems are the backups in case the DN guesses wrong in its maneuvering and the fighters manage to get that close. Specific anti fighter escort vessels do help too. Oh and btw, the gardian systems would use the same targetting systems. Why would they use a better system for one but not for the main gun? The gardian can hit fighters, so the main can too.

The DN doesn't have to 'pivot at will' for its main gun to be useful. It just has to be able to set the right courses.

[Almostfaceman]

The Council is a metaphor in the game for "greater cooperation".  It is colored in semi-realistic tones of actual politics and game-relevant minutiae but that's really all it is.  Cerberus, on the other hand, is the games metaphor for "non-cooperation" or "human dominance".

Each have their good and bad traits and they simply color how one achieves the main goal of winning the game - do you win and retain your humanity or do you win and ultimately become what you've defeated?

[Arijharn]

This is the last one for me moi, not because I'm 'coming around to your thinking' but because this is starting to get rather redundant with what I feel circular reasoning, but one last attempt to settle the record straight (although, I'm okay taking this into PM's).

If the DN is retrograding from the fighters it is also doing so from the DN's. If the enemy DNs also advance, then the retrograding DN can fire on them instead, but then you still have a situation where the side with no carriers has more DNs, because they didn't buy carriers, and the fighters are not relevant because the attacking DN doesn't let them get in range. It retreats and/or engages in tangental attack runs, either way simply kiting the shorter range craft. Such attack runs don't involve pivoting, they involve a flyby course that maintains your distance.

1) Dreadnoughts are slower, fighters are faster. This I would have thought to be pretty obvious even to the most casual observer. That's not to say that Dreadnoughts can't fly fast (FTL speeds, but FTL speeds are also speeds in which you can't do anything either other than to drop out of FTL speeds).
2) Carriers aren't designed in and of itself to outmatch Dreadnoughts, but by the sheer quantity of weapon systems it can bear (aka; the fighters/interceptors themselves). It's a Lion getting killed by swarms of angry bee's, or hornets or whatever.
3) Carriers are designed to maximise the effectiveness of Fighters by fielding comparatively 'a lot.' How is it comparatively 'a lot'? Because Carrier's themselves are apparently the size of Dreadnoughts. This means that even if a Carrier is destroyed, then chances are the fighters are still going to be operational (unless by some bizarre design capacity, the fighters are VI drones or whatever completely under the control of the carrier).

I believe that your argument that a Dreadnought will be able to constantly outrange Fighters to be completely stupid to be frank, because Dreadnought's do not make a habit of getting close for one, and fighters are intended to attack capital ships -- which implies to me quite strongly that fighters have the necessary capacity to get into range, and are capable of doing so to such a degree (or even simulated to such a degree) that eventually combatants had to develop Interceptors (in another words; entirely different ships) to deny them the capacity from effectively striking at the capital ships, because apparently GARDIAN batteries are not sufficient to the task, and/or admirals like to put as much protection in as possible.

As for Joker's combat technique, he was also doing barrel rolls and other silly maneuvers, and was inexperienced or arrogant enough that he let the SR 1 get shot down rather than simply maintain distance. As for modifying firing angle, there is a huge difference between a few fractions of a degree and a snap turn of the likes Sovereign performed. The ships are much more maneuverable than you give them credit for being.

And yet we're back to square one then, because if Dreadnoughts are slightly more maneuverable than what I'm giving them credit, then because of that, then fighters must therefore be more maneuverable. This isn't that hard a concept to grasp surely?

I'll put it to you once again to try and hammer the point home into your skull.
Fighters are designed to counter and destroy enemy capital ships. Ergo, they would be good at it.
Even if your Dreadnought is captained by the best captain in the universe, then if the fighters get close (because remember, Dreadnoughts rely on frigate wolf pack flotilla's and Interceptors for this role) then the Dreadnought is in big trouble, because short of it's GARDIAN batteries, it has pretty much nothing to deal with them.

This is stated in the Codex, you're arguing against the 'rule of god' here... and that's surely an untenable position.

And you keep going on about torpedos, and the GARDIAN systems. You have been reading too many pamphlets rather than thinking like a real ship's commander. IF THE ENEMY CAN"T GET IN RANGE, THEY CAN"T HURT YOU. It is not a difficult doctrine. It is one of the main reasons air power is so useful.

/sigh. I'm saying that: THE THANIX SYSTEM INCREASES THE RANGE, THEREFORE CURRENT RANGE DEFENCES CAN NOT BE COUNTED ON.
Honestly, I'd hate/love to meet you in person, but I have this sneaky suspicion that in any argument I'd grab you by your lapels and resort to slapping you across your cheeks to wake you up.
If Fighters have a range of 5 (because they're limited to that range of 5 because of Torpedo 'recommended' usage) than it would make sense that GARDIAN's are sufficient at that range (but realistically a little bit more, and probably a lot more if it's a Salarian Dreadnought). This is elementary yes?
So, since it's been demonstratably proven that Thanix systems (at least, one mounted in the Normandy -- and while it is plausible I think to say that a Thanix system on a fighter wont be as potent as say the Normandy's, a Thanix is still a Mass Accelerated weapon, which means that it should follow the same general rules (i.e., it keeps going until it hits something)) can engage at a range that's greater than Javelin Disruptor Torpedoes then it stands to reason that it's range is longer than 5.
Moi seriously, you understand maths right? the Thanix system essentially revolutionises a fighters role over traditional limitations (as indicated by Torpedo ranges) which can only ever increase it's effectiveness against Dreadnoughts, if the Dreadnoughts don't have any other defences (and no, it's main guns still don't count, and I'll endeavour to say why a bit later).
But if you didn't understand my awesome illustration from a couple of posts back, then you probably wouldn't understand the concept of numbers (and how they apply) either -- which means more than anything that I'm wasting my time.

Moi
Battles are not instantaneous things. Ships (yes, dreadnaughts too) are fast, and you don't have to charge directly at an opponent and keep coming. They aren't like chess pieces either, they are not moving on a board. You come in on an attack angle, and veer off. You only need a tangent, you don't need to completely reverse course. And we are talking thousands of kilometers to 10s of thousands. There are modern infantry weapons with a km+ range.

I know, and that furthers the point of optimal ranges between Fighters with Thanix's (and is why I went 'on' about them).

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Dreadnoughts aren't designed to destroy Fighters other than with it's GARDIAN systems? And why is it seemingly so hard to accept that Fighters would be faster than Dreadnoughts?

And attackign from tangents is what I'd imagine (hope) fighters would be doing, which would make the Dreadnought's job even harder.

Moi wrote...
Hiding behind other ships is completely impractical. Behind a planet might be possible, but the carrier would have to be pretty much stationary and it wouldn't be that hard for an enemy to get a firing angle. Again, this isn't surface ships we are talking about. It is like you are talking about screening Air Force 1 with other aircraft somehow. Good luck with that.

o.0 Moi, you're losing it. So in your example your Dreadnought is allowed to move around the planet while the carrier isn't also allowed to move? Don't you think the Dreadnought has more pressing things to worry about (aka, the rest of the enemy fleet?)

Debris seems like a pretty good screening thing to be honest, and we're talking about a whale guarding another whale from a whale in this sort of situation, and presumably each whale has a degree protection from the aggressive whale's teeth. Even if the guarding whale crosses the 'T' so to speak to the Carrier whale, it's still got it's main guns to bear on the Dreadnought (because... they'd be in range of each other, if all things are equal) and I would imagine that even if it does get destroyed, it's still got debris field to swim around in for a bit, and Carrier's would also have it's own share of shielding too. That's not to say though that the carrier will be completely protected from the Dreadnought, of course not, but it does buy time.

In terms of starship combat, that entire scene was point blank. The Collector Cruiser fired on the SR1 at point blank too. A mass driver based cruiser would have been firing on the way in.

It was firing all the way in, and yet Joker managed to dodge it (wow, is that maneovrable differences in advantage for the smaller craft over the larger one?

Moi, my example's are backed up by lore(lol) and by the 'evidence' shown in cinematics, whereas you seem to have a lot of 'what ifs.' This is why this argument is exasperating.

Moi wrote...
EDI also seemed to advise against firing on the Collector cruiser, but we know as of the battle outside the base at the end, that the SR2 could have taken it on anytime. The SR1 might have too, if Joker didn't think showing off his skill at 'evasive maneuvers' was more important than getting distance until he could point the ship's guns at the enemy.

I'm honestly curious now why you don't think 'evasive maneouvre's' doesn't mean trying to get as much distance as possible, because, to me at least, they were running away, but evasive maneouvre's also means 'move-as-unpredictably-as-possible-so-bad-guys-can't-get-target-lock-on-us.'

Kinda incredibly academic for a moment, but I thought what Joker was trying to do was to get close to the planet and go around it (putting it between them and the cruiser) and when that happens, they could have the freedom to plot a course to go into FTL, because apparently it's complicated and takes time.
I drew this conclusion because Joker later asks EDI to do it, when he says 'anywhere but here' EDI takes advantage of the fact that it is a computer, and has oodles of information that can be crunched at will to take care of it.

Why we didn't attack the cruiser beforehand is sorta baffling to me as well, perhaps Shep and co thought they could just sneak in and sneak out of the Cruiser in time for their data-mining, only having to deal with any surviving Collector's inside the vessel, and presumably they didn't attack the Cruiser on Horizon because it was hovering directly over the colony seemingly only a couple hundred metres or so -- ergo, destroying it would also flatten the colony underneath it -- and that's ignoring all the other colonists that could either be on the vessel itself or still on the ground.

You have no clue how good the targetting systems have to be on these ships, do you? They have to be able to predict the movements of ships that are flying a LOT faster than any conventional aircraft. And the fighters are going to be rather closer than the normal long ranges for the DN. As for the GARDIAN systems, stop thinking of them as something that you want to use and start thinking of the tactics you would use with your longer range systems. The GARDIAN systems are the backups in case the DN guesses wrong in its maneuvering and the fighters manage to get that close. Specific anti fighter escort vessels do help too. Oh and btw, the gardian systems would use the same targetting systems. Why would they use a better system for one but not for the main gun? The gardian can hit fighters, so the main can too.

My thoughts are pretty much predicated on this philosophy: Dreadnoughts have a lot of targets they need to be able to neutralise for their fleet to prevail over another fleet. That means taking out other Dreadnoughts first and foremost, and working down the list from there. If you think that a Dreadnought captain is going to [i]prioritize it's assets onto a fighter squadron beelining them, then I'd say it's you who has 'no clue' as to well, reading, because that's also pretty much spelled out in the fact that 'no one would think about taking a Dreadnought on with anything other than a Dreadnought.'
Now before you chortle too much thinking of how I just handed your point to you, consider that fighters are primarily geared to destroy these sort of targets, [i]specifically[i] because prior to their joining the Council, they didn't have enough Dreadnoughts because they were signatories to the Treaty of Farixen (and therefore occupied the 1 slot on the 5-3-1 ratio) and because they were worried about the Batarians (who were no longer Council associates and therefore not bound by the Treaty of Farixen). Therefore, to make some sense I think, they couldn't outright break their Treaty, but sought to circumvent it via their 'new' carrier design.
You think in a fight between two lions one is going to purposely strike a wasp while they are busy flashing their teeth at one another.

I will concede that a Dreadnought will target a Carrier as an act of opportunity, but I'm also saying that it's likely that he's got more pressing details to look out for (such as other Dreadnoughts primarily), and it's not the Carrier in and of itself that is threatening.

The DN doesn't have to 'pivot at will' for its main gun to be useful. It just has to be able to set the right courses.

And then, if the Fighter is getting good information, it would just redirect itself in a much smaller turning arc, making the Dreadnought 'waste' thruster burn at best, and time at worst. The Dreadnought also wouldn't want to be turning too much because it may have other bad guy Dreadnoughts bearing down on him, and who do you think he's going to prioritize in that sort of situation.

Once again, apply what you [i]know about Dreadnoughts, they aren't squandered.... they only take part in fleet operations (even if it's showing the flag, it's still going to have an escort), which means that in any engagement with a Dreadnought, you'd think it would be taking part of another fleet operation, and from there we can start adding to what 'could be' for assets.

A Dreadnought's main gun is 'co-axially mounted' -- and I'm going to assume that you know what the word means because while I think your misinformed, I don't think you're stupid (although,  there could be the option for very slight conal movement? Would be at least sensible wouldn't you agree?). If the Dreadnought has to essentially look at it's target, and it's target isn't there, it can't fire it's gun at those targets.

Another thing though as well; presumably in the world of the Mass Effect universe, qualified people make decisions (fingers crossed), so I would say that if those boffins indicated strategic policy to create carriers, then it must be for a reason and more to the point, must have been demonstratably proven in universe, for the same reasons as say naval forces now set up testing for fleet assets, which flies in the face of your 'what if's' once again.

I get this feeling though that you're not that interested in the 'debate' though, because all your examples are solid 'what ifs' and yet everything I've said has been explained not only 'in lore' but in evidence as well (and actual 'evidence, not 'Zulu Proof' evidence ) What am I supposed to think about your arguments? I'll be honest here -- lame. And that's a shame, because I know you can do better (sometimes at least )