268 réponses à ce sujet

[Pro_Consul]

LordShrike wrote...

Pro_Consul, do i detect voice of experience in that? Any relation to Udina? =)

Moi?

Dude, I'm a charter member of the Councilor Anderson Fan Club for one and only one reason: he punched Udina right in the gob. If a Reaper had kneed Udina in the 'nads I'd be seriously thinking about switching sides and signing up for a Saren-izing set of implants.

[LordShrike]

Haha! That is acceptable. (ME3 contains a scene where Reaper stomps Udina. Hard. Repeatedly.

Welcome to Reaper side. )

[Zacarius2]

[quote]BobSmith101 wrote...

[My personal favourite anti Reaper strategy is much the same as Drake used. Get in among them so they either have to hold fire, or risk hitting their friends. Pack a couple of drone ships with unstable Ezo and see what happens when they hit. Its apparent from ME2 that kinetic barriers work on speedy things, not so much on slow things. Actually the clue is pretty much in the name anyway. They can't always be zipping around, especially not in formation. We can see that from the end scene in ME2 with the 300 ish Reapers.

quote]

So you are advocating a fireship strategy? I take the discussion to HMS Dreadnought, you bring it all the way back to HMS Victory, I'm impressed, well done.

Anyways back on track. An arms race between the citadel races would be benifital when it comes time to fight the reapers. But it apears that they are building weapons to fight each other instead of their mutually declared enemy, the geth ( from their own propaganda).

Also I was thinking about Dean's comments on dreadnoughts. In the ME universe we only see one dreadnought, the Destiny Ascention, but we never seen it fight. Perhaps the white elephant argument has merit here too. It appears the Asari never intended to actually use their dreadnought in combat. At the first sign of battle the DA cut and ran. What use is a weapon if you do not have the will to use it?

[Moiaussi]

EternalPink wrote...

I think everybody is missing the point about dreadnoughts (whether past or sci fi future ) and the point of them is there range.

If i can put a shell through your bridge (naval or space-craft) before you can get into weapons range, I win

It was the fact that the WWI dreadnoughts outranged any non-dreadnought and from the ME1/2 codex again Dreadnoughts can engage at extreme range (further away than non-dreadnoughts) so the only realistic way of defeating one would be to have another dreadnought for a extreme range duel or a way of getting your ships into range without taking fire ( tactics, ambushes etc )

Also I just did another playthrough ( suicide mission in a minute ) and did the mission for the reaper IFF yesterday, when you enter the reaper and the barriers go up, if you select the blast our way out option EDI will tell you that reapers barriers are immune to dreadnought scale weaponry so i'd say that if sovereign hadn't of been dicking around with the citadel and saren he most likely could have wiped the entire fleet and then come back, the death by paper cuts sounds rather optimistic

There is an assumption there though that all else is equal, that the DN's range offsets other limitations such as fuel, speed, ammunition, resource costs, and the fact that one ship cannot protect two ports at the same time.

Those are very not a given, especially in space. If you have one DN at the wrong place, any smaller ships there can simply flee, while some other target is left undefended.

[Pro_Consul]

Moiaussi wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

I think everybody is missing the point about dreadnoughts (whether past or sci fi future ) and the point of them is there range.

If i can put a shell through your bridge (naval or space-craft) before you can get into weapons range, I win

It was the fact that the WWI dreadnoughts outranged any non-dreadnought and from the ME1/2 codex again Dreadnoughts can engage at extreme range (further away than non-dreadnoughts) so the only realistic way of defeating one would be to have another dreadnought for a extreme range duel or a way of getting your ships into range without taking fire ( tactics, ambushes etc )

Also I just did another playthrough ( suicide mission in a minute ) and did the mission for the reaper IFF yesterday, when you enter the reaper and the barriers go up, if you select the blast our way out option EDI will tell you that reapers barriers are immune to dreadnought scale weaponry so i'd say that if sovereign hadn't of been dicking around with the citadel and saren he most likely could have wiped the entire fleet and then come back, the death by paper cuts sounds rather optimistic

There is an assumption there though that all else is equal, that the DN's range offsets other limitations such as fuel, speed, ammunition, resource costs, and the fact that one ship cannot protect two ports at the same time.

Those are very not a given, especially in space. If you have one DN at the wrong place, any smaller ships there can simply flee, while some other target is left undefended.

The true point that has yet to be made is this: DNs are only one part of a fleet. There is not a single type of vessel that by itself is sufficient to all the mission needs of naval forces, be it a wet or space navy. Destroyers bring speed, maneuverabililty and low cost, making them good recon, escort and screening vessels, i.e. lighter roles in which they excel. Cruisers bring a balance of moderate firepower and moderate cost, making them good for escorting of high value soft targets and for missions where destroyers are too puny but heavies are overkill; they are good at many missions but excel at none of them. DNs bring a combination of nearly irresistable firepower and extremely tough defenses to the table, making them ideally suited for large scale fleet actions and heavy support missions, but their high cost and presumably slower speed and maneuverability leave them poorly suited to any other mission types. (And then there are missions for which carriers are best; or gunboats; or stealth vessels (SR1/subs). The thing is: a navy must be able to handle ALL of these mission types simultaneously. That is why a balance of ship designs is necessary.

Yes, the council races should all be trying to build up their DN forces. But they should also be trying to develop better ship designs for other hull types as well, and beefing up their numbers across the board. It is not so much the "Dreadnought" effect, as it is the "Enemy fleet has sortied" effect. They (think they) know they are now under threat from a power that has naval forces which are potentially vastly superior in both tech and numbers, i.e. the Geth. That means now is the time for an all-out naval crash program, building up not just the size, number and quality of their naval forces, but more importantly the size, number and quality of their ship-building facilities.
 

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 11 février 2011 - 07:29 .

[Tennessee88]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

I think everybody is missing the point about dreadnoughts (whether past or sci fi future ) and the point of them is there range.

If i can put a shell through your bridge (naval or space-craft) before you can get into weapons range, I win

It was the fact that the WWI dreadnoughts outranged any non-dreadnought and from the ME1/2 codex again Dreadnoughts can engage at extreme range (further away than non-dreadnoughts) so the only realistic way of defeating one would be to have another dreadnought for a extreme range duel or a way of getting your ships into range without taking fire ( tactics, ambushes etc )

Also I just did another playthrough ( suicide mission in a minute ) and did the mission for the reaper IFF yesterday, when you enter the reaper and the barriers go up, if you select the blast our way out option EDI will tell you that reapers barriers are immune to dreadnought scale weaponry so i'd say that if sovereign hadn't of been dicking around with the citadel and saren he most likely could have wiped the entire fleet and then come back, the death by paper cuts sounds rather optimistic

There is an assumption there though that all else is equal, that the DN's range offsets other limitations such as fuel, speed, ammunition, resource costs, and the fact that one ship cannot protect two ports at the same time.

Those are very not a given, especially in space. If you have one DN at the wrong place, any smaller ships there can simply flee, while some other target is left undefended.

The true point that has yet to be made is this: DNs are only one part of a fleet. There is not a single type of vessel that by itself is sufficient to all the mission needs of naval forces, be it a wet or space navy. Destroyers bring speed, maneuverabililty and low cost, making them good recon, escort and screening vessels, i.e. lighter roles in which they excel. Cruisers bring a balance of moderate firepower and moderate cost, making them good for escorting of high value soft targets and for missions where destroyers are too puny but heavies are overkill; they are good at many missions but excel at none of them. DNs bring a combination of nearly irresistable firepower and extremely tough defenses to the table, making them ideally suited for large scale fleet actions and heavy support missions, but their high cost and presumably slower speed and maneuverability leave them poorly suited to any other mission types. (And then there are missions for which carriers are best; or gunboats; or stealth vessels (SR1/subs). The thing is: a navy must be able to handle ALL of these mission types simultaneously. That is why a balance of ship designs is necessary.

Yes, the council races should all be trying to build up their DN forces. But they should also be trying to develop better ship designs for other hull types as well, and beefing up their numbers across the board. It is not so much the "Dreadnought" effect, as it is the "Enemy fleet has sortied" effect. They (think they) know they are now under threat from a power that has naval forces which are potentially vastly superior in both tech and numbers, i.e. the Geth. That means now is the time for an all-out naval crash program, building up not just the size, number and quality of their naval forces, but more importantly the size, number and quality of their ship-building facilities.
 

This is exactly right. And no matter what we have to say on the matter, Bioware has made it clear that Dreadnoughts are necessary in the Mass Effect Universe. Look at the Codex, no captain engages a DN without his own DN. We are applying real world tactics which are based on inner-atmospheric combat to a sci-fi universe which has some game changing technologies. Specifically shielding.

[James2912]

Tennessee88 wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

I think everybody is missing the point about dreadnoughts (whether past or sci fi future ) and the point of them is there range.

If i can put a shell through your bridge (naval or space-craft) before you can get into weapons range, I win

It was the fact that the WWI dreadnoughts outranged any non-dreadnought and from the ME1/2 codex again Dreadnoughts can engage at extreme range (further away than non-dreadnoughts) so the only realistic way of defeating one would be to have another dreadnought for a extreme range duel or a way of getting your ships into range without taking fire ( tactics, ambushes etc )

Also I just did another playthrough ( suicide mission in a minute ) and did the mission for the reaper IFF yesterday, when you enter the reaper and the barriers go up, if you select the blast our way out option EDI will tell you that reapers barriers are immune to dreadnought scale weaponry so i'd say that if sovereign hadn't of been dicking around with the citadel and saren he most likely could have wiped the entire fleet and then come back, the death by paper cuts sounds rather optimistic

There is an assumption there though that all else is equal, that the DN's range offsets other limitations such as fuel, speed, ammunition, resource costs, and the fact that one ship cannot protect two ports at the same time.

Those are very not a given, especially in space. If you have one DN at the wrong place, any smaller ships there can simply flee, while some other target is left undefended.

The true point that has yet to be made is this: DNs are only one part of a fleet. There is not a single type of vessel that by itself is sufficient to all the mission needs of naval forces, be it a wet or space navy. Destroyers bring speed, maneuverabililty and low cost, making them good recon, escort and screening vessels, i.e. lighter roles in which they excel. Cruisers bring a balance of moderate firepower and moderate cost, making them good for escorting of high value soft targets and for missions where destroyers are too puny but heavies are overkill; they are good at many missions but excel at none of them. DNs bring a combination of nearly irresistable firepower and extremely tough defenses to the table, making them ideally suited for large scale fleet actions and heavy support missions, but their high cost and presumably slower speed and maneuverability leave them poorly suited to any other mission types. (And then there are missions for which carriers are best; or gunboats; or stealth vessels (SR1/subs). The thing is: a navy must be able to handle ALL of these mission types simultaneously. That is why a balance of ship designs is necessary.

Yes, the council races should all be trying to build up their DN forces. But they should also be trying to develop better ship designs for other hull types as well, and beefing up their numbers across the board. It is not so much the "Dreadnought" effect, as it is the "Enemy fleet has sortied" effect. They (think they) know they are now under threat from a power that has naval forces which are potentially vastly superior in both tech and numbers, i.e. the Geth. That means now is the time for an all-out naval crash program, building up not just the size, number and quality of their naval forces, but more importantly the size, number and quality of their ship-building facilities.
 

This is exactly right. And no matter what we have to say on the matter, Bioware has made it clear that Dreadnoughts are necessary in the Mass Effect Universe. Look at the Codex, no captain engages a DN without his own DN. We are applying real world tactics which are based on inner-atmospheric combat to a sci-fi universe which has some game changing technologies. Specifically shielding.

Carrier shiips are effective in real life and in ME. If you read the Codex it talks about how the Alliance uses carriers as an effective way of getting around their dreadnought quota. 

[AkiKishi]

Zacarius2 wrote...

So you are advocating a fireship strategy? I take the discussion to HMS Dreadnought, you bring it all the way back to HMS Victory, I'm impressed, well done.

Goes back a lot further than that. Splitting the line was Nelsons favourite tactic, so it's a combination of Nelson and Drake really.

I don't know if "crossing the T" applies in ME, it depends entirely on how a ship is designed. Come to think of it. Reapers don't seem to have a lot in the way of rear facing guns.

Bioware has the final say regardless of how "sense" what they say makes in real terms anyway.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 11 février 2011 - 08:11 .

[Moiaussi]

James2912 wrote...

Carrier shiips are effective in real life and in ME. If you read the Codex it talks about how the Alliance uses carriers as an effective way of getting around their dreadnought quota. 

Actually the carriers worked because the Turians were taken completely by surprise. They were using tactics manuals literally thousands of years out of date based around the strategies they knew historicly.

It is not clear if they would work against a Navy who understands them better, i.e. has some basic anti fighter defenses and/or strategies.

[Moiaussi]

Note that the Thanx cannon might be the 'writers' answer' to the DN's. There is a comment somewhere or other (codex, I think?) that they cannot be fitted to larger ships.... which doesn't make a lot of sense unless maybe they simply don't scale upwards much past those fitted on the Normandy.

[Tennessee88]

Moiaussi wrote...

Note that the Thanx cannon might be the 'writers' answer' to the DN's. There is a comment somewhere or other (codex, I think?) that they cannot be fitted to larger ships.... which doesn't make a lot of sense unless maybe they simply don't scale upwards much past those fitted on the Normandy.

That doesn't make a bit of sense... I'll try to see if I can find the entry as I don't remember reading it. Even if they don't scale up why in the world would they not be utilized on a larger ship. You could have multiple guns turret mounted which would eliminate the limitations of LOS firing solutions. 

[Moiaussi]

Tennessee88 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Note that the Thanx cannon might be the 'writers' answer' to the DN's. There is a comment somewhere or other (codex, I think?) that they cannot be fitted to larger ships.... which doesn't make a lot of sense unless maybe they simply don't scale upwards much past those fitted on the Normandy.

That doesn't make a bit of sense... I'll try to see if I can find the entry as I don't remember reading it. Even if they don't scale up why in the world would they not be utilized on a larger ship. You could have multiple guns turret mounted which would eliminate the limitations of LOS firing solutions. 

Consider, the main point of a DN is to stand back and bombard from extreme range. If the Thanax cannon can't scale upwards beyond the strength of a cruiser's guns, then at the very least that would require fundamental changes to the manner in which any DN fitted with them was deployed.

There could be all sorts of other reasons for limiting the number of such weapons, too. Feedback would be the most likely.

Oh, and multiple turrets doesn't work as well in space combat, at least not where the shields are energy and thus regenerating. At the ranges in question, you want to concentrate fire in single volleys, not divide it between multiple volleys or worse multiple targets. Point defence would be an exception to that, but we are talking main guns here.

[Wulfram]

It's the upgraded shields which are specifically noted to only work of Fighters and Frigates.

[Dean_the_Young]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Zacarius2 wrote...

So you are advocating a fireship strategy? I take the discussion to HMS Dreadnought, you bring it all the way back to HMS Victory, I'm impressed, well done.

Goes back a lot further than that. Splitting the line was Nelsons favourite tactic, so it's a combination of Nelson and Drake really.

I don't know if "crossing the T" applies in ME, it depends entirely on how a ship is designed. Come to think of it. Reapers don't seem to have a lot in the way of rear facing guns.

Bioware has the final say regardless of how "sense" what they say makes in real terms anyway.

Crossing the T is inverted to the Mass Effect universe: with their main guns being built along the spine of the ship, war ships are more akin to 'fighters' in that their primary armament is facing forward. Unlike blue water navies, in which the most guns (relatively light cannons, or pivoting top-based turrents) face the sides or can be brought to face the same side to increase power, while are unable to be faced forward, Mass Effect war ships main armament only faces forward. (This is because the ship is built along the gun, not vice versa, and a Dreadnaught's main gun is the 'spine' of the ship, not something slapped on the side.)

In traditional blue water, 'crossing the T' allowed you to bring all your weapons on one side against a foe while your foe couldn't respond.

In a MAC Mass Effect space navy, being the top of the T would be the worst condition, while being the bottom T would be ideal.


Fireship strategies have always depended at being able to get close, and part of that is being able to absorb damage. With cannonades, which were innacurate at best and often did little damage, this was a plausible strategy: the ability of ships to sink eachother was simply too small. With the advent of fire control systems and ranged targetting, however, fireship strategies are really only great in the sense that it saves the target fleet the trouble of having to sink your ships: you can't melee blitz a naval force from range when it can shoot you from across the horizon, and their fire power is more than powerful enough to stop you even before you strapped bombs to yourselves. And then you have the fact that the screening vessels will almost certainly block you before you can get to the important targets.


This is why suicide bombing strategies/car bombs are so dependent on surprise and the ability to be in close proximity when started, and generally so much less effective against a prepared defense otherwise. The bomb strategy requires you to get close, but there are so many strategies to prevent that (everything from external barriers to shooting anything of significant size that gets to close to running away faster than the bomb-carrier can) that's it's not a viable open-warfare strategy.


The best avenue of success for such a strategy would rely on using FTL to get in close to the Reapers, but that's a gamble on a variety of factors: the imprecision of FTL, the exact proximity required to do any damage with the explosion, the Reapers kinetic barrier strength, the premise that the Reapers can't or won't simply FTL themselves out of a disadvantageous fight should a bunch of suicide FTL ships suddenly begin appearing amongst them in a chance of luck.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 février 2011 - 01:17 .

[LordShrike]

I think Reapers have Council races on-upped, main guns on Council races are forward facing. Where the Reapers Thanix-esque cannons are on the "tentacles", or were in the Nazara. that gives them the ability to effectively out manouver the Council races with out sacrifacing firepower. Since Thanix can kill DN-class shields: SR-2 Vs. Collector vessel.( Don't think it actually was a DN but collector shield tech should balance it out.)

Shouldn't the FTL bomb tactic be easily counterable? Reaper just creates a reverse mass effect field. That SHOULD prevent close range FTL "jumps". Granted it would kill reaper manouverability, so combination of FTL bomb scare and DN fire should be effective. Should. Unless those things have internal mass relay. =)

[AkiKishi]

LordShrike wrote...
Shouldn't the FTL bomb tactic be easily counterable? Reaper just creates a reverse mass effect field. That SHOULD prevent close range FTL "jumps". Granted it would kill reaper manouverability, so combination of FTL bomb scare and DN fire should be effective. Should. Unless those things have internal mass relay. =)

Anything is easily counterable if it's the only thing you do. Still a tactic that get's someone who's been indoctrinated thinking.. Score

Heres another one for you. What happens if an Ardat Yakshi comes into cotact with and indoctrination field ?

[Dean_the_Young]

LordShrike wrote...

I think Reapers have Council races on-upped, main guns on Council races are forward facing. Where the Reapers Thanix-esque cannons are on the "tentacles", or were in the Nazara. that gives them the ability to effectively out manouver the Council races with out sacrifacing firepower. Since Thanix can kill DN-class shields: SR-2 Vs. Collector vessel.( Don't think it actually was a DN but collector shield tech should balance it out.)

One would think the Collector Cruiser would be analogous to a cruiser.

It's a transport ship, not a war ship: insisting it has to have super shields when no such position was made is a bit self-serving.

[adam_grif]

SR1 class ships w/ QE comms systems provide tracking information to a missile cruiser stationed several light-seconds away. It has several missiles ready for deployment. Each missile is based on the Kodiak shuttle chassis, with its cargo space replaced with a large nuclear bomb. Based on the targeting data being updated in real time from the spotter ship, the missiles FTL and drop out as close as possible, then close as much distance as possible before detonating. If they drop out of FTL too far from target, then they quickly FTL away and then back again for another attack run rather than risk getting intercepted.



Since ME fields do not block EM radiation, even if you do not destroy or significantly damage Reapers you should be able to burn out shield emitters and blind sensors.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unless, of course, the Reapers outer shells serve as top-class Faraday Cages, and the sensors themselves are hardened.



It also still keeps the question of how precise conventional FTL are, since that's key, and just how the Collectors were able to target the first Normandy so quickly after appearing. It may be that stealth tech as-is doesn't work against the Reapers super-advanced technologies. The QE communication needs, of course, are key, and disproportionately expensive.

[adam_grif]

Faraday cages protect you from EM fields, not EM radiation. Nukes in space don't even generate an EMP. "Blinding sensors" was referring to optical sensors (such as IR detection and telescopes) as well as any sensitive electronics on the outer shell, which will get cooked by intense radiation. You can't effectively shield these things because they need to be directly exposed to light in order to be useful.



If the detonations are close enough the impulsive shock should tear the hull apart, too. But I get the feeling that BWare will ****** out the Reapers as being immune to everything except the magical plot coupon that we need to beat them with, logic be damned.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ah, my bad on the tech.





Then again, Mass Effect warfare already doesn't make sense, so in regards to space combat I'm just going to roll with it as opposed to try and make logical order out of an already unlogical mess.

[LordShrike]

BobSmith101, For the last timYOU ARE FUMBLING IN IGNORANCE, FLESHLING!e, i'm not indoctrinated! What gave you the ideHE DOES NOT GET IT, DOES HE?a in the first place?

Ardat Yakshi and indoctrination field? No blooSEEMS LIKE OVERKILL.dy clue.

Nukes are not all that effective in deepspace, if you get to blow them up in nebula or something, it might be anoWE HAVE A COUNTER-MEASURE FOR THAT, YOU KNOW.ther story.

[Moiaussi]

adam_grif wrote...

Faraday cages protect you from EM fields, not EM radiation. Nukes in space don't even generate an EMP. "Blinding sensors" was referring to optical sensors (such as IR detection and telescopes) as well as any sensitive electronics on the outer shell, which will get cooked by intense radiation. You can't effectively shield these things because they need to be directly exposed to light in order to be useful.

If the detonations are close enough the impulsive shock should tear the hull apart, too. But I get the feeling that BWare will ****** out the Reapers as being immune to everything except the magical plot coupon that we need to beat them with, logic be damned.

Nukes are such basic tech though, yet not so basic that they wouldn't have been tried or considered by others. Why wouldn't the reapers have a counter?

As for nukes in space, they tend to be very inefficient, since radiation falls off with distance even in a vaccum.

Visual light isn't the only thing a starship has sensors for, though. If starships in ME relied a lot on optical sensors, then the Normandy's stealth wouldn't be worth much. Blinding the sensors generally refers to any sensors, and whether they got cooked by a blast would depend on whatever methods were used as shielding for them including whatever principle they worked on.

[AkiKishi]

Moiaussi wrote...

Nukes are such basic tech though, yet not so basic that they wouldn't have been tried or considered by others. Why wouldn't the reapers have a counter?

As for nukes in space, they tend to be very inefficient, since radiation falls off with distance even in a vaccum.

Visual light isn't the only thing a starship has sensors for, though. If starships in ME relied a lot on optical sensors, then the Normandy's stealth wouldn't be worth much. Blinding the sensors generally refers to any sensors, and whether they got cooked by a blast would depend on whatever methods were used as shielding for them including whatever principle they worked on.

Maybe for that very reason ? Remember that early episode of StarGate with Apophis and his kinetic barrier ? They threw something at it and because of the slow speed it went right through. It's an easy thing for an "advanced" race to overlook.

[LordShrike]

There as some sort of ultimatum that could be good to keep in mind in this nuke discussion:

Fission Devices Always Beat Matter.

If reaper gets hit with them its going to create a hole. Barring any shields, of course. and even those would fail against direct hit.