Saphra Deden wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
So I ask you Saphra, would it not be possible to just use YOUR tactics, retreating until the Reapers are forced to give up pursuit, or even intentionally hiding our forces (Remember, they lost out on access to all of our possible locations when Sovereign failed to take control of the citadel), and then when they begin to "reap", and they presumably have their forces dvided up, attack them?
No, because we need those planets to survive. All Reapers need is, potentially, a place to discharge their drive cores and possibly a place to refuel. They don't have populations to feed or medical supplies to worry about.
The Migrant Fleet couldn't survive on its own without setting down somewhere. They rely on handouts and donations from the settled galaxy. Even then, they're gradually dying off.
How would you keep your fleet fueled, Sisterofshane? Organic designed ships need a fuel station, but fuel stations don't build themselves.
How will you keep everyone fed?
You can hide your fleet, but you can't hide your planets. One extra-net scan will tell the Reapers were most settlemetns in the galaxy are. Any others will be too small to worry about until after the war is won. Then they do a thorough clean-up, perhaps staying around for centuries or even many thousands of years of if necessary to re-engineer their trap.
You can't move planets either. The Reapers find them and open fire, then they retreat. If you don't have your fleets there to scare them off then they can take the more efficient strategy of grabbing asteroids and comets and slamming those into your planets instead. (this is what should have been done with the rachni instead of uplifting the krogan)
Why would the Reapers need us to gather resources? Why would they be coming to our galaxy in such a hurry as to expose themselves to a united galactic flleet? One reson might be arrogance, but I think that it's possible that they NEED our resources themselves to keep running, too. Otherwise, why not wait until your enemy is complacent again, and then strike when a surprise attack would be the most advantageous? (we know that they favor this tactic).
If I were Harbinger, and I saw Shepard (one person) foil my plans not once, not twice, but THREE seperate times, I would definitely wait until they were long dead and FORGOTTEN, if I could afford to wait.
And while Reapers do not need to worry about food or medical supplies, they do need to worry about sustaining damage to themselves. We have no evidence that Reapers have any sort of a "self-repair" mechanism, and they definitely do not tend to their own ( as evidenced by the derelict reaper).
There are many, many planets capable of sustaining production and supply lines. For me to worry about this would mean that I would worry about the Reapers having a potentially large enough force to swarm down on EVERY PLANET in the galaxy in sufficient numbers to interrupt this process. I just do not believe that this scenario is possible.
The more spread out the Reapers make themselves, the more vulnerable they become. They are not going to expose themselves to unneccessary danger just to interrupt our supply lines.
Saphra Deden wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
Even if we only take out one or two Reapers each time, every loss for them is a permanent loss. As long as we remain capable of rebuilding part of our fleet, it's possible that overtime we will inflict enough damage that winning a battle head on might be possible.
What makes you think you'll be able to do that without any kind of planetary infrastructure to support you? If you are waiting around long enough to actually destroy a few Reapers then I guarantee you are losing more than just one or two ships in return. You'll be losing lots of ships.
You can probably stave off defeat for a long time, but in the end your fleet will rot from the inside out.
Yes, a lot of infastructure may be lost, but that doesn't necessarily stop military production. And it will take a LONG time before ALL infastructure is crippled enough to do any damage to our war effort.
Go to the wiki and look at the list of all known planets within the galaxy. How many Reapers to planets do you think are necessary in order for it's (the entire galaxy's) infastructure to be crippled? More then one, I would assume. Two? Ten?
Let's say that ten Reapers are all that is necessary to cripple a planet. That means 1300 Reapers would be necessary in order to cover JUST the known homeworlds within the Galaxy. They would need FAR MORE in order to cover EVERY WORLD in the galaxy.
Based on the 37 million number, if the Reapers managed to create a new Reaper every fifty thousand years (and EDI already speculated they may have failed at least once), there would only be 740 Reapers.
And, based on the fact that one Reaper needed a very large fleet (of Geth) just to take on a portion of our fleet without sustaining damage to itself, I don't think that the Reapers would spread themselves this thin.
Add to that the fact that we now have better weapons and armoring techniques, and the Reapers *should* no longer have the element of surprise, we should be better equipped to disable and kill them then we were in the battle of the citadel. Meaning that we might sustain less loss then we did then.
So, by my reasoning, there will be infastructure, there will be supplies, and there is a possibility that we can minimize damage to our fleet while maximizing damage to theirs.
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Retour en haut
