2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra:"Circumstances can change, in general, but in this case they (probably) won't. The only change that might make a difference would be a sudden technological breakthrough that either puts us on an even playing field or even gives us as an advantage"

You don't have to have an advantage in numbers or technology to defeat an opponent on the field of battle. You don't have to have an advantage in might to win.

A simple example. Napoleon baiting the enemy into thinking he is retreating, then cutting them down with cavalry. Or the Spartans defending the 'hot gates' against the Persians.

Situations can change the easiest of all. Why run around latching onto 'technology' to save us when historically battles are won through anything but?

[Sisterofshane]

Twizz089 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Those were hypothetical questions.  Her point was that reapers were not invincible.
So don't make her repeat herself because you misunderstood the point of her post.

I read her post. I understood it.

She doesn't understand what this discussion is about.

The Reapers are not inherently invincible. They are not gods.

What makes them unbeatable are the circumstances under which we must fight them.

I know my moniker and avatar make it confusing... But Shimmergloom the dragon was a dude.  I'm a man.  Just for future refrence.

So what you are saying is that there is nothing inherent about Reapers that make them ubeatable.  It isn't the Reapers, but the circumstances (your words) which are the problem for us...

Circustances can change.  If the field of battle makes it impossible to win then change the feild of battle.  Withdraw.  Napoleon used this tactic to great effect against overwhelming numbers.

Circumstances can change.  Reapers can be defeated.

Building on what Shimmer has said, the circumstances have already changed.  We still control the relays.  The Reapers have yet to prove that they can wipe out a galaxy without them.  It was the key to the victory over the Protheans as the Reapers were able divide their forces, cut them off from each other and then and pick small forces apart one at a time.  Circumstances have changed, we control the relays, and we know the reapers are coming. The Reapers have never (as far as we know) faced a united front.

This is part of what I was talking about earlier when Saphra states that the Reapers have definite advantages.
We've already managed to remove those advantages, thanks to the Protheans.
Any other advantages they may have are just wild speculation, therefore they are "possible", not "definite".
If it's possible to defeat them, we should fight!

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

So there isn't enough evidence to say we can beat the reapers,but also not enough evidence to say they can win,especially with these special circumstances(failed to take citadel,lost their vanguard)

So this debate is at stalemate.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

So you're saying I win?

No.

If you can find some concrete evidence of a tech advantage or Reaper weakness we can exploit I might reconsider our chances.

Find some concrete proof that we will be unable to inflict casualties when they hit our worlds.

However I don't think you can do that because we just don't have enough information.

Wishful thinking won't win the day.

And you have no concrete evidence that we a doomed. Your only 'concrete' evidence is the ecological disaster on Eingana, which we have pointed out, will not doom humanity.

Defeatist thinking won't win the day either. It could lose it though.

In the past someone suggested we use a virus to render all the Reapers paralyzed. Certainly that is a great idea and it would win us the war. However it is one thing to imagine a weapon that would destroy the Reapers and quite another to actually create it.

And you are assuming the worst-case scenario is the only scenario. As you have said, we lack adequate data, but then you say that the data says that we are doomed, when we have pointed out that it does not, and even if it did, we have too many gaps in available data to jump to such a drastic conclusion as surrendering.

Modifié par SandTrout, 03 août 2011 - 11:12 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

I see your indoctrination and raise you Lala Lala I Can't Hear Youuuuuuuuu.......

Maybe the Batarians will save the galaxy by blowing up the charon relay like Shepard did that other relay.

Blowing up the relay may not work for the reasons I outlined in my introductory post and elaborated on elsewhere while debating with Arijharn.

There are any number of ways the Reapers could see the destruction of the relay coming and escape.

Has anyone ever considered that the Reapers may wind up using that very tactic on us?

I think they might be too involved in their goo making to see it coming until it was too late.

I don't think they'd blow the relay since there could still be a possibility of more intelligent life forming on earth. Granted in my scenario it might just be from rats and cockroaches in a few hundred million yrs.

[Sisterofshane]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

So there isn't enough evidence to say we can beat the reapers,but also not enough evidence to say they can win,especially with these special circumstances(failed to take citadel,lost their vanguard)

So this debate is at stalemate.

Not a stalemate, it was moot to begin with.
I think we've proven that Saphra's likely end times scenario is just that.  It's a possible scenario.  It's not what is actually going to happen in the game.

And we can sit here and argue specific tactics all day, but it means nothing.  Applied tactics are very different out on the battle field, and won't determine the likelihood of defeat/victory anyway.

For example, I can play a side mission in the game one hundred times.  I can use the same beginning tactic each time, but I can't guarentee that every single battle will end up the same.  Sometimes I die, sometimes I kick ***, and sometimes it takes me forever because I have to concentrate on picking off the enemy one by one.

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

So you're saying I win?

No.

If you can find some concrete evidence of a tech advantage or Reaper weakness we can exploit I might reconsider our chances.

Find some concrete proof that we will be unable to inflict casualties when they hit our worlds.

However I don't think you can do that because we just don't have enough information.

Wishful thinking won't win the day.

And you have no concrete evidence that we a doomed. Your only 'concrete' evidence is the ecological disaster on Eingana, which we have pointed out, will not doom humanity.

Defeatist thinking won't win the day either. It could lose it though.

In the past someone suggested we use a virus to render all the Reapers paralyzed. Certainly that is a great idea and it would win us the war. However it is one thing to imagine a weapon that would destroy the Reapers and quite another to actually create it.

And you are assuming the worst-case scenario is the only scenario. As you have said, we lack adequate data, but then you say that the data says that we are doomed, when we have pointed out that it does not, and even if it did, we have too many gaps in available data to jump to such a drastic conclusion as surrendering.

This is exactly why people like you, Sand, are put in charge of armies in the first place.
Objective, while remaining hopeful.  That is the moxie that wins wars.
Not doom and gloom.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

And let's not forget it was numbers, not tech, that defeated the nastis in WWII. The Russian front for example.

The galaxy is OUR house. No one. And I repeat. No one comes into OUR house and pushes us around.

[Twizz089]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I accounted for the Citadel and relays being in our possession when I made my post.

I didn't bring it up because I didn't think it needed to be said.

Us having the Citadel will allows to survive and put up organized resistance than we otherwise would be able to, but it alone is not enough to save us.

Where is your proof?, have the reapers ever wiped out a galaxy without the citadel and the advantage of the relays?
You say you can form an educated guess?  Look up educated guess and tell me how that defers from something that is definite.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I accounted for the Citadel and relays being in our possession when I made my post.

I didn't bring it up because I didn't think it needed to be said.

Us having the Citadel will allows to survive and put up organized resistance than we otherwise would be able to, but it alone is not enough to save us.

And as long as we are 'organizing resistance' we have a chance of changing the state of the battlefield and making victory more and more plausible.

What is the alternative Saphra?  What is the other strategy?

You have mentioned surrender.  You have mentioned letting them turn us into goo.  Isn't that kinda dumb since we are in a better position now than we could have been?  Shouldn't we at least wait until we are the last, solitary ship in the galaxy and are on the run somewhere in darkspace before we contemplate what it would be like to be genetic goo for robots?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

And let's not forget it was numbers, not tech, that defeated the nastis in WWII. The Russian front for example.

The galaxy is OUR house. No one. And I repeat. No one comes into OUR house and pushes us around.

In stewies voice "THIS IS MY HOUSE" *chest pound*

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Technology played a bigger role than you think.

Eh....maybe at the end(Looks at P-51D Mustang.)

[Twizz089]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Technology played a bigger role than you think.

Technology played a smaller role than you think

Modifié par Twizz089, 03 août 2011 - 11:27 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Alright. I'm out guys. It was nice!

I have to write... So I'm unplugging the internets for a bit.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Technology played a bigger role than you think.

And it will again.
Remember EDI?  Thannix Cannons?
The Reapers have no reason to believe that we have them, but we do.
And they will only help to even the odds.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Cortana EDI will guide us to victory,datamining and cute comments about Thane being civil.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 03 août 2011 - 11:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I really cannot see any normal way in which we could defeat the Reaprs in a military conflict.

They have practicly every advantage imaginable:
They're are faster, more manuveralbe, FAR better shielded and more deadly. The got knowledhe of the galaxy and they can manipulate mass relays. They got no static points they need to defend, nor any civilina population they need to protect, nor any supply lines to cut.
You can't produce ships or infrastructure faster than they can destroy it - and they can destroy it.
They have the power to dictate the pace of battle, and thus keep the initiative.

Frankly, we need a McGuffin.

[SandTrout]

You can't produce ships or infrastructure faster than they can destroy it - and they can destroy it.

This is not a known variable. Can they destroy it? Most likely, yes. Can they destroy it quickly enough to render out-producing them infeasible? Unknown.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I really cannot see any normal way in which we could defeat the Reaprs in a military conflict.

They have practicly every advantage imaginable:
They're are faster, more manuveralbe, FAR better shielded and more deadly. The got knowledhe of the galaxy and they can manipulate mass relays. They got no static points they need to defend, nor any civilina population they need to protect, nor any supply lines to cut.
You can't produce ships or infrastructure faster than they can destroy it - and they can destroy it.
They have the power to dictate the pace of battle, and thus keep the initiative.

Frankly, we need a McGuffin.

I read a history book once,superior force=/= victory

[Sisterofshane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I really cannot see any normal way in which we could defeat the Reaprs in a military conflict.

They have practicly every advantage imaginable:
They're are faster, more manuveralbe, FAR better shielded and more deadly. The got knowledhe of the galaxy and they can manipulate mass relays. They got no static points they need to defend, nor any civilina population they need to protect, nor any supply lines to cut.
You can't produce ships or infrastructure faster than they can destroy it - and they can destroy it.
They have the power to dictate the pace of battle, and thus keep the initiative.

Frankly, we need a McGuffin.

First off, why are they faster and more manuverable?  What's your specific evidence?
Yes they have better shields, that a given.
That they are "more deadly" then our ships is just an opinion.  By the same reasoning, I can say that Shepard is more deadly then a Reaper.  It's not really an advantage.
And we have developed technology akin to their weapons -- the thannix cannons.

Everything else you've said is just tactics, and have no bearance upon whether we can determine the outcome of a battle or war.

And, despite all of their "superiority" (note the quotation marks to signify that I don't believe this to be an absolute truth), all we need to find is one weakness.  Their, fatal flaw so to say.

It's there.  I think it has something to do with Sovereign's link to Saren.  Something happened there that we truly (as of yet) do not understand, but turned the tide of the battle.

And if it happens once it can happen again.  Right now, we just truly DON'T KNOW.

So, I'm not ready to jump into a collector pod just yet.

[SJK93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
They're are faster, more manuveralbe, FAR better shielded and more deadly.

They do have better shielding from what we've seen, but I don't think they're more manuverable. Sovereign was big and bulky looking. The Normandy was far more manuverable.

[ThePwener]

Page 60? Gotta be ****ing kidding me.....