2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Pulletlamer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

You can't survive if you don't have enough ships or enough allies to combat the reapers. And to have that alliances you need the other races trust. Even if it's just some of those races.

If those allies aren't ready to use drastic measures in a drastic situation....then I don't need that kind of allies.

Then why you said this on the other thread? I don't understand your point.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

They have no reason to save the aliens either.

You mean other than having allies to fight the reapers with? Cerberus alone can't do nuttin'.

I think you do indeed need allies if you're hoping to win the war. And nuking their planets doesn't help. Just saying.

IF there are other options. Big if.

Still it's better to be searching for a possible solution first than just going around nuking every planet because you believe there's a small chance that there's other options or that there's none at all. At least that's what I would try to do. Then atleast I could say I tried to search for a better solution first, before resorting to start nuking planets.

You're proposing nuking as the only (viable) solution. And it has a lot of flaws in my opinion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

Which also depends on the number of Reapers and the number of homeworlds / habitable planets that the galaxy also has. We can continue to add variables if you want. Doesn't change the fact you're destroying planets, and there's a limited number of them.

There's also a limited number of reapers.

Which doesn't invalidate all the points I listed above. I'm pretty sure the Reapers you would kill per planet destroyed won't be enough so that you could actually defeat them. And given that they could get to orbit and destroy the fleet that's doing orbital strikes, you'll eventually loose your forces or have a pretty big chance of loosing them before you could actually "win".

I want to hit them accurately. The hardest of swings is useless if it doesn't connect.

Well, I doubt you would know every location of every Reaper so that you could destroy them accurately with orbital strikes which wouldn't cause collateral damage.

And also because nukes are accurate bombs that cause no collateral damage, right? Nope.

Don't make me even begin with the radiation it leaves which makes zones unhabitable for hundreds of years.

Those planets wouldn't be habitable again. You can try to deny it, but after being nuked? They couldn't.

[..]nuking major cities does not creaty a uninhabitable planet. We detonated plenty of A-bomb on Earth and we're still living

Just look at Chernobyl. If you actually saw some documentaries about it you will know that the reactor is closed by a cape of cement, and they're now trying to replace it because if it doesn't hold the radiation it could spread again.

Oh and there's zones there that could kill you just because of the radiation. So yeah, pretty unhabitable at least.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 07 août 2011 - 10:03 .

[AlphaDormante]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

They make themselves far more vulnerable by landing, and you don't even need ot ship the resources untill AFTER teh area is secured..meaing you have no fear of the transports being shot down.

Who said anything about constant bombardment? Nothing I said contradicts vigil.
Blitz bombing to cripple the opponent, leave a virus and and an army to do it's work, go to next planet.
Return later to make sure the job is done.

This can easily take decades. and no, nuking major cities does not creaty a uninhabitable planet. We detonated plenty of A-bomb on Earth and we're still living.

As I said: if resources are the goal, then bombing is not a viable tactic to use in the first place.

If the Reapers want to wipe out the population from orbit, they'll have to aim for large cities. Very likely these same cities contain the majority of the planet's technology and resources. Cities have lots of people, and in order for the Reapers to eradicate the majority of them, they'd have to bomb the cities incredibly thoroughly. It's highly likely that all collectable resources would be destroyed long before the popluation is lowered to acceptable levels. No resources, no technology, no profit.

Alternatively, the Reapers could still bomb the planet - but simply collect its resources first. They would have to fly down to the planet, likely interacting with technology like Sovereign did with the Citadel Tower, and in the process wiping out the population with more precision. Are casualties possible? Absolutely. But if they aren't willing to make sacrifices, then their goal cannot be reached. Do you see a similarity here? There is no reason for us to be the only ones allowed to make sacrifice in pursuit of a higher goal. The Reapers aren't going to be all namby-pamby about things just because they might lose a few men.

If the Reapers are going to bomb a planet, they need to collect its resources first. There is no better option. The ends justify the means, and it's better to lose a few units achieving those ends rather than fail in completing the goal entirely.

Modifié par AlphaDormante, 07 août 2011 - 09:52 .

[General User]

Pulletlamer wrote...
Just look at Chernobyl. If you actually saw some documentaries about it you will know that the reactor is closed by a cape of cement, and they're now trying to replace it because if it doesn't hold the radiation it could spread again.

Oh and there's zones there that could kill you just because of the radiation. So yeah, pretty unhabitable at least.

Chernobyl was not a bomb, it was a meltdown at a civilian power plant. 

Since1945 there have been more than 500 above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth, and more than 2000 all told, with no planet-wide environmental impact. 

Only two cities have ever been attacked directly by nuclear weapons, and both cities had recovered to their pre-war population levels within ten years.

Nuclear weapons are very destructive, indeed that's largely what makes them such a viable option for killing Reapers, but they are nowhere near as apocalyptic as the popular imagination seems to hold.

[Pulletlamer]

General User wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...
Just look at Chernobyl. If you actually saw some documentaries about it you will know that the reactor is closed by a cape of cement, and they're now trying to replace it because if it doesn't hold the radiation it could spread again.

Oh and there's zones there that could kill you just because of the radiation. So yeah, pretty unhabitable at least.

Chernobyl was not a bomb, it was a meltdown at a civilian power plant. 

Since1945 there have been more than 500 above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth, and more than 2000 all told, with no planet-wide environmental impact. 

Only two cities have ever been attacked directly by nuclear weapons, and both cities had recovered to their pre-war population levels within ten years.

Nuclear weapons are very destructive, indeed that's largely what makes them such a viable option for killing Reapers, but they are nowhere near as apocalyptic as the popular imagination seems to hold.

I know it was not a bomb. I was talking about the radiation. Still I fail to see how it means anything to what I was trying to say.<_<

I was just saying there's zones with high levels of radiation even as of today.

I'm no expert myself, but launching a nuke (or various of them) isn't any better (in the radiation aspect) than having a meltdown on a plant. Plus the nukes have inmense destructive capabilities.

Still we're talking about nuking the planet or most of it's major cities. Repeatedly if there's the necessity to.

Doesn't matter if Hiroshima got recovered. I'm pretty sure people still suffer radiation effects as of nowadays. And they recovered because it was just a city, we're talking about bombarding a planet with nukes.

[General User]

Pulletlamer wrote...
I know it was not a bomb. I was talking about the radiation. Still I fail to see how it means anything to what I was trying to say.

I was just saying there's zones with high levels of radiation even as of today.

If you were trying argue that nuclear weapons would be impractical or undesirable for use against the Reapers, then bringing up Chernobyl at all was a mistake.  It only confuses the issue, since no nuclear weapons were used at Chernobyl. You should have cited an area of dense nuclear weapon use, like the Nevada Proving Grounds in the States

Pulletlamer wrote...
I'm no expert myself, but launching a nuke (or various of them) isn't any better (in the radiation aspect) than having a meltdown on a plant. Plus the nukes have inmense destructive capabilities.

When seeking to destroy, one would do well to use a weapon with great destructive capability.

Comparing nuclear bombs and meltdowns; the types, quantities, and methods of radiation release are very different.

Pulletlamer wrote...
Still we're talking about nuking the planet or most of it's major cities. Repeatedly if there's the necessity to.

Right.  Emphasis on "necessity."

Pulletlamer wrote...
Doesn't matter if Hiroshima got recovered. I'm pretty sure people still suffer radiation effects as of nowadays. And they recovered because it was just a city, we're talking about bombarding a planet with nukes.

A city is just a city and a planet is just a planet. My point wasn't that ten years is a probably time frame for a planet's recovery from a wide scale nuclear bombing campaign. It might be more, it might be less. Rather my point was that a wide scale nuclear bombing campaign is in no way a death sentence for the planet it takes place on, or the people living thereon.

Modifié par General User, 07 août 2011 - 11:39 .

[Arijharn]

Radiation would be less an issue again if you used neutron weapons, there's no need to use high radiation weapons due to the fact that it's unlikely that nuclear radiation is going to affect them moreso given the fact that we don't know their properties, yet we know our own.

[SandTrout]

Arijharn, neutron weapons are specifically high-radiation weapons. That is their function.

I think you mean that there is no need to use high-contamination weapons that would cause excessive radioactive fallout.

[SpiffySquee]

Pulletlamer wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You loose a planet. Better than that loose all of them.

With that tactic, you will lose all of them.

Why do you think so?

If you manage to kill a few reapers but nuke the planet in the process, it's still a win. And..as I said - MD fire is pretty accurate for one, and for 2, a planet can take quite a lot of nukes and still be habitable.

The people that live in that planet would like to disagree.

Sure, you kill a few Reapers. Assuming you killed a large percenatge of them, which I doubt, (since they could get the hell out of there before taking heavy losses), you just lost a planet and made the Reapers work (of exterminating the galaxy) easier. They don't have to worry anymore about that planet. Good job. keep doing that, and soon enough you won't have enough planets avaivable to defend.

And assuming you succeded, and won the war, you just have condemned every race in the galaxy to live as nomads at best.

I't not a win if you're facilitating the Reaper work.

Not true. You would lose planets yes, and it would suck. But you would have a viable way of beating the reapers. The other races distrust you? Hell, they would help you if it was the only way to save anyone. You would not have to destroy that many planets and it could work:



Now keep in mind that we have since decided, that FTL might not work, but you could still accelerate close to the speed of light and get the same effects.

Now, if you can think of a better way of beating the reapers without some sort of magical plot twist, be my guest. I would love to not have to use this plan!

[Arijharn]

SandTrout wrote...

Arijharn, neutron weapons are specifically high-radiation weapons. That is their function.

I think you mean that there is no need to use high-contamination weapons that would cause excessive radioactive fallout.

That's it. I knew there was a series of nuclear weapons that were made that minimized radiation fallout by making it 'short lived.' I thought it was neutron weapons but apparently not.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Actually, blitzkrieg works perfect for the reapers. Unlike conventional armies that have their own home bases and points of interest they have to defend, the reapers don't. This means you can't break their momentum by attakcing something of theirs, forcing them to stop the advance and giving you teh initiative.

Also, the nature of space comabt and the massive ressiliece of reapers, means they can disengage whenever they want (in case they meet stronger resistance) and simply attack somewhere else.

Their higher mobility and independence, means they can afford to play cat and mouse as much as they want. You can't.

Oh, I'm not saying they could not do it, just that I don't think they would. Your points are excellent and valid, but they are machines that feel no one can beat them. I don't think they will just mosey along, but I think a structured, steady advance is more likely. As I said, machines like simple. Why use blitz when you don't need to? You are more spread out, and thus, more vulnerable. A stable advance has less holes and less chances for things to go wrong. The great thing about blitz is speed, which I don't feel the Reapers think they need.


A also don't think they would just drop off a bunch of husks and move on. We all know husks are not fantastic soldiers. They are not even good soldiers. Their only strength is in numbers and surprise. Hell, most of them don't even have guns. I know they are going to be tougher in ME3, I beleive they said some will have guns? but I don't see them taking out a planet on their own. Either way, 2000 soldiers with enough ammo, a well fortified position, and a properly prepared killing ground could hold off any number of husks.


I seriously doubt reapers would trust them to take out planets on their own. I feel the reapers will stay until a planet is finished and then advance to the next.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Pulletlamer wrote...


Then why you said this on the other thread? I don't understand your point.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

They have no reason to save the aliens either.

You mean other than having allies to fight the reapers with? Cerberus alone can't do nuttin'.

I think you do indeed need allies if you're hoping to win the war. And nuking their planets doesn't help. Just saying.

I need allies, yes. But I need allies that can pull their own weight.

IF there are other options. Big if.

Still it's better to be searching for a possible solution first than just going around nuking every planet because you believe there's a small chance that there's other options or that there's none at all. At least that's what I would try to do. Then atleast I could say I tried to search for a better solution first, before resorting to start nuking planets.

You're proposing nuking as the only (viable) solution. And it has a lot of flaws in my opinion.

And while you're doing that, and looking for antoher options the reapers are killg you off...and getting stronger with all the indoctrinated and husks swelling hteir ranks.
Wait too long, and you wont be in position to use the "nuke em" option anymore...and then it's all over.

I get where you're coming from - looking for another option would be my first instinct too.
Yet sometimes you just don't have the luxury of a perfect solution.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There's also a limited number of reapers.

Which doesn't invalidate all the points I listed above. I'm pretty sure the Reapers you would kill per planet destroyed won't be enough so that you could actually defeat them. And given that they could get to orbit and destroy the fleet that's doing orbital strikes, you'll eventually loose your forces or have a pretty big chance of loosing them before you could actually "win".

That again remains to be seen.
And if the reapers can so easily swat my fleet, then there is not hope of victory in a direct engagment anyway.

I want to hit them accurately. The hardest of swings is useless if it doesn't connect.

Well, I doubt you would know every location of every Reaper so that you could destroy them accurately with orbital strikes which wouldn't cause collateral damage.

And also because nukes are accurate bombs that cause no collateral damage, right? Nope.

Don't make me even begin with the radiation it leaves which makes zones unhabitable for hundreds of years.

Those planets wouldn't be habitable again. You can try to deny it, but after being nuked? They couldn't.

If you're in range for orbital bombardment, you should be ableto detect them.

Also, mass driver rounds aren't nukes, altough they do pack a similar punch.

And nukes don't destroy a planet so easily.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlphaDormante wrote...
As I said: if resources are the goal, then bombing is not a viable tactic to use in the first place.

If the Reapers want to wipe out the population from orbit, they'll have to aim for large cities. Very likely these same cities contain the majority of the planet's technology and resources. Cities have lots of people, and in order for the Reapers to eradicate the majority of them, they'd have to bomb the cities incredibly thoroughly. It's highly likely that all collectable resources would be destroyed long before the popluation is lowered to acceptable levels. No resources, no technology, no profit.

Alternatively, the Reapers could still bomb the planet - but simply collect its resources first. They would have to fly down to the planet, likely interacting with technology like Sovereign did with the Citadel Tower, and in the process wiping out the population with more precision. Are casualties possible? Absolutely. But if they aren't willing to make sacrifices, then their goal cannot be reached. Do you see a similarity here? There is no reason for us to be the only ones allowed to make sacrifice in pursuit of a higher goal. The Reapers aren't going to be all namby-pamby about things just because they might lose a few men.

If the Reapers are going to bomb a planet, they need to collect its resources first. There is no better option. The ends justify the means, and it's better to lose a few units achieving those ends rather than fail in completing the goal entirely.

Depends.

Major industry is usually located outside the city or on the perfiery...urban zones and planing and all that.
And one has to ask oneself - what kind of resources are the reapers collecting in the first place?

Minerals? Metals? They don't have to leave a single city standing for that?

And again - the husks and indoctrinated can do the collecting.

[AlphaDormante]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlphaDormante wrote...
As I said: if resources are the goal, then bombing is not a viable tactic to use in the first place.

If the Reapers want to wipe out the population from orbit, they'll have to aim for large cities. Very likely these same cities contain the majority of the planet's technology and resources. Cities have lots of people, and in order for the Reapers to eradicate the majority of them, they'd have to bomb the cities incredibly thoroughly. It's highly likely that all collectable resources would be destroyed long before the popluation is lowered to acceptable levels. No resources, no technology, no profit.

Alternatively, the Reapers could still bomb the planet - but simply collect its resources first. They would have to fly down to the planet, likely interacting with technology like Sovereign did with the Citadel Tower, and in the process wiping out the population with more precision. Are casualties possible? Absolutely. But if they aren't willing to make sacrifices, then their goal cannot be reached. Do you see a similarity here? There is no reason for us to be the only ones allowed to make sacrifice in pursuit of a higher goal. The Reapers aren't going to be all namby-pamby about things just because they might lose a few men.

If the Reapers are going to bomb a planet, they need to collect its resources first. There is no better option. The ends justify the means, and it's better to lose a few units achieving those ends rather than fail in completing the goal entirely.

Depends.

Major industry is usually located outside the city or on the perfiery...urban zones and planing and all that.
And one has to ask oneself - what kind of resources are the reapers collecting in the first place?

Minerals? Metals? They don't have to leave a single city standing for that?

And again - the husks and indoctrinated can do the collecting.

I agree, resources could be collected anywhere from the planet by anyone. But technology cannot. If an indoctrinated could collect information from a piece of technology as efficiently as a Reaper can, then there would have been no need for Sovereign to interact with the Citadel Tower as it did - Saren could have downloaded all data and uploaded it directly to Sovereign himself. Instead, Sovereign put itself in harm's way so that it could attach to the Tower and interface with it directly. That example is the only one we have of Reapers interacting with our technology, and it makes sense that they could gather all sorts of information directly that no slave ever could.

Imagine this - the Reapers divided into separate divisions, a la Squee's plan. However, rather than two divisions, there are three:

• The Reapers that are groundside, attaching to buildings and
  interfacing with them to collect things such as technology and data on
  the planet's resources.
• The Reapers that are groundside, protecting the interfacing Reapers and precision-eliminating the populous.
• The Reapers that are in orbit, protecting the groundside troops and possibly receiving data from the interfacing Reapers.

This is a sensible, efficient plan, is it not? And one that would be entirely ruined by opening up the invasion with bombings.

edit: Once again, I apologize for the html <_< I have the worst luck with it.

Modifié par AlphaDormante, 08 août 2011 - 12:14 .

[Sploo McGraw]

Wow. It's... kind of sad that the OP really talks as if this is a real world conflict. I love Mass Effect but what you're saying is kind of creepy.

[AlphaDormante]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlphaDormante wrote...

As I said: if resources are the goal, then bombing is not a viable tactic to use in the first place.

This would be true if the Reapers bombed every planet in the galaxy, but they don't have to. All they need to do is destroy the bigger settlements. The smaller colonies can be left alone and harvested for slaves once all organized resistance has been demolished.

Resources, yes. Technology, however, is obviously best harvested from the most well-developed civilizations.

Also keep in mind that all I'm trying to argue is that the Reapers would, at some point, touch down onto planets so that Squee's plan has validity. The number of planets they do invade directly isn't the issue.

[Ultai]

I'm sure this has been addressed, but I find it weird how the entire Reaper fleet doesn't take the opportunity, and make another attempt on the Citadel to selectively shut down the relays and commence the genocide. You think they had it rough with just Sovereign, well...it would be over rather easily.

But I guess it's their turn with the idiot ball and they have to spread themselves out over the galaxy. When you really get into the roleplay aspects of it, it's seems like a pretty simple strategy. But it's a game, and that's how it usually goes for the protagonist. They win via villain stupidity.

[General User]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Regarding nukes: nobody needs to use nukes. The firepower possessed by any dreadnought in the galaxy can cause more damage than a nuke and leave no redioactive fallout behind.

The appeal of nukes lies not in the destructive force they can put out, but in how they put it out. Kinetic strikes do indeed have far more pure destructive potential than nukes, but nukes put out large amounts of heat and (perhaps far more significantly) radiation. Two forms of energy against which kinetic barriers, the Reapers main (and arguably only truly effective) defenses, are explicitly mentioned as being useless.

Nukes are also usable in both space and planet-side combat, and are mass producible in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.

But, from my perspective, the most intriguing aspect of nukes are the various "sci-fi" variations, namely the Casaba-Howitzer and the bomb-pumped laser.  Though grounded in reality (both were American Cold War Era programs that achieved varying degrees of success), these weapons are still sufficiently advanced and destructive to be believable as Reaper-killers. With the added benefit of us beating the Reapers using our own technology, instead of digging up some Prothean "super-gun" or other such nonsense.

[littlezack]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlphaDormante wrote...

Resources, yes. Technology, however, is obviously best harvested from the most well-developed civilizations.

What would they want technology for?

I actually have a theory on that.

The Reapers are intelligent, yes, but I think they lack creativy. They're advanced to an incredible degree, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for a race to develop technology that they don't currently possess. It's a big universe, after all, and they can use organic insights into technology to better themselves.

[Zancloufer]

Saphra Deden wrote...

An impact from a dreadnought shot is going to cause lots of heat too.It's a huge impact. Much more powerful than a nuke.

Pretty sure Nukes make more Pure Thermal Output than a Kinetic impact from a Railgun.

Also, the concept of going around nuking planets, or destorying relays to (try) and kill a few Reapers might have a 'psycolgical effect' also.  Yes they are Machines that don't have fear, but if Shepard goes crazy and start destroying everything so the Reapers can't have it, and gets a handful in the process, it might chase them off.

They're here for resources/slaves or something right?  If you just go around destroying everything, the Reapers have nothing to gain, and are taking SOME losses.  They might just bugger off, or leave the Galaxy entirely.

Insanely crazy plan, but might actually do something.

[Arijharn]

Saphra Deden wrote...

An impact from a dreadnought shot is going to cause lots of heat too.It's a huge impact. Much more powerful than a nuke.

You're not getting it. A slug from a Dreadnought weapon would have to penetrate the shields first, then impact the hull in order to transfer kinetic energy and friction heat (the later part would obviously only be valid in atmosphere) to the medium.

A nuke's blast wave would pass through the kinetic barrier because kinetic barriers do not, by 'lore', protect against it.

[AlphaDormante]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlphaDormante wrote...

Resources, yes. Technology, however, is obviously best harvested from the most well-developed civilizations.

What would they want technology for?

Why wouldn't they? We can argue rhetorics all day, but like I said, the theory that the Reapers are after technology and resources was put forward by Vigil himself. Who knows why the Reapers do what they do, but to date Vigil is the most reliable source we have for Reapers' MO.

littlezack wrote...

I actually have a theory on that.

The
Reapers are intelligent, yes, but I think they lack creativy. They're
advanced to an incredible degree, but that doesn't mean that it's
impossible for a race to develop technology that they don't currently
possess. It's a big universe, after all, and they can use organic
insights into technology to better themselves.

I actually like that theory a lot! The Reapers certainly seem methodical, enough so that I wouldn't doubt it getting in the way of their creative ability. Not to mention that Reapers spend all the time they're not being Space!Cthulu snoozing out in dark space - that can't be all too productive.

[General User]

Saphra Deden wrote...

An impact from a dreadnought shot is going to cause lots of heat too.It's a huge impact. Much more powerful than a nuke.

Yes and no, the pure destructive potential of kinetic projectiles (like the kind fired from conventional Mass Effect warships) far outstrips that of nukes. But remember kinetic projectiles and nukes operate on fundamentally different principles. Kinetic projectiles deliver their damage to their targets only upon impact, while nukes do rather the opposite, nukes are designed to detonate prior to impact and deliver damage to their targets via the energy they put out in that detonation. The Reapers have an amazingly effective defense against the former, but have no known counter to the latter.

And, far more intriguingly, the energy from a nuclear explosion is controllable and 'directable', whereas the energy of a kinetic impact is not since it is expended at the moment of impact.

'd by Arijharn! Cheers mate! .

Modifié par General User, 08 août 2011 - 02:11 .