Aller au contenu

Photo

What's with the "I don't want Humans to be Special"?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
403 réponses à ce sujet

#276
Rekkampum

Rekkampum
  • Members
  • 2 048 messages

iakus wrote...

 I haven't read through all the pages in this so I'm not sure if this was addressed, but...

It seems to me that people aren't saying they don't want particular humans like Shepard to be special.  What they don't want is humans to be special just because they're humans.

To expand:  Shepard was built form the ground up to to be an exceptional individual.   the preservice record/psychological profille demonstrates He's a survivor who's overcome long odds in the past.  We're told, and see from the beacon, that Shep has a strong will and a sense of determination.  Toss in the whole N7 thing and Spectreship and we have an exceptional, even unique individual.  Even without the cybernetics of ME2.

 But none of this is because Shepard is human, but because Shepard is Shepard.  Now we have all this "human DNA is special" stuff that suddenly makes being special...not so special.  



Nice to see you up here iakus!

#277
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 202 messages

Gonna borrow this for a sec to make an on-topic point. The victory at Sanxi wasn't because the human tech was superior to the Turians, and not just because Turians got cocky, though that does play significantly into it, but because it was one Turian patrol against an entire Alliance fleet. The codex also says that the turians were evicted from Shanxi, not destroyed and neglects to mentions what, in any, damage and casualties the Second Fleet took in order to do so and implies that before Admiral Drescher's Second Fleet showed up, it had indeed been a one-sided fight.


I can't recall now if I read it in the codex or one of the books, but I'm fairly certain it was stated that the Turians lost more people in First Contact War, though I'm not sure what percent the Shanxi casualties made of the total.

Of course either way had the Council not intervened to stop what was essentially a border skirmish from escalating to full scale war, humanity would have been defeated. No question. The humans appear to have had a slight qualitative edge but the Turians possessed a heavy quantitative edge that humanity wouldn't have been able to overcome.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 10 août 2011 - 06:05 .


#278
Keatons

Keatons
  • Members
  • 74 messages

Han Shot First wrote...

Gonna borrow this for a sec to make an on-topic point. The victory at Sanxi wasn't because the human tech was superior to the Turians, and not just because Turians got cocky, though that does play significantly into it, but because it was one Turian patrol against an entire Alliance fleet. The codex also says that the turians were evicted from Shanxi, not destroyed and neglects to mentions what, in any, damage and casualties the Second Fleet took in order to do so and implies that before Admiral Drescher's Second Fleet showed up, it had indeed been a one-sided fight.


I can't recall now if I read it in the codex or one of the books, but I'm fairly certain it was stated that the Turians lost more people in First Contact War, though I'm not sure what percent the Shanxi casualties made of the total.

Of course either way had the Council not intervened to stop what was essentially a border skirmish from escalating to full scale war, humanity would have been defeated. No question. The humans appear to have had a slight qualitative edge but the Turians possessed a heavy quantitative edge that humanity wouldn't have been able to overcome.


Oh, no doubt the humans would have been defeated by the Turians in full scale war, although I think the Turians might have had the slight advantage in tech as well as the vast advantage in overall numbers especially at that time, but if you throw an entire fleet at a single patrol, both using the same basic tech, with the patrol not expecting anything to happen and the fleet presumably knowing both the size and location of the enemy, smart money goes to the fleet.to win. As for the numbers, the thought that a single Turian patrol would have more troops than a human survey fleet and the colony of Shanxi is a bit hard to believe. And to nitpick, it wasn't a border dispute exactly, but apparently the Turians telling the humans to not activate a Mass Relay by attempting to get rid of them with violence.

#279
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests
The turians only lost a couple of hundred more people than the humans did IIRC.

Humanity beat them in that one battle because they caught them off guard. The turians assumed they'd already destroyed the bulk of the human fleet.

#280
SandTrout

SandTrout
  • Members
  • 4 171 messages
It is mentioned explicitly in the beginning of Revelation that circa the FCW, the Turians and Humans had about comparable military hardware.

#281
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 202 messages
I believe it was stated the Turians lacked carriers, and that the Turian military mind is more rigid in it's thinking than a human, to the extent that the Turians had some difficulty coping with human strategies that fell outside of the box.

#282
darth_lopez

darth_lopez
  • Members
  • 2 505 messages

iakus wrote...

 I haven't read through all the pages in this so I'm not sure if this was addressed, but...

It seems to me that people aren't saying they don't want particular humans like Shepard to be special.  What they don't want is humans to be special just because they're humans.

To expand:  Shepard was built form the ground up to to be an exceptional individual.   the preservice record/psychological profille demonstrates He's a survivor who's overcome long odds in the past.  We're told, and see from the beacon, that Shep has a strong will and a sense of determination.  Toss in the whole N7 thing and Spectreship and we have an exceptional, even unique individual.  Even without the cybernetics of ME2.

 But none of this is because Shepard is human, but because Shepard is Shepard.  Now we have all this "human DNA is special" stuff that suddenly makes being special...not so special.  



It does seem like many folks are getting hung up on the Gene thing, which was one of the more obvious ways bioware used the "Humans are Special" Trope in ME 2 aside from ya know collectors stealing us But yes you do shed an interesting point on the situation.


I believe it was stated the Turians lacked carriers, and that the Turian
military mind is more rigid in it's thinking than a human, to the
extent that the Turians had some difficulty coping with human strategies
that fell outside of the box.


I believe it was that Turians lacked Carriers to the Extent of the Human fleet, as did most other fleets. The key point on the carriers i don't believe was that we had them it's that we used them uniquely in comparrison to other races militaries. But i could have read the Codex wrong.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 août 2011 - 06:45 .


#283
Keatons

Keatons
  • Members
  • 74 messages

darth_lopez wrote...

iakus wrote...

 I haven't read through all the pages in this so I'm not sure if this was addressed, but...

It seems to me that people aren't saying they don't want particular humans like Shepard to be special.  What they don't want is humans to be special just because they're humans.

To expand:  Shepard was built form the ground up to to be an exceptional individual.   the preservice record/psychological profille demonstrates He's a survivor who's overcome long odds in the past.  We're told, and see from the beacon, that Shep has a strong will and a sense of determination.  Toss in the whole N7 thing and Spectreship and we have an exceptional, even unique individual.  Even without the cybernetics of ME2.

 But none of this is because Shepard is human, but because Shepard is Shepard.  Now we have all this "human DNA is special" stuff that suddenly makes being special...not so special.  



It does seem like many folks are getting hung up on the Gene thing, which was one of the more obvious ways bioware used the "Humans are Special" Trope in ME 2 aside from ya know collectors stealing us But yes you do shed an interesting point on the situation.


I believe it was stated the Turians lacked carriers, and that the Turian
military mind is more rigid in it's thinking than a human, to the
extent that the Turians had some difficulty coping with human strategies
that fell outside of the box.


I believe it was that Turians lacked Carriers to the Extent of the Human fleet, as did most other fleets. The key point on the carriers i don't believe was that we had them it's that we used them uniquely in comparrison to other races militaries. But i could have read the Codex wrong.


The codex page on carriers says that while cruisers have a few fighters between the inner and outer hull of ship, and dreadnoughts have a single flight deck in the hull, humans were the first species to have a starship with fighters as the main armament. Meaning the turians most likely didn't have any at the time of the FCW. I'd love to go into more detail, but I'm dead tired and have an early morning so... night!

Modifié par Keatons, 10 août 2011 - 07:05 .


#284
darth_lopez

darth_lopez
  • Members
  • 2 505 messages

Keatons wrote...


The codex page on carriers says that while cruisers have a few fighters between the inner and outer hull of ship, and dreadnoughts have a single flight deck in the hull, humans were the first species to have a starship with fighters as the main armament. Meaning the turians most likely didn't have any at the time of the FCW. I'd love to go into more detail, but I'm dead tired and have an early morning so... night!


Thank you for correcting my misclaim ^^, Although it does beg the question Why don't they have Dedicated Carrier class Ships? Even if they did have carriers but we simply employed them differently i'd still Personally  think it's because they have less water on their home worlds than we do. If they had less oceans or were more or less a pangea style continent on each world AirCraft carriers like we have today would not be as necessary. Can't wait to see what exactly some home worlds look like even if it's just from space.

#285
SandTrout

SandTrout
  • Members
  • 4 171 messages

darth_lopez wrote...

Thank you for correcting my misclaim ^^, Although it does beg the question Why don't they have Dedicated Carrier class Ships? Even if they did have carriers but we simply employed them differently i'd still Personally  think it's because they have less water on their home worlds than we do. If they had less oceans or were more or less a pangea style continent on each world AirCraft carriers like we have today would not be as necessary. Can't wait to see what exactly some home worlds look like even if it's just from space.

Fighter Carriers are not a standard line of military thought. The most mainstream line of military thinking is having a big enough gun to kill an enemy in one shot, but small enough to remain mobile. Aircraft generally do not pack enough punch to take down a larger vessel with a stingle strike, even if it hits, and they must make it through AA fire first. The power of the individual fighter was probably discounted when dealing with ships as large as drednaughts. They also do not serve a specific niche in warfare where they can be specifically designed to take out certain types of main-line vessels with exceptional efficency, except other fighters.

Even on Earth, up until WW2, large battleships were presumed to be the main factors in naval warfare because they could strike so hard from such long range. Carriers were only realized as a potential main fleet asset because most of the American Battleships had been damaged in the Pearl Harbor strike, forcing us to use Carriers in ways that were not initially intended when they were designed.

Modern lines of military thought are somewhat similar in that they are dependent of the Carrier, even though advances in submarine technology would likely render Carrier-centric strategy a relic of the past if there was ever another large-scale war between major powers.

In ME, space-stealth had not yet been invented in a usable form, and using our history of naval warfare, humans knew how influential fighters could be in space warfare when we were developing the SA fleet from scratch, rather than attempting to change old conventions. The Turrians, in turn, had centuries of military convention that had worked durring the Krogan rebellions, and had not had a major conflict since then to cause them to change.

With the advent of space-stealth with the Normandy and facing the overwhelming firepower of the Reapers during the Galactic War, I expect military doctrines to radically shift again, similar to what happened after WW2.

#286
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests
Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

#287
SandTrout

SandTrout
  • Members
  • 4 171 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

Care to elaborate on that?

#288
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

Care to elaborate on that?


Why send an expensive fighter craft to fly all the way to an enemy ship, empty its payload, and then fly all the way back?

Just fire missiles. That way it is a one way trip. No need to retrieve them.

Manning the craft is especially dumb because then you limit its maneuverability, acceleration, and such because if it does anything too extreme it will kill the squishy human pilot. It also inflates the cost since you need to pack in a life support system.

#289
darth_lopez

darth_lopez
  • Members
  • 2 505 messages
Hmmm... Thank you sandtrout I was unaware that that was why we actually started using carriers i thought they were simply from conception brilliant assets, i'm not particularly keen on military history i'm just an average fellow with, believe it or not from my grammar and spellings while typing, an aptitude for language xD. That was quite an enlightening fact. So with the advent of normandy class ships would that lead to us reducing the numbers of Carriers?

#290
SandTrout

SandTrout
  • Members
  • 4 171 messages

Manning the craft is especially dumb because then you limit its maneuverability, acceleration, and such because if it does anything too extreme it will kill the squishy human pilot. It also inflates the cost since you need to pack in a life support system.

While I won't discount the utility of cruise missiles, the limitations on maneuverability would be largely eliminated by the used of ME fields. There are also certain capabilities available to fighters that could not be done with VI controlled drones.

VIs are not as adaptive as flesh and blood pilots. Manned fighters with limited FLT capability could be deployed from a safe distance of several light-minutes and assess the tactical situation on station in ways that VI controlled missiles could not. Maintaining FLT communications with remotely controlled drones could potentially either be jammed or hacked, while fighters could be closed-circuit systems that would remain operational in a hostile electronic warfare environment.

If a Carrier is within the effective range of a Dreadnaught, then the Carrier is doing something wrong, while the Dreadnaught probably lacks adequate AA capability to defend against multiple squadrons of Fighters. Granted, Dreadnaughts have fighter and frigate screens of their own, but these could potentially be overwhelmed by the fighter squadrons and the Frigates and Cruisers of the Carrier's fleet.

So with the advent of normandy class ships would that lead to us reducing the numbers of Carriers?

It is difficult to be certain, but this seems probable, especially since most long-range sensors are passive. A wolf-pack of Normandy-class vessels could approach a battle-group, launch a volley of torpedoes at a designated target, and get out of Dodge without ever being detected by the Carrier.

#291
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests
You know what? Don't listen to me. Just read through this website sometime.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

#292
Goneaviking

Goneaviking
  • Members
  • 899 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

Care to elaborate on that?


Why send an expensive fighter craft to fly all the way to an enemy ship, empty its payload, and then fly all the way back?

Just fire missiles. That way it is a one way trip. No need to retrieve them.

Manning the craft is especially dumb because then you limit its maneuverability, acceleration, and such because if it does anything too extreme it will kill the squishy human pilot. It also inflates the cost since you need to pack in a life support system.


Also mandates that the target be larger so that it can carry a pilot and human luxury systems like life support etc. Which means an easier and more expensive target.

Drones are the future: savage and brutal but true.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 10 août 2011 - 09:07 .


#293
SandTrout

SandTrout
  • Members
  • 4 171 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

You know what? Don't listen to me. Just read through this website sometime.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

What the hell do nuclear engines have to do with anything?

#294
Goneaviking

Goneaviking
  • Members
  • 899 messages

Weskerr wrote...
You're right that the Japanese had an advantage over humanity in the Mass Effect story in that they had the chance to learn more about the technology from the people who created it while humanity could not learn more about the technology they discovered on Mars from the people (Protheans) who left it there. So what? Does this somehow preclude them (humanity) from understanding how it works and so how to build it themselves? Apparently not, because they were able to replicate the mass effect technology without sending anyone to Prothean engineering schools to learn more about it first. A real-world equivalent is Einstein discovering the photoeletric effect or that gravity isn't about magically pulling on objects but pushing them due to their warping the fabric of spacetime with their mass. The only thing that led him to these discoveries was his own reasoning with the knowledge he had available to him.


My point is that many of the factors that lead to the impressive progress of the Japanese weren’t directly related to pure R&D. Without a number of benefits lacking from the Alliance the Japanese would have been a non-starter in a war against the Western powers in the Pacific.

Not the least of which was their long military campaign which was carving a bloody swathe through Asia for years before the outbreak of violence in Europe. The war gave them accurate and reliable information to refine their technology and just as importantly their supply lines, their strategic doctrines and specific tactics, the organisational structure of their military and the support structure within the society needed to maintain it. Without those that experience the Japanese wouldn’t have had half the success they had once they pre-emptively attacked the Western powers.

Everything that the Alliance had to work with was guesswork.

Fair point. Still, developing a capable millitary in such a short amount of time is nothing less than remarkable, especially for a people who hadn't been in control of their own country for over 2000 years.


Jews had served in the militaries of many European countries for generations prior the advent of Zionism. When jewish migration to Palestine began they inevitably brought military veterans along with the doctors, teachers, bakers, seamstresses, farmers and every other profession.

Before the outbreak of hostilities in Europe the jewish population of the Palestinian mandate had already begun arming and was maintaining multiple terror organisations fighting against the British forces and arab population. This at a time that the British had already disarmed the Palestinian arabs.

By the time they fought openly against the arab forces in 1948 they already had a hardened core of fighters, and had laid down the organisational and logistic infrastructures that they used to defeat a numerically larger though disorganised and unprepared force. Following the war the terror organisations formed the basis of the Israeli military force.



The Jews gaining statehood was hardly as easy as you make it  seem. The primary reason that the UN recognized Israel as an independent  Jewish state was because of the Holocaust - after the National Socialist German Worker's

Party in Germany nearly wiped out all of Euorpean jewery in WWII (6 million of the total 9 million were exterminated) they believed that the best way from preventing genocide on such a massive scale from happening again was for the victims to be in control of their own government and country. Also, the Jews had to fight for every inch of ground they now possess even after they were "gifted with nationhood" because the surrounding Arab states (many of them themselves just becoming independent nations from European imperial rule) refused to acknowledge the UN's acknowledgement of the independent state of Israel. This was demonstrated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hardly believe that being surrounded and outnumbered by people who want to kill you is an advantage.


By no means do I imply that the creation of Israel was an easy or painless affair. Nationhood was gifted because the jewish migrants had no legal claim to a separate state in Palestine. As horrific as the holocaust was, and as much as it did impact on the decisions of the UN committee who decided to partition the country it was an invalid and inappropriate measure; the Palestinians were not responsible for the actions of the Europeans and there was no reason that they should be punished in their place. The UN decision was made against the vocalised opposition of the arab populations that would be affected and is as clear a case of imperialistic indifference as any.

The idea that the best way to prevent further antagonism against jews was to dispossess hundreds of thousands of people and make them subject to the will of people whose families had, for the most part, only arrived within the last two or three generations is laughable. It was always going to encourage the kind of hostility that has come to dominate Israel’s relations with its neighbours.

As hard as the Israelis have fought for what they have, it was to a large degree only possible because they were opposed by groups that the European colonial powers had intentionally fragmented and undermined for their own objectives.

I still think Israel is a valid example of people being able to adapt very quickly to anything that's thrown their way. This is what makes humanity in Mass Effect special. Their adaptability. I'd actually say that this is also a trait of the Salarians.


If Israel can be used as an analogy for humanities rise against the backdrop of the ME universe, then it surely is related to the continued power of official mythologies and special interventions by great powers.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 10 août 2011 - 09:58 .


#295
xXljoshlXx

xXljoshlXx
  • Members
  • 320 messages
Edit: The giant blank spot is gone :crying:

Modifié par xXljoshlXx, 10 août 2011 - 10:01 .


#296
Vengeful Nature

Vengeful Nature
  • Members
  • 868 messages

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

Care to elaborate on that?


Oh, oh, me, me! This is one of my pet hates.

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

You know what? Don't listen to me. Just read through this website sometime.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/


What the hell do nuclear engines have to do with anything?


First of all, Saphra Deden, you may be my new favourite person for linking that site.

SandTrout, read the site. It's an extensive collection of any and all aspects related to the realism of space travel and war in fiction. But if you don't feel like trawling through the entire site, here's the specific part about space fighters. Follow the links provided in the section for more elaboration.

Of course, this doesn't discount the use of carriers in the Mass Effect universe. It just means that they carry unmanned drones and missile buses, which puts them more in the role of a dedicated missile dreadnought than what we know today as a carrier.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 10 août 2011 - 11:14 .


#297
EternalPink

EternalPink
  • Members
  • 472 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighters make no sense for space combat. Especially not manned ones.

Care to elaborate on that?


Why send an expensive fighter craft to fly all the way to an enemy ship, empty its payload, and then fly all the way back?

Just fire missiles. That way it is a one way trip. No need to retrieve them.

Manning the craft is especially dumb because then you limit its maneuverability, acceleration, and such because if it does anything too extreme it will kill the squishy human pilot. It also inflates the cost since you need to pack in a life support system.


An expensive fighter would still be less expensive than an actual capital ship and you need less crew since fighters are generally 1 or 2 man crew whereas frigates have double digit crews. So you are able to put more fire power in space with less risk to your actual fleet assets since replacing a cruiser/carrier/dreadnought would be a lot more expensive than replacing every single fighter on board.

We are told by the codex that missiles are ineffective due to GUARDIAN systems its only in huge numbers that fighters and missiles would get through to inflict damage, if you've got a bunch of fighters that are in-close and have just launched there first salvo which target are you going to go for? the fighters so they can't fire any more salvo's although that means accepting the damage from the first strike OR target the incoming missiles allowing another salvo to be shot at you?

Shooting missiles at extreme ranges would give the GUARDIAN systems, fighter/interceptor cover, frigate picket fleets plenty of time to target them and since the missiles we are told about in the codex all have mass effect fields to increase mass so they can not be blocked by kinetic barriers they would have very little manuverability to try and dodge fire

#298
Vengeful Nature

Vengeful Nature
  • Members
  • 868 messages

EternalPink wrote...

An expensive fighter would still be less expensive than an actual capital ship and you need less crew since fighters are generally 1 or 2 man crew whereas frigates have double digit crews. So you are able to put more fire power in space with less risk to your actual fleet assets since replacing a cruiser/carrier/dreadnought would be a lot more expensive than replacing every single fighter on board.


Except that more firepower equals more mass for the fighter to lug around. Remember, in space, maneuverability is not an issue because all ships are operating in the same medium with the same laws of the preservation of mass and all that, so the only thing that changes is the scale of your ship, and therefore the scale of your weapons. A bigger ship with a bigger engine = more firepower, at the same level of maneuvarability than your fighter, which will be firing BBs at an elephant, so to speak.

Far better to make your fighter a missile itself, which carries other missiles. More bang for your buck. Or at least make your fighters unmanned so they can carry more missiles and you can afford more of them, if you intend to recover them at all.

We are told by the codex that missiles are ineffective due to GUARDIAN systems its only in huge numbers that fighters and missiles would get through to inflict damage, if you've got a bunch of fighters that are in-close and have just launched there first salvo which target are you going to go for? the fighters so they can't fire any more salvo's although that means accepting the damage from the first strike OR target the incoming missiles allowing another salvo to be shot at you?


Yes, we're told that missiles are shot in swarms to overwhelm GUARDIAN systems. But tell me, what's more effective; launching a squadron of fighters that shoot missiles themselves, or just shooting more missiles. Unless your fighters are also missiles carrying smaller missiles, which is what a missile bus is. Think of it in terms of proportions; if a single fighter gets destroyed, you've lost a significant proportion of your attack power. If a single missile gets destroyed, you've lost only a tiny proportion of it. With the mechanics of how it works in the ME universe, the most effective tactic will be to shoot missile buses at an enemy ship, which in turn shoot swarms of smaller missiles to overwhelm the ship's GUARDIAN system and burn it out, at which point the missile bus hits and causes even more damage.

What we are told is that fighers get in close, by the swarm, and launch their missiles when they are close enough. We are never told that these fighters are manned. Given the presumably attrotious casualty rates of this kind of tactic, it's logical to assume that these fighter's aren't manned and are therefore more expendable, because you don't have to worry about human loss of life. Who would sign up to a mission in which a very large percentage of people die in every such mission? No-one that didn't live pre-World War 1, that's who. Plus, unmanned fighters have the benefit of being cheaper, since you don't have to pay to train new pilots every time they get blasted to vapour.

Shooting missiles at extreme ranges would give the GUARDIAN systems, fighter/interceptor cover, frigate picket fleets plenty of time to target them and since the missiles we are told about in the codex all have mass effect fields to increase mass so they can not be blocked by kinetic barriers they would have very little manuverability to try and dodge fire


No, only Javelin and Disruptor missiles have mass effect fields, and these are more weapons of choice than swarm missiles, kind of like Tomahawks compared to MRLS missiles. And if there are enough of these swarm missles compared to point defense lasers, a defending ship won't have enough laser pew pew to shoot down every micro-missile that comes it's way.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 10 août 2011 - 01:11 .


#299
Abraham_uk

Abraham_uk
  • Members
  • 11 713 messages
Comander Shepherd is from a race that is trumped by other races. Humans make their foothold in the Citadel, not by being "special" but through sheer strength of will and a great deal of force and determination. This is humanity's real life strengths. We are overpowering, cocky and abrasive. This makes us strong.

The other races didn't fight hard enough to join the council. The Volus deserved to be , but didn't fight hard enough. They simply complained about their situation but didn't take action. The Vorcha accepted their situation.

The Asari, Turians, and Salarians probably played a bigger role in fending off the Reaper threat. This is Comander Shepherd's story. A human story (so we can relate to it.)

Humanity doesn't have any particular strengths except willpower. In many ways that is the greatest strength of them all. It wouldn't surprise me if this actually happens in the future.

Think about it this way. If humanity is so special, why does Comander Shepherd enlist the help of other species? Why was the fleet that defended the Citadel multi-species? Like the other Council races, Humans are made up of strong forceful personalities but they still need help and they still eventually realise that they are not as amazing as they once thought.

#300
Sisterofshane

Sisterofshane
  • Members
  • 1 756 messages
^^^Referencing the above convo about the need for fighters

Everyone here is saying that Fighters are in effect, useless, because there is nothing that an individual Fighter could do that a missile couldn't do -- except return.

The nature of creating any type of missile that has the same guidance and manuverability and firepower of a single fighter, in effect, makes it EXTREMELY more expensive then just putting a human in a plane (jet, spaceship, what-have-you).  If it were practical (monetarily wise) to do so, then we WOULD in effect replace all known fighters with missiles.  The closest we have gotten to that in real life is unmanned drones, but we still expect the drones to return, because we simply do not have to the resources to send such an expensive piece of equipment on a one-way kamikaze trip.  The drones, in essence, are unmanned fighters.

The same could probably be said for the future.  To put the same capabilities on a missile of equal firepower is probably just more expensive then sending a fighter to drop a payload of weapons, and then return with the bulk of his expenses (his ship) in tact.