529 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except it diodn't. Humans have a very powerfull military, but you forget that Sovereign was not alone. the Citadel fleet is big and powerfull, but the Geth are numerous.

Well, my ME1 game was about humanity being an underdog to the Council races, trying to prove their worth. If we go by the codex, Humanity has 6 dreadnoughts to the Asari  21, Salarian 16, and the Turian 37, so "powerful military" can't be in relation to the Citadel fleet. It's basically like expecting the French armed forces to defeat the alien invasion after the US, Russia and China got their asses kicked in concert.
I certainly didn't forget that Sovereign wasn't alone, since I know the reapers will win if Sovereign succeed and I know that they knew that, I expected the Geth ships to stay within support range of Sovereign, protecting it from any ships interfering with it. I never entertained the notion that you could bypass the Geth fleet entirely because it chose to engage in pointless attritional warfare with the Citadel forces, because thats like stupid.

That's just DN's. What about Carriers? Cruisers? Frigates?
Humans are said to have a farely powerfull military.

Also, it wasn't stupid. You forget, that one one anticipated the 5th Fleet. Sovereign was safe inside the Citadel. So what's the Geth fleet to do?

the DA or the council won't matter when the relay to dark space is opened.

The Council and the Citadel fleet don't know about it.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 décembre 2011 - 07:18 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Sovereign was exposed when Shepard opened the Citadel and the relays, a change in the battlefield that could only have been covered had the Reapers planned for it to occur at that specific time.[/quote]

Call it what you like, the Geth ships were deployed in such a way they couldn't assist Sovereign against the human attack, whatever it's likelyhood of such and attack, apparently in an attempt to decimate fleeing ships. It's not the plan I expected from a genius level demigod machine.[/quote]

No plan survives contact with the enemy.
You're expecting the reapers to have plans for unpredictable things? You expect the Geth to stay in place, even if it's a tacticly inferior position? The Geth couldn't ignore the citadel fleet.



[quote]
That's your interpretation, the game made a big deal about how powerful dreadnoughts are. "no sane captain would engage a dreadnought with anything except another dreadnought." and treaties limiting their numbers and so on, I took that as actually meaning something.[/quote]

Codex cleary stated that DN's are vulnerable in knife fights, as they cannot bring their main guns to bear.



[quote][/quote]
No friction in space. Mass Effect fleet warships do not turn on a dime. They do not do fast turns. Only fighters and SR-1 equivalents can. Momentum, inertia, and trajectories matter.[/quote]

And the notion that all momentum, inertia and trajectories renders all council ships unable to attack Sovereign around a space station 10th of kilometers long, is very convienent for you. [/quote]

That's realism for you.
It's very inconvenient for those who do not think things trough.

[Bleachrude]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
1. Please read the codex about high speed manoeuvring and heat management...It explicitly mentions that higher speed manoeuvring comes at the cost of HEAT buildup. Massive changes in acceleration will cause correspondingly higher heat buildups and actually limit your ability to actually battle (one of the nicer things about ME is that it really plays well with known physics and heat in space can kill you)

And engines generating heat is one of the reasons heat builds up during battle (not only weapons fire). So you're proving my point here.
What? You expect ships to stand stil land just shoot? No. Ships will manouver. Space combat is all amout manouvering and positioning.

You're forgetting WHY manoeuvering and positioning is done. To bring and evade weapon fire. As the codex itself mentions, the weaker broadside guns of a cruiser become effective at medium range. The slugs are moving fast enough that evasion is no longer a certainity....Closing the distance doesn't change this but actually increases the hit rate of guns since they will require less time for a slug to travel over the smaller distance as well as requiring less arc distance travelled for the gun itself meaning less time to evade for the poor bugger at the target.. 

What you seem to be assuming is that at close ranges that fighters et al are actually having a chance of seeing the slug once it leaves the gun and then dodging it...the codex is saying once it fires, you're pretty much screwed at close range...

2.  It doesnt make sense to be attempting high speed manoeuvers at such close ranges. The codex itself mentions that medium range is the range at which cruisers can bring broadsides to bear on one another - which means that the slugs are moving at such a high speed that the opposing cruiser will not have enough time to change direction/move out of the way (both combat computers cancel each other out). At closer ranges, this REMAINS true and indeed, shots shouldn't miss at all. 

Only at long range do you have enough time to move out of way of slugs being fired from the broadsides of cruisers meaning that the geth should have moved all the way out of range instead of closing in. Once they committed to that, it would have been cost-ineffective to open the range since that would have needed more acceleration which means more heat which means less time able to stay in combat...

No. Since cruiser and DN main guns are forward fixed. Which is why you want to be moving as fast as possible, so they can't align their ship towards yours.
So it's exactly the opposite - at close ranges speed and manouvering is the most important. Small ships like frigates are done for if they get hit by a main gun.

If you move more you'll be able to stay in combat for a shoter period - butifd you don't move, you won't be staying in combat at all.

??

The codex itself mentions that the broadsides of cruisers become viable at medium range..frigate sized ships are done for it they get slammed by the broadside of either DNs or cruisers...why would you be at knife-fight range be trying to use your fixed main gun when the guns on your broadside will mess up the opposing side's day?

[FLYING GRENADE11]

hmmmm
not if the means result in the innocence dieing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bleachrude wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
1. Please read the codex about high speed manoeuvring and heat management...It explicitly mentions that higher speed manoeuvring comes at the cost of HEAT buildup. Massive changes in acceleration will cause correspondingly higher heat buildups and actually limit your ability to actually battle (one of the nicer things about ME is that it really plays well with known physics and heat in space can kill you)

And engines generating heat is one of the reasons heat builds up during battle (not only weapons fire). So you're proving my point here.
What? You expect ships to stand stil land just shoot? No. Ships will manouver. Space combat is all amout manouvering and positioning.

You're forgetting WHY manoeuvering and positioning is done. To bring and evade weapon fire. As the codex itself mentions, the weaker broadside guns of a cruiser become effective at medium range. The slugs are moving fast enough that evasion is no longer a certainity....Closing the distance doesn't change this but actually increases the hit rate of guns since they will require less time for a slug to travel over the smaller distance as well as requiring less arc distance travelled for the gun itself meaning less time to evade for the poor bugger at the target.. 

What you seem to be assuming is that at close ranges that fighters et al are actually having a chance of seeing the slug once it leaves the gun and then dodging it...the codex is saying once it fires, you're pretty much screwed at close range...

What you seem to be assuming is that one observes the slug and attempts to dodge it.
No, you move so to make target lock difficult/impossible.

The codex said evasion is no longer a CERTANTY. It doesn't say evasion becomes meaningless.
Use your brain. Bigger ships are less manouverable. Due to their length and side, they turn slower. Which means ships like frigates can use their speed and manuverability to their advantage

I sugegst you quit making yourself look bad.

No. Since cruiser and DN main guns are forward fixed. Which is why you want to be moving as fast as possible, so they can't align their ship towards yours.
So it's exactly the opposite - at close ranges speed and manouvering is the most important. Small ships like frigates are done for if they get hit by a main gun.

If you move more you'll be able to stay in combat for a shoter period - butifd you don't move, you won't be staying in combat at all.

??

The codex itself mentions that the broadsides of cruisers become viable at medium range..frigate sized ships are done for it they get slammed by the broadside of either DNs or cruisers...why would you be at knife-fight range be trying to use your fixed main gun when the guns on your broadside will mess up the opposing side's day?

You assume broadsides are instant-hit weapons that cannot miss? Note that broadsids are also fixed weapons on DN's.

Again - think for a second. If frigates are done for if they enter knife-fight ranges, then why build frigates at all? (when tehy supposedly excell at knife-fight ranges)

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Lotion may have become the new leader of the "overly d*ckish rabidly Pro-Cerberus/Anti-anything else" movement.

I miss the good old days when the douchebags had a certain style to them *sighs* Carry on.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Shut your cheesehole Admiral Grumpypants.

I aint here to be nice and spread flowers and sunshine. I'm here to set facts straight. Regardless of the topic or side taken.

I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

So you despise Cerberus?

It seems I was wrong about you.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:32 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

To an extent. It depends on context: not all ends justify any means, not all means are equally valid, and so on.

Tis a complex subject, and I wholly agree on this.

Nothin' more needs to be said.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shut your cheesehole Admiral Grumpypants.

I aint here to be nice and spread flowers and sunshine. I'm here to set facts straight. Regardless of the topic or side taken.

I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

I second this.


I'm sick and tired of being called "Renegade player" and "Cerberus supporter" simply because I defend sacrificing the council and keeping the Collector base.


I'm a Paragon player, I mostly pick the Paragon options, but I can't deny that saving the Council (e.g. not focussing your full forces on Sovereign) is a dumb move and destroying the Collector base an even dumber move. Frankly those moves don't backfire on the Paragon players because BioWare made Paragon = "instant win and everybody is happy and everything is sunshine and rainbows".

You're not Paragon, you're Paragade. Just saying. Paragons don't sacrifice virtues so easily and are more on the diplomatic side than the tactics side.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

So you despise Cerberus?

It seems I was wrong about you.

Cerberus is mostly evil.
In normal circumstances I'd fight against it. But circumstances are far from normal in ME universe. Hence why they are a temporary necessary evil.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shut your cheesehole Admiral Grumpypants.

I aint here to be nice and spread flowers and sunshine. I'm here to set facts straight. Regardless of the topic or side taken.

I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

I second this.


I'm sick and tired of being called "Renegade player" and "Cerberus supporter" simply because I defend sacrificing the council and keeping the Collector base.


I'm a Paragon player, I mostly pick the Paragon options, but I can't deny that saving the Council (e.g. not focussing your full forces on Sovereign) is a dumb move and destroying the Collector base an even dumber move. Frankly those moves don't backfire on the Paragon players because BioWare made Paragon = "instant win and everybody is happy and everything is sunshine and rainbows".

You're not Paragon, you're Paragade. Just saying. Paragons don't sacrifice virtues so easily and are more on the diplomatic side than the tactics side.

What virtues you talking about here? Common sense? Casue that seem to be the onyl virtue Paragons readily sacrifice in those situation.

tactics > diplomacy.

Also, do you consider a Paragon only someone who is 100% paragon and never - NEVER - uses any renegade interrupt or conversaton option?

[Swampthing500]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shut your cheesehole Admiral Grumpypants.

I aint here to be nice and spread flowers and sunshine. I'm here to set facts straight. Regardless of the topic or side taken.

I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

I second this.


I'm sick and tired of being called "Renegade player" and "Cerberus supporter" simply because I defend sacrificing the council and keeping the Collector base.


I'm a Paragon player, I mostly pick the Paragon options, but I can't deny that saving the Council (e.g. not focussing your full forces on Sovereign) is a dumb move and destroying the Collector base an even dumber move. Frankly those moves don't backfire on the Paragon players because BioWare made Paragon = "instant win and everybody is happy and everything is sunshine and rainbows".

I think saving the Council was the smartest move since uncontested, unified and coherent leadership of galactic government would be a huge asset in co-ordinating defences and fighting against the Reapers.

It would also boost the standing of Humanity, especially amongst the Turians, for showing that Humanity is capable of putting the welfare of other races/organizations ahead of their own interests.

I did preserve the Collector base as well because I though it would give us valuable insight into Reaper technology and perhaps how to beat them.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shut your cheesehole Admiral Grumpypants.

I aint here to be nice and spread flowers and sunshine. I'm here to set facts straight. Regardless of the topic or side taken.

I ain't Pro-Cerberus. I'm anti-moron.

I second this.


I'm sick and tired of being called "Renegade player" and "Cerberus supporter" simply because I defend sacrificing the council and keeping the Collector base.


I'm a Paragon player, I mostly pick the Paragon options, but I can't deny that saving the Council (e.g. not focussing your full forces on Sovereign) is a dumb move and destroying the Collector base an even dumber move. Frankly those moves don't backfire on the Paragon players because BioWare made Paragon = "instant win and everybody is happy and everything is sunshine and rainbows".

You're not Paragon, you're Paragade. Just saying. Paragons don't sacrifice virtues so easily and are more on the diplomatic side than the tactics side.

What virtues you talking about here? Common sense? Casue that seem to be the onyl virtue Paragons readily sacrifice in those situation.

tactics > diplomacy.

Also, do you consider a Paragon only someone who is 100% paragon and never - NEVER - uses any renegade interrupt or conversaton option?

Paragade is someone who makes renegade and paragon choices, but MOSTLY paragon choices. As Renegons are those who mostly make renegade choices. A paragon wouldn't make renegade choices in the two biggest of the series so far. Giving the base to Cerberus and letting the Council die clearly disqualifies you for being Paragon.

Tactics are not always more important that diplomacy. It is a question of weighting your options. If the tactical loss is acceptable and the diplomatic gain is much greater than anything done in the last centuries then you should go for it. Like for example finally being accepted in the Council as one of the species who put specism aside to work for the common good. Saving the DA is a symbol, more powerful than anything else. A symbol for humanity being ready to sacrifice their own for something greater than humanity alone. For galactic peace and understanding between it's people. Letting the DA go down is a symbol for humanity trying to grap the power, for human ruthlessness. It will ultimately serve to raise suspicions against humanity that were already there and strengthen all anti-human movements. Saving the DA is a necessary sacrifice for the better of humanity and the galaxy in general.

It is the same metaphor of the two bulls and the herd of cows. You can rush down and get one, or you can walk down slowly and **** them all. So even if you are a pro-human activist it would on a political scale be smarter to make this sacrifice to at least let the aliens believe that you respect them. The renegade path is nothing but a 'head through the wall' decision which doesn't serve anyone aside from anti-human populism.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Swampthing500 wrote...
I think saving the Council was the smartest move since uncontested, unified and coherent leadership of galactic government would be a huge asset in co-ordinating defences and fighting against the Reapers.

Had Sovereign suceeded, all of that would be irrelevant.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
Paragade is someone who makes renegade and paragon choices, but MOSTLY paragon choices. As Renegons are those who mostly make renegade choices. A paragon wouldn't make renegade choices in the two biggest of the series so far. Giving the base to Cerberus and letting the Council die clearly disqualifies you for being Paragon.

Your definition is duly noted and rejected.

Tactics are not always more important that diplomacy. It is a question of weighting your options. If the tactical loss is acceptable and the diplomatic gain is much greater than anything done in the last centuries then you should go for it. Like for example finally being accepted in the Council as one of the species who put specism aside to work for the common good. Saving the DA is a symbol, more powerful than anything else. A symbol for humanity being ready to sacrifice their own for something greater than humanity alone. For galactic peace and understanding between it's people. Letting the DA go down is a symbol for humanity trying to grap the power, for human ruthlessness. It will ultimately serve to raise suspicions against humanity that were already there and strengthen all anti-human movements. Saving the DA is a necessary sacrifice for the better of humanity and the galaxy in general.

Tactical loss is not acceptable. Especailly in this case. Failing to stop Sovereign = Armageddon. What other races think of humanity is irrelevant at that point.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Swampthing500]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...
I think saving the Council was the smartest move since uncontested, unified and coherent leadership of galactic government would be a huge asset in co-ordinating defences and fighting against the Reapers.

Had Sovereign suceeded, all of that would be irrelevant.

Good thing I killed Saren before he could transfer control. The destruction of the Geth ships achieved when saving the Council also allowed the Alliance to attack Sovereign without worried about being outflanked.

[ddv.rsa]

AlexXIV wrote...
...A symbol for humanity being ready to sacrifice their own for something greater than humanity alone. For galactic peace and understanding between it's people. Letting the DA go down is a symbol for humanity trying to grap the power, for human ruthlessness. It will ultimately serve to raise suspicions against humanity that were already there and strengthen all anti-human movements. Saving the DA is a necessary sacrifice for the better of humanity and the galaxy in general...

But should there be anything more important than "humanity alone" for a human military officer?

That same logic would see Earth sacrificed if it was the least costly way to beat the Reapers.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...
I think saving the Council was the smartest move since uncontested, unified and coherent leadership of galactic government would be a huge asset in co-ordinating defences and fighting against the Reapers.

Had Sovereign suceeded, all of that would be irrelevant.

If at this point sovereign succeeding would have been the scale I'd agree. But it wasn't Shepard had already defeated Saren, Sovereigns plan started failing. Sovereign didn't want the citadel wings closed for no reason. He wanted it because he knew he couldn't survive the attacks from the fleet forever. So closing the citadel and shutting out the enemies was crucial. When that failed as Shepard managed to stop Saren, Sovereign probably already knew things don't go well for him. Why else would he divert energy to fight Shepard instead of for example fighting the Alliance fleet? He wanted to at least kill Shepard before he goes down. That way he had maybe a chance to still open the relay for the Reaper fleet. If he could have taken on the Alliance fleet he could actually have destroyed them first and then taken the Citadel.

The plan was a suprise attack, rushing to the citadel and closing it because this was the only way for Sovereign to win. Sovereign's plan failed step by step. By Shep getting to Ilos, by Shep getting through the citadel relay, by Shep stopping Saren to open the Citadel. It was the end of a desperate battle from Sovereign's point of view. So at this point there wasn't a question that Sovereign would lose. The question was how much damage he could do before he can go down. So it is valid to say that saving the DA was probably a sacrifice. But it was not unnecessary or foolish. It may gain you more than centuries of politicians trying to talk their way into the place Shepard can bring them in the blink of an eye, with one decision. And the key to beating the reapers has always been galactic unity. Logically only the Reapers profit from different species leading petty wars instead of preparing for them.

[AlexXIV]

ddv.rsa wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
...A symbol for humanity being ready to sacrifice their own for something greater than humanity alone. For galactic peace and understanding between it's people. Letting the DA go down is a symbol for humanity trying to grap the power, for human ruthlessness. It will ultimately serve to raise suspicions against humanity that were already there and strengthen all anti-human movements. Saving the DA is a necessary sacrifice for the better of humanity and the galaxy in general...

But should there be anything more important than "humanity alone" for a human military officer?

That same logic would see Earth sacrificed if it was the least costly way to beat the Reapers.

Should there be anything more imporant for a soldier than his own country alone? Like the UN, NATO, etc? Ask yourself that, which country in the world can stand all on it's own? Even without a threat of galactic scale looming.

If sacrificing earth is the least costly thing to do to stop the Reapers then that's what I am going to do.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 27 décembre 2011 - 11:02 .

[ddv.rsa]

AlexXIV wrote...

Should there be anything more imporant for a soldier than his own country alone? Like the UN, NATO, etc? Ask yourself that, which country in the world can stand all on it's own? Even without a threat of galactic scale looming.

If sacrificing earth is the least costly thing to do to stop the Reapers then that's what I am going to do.

But we aren't talking about standing alone. We're talking about popularity. Even if Shepard lets the Council die, the aliens would be stupid not to cooperate with humanity against a much greater common threat. It would be a neccessity, not a matter of how much they like humanity. I'll bet you money that even the most hardcore renegade will be able to find Turian allies.

Just like the Soviet Union allied with the West in WW2, or like the old powers of Europe united against Napoleon, so the galaxy will unite against the Reapers. Saving the Council will only affect what happens afterward: do we all be friends or or do we start killing eachother?

[ddv.rsa]

AlexXIV wrote...

If sacrificing earth is the least costly thing to do to stop the Reapers then that's what I am going to do.

In that case it's really odd that

1) Your Shepard is a soldier to begin with and
2) That they were ever selected as officers.

I can't speak for anywhere else but in my country the military and national police are known for being fiercley patriotic.

[AlexXIV]

ddv.rsa wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Should there be anything more imporant for a soldier than his own country alone? Like the UN, NATO, etc? Ask yourself that, which country in the world can stand all on it's own? Even without a threat of galactic scale looming.

If sacrificing earth is the least costly thing to do to stop the Reapers then that's what I am going to do.

But we aren't talking about standing alone. We're talking about popularity. Even if Shepard lets the Council die, the aliens would be stupid not to cooperate with humanity against a much greater common threat. It would be a neccessity, not a matter of how much they like humanity. I'll bet you money that even the most hardcore renegade will be able to find Turian allies.

Just like the Soviet Union allied with the West in WW2, or like the old powers of Europe united against Napoleon, so the galaxy will unite against the Reapers. Saving the Council will only affect what happens afterward: do we all be friends or or do we start killing eachother?

Ah right, WW2 again. FYI Germany never had a chance to win the war. That's what makes them different to Reapers. So loyality is the more important the stronger the enemy. Would your allies also be ready to sacrfice their own species to save humans? Would they like Loghain in DA:O pull back to save their own forces and leave you alone? Would some single soldiers desert because they figure they can save their life as long as other idiots die for them? May seem to be small things, but they add up and can make or break any army or alliance. Troop morale and loyality has always been imporant in wars. That's why you need a great leader the soldiers trust and follow. Otherwise they will try save their own sorry asses first, or at least not be willing to sacrifice their lifes for a tactical advantage. If Shepard wants to LEAD the galaxy to war against the Reapers he better make sure as many as possible are willing to sacrifice for him. And to achive that you may have to prove first that you are also willing to sacrifice for them as well. Because that's the logic of giving and taking. Applies to every relationship, even between nations and species.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 27 décembre 2011 - 11:38 .

[AlexXIV]

ddv.rsa wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

If sacrificing earth is the least costly thing to do to stop the Reapers then that's what I am going to do.

In that case it's really odd that

1) Your Shepard is a soldier to begin with and
2) That they were ever selected as officers.

I can't speak for anywhere else but in my country the military and national police are known for being fiercley patriotic.

Being a patriot is not the same as being a nationalist. What is the best for your country may not be what seems to be the best in short range. Also I think you have a wrong picture of the military and police in your country. Unless you live in a dictatorship of some sort.

My Shepard is a Council Spectre. And it is not odd because I was a soldier in my own country and it never required me to be a shortsighted meathead.