262 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuujinZERO]

Wulfram wrote...

All those problems would equally apply to the standard heat based detection, no?

Heat and light is the same thing =p

[Wulfram]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Heat and light is the same thing =p

Exactly.  So you're having to deal with light lag whether you're dealing with a stealthy Normandy or an ordinary warship, there's no particular advantage in that regard.

Modifié par Wulfram, 27 janvier 2012 - 03:08 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Wulfram wrote...

Exactly.  So you're having to deal with light lag whether you're dealing with a stealthy Normandy or an ordinary warship, there's no particular advantage in that regard.

Heat stands out like a sore thumb in space. The normandy can hide that. So while a regular warship can be followed despite lightspeed lag the Normandy can't.
Camera's only work for when the distance is small, since a reflective surface on a camera could just as well be a sattelite (artifcial or not).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Exactly.  So you're having to deal with light lag whether you're dealing with a stealthy Normandy or an ordinary warship, there's no particular advantage in that regard.

Heat stands out like a sore thumb in space. The normandy can hide that. So while a regular warship can be followed despite lightspeed lag the Normandy can't.
Camera's only work for when the distance is small, since a reflective surface on a camera could just as well be a sattelite (artifcial or not).

There's a whole range of detection methods and Normandy really can't hide at clsoe range. If anything else, the thrusters would give it away.

[Aimi]

ParagonForLife wrote...

no you misread its 5:3:1 Turians 5 Asari 3 Humans 1 so for every 5 the turians build we can build 5 so 39/5=7.8 so humanity can only have 8 dreadnoughts 

No. It's 5:3:1, yes, but that's turians:other Council members:associate Citadel states. The Alliance is a Council member after the events of ME1, and therefore has the ability to build over twenty dreadnoughts.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How do you know the firepower of the fighter?
If shep cna carry a Cain, when can a fighter mount?

you know that single fighter today can take out a carrier, right? Firepower is becoming more and more compact with time.

Because anything a fighter can carry a bigger ship can carry more of.

All you needed to know about the spacefighters and why they don't work.

Any manned fighter is better turned into a probe.

Actually, a missile Bus.

I nkow all about fighters and space and how tehy relaisticly dont' work.

But since in ME2 they do - we have to go with that.


The point is, with firepower becoming compact, smaller ships can do more and more damage, for only a fraction of a cost.

As I said - a single F-18 could destroy an aircraft carrier. Of course, ME ships have barriers, but still - fighters are apparenlty very effective.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wulfram wrote...

muse108 wrote...

Except in combat windows are a structural weakness and therefore most military ships WILL NOT HAVE THEM. And rely on radar/emmision detectors. Possibly cameras but I'm not sure how viable they actually are. Hence you really dont even have to paint the ship black. In combat even close up the normandy would be fairly invisible .

2 years ago, maybe.  People wouldn't be expecting you.  Nowadays the fame of the Normandy should pretty much guarantee that any navy worth it's salt has developed methods for detecting it with visual scans.  With cameras and computer assistance it would be fairly easy, I'd have thought.

With a powerfull computer today and off-the-shelf quipment, you can do a full spherical sky survey in 4 minutes.
It's damn near impossible to hide in space even at long range.

Up close? No way.

[Poison_Berrie]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There's a whole range of detection methods and Normandy really can't hide at clsoe range. If anything else, the thrusters would give it away.

True, but you don't want to be that close in the first place.
Also during stealth operations all directional thrust would likely come from their reactionless Mass Effect drive.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The point is, with firepower becoming compact, smaller ships can do more and more damage, for only a fraction of a cost.

As I said - a single F-18 could destroy an aircraft carrier. Of course, ME ships have barriers, but still - fighters are apparenlty very effective.

As overwhelming missile platforms they can be quite effective against shields. I still wonder about their cost effectiveness if they are manned.
As anything else their heat management is going to be a serious hurdle. 

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 27 janvier 2012 - 11:18 .

[dbozbrown]

First off: If you played any RTS, or any strategy game, you know that if you know the enemy in advance, you can tailor your force to defeat it. Its been 2.5 years since evidence of the reapers even surfaced (None the less, only 6 months until the threat is declared real). To think that the alliance could even build a significant amount of stealth class frigates is silly. Building any space craft in 6 months in preparation for a war is pushing it, big time. Also, we can expect reaper AI to be way more fast and complex than geth AI(Who are able to communicate at light speed). I expect close range to matter little when it comes to a reapers close range defenses(Which we can assume they have). And the normandy was destroyed from 1 direct hit from a collector cruiser, I assume a reapers "close range defense" would pack a similar punch, destroying, or crippling a light frigate like the normandy in 1 glancing hit.

As much as a commando strike team of space ships turns me on, its unrealistic considering the power, and surprise of the reaper onslaught. Sure, a squadron of Normandy's would likley cripple a single reaper, the others in the formation (And their fighters and destroyers) would lock in, and the advanced AI would be able to hit, and cripple the entire squadron at close range. If you recall correctly, it took and entire fleet to kill sovereign. Notice it took a fleet to kill one of their ships WITHOUT support (Assuming you choose to not save the ascension. It took a fleet to kill 1, its logical it will take atleast 1 fleet to kill 2, and it seems like the alliance easily has a dozen of these monsters to deal with. A couple stealth ships who loose their bite after their first bark would not go nearly as far as the same amount of cruisers that can absorb many times the damage as the normandy. This is a War of attrition, I wouldnt throw away rescorces on a fleet of pricey to manufacturer, flimsy, and pricey to maintain semi-stealth ship over a Sturdy, repairable, reliable, and proven capital ship or carrier.

Remember, the Normandy is a prototype. It was developed in hope that its technology would cheaply be standard in alliance ships in the long run. It was NOT developed to engaged multiple dreadnoughts and their support without proper support from a Well equipped AND well armored alliance navy to absorb hits and attention. The Normandy (Or a small team of them) wouldn't have been able to destroy Sovereign without the support of the alliance cruisers (Which are targeted first because of their increased potential for firepower). Period. Think about it, a COLLECTOR CRUISER not only picked up normandy on its scanners, but destroyed it in a couple shots, and about 5-10 mins. I think its safe to conclude 1 REAPER DREADNOUGHT (WIth advanced AI and weapons that were previously thought to be impossible) would take out 3 or more unsupported nomandy's in a similar amount of time. Lets not even discuss multiple reapers with supporting destroyers/fighters.

Granted, a supported fleet of Normandy's would be an ideal weapon, but this was a surprise attack by a terrifyingly overwhelming force, and the Alliance fleet will likely be crippled as command centers, docks, and defensive ships were whipped out before the alliance even knew it.

The reapers are a huge threat to any and all sentient life (duh), and the fact that the alliance have not acknowledged their existence until the events of Mass Effect 2 conclude (6 months before invasion of earth), a squad of Normandies is not only impractical, but impossible.

[dbozbrown]

At the cost of building 5 normandy's for their "Stealth squadron", the alliance could potentially build and maintain 12,000 fighters and the carriers to transport them. In a war of attrition, only a fool would take the 5 normandy's, Granted, a Normandy for Shepard is useful, and has proved useful thoughout the game( But Hes essentially a diplomat/top secret commando moving through hostile territory in Mass Effect 3), but for a front line ship, the idea is laughable.

Id compare the idea to having paratroopers(For the allies) be your main weapon in WW2.  They required alot of rescorces to train maintain, and deploy.  Sure they were good.  Sure they could  appear where the enemy doesnt expect them.  But unless there is a stronger force posing a more immediate threat (The Allied beach assault) the paratroppers would become outgunned and useless in no time.

In this anology, the Normandy's would be the paratroopers, and they would get overpowered and outgunned very soon after their first strike if there is not a threatening Navy absorbing most of the weapons and most of the processing power of the reapers.  
Sure the Normandy can go FTL speed and ditch the combat, (Possibley unscathed, and possibley crippled), but that basically dooms whatever colony/EARTH they were defending.  Considering the reapers are on the offensive (Presumabley all game), an expensive Stealth Frigate losses all tactical appeal.  An almost inexacustable amount of fighters(Or a handful of durable cruisers) on the otherhand, remains flexable no matter what the mission is.  Against the reapers, Stealth Frigates cant alpha strike a stronghold like any stealth unit is designed for, as the reapers ARE the strongholds, and its very logical that the Normandy wont even be stealth to their scanners.  The stealth class cruisers can only be a nuisence, AT BEST in a war of attrition vs the reapers.  They still need a large and powerful fleet to screen them to be remotley effective.

Correct me if im wrong, couldnt a cruiser preform the same hit and run tactics as the Normandy?  They FTL travel in, do their damage, and FTL out.  In combat and FTL travel, a Normandy type Frigate has no stealth systems engadged anyway.  All in all, cruisers/carriers are way more flexable and resistant to heavy losses, and more able to fight a war of attrition.  The normandy only has 1 role it can fill, and this role exposes a vulnerable, if not, PRIORITY ship to heavy enemy fire, hardly a good plan for a WAR OF ATTRITION.  Silly for any Admiral to risk a ship as costly and flimsy as a Stealth Frigate on such an all or nothing attack. 

Modifié par dbozbrown, 27 janvier 2012 - 12:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

daqs wrote...

ParagonForLife wrote...

no you misread its 5:3:1 Turians 5 Asari 3 Humans 1 so for every 5 the turians build we can build 5 so 39/5=7.8 so humanity can only have 8 dreadnoughts 

No. It's 5:3:1, yes, but that's turians:other Council members:associate Citadel states. The Alliance is a Council member after the events of ME1, and therefore has the ability to build over twenty dreadnoughts.

Quibling: right, not ability. But, more relevantly, is there time to do so? Mass Effect plays merry hell with logistics or sensible time frames of construction.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
If anything else, the thrusters would give it away.

Actually, the Normandy doesn't use thrusters when stealthed

Also contributing to stealth is the Normandy's revolutionary Tantalus
drive, a mass effect core double the standard size. The Tantalus
generates mass concentrations that the Normandy "falls into" allowing it
to move without the use of heat-emitting thrusters.

[incinerator950]

The problem with the Stealth system is the heat buildup. As well as maintaining it, if the Normandy is moving, it can stay in Stealth for a few hours. If it coasts its speed without generating anything, it can maintain the stealth module for a few days.

I'm amazed people still haven't picked up how ME 1 ended. The Alliance Fleet destroyed Sovereign, only because Shepard knocked Sovereign's consciousness out from destroying the Saren Husk.

[Aimi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Quibling: right, not ability. But, more relevantly, is there time to do so? Mass Effect plays merry hell with logistics or sensible time frames of construction.

My original point - lost in the mists of the thread - is that the Alliance hasn't even managed to build up to their number of dreadnoughts, and so can hardly be expected to have a massive number of carriers just sitting around. The person I was arguing with seemed to have it in his head that the Alliance was stuck at the number of dreadnoughts it actually had, and was forced to find an alternative outlet for naval construction. He presumed that because of this, the Alliance must have access to a large carrier force.

[incinerator950]

daqs wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Quibling: right, not ability. But, more relevantly, is there time to do so? Mass Effect plays merry hell with logistics or sensible time frames of construction.

My original point - lost in the mists of the thread - is that the Alliance hasn't even managed to build up to their number of dreadnoughts, and so can hardly be expected to have a massive number of carriers just sitting around. The person I was arguing with seemed to have it in his head that the Alliance was stuck at the number of dreadnoughts it actually had, and was forced to find an alternative outlet for naval construction. He presumed that because of this, the Alliance must have access to a large carrier force.

I've only heard of one Carrier in ME 1.  That said, they've always mentioned plural.  

[GnusmasTHX]

No. Bigger ships are cooler, so they won't be replaced.

[Wulfram]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No it's not. It's absolutely filled with crap. Meteorites, comets, asteroids, debris, dust, and other things.

Given the size of space, those things still leave it basically empty.

Plus, all those things follow basic easily predicted orbits, so you can discount them easily enough.  And if you're really in doubt, you can just shoot the thing.  If it dodges, it's not a rock.

[Wulfram]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, not if you are say in orbit around a planet watching for a Normandy and you have thousands upon thousands of objects to track and only one of them is the Normandy.

Why would you be in orbit?  Planets just get in the way.

Objects which follow simple newtonian courses and thus can easily be discounted.

[incinerator950]

Wulfram wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, not if you are say in orbit around a planet watching for a Normandy and you have thousands upon thousands of objects to track and only one of them is the Normandy.

Why would you be in orbit?  Planets just get in the way.

Objects which follow simple newtonian courses and thus can easily be discounted.

Are you daft?  Besides Relays and the occasional Space Station, Planets are vital assets.  You have to take into account Assault and Defense of Planetary assets.  

[hawkens982]

When I read the OP, it seems to me hes asking something akin to why not replace the Marines with Navy Seals or Delta Force since they are clearly better. Different assets have different roles.

[Wulfram]

incinerator950 wrote...

Are you daft?  Besides Relays and the occasional Space Station, Planets are vital assets.  You have to take into account Assault and Defense of Planetary assets.  

They're vital assets which you can best defend by intercepting the enemy well away from them, not by sitting in orbit like a numpty and reducing your chances of doing that.