262 réponses à ce sujet

[G3rman]

Not to mention amazingly illegal.

[Matt251287]

I can't see Normadies replacing Cruisers simply because, as people have already mentionned, the Normandy is specialist, like a Nuclear Submarine, so much more deadly in many ways but unlikely to replace the surface fleet.

but if the Thanix Cannon can replace Mass-Accellerator cannons as the main capital armament....

I CAN see it fitted to normal frigates, which would chage the game cosiderably.

And i CAN see it rendering MA Cannons which are literaly the spine of all warships i the ME universe obsolete.

And quite frankly i'm abit worried about the reprocussions, it all depeds on the speed of the Thannix beam (remember it's not light!). Mass Accelerators are best described as Spacial Artillery, at 1.3% of lightspeed you can hit aythig you can detect so long as it is bellow a critical distance where the target can dodge, would Thaix have that kind of range?

Modifié par Matt251287, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:55 .

[G3rman]

Don't worry your head about it too much..the Alliance ships are the same as in ME1.

[Matt251287]

G3rman wrote...

Don't worry your head about it too much..the Alliance ships are the same as in ME1.

I expected as much and that's fine, it's just i can't ignore these irregularities and i hate to see an amazing Sci-Fi universe like ME contradict itself because of some careless writing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dewart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dewart wrote...

rear admiral Mikhailovich yep thats the one. he states that the normandy is overdesigned and then says "do you realize we could have had a heavy cruiser..." after his inspection and he gets into talking about the drive core he says they could have had 12000 fighters for the cost of it. you probably combined the two seperate things together.

I think someone added an extra 0 or two by mistake.

12000 fighters?????? That is redicolous.

Just look at the costs of a fighter and a carrier adn comapre. That makes no sense.....

I posted proof earlier in this thread and I guess I will do it again

Dewart wrote...

nope actually 1 original normandy = 1 heavy cruiser

1 normandy drive core = 12 000 fighters

here is proof

I know what is said in the game, I'msaying it's BS. Soemonebody wasn't paying attention when they wrote that.
Are fighter made of tissue paper?

Do you realise how much 12000 fighters is? That's more than the enitre US air fleet....now with at least a few million price tag per fighter....

12000 fighters should be redolously expensive.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...
There's no evidence about what the Thanix can do against a Reaper.

Even so, I really doubt it's going to be enough to destroy a Reaper in one shot.

Defiantely won't be.

Tahnix is said to give Normandy 2 the firepower of a cruiser. And Sovy tanked cruiser shots with ease.

[Aimi]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I know what is said in the game, I'msaying it's BS. Soemonebody wasn't paying attention when they wrote that.
Are fighter made of tissue paper?

Do you realise how much 12000 fighters is? That's more than the enitre US air fleet....now with at least a few million price tag per fighter....

12000 fighters should be redolously expensive.

It's not pure cost, it's about the amount of eezo needed. Fighters obviously don't need a whole lot of eezo - they don't tend to go into FTL and are designed for fairly limited roles. By comparison, the Normandy's eezo core has to both provide power for everything a frigate normally does plus the ridiculously power-intensive "stealthing" heat sinks.

I'm sure that twelve thousand fighters' total manufacturing cost, taking hull and armament into account, would be way past that of the Normandy. But that's not what Mikhailovich was talking about.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I know what is said in the game, I'msaying it's BS. Soemonebody wasn't paying attention when they wrote that.
Are fighter made of tissue paper?

Do you realise how much 12000 fighters is? That's more than the enitre US air fleet....now with at least a few million price tag per fighter....

12000 fighters should be redolously expensive.

Well, if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that he was talking about the price for only those fighters' cores and not the fighters themselves.

Which doesn't seem that implausible, considering that each fighter is about a big as a car and the core probably is smaller than a beer keg, since they have to fit other things in that fighter as well, like fuel, munition and such.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:07 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

[G3rman]

Nobody said they would build 12,000 fighters with it. It's merely saying they could have built them..

[CroGamer002]

Plus, humanity is over a century in spaceflight.

I think they could have made 12,000 fighters.

It is entire humanity, not just 1 country.

[CroGamer002]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

Unless those fighters can't can't do much damage on shields that big ships use.


Also, those fighters can't go stealthy nor transport troops, weapons, equipments or some other important stuff.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT YOU CAN BUILD 12 000 FIGHTERS. THEY'RE SAYING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN GIVE ELEMENT ZERO CORES TO 12 000 FIGHTERS.

[Aimi]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

Since fighters are short-range vehicles, you'd also need to have enough capital ships to carry 12,000 fighters to have any hope of actually making them useful. It's not just "oh hey let's take this eezo and burn it on THIS purpose". So the actual number of fighters produced would probably be significantly lower.

And honestly, after two games of watching what a Spectre equipped with a stealth-capable frigate can do to geth, Collectors, Reapers, and a rogue's gallery of other opponents, can you honestly say that the Normandy was a waste with a straight face?

[CroGamer002]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If
you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the
Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of
firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

NOBODY
IS SAYING THAT YOU CAN BUILD 12 000 FIGHTERS. THEY'RE SAYING THAT
AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN GIVE ELEMENT ZERO CORES TO 12 000 FIGHTERS.

I did said that.


But after that post.

Modifié par Mesina2, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:19 .

[Dewart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

the rear Admiral was just making a comparison for the pricetag of the eezo core. it's not like the alliance had that many planned to be built and then scrapped that idea when they came up with the Normandy.

Modifié par Dewart, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:23 .

[Dewart]

so to actually clarify he is actually saying that:

1 normandy eezo core = 12 000 fighter drive cores

That actually makes it a bit better but I still suspect the drive core of each fighter is likely the most expensive part.

Modifié par Dewart, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

G3rman wrote...

Nobody said they would build 12,000 fighters with it. It's merely saying they could have built them..

Doesn't matter. Don't you get it?

Comapre the effectiveness of a fighter and it's price and then Normandy.
12000 fighters will outperform an entire fleet of Normandies. The numbers make investing in the Normandy redicolous



For reffernece - a Nimitz carrier costs 4,5 billion. It can carry around 90 aircraft
The cost of a fighter per unit ranges from 30-60 million (with some like B2 costing a billion$ )
So 90 aircraft cost 2,7-3,6 billion (or more) Notice the ratio.

For the price of 12000 fighters you can build 120 carriers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT YOU CAN BUILD 12 000 FIGHTERS. THEY'RE SAYING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN GIVE ELEMENT ZERO CORES TO 12 000 FIGHTERS.

DOESN'T MATTER. THE NUMBERS MAKE INVESTING IN NORMADY STUPID.

Comprende?

[G3rman]

You realize the logistical cost to deploy those fighters, including the ships to contain and refuel/rearm them, not to mention how even combining their firepower would be like bug bites to larger vessels.

Normandy, as the others have said, was a very worthy investment. Without it you wouldn't have a very enjoyable Mass Effect, in fact, Mass Effect probably would not have been pulled off without it.

[Dewart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you can build 12000 fighters wiht that...then wasting it on the Normandy is a waste. 12 000 fighters....that's an insane amount of firepower right there.

No matter how you cut it, the 12000 figure it way too much.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT YOU CAN BUILD 12 000 FIGHTERS. THEY'RE SAYING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN GIVE ELEMENT ZERO CORES TO 12 000 FIGHTERS.

DOESN'T MATTER. THE NUMBERS MAKE INVESTING IN NORMADY STUPID.

Comprende?

So you would have rather flown around in a regular old Frigate? Personally I'm kind of glad they spent the cash on the normany the game would have been different otherwise.

[Aimi]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DOESN'T MATTER. THE NUMBERS MAKE INVESTING IN NORMADY STUPID.

Comprende?

Yeah, those idiots, why'd they throw money at the stealthed frigate that prevented galactic civilization from being destroyed by the Reapers? You could have put it down a rathole and it would've been better used

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DOESN'T MATTER. THE NUMBERS MAKE INVESTING IN NORMADY STUPID.

Comprende?

It does matter.

You're just hurting because you can't admit that you're horribly wrong.

Oh and governments are investing absurd amounts of money in technological advancements all the damn time. It's called being competitive.

[CroGamer002]

Besides, in real life today USA has the most expensive army in the world.

Even more then China, and they have biggest army in world.

And yet they still haven't end war with Iraq and Afghanistan, 3rd world countries.
And had quite big casualties.

That still ain't stopping them to be world super power and to still increase military budget.

[Dewart]

daqs wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DOESN'T MATTER. THE NUMBERS MAKE INVESTING IN NORMADY STUPID.

Comprende?

Yeah, those idiots, why'd they throw money at the stealthed frigate that prevented galactic civilization from being destroyed by the Reapers? You could have put it down a rathole and it would've been better used

Win. You didn't have to even hit your caps lock