262 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I'm just going to pretend that it was either bad writing or a typo. Or that the rear admiral was exaggerating.

[Juha81FIN]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Not just being competitive, with new models and prototypes they can bring more technologies that could be used in exicisting products not only in military.

[AlexXIV]

Juha81FIN wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Not just being competitive, with new models and prototypes they can bring more technologies that could be used in exicisting products not only in military.

They also pointed out it was a turian-human co-production so probably a sort of promotional project that was supposed to improve human-turian relations. Which doesn't explain why TIM would rebuild and improve it then if it is so inefficient regarding cost/gain relation. But then again he rebuilt Shep too at the cost of an entire army.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 janvier 2012 - 11:25 .

[Someone With Mass]

It's not like the Tantalus drive core might cost more than other cores of its size or a number of cores equivalent to it because it's a experimental prototype or anything.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 26 janvier 2012 - 11:27 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

And that point is moot, because we don't know the cost of spacecrafts in Mass Effect, which I'd imagine has changed over the years, since they were able to construct thousands of ships in less than half a century.

Not to mention that the economy might have improved when they discovered other planets to colonize, establish new facilities on and to mine minerals that could have been extremely rare on Earth, like several members of the platinum family.

[Dewart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Yeah dude trying to make comparisons to ships/fighters we use today to fictional ships/fighters 200 years into the future is well... not very bright.
This actually hurts your debate in my opinion.

[JipoPanda]

AlexXIV wrote...

Juha81FIN wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Not just being competitive, with new models and prototypes they can bring more technologies that could be used in exicisting products not only in military.

They also pointed out it was a turian-human co-production so probably a sort of promotional project that was supposed to improve human-turian relations. Which doesn't explain why TIM would rebuild and improve it then if it is so inefficient regarding cost/gain relation. But then again he rebuilt Shep too at the cost of an entire army.

If I'm not mistaken the whole reason for brining Shepard back apart from him being a bad ass, was that he was an idea, a symbol of humanity. The Normandy was his first ship, and it became famous with shepard(proof being you can buy the model of it in the citidel) So TIM would have rebuilt it to renforce the Shepard Symbol, probably. 

[Wulfram]

Not much point in building a shed load of fighters if you don't have the carriers to support them.

[Adragalus]

 Honestly, it might be more effective, depending on the situation.

From what I understand about the Thanix cannon and the combat tactics of frigates vs. the combat tactics of cruisers, the Normandy's small size and heavily upgraded firepower might be a huge benefit. It can get in to knife-fight range, outmaneuvering the Reaper, and bring a cruiser's firepower to bear. This would allow it to overcome the main weakness of heavy-capships: issues at close range.

I suppose it also depends on how much armor factors into the equation. If the Reapers are only using their version of the Thanix, as seen at the end of ME1, then armor seems to be pretty much irrelevant (completely destroying at least a cruiser in one shot) and the Normandy's agility would make it far superior.

[Adragalus]

Wulfram wrote...

Not much point in building a shed load of fighters if you don't have the carriers to support them.

Not much point in building a frakton of carriers if you don't have the fighters to make them purposeful, either. 

[Someone With Mass]

Adragalus wrote...

 Honestly, it might be more effective, depending on the situation.

From what I understand about the Thanix cannon and the combat tactics of frigates vs. the combat tactics of cruisers, the Normandy's small size and heavily upgraded firepower might be a huge benefit. It can get in to knife-fight range, outmaneuvering the Reaper, and bring a cruiser's firepower to bear. This would allow it to overcome the main weakness of heavy-capships: issues at close range.

I suppose it also depends on how much armor factors into the equation. If the Reapers are only using their version of the Thanix, as seen at the end of ME1, then armor seems to be pretty much irrelevant (completely destroying at least a cruiser in one shot) and the Normandy's agility would make it far superior.

The Reapers have their swarms of Oculi and Reaper destroyers, though.

[Dewart]

Adragalus wrote...

 Honestly, it might be more effective, depending on the situation.

From what I understand about the Thanix cannon and the combat tactics of frigates vs. the combat tactics of cruisers, the Normandy's small size and heavily upgraded firepower might be a huge benefit. It can get in to knife-fight range, outmaneuvering the Reaper, and bring a cruiser's firepower to bear. This would allow it to overcome the main weakness of heavy-capships: issues at close range.

I suppose it also depends on how much armor factors into the equation. If the Reapers are only using their version of the Thanix, as seen at the end of ME1, then armor seems to be pretty much irrelevant (completely destroying at least a cruiser in one shot) and the Normandy's agility would make it far superior.

That's what I'm saying... prepare for the backlash.

[Gabey5]

The normandy is only good for stealth, thus a full fleet of them would be useless.

Eventually you will be seen and you need ships that can take a beating

[Poison_Berrie]

They each have different purposes.

Frigates have are maneuverable and fast. They however are smaller, thus their cannons have less destructive energy and they are less redundant. Not a lot of compartments that can be damaged without causing crippling damage.

Cruisers are a fleets tanks. They can deal more damage and take more of it than the frigates. They however lose maneuverability for this being easier targets both in size and speed.

Dreadnoughts are artillery pieces. Their mass drivers are the longest and thus have the highest destructive force and range. But their size hampers them, especially when enemies have closed in to knife point where bearing your weapon mounts will likely be slower than the other ships speed.

EDIT: Putting Thanix cannons on cruisers and Dreadnougths would effectively increase their weapon potential beyond that of the Normandy.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 26 janvier 2012 - 12:41 .

[Adragalus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Adragalus wrote...

 Honestly, it might be more effective, depending on the situation.

From what I understand about the Thanix cannon and the combat tactics of frigates vs. the combat tactics of cruisers, the Normandy's small size and heavily upgraded firepower might be a huge benefit. It can get in to knife-fight range, outmaneuvering the Reaper, and bring a cruiser's firepower to bear. This would allow it to overcome the main weakness of heavy-capships: issues at close range.

I suppose it also depends on how much armor factors into the equation. If the Reapers are only using their version of the Thanix, as seen at the end of ME1, then armor seems to be pretty much irrelevant (completely destroying at least a cruiser in one shot) and the Normandy's agility would make it far superior.

The Reapers have their swarms of Oculi and Reaper destroyers, though.

I would imagine that's where Citadel fighters/wolfpack frigates/etc. come in. I fully admit that's an issue, but it doesn't utterly invalidate my points. Not saying that's what you meant either. 

To point, if Oculi and Reaper destroyers made Thanix frigates pointless, then fighters would make anything heavier than a cruiser pointless, dreadnoughts would make everything at long range pointless, and disruptor torpedoes would make anything pointless. Basically, things have their weaknesses, their strengths, and their trump cards. It depends on the situation, and I see real merit in Thanix frigates.

Also, I suppose my viewpoint was more of "heavier classes could be somewhat supplanted by a new series of Thanix frigates," and not the original "are dreadnoughts and cruisers replacable by the new Normandy?"

[Adragalus]

G3rman wrote...

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

Also, the quote that figures comes from has the Admiral saying that they "could have build the drive cores for 12,000 fighters" with the amount of eezo the Tantalus drive required.

Just the drive cores, not the entire fighter.

[Poison_Berrie]

Manned fighters in space are always pointless.

[Someone With Mass]

I'd say that that putting Thanix cannons on every large ship would be a pretty big mistake, because that thing has probably a pretty limited range because of the magnetic field that holds the stream together, while the main gun of a dreadnought has virtually unlimited range, thanks to Newton's law.

[Wulfram]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'd say that that putting Thanix cannons on every large ship would be a pretty big mistake, because that thing has probably a pretty limited range because of the magnetic field that holds the stream together, while the main gun of a dreadnought has virtually unlimited range, thanks to Newton's law.

Having a bunch of them in your broadside would be pretty nifty though

[Poison_Berrie]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'd say that that putting Thanix cannons on every large ship would be a pretty big mistake, because that thing has probably a pretty limited range because of the magnetic field that holds the stream together, while the main gun of a dreadnought has virtually unlimited range, thanks to Newton's law.

You've got a point on the magnetic field (though you have to wonder how such a field would work on the distance it has now), but the range of a main gun of a dreadnought is bound by speed and target maneuverablity and is not unlimited.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 26 janvier 2012 - 01:08 .

[Someone With Mass]

I meant range as in how far the projectile can travel, not its effective range, which I'd imagine is limited to the ship's computers' scan range.

If you launch a slug like that in space, it'll keep going until it hits something.

[darkiddd]

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

THIS ^

What the hell man. If it weren't for the normandy shepard couldn't have passed through the geth fleet and landed on Ilos. The reapers would have returned in the middle of the citadel and all would have been lost.

And how do you think we are able to explore the universe freely always on the galaxy map? It's because we are on the normandy, no other ship could do what the normandy does or move as freely as it does.  

Shepard couldn't even do a quarter of what he/she has done without the normandy.

[Bleachrude]

Here's a weird question and this extends from ME1.

Why do the turians not seem to care about their military secrets getting out? If the Normandy was a joint alliance-turian production, how come there were no "official" turian officers? Not just the normandy, but even the Heavy weapon flamethrower is a turian weapon design that the alliance "acquired" the schematics for.

Similarly, how does Garrus rate the security clearance for Thanix cannons? Only thing I can think of is that the Turians were hedging their bet about Shepard and the reapers/collectors.

[darkiddd]

Bleachrude wrote...

Here's a weird question and this extends from ME1.

Why do the turians not seem to care about their military secrets getting out? If the Normandy was a joint alliance-turian production, how come there were no "official" turian officers? Not just the normandy, but even the Heavy weapon flamethrower is a turian weapon design that the alliance "acquired" the schematics for.

Similarly, how does Garrus rate the security clearance for Thanix cannons? Only thing I can think of is that the Turians were hedging their bet about Shepard and the reapers/collectors.

Because garrus is da man 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Usefull technologcal advancement. Practical things.

Like I said - 12000 fighters can outperform and utterly wipe the floor with 100 Normandy Mk1's.
That number of fighters literally doubles the strength of the Alliance navy!

It's a redicolously bad investment.
I know the army sometimes does stupid stuff, but they still want damn efficiency. Bang for buck.
They want cheaper things with more shooty bits.