262 réponses à ce sujet

[darkiddd]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

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.

Yes but the shielding would be the same so this still makes dreadnaughts practically useless against a dozen of cruisers or a hundred of frigates with it. 

[darkiddd]

Lotion Soronnar 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.

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.

yes because clearly on Ilos Shepard would have passed throught the geth fleet in time to stop the reapers with 12000 fighters than with a stealth ship 

[Someone With Mass]

Eh, no. Those fighters wouldn't be able to wipe the floor with the Normandy, because they wouldn't be able to detect it.

I like how you're suggesting that the technology should just go in one direction just because some alternatives happen to be a little expensive.

And for the last ****ing time, it's only the price of the drive cores of those fighters. The price for constructing the bodies, weapons, thrusters, computer systems, munitions and other materials for all those fighters is not included.

[incinerator950]

darkiddd wrote...

Poison_Berrie wrote...

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.

Yes
but the shielding would be the same so this still makes dreadnaughts
practically useless against a dozen of cruisers or a hundred of frigates
with it. 

Umm..No, they wouldn't. They would have stronger Kinetic Barriers, as well as the Arrays they use to shield them. As well as a stronger hull. I don't think either of you are getting the gist in the standard defense and size comparisons, as well as technological improvements in a "modular prototype". Just passing that along again, somehow we completely missed these conclusions three to four pages ago.

Modifié par incinerator950, 26 janvier 2012 - 01:28 .

[knightnblu]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

It's not, all scenes shown so far are the good ol' Alliance ships that are fully battle tested and designed for fighting.

The new Normandy is way too expensive to build even a few of them and stealth systems are useless in galactic war, you need armor and survivability. Besides, a lot of its systems are prototype and not proven to last in long-term engagements. If anything its a perfect ship for a Spectre, but not mainstream military.

The original SR-1 Normandy was said to be so expensive a flotilla of cruisers could have been built instead. Just think what the prototype SR-2 would cost..

Not to mention the Alliance only had six months from the end of ME2 and Shepard's surrender to examine the ship, not enough to replicate the designs and build it.

Obviously they'd remove the useless things. The stealth system if I recall was half of the orignial normandies cost. But I'm not sure you noticed that the reapers coverage is not quite 100%. They can't quite seem to reach far enough to do anything about rear attacks, so if a few stealth ships can get behind them in some hit and run attacks then that would be just great. They wouldn't even  need stealth since they're just that fast that they can hit reapers who are concentrating on attacking other large vessles.

First, you are making a whole lot of assumptions there and I'm not so sure about your reasoning behind them. As for maneuverability, Joker said in ME1 just after you spoke to Sovereign, that the ship had just pulled a turn that would have torn any Alliance ship in half. To me, "any" would include frigates and corvettes. That would indicate that the Reapers are nimble.
 
Second, you assume that two or three inputs would overwhelm the situational awareness (SA) of the Reaper. While this would certainly tax the human SA, the Reaper mind is more akin to an advanced computer like EDI. If you remember, she was more than fully capable of taking over the crew responsibilities of the SR-2, taking in and processing sensor inputs, helming the ship, and did all of that while handling multiple simultaneous conversations. Didn't seem to have any effect at all at narrowing her SA. I would think that the Reapers would be similar.
 
Third, the stealth systems are useless against the Reapers. At the beginning of ME2, the Normandy SR-1 is stealthed when the Collectors arrive in system. They immediately set a pursuit course and home in on the Normandy. This would mean that the scanning ability of the Collectors is not fooled by the sinking of heat emissions. Therefore, one can extrapolate that the Reapers would likewise not be fooled by the Normandy's stealth systems.
 
What all of this means is that we are going to have to go toe to toe with the Reapers in a dog fight and it's going to be ugly because the only way to overwhelm the Reaper's SA is to overwhelm the Reaper's processing capabilities.
 
That's the problem with creating such a powerful and advanced enemy. It isn't that they cannot be brought down (Grant's march on Richmond comes to mind), but the cost to do so is horrific. However when compared to survival, it is never the less a cost worth expending. The trick is in convincing the rest of the galaxy to stand together and to stop singing Kumbaya and hoping that the dove of peace will magically save their asses because the Reapers are just misunderstood. Here's to hoping that Shepard is a statesman as well as a warrior in ME3.

[incinerator950]

knightnblu wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

It's not, all scenes shown so far are the good ol' Alliance ships that are fully battle tested and designed for fighting.

The new Normandy is way too expensive to build even a few of them and stealth systems are useless in galactic war, you need armor and survivability. Besides, a lot of its systems are prototype and not proven to last in long-term engagements. If anything its a perfect ship for a Spectre, but not mainstream military.

The original SR-1 Normandy was said to be so expensive a flotilla of cruisers could have been built instead. Just think what the prototype SR-2 would cost..

Not to mention the Alliance only had six months from the end of ME2 and Shepard's surrender to examine the ship, not enough to replicate the designs and build it.

Obviously they'd remove the useless things. The stealth system if I recall was half of the orignial normandies cost. But I'm not sure you noticed that the reapers coverage is not quite 100%. They can't quite seem to reach far enough to do anything about rear attacks, so if a few stealth ships can get behind them in some hit and run attacks then that would be just great. They wouldn't even  need stealth since they're just that fast that they can hit reapers who are concentrating on attacking other large vessles.

First, you are making a whole lot of assumptions there and I'm not so sure about your reasoning behind them. As for maneuverability, Joker said in ME1 just after you spoke to Sovereign, that the ship had just pulled a turn that would have torn any Alliance ship in half. To me, "any" would include frigates and corvettes. That would indicate that the Reapers are nimble.
 
Second, you assume that two or three inputs would overwhelm the situational awareness (SA) of the Reaper. While this would certainly tax the human SA, the Reaper mind is more akin to an advanced computer like EDI. If you remember, she was more than fully capable of taking over the crew responsibilities of the SR-2, taking in and processing sensor inputs, helming the ship, and did all of that while handling multiple simultaneous conversations. Didn't seem to have any effect at all at narrowing her SA. I would think that the Reapers would be similar.
 
Third, the stealth systems are useless against the Reapers. At the beginning of ME2, the Normandy SR-1 is stealthed when the Collectors arrive in system. They immediately set a pursuit course and home in on the Normandy. This would mean that the scanning ability of the Collectors is not fooled by the sinking of heat emissions. Therefore, one can extrapolate that the Reapers would likewise not be fooled by the Normandy's stealth systems.
 
What all of this means is that we are going to have to go toe to toe with the Reapers in a dog fight and it's going to be ugly because the only way to overwhelm the Reaper's SA is to overwhelm the Reaper's processing capabilities.
 
That's the problem with creating such a powerful and advanced enemy. It isn't that they cannot be brought down (Grant's march on Richmond comes to mind), but the cost to do so is horrific. However when compared to survival, it is never the less a cost worth expending. The trick is in convincing the rest of the galaxy to stand together and to stop singing Kumbaya and hoping that the dove of peace will magically save their asses because the Reapers are just misunderstood. Here's to hoping that Shepard is a statesman as well as a warrior in ME3.

It's about ****ing time.  Sorry, lack of sleep.  I should be going.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

Big wuff. The Normandy was usefull because the story explicitly made it so.
What are the chances of glactic civilization depending on a stealth frigate?

As an actual warship it's of little use.

[knightnblu]

It occurs to me that some may not recognize the reference of Grant marching on Richmond. To clarify, he marched his troops straight down the barrels of the guns. He knew that he could replace his fallen troops, but that his enemy could not. Therefore, it became a war of attrition. Hard on the troops, but also effective because the South had no means to replace their lost soldiers. The implication is that we will have to do the same in ME3.

[Wulfram]

knightnblu wrote...

It occurs to me that some may not recognize the reference of Grant marching on Richmond. To clarify, he marched his troops straight down the barrels of the guns. He knew that he could replace his fallen troops, but that his enemy could not. Therefore, it became a war of attrition. Hard on the troops, but also effective because the South had no means to replace their lost soldiers. The implication is that we will have to do the same in ME3.

It wouldn't be viable if the Reapers were sensible.  They can smash through our existing fleets easily, so all they'd have to do is do that, blast our industry back to the stone age and move on.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As an actual warship it's of little use.

Against the Reapers, most warships are of little use.

[frozngecko]

Dewart wrote...

dang edit ninjas

tehe. sorry, I looked at the wiki after and realized you were right....so ninja edit.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As an actual warship it's of little use.

Against the Reapers, most warships are of little use.

Which makes 12000 fighters even more enticing.

[SnakeStrike8]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, no. Those fighters wouldn't be able to wipe the floor with the Normandy, because they wouldn't be able to detect it.

Not at range, certainly. But the pilots in those flyers have eyes that can see the Normandy when it closes to weapons range. And then they shoot it.
This brings me to the key reason why the Normandy cannot replace dreadnaughts. It's a stealth ship, and the central premise of its gimmick relies on staying out of sight range and out of weapons range. The minute the Normandy has to actually attack any number of ships greater than one, it loses its key ability.
And no, the Normandy cannot keep its stealth systems running and fight at the same time. We already know that ships in combat produce great amonuts of heat, and the Normandy's stealth drive allows it a few hour's worth of flight time undetected. If one adds combat to that, the running time probably gets reduced to minutes, if even that.
Add on the GARDIAN lasers of a dreadnaught that the Normandy cannot dodge, and throw in a few fighters with gravitic torpedoes and the Normandy's sunk. It'll do some damage to the dreadnaught, especially if it has the thanix upgrade and if EDI can crack the dread's firewalls, but it's still a one-way trip.
Now, cruisers the Normandy could conceivably replace, but space battles aren't all of a cruiser's duty. They probably also carry ground combat units when they need to land or send soldiers into a pirate nest or whatnot, and the Normandy's too small to carry an operational crew and several platoons of fighting men and vehicles.

[frozngecko]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As an actual warship it's of little use.

Against the Reapers, most warships are of little use.

Which makes 12000 fighters even more enticing.

Hey, thats how we won WWII. Fighters were bombing the crud out of what were considered the strongest ships in the fleet: dreadnought battleships. In fact, US bombers took out Japan's most powerful Battleship, the Yamato, that way. (
http://en.wikipedia....ttleship_Yamato )

If these snub fighters in ME3 are armed with the Thanix, we might be able to stand a chance.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Which makes 12000 fighters even more enticing.

Why?  With no FTL they're useless in the scout and raiding role which the Normandy is built for, and in a fleet engagement they'll get butchered by Dreadnoughts

[incinerator950]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, no. Those fighters wouldn't be able to wipe the floor with the Normandy, because they wouldn't be able to detect it.

Not at range, certainly. But the pilots in those flyers have eyes that can see the Normandy when it closes to weapons range. And then they shoot it.
This brings me to the key reason why the Normandy cannot replace dreadnaughts. It's a stealth ship, and the central premise of its gimmick relies on staying out of sight range and out of weapons range. The minute the Normandy has to actually attack any number of ships greater than one, it loses its key ability.
And no, the Normandy cannot keep its stealth systems running and fight at the same time. We already know that ships in combat produce great amonuts of heat, and the Normandy's stealth drive allows it a few hour's worth of flight time undetected. If one adds combat to that, the running time probably gets reduced to minutes, if even that.
Add on the GARDIAN lasers of a dreadnaught that the Normandy cannot dodge, and throw in a few fighters with gravitic torpedoes and the Normandy's sunk. It'll do some damage to the dreadnaught, especially if it has the thanix upgrade and if EDI can crack the dread's firewalls, but it's still a one-way trip.
Now, cruisers the Normandy could conceivably replace, but space battles aren't all of a cruiser's duty. They probably also carry ground combat units when they need to land or send soldiers into a pirate nest or whatnot, and the Normandy's too small to carry an operational crew and several platoons of fighting men and vehicles.

You don't replace Cruisers with Frigates.  If you make more than one Normandy, you're making more Stealth Frigates.  As to the same problem with Dreadnoughts, the Thanix only gives the Normandy the rival firepower to a Cruiser, not to be estimated more.  As well as troop compliment, Cruisers are the main line of ships.  Frigates are predominantly scout ships, maybe picket ships.  Cruisers still have a better hull for slugging matches.  If you want to even put the Cruiser to Frigate Ratios on an even tech level, it requires a handful to several frigates to impact a field of battle.  Add to the fact you can probably add the technological upgrades on the Normandy to a Cruiser eventually, why? 

You don't send Recon ships to replace Line ships, easy concept.  Likewise, as we've beaten this horse to the point a Necromancer wouldn't touch it, that its a specialist Frigate.  You don't mass produce Specialist Frigates, especially ones that cost more than Heavy Cruisers.

[SnakeStrike8]

incinerator950 wrote...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, no. Those fighters wouldn't be able to wipe the floor with the Normandy, because they wouldn't be able to detect it.

Not at range, certainly. But the pilots in those flyers have eyes that can see the Normandy when it closes to weapons range. And then they shoot it.
This brings me to the key reason why the Normandy cannot replace dreadnaughts. It's a stealth ship, and the central premise of its gimmick relies on staying out of sight range and out of weapons range. The minute the Normandy has to actually attack any number of ships greater than one, it loses its key ability.
And no, the Normandy cannot keep its stealth systems running and fight at the same time. We already know that ships in combat produce great amonuts of heat, and the Normandy's stealth drive allows it a few hour's worth of flight time undetected. If one adds combat to that, the running time probably gets reduced to minutes, if even that.
Add on the GARDIAN lasers of a dreadnaught that the Normandy cannot dodge, and throw in a few fighters with gravitic torpedoes and the Normandy's sunk. It'll do some damage to the dreadnaught, especially if it has the thanix upgrade and if EDI can crack the dread's firewalls, but it's still a one-way trip.
Now, cruisers the Normandy could conceivably replace, but space battles aren't all of a cruiser's duty. They probably also carry ground combat units when they need to land or send soldiers into a pirate nest or whatnot, and the Normandy's too small to carry an operational crew and several platoons of fighting men and vehicles.

You don't replace Cruisers with Frigates.  If you make more than one Normandy, you're making more Stealth Frigates.  As to the same problem with Dreadnoughts, the Thanix only gives the Normandy the rival firepower to a Cruiser, not to be estimated more.  As well as troop compliment, Cruisers are the main line of ships.  Frigates are predominantly scout ships, maybe picket ships.  Cruisers still have a better hull for slugging matches.  If you want to even put the Cruiser to Frigate Ratios on an even tech level, it requires a handful to several frigates to impact a field of battle.  Add to the fact you can probably add the technological upgrades on the Normandy to a Cruiser eventually, why? 

You don't send Recon ships to replace Line ships, easy concept.  Likewise, as we've beaten this horse to the point a Necromancer wouldn't touch it, that its a specialist Frigate.  You don't mass produce Specialist Frigates, especially ones that cost more than Heavy Cruisers.

So... what? Are you agreeing with me or not? You seemed to repeat everything I said...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Will they? 12000 fighters..that a LOT of missiles/torpedos. Small agile targets.

Assuming just 4 missiles per fighter - that's 48000 missiles.

You loose 1, you loose 1 pilot.
You loose 1 cruiser, you loose 300 people.

[incinerator950]

frozngecko wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As an actual warship it's of little use.

Against the Reapers, most warships are of little use.

Which makes 12000 fighters even more enticing.

Hey, thats how we won WWII. Fighters were bombing the crud out of what were considered the strongest ships in the fleet: dreadnought battleships. In fact, US bombers took out Japan's most powerful Battleship, the Yamato, that way. (
http://en.wikipedia....ttleship_Yamato )

If these snub fighters in ME3 are armed with the Thanix, we might be able to stand a chance.

The problem with this concept is dive bombing on a stationary target is going to be easier than what those pilots were put through, its not.  Space is larger than the ocean, less diverse hazards besides debree, more central plot in ME to put on Heat capacity.  Even if the fighters close in, the thanix on a fighter will not be at the strong range.  Added to the fact that Dreadnoughts in Space have their own fighter capacity, as well as useful escorts, and you see the problem of why bombing down on gravity doesn't work.

Also, twelve thousand fighters to one drive core doesn't add up to all the weapons.  The Thanix Cannon isn't obviously going to make the cost any cheaper.  Added to the fact you can use fighters and escort screens to clear ships, you can make a destroyer variant that excels at clearing fighter screens. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

We're talking about regular fighters...so no Tahnix cannons.

[Aimi]

frozngecko wrote...

Hey, thats how we won WWII. Fighters were bombing the crud out of what were considered the strongest ships in the fleet: dreadnought battleships. In fact, US bombers took out Japan's most powerful Battleship, the Yamato, that way. (
http://en.wikipedia....ttleship_Yamato )

If these snub fighters in ME3 are armed with the Thanix, we might be able to stand a chance.

Maybe. But in the Second World War, aircraft carriers could engage at far beyond the range of any dreadnought's guns. In the MEverse, dreadnoughts can generally hit carriers much, much farther out, greatly reducing a carrier's value.

[Slayer299]

frozngecko wrote...
Hey, thats how we won WWII. Fighters were bombing the crud out of what were considered the strongest ships in the fleet: dreadnought battleships. In fact, US bombers took out Japan's most powerful Battleship, the Yamato, that way. (
http://en.wikipedia....ttleship_Yamato )

If these snub fighters in ME3 are armed with the Thanix, we might be able to stand a chance.

Using the Yamato is a terrible analogy for defeating the Reapers, since it had no air cover (and the Reapers have their own fighters), it was travelling virtually alone (just a few destroyers and a single crusier escort) and it wasn't designed to handle fighters but to engage other surface ships (and we know the Reapers *are* very capable, it is *highly* improbable that humans are the first to ever think of/use fighters against the Reapers and they'd have taken defensive measures after MILLIONS of years). Even if you use the idea of a attacking solo Reapers we cound find its not as if it would go down without taking significant numbers of the attackers with it.

The "lots of fighters" you like refers to drive cores, not the rest of the fighter themselves or the 12000 trained pilots for them and you still need carriers to carry them and cruiser/destroyers to screen them, not a 'fleet of Normandy's'. 

edit - ninja'd

Modifié par Slayer299, 26 janvier 2012 - 02:25 .

[Barhador]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Will they? 12000 fighters..that a LOT of missiles/torpedos. Small agile targets.

Assuming just 4 missiles per fighter - that's 48000 missiles.

You loose 1, you loose 1 pilot.
You loose 1 cruiser, you loose 300 people.

You lose your figthers you lose 12.000 pilots
You lose your similar priced cruiser you lose 300 people,

[hawat333]

The Normandy simply isn't built for battle, it was built for recon. It's perfect for hit'n'run attacks, but for large-scale battles that goes on for several hours possibly... I'm not so sure.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Which makes 12000 fighters even more enticing.

Not really.

The Normandy has longer travel range, more utility and more mobility than a fleet of fighters. It is a lot faster to take one ship through a relay than it is for a thousand, or twelve thousand. With such small cores, I'd think that those fighters needs to discharge pretty often as well.

Besides, it's not supposed to be a frontline ship. It's supposed to sneak in undetected and drop off infiltration teams in enemy bases and carry out stealth strikes. That can sometimes be better than any fleet. Like when the Normandy snuck past the geth fleet in ME1. Good luck doing that with a fleet of fighters, carriers and cruisers.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 26 janvier 2012 - 02:46 .