262 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I wouldn't assume the humans have all that many carriers. I mean, they never actually built up to their allowed limit of dreadnoughts.

Plus, there's no reason the Turians wouldn't have started building up a superior fleet of Carriers as soon as they heard about them. They'll surely have far more shipbuilding capabilities. And if they were too conservative to embrace them, the Salarians surely wouldn't be. Unless they had good reason to believe they weren't worthwhile, anyway.

Though really, if they wanted fighters to defend the citadel they could just base them there without worrying about carriers.

[ParagonForLife]

Wulfram wrote...

I wouldn't assume the humans have all that many carriers. I mean, they never actually built up to their allowed limit of dreadnoughts.

Plus, there's no reason the Turians wouldn't have started building up a superior fleet of Carriers as soon as they heard about them. They'll surely have far more shipbuilding capabilities. And if they were too conservative to embrace them, the Salarians surely wouldn't be. Unless they had good reason to believe they weren't worthwhile, anyway.

Though really, if they wanted fighters to defend the citadel they could just base them there without worrying about carriers.

the turians and asari dont need to build carriers they can build 5:3:1 turians can build 5 asari 3 and Humans 1 so they consider it a waste of resorces as they could just build a dreadnought but humanity cant because we have to wait years and years to build a single one so we built carriers

[Aimi]

ParagonForLife wrote...

the turians and asari dont need to build carriers they can build 5:3:1 turians can build 5 asari 3 and Humans 1 so they consider it a waste of resorces as they could just build a dreadnought but humanity cant because we have to wait years and years to build a single one so we built carriers

The point is that we haven't built dreadnoughts at capacity. Going by the ratio, we still have the ability to build 23 dreadnoughts (5/3 of 39, which is the turian count), and we currently possess eight. We've got a long way to go until we hit the Farixen limitations and start having to wait until the turians build more dreadnoughts before we can get our own.

[ParagonForLife]

daqs wrote...

ParagonForLife wrote...

the turians and asari dont need to build carriers they can build 5:3:1 turians can build 5 asari 3 and Humans 1 so they consider it a waste of resorces as they could just build a dreadnought but humanity cant because we have to wait years and years to build a single one so we built carriers

The point is that we haven't built dreadnoughts at capacity. Going by the ratio, we still have the ability to build 23 dreadnoughts (5/3 of 39, which is the turian count), and we currently possess eight. We've got a long way to go until we hit the Farixen limitations and start having to wait until the turians build more dreadnoughts before we can get our own.

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 

Modifié par ParagonForLife, 26 janvier 2012 - 07:52 .

[TornadoADV]

Humans are Council members now, so we fit in the 3 of the 5:3:1 ratio. (Turians:Other Council Member Species:Everybody else) Carriers don't count against Dreadnought limits as they aren't even remotely equipped the same way. Interceptors have the typical mass driver weaponry so they can shoot down Fighters, which attack Capital Ships via Disruptor Torpedos (Also known as Javelins on Alliance Frigates.)

The reason why nobody else besides humans have Carriers is because the other species could never make the logical jump to mount anti-capital weaponry on high performance single crew ships and then make a Dreadnought sized ship and have it be it's sole long range weapon. They were perfectly happy with letting frigates do that.

[Wulfram]

TornadoADV wrote...

The reason why nobody else besides humans have Carriers is because the other species could never make the logical jump to mount anti-capital weaponry on high performance single crew ships and then make a Dreadnought sized ship and have it be it's sole long range weapon. They were perfectly happy with letting frigates do that.

Which is totally nonsensical when you look at the characteristics of the Salarians.

Salarians are known for their observational capability and non-linear
thinking. This manifests as an aptitude for research and espionage. They
are constantly experimenting and inventing

And it doesn't explain why the Turians, seeing humanity as a potential threat, wouldn't immediately start building them after they heard of the concept.

Modifié par Wulfram, 26 janvier 2012 - 08:15 .

[Someone With Mass]

Wulfram wrote...

I doubt really doubt fighters regular guns would do anything against a dreadnought's shields, let alone a reaper. The codex makes it clear that their role is to use torpedoes to take down the shields, leaving them open to attack from frigate and cruiser mass accelerators.

In the ME universe, Dreadnoughts have been considered the decisive arm for centuries. There's presumably a reason for that belief.

It'd be like trying to take down an aircraft carrier with a handgun.

[ParagonForLife]

Wulfram wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

The reason why nobody else besides humans have Carriers is because the other species could never make the logical jump to mount anti-capital weaponry on high performance single crew ships and then make a Dreadnought sized ship and have it be it's sole long range weapon. They were perfectly happy with letting frigates do that.

Which is totally nonsensical when you look at the characteristics of the Salarians.

Salarians are known for their observational capability and non-linear
thinking. This manifests as an aptitude for research and espionage. They
are constantly experimenting and inventing

And it doesn't explain why the Turians, seeing humanity as a potential threat, wouldn't immediately start building them after they heard of the concept.

because the turians can build dreadnoughts and only humans use carrier tactics other races belive in using massive firepower on dreadnoughts and overruning enemy positions

[Poison_Berrie]

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.

[jamesp81]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Well, it's a frigate so it's faster, has a much smaller crew, stealth systems, and a cannon which can easily destroy the collector ship. I suppose it's a lot more fragile, but the fact that it can dodge somewhat. Can also pick it's battles, choose how, when and where to engage. Could probably build a few normandies for the resources that would go into a single cruiser, so.... why build a cruiser when you can build a small strike group of frigates which are harder to detect, harder to shoot at, and can punch through a reaper?

Edit: a lot of people are bringing up the point that normandy = a heavy crusier in price. While that may have been the case originally, there is an important distinction here between resource requirments and the galactic economy. The materials it takes to build the normandy are trivial compared to a heavy cruiser.

It might be more powerful straight up than a cruiser.  But it cannot do what a Dreadnought does for a navy.

In truth, it's a very specialized design.  It's intended to fulfill a very specific niche role.  It is too costly to be used as a general issue warship.

[ParagonForLife]

jamesp81 wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Well, it's a frigate so it's faster, has a much smaller crew, stealth systems, and a cannon which can easily destroy the collector ship. I suppose it's a lot more fragile, but the fact that it can dodge somewhat. Can also pick it's battles, choose how, when and where to engage. Could probably build a few normandies for the resources that would go into a single cruiser, so.... why build a cruiser when you can build a small strike group of frigates which are harder to detect, harder to shoot at, and can punch through a reaper?

Edit: a lot of people are bringing up the point that normandy = a heavy crusier in price. While that may have been the case originally, there is an important distinction here between resource requirments and the galactic economy. The materials it takes to build the normandy are trivial compared to a heavy cruiser.

It might be more powerful straight up than a cruiser.  But it cannot do what a Dreadnought does for a navy.

In truth, it's a very specialized design.  It's intended to fulfill a very specific niche role.  It is too costly to be used as a general issue warship.

also that a dreadnought and a Cruiser have a role which the normandy cant ever fill Fear Factor the mere presence of a Dreadnought or Cruiser can deter an enemy from attacking 

[KotorEffect3]

Any decent fleet is going to be diversified, the normandy fills a role that is suited for Shepard. Which is basically special forces type stuff where you quickly drop into hostile territory do what you need to do and get out quickly. The Normandy isn't supposed to be a frontline warship though I think SR2 is a bit closer to that than the SR 1 was though I would say the SR 1 was probably a more effective overall stealth ship when it came to the role it was designed for.

[a load of stanton]

there is no point in building dreadnoughts there pretty much useless against reapers in the earth demo a human dreanought is fighting a reaper but has no effect on it and in turn it gets obliterated
in 3 shots from the reaper so whats the point in building them

Modifié par a load of stanton, 26 janvier 2012 - 11:12 .

[muse108]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

muse108 wrote...

While I can see the power of a stealth ship in space, paint it black and it will be completely invisible in space. But hit and run attacks are one thing, a slug fest is anouther. Not saying they wouldnt be priceless in a fight, knife fight range battles where the opponent cant see you or get a lock on you. .

The opponent CAN see you a close range. Even a stealth frigate like Normandy. The Stealth systems don't really work that well at close range.

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 .

[G3rman]

a load of stanton wrote...

there is no point in building dreadnoughts there pretty much useless against reapers in the earth demo a human dreanought is fighting a reaper but has no effect on it and in turn it gets obliterated
in 3 shots from the reaper so whats the point in building them

How about we just get rid of all our ships ya know, if one gets blown up it must mean we can't win. /sarcasm

Did you play the first game?  It took a fleet but they were able to destroy Sovereign.  Reapers aren't easy to kill but they are killable, that's the point.

Saying a ship is useless because its outgunned and alone is outrageous; ANY ship against a reaper most likely would be defeated, not just a dreadnaught.  We win with numbers and tactics, not (necessarily) firepower.

Modifié par G3rman, 27 janvier 2012 - 01:43 .

[Wulfram]

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.

[Wulfram]

Space is huge but it's also empty. So you stick a bunch of high resolution cameras all around your ship, and tell the computer to alert you if there's any sort of unexplained change. Todays computers wouldn't be able to do it, but it would strain credibility if ME computers couldn't

If you're going into an inhabited system they should have no end of surveillance probes scattered about. And they'd see you coming in at FTL, anyway.

Best use I can see would be to lurk in a system you expect the enemy to come into and try to ambush them. And I still wouldn't want to try it on a warship unless I'm utterly desperate - better to go after their merchant shipping and FTL out of there as soon as you get a hint of anyone military.

[Nashiktal]

Wulfram wrote...

Space is huge but it's also empty. So you stick a bunch of high resolution cameras all around your ship, and tell the computer to alert you if there's any sort of unexplained change. Todays computers wouldn't be able to do it, but it would strain credibility if ME computers couldn't

If you're going into an inhabited system they should have no end of surveillance probes scattered about. And they'd see you coming in at FTL, anyway.

Best use I can see would be to lurk in a system you expect the enemy to come into and try to ambush them. And I still wouldn't want to try it on a warship unless I'm utterly desperate - better to go after their merchant shipping and FTL out of there as soon as you get a hint of anyone military.

Camera's around the ship? That might work if the normandy came close enough to touch, but in actual space it just won't work.

Not to mention you would have to already know that the normandy was there to even hope to see it.

[Wulfram]

Nashiktal wrote...

Camera's around the ship? That might work if the normandy came close enough to touch, but in actual space it just won't work.

Why not?

Not to mention you would have to already know that the normandy was there to even hope to see it.

You'll see them arriving by FTL.

[Nashiktal]

Wulfram wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Camera's around the ship? That might work if the normandy came close enough to touch, but in actual space it just won't work.

Why not?

Not to mention you would have to already know that the normandy was there to even hope to see it.

You'll see them arriving by FTL.

If the normandy is arriving by FTL you don't need camera's. The normandy is at its weakest just before, and just after FTL flight.

[RyuujinZERO]

Wulfram wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Camera's around the ship? That might work if the normandy came close enough to touch, but in actual space it just won't work.

Why not?

Even if we ignore the resolution issue and assume that you can detect and identify the light source as a ship at any distance light lag would rain on your parade. Unless the ship is pretty close to you (ie. in orbit of the same planet, AND on the same side of the planet so you can trace line-of-sight), visual identification is meaningless for combat purposes.

Even that a ship in orbit of Earth's moon, looking at a ship in orbit on the near-side of the earth is already experiencing a 1.2 second delay (While a ship at that distance can see and relay good data, it still can't open fire as the projectile even moving at say .3 the speed of light, will still miss the target by 4 seconds unless a firing resolution is calculated properly and the target does not take action and .3 the speed of light is a really optimistic value for the speed of a projectile ;p

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 27 janvier 2012 - 02:39 .

[Wulfram]

The missions on which the Normandy won't be seen on it's way in seem decidedly limited.

[Wulfram]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Even if we ignore the resolution issue and assume that you can detect and identify the light source as a ship at any distance light lag would rain on your parade. Unless the ship is pretty close to you (ie. in orbit of the same planet, AND on the same side of the planet so you can trace line-of-sight), visual identification is meaningless for combat purposes.

The objective would be to detect a moving object which you can't explaid, from there you can take reasonable precautions before you confirm.  You can use occlusion of other light sources as well.

Even that a ship in orbit of Earth's moon, looking at a ship in orbit on the near-side of the earth is already experiencing a 1.2 second delay (While a ship at that distance can see and relay good data, it still can't open fire as the projectile even moving at say .3 the speed of light, will still miss the target by 4 seconds unless a firing resolution is calculated properly and the target does not take action and .3 the speed of light is a really optimistic value for the speed of a projectile ;p

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

If you're feeling fancy, I guess you would use FTL communications and surveillance drones to keep you updated