318 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

Silhouett3 wrote...

All god reading all these 12 pages made my brain hurt. What's is the point of this debate, sending Bioware new space combat tactics and war strategy?

Actually... a RTS based on the Reaper war would be quite interesting... but you could argue that something similar could be done modding Galactic Civilizations 2... the Dread Lords work wonderfully as Reaper's analogues

[ZLurps]

filetemo wrote...

We would know how defeat-able the reapers are if we knew their exact numbers

Are there 500 of them? Maybe defeatable 5000? no way.
If each cycle allows them (I'll make up numers) to build 1 capital ship and 2-3 destroyers...Start counting.

With something like a total force of 1000 reapers and 3000 destroyers...we're doomed

It's even worse. There are other things like Reaper fighters we see in cut scene, those came totally out of the blue.

I see Thanix cannon mentioned again in thread. So let's see.
In ME2 it took Normandy takes two shots to destroy the Collector cruiser with Thanix cannon.
Without Thanix, it takes 4 shots from Normandy to destroy Collector cruiser.

Reverse engined Thanix never was 10 x more powerful BFG to to begin with. It gives galactic fleets fighting chance, nothing else.

The main problem for galactic fleets is that they don't have staying power in fight. Okay, so they take down a capital ship with concentrated thanix fire. Lossed were awful, because as we see in ME1, Reaper capital ships one shot cruiser without even using their main gun. Use fighters, again, we see that Reapers have their own fighters that engage them. Use smaller ships, Reapers got destroyers.

[ZLurps]

Corvus74 wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

People keep on forgetting that the Reapers can make their own plans.

They were intelligent enough to set trap at least a billion years in advance (the Relays) so something tells me that given all their advantages it wouldn't be hard to them to set pretty basic, but quite devestating, traps.

Except the Reapers have stagnated to such a degree that all subsequent plans have failed.  Everything the tried once the Citadel went silent failed.  They are like those hidebound stuffy old generals fighting the last war all over again when things have changed.

Reaper invasion didn't happened in ME1 because one person was in right places doing right things. Plain dumb luck. Nothing else.

[ZLurps]

Silhouett3 wrote...

All god reading all these 12 pages made my brain hurt. What's is the point of this debate, sending Bioware new space combat tactics and war strategy?

It's way to kill time and have a long history on these forums. Welcomed change for eternal endings suck (which they do) debates. 

[Rabid Rooster]

OP, I agree with you. In the opening battle at earth we see a single human dreadnought blast 3 arms off a sovergin class reaper just think what 3 or more concentrating fire could have done to it.

And the whole thing about taking the whole human fleet to beat sovergin in ME 1was because they were fighting the geth while waiting for sep to open the citidal arms.

[malakim2099]

Positronics wrote...

They aren't estimated. The numbers are canon, and there are a total of 85 Council-member race dreadnoughts in the galaxy.

Added for emphasis, because frankly that doesn't include the quarians or the geth. Or even what's left of the batarians.

Oh, and SPACE MAGIC! 

Modifié par malakim2099, 27 mars 2012 - 11:13 .

[fchopin]

No way we could win over the reapers in a conventional way, if they did something like this i would throw the game in the bin.

[Subject M]

Defeating the reapers conventionally can not work as the reapers represent the cosmicist threat.

As I see it the only alternatives are:

1.Finding their "counter principle" Either by "getting help un your war from the other cosmic giants" (which do not exist in the ME universe) or by changing the game so that the reapers no longer needs to "harvest". (basically, the answer is spelled Geth-quarian peace and doing other important stuff).

2. A weak spot that you need to sacrifice most of your forces to engage, or take care of yourself after you (shepard) by rather unconventional and non-military means have exposed it, or made them expose it.(the catalyst, if it is a part of the reapers.) A version of "Killing the original vampire" -plot.

3. Crucible being a giant gun you can fire on reapers. But why would the catalyst in the form of the god-child-architect of the reapers and solver of cosmic problems allow that?

Modifié par Subject M, 27 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Positronics wrote...

You're using Macguffin and Cherkov's Gun like they are negative connotations attached to it.

When I use the term Maguffin, maybe. The Citadel being Chekov's gun is actually pretty reasonable. 

Hint: Just because a literary device has a name to identify it (like hitchcock's Macguffin or Cherkov's Gun) does -not- mean that it is somehow bad.

Certainly, but nor does it mean it isn't a bad thing. In this case, a Maguffin and a Deus ex Diabolous are. 

BTW, the Crucible and the Catalyst is not a Macguffin.

It's in writing terms a "decisive plot device". Both the Crucible -and- the Catalyst is explained in the first hours of the story, and while we don't know how it all works (you don't know how the Reapers work, either) we do know it's function from the outset.

The Crucible is a Deus ex Maguffina. It stops the Reapers. That's pretty much all we're told until the end of the game. Its importance is reinforced but you don't really know why it is needed, and without foreshadowing it becomes a convenient plot device the writers can use to explain away a bunch of obvious problems. 

The Catalyst certainly is. We literally have no idea what it is or what it does, just that it's important. 
In the end, it turns out to be a literal Deus ex Diabolous, it's a god from a machine that appears in order magically solve your problems. 

You are told constantly they can't be defeated by conventional means, so get it through your skulls: THE REAPERS CAN'T LOSE IN A SLUGFEST.
The end.

It's a war the Reapers never usually fight, a war that they take extreme measures to avoid. 

I still think you should be given the opportunity to try, regardless. Winning should be possible if you do everything right, and even then you should only win by the skin of your teeth, and have the very real possibility of failure. 

[Sepharih]

Silhouett3 wrote...

Oh god reading all these 12 pages made my brain hurt. What's is the point of this debate, sending Bioware new space combat tactics and war strategy?

My only point was that defeating the reapers conventionally makes good sense from a dramatic and story perspective.  I don't care what the readouts or technical specs of the reapers and the alliance fleet are.  A good writer can introduce and/or handwave old canon in order to make it work.  Happens all the time, especially in scifi.
All that matters to me is what the story calls for.  Period.

If you have a story about a small group of rebels fighting an unstopable empire represented by a giant war machine, then the final battle and conclusion should follow a small group of rebels defeating and destroying that machine (ex. Star Wars).  How are they supposed to do it?  A good writer can find a way.
Either way, invoking a literal Deus Ex Machina (god of the machines) is both lazy and unsatisfying.

Personally, i'm a tad bit frustrated to see people debating space warfare tactics while completely and totally ignoring my point, and trying to debunk me by citing technical lore which I explained will not persuade me.
You can cite lore, but let's argue story themes and motifs...not freaking psuedo science.

Mesina2 wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Reasons why they cannot be beat conventionally:

1) Superior numbers.
2) Superior defense.
3) Superior firepower.
4) Huskification.
5) Indoctrination.

1) Superior numbers is pretty straightforward - if there's 5000 of us and 10000 of them, we're going to lose, even if we kill as many Reapers as they destroy our ships, which doesn't happen anyway because of 2) and 3).

2) Superior defense means it takes longer for us to kill one Reaper than it takes for one Reaper to destroy one of our ships.

3) Superior firepower means it takes them a quarter of the time to kill one of our ships than it does for us to kill one Reaper.

4) Ground forces captured and/or killed by the Reapers are transformed into husks, directly bolstering Reapers forces and extending the fight, made worse by 5).

5) The longer a fight drags on, the more psychological influence the Reapers exert on their enemies. If it takes long enough, allies are going to turn on each other.

This is why the Crucible is necessary.

None of which really answer my primary criticism.....

Except that he did.

Nope.  Missed the whole point actually..

Modifié par Sepharih, 27 mars 2012 - 02:04 .

[Orumon]

Seloun wrote...

There's no reason to believe that the Reapers can't be defeated by a sufficiently large 'conventional' force, given that a couple of dreadnaughts can take out a Reaper battleship. The problem is therefore is what is a 'sufficiently large' fleet. I'll assume that the Alliance brass aren't complete morons and are capable of doing basic arithmetic. Presumably they know the number of the Reapers are too many given the forces available at the time. Also, one imagines that they know roughly how fast they can build ships. So by saying the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, Hackett essentially is saying there isn't enough time.

That leaves asymmetric warfare - hit and run. The problem is that in order for that to be successful, you have to be able to run. The big problem is that the settled galaxy is extremely small in terms of travel time due to the mass relays. If the Reapers find where you are, they can get there very quickly. I'd argue that it's a miracle that Hackett was able to hide the Cruicible and his fleet (seriously, I have no idea how he managed that, unless the Reapers simply didn't believe it to be a threat).

The only viable strategy seems to be do what the Ilos/Eden Prime Protheans tried to do: buy time and rebuild once the Reapers are gone (if only they'd invested in bigger stasis pod batteries). Or...

I believe that the original purpose of the Crucible was always to destroy the Mass Relays.

It worked with the Alpha Relay (delaying the Reapers). What if every Mass Relay was destroyed? How much time would a civilization that was hiding in a corner have before the Reapers found them? Remember, if the Reapers split up, they can potentially be defeated in detail. If they don't, it takes that much longer before finding the organics. Years, at the minimum. Centuries or millenia isn't out of the picture. Given that amount of time, 'conventional' forces probably could defeat the Reapers outright.

One possibility would be to evacuate to a low-Relay portion of the galaxy (if there is one), settle the adjacent systems and blow the relay. It's possible that there isn't such a region (which is why you have to destroy all of the relays) but otherwise it might have worked to buy enough time to amass a larger fleet.

On destroying the mass relays (conventionally) I'd say that you'd only need to destroy one, which would include the system it's in: Charon relay and the solar system.

By the end of ME3 the reapers have pulled back most of their forces to protect the citadel, so it's not a big stretch to find a sufficiently large asteroid in the kuiper belt, slap some engines and Eezo on it and send it flying into the relay.

Yes, the 'Project' took months to set up, but bear in mind that Kenson was going for stealth, and then eventually came under indoctrination. Yes, it's monstrous and morally repulsive (unless you happen to be Stalin), but it's a far more effective option than the ones offered in the original ending AND it turns the war around, because now the reapers numbers are slashed and their fleet divided.

Okay, scorched earth is technically unconventional warfare, but I'd go with it anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Sepharih wrote...
However, what are we SHOWN?  We are shown:
-The Alliance fleet defeating both the Geth and Sovereign in ME1 (with your help).[/quote]And yet we were also shown that that battle was a near-thing, with just one Dreadnaught devastating the 5th Fleet. Since the Alliance hardly has hundreds of fleets despite being one of the most powerful militaries in the galaxy, and the Reapers easily go into the Thousands, that's not showing the Reapers are conventionally beatable because the foundations for that victory (numerical ratio in our favor) doesn't apply when the Reapers get their numbers as well.


[quote]
-A derilict reaper in ME2 that seems to have been defeated conventionally and gets blown up.[/quote]It was also killed by a super-weapon that not only was destroyed after its first (and thus only) shot, but has no analog in this cycle. That's not a conventional defeat: that's a exceptional circumstance.
[quote]
-Shepard and two squadmates defeating a WIP Reaper in ME2 with small arms fire.[/quote]Something weaker than any organic ship of note. The Human Reaper was by no means an equivalent to a regular Reaper, making it, again, an exceptional circumstance.

[quote]
-A Thresher maw, a (admittedly larger) kind of creature you routinely defeated in the Mako, going toe to toe and winning against Reaper.[/quote]It's not simply a larger kind: it's a one-of-a-kind creature in a circumstance that can't be replicated anywhere.

[quote]
-Shepard defeating a Reaper himself with the help of the migrant fleet.[/quote]And do you remember how it took the entire fleet to overwhelm that one Reaper, only when it's own defenses were lowered? When Reapers are already at their weakest on the ground?

[quote]
-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.[/quote]That wasn't an actual Reaper.
[quote]
What we are shown and experience as the player is that while the Reapers are a threat unlike any that the races of the galaxy have faced....they are not invincible.  Shepard is routinely shown defying all the odds and beating them in straight up fights.  
If you want to blame someone for promoting the idea that the united galaxies fleet could defeat the reapers in a straight up fight, blame Bioware.[/quote]Before them, I'll blame you for confusing invincibility with not winning a conventional war.


Afterwards I'd blame Bioware, but only because they passed up the opportunity of having ME2 being the preparation phase for the war.

Edit:

I know that all the examples I have cited can be explained away by lore such as "this was a smaller reaper" or "this one took the combined might of the whole fleet", or "that was just one Reaper".  But citing such examples misses my entire point about show versus tell.

If you want to tell a story that shows the player that the reapers cannot be defeated conventionally then you should not have them defeat the reapers conventionally at almost every story beat.  [/quote]And yet, they weren't, because the means you cite either aren't conventional means, aren't against regular Reapers, or can't be repeated in the scope to be applicable. What it's actually showing isn't what you're claiming it shows.

Yes, an entire fleet was able to take down a single Reaper dreadnaught... but we don't have as many fleets as there are Reaper dreadnaughts. Yes, the Baby Reaper was destroyable by small arms fire, but we aren't fighting baby reapers. Yes, Kralos and the Migrant Fleet were able to destroy individual landed Reaper destroyer, but we aren't just fighting landed individual Reaper destroyers.


[quote]
Also, this isn't about "proving" whether or not the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally.  The point is that from a storytelling standpoint, the game sends mixed messages.[/quote]No, the storytelling standpoint is consistent: beating any Reaper is an exceptional event that requires exceptional means. Either a weapon so powerful it carves out planets, an entire fleet hitting an exposed weakpoint at the exact moment, or the largest of Thresher Maws in the most specific of circumstances.

An entire fleet per Dreadnaught soon falls when the Reapers have far more dreadnaughts than the organics have fleets... and that the Reapers don't helpfully just send one Dreadnaught on its own.

[quote]
What I really mean by "conventional" is actually over the top hollywood style heroics that employ "conventional" means and weapons....not a plot device which may or may not be a deus ex machina.
[/quote]Every time Shepard has beaten a Reaper, it's been via a plot device enabling the Victory. Vigil opened the Citadel and Relays for the 5th Fleet was a non-repeatable device. The Thresher Maw was a non-repeatable device. The targetting laser that allowed the Migrant Fleet to fire accurately was a plot device that was explicitly said to be blockable in the future.

[Dean_the_Young]

Orumon wrote...

On destroying the mass relays (conventionally) I'd say that you'd only need to destroy one, which would include the system it's in: Charon relay and the solar system.

By the end of ME3 the reapers have pulled back most of their forces to protect the citadel, so it's not a big stretch to find a sufficiently large asteroid in the kuiper belt, slap some engines and Eezo on it and send it flying into the relay.

Untrue. The Reapers haven't pulled all their forces back: in fact, they cover more of the galaxy at the end than at any other time.

While Earth is their best-defended territory, by no means are the Reapers putting all their forces in one basket.

Yes, the 'Project' took months to set up, but bear in mind that Kenson was going for stealth, and then eventually came under indoctrination. Yes, it's monstrous and morally repulsive (unless you happen to be Stalin), but it's a far more effective option than the ones offered in the original ending AND it turns the war around, because now the reapers numbers are slashed and their fleet divided.

And what happens when the Reapers FTL out of the system in the four to five hours it would take a supernova (light speed) to go from Pluto to Earth?

Besides all those other Reapers out there, of course.

[aimlessgun]

The OP has a good point about showing/telling.

And the Crucible as we thought (a really big gun) is actually a conventional way to defeat the reapers.

Star Child is where we stray away from that.

[Orumon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
 
Untrue. The Reapers haven't pulled all their forces back: in fact, they cover more of the galaxy at the end than at any other time.

While Earth is their best-defended territory, by no means are the Reapers putting all their forces in one basket.

And what happens when the Reapers FTL out of the system in the four to five hours it would take a supernova (light speed) to go from Pluto to Earth?

Besides all those other Reapers out there, of course.

1.) While the reapers didn't pull back everything, that doesn't mean that they're at sufficient strength in every location to present a challenge to a unified galactic fleet without significant regroup, even then, their fleets aren't likely to be comprised of the same proportion of major 'Sovereign' class Reapers. Destroyer class reapers seem to be comparatively easy prey compared to the big ones (Dying at the hands of multiple quarian cruiser class).

These Reapers can be dealt with in piecemeal, thus placing the advantage in the hands of the now vastly numerically superior fleets of the free species (naturally, this calculation depends on Geth, Quarian, Citadel, Alliance and Batarian inclusion.)

2.) The first thing anyone knows when a their star goes suddenly nova is them getting hit by it.

FTL communications are one thing, but it's established that nobody (even Reapers) has sensors that can detect a faster than light moving object or force until it's either passed them by, slowed down or smashed into them. That's why they don't give chase when you leave the system, they have no way of tracking you accurately.

Of a greater concern is preventing them from detecting, and reacting, to the creation of an accelerated kinetic impactor for use against the mass relay, however, this could be dealt with accomplished by a diversionary strike. Evacuating earth would be a challenge as well.

[BattleVisor]

Everyone saying it needed the entire Quarian fleet to destroy one destroyer class reapers, if out of their minds.

Firstly the first few volley of shots, I see only one single shot (its porbably only the normandy with its Javelin Missiles). Only the very last volley was it multiple ships, and even then these were half a dozen cruiser class quarian ships, using their broadside cannons, and it immediately took out the reaper. AND thirdly these were orbital shots from space.

IF YOU REALISED shots from space on to a planet are GREATLY weakened, because of the atmosphere of the planet takes a lot of the energy away.

Also they dont want to bombard it with heavy fire, since that would greatly harm their planet, when its only one destroyer on the ground. It was difficult for them to get an accurate shot. 

AND LASTLY the codex says

''The barriers of a Reaper destroyer are less formidable than those of a capital ship. It is possible for a single cruiser or many fighters to disable or demolish a destroyer if they can get within range before they are themselves destroyed.'''

Modifié par BattleVisor, 24 avril 2012 - 02:02 .

[CmnDwnWrkn]

I would have no problem with a conventional ending. There'd be a few people complaining about the ending not being complex enough, but I think overall the reaction would have been more positive.

[BattleVisor]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.

That wasn't an actual Reaper.

No it was a bunny rabbit

[BattleVisor]

Not to mention look how strong the geth ships, they obliterated the Quarian fleet, if they didnt withdraw, HELL I saw a geth fighter take a direct hit from a cruiser, and it just absorbed the impact and bounced around, without its hull being destroyed