149 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Hit and run doesn't imply charging into a superior force and then running off.

IT implies you ambush soft targets where you have superior assets in play. Strangle off lone reapers or small packs, rather than go for the full confrontation. "Running" happens when you killed the pack/target, so you aren't running from forces in the engagement itself, but before re-inforcements can arrive.

Right. How do you do that? Unless you kill 100% of the Reapers in the initial strike, a survivor can hang around out of weapons range and trail your force until the reinforcements do arrive.

If reapers stretch out to cover alot of the galaxy, they become vulnerable to this kind of things. If they focus their forces to better withstand such tactics, they open up for better re-inforcement and production capabilities of their opponenets. Both cases are a bad sitatuation for them. Especially when they themselves can't re-inforce as easy as the allied forces can.

Sure, things would take eons to wrap up, but it would be a plausible way to do it.

I don't see it. Citadel production facilities are hardly less vulnerable than the Reapers' equivalent, even if Citadel forces can be built on a shorter time-scale (which is an unwarranted assumption, but conceivable). If the Reapers decided that actually wrecking planets was necessary, they could do that without difficulty. Citadel forces can wreck planets too, but that game favors the Reapers since they already have the superior force.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

AlanC9 wrote...

Right. How do you do that? Unless you kill 100% of the Reapers in the initial strike, a survivor can hang around out of weapons range and trail your force until the reinforcements do arrive.

Can they?

A major part of the problem here is that we have no idea what the Reapers are capable of. It isn't possible to come up with a plan to beat them conventionally, because we have no information on which to base such a plan. But untested superweapons will always work just ... because, and plotonium armour offers no protection against just-because based damage.

[AlanC9]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
To look at it another way, it's a remarkable coincidence that the Reapers were *just powerful enough* that the galaxy had no hope of defeating them by conventional means, but *not quite powerful enough* to destroy the superweapon before it was activated. I'm not sure I can even understand where that sweet spot might lie. If the Reapers really are as powerful as everybody insists, then they should not have been able to lose *at all*.

The percentage of Citadel forces at Sol is higher than the percentage of Reaper forces at Sol, isn't it? It's not that unreasonable that the forces can be relatively balanced when so many Reapers aren't present. And  the Reapers can destroy the Crucible if Shepard waits too long to use it. They're winning at Sol; it's just taking a bit of time.

But your more general point is quite true --  the Reapers are going to be exactly strong enough to put the balance of forces for the final battle wherever Bio needs it to be. What else could they do?

[AlanC9]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Right. How do you do that? Unless you kill 100% of the Reapers in the initial strike, a survivor can hang around out of weapons range and trail your force until the reinforcements do arrive.

Can they?

A major part of the problem here is that we have no idea what the Reapers are capable of.

We do know that Reapers are over twice as fast as Citadel ships, and that they have no fuel or drive discharge requirements. So they can control the range and do it forever.

(You really ought to take a look at the Codex sometime)

[Vormaerin]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...


This is more or less exactly the issue, though.

"An entire fleet" and "a giant thresher maw" are not commensurable units and neither Reapers, nor Alliance vessels (nor, for that matter, Threser Maws) have consistent abilities, weaknesses, or levels of power.

Actually, I'd think Kalros was a better choice for defeating any reaper stuck on a planet.   One of the Reapers' big advantages is their vastly superior electronic warfare capability.   Its nearly impossible for the galactic fleets to hit them at any kind of range.  The fact that they could make those thanix missiles miss at point blank range even with EDI (our best cyberwarfare asset) helping is a clear example of that.

Kalros doesn't give a rat's patootie about ECM.    Also, any reaper on the surface of a planet is distinctly weaker than one in space.   There's some entry about how they have most of their energy devoted to using mass effect fields to make themselves maneuverable or something like that.

[Han Shot First]

If the Reapers were real, and the 'Reapers can be defeated by conventional means' club was in command of the Citadel fleets, the Council races and their allies would have ended up like the Protheans.

[incinerator950]

Vasarkian wrote...

I have to disagree, you yourself state we never see THanix's yet everyone's equipped with them, this is an issue of continuity and lore not being properly demonstrated in the game because if they did it then the game wouldn't work.

Not really.  Thanix's may become wide spread, but it takes time to outfit an entire military force.  Not to mention the codex also states that while Thanix weapons are more useful against Reaper Barriers, the ranges to fire on Reapers still makes it difficult.  Reapers have stronger shields, Hulls, much stronger weapons all based on energy or Thanix capabilities, and they can pull turns and speeds (while dropping their Barriers and mass to dangerous levels) that out pace the Council races. 

The kinetic barriers on a Reaper capital ship can shrug off
the firepower of a small fleet. Weapons specifically designed to
overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix
series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is
getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on
Reaper ships, similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective
defense against organic species' fighters.


You said it yourself, the continuity doesn't demonstrate in the game.  So really, strapping a Thanix Cannon on every ship isn't going to be completely feasible, but even so, Bioware states they can't be conventionally defeated, so they won't.  I'd prefer the conventional route over the MacDeus, but the final Battle is a combination of just about every remaining fleet.  The Reapers are still around the entire Galaxy. 

Modifié par incinerator950, 15 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[HellbirdIV]

I thought the reason the Reapers weren't defeated conventionally in the previous cycles was because they jumped in at the Citadel, crippled galactic civilization and rendered all travel by Mass Relay impossible and then spent over a hundred years slowly grinding down civilizations into paste.

Since Shepard stopped the Reapers from taking control of the Citadel in ME1, they lost their biggest advantage, and thus, anything goes from then on.

[Han Shot First]

HellbirdIV wrote...

I thought the reason the Reapers weren't defeated conventionally in the previous cycles was because they jumped in at the Citadel, crippled galactic civilization and rendered all travel by Mass Relay impossible and then spent over a hundred years slowly grinding down civilizations into paste.

Since Shepard stopped the Reapers from taking control of the Citadel in ME1, they lost their biggest advantage, and thus, anything goes from then on.

That is part of the reason, but not the entire reason. The Reapers also choose to attack while they still possess a significant technological edge over their foes. It is stated in the codex that it takes more than three Citadel dreadnoughts to bring down a single Sovereign class Reaper. There is no indication that the civilizations of the galaxy possess four times (or more) dreadnoughts than the Reapers. In fact, since Admiral Hackett outright states that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, we know that isn't the case.

I have a question for those who seriously think the Reapers can be defeated by conventional means, and not just those playing devil's advocate:

If that is the case, why does Admiral Hackett suggest that it can't be done? Why doesn't any other Alliance Officer suggest that the Crucible is a waste of resources? Why doesn't Primarch Victus, or the Asari matriarchs, or whomever is running the Salarian military, suggest that Hackett divert resources used in the construction of the Citadel to building more ships, and defeating the Reapers by conventional means? If the Reapers can be defeated conventionally, why does not a single person in the Alliance, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Elcor, Hanar or Batarian high command suggest such a strategy? Why do no Quarians or Geth suggest that strategy as well?

The simple answer is that no one suggests such a strategy because it can not be done.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 15 avril 2012 - 05:16 .

[Dusk1976]

I've skimmed over most of the pros and cons, but what I didn't see is a comment about multiplayer. Yes, that wonderful Galaxy at War percentage that so many have come to despise regarding the pure SP experience. Do you know what it says if you get 95+%?

"Allied forces are holding steady and winning in key locations."

Ragtag bands of gropos are holding, and even winning, against the Reapers. With conventional methods. EA/BioWare gives us evidence that a conventional approach can work. Provided that the Relay Network isn't locked down by the Reapers, of course.

[chengda85]

Vasarkian wrote...

billywaffles wrote...

Well, it is impossible. Did you really played the entire game?

I won't comment here about this matter, no spoilers here. But I suggest you to replay the game. If you have the dlc from ashes, better.

*Cough*

The entirety of the prime military and forces as well as government of the Prothean Empire was taken out with the Citadel surprise attack, and then the relays were shutdown immediately causing everyone to be separated. This is not the case with the timeline in ME 1 - 2 - 3.

Thus your point is fallactical.

why didnt the reapers shut down the relays in this cycle? if the argument is "protheans from Ilos disabled citadel" which I always hear, it makes no sense since sovereign was able to gain control of the citadel by attaching directly to it.

[Sangheili_1337]

So if a Lion kills a human, does that mean Lions can beat humanity in all out warfare?

[Tocquevillain]

Dusk1976 wrote...

I've skimmed over most of the pros and cons, but what I didn't see is a comment about multiplayer. Yes, that wonderful Galaxy at War percentage that so many have come to despise regarding the pure SP experience. Do you know what it says if you get 95+%?

"Allied forces are holding steady and winning in key locations."

Ragtag bands of gropos are holding, and even winning, against the Reapers. With conventional methods. EA/BioWare gives us evidence that a conventional approach can work. Provided that the Relay Network isn't locked down by the Reapers, of course.

On the ground. Which is why the Krograns go to Palaven. Ground victories are pyrrhic victories when your opponent can bombard you from orbit and your fleets are outclassed and being destroyed at every opportunity.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 15 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[Alistair Theirin]

I just wish they would stop using the word 'conventionally'.

Every time a character used it I could tell that someone didn't have access to a thesaurus.

[Tocquevillain]

Alistair Theirin wrote...

I just wish they would stop using the word 'conventionally'.

Every time a character used it I could tell that someone didn't have access to a thesaurus.

Conventional is a word that is used to describe straight forward combat in the real world, it fits perfectly in Mass Effect. 

[tango jack]

HellbirdIV wrote...

I thought the reason the Reapers weren't defeated conventionally in the previous cycles was because they jumped in at the Citadel, crippled galactic civilization and rendered all travel by Mass Relay impossible and then spent over a hundred years slowly grinding down civilizations into paste.

Since Shepard stopped the Reapers from taking control of the Citadel in ME1, they lost their biggest advantage, and thus, anything goes from then on.

On this hellbird has point! The reapers have never (as far as we know) had to fight a galactic size fleet all at once that is united and organised under a single leadership. In the other cycles they would take over the citadel and thus remove all centralised command and cripple the relays (for us) so that they would only have to fight a fleet in each system.

"divide and conquer"

Against a huge fleet consisting of tens of thousands of ships united together i think the reapers could be overwhelmed and destroyed especially when you see one getting its legs blown off by only 2 dreadnoughts.
in the start of the battle.

I not sure how many reapers where at the sword battle but it looked to be no more that about 60 or thearabouts so we could focus literealy over a thousand ships at each reaper and that amount of firepower would be more than enough... imho.... to decimate them. Thats not including an almost unbeleivable amount of fighters to harass the reapers while they are being bombarded from all sides.

The numbers would be ovewhelming after all the quarians alone have 50000 ships and that just one race so lets say that all the other races contribute another 50000 for an overall total of 100000 against 60 reapers that equates out to about 1600 ships per Reaper. If even half those firing hit the mark thats about 800 hits at one moment not including fighters and how many of them would there be about million or so and thats not stretch if there is that many capital ships.

A conventional victory is possible if would have to be!

P:S people may argue over the numbers as i,m just estimating but it would be a LOT! of ships, way over 50000 at least.

Modifié par tango jack, 15 avril 2012 - 06:58 .

[Han Shot First]

@ Tango

You still run into the problem of Hackett flat out telling Shepard that the Reapers cannot be defeated by conventional means, and not a single Alliance or Alien officer suggesting otherwise. In fact they all place their bets on the Crucible.

That can only mean one of two things: Either every single officer in a high command position in the galaxy is a bumbling incompetent, or the Reapers truly can't be defeated by conventional means.

The latter is far more plausible.

[tango jack]

@Han Shot First (good name by the way)
I think that hackett and the others really can only conjecture about this as such a fleet had never before been attempted and i believe that hacketts referring to "we" means the allience on thier own. It does not mean they are bumbling or anything its just that they are only analysing and that can sometimes be wrong when seen in the light of day.

It appeared in battle that a reaper took severe damage from 2 of sword fleets ships so a quick rethink on hacketts part as overall commander of sword would have revealed a differance tatical approach was now available.

After viewing the end sequence I have now changed my overall outlook about what sword fleet could have accomplished in in the battle but I suppose there is enough going on about ending of ME3 without adding another element too it with this.

Modifié par tango jack, 15 avril 2012 - 08:24 .

[TheMightyG00sh]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

TheMightyG00sh wrote...


On Tuchanka it took a giant thresher maw to kill a reaper. A GIANT THRESHER MAW!

On Rannoch it takes an entire Quarian Fleet (THE LARGEST FLEET IN THE GALAXY!) AND the most advanced ship in the galaxy to kill the Reapers that landed before Shepard. AN ENTIRE FLEET!

This is more or less exactly the issue, though.

"An entire fleet" and "a giant thresher maw" are not commensurable units and neither Reapers, nor Alliance vessels (nor, for that matter, Threser Maws) have consistent abilities, weaknesses, or levels of power. The amount of firepower it took to kill a Reaper was *always* the amount of firepower that produced the coolest cutscene (or best sense of encroaching doom), no more and no less.

To look at it another way, it's a remarkable coincidence that the Reapers were *just powerful enough* that the galaxy had no hope of defeating them by conventional means, but *not quite powerful enough* to destroy the superweapon before it was activated. I'm not sure I can even understand where that sweet spot might lie. If the Reapers really are as powerful as everybody insists, then they should not have been able to lose *at all*.

Granted the Crucible is possibly the most annoying thing about this game besides lack of ME2 character involvement and I understand taht THAT is a major plothole. Reapers are intelligent so why would they leave the one thing that could lead to their destruction standing? I mean they controlled TIM And TIM knew about it, but they mysteriously did't. Though  I guess taking control of the Citadel was a nice move as it would make it hard for the current cycle to reach the Catalyst but honestly nothing really happened and the Reapers even set up a Conduit on Earth to make it ****** easy for Shepard to get up there. Why?

Anywasys back onto the original topic. Whilst a fleet isn't a measurable number it is worth pointing out that it took several orbital strikes from the Migrant Fleet to destroy the Reaper on Rannoch and it took hundreds of Alliance Vessels to put down Sovereign WITH his shields down. To that point I would like to amend my last post and state that since the amount of ships in each fleet varies and is immeasurable it is worth pointing out that in an orbital strike offensive it is probable that even a small number of ships (15 to 20 Normandy class Frigates or 50 or so "normal" ships) could probably be enough to knock out a Reaper provided it wasn't in combat with it (Reaper on Rannoch was focussed on Shepard).

This would provide clues as to how the Turian colony took out the Reaper Forces that invaded on the many planets noted ni the games. However I honestly don't believe that the combined forces of each and every one of the 12 or so races (especially whenYarg aren't yet uplifted to the degree of the Krogan, the Hannar trust in the Ctiadel races to protect them, the Elcor have but a few vessels in their fleet that could hold up to the standard Alliance Frigate, the Volus rely on the Turians and have but a few bombing ships, the Batarians are already all but wiped out and the Asari and Salarian are much more based on espionage and stealth operations (their most infamous forces are that of the Commandoes and the Salarian STG) . 

Also I would like to point out that Thresher Maws would be useless against the Reapers. They are too much of a solitary creature and Shepard has no way to communicate with them nor the resources or time to head to each individual planet and system in the galaxy to find each and every Thresher Maw. Kalros was a giant one and-judging fromt he size of the explosions-probably had to take it's own life to destroy the Reaper on Tuchanka.

Thresher Maws are a force that are unrealistic to the plot  and therefore could not contribute to "conventional means".

So yeah even if smaller ship numbers were needed in an orbital strike itstill wouldn't be enough especially when most Reapers are supported by others. The Migrant Fleet was attacked by ONE reaper that never even targetted them and they lost enough ships to the Geth as it was so it was unlikely the Fleet was still at 50k strong. If they were attacked by a token of Reaper forces (100 ships?) then they would surely be incapable of taken them out in full on combat. Not only would they be required to focus fire on one or two reapers but their forces would be slowly depleted by the Reapers. Added to this is that when peopel get scared they do irrational things. I doubt the Alliance even thought of launching an orbital strike on a colony of their's and neither would the Geth or Turian.

So yes whilst Reapers can be defeated conventially in bulk they cannot. Think of it as a stick. Take one and it can be snapped easily. Take two and it can be a struggle. Take three and it becomes alittle tough. And as they keep building it becomes harder and harder otk eep on top of them, no longer can one set of ships take out all of them at a similar time but they need to take on a select few at a time. Eventually something's gotta give and here's the clue: When you're snapping sticks you aren't being shot to death by giant cannons...

[JBONE27]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

The Reapers simply aren't consistent. They have whatever abilities they are required to have, and whatever numbers they are required to have.

The question therefore should not be "can the Reapers be beaten conventionally" but "would a conventional victory over the reapers be a satisfying ending."

Honestly, if we saw it, then I think it would have been a lot more satisfying than using a god-gun.

[FlamingBoy]

i actually thought the game was going to be a war effort, with asset like factories pumping out ships and what not

instead we get the crucible (which sucked to begin with) and we all know how that ended up

[Vormaerin]

It was quite obvious at the end of Arrival that there were only a handful of options:

1) Super Macguffin saves the day

2) Shepard is just wrong and the Reapers are overhyped.

Of the two, the first was far more likely in a video game. Jack Chalker had a nice version of the overhyped armaggedon event in his Flux and Anchor series, but its otherwise very rarely used.

I'm just glad that we didn't find out Shepard was the catalyst or something like that.

[AkiKishi]

JBONE27 wrote...

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

The Reapers simply aren't consistent. They have whatever abilities they are required to have, and whatever numbers they are required to have.

The question therefore should not be "can the Reapers be beaten conventionally" but "would a conventional victory over the reapers be a satisfying ending."

Honestly, if we saw it, then I think it would have been a lot more satisfying than using a god-gun.

That's the problem with Mass Effect as a whole.

[SalsaDMA]

Han Shot First wrote...

@ Tango

You still run into the problem of Hackett flat out telling Shepard that the Reapers cannot be defeated by conventional means, and not a single Alliance or Alien officer suggesting otherwise. In fact they all place their bets on the Crucible.

That can only mean one of two things: Either every single officer in a high command position in the galaxy is a bumbling incompetent, or the Reapers truly can't be defeated by conventional means.

The latter is far more plausible.

The reason things like hackets statement appears in the game, is because the writers need to try and make their mcguffin have a point for existing.

The problem, as I see it, is that the writing on the reapers is inconsistant. I personally believe it would have made for a more satisfying ending if the reapers were destroyed because you united the galaxy against the common foe, rather than resorted to pulling a rabbit out of your hat.

[AkiKishi]

They should have played Valkyria Chronicles.