444 réponses à ce sujet

[NM_Che56]

OMG...

[shodiswe]

The alliance had developed those special torpedos that devastates shields, and apparently you could equip them on every ship, even fighters....

I get the feeling those torpedos does more damage to shields than even Thanix cannons, they even disable the shieldgenerators.... So send in fighters to disable the reapers heavy sheidls then fire a few shots from a dreadnaught... Reaperdreadnaught= dead...

Even if you pickup those torpedos and it says every ship in the allied fleet gets fitted with them... you never see them in action..

I was lookign forward to seeing some torpedo action. It was one of those unique weapons created by humans, that no other race had, because it wasn't prothean tech, it was a new invention.. In a way it was the humans secret super weapon, they just needed to get close enough to fire it.

Ofcourse we never get to see the closefighting sequences just the initial salvo.

[A0170]

shodiswe wrote...

The alliance had developed those special torpedos that devastates shields, and apparently you could equip them on every ship, even fighters....

I get the feeling those torpedos does more damage to shields than even Thanix cannons, they even disable the shieldgenerators.... So send in fighters to disable the reapers heavy sheidls then fire a few shots from a dreadnaught... Reaperdreadnaught= dead...

Even if you pickup those torpedos and it says every ship in the allied fleet gets fitted with them... you never see them in action..

I was lookign forward to seeing some torpedo action. It was one of those unique weapons created by humans, that no other race had, because it wasn't prothean tech, it was a new invention.. In a way it was the humans secret super weapon, they just needed to get close enough to fire it.

Ofcourse we never get to see the closefighting sequences just the initial salvo.

Interesting but I don't think thats going to happen. According to the codex, the Alliance has been using javelin torpedoes since before ME1. Look what good it did against Sovereign? The entire Fifth Fleet, combined with its fighter squadrons and the rest of the Citadel fleet couldn't even break past Sovereign's shields. Only when Shepard ended that Saren husk did they get a chance.

They are pretty cool though. But going with the scene in ME2 where the Normandy takes down the Collector Cruiser, the Thanix I feel like is more effective. Remember if you don't get the Thanix cannon upgrade with the Normandy, it'll go into battle with the javelin torpedoes. And while it does win, it takes much more damage leading to the death of a squadmate.

Modifié par A0170, 20 avril 2012 - 08:22 .

[Oldbones2]

A0170 wrote...

Hackett said the reason why we couldn't win conventionally against the Reapers was because the
Reapers would "bleed us dry". Meanwhile, the Codex entry highlighting the Reaper's vulnerabilities serves to back up his point. Here are a few reasons for why, according to the Codex (and some other sources) Hackett is right. Please try and read the whole thing before posting, I know its long but I'd rather not have to answer comments stating I said one thing when I meant another.

1.) First, the Codex entry on Reaper Vulnerabilites states that,

"In the case of a Reaper capital ship, these kinetic barriers can hold off the firepower of two dreadnoughts simultaneously, but three clearly causes strain, and four typically results in destruction. Weapons designed to maximize heat damage, such as the Thanix series, show betterresults against the Reapers than pure kinetic impacts."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...er_Capabilities

It takes four dreadnoughts, with Thanix weapons mind you, just to take down one Reaper capital ship (or Sovereign class). And even if those dreadnoughts manage to take down a capital ship, the other Reaper ships would just swoop in and wipe out the dreadnoughts. So for every Sovereign class Reaper we take down, we will potentially lose 4 dreadnoughts in the process.

2.) That's not even counting the amount of ships such as escorting frigates, cruisers, or maybe even a dreadnought or two that would be lost just getting the remaining dreadnoughts into a good firing position for their shots to be effective enough to take down a Sovereign class ship. Why do they need to get into a good firing position? Because the Reapers could simply dodge the shells being fired. It's already established that they're incredibly maneuvable, and from the cinematic of the Sword fleet battle a lot of the shells that are fired at the
Reapers can be seen missing their target or being brushed off.

Source: 

3.) Also, there's this quote:

"Reaper capital ships can turn faster than Citadel dreadnoughts, but to do so, they must lower their mass to a level unacceptable in combat situations. Consequently, it is possible for a dreadnought to emerge from FTL travel behind a capital ship, then bring its guns to bear faster than the Reaper can return fire. This is a poor tactic, however, against Reapers flying in proper formation."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...er_Capabilities

Clearly, this highlights another weakness of the Reapers. Yes dreadnoughts can FTL jump right behind a Reaper capital ship and fire on them, thus avoiding having to engage the Reapers upfront in order to get into a good firing
position. This presumably means that less ships will be lost. BUT lets not forget that, "This is a poor tactic, however, against Reapers flying in proper formation." In other words, even if a group of dreadnoughts were to try this, they'll eventually be wiped out by the rest of the Reaper ships in formation. If we're lucky, our dreadnoughts would be able to take out a few Sovereigns, maybe even stagger them, but how long before their escorts fly in to wipe them out?

But even if 1-2 dreadnoughts could manage to escape, at that high of an attrition rate it wouldn't be long until the bulk of the galaxy's fighting force would be destroyed. And how often would the Citadel races be able to get the jump on the Reapers like that, where a Soveriegn class ship is in a perfect enough position that we could jump some dreadnought's behind it?

Do we even know how effective the FTL drives of the Citadel races are? Could they be able to perform such a precision jump without the circumstances being at optimal conditions? In ME1's intro, its mentioned how impressive jumping within "1500k" of their target was, and that was with the most advanced ship in the Alliance navy. Could a big, lumbering, dreadnought be able to jump with such precision? Even if, again, the rare opportunity to jump a Soveriegn class ship presented itself?

4.) Going back to the attrition rate, every single engagement would cost us dearly. Consider also
just how limited an amount of ships we actually have, according to this quote from the wiki:

"As of 2185, the dreadnought count was 39 turian, 20 asari, 16 salarian, and 8 human. By 2186, humans construct a ninth dreadnought, and the volus have built a single dreadnought of their own."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...ht#Dreadnoughts

If you add it up altogether, they're a total of 85 dreadnoughts amongst the council races (and 1 from the Volus, but its technically under the command of the Turian Heirarchy). As for the other races, we don't really hear mention of them having any dreadnoughts in game so lets assume that they don't have any for now.

Now, let's do the math. It takes 4 dreadnoughts to take down one Sovereign class Reaper, and if we factor in the presumable combat losses such an engagement would bring, the worst case scenario would end up being 21.25 (85/4=21.25) Sovereign class ships destroyed with all of our 85 dreadnoughts lost as well.

Furthermore, if we only lost an average of 3 dreadnoughts per 1 Sovereign class destroyed, we would still be only able to take down 28.33 Sovereign class ships with us. If it were 2 dreadnoughts lost per 1 Sovereign class ship, then the number would jump up to 42.5 Sovereigns destroyed at the cost of all of our dreadnoughts. Now, while 42.5 Sovereigns destroyed does look better, considering the other factors that I have pointed out above, losing an average of 2 dreadnoughts per engagement would be extremely lucky IMO.

Bear in mind that the number of 85 dreadnoughts is not counting how many were lost in the initial Reaper attacks on each race. Also, the Alliance has already lost at least one of its dreadnoughts, the SSV Shasta (source: http://masseffect.wi...vy#Dreadnoughts).

Now lets factor in how many Reaper capital ships there are. As far as I know, there is never an excact figure given, but we do know that there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. Garrus, for example, says one thousand Reaper ships exist.

Let's couple that with what we know from the codex:

"CAPITAL SHIPS are Sovereign-class Reapers two kilometers in length. They typically target the dreadnoughts, defense installations, and industrial cities of organic civilizations. Experts believe the Reapers harvest a single species of organics during each cycle of extinction to create these massive ships. Some capital ships are capable of launching small drones equivalent to fighters.

* DESTROYERS are 160 meters long and, in astounding numbers, make up the bulk of the Reaper fleet. They engage cruisers and other, smaller ships, as well as communications posts and enemy command centers. Research suggests destroyers are created from those species that are not harvested to make capital ships."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...ers#The_Reapers

So we can gather that destroyers make up the bulk of the Reaper fleet. So how many Sovereign class capital ships are there? Again, a figure is never listed, but let's say its at least a hundred. That would mean if they were a thousand ships total, each Sovereign class ship would have 10 destroyers guarding it. Not a perfect number I know, but let's work with it considering the lack of information.

Add this new information to our previous math where again, at the cost of all of their dreadnoughts, and at a rate of 2 dreadnoughts lost per 1 Sovereign class destroyed, then the Citadel races would've taken down 42.5 (or 42, if you adjust for the loss of the SSV Shasta) Sovereign classes. No small feat mind you, but even if we sacrifice all of our dreadnoughts, with a very "optimal" loss rate of 2 ships lost per engagement, then there would still be 57.5-58 Sovereigns lying around.

5.) With the destroyers, we stand a better chance. According to the Codex:

"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."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...ers#The_Reapers

Not so bad right? But remember the caveat of "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." Also consider the intro from ME3, when trying to reach the Normandy after the Reapers had landed, we see a scene where a destroyer is going against an Alliance "cruiser" (the Devs have admitted that calling it a Dreadnought was a mistake in the dialogue scripts). 

Source:

As we can see, the cruiser doesn't do so well. Now I guess you can chalk it up to the Devs wanting to have a cruiser exploding for the cool "Hollywood bang" sequence, but also remember how the Reapers were able to annihilate the Alliance fleets stationed above Earth in minutes. And let's not forget the several scenes throughout ME1 & ME3 depicting how easily a cruiser can be destroyed by a few shots from a Reaper ship.

For example, here's the Sword fleet scene again.

Source:

At 2:43, a cruiser seems to survive a direct hit, indicative perhaps of some enhancements in shield technology from ME1-ME3. But at 2:55, another seems to be destroyed pretty quickly. And if we consider again how quickly the Reapers absolutely steamrolled through the Alliance fleets within minutes, even with these shield advancements, it still wouldn't be enough to protect the Cruisers for more than a few shots at best.

So with this in mind, the Codex's claim about how a destroyer can be taken out by one cruiser is questionable. Perhaps under the best of circumstances, and if the cruiser was extremely lucky/piloted by an extremely capable crew then yes I can see it happening if they go one on one. And those are long odds indeed. Now, when considering those odds, imagine a "wolfpack" group of cruisers going up against the same number of destroyers.
Even if the cruisers were to win, they couldn't do so without enormous casualties. And again, if we consider just how many destroyers are there, 900 if we use the previously mentioned figure, than at best it would take us 900 cruisers to take out 900 of there destroyers, if we're lucky.

But what would happen if a cruiser Wolf Pack outnumbers a group of destroyers? Wouldn't they have an advantage? Perhaps, but again, considering the destructive power of the Reaper's laser and how little protection the Cruiser's shields can provide them, than it is highly likely that the Cruiser wolf pack will have at least a few casualties. And then, these cruisers would have to deal with the remaining 57-58 remaining Sovereign class ships left. Again, the numbers don't look good.

Same idea applies for fighters. The quote about Reaper vulnerabilites states that it would take "many fighters" to take down one destroyer. Again, no exact figure is given so we're going to have to assume some numbers again. We saw a little bit of some fighter v. destroyer action on Priority: Tuchanka, where a dozen or so Turian fighters can be seen engaging a destroyer. To remind those of you who don't remember, the fighters were supposed to help lure the destroyer away from the Shroud. Unfortunately, most, if not all of the fighters are shot down with little damage done to the destroyer.

But because these fighters were meant to serve as a distraction, can we really judge the basis of how effective fighters are against destroyers? The ease at which the destroyer took these fighters down, cannot be ignored. So how would an actual, sizable fighter group fare against a destroyer with the proper ordinance? Presumably, you would need a lot of fighter bombers, plus escorts to protect them if they're a large amount of Occuli that are nearby. I'm not sure if destroyers can carry Occuli, but if they're near a Sovereign class then we can be sure to count hundreds if not thousands of Occuli as part of their defensive screen.

So if fighters are engaging one destroyer, and considering again how easy it was for the destroyer on Tuchanka to shoot down dozens of fighters, the losses would be severely high. Now if this were a massive fleet engagement against dozens of destroyers, with maybe even a Sovereign class and its massive Occuli fighter screen in the mix, then the casualty rates for these poor fighter pilots will undoubtedly skyrocket even more.

Note: Some of you have mentioned how effective an Alliance air wing would be for example if all its fighters were armed with Thanix weapons. Well aren't the Reaper's Occuli fighters armed with a similar, if not more powerful laser already? That's because the Occuli laser is derived from the Reaper's main gun. Its shown to be powerful enough in ME2 during the suicide mission to rip through the Normandy's hull and its shields, when the Occuli enters the shuttle bay after all. So whats stopping these hundreds of Occuli from descending upon the ships of the Citadel fleet? 

Therefore, having to lose dozens of trained fighter pilots for each battle, or just to take down one destroyer, how long will it take for the fighter corps of each race to be depleted? How long would it take to train a fresh batch of pilots? Months presumably right? Or we can rush them out after a few weeks like the Japanese did in WWII, but look how that turned out. The experience and effectiveness rate of each race's fighter corps would plummet, while at the same time draining our manpower and resources to train/prepare a new batch of fighters and their pilots.

6.) Which leads to my last point. How long can the races of the galaxy fight on like this? Having to constantly rebuild/train your fighter corps, repair/rebuild all the ships that have been damaged or destroyed in battle, will of course require an incredible large amount of resources. But how many resources would the Citadel races have left, with most of their homeworlds and colonies occupied and under Reaper control? Sure they could retake a planet or two, but with all the factors that have been pointed out above, the losses would be staggering. And the Reapers could always return and take back our gains. Coupled with the massive amounts of war refugees/and or that are now displaced and in need of shelter and care, then it wouldn't be long until the surviving governments of the galaxy would be strained till the limit. What's to stop the inevitable fracturing and infighting that would ensue, with some governments capitulating in order to survive, becoming indoctrinating in the process?

The Reapers, with the benefit of time and their ability to handle the massive attrition rate that we can't, would simply wait us out, taking territory after territory, sezing or destroying any usable resource until they eventually "bleed us out". Sure, we would put up a hell of a fight. We could maybe even give the Yahg or whoever takes over in the next cycle a fighting chance, but as it stands now, Hackett is right.

Blow the relays.


Even if we lose, we can make damn sure they don't win.

[EthanDirtch]

I agree with what the OP says, the crux of the argument being we cannot win conventionally. A lot of my arguments will revolve around comparing this cycle with the previous cycle (the only other cycle with any sort of detail regarding their war with the Reapers), the Prothean Empire.

I haven't read the thread in its entirety so I hope I'm not simply repeating points that I personally haven't seen, so here goes:

First off, the war started off badly already. Yes, the galaxy was better prepared for *the ambush* via the Citadel. But we weren't prepared anywhere else (with a lot of people still not believing the Reapers were a credible threat). This is why even with the Relays in tact a lot of places got hit hard and fast. Not to mention that most if not all common, conventional means of communication was cut off leaving messages to QECs (which actually seemed a lot more common than they made them out to be in ME2).

Conversely, the Protheans were prepared for the arrival of the Reapers--as stated by Javik in ME3--but not prepared for the Citadel ambush.

Regarding dreadnaughts and numbers: I think that the Reaper force is sizable, no matter how much of that force are capital ships. The fact that they hit several homeworlds nearly simultaneously (and the fact they can spare ships to chase you around if you scan too much  ) is indicative of this size. Sure, you can slow them down, claim victories here or there, but the inevitability of defeat (conventionally) is still there. Their technology and firepower overwhelms what we can muster.

Also, the fact that they hit homeworlds means that--without Shepard or an otherwise charismatic character to unite them--most of the galactic forces would have stayed on their front lawn. It took Shepard and the promise of an end (The Crucible) to force these disparate races to leave their homes.

Conversely, the Protheans were a largely militaristic force. Even without the Reaper threat they had been fighting many more wars than the current galactic community. Sure, we had the Rachni and Krogans to deal with, but the Protheans' whole philosophy was "join us or get left behind". They were Darwinian, all about being the dominant force, assimiliating other cultures by force or otherwise. They also didn't have to deal with the Treaty of Farixen. This coupled with their foreknowledge of the Reaper arrival likely lead them to build a much higher number of dreadnaughts (or comparable) ships during their Cycle.

And then, since they're "all" Prothean there's not as much argument about leaving your homeworld to fight a unified front (no Relays notwithstanding).

As to why the Protheans took centuries to eradicate? That's easy: no Mass Relays.

Remember, the Reapers disables the Relays first via the Citadel in every cycle (well, so far as we know). The Citadel was alreayd Reaper controlled by the time Javik was born. Reapers themselves are incapble of instantenously traveling between clusters without the use of the Relays, thus they were hunting down the last scraps of civilization using conventional (but powerful) FTL drives. This is also why they needed the Citadel to become the repository of knowledge and galactic power so they can consolodate data and locations before shutting the Relays down.

Conversely, since we kept the Relays operational in the current cycle it was easier for the Reapers to travel from system to system, homeworld to homeworld. They may not have known where all our colonies are, but they have a pretty good idea. Even if they didn't get that information from Sovereign (via Saren), Harbinger was still in contact with the Collectors who themselves had deals with various species and characters over many many years (thousands?) to still know where to hit and hit hard. In this case, it's almost like a lose/lose situation with having the Relays on or off

As for the Geth and Quarians: While both still are possessed of massive fleets both took quite a bit of damage in their war with each other. While you can argue the Geth was not a signee of the Treaty of Farixen, ME3 had shown their character (Reaper worshipers aside) as generally peaceful. They weren't warlike, and had plenty of opportunity to go out and run roughshod on the galaxy if they wanted. Instead they focused on defending their territory and wanting to be left alone (again, Reaper worshipers notwithstanding). Not saying they couldn't have fielded the same number of dreadnaughts as the Turians, but until they finally decided to join us in our fight against the Reapers they had little reason to make much more than that. As for the Quarians, sure they have upgraded their Liveships with dreadnaught level weaponry, but they have no armor as Joker states. Their viability in a long campaign is near nill. While the Reapers are not discriminatory in their targetting, it's pretty safe to assume that once one Reaper eliminates a Liveship in less time than a regular dreadnaught they would become very tempting and easy targets.


So, in short, it's pretty much impossible we could have won this war conventionally. Well, maybe not impossible, but improbable. The Reapers have largley eliminated all fueling and communication infrastructures, they've already hit most known viable garden worlds, and homeworlds/galactic centers. By the end of the game if you look at the galactic map they've pretty much occupied all known locations that you could visit in ME3, or have visited in previous games.

[Cadeym]

Ericus wrote...

I have to agree that a conventional victory is impossible, if for no other reason than the fact that no cycle ever managed it over millions of years. If the current cycle actually pulled it off, it would only be 'just barely'.  And even that would only be thanks to the Prothean sabotage of the Citadel at the end of the last cycle.

The other cycles never managed to defeat a reaper prior to the them actually arriving in massive numbers. Most Alliance ships now have thanix cannons which the other cycles probably didn't have untill they got the tech from a dead reaper, even then they probably wouldn't have been able to mass produce it.

[Ariq]

Mouseraider wrote...

The other cycles never managed to defeat a reaper prior to the them actually arriving in massive numbers. Most Alliance ships now have thanix cannons which the other cycles probably didn't have untill they got the tech from a dead reaper, even then they probably wouldn't have been able to mass produce it.

Javik seems unimpressed with our fancy cannons. "Primitive" is the word he uses a lot about our technology. Makes you wonder if the Protheans may have had better weapons that still proved ineffective against the Reapers. And by wonder, I mean, "the game tells you that straight out."

[humes spork]

FS3D wrote...

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Okay, before we start a whole ****** game over semantics, actually a guess or conjecture is the only thing we can use to describe a theory. It just happens to be a guess or conjecture that has yet to be proven wrong.

Start making positive, absolutist assertions and the entire scientific method gets thrown completely out the window. Contemporary science is guided first and foremost by skepticism, and yes that includes things we think we already know because the human capacity for observation and reason can or should never be held as infallible.

Modifié par humes spork, 20 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[tractrpl]

This whole "plot armor" thing is ridiculous. People obviously want to fix the story to their own beliefs and wants. You could use "plot armor" an excuse for any particular point of view, from being able to defeat them conventionally to not being able to defeat them conventionally. I will say that according to how they're written in ME1 and ME2, it is logically consistent to say that they can't be defeated conventionally in ME3. To say that they could would be LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT. This is because of the mere facts already stated: that they've survived countless cycles defeating civilizations much more advanced and/or prepared than ours, they create more ships with each cycle while rarely losing any, etc. This all means they have thousands of Sovereigns and tens of thousands of destroyers thanks to the fact that they've survived at least 2000 cycles, though probably more like 4000 to 6000. They outnumber us on a ship for ship basis, not to mention that each of their ships is individually more powerful.

Modifié par tractrpl, 21 avril 2012 - 12:10 .

[Lookout1390]

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

[tractrpl]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

[Spectre_Shepard]

still doesn't change the fact that i WANTED TO GO DOWN FIGHTING

[Lookout1390]

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

[Ultra Prism]

very good post ... I thought so ... we were clearly outnumbered but still mustered a force to give our last chance ... just for Cruicible .... too bad that resulting in blowing up entire galaxy and consuming the mass relays in the process lol

[tractrpl]

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

They're destroyers with a fixed AA attachement, but your goal is to neutralize the AA guns. You don't need to kill the destroyer to do so. You're basically so close to it that its kinetic barriers don't work, the gun itself has none of the heavy armor (or exoskeleton) that encapsulates the reaper, and all you have to destroy its firing mechanism. Likely you don't actually kill the reaper mounting that gun, you just kill the gun. This is like real life war. You don't actually have to kill an enemy, just remove them from the battlefield. Destroying an F-15 is all you need to do even if you don't kill the pilot.

[FS3D]

humes spork wrote...

FS3D wrote...

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Okay, before we start a whole ****** game over semantics, actually a guess or conjecture is the only thing we can use to describe a theory. It just happens to be a guess or conjecture that has yet to be proven wrong.

And in describing a theory as such, you are playing the game that allows them to claim that the scientific community doesn't know what they are talking about, which is absurd in the highest degree. As far as the public are concerned (and must necessarily be so), a theory is a framework that encompasses laws and facts. To suggest otherwise is not only dangerous and leaves science open to attack by people who don't understand what they are attacking, it's also wrong, since the "conjecture and guesswork" involved in a theory is tempered heavily by the known facts, rigorous and repeated testing and field observations, and peer review. You don't get to sit down and write a bunch of ridiculous ideas down with no backup whatsoever, and then claim that these ideas are a theory without the rest of the scientific community calling you on your bullsh!t.

Start making positive, absolutist assertions and the entire scientific method gets thrown completely out the window

If that was what I, or anyone in the scientific community were doing, then you would have a point, but pointing out that a theory is not inferior to a law in science, and that a theory is not wild guess-work and the occasional opinion from "someone smart" is not making any sort of positive or absolutist assertion, so you should be careful with such terminology.

Contemporary science is guided first and foremost by skepticism, and yes that includes things we think we already know because the human capacity for observation and reason can or should never be held as infallible.

I never made any claim to the contrary, but despite the correctness of this last quote, that doesn't change the assertion by people who have no real education in science that a theory is "only a theory, and not a law" to be completely wrong and deserving of scorn.


TL;DR: A theory is not conjecture or guess-work, despite the fact that a certain amount of conjecture and guess-work being involved in formulating theory from the available facts in the first place, and this is only in a limited fashion.

Modifié par FS3D, 21 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[Lookout1390]

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

They're destroyers with a fixed AA attachement, but your goal is to neutralize the AA guns. You don't need to kill the destroyer to do so. You're basically so close to it that its kinetic barriers don't work, the gun itself has none of the heavy armor (or exoskeleton) that encapsulates the reaper, and all you have to destroy its firing mechanism. Likely you don't actually kill the reaper mounting that gun, you just kill the gun. This is like real life war. You don't actually have to kill an enemy, just remove them from the battlefield. Destroying an F-15 is all you need to do even if you don't kill the pilot.

This is what throws me off, it shows that you 'killed it'.

Like it falls down and quits moving.

Maybe later it powered back on, I don't know, but from witnessing it, it looks like I killed it.

[tractrpl]

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

They're destroyers with a fixed AA attachement, but your goal is to neutralize the AA guns. You don't need to kill the destroyer to do so. You're basically so close to it that its kinetic barriers don't work, the gun itself has none of the heavy armor (or exoskeleton) that encapsulates the reaper, and all you have to destroy its firing mechanism. Likely you don't actually kill the reaper mounting that gun, you just kill the gun. This is like real life war. You don't actually have to kill an enemy, just remove them from the battlefield. Destroying an F-15 is all you need to do even if you don't kill the pilot.

This is what throws me off, it shows that you 'killed it'.

Like it falls down and quits moving.

Maybe later it powered back on, I don't know, but from witnessing it, it looks like I killed it.

In the end, it doesn't matter. What you actually fired on was the AA gun. Suppose by doing so you overloaded it and caused an explosion that killed the Reaper. Now try doing the same thing to a destroyer without an AA gun. Well, you can't. It doesn't have a highly volatile piece of equipment on its back that has no armor or defences protecting it other than being able to prevent any flying craft from getting close enough to harm it. You were able to kill it with a Cain only BECAUSE it had that AA gun on its back. If it didn't, then there's no way you could kill it merely with a cain.
/end of discussion

[Lookout1390]

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

They're destroyers with a fixed AA attachement, but your goal is to neutralize the AA guns. You don't need to kill the destroyer to do so. You're basically so close to it that its kinetic barriers don't work, the gun itself has none of the heavy armor (or exoskeleton) that encapsulates the reaper, and all you have to destroy its firing mechanism. Likely you don't actually kill the reaper mounting that gun, you just kill the gun. This is like real life war. You don't actually have to kill an enemy, just remove them from the battlefield. Destroying an F-15 is all you need to do even if you don't kill the pilot.

This is what throws me off, it shows that you 'killed it'.

Like it falls down and quits moving.

Maybe later it powered back on, I don't know, but from witnessing it, it looks like I killed it.

In the end, it doesn't matter. What you actually fired on was the AA gun. Suppose by doing so you overloaded it and caused an explosion that killed the Reaper. Now try doing the same thing to a destroyer without an AA gun. Well, you can't. It doesn't have a highly volatile piece of equipment on its back that has no armor or defences protecting it other than being able to prevent any flying craft from getting close enough to harm it. You were able to kill it with a Cain only BECAUSE it had that AA gun on its back. If it didn't, then there's no way you could kill it merely with a cain.
/end of discussion

1 plothole down

23422340 to go

My mind is at ease.

[tractrpl]

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Give everyone and everything Cains.

It's the reapers achilles' heel apparently.

Nope, only those AA guns.

It's been awhile since I beat the campaign...but were the AA guns just destroyers fixed to have a AA attachment, or were they actually built different?

They're destroyers with a fixed AA attachement, but your goal is to neutralize the AA guns. You don't need to kill the destroyer to do so. You're basically so close to it that its kinetic barriers don't work, the gun itself has none of the heavy armor (or exoskeleton) that encapsulates the reaper, and all you have to destroy its firing mechanism. Likely you don't actually kill the reaper mounting that gun, you just kill the gun. This is like real life war. You don't actually have to kill an enemy, just remove them from the battlefield. Destroying an F-15 is all you need to do even if you don't kill the pilot.

This is what throws me off, it shows that you 'killed it'.

Like it falls down and quits moving.

Maybe later it powered back on, I don't know, but from witnessing it, it looks like I killed it.

In the end, it doesn't matter. What you actually fired on was the AA gun. Suppose by doing so you overloaded it and caused an explosion that killed the Reaper. Now try doing the same thing to a destroyer without an AA gun. Well, you can't. It doesn't have a highly volatile piece of equipment on its back that has no armor or defences protecting it other than being able to prevent any flying craft from getting close enough to harm it. You were able to kill it with a Cain only BECAUSE it had that AA gun on its back. If it didn't, then there's no way you could kill it merely with a cain.
/end of discussion

1 plothole down

23422340 to go

My mind is at ease.

Yes. Though to be fair, in my mind there are only two plotholes. 1) Why did the geth need to kill so many quarians just for self defence and 2) Starkid. Enough said.

[Balek-Vriege]

It would be very bad writing if we managed to defeat the Reapers conventionally. It comes down to what was already set in the previous two games. Simple numbers and deduction:

1) Sovereign Capital Ship > Citadel/5th Fleet (at least in ME1 because of technological differences)
2) Reaper Ships > Conventional Ships (No chance)
3) Reaper Ships > Conventional Ships w/ Thanix Cannons (Possible chance)
3) Reaper Timelessness and Self-Dependancy > Supply, economic and time issues of Galactic forces
4) The Reaper Fleet as a whole is as large/effective as the combined Galactic forces
5) Reaper ground forces are made out of defeated races and their civilians, outnumbering ground conventional forces by who knows how much.

How do you win against an enemy so techologically superior, with numerous numbers matching anything you can produce, have no need for supply lines, have no upkeep and have essentially turned the very civilizations you are trying to protect into ground troops? The answer is you don't. You lose by attrition slowly or better yet, quickly.

[JShepppp]

OP, one of the most well-thought out and researched threads I've seen. Bravo, kudos, and thank you for posting this. Definitely bumping, and you get this:

*slow clap*

lol

[A0170]

JShepppp wrote...

OP, one of the most well-thought out and researched threads I've seen. Bravo, kudos, and thank you for posting this. Definitely bumping, and you get this:

*slow clap*

lol

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

Modifié par A0170, 21 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[A0170]

EthanDirtch wrote...

I agree with what the OP says, the crux of the argument being we cannot win conventionally. A lot of my arguments will revolve around comparing this cycle with the previous cycle (the only other cycle with any sort of detail regarding their war with the Reapers), the Prothean Empire.

I haven't read the thread in its entirety so I hope I'm not simply repeating points that I personally haven't seen, so here goes:

First off, the war started off badly already. Yes, the galaxy was better prepared for *the ambush* via the Citadel. But we weren't prepared anywhere else (with a lot of people still not believing the Reapers were a credible threat). This is why even with the Relays in tact a lot of places got hit hard and fast. Not to mention that most if not all common, conventional means of communication was cut off leaving messages to QECs (which actually seemed a lot more common than they made them out to be in ME2).

Conversely, the Protheans were prepared for the arrival of the Reapers--as stated by Javik in ME3--but not prepared for the Citadel ambush.

Regarding dreadnaughts and numbers: I think that the Reaper force is sizable, no matter how much of that force are capital ships. The fact that they hit several homeworlds nearly simultaneously (and the fact they can spare ships to chase you around if you scan too much  ) is indicative of this size. Sure, you can slow them down, claim victories here or there, but the inevitability of defeat (conventionally) is still there. Their technology and firepower overwhelms what we can muster.

Also, the fact that they hit homeworlds means that--without Shepard or an otherwise charismatic character to unite them--most of the galactic forces would have stayed on their front lawn. It took Shepard and the promise of an end (The Crucible) to force these disparate races to leave their homes.

Conversely, the Protheans were a largely militaristic force. Even without the Reaper threat they had been fighting many more wars than the current galactic community. Sure, we had the Rachni and Krogans to deal with, but the Protheans' whole philosophy was "join us or get left behind". They were Darwinian, all about being the dominant force, assimiliating other cultures by force or otherwise. They also didn't have to deal with the Treaty of Farixen. This coupled with their foreknowledge of the Reaper arrival likely lead them to build a much higher number of dreadnaughts (or comparable) ships during their Cycle.

And then, since they're "all" Prothean there's not as much argument about leaving your homeworld to fight a unified front (no Relays notwithstanding).

As to why the Protheans took centuries to eradicate? That's easy: no Mass Relays.

Remember, the Reapers disables the Relays first via the Citadel in every cycle (well, so far as we know). The Citadel was alreayd Reaper controlled by the time Javik was born. Reapers themselves are incapble of instantenously traveling between clusters without the use of the Relays, thus they were hunting down the last scraps of civilization using conventional (but powerful) FTL drives. This is also why they needed the Citadel to become the repository of knowledge and galactic power so they can consolodate data and locations before shutting the Relays down.

Conversely, since we kept the Relays operational in the current cycle it was easier for the Reapers to travel from system to system, homeworld to homeworld. They may not have known where all our colonies are, but they have a pretty good idea. Even if they didn't get that information from Sovereign (via Saren), Harbinger was still in contact with the Collectors who themselves had deals with various species and characters over many many years (thousands?) to still know where to hit and hit hard. In this case, it's almost like a lose/lose situation with having the Relays on or off

As for the Geth and Quarians: While both still are possessed of massive fleets both took quite a bit of damage in their war with each other. While you can argue the Geth was not a signee of the Treaty of Farixen, ME3 had shown their character (Reaper worshipers aside) as generally peaceful. They weren't warlike, and had plenty of opportunity to go out and run roughshod on the galaxy if they wanted. Instead they focused on defending their territory and wanting to be left alone (again, Reaper worshipers notwithstanding). Not saying they couldn't have fielded the same number of dreadnaughts as the Turians, but until they finally decided to join us in our fight against the Reapers they had little reason to make much more than that. As for the Quarians, sure they have upgraded their Liveships with dreadnaught level weaponry, but they have no armor as Joker states. Their viability in a long campaign is near nill. While the Reapers are not discriminatory in their targetting, it's pretty safe to assume that once one Reaper eliminates a Liveship in less time than a regular dreadnaught they would become very tempting and easy targets.


So, in short, it's pretty much impossible we could have won this war conventionally. Well, maybe not impossible, but improbable. The Reapers have largley eliminated all fueling and communication infrastructures, they've already hit most known viable garden worlds, and homeworlds/galactic centers. By the end of the game if you look at the galactic map they've pretty much occupied all known locations that you could visit in ME3, or have visited in previous games.

You've made some excellent points!

[TheMerchantMan]

tractrpl wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

The only reason we can't win conditionally was because of writing.

Yes, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise. If you write about a force that's been able to totally inihilate at least 2000 other civilizations, what makes you think that ours is special? This is the "humans are at the center of the universe" argument, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and humanity is not "special" in it's ability to destroy the Reapers.

We won this ware because we were very, very lucky. That's it, end of story.

It hurts everytime I read a post like this, because it means you've forgotten the entire point of Mass Effect 1.

Remember how every cycle usually lost the Citadel and control of the mass relays at the beginning of the Reaper invasion? 

That is why the Reaper's won. It had  nothing to do with the Reapers truly being so powerful but that the Reapers deliberately trapped and seperated the entire galaxy, slowly picking them off through sheer strength of numbers.

This cycle is different because the Mass Relays are still operational and thus unlike in all other cycles the entire galaxy can be brought to any single fight against the Reapers. The original theme of the game, unity/strentgh = survival. That is the advantage that this cycle had.