246 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

RE: FTL Collisions

Technically, you wouldn't necessarily be required to accelerate to faster than light. However, it's probably the best starting point, since the Reapers apparently have the ability to manipulate their mass to great extents. It's more a matter of mass than speed.

If you tied a reaper to a chair and ran Asteroid X57 into it, the Reaper would likely end up quite dead? We don't have any concrete numbers as to the extent to which Reapers can manipulate their mass, but given that they can land planetside, it's to a much greater extent than the galactic fleets can. So you can build up all the speed you want, you'd only do as much damage as your mass would allow.

[SaleemRa]

TookYoCookies wrote...



Yea again,

 
"The Crucible is the only way to defeat the Reapers beacuse Bioware designed it that way, and it is f*cking stupid. " 

is not that its stupid because you should be able to win with guerrilla stylye warfare given the information with in the game, ive stated previously the game actively tells you thats not the case. It's f*cking stupid as a plot deivce, its inclusion in the story is f*cking stupid. 

You have constantly taken everything i said, and interpreted it in a way that it was not meant to be interpreted, even after i made a post saying that this was not to interpreted as a set-in-stone strategy to tie-in with lore/resources with in the game. I pointed out reasons how it would be applicable, and in my opinion, more fun, and a more realistic strategy. Not "OMG this is a MUST do RAHHHHH" as you seem to believe. You have over analyzed this to the nth degree. 

I pointed out in almost every paragraph, that i just think that sh*t (the crucible) is dumb, its a macguffin, all the way up to the point when you go to activate it and it transforms into a deus ex machina. Wow, fantastic storytelling. I get it, you think guerrilla warfare is a no go; noted lol.

Still, i'd have rather had the story taken that route, despite how impossible you think it would be, then be introduced to baby space jesus and given the choice of three sh*tty options.

  "The Crucible is the only way to defeat the Reapers beacuse Bioware designed it that way, and it is f*cking stupid. " 

 

Do i need to explain my opinion any further lol?  I eagerly await your over-analysis, as this sh*t is decent free entertainment, which is hard to come by these days. (and it appears to be endless as well so far, so i've yet to be dissapointed which is more than i can say for ME3.)

Hey Sherlock guess what, your fighting the reapers the entire game. 

P.S. nah, your fighting cerebus most of the time. 

Heya Bud

Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if it doesnt make sense and based on faulty logic. My so called "twisted interpretation" is a product of your insistence that guerilla warefare is a viable strategy. As others have said going forward its not viable as the reapers are not something you can simply adapt to. I'll leave that point as we seemed to agree to disagree.

Now I've never said the idea of the crucible was not without flaw, tbh it is and could have benefitted by removing alot of the ambiguity surrounding it and making it less magicky, but it is also the main tool in Sheps arsenal when it comes to defeating the reapers. Mcguffin or not its what you get in the game, it is central to the premise. By removing it the game becomes less about Shep and more about the fleets and supporting characters, at that stage it might as well be an rts not the action adventure that ME3 is. As a result despite the fact that you might think that the crucible is stupid it plays an important part of the narrative. If you want fleet maneuvers then you are playing the WRONG GAME!

You might say I have over analyzed your points but you on the other hand have back peddled on every one of yours but the the fact that you think the crucible is stupid  - which is an opinion based on your personal prefference.

Finally though your fighting cerberus troops, cerberus represents indoctrinated reaper forces. Ergo you are fighting reapers the entire game. Surely you can draw that correlation on your own without hand holding. C'mon man your making it too easy for me.

[SaleemRa]

Irishfafnir wrote...

"The british troops lost the will to fight due to the constant attrition they faced, not to mention disease and supply line issues. They also were also demoralized from losing friends and comrades, these are not effects that apply to GODLIKE MACHINES that require no fuel or food as we know of and kind brainwash your buddies. "

British soldiers never really lost the will to fight, they won most of the major battles of the war, captured virtually every major port population center and still lost. And as much as as films such as "the Patriot" glorify people like Francis Marion, there role in the war was very minor. Britain essentially lost for 3 reasons, Howe thought he had already beaten Washington in 1776 and stopped chasing him past New Jersey allowing the Continental army to survive, British politicians at home gradually lost the will to carry on the war primarily as a result of....... This is the most important intervention by France,Spain, and the Dutch Republic turned the war into a global affair GB now faced the loss of territory in its more important colonies in the Caribbean and at home.

Guerrilla warfare had little to do with the success.

Thanks for correcting me on that man, American history is not my strong point.

[glacier1701]

Elyiia wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

snip......
 

Using a 50kg blob of antimatter would be very, very bad. It would be much, much more effective to modify fighter weapons to use 6g of antimatter (The equivalent of four dreadnoughts firing at once). Thus, every fighter now equals a Capital ship.

Hmmmm actually that would be something to work on - antimatter ammo to fit on fighters. I also do realise that a 50kg antimatter bomb going off planetside is NOT GOOD but it is an option if the need becomes desperate enough. In space though using kamikaze shuttles is a great option in so far as shuttles are cheap and easy to produce, can go fairly long distances and as evidenced by what is shown in ME3 there are right now thousands available for use which is what is needed. You also need to remember that the antimatter needs to react with matter to actually go off - the shuttle itself is the 'fuel' for that.

Oh and Elyiia caught the other posts where you advocate the use of antimatter. So you are aware of it being useful and the discussion of FTL weapons is beside the point when you have a more viable technology already at hand.

Modifié par glacier1701, 04 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[Elyiia]

glacier1701 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

snip......
 

Using a 50kg blob of antimatter would be very, very bad. It would be much, much more effective to modify fighter weapons to use 6g of antimatter (The equivalent of four dreadnoughts firing at once). Thus, every fighter now equals a Capital ship.

Hmmmm actually that would be something to work on - antimatter ammo to fit on fighters. I also do realise that a 50kg antimatter bomb going off planetside is NOT GOOD but it is an option if the need becomes desperate enough. In space though using kamikaze shuttles is a great option in so far as shuttles are cheap and easy to produce, can go fairly long distances and as evidenced by what is shown in ME3 there are right now thousands available for use which is what is needed. You also need to remember that the antimatter needs to react with matter to actually go off - the shuttle itself is the 'fuel' for that.

You only need 6g of anti matter to equal the power of four dreadnoughts (Aka, the power to destroy a Capital ship). You'd be able to use this with relatively little risk to the planet below as opposed to a 50kg bomb.

Even with 20,000 Capital ships with our fighters equipped with this ammo we'd have an advantage if we swarm the Reaper fleet.

Oh and Elyiia caught the other posts where you advocate the use of
antimatter. So you are aware of it being useful and the discussion of
FTL weapons is beside the point when you have a more viable technology
already at hand.

Well to be fair, with antimatter weapons we'd have a much, much more optimistic fight on our hands which could be interpretted as a super weapon. Though at least it would be better than choosing your flavour of warcrime.

Modifié par Elyiia, 04 mai 2012 - 02:27 .

[JShepppp]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

RE: FTL Collisions

Technically, you wouldn't necessarily be required to accelerate to faster than light. However, it's probably the best starting point, since the Reapers apparently have the ability to manipulate their mass to great extents. It's more a matter of mass than speed.

If you tied a reaper to a chair and ran Asteroid X57 into it, the Reaper would likely end up quite dead? We don't have any concrete numbers as to the extent to which Reapers can manipulate their mass, but given that they can land planetside, it's to a much greater extent than the galactic fleets can. So you can build up all the speed you want, you'd only do as much damage as your mass would allow.

Relativity tells us that if we get fast enough, we can actually do near-infinite amounts of damage. Unfortunately, the energy required to get to such levels pretty much negates the idea of using such fast ships as weapons. Basically, if we could generate that much energy, we could obliterate Reapers anyways and wouldn't need to do kamikaze ship runs.

As for pushing asteroids, I'm guessing the Reapers can dodge them or at least FTL out of the way if it's a huge asteroid.

[incinerator950]

So how do you deploy Antimatter weapons? You're basing this off of what I don't know, but the only time its been used in ME is on Noveria. That said, it was done by a Satellite firing device. Most likely a Warhead.

[JShepppp]

Elyiia wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

snip......
 

Using a 50kg blob of antimatter would be very, very bad. It would be much, much more effective to modify fighter weapons to use 6g of antimatter (The equivalent of four dreadnoughts firing at once). Thus, every fighter now equals a Capital ship.

Hmmmm actually that would be something to work on - antimatter ammo to fit on fighters. I also do realise that a 50kg antimatter bomb going off planetside is NOT GOOD but it is an option if the need becomes desperate enough. In space though using kamikaze shuttles is a great option in so far as shuttles are cheap and easy to produce, can go fairly long distances and as evidenced by what is shown in ME3 there are right now thousands available for use which is what is needed. You also need to remember that the antimatter needs to react with matter to actually go off - the shuttle itself is the 'fuel' for that.

You only need 6g of anti matter to equal the power of four dreadnoughts (Aka, the power to destroy a Capital ship). You'd be able to use this with relatively little risk to the planet below as opposed to a 50kg bomb.

Even with 20,000 Capital ships with our fighters equipped with this ammo we'd have an advantage if we swarm the Reaper fleet.

Oh and Elyiia caught the other posts where you advocate the use of
antimatter. So you are aware of it being useful and the discussion of
FTL weapons is beside the point when you have a more viable technology
already at hand.

Well to be fair, with antimatter weapons we'd have a much, much more optimistic fight on our hands which could be interpretted as a super weapon. Though at least it would be better than choosing your flavour of warcrime.

This is all great but from what I understand antimatter isn't produced in enough quantities for it to be a viable military option. It's actually grabbed from stars in refineries, not even really produced, and the Reapers have been destroying fueling stations for a while now. 

[Elyiia]

JShepppp wrote...

This is all great but from what I understand antimatter isn't produced in enough quantities for it to be a viable military option. It's actually grabbed from stars in refineries, not even really produced, and the Reapers have been destroying fueling stations for a while now. 

We're never really told how much we have available. It could have easily been written either way. Without concrete information, all I have is speculations.

Besides, the Turians have been able to hold a fueling station in a contested system. It's easy to see how we'd still have enough refineries to produce what we need.

[SaleemRa]

Just out of curiosity where does this stat that 4 dreadnoughts can destroy a sovvy class ship come from?

[Elyiia]

Codex says that, using kinetic weapons, a Capital ship's barriers can handle two dreadnoughts, strains under three and is destroyed when four are firing upon it.

[SaleemRa]

good to know, thx

[cgtrfghj7]

No, Bioware just wrote themselves into a corner with Mass Effect 3.

[SaleemRa]

Elyiia per the anti matter idea, sounds cool but what do we really know about its application in the universe? Would it even be possible to have the necessary containment systems in place on something as small as a fighter for safe application.

There is probably a reason that it isnt being used in munitions, having it as a power source for anti proton propulsion is one thing but how do you maintain containment in a slug being fired from a weapon? Its liable to react to anything in its path resulting in premature detonation. Even if you could figure it out it would probably be too difficult and too expensive resource wise to produce.

[Joccaren]

SaleemRa wrote...

Elyiia per the anti matter idea, sounds cool but what do we really know about its application in the universe? Would it even be possible to have the necessary containment systems in place on something as small as a fighter for safe application.

Not much, and this is what makes it perfect. As we don't know all that much about its application in the universe, it could be written to be able to be placed within fighter shells, held by electromagnetic fields that are released on impact with an enemy ship.
We could have had plenty of anti-matter refineries. The Crucible construction site was never found, so it is wholey possible that many other things weren't either.

There is probably a reason that it isnt being used in munitions, having it as a power source for anti proton propulsion is one thing but how do you maintain containment in a slug being fired from a weapon? Its liable to react to anything in its path resulting in premature detonation. Even if you could figure it out it would probably be too difficult and too expensive resource wise to produce.

As I stated: Place it in an electromagnetic field inside that slug, that releases on impact with an enemy ship. The slug itself is made of normal matter. A 6g payload inside of it [Not a lot of weight really, considering this is a space fighter round] is kept safe from everything in its path like dust. When it hits something, it will detonate, much like when a normal round hits something, it will stop [or pierce through it at a reduced speed].
I'd personally use 1g anti-matter per round, as fighter fire rates more than make up for the total amount fired per fighter to become 6g, yet it also reduced the chance of killing yourself and nearby ships if you shoot some debris instead of a reaper - even if by a small amount.

As for the reason it isn't being used as munition: It would make the Crucible largely pointless.

[Joccaren]

SaleemRa wrote...

Now I've never said the idea of the crucible was not without flaw, tbh it is and could have benefitted by removing alot of the ambiguity surrounding it and making it less magicky, but it is also the main tool in Sheps arsenal when it comes to defeating the reapers. Mcguffin or not its what you get in the game, it is central to the premise. By removing it the game becomes less about Shep and more about the fleets and supporting characters, at that stage it might as well be an rts not the action adventure that ME3 is. As a result despite the fact that you might think that the crucible is stupid it plays an important part of the narrative. If you want fleet maneuvers then you are playing the WRONG GAME!

I'm not going to touch Guerilla warfare. Had Bioware wanted to make it possible, they would have. They wanted the Crucible, so it is impossible, and that's where I'm going to leave it.

However, removing the Crucible removing the focus from Shepard? Waaah? Is Shepard the Crucible somehow?
No, removing the Crucible only removes focus from the Crucible. The game would still focus on Shepard going around the Galaxy gathering forces to retake Earth. The only place there MIGHT be a difference would be at the end of the game. Instead of making some arbitrary and contrived choice that turns you into space Jesus, your previous choices would be what mattered and what decided your outcome.
Mass Effect would not become any more like an RTS if the Crucible was removed. The missions would remain the exact same [Except the ending, and finding the Crucible on Mars, just use it to introduce T'soni and Cerberus]. The gameplay would remain the exact same. The only thing that would change is that cutscenes involving a giant space bomb would be replaced with cutscenes showing a giant space fleet instead.
Saying ME3 would become an RTS because the way to defeat the Reapers is through having your fleets fight them is like saying ME3 is the same game as bomberman or something because of the big galactic bomb you're building [Which turns out to be a diabolous ex machina and yadda yadda yadda].
The ONLY important part the Crucible plays in the Narrative is giving it a focus - something that the United Fleets could just as easily have been. The Crucible was unnecessary, weak writting on behalf of Bioware [A Deus Ex Machina and Diabolous Ex Machina in one... Seriously, what next Bioware?], and alround as flawed - if not more - an idea as many that 'Pro Enders' turn down for their apparent flaws.

[SoloPala]

I'm still confused they didn't just pump out a bunch of dreadnaughts or make a super dreadnaught with all the resources and races they got to build a damn machine they don't know jack about.

[Joccaren]

SoloPala wrote...

I'm still confused they didn't just pump out a bunch of dreadnaughts or make a super dreadnaught with all the resources and races they got to build a damn machine they don't know jack about.

Yeah. When you look at the size of the Crucible... That thing could have been one giant gun, 4-8Km in length [Dependent on how over the top they wanted to go]. That gun could have fired from around 4 times the range of a Reaper, done 4-8 times the damage of a capital ship, and would likely have been the Klendagon Rift Scar style gun all over again: One shot Reapers from a long way away.
Of course, Reapers could just FTL to that ship and destroy it, but lets not pretend they couldn't do that with the Crucible too.

[Elyiia]

With the Reapers tactics, having a huge amount of fighters would probably be more effective than having a large dreadnought.

[Joccaren]

Elyiia wrote...

With the Reapers tactics, having a huge amount of fighters would probably be more effective than having a large dreadnought.

With Reaper armour and shields, and Guardian defenses, a Dreadnought would be much more effective.

Utilising Anti-Matter rounds would make fighters effective, however a super dreadnought as opposed to the Crucible is a better alternative to large numbers of basic fighters.

[Elyiia]

Joccaren wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

With the Reapers tactics, having a huge amount of fighters would probably be more effective than having a large dreadnought.

With Reaper armour and shields, and Guardian defenses, a Dreadnought would be much more effective.

Utilising Anti-Matter rounds would make fighters effective, however a super dreadnought as opposed to the Crucible is a better alternative to large numbers of basic fighters.

I disagree, while a large number of fighters would be less effective than a large number of dreadnoughts they would still be more effective than a super dreadnought. We have limitations on our kinetic barriers. All the Reapers would have to do is focus on the target, conviently larger than anything else, and destroy it and then we're screwed. It would have been as bad as the Reapers ignoring the crucible until it's attached to the Citadel.

[SaleemRa]

Joccaren wrote...

I'm not going to touch Guerilla warfare. Had Bioware wanted to make it possible, they would have. They wanted the Crucible, so it is impossible, and that's where I'm going to leave it.

However, removing the Crucible removing the focus from Shepard? Waaah? Is Shepard the Crucible somehow?
No, removing the Crucible only removes focus from the Crucible. The game would still focus on Shepard going around the Galaxy gathering forces to retake Earth. The only place there MIGHT be a difference would be at the end of the game. Instead of making some arbitrary and contrived choice that turns you into space Jesus, your previous choices would be what mattered and what decided your outcome.
Mass Effect would not become any more like an RTS if the Crucible was removed. The missions would remain the exact same [Except the ending, and finding the Crucible on Mars, just use it to introduce T'soni and Cerberus]. The gameplay would remain the exact same. The only thing that would change is that cutscenes involving a giant space bomb would be replaced with cutscenes showing a giant space fleet instead.
Saying ME3 would become an RTS because the way to defeat the Reapers is through having your fleets fight them is like saying ME3 is the same game as bomberman or something because of the big galactic bomb you're building [Which turns out to be a diabolous ex machina and yadda yadda yadda].
The ONLY important part the Crucible plays in the Narrative is giving it a focus - something that the United Fleets could just as easily have been. The Crucible was unnecessary, weak writting on behalf of Bioware [A Deus Ex Machina and Diabolous Ex Machina in one... Seriously, what next Bioware?], and alround as flawed - if not more - an idea as many that 'Pro Enders' turn down for their apparent flaws.

Hi Joccaren

Part 1 Why removing the crucible from the narrative removes focus from shep

The reason I say removing the crucible removes focus from shepard is because without it you would as you said above be focusing on fleet building. We play the game from the perpective of shepard and you cant do that with fleet actions, they are by necessity a collective effort due to the numurous participants in it. Boil ME down and its always about 1 guy and his team doing the impossible and saving the day, without the crucible or someother similar mechanic you cant do that so it thus removes focus from shepard.

My RTS statement was in relation to TookYoCookies saying that he would rather be playing a a game with fleet/guerilla actions in it, its not really possible to do in the format that ME is in and the only way to do that would be to introduce RTS elements ala "sword of the stars" or homeworld. Similarly in response to yours now, if you remove the crucible and replace it with the united fleets then the focus is now on the fleets and not on shepard. The crucible forces attention on shepard due to its ambiguity, allowing him to go traipsing around the galaxy gathering a support fleet for it. We dont know how it works unitl the very last moment when you have to make the RGB decision and that works in Shepards favour.

The fleets however are a tangible and identifiable asset, we can make educated guesses on its capability ala the codex description on Reaper barrier limits. This as a result demands that it becomes a focus of the narrative. What would Shepards role in a fleet action be? Even in the game as is, Hackett takes control of the Normandy for the final push, Shepard is a commando not a fleet officer. His place is on the ground not up in space directing fleet actions, he isnt even qualified to do so.

Your are talking about writing out of the crucible from the narrative and changing the surrounding story which is not a perpective I am coming from. Bioware could have written any kind of ending they wanted too, but that is a RL observation not an in game one. I am coming from the direction of "this is what we have in universe, if the crucible didnt work then what else can we do?", fleet on fleet engagements wont work since the reapers have an advantage in superior weapons. Ambush tactics would get some results, but you would be loosing more then you'd be destroying in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 Antimatter why I dont think its feasable

That is also my issue with regards to anti matter application, thus far in universe there has been no application on anti matter munitions on fighter class platforms, in fact I dont think there is any application of it as munitions for any platform (i might be wrong here). I'm pretty sure if they could have done it the Turians would have been the first to do so. Saying that bioware could simply write it in is akin to expecting an act of god to occur (this being bioware's universe hence they literally have godlike influence over it) which is decidedly worse. Where did they suddenly get this tech? Where did they suddenly get the facilities to build it? It is handwaving equal to the scale of the crucible, probably more so in fact. If the use of anti matter in this capacity had been raised over the course of the series or even just the final installment I would have no issue with it but that isnt the case.

I posit magnetic bottling for anti matter munitions in the ME universe doesnt work due to the fact that the mechanisms for it would be too big in comparison to the shell being fired and would also not surive the acceleration speeds when fired from a mass driver. Even if the mechanism for the bottling isnt destroyed by the acceleration, there would surely be issues stemming from the interaction of the Massdrivers own magnetic field and that of the antimatter shielding unit. I am basing this assumption on the current trends of the universe setting not assuming it can be written in via act of god.

Similarly anti matter laden shuttles are not feasable due to the fact that the fleets need shuttles for other duties and have no easy means to replace the ones they have now. If they load them up with antimatter and send them on a kamikaze run then what are they going to use for evacuating personel or refugees or even sending troops into combat zones? The practice is self defeating in the long term.

[Elyiia]

SaleemRa wrote...
Part 2 Antimatter why I dont think its feasable

That is also my issue with regards to anti matter application, thus far in universe there has been no application on anti matter munitions on fighter class platforms, in fact I dont think there is any application of it as munitions for any platform (i might be wrong here). I'm pretty sure if they could have done it the Turians would have been the first to do so. Saying that bioware could simply write it in is akin to expecting an act of god to occur (this being bioware's universe hence they literally have godlike influence over it) which is decidedly worse. Where did they suddenly get this tech? Where did they suddenly get the facilities to build it? It is handwaving equal to the scale of the crucible, probably more so in fact. If the use of anti matter in this capacity had been raised over the course of the series or even just the final installment I would have no issue with it but that isnt the case.

I posit magnetic bottling for anti matter munitions in the ME universe doesnt work due to the fact that the mechanisms for it would be too big in comparison to the shell being fired and would also not surive the acceleration speeds when fired from a mass driver. Even if the mechanism for the bottling isnt destroyed by the acceleration, there would surely be issues stemming from the interaction of the Massdrivers own magnetic field and that of the antimatter shielding unit. I am basing this assumption on the current trends of the universe setting not assuming it can be written in via act of god.

Similarly anti matter laden shuttles are not feasable due to the fact that the fleets need shuttles for other duties and have no easy means to replace the ones they have now. If they load them up with antimatter and send them on a kamikaze run then what are they going to use for evacuating personel or refugees or even sending troops into combat zones? The practice is self defeating in the long term.

You raise some valid points, but without concrete data it's all speculations which I've admitted from the start. However we don't know if there is a reason why they don't use antimatter as a projectile. For all we know, it might have been outlawed specifically because it causes too much collatoral damage, similar to how we regard using bioweapons as a warcrime.

As for facilities, assuming you had some idea of how it would work, you could have used the Crucible workers into creating facilities to create the antimatter ammo.

It might be a "god like" weapon, but Bioware's writers could have written it into the universe and made it plausible unlike the concept of a Reaper-boom button being passed down through countless cycles.

And for suicide shuttles, you don't need to use shuttles you could use fighters which would achieve the same goal while saving the shuttles.

[mitthrawuodo]

Considering the crucible ended up using space magic and Mass effect is fictional anti-matter could have been used as a plot device. ah well, i dont the new ending will have any of this though

[SaleemRa]

Elyiia wrote...

You raise some valid points, but without concrete data it's all speculations which I've admitted from the start. However we don't know if there is a reason why they don't use antimatter as a projectile. For all we know, it might have been outlawed specifically because it causes too much collatoral damage, similar to how we regard using bioweapons as a warcrime.

As for facilities, assuming you had some idea of how it would work, you could have used the Crucible workers into creating facilities to create the antimatter ammo.

It might be a "god like" weapon, but Bioware's writers could have written it into the universe and made it plausible unlike the concept of a Reaper-boom button being passed down through countless cycles.

And for suicide shuttles, you don't need to use shuttles you could use fighters which would achieve the same goal while saving the shuttles.

Absolutely and this is something that I have said many times, there is insufficient data so it could go either way. My personal opinion though is that weaponized anti matter is not applicable in universe due to the fact that it is not even considered by the in game characters for whatever reason. If down the road Bioware releases a book or comic which  even hints at its use I will retract my opinion as then it we would have the data we need.

It is alot easier to build something 1 shot then to mass produce it. The crucible construction is 1 off and as a result infrastructure can be comsumed in construction similar to Bunelleschi's dome for the Santa Mareia del Fiore. To create something like munitions you need a production line and processes that are duplicatable, that is a lot harder to achieve.

Suicide fighters suffer the exact same problem, If you use your fighters to kamikaze what will you have to fly CAP, do recon, escort said shuttles and provide airsupport for ground units? Those assets cannot be easily replaced.