434 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Except we don't know anything about Hackett's tactics against the Reapers. All we know is that he was engaged by a massively superior force and managed to get out with 2 fleets.

You're just assuming that Hackett performed badly because you need the Reapers to be really weak in order to justify your desire for a conventional victory.

[Elyiia]

Skull Bearer wrote...

There is also the question of replacements. How easy is it for reapers to replace lost destroyers/capital ships vs how hard is it for the Citadel fleet to do the same.

If it's one race per capital ship, then even if the Reapers won the war and Reaped everyone, it still wouldn't make up for the losses they suffered on Palaven alone.

If you read the Codex, and listen to the Reapers themselves it can only be a single Capital ship per cycle at best.

To paraphrase the Reapers over three games, each Reaper Capital ship is a different species.

[The Angry One]

Yeah Shepard's entire dialog in the intro is facepalm worthy.
Though why the defence committee ever thought that Shepard, a soldier who's essentially a glorified grunt who goes where they're told to would have superior space tactics to the people who's job it is to come up with these tactics is never explained.

I mean sure Shepard has encountered Reapers and would be a good advisor, but coming up with a strategy on the spot? Right there? With the Reapers at the gates? What were they thinking?

[legion999]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Turians have 40 dreadnaughts. Hackett had four, maybe five.

Are you joking? Humanity has more than 4/5 Dreadnoughts. And again had he used decent tactics those Dreadnoughts would suffice.

[The Angry One]

Wulfram wrote...

Except we don't know anything about Hackett's tactics against the Reapers. All we know is that he was engaged by a massively superior force and managed to get out with 2 fleets.

You're just assuming that Hackett performed badly because you need the Reapers to be really weak in order to justify your desire for a conventional victory.

No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.
That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

[TookYoCookies]

The Angry One wrote...


No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.
That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

 

This^

He lost 3 fleets, including sacrificing 1 to save his own ass. Any RL navy with this kind of catastrophe, would  follow up with Hackett being immediately relieved of command, and (dis)Honorably Discharged.

[Wulfram]

The Angry One wrote...


No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.

It did take a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.

That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

3 fleets leave him outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 in capital ships, and we have no reason to believe the odds were better in other categories.  With the Reapers holding the qualitative edge too.  Those are odds where preserving some sort of fleet is about the best you can expect.

We don't have any evidence he didn't put up a fight.  5th fleet War Asset describes a "a bloody and desperate battle"

Arcturus station is likely positioned so it can play a role against enemies coming out of the Mass Relay.  As a static defence it would be effectively useless against attackers coming out of FTL

[MetioricTest]

TookYoCookies wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.
That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

 

This^

He lost 3 fleets, including sacrificing 1 to save his own ass. Any RL navy with this kind of catastrophe, would  follow up with Hackett being immediately relieved of command, and (dis)Honorably Discharged.

Not if it was fighting Reapers.

Hell how do we know that the Turian attacks weren't baded off advice and plans Hackett sent them?

[WandererRTF]

The Angry One wrote...

Again I'm not saying Hackett would've been victorious, I'm saying that by consolidating his forces he would've at least been able to save Arcturus Station in the short term and not lost two entire fleets.
Granted, this may also be the fault of the morons at the defense commitee, but the lack of any actual tactics in the battle is all Hackett.

Actually no, if the Reapers have a 'hard lock' on to a target there is nothing Citadel fleets can do to stop them - sure Hackett might inflict some damage on them but he would not be able to stop them. In other words there was nothing he could do to prevent the loss of the Arcturus Station. Also one of the fleets (at least) was sacrificed in order to buy time for other fleets to escape, again trying to save all could have easily resulted in loss of all the fleets.

[The Night Mammoth]

MetioricTest wrote...

TookYoCookies wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.
That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

 

This^

He lost 3 fleets, including sacrificing 1 to save his own ass. Any RL navy with this kind of catastrophe, would  follow up with Hackett being immediately relieved of command, and (dis)Honorably Discharged.

Not if it was fighting Reapers.

Hell how do we know that the Turian attacks weren't baded off advice and plans Hackett sent them?

We don't, but thinking so would be complete invention of facts. 

[The Night Mammoth]

WandererRTF wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Again I'm not saying Hackett would've been victorious, I'm saying that by consolidating his forces he would've at least been able to save Arcturus Station in the short term and not lost two entire fleets.
Granted, this may also be the fault of the morons at the defense commitee, but the lack of any actual tactics in the battle is all Hackett.

Actually no, if the Reapers have a 'hard lock' on to a target there is nothing Citadel fleets can do to stop them - sure Hackett might inflict some damage on them but he would not be able to stop them. In other words there was nothing he could do to prevent the loss of the Arcturus Station. Also one of the fleets (at least) was sacrificed in order to buy time for other fleets to escape, again trying to save all could have easily resulted in loss of all the fleets.

He could have lessened his losses, inflicted damage on the Reapers, and evacuated Arcturus. 

Instead, he lost several fleets, the rest of which were badly damaged, incurred no significant losses on his enemy, and caused the entirety of the Alliance government to be killed. 

[Aweus]

This may be unpopular but during entire ME3 I had a feeling Hackett is a pushover. Not a single time I felt like he is that sort of leader my Shepard should follow like a real soldier. We pretty much fly around and make sure that galaxy will stand united, Anderson is make his last stand on Earth. Hackett just sits there... being Hackett. Then once all the preparation work is done he waltz into Normandy and gives the inspirational speech. Err, I have a feeling someone else should be giving that speech instead of standing in the back line. Hackett, Sir, seriously... Get. Off. My. Ship! Commander Shepard for the fleet Admiral. Just becouse. And I dont care what some Alliance pencil pusher would say to that.

Modifié par Aweus, 13 mai 2012 - 02:39 .

[MetioricTest]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

TookYoCookies wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


No. I'm extrapolating that Hackett performed badly due to the fact that he's personally convinced it takes a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.
That he lost an entire fleet retreating against a likely maximum of 16 capital ships, possibly as little as 13.
That he couldn't even put up a fight with 3 fleets and what had to be one of the most well defended space stations in the galaxy.

 

This^

He lost 3 fleets, including sacrificing 1 to save his own ass. Any RL navy with this kind of catastrophe, would  follow up with Hackett being immediately relieved of command, and (dis)Honorably Discharged.

Not if it was fighting Reapers.

Hell how do we know that the Turian attacks weren't baded off advice and plans Hackett sent them?

We don't, but thinking so would be complete invention of facts. 

This entire thread is a complete invention of facts.

Codex: Reapers attacked with great advantage and surprise, did loads of damage, Hackett retreated. Then Turians fought some Reapers and killed a few but still lost.

Those are the facts all of which are just from a couple of lines of text that are intentionally vague. Making up large scale battles, your own figures and deciding what happened to judge the competence of the guy in charge is making up facts.

[MetioricTest]

He could have lessened his losses, inflicted damage on the Reapers, and evacuated Arcturus. 

See now this is making up facts. Anything to further that point is speculation.

[The Night Mammoth]

MetioricTest wrote...

He could have lessened his losses, inflicted damage on the Reapers, and evacuated Arcturus. 

See now this is making up facts. Anything to further that point is speculation.

I never said those things were facts. 

That phrase 'could have' is important. 

[The Angry One]

Wulfram wrote...

It did take a whole fleet to take down one Sovereign.

An unupgraded fleet. That also had to deal with the Geth.
The point is, Hackett hasn't changed his stance even now, even though the Turians are shooting down Sovereigns right and left.

3 fleets leave him outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 in capital ships, and we have no reason to believe the odds were better in other categories.  With the Reapers holding the qualitative edge too.  Those are odds where preserving some sort of fleet is about the best you can expect.

Missing the point. Whoever was in overall charge of the fleets, no matter if it was Hackett or someone else (though Hackett likely had a say at least) was a moron. All fleets should've been at Arcturus.
Stationing fleets at Eden Prime and Terra Nova with the forewarning they had was idiotic. So was placing fleets at Charon (to be ambushed and decimated) and Earth (to be picked apart one by one).

With the bulk of the Alliance forces at Arcturus, they should've been able to save the station and repel the Reaper force, allowing for a better counter-attack. If the Reaper send another screening force, that's less forces they have elsewhere. If the Reapers send the bulk of their Earth forces, that's more time for people on Earth to evacuate.

We don't have any evidence he didn't put up a fight.  5th fleet War Asset describes a "a bloody and desperate battle"

That resulted in no capital ship losses for the Reapers.

Arcturus station is likely positioned so it can play a role against enemies coming out of the Mass Relay.  As a static defence it would be effectively useless against attackers coming out of FTL

Do you think space stations are made with boss battle weak spots or something?
Reaper FTL tactics are only surprising in that they don't need to establish supply lines. Standard FTL tactics, which the Turians used constantly in the codex, should be well known to anyone designing the station for defence.

Modifié par The Angry One, 13 mai 2012 - 02:48 .

[The Angry One]

WandererRTF wrote...

Actually no, if the Reapers have a 'hard lock' on to a target there is nothing Citadel fleets can do to stop them - sure Hackett might inflict some damage on them but he would not be able to stop them. In other words there was nothing he could do to prevent the loss of the Arcturus Station. Also one of the fleets (at least) was sacrificed in order to buy time for other fleets to escape, again trying to save all could have easily resulted in loss of all the fleets.

Hard lock? What in blazes are you talking about? Are you saying the capital of the Systems Alliance can take less damage than a cruiser?
And if the Reapers are attacking the station, that should give Hackett ample opportunity to shoot down some capital ships.

[The Angry One]

MetioricTest wrote...

This entire thread is a complete invention of facts.

Codex: Reapers attacked with great advantage and surprise, did loads of damage, Hackett retreated. Then Turians fought some Reapers and killed a few but still lost.

Why do people like you deliberately ignore the fact that the Batarians were attacked first, and the Alliance had warning?
Is it just not convenient to acknowledge?

Those are the facts all of which are just from a couple of lines of text that are intentionally vague. Making up large scale battles, your own figures and deciding what happened to judge the competence of the guy in charge is making up facts.

I am not making up figures. I am making logical guesses. In fact I think I'm being extremely generous to the Reapers by saying that the Turians killed at least 4 Sovereigns, and that the screening force at Arcturus consisted of 16 Sovereigns.

Aweus wrote...

This may be unpopular but during entire ME3
I had a feeling Hackett is a pushover. Not a single time I felt like he
is that sort of leader my Shepard should follow like a real soldier. We
pretty much fly around and make sure that galaxy will stand united,
Anderson is make his last stand on Earth. Hackett just sits there...
being Hackett. Then once all the preparation work is done he waltz into
Normandy and gives the inspirational speech. Err, I have a feeling
someone else should be giving that speech instead of standing in the
back line. Hackett, Sir, seriously... Get. Off. My. Ship! Commander
Shepard for the fleet Admiral. Just becouse. And I dont care what some
Alliance pencil pusher would say to that.

I think his character was completely mishandled too.
Hell the first time I played through without knowing th endings I was sure he was hiding something, because he came across as very strange. Refusing to believe in any way to defeat the Reapers other than the Crucible.

Modifié par The Angry One, 13 mai 2012 - 02:50 .

[MetioricTest]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah Shepard's entire dialog in the intro is facepalm worthy.
Though why the defence committee ever thought that Shepard, a soldier who's essentially a glorified grunt who goes where they're told to would have superior space tactics to the people who's job it is to come up with these tactics is never explained.

I mean sure Shepard has encountered Reapers and would be a good advisor, but coming up with a strategy on the spot? Right there? With the Reapers at the gates? What were they thinking?

"We're about to die OMG WTF HELP!"

They were supposed to be desperate.

[The Night Mammoth]

MetioricTest wrote...


This entire thread is a complete invention of facts.

Codex: Reapers attacked with great advantage and surprise, did loads of damage, Hackett retreated. Then Turians fought some Reapers and killed a few but still lost.

Those are the facts all of which are just from a couple of lines of text that are intentionally vague. Making up large scale battles, your own figures and deciding what happened to judge the competence of the guy in charge is making up facts.

Lets break it down then. 

Hackett knows the Reapers are coming, and splits his forces between Charon, Arcturus, and Earth. 

Reapers attack, and because he split his fleets between several locations knowing how powerful and how large his enemy is, each of this forces were either utterly destroyed, retreated with significant losses, or managed to get away in the nick of time only because an entire fleet was sacrificed. He inflicted no signifcant damage against the Reapers, and left Arcturus with 45,000 people inside to be destroyed. 

Coronati on the other hand, gets creative. Knowing his advantages and his enemy's disadvantages, he pulls of a maneuver that inflicts serious damage against the Reapers with little or no implied losses to his own fleet. 
Any losses the Turians incurred afterwards was because of Reaper reinforcments, and not because the guy didn't know what he was doing. 

Anything else? 

[MetioricTest]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

He could have lessened his losses, inflicted damage on the Reapers, and evacuated Arcturus. 

See now this is making up facts. Anything to further that point is speculation.

I never said those things were facts. 

That phrase 'could have' is important. 

Garrus could have invented a virus that destroys all reapers and cure lung cancer.

GOD Garrus is incompetent.

[TookYoCookies]

None of what you(Metioric) just said gives any defense of Hackett not being a complete idiot when it comes to command. He lost the collective Alliance Navy leadership, He lost their main base of operations, and he lost 1-3 Full Alliance Navy Fleets, including one to save his own ass.

If that level of catastrophe doesn't denote relief of command then how low are your standards?

Seriously from the level of performance Hackett displayed, that would make Zaeed the most qualified Space Naval Commander in the f*cking galaxy.

[The Night Mammoth]

MetioricTest wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

He could have lessened his losses, inflicted damage on the Reapers, and evacuated Arcturus. 

See now this is making up facts. Anything to further that point is speculation.

I never said those things were facts. 

That phrase 'could have' is important. 

Garrus could have invented a virus that destroys all reapers and cure lung cancer.

GOD Garrus is incompetent.

Strawman, therefore ignored. 

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

MetioricTest wrote...
Garrus could have invented a virus that destroys all reapers and cure lung cancer.

GOD Garrus is incompetent.

Resorting to ridiculous argument will only make you look ridiculous.

[The Angry One]

MetioricTest wrote...

"We're about to die OMG WTF HELP!"

They were supposed to be desperate.

They are the DEFENCE COMMITTEE OF THE SYSTEMS ALLIANCE.
I would expect such people to have some degree of objectivity. Yes, the situation is dire. Remaining calm and coming up with strategy and tactics IS THEIR JOB.