434 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Even if not capital ships, fighter and drone swarms equipped with thanix cannons along with frigates should be able to keep Destroyers and Oculus at bay while dreadnoughts and cruisers FTL behind capital ships and shoot them down.

[Seboist]

It's established that Hackett is a total moron when he decides to divert all those valuable resources into a total unknown(crucible).

[OGWS]

So, what you're saying is, he just couldn't Hackett?

[Sidney]

DubVee12 wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but don't the Turians have many more (the exact number escapes me right now) dreadnaught class ships than the Humans? (as well as the other council races?) I'm not saying Hackett isn't incompetent, but having that many dreadnaughts surely gave the Turians a better chance against Reaper Capital Ships than any other race.

Dreadnaughts are not the center of the Alliance fleet, Carriers are, because of the treaty that limited the Alliance dreadnaught production, they circumvented it with carriers, so instead of being stuck with 6 dreadnaughts or whatever, the alliance spent 30 years making carriers.  Which are just as large as dreadnaughts, except they use 1,000s of fighters as their main weapon.

Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? Hackett obviously could have used better strategy (why I agree he is incompetent), but the lack of dreadnaughts against Reaper Capital Ships is why they do so poorly compared to the Turians.

Exactly, the carriers can't slug with the reapers and the fighters are like mosquitos on an elephant. Turians had a 4:1 (at least) edge in dreadnaughts. We had fewer Dreadnaughts than all the other council races so Hackett didn't have much to fight with that could actually hurt his foes.

The point being we have no real idea what Hackett was up to after the initial attack. The Turians had some successes but Palavan burned and they had to give up offensive operations because they were losing too many too fast as well so they didn't do much better than Hackett did.

[Sidney]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Yes but capital ships don't have shields now so the smaller ordinance of the aircraft can hit them. Shields change that. Plus, aircraft now allow you to attack the more vulnerable spots on ships - the top and under the waterline. Space fareing ships won't ahve that same issue.

We saw what a Reaper ship did versus much laeeger ships in ME1 (plowed through them) so I doubt a swarm of fighters would even slow them down.

[Elyiia]

The Angry One wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Even if not capital ships, fighter and drone swarms equipped with thanix cannons along with frigates should be able to keep Destroyers and Oculus at bay while dreadnoughts and cruisers FTL behind capital ships and shoot them down.

Would have been interesting to see a plot device allowing fighters to do heavy damage to any Reaper, but couldn't be used on any larger ships. Effectively reversing the ships, dreadnoughts and the like into support ships for the fighters.

[SoloPala]

Sidney wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Yes but capital ships don't have shields now so the smaller ordinance of the aircraft can hit them. Shields change that. Plus, aircraft now allow you to attack the more vulnerable spots on ships - the top and under the waterline. Space fareing ships won't ahve that same issue.

We saw what a Reaper ship did versus much laeeger ships in ME1 (plowed through them) so I doubt a swarm of fighters would even slow them down.

So you stick your hand into a bee hive, because they're just bees right?  lol.

[The Angry One]

Sidney wrote...

Exactly, the carriers can't slug with the reapers and the fighters are like mosquitos on an elephant. Turians had a 4:1 (at least) edge in dreadnaughts. We had fewer Dreadnaughts than all the other council races so Hackett didn't have much to fight with that could actually hurt his foes.

Carriers are basically dreadnoughts with fighter bays instead of spinal mass accelerators to cynically circumvent the limitations of the treaties.
They'd still have a dreadnought's defences, and if a cruiser in atmosphere can take 1-2 shots from a Reaper thanix cannon then dreadnoughts/carriers in space can take more.

The point being we have no real idea what Hackett was up to after the initial attack. The Turians had some successes but Palavan burned

The codex gives us an idea, and relative to the Turian losses, the Alliance lost far too much, far too fast.
Arcturus Station, two entire fleets, a full half of the first fleet. Reaper casualties: Zero. This is absurd.

and they had to give up offensive operations because they were losing too many too fast as well so they didn't do much better than Hackett did.

They had to give up the fight at the relay due to Reaper reinforcements, however they continued near Palaven and nothing says they weren't able to keep up the FTL tactics.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Elyiia wrote...

Would have been interesting to see a plot device allowing fighters to do heavy damage to any Reaper

Disruptor torpedoes. They ignore kinetic barriers, but you need fire them from very close range - making it perfect armament for smaller fighter/bomber-kind of agile craft.
Alliance would not adopt carriers doctrine without knowing that they will fare well against dreadnought class. ...Probably.

BTW you can see Normandy wrecking collectors cruiser with disruptor torpedoes in ME2, if you don't upgrade it to Thanix. It had to get pretty close for that, sustaining damage since it's a large frigate, not a fighter, not agile enough.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 12 mai 2012 - 03:57 .

[The Angry One]

Elyiia wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Even if not capital ships, fighter and drone swarms equipped with thanix cannons along with frigates should be able to keep Destroyers and Oculus at bay while dreadnoughts and cruisers FTL behind capital ships and shoot them down.

Would have been interesting to see a plot device allowing fighters to do heavy damage to any Reaper, but couldn't be used on any larger ships. Effectively reversing the ships, dreadnoughts and the like into support ships for the fighters.

Pft, that'd mean actually giving the minor subplot about carriers an actual payoff. Can't have that. Everything must be magic!

[DubVee12]

The Angry One wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
Well yeah that was kind of the point. Against Capital Reapers, what good are fighters? 

Actually, for all we know about modern warfare, small craft tend to be surprisingly good against huge ones.

Even if not capital ships, fighter and drone swarms equipped with thanix cannons along with frigates should be able to keep Destroyers and Oculus at bay while dreadnoughts and cruisers FTL behind capital ships and shoot them down.

Yes, I agree Hackett could have used this tactic. The Reapers would have eventually just ignored this tactic, like they did against the Turians, and just taken out Arcturus Station. The lack of dreadnaughts would eventually catch up to the Alliance, and they would be forced to retreat all the same, except with more casualities on both sides. (Although, rereading the codex entry you posted, it doesn't mention whether or not Hackett actually killed any Reapers at Arcturus. So it's possible the fleets took down a few, just not enough to be worthy of mention.)

[Sidney]

SoloPala wrote...
So you stick your hand into a bee hive, because they're just bees right?  lol.

You drive your car througha  swarm of gnats right? Same effect here. Bees could actually hurt you.

[The Angry One]

DubVee12 wrote...

Yes, I agree Hackett could have used this tactic. The Reapers would have eventually just ignored this tactic, like they did against the Turians, and just taken out Arcturus Station. The lack of dreadnaughts would eventually catch up to the Alliance, and they would be forced to retreat all the same, except with more casualities on both sides.

The point is it'd at least buy time to get people off Arcturus Station. Hackett left 45,000 people to die there, including the entire leadership of the Alliance.
Also, by not randomly spreading out 2 fleets at Sol he'd have them too. This isn't a question of victory, it's one of using proper tactics to slow down the enemy, inflict casualties on them and preserve the maximum amount of fleets and people as possible.
Hackett does none of this.

(Although, rereading the codex entry you posted, it doesn't mention whether or not Hackett actually killed any Reapers at Arcturus. So it's possible the fleets took down a few, just not enough to be worthy of mention.)

Hackett later complains that it took entire fleets to take down Sovereign alone (which isn't true but hey, the writers forgot again).
Sovereign was no stronger than any other Reaper of his class, so it's heavily implied Hackett has never destroyed one in ME3.

[SoloPala]

Sidney wrote...

SoloPala wrote...
So you stick your hand into a bee hive, because they're just bees right?  lol.

You drive your car througha  swarm of gnats right? Same effect here. Bees could actually hurt you.

Gnats don't have stingers, and could never kill you ever anyways, its not an accurate anology, lol.  The point is 1 bee sting won't kill you, but a 1000, you're a goner.  There were people like you before carriers became the mainstay in modern times, Pfft, what can a little fighter with a peashooter do to my massive armored battleship.

Modifié par SoloPala, 12 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[Sidney]

The Angry One wrote...

Carriers are basically dreadnoughts with fighter bays instead of spinal mass accelerators to cynically circumvent the limitations of the treaties.

They'd still have a dreadnought's defences, and if a cruiser in atmosphere can take 1-2 shots from a Reaper thanix cannon then dreadnoughts/carriers in space can take more.

The codex gives us an idea, and relative to the Turian losses, the Alliance lost far too much, far too fast.
Arcturus Station, two entire fleets, a full half of the first fleet. Reaper casualties: Zero. This is absurd.

They had to give up the fight at the relay due to Reaper reinforcements, however they continued near Palaven and nothing says they weren't able to keep up the FTL tactics.

Carriers might be big but they have no offensive punch to use in this case. So they can sit and take abuse that's not really at issue.

The Alliance got hit and got ripped, no doubt. The main strike hit Earth. The first council race hit was earth. No one really, at that point, knew what the Reapers en masse could do. The Turians used unconventional tactics to win but that is an evolution in their undertsanding of the foes they were fighting. Hackett didn't have time to learn at Arcuris station. Nimitz's fleets got ripped in night fights vs the Japanese in World War II until they deveoped tactics to counter them. Doesn't mean he was stupid for losing the first battles just that he was unprepared for what he faced. Hackett is able to keep the Alliance fleets that survive that initial fight in the fray so that is credible.

No, Garrus tells you that they have to pull back from Palavan because of the losses they'd sustained.

[ArchDuck]

After reading this I believe Admiral Hackett planned to use the same tactics to defeat the Reapers that Zapp Brannigan used to defeat the Killbots.

"The Killbots? A trifle! It was simply a matter of outsmarting them... You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shutdown..."

Modifié par ArchDuck, 12 mai 2012 - 04:06 .

[Sidney]

SoloPala wrote...

Gnats don't have stingers, and could never kill you ever anyways, its not an accurate anology, lol.  The point is 1 bee sting won't kill you, but a 1000, you're a goner.  There were people like you before carriers became the mainstay in modern times, Pfft, what can a little fighter with a peashooter do to my massive armored battleship.

Well to continue your metaphor, fighters can do nothing to a battleship. You could strafe a battleship all day and night for weeks with a fighter and do nothing.  People like me know that fighters aren't anti-ship platforms. People like you don't.

Dive bombers and torpedo planes had the punch to do damage. There is nothing in game that says alliance fighters can inflict damage on the reaper capital ships the way the aircraft of WWII could on those capital ships. Plus, the Reapers come equipped with the occuli which show to be very effective in anti-fighter operations so, again, this isn't a Prince of Wales type situation where the battleships have no air cover or defense vs those small ships....oh and there is that shield thing again.

[Nauks]

The Angry One wrote...

Suddenly I'm imagining him on his dreadnought looking at the battle in Arcturus yelling "Stop exploding you cowards!".
It's a shame because I like Hackett. Another character assassinated.

Quote of the day .

For my money, Hackett is definitely indoctrinated (in as much as Shepard may be, where it's suggestive thoughts rather than assuming direct control) he's made to preside over the Crucible construction too, which imo can't possibly be anything other than a Reaper trap they want us to build.
It would also explain why Hackett sent us to the conveniently discovered object Rho, where Shepard learned he was the only human in the galaxy who is immune to indoctrination got a convincing dose of Reaper indoctrination goodness, cementing this plot for ME3.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Sidney wrote...
Dive bombers and torpedo planes had the punch to do damage. There is nothing in game that says alliance fighters can inflict damage on the reaper capital ships the way the aircraft of WWII could on those capital ships. Plus, the Reapers come equipped with the occuli which show to be very effective in anti-fighter operations so, again, this isn't a Prince of Wales type situation where the battleships have no air cover or defense vs those small ships....oh and there is that shield thing again.

You've missed my post above about disruptor torpedoes, which happen to ignore kinetic barriers completely.

[SoloPala]

Sidney wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

Gnats don't have stingers, and could never kill you ever anyways, its not an accurate anology, lol.  The point is 1 bee sting won't kill you, but a 1000, you're a goner.  There were people like you before carriers became the mainstay in modern times, Pfft, what can a little fighter with a peashooter do to my massive armored battleship.

Well to continue your metaphor, fighters can do nothing to a battleship. You could strafe a battleship all day and night for weeks with a fighter and do nothing.  People like me know that fighters aren't anti-ship platforms. People like you don't.

Dive bombers and torpedo planes had the punch to do damage. There is nothing in game that says alliance fighters can inflict damage on the reaper capital ships the way the aircraft of WWII could on those capital ships. Plus, the Reapers come equipped with the occuli which show to be very effective in anti-fighter operations so, again, this isn't a Prince of Wales type situation where the battleships have no air cover or defense vs those small ships....oh and there is that shield thing again.

Theres 2 types of strike craft in ME universe on carriers, Fighters and Interceptors, take a guess at which does which, they utilize missile swarms as well as swarm tactics, and constant fire from a fighter swarm is going to wear down shields just like constant fire from a few dreadnaughts, so you're just being stupid there.  Otherwise the alliance wouldn't even be able to fight other citadel species with them, cause apparently the have shields to herpity derpity.

Modifié par SoloPala, 12 mai 2012 - 04:12 .

[Wulfram]

DubVee12 wrote...

Yes, I agree Hackett could have used this tactic. The Reapers would have eventually just ignored this tactic, like they did against the Turians, and just taken out Arcturus Station.

Why would the Reapers ignore a high value target like the largest concentration of Alliance ships to take out something as meaningless as Arcturus station?  If the Alliance admiral is insane enough to serve up their fleet on a platter, then you take the opportunity to destroy it.  Then you can smoosh Arcturus at your leisure.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[DubVee12]

The Angry One wrote...

The point is it'd at least buy time to get people off Arcturus Station. Hackett left 45,000 people to die there, including the entire leadership of the Alliance.
Also, by not randomly spreading out 2 fleets at Sol he'd have them too. This isn't a question of victory, it's one of using proper tactics to slow down the enemy, inflict casualties on them and preserve the maximum amount of fleets and people as possible.
Hackett does none of this.

Ok then, I agree Hackett could have better strategized against the Reapers. I agree he is incompetent. my only argument was the lack of dreadnaughts was part of that incompetence compared to the Turians (which you mentioned in the OP).

Although, I understand sending the fleets to Earth. He kinda wanted to protect the homeworld. Even if it failed completely, it's reasonable to protect Earth like that. However, I think your point is dividing the fleets, so yeah Hackett was stupid enough to believe he could defend two locations at once against the Reapers.

Hackett later complains that it took entire fleets to take down Sovereign alone (which isn't true but hey, the writers forgot again).
Sovereign was no stronger than any other Reaper of his class, so it's heavily implied Hackett has never destroyed one in ME3.

While that is true, it seems unlikely that he couldn't take down one Reaper with the combination of three fleets. It was just probably only one or two, not enough to be worthy of mention considering the cost. But, idk maybe you're right.

[Lord Stark]

I am actually okay with the Turians holding out way longer than humanity. It makes sense considering even the Asari got their asses kicked at Thessia and they have twice as many Dreadnoughts as us and possibly the Destiny Ascension. While I think it's ridiculous that they couldn't evacuate the Prime Minister...if you think about it, the Turians lost their Primarch too, they just did a better job of preserving the line of secession. I prefer the Turians being established as the dominant military force rather than the bull**** we get thrown in Mass Effect: Ascension where it is stated that the greater part of the Citadel Fleet is destroyed in the attack on the Citadel,and with that the Alliance Navy was the dominant military power in Citadel space (pg 4).

[DubVee12]

Wulfram wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

Yes, I agree Hackett could have used this tactic. The Reapers would have eventually just ignored this tactic, like they did against the Turians, and just taken out Arcturus Station.

Why would the Reapers ignore a high value target like the largest concentration of Alliance ships to take out something as meaningless as Arcturus station?  If the Alliance admiral is insane enough to serve up their fleet on a platter, then you take the opportunity to destroy it.  Then you can smoosh Arcturus at your leisure.

Well why did they attack Arcturus in the first place anyway? Because it's the home of the Alliance leadership (and thus why the fleet was defending that area). Take out your enemies leaders and you have an easier victory. Attack that and force your enemy to defend it or not. By forcing the Alliance's hand, they would make the fight simpler. They did the same thing with the Turians, granted that target was the homeworld, but still. They could have continued fighting the Turian fleet, but they decided to force the Turians to defend Palaven to make the fighting more predictable and thus easier.

[Elyiia]

Why is the human government stationed in the ONLY spot between everywhere else and Sol anyway?