434 réponses à ce sujet

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

DubVee12 wrote...
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. 

I thought it was just on the way to Sol from Batarian space. Simply matter of order.

[Leafs43]

Turians are probably a bit more advanced in their space tactics.


What I never understood is in space, you have 3 axis to deal with in space. Why not come at the reapers from above where they have no tentacles.

Modifié par Leafs43, 12 mai 2012 - 04:28 .

[Wulfram]

DubVee12 wrote...


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.

Their deployments suggest that they were mostly just passing through on the way to Earth.

If they'd had any sense, their primary target would have been the Alliance fleet, but I apparently their arrogance meant that they only deployed a small force against it.

There's no reason to force your enemies hands when they're doing what you want them to do already.  Without a fleet and with Earth fallen, there is no Alliance any more.

[DubVee12]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...
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. 

I thought it was just on the way to Sol from Batarian space. Simply matter of order.

Okay, yeah looking at the Galaxy map that is true. However, the point was the Reapers would "ignore the Alliance fleet to attack Arcturus" because it houses the Alliance leadership. Force the Alliance to either defend it or not, making the fight more predictable.

[Legbiter]

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

[DubVee12]

Wulfram wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...


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.

Their deployments suggest that they were mostly just passing through on the way to Earth.

If they'd had any sense, their primary target would have been the Alliance fleet, but I apparently their arrogance meant that they only deployed a small force against it.

There's no reason to force your enemies hands when they're doing what you want them to do already.  Without a fleet and with Earth fallen, there is no Alliance any more.

I think you confusing me. My initial argument for the Reapers ignoring the fleet was if Hackett used tactics like FTL behind the Reapers similar to the Turians. I dunno how that is doing what the Reapers want them to do. In this situation, the Reapers would want to force there hand to minimize casualties and make the fight more predictable.

[SoloPala]

Legbiter wrote...

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

[Legbiter]

SoloPala wrote...

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

If that is your take-home lesson that Hackett "did nothing" then I can't help you. Sorry.

[Wulfram]

DubVee12 wrote...

I think you confusing me. My initial argument for the Reapers ignoring the fleet was if Hackett used tactics like FTL behind the Reapers similar to the Turians. I dunno how that is doing what the Reapers want them to do. In this situation, the Reapers would want to force there hand to minimize casualties and make the fight more predictable.

It's doing what the Reapers want them to do, because it's committing yourself to a full scale fleet engagement.

Attacking Arcturus would only force the Alliance to do anything if they were idiots.  Preserving some sort of fleet in being clearly takes priority over the lives of a few politicians.

As Hackett recognised correctly, by withdrawing what ships he could.

[SoloPala]

Legbiter wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

If that is your take-home lesson that Hackett "did nothing" then I can't help you. Sorry.

So you got nothing?  Figured as much, lol.

[dreman9999]

How is "surprise attack"not understood...Also, any win by the turians are always Pyrrhic.

[Lord Stark]

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.

1000 thanix cannon armed fighters would do some serious damage.

[dreman9999]

SoloPala wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

So making a bomb that can win everything at once is a worse plan then losing a direct war with the reapers?

[dreman9999]

Councilor Oraka wrote...

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.

1000 thanix cannon armed fighters would do some serious damage.

The have to get past the swarms of 
Oculus[/b] 's first.
Not that they can take out drednuats from the inside out as well.

[SoloPala]

dreman9999 wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

So making a bomb that can win everything at once is a worse plan then losing a direct war with the reapers?

Thats good and all, except he doesn't know about it till after hes already screwed up the entire defense horribly.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

How is "surprise attack"not understood...Also, any win by the turians are always Pyrrhic.

It wasn't a surprise. 

The Turian's victory was not Pyrrhic, and that at least is better than what Hackett achieved, which was an outright defeat with large parts of his force obliterated. 

[Hudathan]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It wasn't a surprise. 

The Turian's victory was not Pyrrhic, and that at least is better than what Hackett achieved, which was an outright defeat with large parts of his force obliterated.

Their homeworld and large parts of their population/industry were still lost to the enemy, perhaps for good. So they destroyed a few Reapers in exchange, unsustainable cost.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

So making a bomb that can win everything at once is a worse plan then losing a direct war with the reapers?

It would be if Hackett knew the Crucible would win the war. Throwing the amount of resources the Crucible required into building useful things like ships and Cains would be a more reasonable tactic. 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

How is "surprise attack"not understood...Also, any win by the turians are always Pyrrhic.

It wasn't a surprise. 

The Turian's victory was not Pyrrhic, and that at least is better than what Hackett achieved, which was an outright defeat with large parts of his force obliterated. 

It was Pyrrhic. How many ships didt he trians lose before they did that?...And they still lost groud any way. And the attack on alliance forces was a surprise attack with Arcturus Station.The ballte of the fall of earth was a reaction to that surprise attack.

[The Night Mammoth]

Hudathan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It wasn't a surprise. 

The Turian's victory was not Pyrrhic, and that at least is better than what Hackett achieved, which was an outright defeat with large parts of his force obliterated.

Their homeworld and large parts of their population/industry were still lost to the enemy, perhaps for good. So they destroyed a few Reapers in exchange, unsustainable cost.

Palaven wasn't lost. 

Their fleet was largely intact. 

Their planet' resistance remained strong. 

Krogan forces helped them hold the line.

The Turian admiral's victory over several Sovereign class Reapers using creative tactics came at no implied cost. 

Anything else? 

[SoloPala]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

How is "surprise attack"not understood...Also, any win by the turians are always Pyrrhic.

It wasn't a surprise. 

The Turian's victory was not Pyrrhic, and that at least is better than what Hackett achieved, which was an outright defeat with large parts of his force obliterated. 

It was Pyrrhic. How many ships didt he trians lose before they did that?...And they still lost groud any way. And the attack on alliance forces was a surprise attack with Arcturus Station.The ballte of the fall of earth was a reaction to that surprise attack.

Hackett knowing about the reapers months in advance, as well as batarian space going quiet points to incompentance of the highest level, especially if they're still "surprised" lol.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

dreman9999 wrote...
So making a bomb that can win everything at once is a worse plan then losing a direct war with the reapers?

They did not know what Crucible actually will do.
In fact if they would know what it actually does, they probably would reconsider.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Hackett was a quick study though. His greatest achievement was not outright losing the entire war to the Reapers in ME 3 which is tougher than it looks

What?  All he did was retreat and sit in the middile of no where while they built a machine that may or may not work, and his final strategy was to shoot anywhere and everywhere in the hopes the reapers wouldn't bunch up, lol.

So making a bomb that can win everything at once is a worse plan then losing a direct war with the reapers?

It would be if Hackett knew the Crucible would win the war. Throwing the amount of resources the Crucible required into building useful things like ships and Cains would be a more reasonable tactic. 

How many time does it haveto be stated that convetion mean can't win the war... The reapers are not even fight with their full power.  The basic thing they can do to win is drop astiroids on worlds and glass planets and any form of contioued  convetion war will be lost.

[WandererRTF]

It should be remembered that Earth was first of the council homeworlds to be attacked. And by that point the Reaper independence of fuel, drive discharge, their far advanced FTL capability, and let alone ability to rapid jump via relays were not known to any one. Turians likely learned just enough from what happened at Arcturus and Sol to react more properly.

EDIT: In other words though Alliance brass was aware that Reapers were coming they had no idea how rapidly they could do it. There was no warning.

Modifié par WandererRTF, 12 mai 2012 - 05:09 .

[DubVee12]

Wulfram wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

I think you confusing me. My initial argument for the Reapers ignoring the fleet was if Hackett used tactics like FTL behind the Reapers similar to the Turians. I dunno how that is doing what the Reapers want them to do. In this situation, the Reapers would want to force there hand to minimize casualties and make the fight more predictable.

It's doing what the Reapers want them to do, because it's committing yourself to a full scale fleet engagement.

Attacking Arcturus would only force the Alliance to do anything if they were idiots.  Preserving some sort of fleet in being clearly takes priority over the lives of a few politicians.

As Hackett recognised correctly, by withdrawing what ships he could.

Hit and run tactics, like what was mentioned, are committing to full scale fleet engagement?

Apparently, the politicians were worth defending in the first place, otherwise Hackett wouldn't have divided the fleet and had the entire force defending Earth, instead of only 2 fleets. Unless you're telling me Hackett was stupid enough to believe he could stop the Reapers at Arcturus with only 3 fleets?