253 réponses à ce sujet

[tetsutsuru]

ReXspec wrote...
I'm a soulja!

Rip504 wrote...

Ok I'm the badguy in this movie. Duna duna duna here comes Rip.

More then morale is needed to make a conventional victory vs the Reapers a possibility. As stated in the title.  Best present day example:(IMO) America vs Middle East. America should be considered the Reapers in this example and NO the middle east has not won. I would also state Muslims have high morale,but have yet defeated the U.S. U.N. or anyone of any significance IMO. Well you didn't compare the two,but I did. You said running through gunfire w.e. etc. I respect that.

Reapers consider themselves the Pinnacle of Life. Shepard pisses Sovereign off during ME1,showing us that Reapers indeed may have emotions,to assume they do not is nothing more then an assumption. That invalidates half of what you said. Reapers are bound but humanity is not. Assumption based on? Reapers are Robots?
As The Reapers do not want,but are willing to wipe out all civilized life.

Also billions of Zombified husk (once loved ones now the walking dead)are attacking smaller numbers of soldiers,idk that may be slightly demoralizing. Morale works both ways. Morale alone is not enough,nor does it make a Conventional victory vs the Reapers a possibility. Also the Reapers tactics do not involve speed,no they are willing to wait an enemy out. "The slaughter of entire civilization is a slow process." So keep that morale up for over hundreds of years! win win win! Compliance? Or harvest?

Anderson states the soldiers on Earth are in shock and Shepard is there only hope. Sounds like despair to me,not high morale.  In ME3 the resistance is seen as scattered,broken,scared,unsure,and rarely striking back. "We are just trying to talk to each other." As stated by Anderson.

Enraged soldiers? Well not in ME3. Maybe the Drunk soldiers on the Citadel. They looked real enraged defending their home,while getting drunk on the Citadel.
When we return to Earth,we see Reapers harvesting and doing whatever they want. We do not see Alliance and humanity conventionally holding their own. We do not see enraged soldiers. We see a broken and defeated world.
 Wouldn't have a high Morale helped at this point in the war? I did not see Morale helping at this point. Maybe the High Morale starts months later?

Morale helps Humans vs Humans. Morale means next to nothing in the War vs The Reapers. As we see in ME3.
Now how will this high Morale help us win? How will our Morale change anything? Who is to say all of humanity doesn't have high morale at this point? I may have shown some examples of us not having it,but what if we already are fighting with high Morale? What if we are still getting our head kicked in? Morale is not enough.

Your ideas of the Reapers IMO are completely wrong.

Here is a quick thought. I keep seeing examples of this and that,none of which really represent the threat or what is at stake in ME. I have one example for you. Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. Did you watch the news after? All we had to do was rebuild and survive. "The city of survivors". No outside threat,no end of world.etc etc. Did you see how fast Morale fell? Not only were cops committing suicide,but so were soldiers and civilians. Edit: Also We had Cops killing innocent civilians.

So is it possible to control Morale,maintain morale,inspire morale,and defeat the Reapers all at the same time. The Reapers are unlike any threat we as a people have ever faced. So to compare it to anything in our history is unjustifiable.IMO

Morale is amazing and can make you "superhuman" yes I agree. I also say High Morale will not and is not helping defeat the Reapers as is,much less conventionally. If all that is being stated is that Morale effects people,then as I have said before duh! That is like saying red has three letters in it. A common known fact. If we are saying a high Morale can help defeat the Reapers,I also agree. If you are saying the one word that makes a conventional victory possible is morale,I disagree.

Did you forget the Reapers created billions of superhumans to counter this?

On Earth, morale was low, sure.  Even Anderson says, or implies, this.  You're right.  But I'd like to cite that conversation with James Vega regarding other Marines at Purgatory.  Shepard (well, my Shepard anyway, no idea what conversation options others chose) sees himself as a Marine, just like every other Marine.  But James tells him something along the lines of, others look at you (Shepard) as anything but ordinary.  With awe, even.

Morale was low.  Of course it was.  Earth is being RAPED by the Reapers, and there's hardly anything the Resistance can do effectively.  Keep in mind that Hackett put out a General Order that all ships are to STAY AWAY from Earth.  Earth Resistance was flying solo.  And without any idea when... or *IF* any reinforcements... hell, if ANY HELP in any way, shape or form, would come.  Anderson was doing the best he could to keep his soldiers fighting.

Put yourself in the boots on the ground at that very instant.  No hope for tomorrow.  No tomorrow in sight, for that matter.  Suddenly you see THOUSANDS of Kodiak shuttles and troop dropships cover the skies.  Thousands of gunships.  Various races:  Asari, Human, Turian, Geth, Quarian, Salarian, KROGAN!  All united, engaging Reaper forces.

Man, I tell ya, you'd feel your heart beat through your chest.  Your blood red hot flowing through your veins.  Adrenaline.  You wouldn't care if you were low on ammo.  Your rifle has a buttstock, and you'd be more than willing to introduce it to the face of a Marauder or Cannibal.  Hard.  You'd feel as though you could clench your fists harder than granite and drive it straight through the face of a Husk that's charging you.

And then you see Shepard, jumping out of a shuttle.  Weapons lighting up, mowing Reaper troops down.  Remember how every soldier views Shepard as though he was Superman?  And now, you ARE fighting alongside Commander Shepard!

Remember my example of my not-Shepard-superman multiplayer character, level 20 Female Human Infiltrator?  1 on 1, a Banshee is superior to me in combat prowess.  But I can kill it.

In a non-fiction reference:  Battle of Thermopylae.  The same:  you have the 300 Spartans, who are shoulder to shoulder with THEIR KING at the FRONT LINES.

That's the power of morale.

*****

As far as your Hurricane Katrina reference, I actually have no idea why you'd reference that.  It actually helps MY case.  Catastrohic event, vast devastation.  Morale was low.  And without going any further into the politics... New Orleans Mayor Nagin wasn't really... the best person for the situation.  Or any situation.  But I'm going to stop myself right here regarding that.

Counterpoint, BUT I'm also not going to delve into this any further than with my next statement....

September 11, 2001.  An actual terrorist attack on the United States.

My counerpoint?  Mayor Giuliani.  New York  Fire Department.  New York Police Department.  Heart.  High morale.  Solid resolve.

Modifié par tetsutsuru, 15 mai 2012 - 02:52 .

[Peregrin25]

DevilBeast wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Yes because that's what wins wars, not numbers, tactics, or ingenuity, just morale.

You hear that Mexico, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Japanese. You couldn't beat us because you didn't have the conviction, determination, or willingness to do anything to win like we did. Not because america had a technological advantage and a strategic cunning that most do not.

My peoples annexed islands land says otherwise.

lol America didn't have a technological advantage for most of the war. What we did have was the ability to build non stop since we were so very isolated. The Great Generals were not Americans. They were German British and Russian. (yeah your going to through out Macarthy and Patton arn't you? might want to think about that first though.)

We turned the tide becuase we had numbers, and an undamaged infrastructure. 

That is true, U.S.´ ability to replace lost ships, tanks, planes etc. etc. was what kept the Americans one step ahead of the other nations during WW2.

There was that, but as for Germany, there was a lot of things they did that cost them the war. As for supply of lost and damaged machines. German was too up on making multiple models of planes, tanks and other things that if they had stuck with one or 2 that worked and mass produced those they would have had some of the greatest advantages on the battle field. They had like 15 differnt types of tanks all were good but they didn't have a huge supply. and parts were not inter changable. You couldn't take a Tiger tank parts and use them in a Panther. or any other for that matter. They had some of the greatest engineers and scientists but manufacturing machines for War not being consisten with production was part of their downfall. They always had to have somthing bigger and better in such a short time frame.

[ReXspec]

KaeserZen wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

As much as I appreciate the advocacy, I can't blame people for basing opinions on limited experience--not EVERYONE is going to be a soldier, but, again, I appreciate the appreciation.

Humans are pattern-seeking creatures, though.  All too often, however, this makes people cold to the fact that war is far too conflagrant and volatile to predict the outcome of 99% of combat scenarios.

Quoted for Truth, again.

I have no gripe in letting people formulate opinions based on limite experience, heck, I'd rather they do that instead of mindlessly drooling and staring at their computer.
However, what rubs me in the wrong way, is when they refuse to consider alternatives or acknownledge their lack of experience, and refuse to be proven wrong. Being proven wrong, on the contrary, increases your knowledge, he he he.

I have never been in a firefight (yet, hehe, who knows what may happen ?), but even with the best strategic and tactical plan, things can get ugly really fast I suppose. I did play some table-top strategy game (W40k), and even in these games, there are completely random/unexpected factors that make the best tactic/gear/outfit irrelevant if you are too blunt NOT to adapt, he he.

Funny thing about WH40k is that they use the dice to simulate this conflagrancy and randomness that is present in real wars--but even then, war isn't isn't as nearly cut-and-dried.  And, again, I agree on the point of people basing opinions on limited experience.  That isn't what I have a problem with.  What I have a problem with is people who dismiss my experience even if I present it in a calm and logical manner.  I've had to bite my tongue (so to speak) several times in this thread and resist sounding like a drooling, bitter, **** of a vet.

[Warrior Craess]

ReXspec wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Yes because that's what wins wars, not numbers, tactics, or ingenuity, just morale.

You hear that Mexico, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Japanese. You couldn't beat us because you didn't have the conviction, determination, or willingness to do anything to win like we did. Not because america had a technological advantage and a strategic cunning that most do not.

My peoples annexed islands land says otherwise.

lol America didn't have a technological advantage for most of the war. What we did have was the ability to build non stop since we were so very isolated. The Great Generals were not Americans. They were German British and Russian. (yeah your going to through out Macarthy and Patton arn't you? might want to think about that first though.)

We turned the tide becuase we had numbers, and an undamaged infrastructure. 

It was not the only factor that played in our victory, however.  As far as morale goes, I think WW2 is a poor example, accept in certain situations like the Battle of the Bulge.

Of course they were not the only reasons. However they are the biggest.  Our leadership was adequate (well our low to mid level leadership was outstanding but much above major and Lt Col.... and we pretty much were just good enough to get by). 

We had time to train, time to build, the work force to build with, the freedom to build unmolested. Given the same situation we could have beated the reapers as well. Sadly Bioware wrote the Galaxy as having 100% moronic leadership. Even Hacket was a moron who failed to prepare in any significant way for the reaper assault. Or even a repeat of Sovvy's assault on the Citadel. 

[DLClol]

The Tuchanka/ Rannoch reaper argument is irrelevant, both were reaper destroyers. Little buddy sidekicks to the real things.

[Aimi]

You know, I've spent most of my life around fighting men and women, and most of the rest of it learning about, writing about, and teaching about ones that lived in the past. I tend to respect them immensely, and I especially respect those who have done so in the service of my adopted country (the United States). And the ones who've posted in this thread are right, after a fashion: morale, fighting spirit, esprit de corps, whatever - that can win battles, and has. It's one of Clausewitz's old dicta: the fog of war might obscure things to the commanders at the top, friction might prevent their orders from being carried out properly or whatever, but moral forces could compensate in part for those problems.

But high morale cannot and will not ever compensate for the sort of technological and numerical inferiority that the space navies of the united galaxy face in the Reaper War. Because, make no mistake: victory on the ground is nice, but it is irrelevant without victory in space. I don't doubt for a second that the armies of the Citadel races could be pitted against any Reaper ground force and win - even win handily, especially if they had high morale. But that's not really the decisive part of the war - the space fighting is. A victorious ground force could be annihilated by a Reaper capital ship in minutes. And the Reapers would undoubtedly take an even greater toll on a ground force before it is able to even reach the surface of a given planet.

It is in space naval combat that morale is much less useful. It doesn't matter how motivated you are, how ready to die you are - a motivated crew can't compensate for a technologically inferior vessel. High morale among the crew doesn't endow a ship with the ability to dodge a Reaper dreadnought's main guns, or provide a ship with enough armor to withstand a hit. High morale won't change the calculus of firepower and armor. Compare it not to the modern small-unit combat in the brushfire wars of Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, with which our soldiers here on BSN have experience, but to a modern naval battle (if such a thing existed). Pit a modern US Navy carrier battle group against the naval forces of Russia, Iran, or even China, and the Americans would wipe out the enemy before they even got within radar range of the carrier at the battle group's heart, no matter how well-motivated the Iranians or whomever might be. And I think we can all guess which fleet is the Reapers and which is the Citadel races in that analogy.

None of this is to say that morale isn't good or useful or necessary. It is. But high morale will not compensate for a deficiency all across the board, in numbers and in technology. And, it's worth noting, it historically has not done so, even in land engagements. Rare is the example of a battle won by an army that was outnumbered, outgunned, and outthought, but whose high morale permitted them to carry the day anyway. But, in land battles where everything else has been more or less equal, morale can and has been a key factor in determining the victor. We cannot say that the Citadel races are "more or less equal" to the Reapers.

I suppose the thing is that a soldier is told that high morale can win all on its own, because he or she needs to believe that that's true. That's what having high morale is: you need to believe you can win, even if it's not true. It's what prevents some of the soldiers here from having any sort of an objective opinion on the matter. They have experience, and I respect that, but they do not tend to have a neutral perspective.

---

On a side note, I never really understood why this argument about conventional victory was even necessary. The people who developed the IP took great pains to state that conventional victory is impossible, ergo it is impossible. That's the way it is. You might as well argue about what color Liara's skin is, or whether Arcturus really is in Alliance space. It's not coming from one unreliable source, it comes from pretty much everybody Shepard talks to on the subject, with pretty much nary a dissenting voice. You might believe that the story would have been better if the forces of the united galaxy won with some sort of conventional victory, and you might disagree with the writers' decision to make the Reapers so powerful that conventional victory was impossible, but it seems ridiculous to claim that the writers are wrong. It's their IP.

[Karolus_V]

Peregrin25 wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Yes because that's what wins wars, not numbers, tactics, or ingenuity, just morale.

You hear that Mexico, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Japanese. You couldn't beat us because you didn't have the conviction, determination, or willingness to do anything to win like we did. Not because america had a technological advantage and a strategic cunning that most do not.

My peoples annexed islands land says otherwise.

lol America didn't have a technological advantage for most of the war. What we did have was the ability to build non stop since we were so very isolated. The Great Generals were not Americans. They were German British and Russian. (yeah your going to through out Macarthy and Patton arn't you? might want to think about that first though.)

We turned the tide becuase we had numbers, and an undamaged infrastructure. 

That is true, U.S.´ ability to replace lost ships, tanks, planes etc. etc. was what kept the Americans one step ahead of the other nations during WW2.

There was that, but as for Germany, there was a lot of things they did that cost them the war. As for supply of lost and damaged machines. German was too up on making multiple models of planes, tanks and other things that if they had stuck with one or 2 that worked and mass produced those they would have had some of the greatest advantages on the battle field. They had like 15 differnt types of tanks all were good but they didn't have a huge supply. and parts were not inter changable. You couldn't take a Tiger tank parts and use them in a Panther. or any other for that matter. They had some of the greatest engineers and scientists but manufacturing machines for War not being consisten with production was part of their downfall. They always had to have somthing bigger and better in such a short time frame.

About tanks....

About the something bigger and better...in the east the Russians were doing bigger and better tanks. To kill shermans there was no need of Tigers(though they proved to be very efficient at it)or Panthers, but to battle with Iosif Stalin tanks ,KV's and T34-85 swarms ...yes, they were needed as air is needed to breath.

Germany lost because they stretched themselves in too many fronts vs to many enemies.

[NoUserNameHere]

DLClol wrote...

The Tuchanka/ Rannoch reaper argument is irrelevant, both were reaper destroyers. Little buddy sidekicks to the real things.

If destroyers can be defeated by foot soldiers on the ground, it stands to reason that they're cannon fodder in space battles.

[ShepnTali]

ReXspec wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

We're talking fantasy fiction here, not real wars.

If the writers goal was to make the battles, history, and scale over-the-top, then I would buy that.

But, my impression, based on the tremendously detailed codex entries on military doctrine and technology, is that Bioware wanted to base the universe (the war included) in some sort of plausible facts grounded in some sort of reality.

I totaly buy the resolution they gave us...


I mean, if you're going for some sort of pseudo realism, what we got was as much a stretch as anything else, AND not satisfying. 

[DLClol]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

DLClol wrote...

The Tuchanka/ Rannoch reaper argument is irrelevant, both were reaper destroyers. Little buddy sidekicks to the real things.

If destroyers can be defeated by foot soldiers on the ground, it stands to reason that they're cannon fodder in space battles.

Yeah kind of like how dreadnaughts are cannon fodder for capital ship reapers.

[ReXspec]

Warrior Craess wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Yes because that's what wins wars, not numbers, tactics, or ingenuity, just morale.

You hear that Mexico, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Japanese. You couldn't beat us because you didn't have the conviction, determination, or willingness to do anything to win like we did. Not because america had a technological advantage and a strategic cunning that most do not.

My peoples annexed islands land says otherwise.

lol America didn't have a technological advantage for most of the war. What we did have was the ability to build non stop since we were so very isolated. The Great Generals were not Americans. They were German British and Russian. (yeah your going to through out Macarthy and Patton arn't you? might want to think about that first though.)

We turned the tide becuase we had numbers, and an undamaged infrastructure. 

It was not the only factor that played in our victory, however.  As far as morale goes, I think WW2 is a poor example, accept in certain situations like the Battle of the Bulge.

Of course they were not the only reasons. However they are the biggest.  Our leadership was adequate (well our low to mid level leadership was outstanding but much above major and Lt Col.... and we pretty much were just good enough to get by). 

We had time to train, time to build, the work force to build with, the freedom to build unmolested. Given the same situation we could have beated the reapers as well. Sadly Bioware wrote the Galaxy as having 100% moronic leadership. Even Hacket was a moron who failed to prepare in any significant way for the reaper assault. Or even a repeat of Sovvy's assault on the Citadel. 

Moronic or scared.  Probably both.  No fault to them for being scared, but entirely fault on them for doing the equivalent of covering their ears and going, "LA LAL LALALALALA ICANNO' HEA R U"

But some did prepare to some degree.  Hell, it was Garrus who pushed the Turian Hierarchy to re-fit their fleet with Thanix Cannons and Cyclonic Barriers (for whatever good it did; if anything, it bought the fleets enough time to regroup and make the push with the crucible) then alliance and the rest of the fleets followed.  I'm perfectly willing to bet Admiral Hackett and Admiral Anderson are the ones who pushed for the re-fits.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 03:00 .

[ReXspec]

ShepnTali wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

We're talking fantasy fiction here, not real wars.

If the writers goal was to make the battles, history, and scale over-the-top, then I would buy that.

But, my impression, based on the tremendously detailed codex entries on military doctrine and technology, is that Bioware wanted to base the universe (the war included) in some sort of plausible facts grounded in some sort of reality.

I totaly buy the resolution they gave us...


I mean, if you're going for some sort of pseudo realism, what we got was as much a stretch as anything else, AND not satisfying. 

Are you referring to the ending or Morale as a resource? 

[Peregrin25]

Karolus_V wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Yes because that's what wins wars, not numbers, tactics, or ingenuity, just morale.

You hear that Mexico, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Japanese. You couldn't beat us because you didn't have the conviction, determination, or willingness to do anything to win like we did. Not because america had a technological advantage and a strategic cunning that most do not.

My peoples annexed islands land says otherwise.

lol America didn't have a technological advantage for most of the war. What we did have was the ability to build non stop since we were so very isolated. The Great Generals were not Americans. They were German British and Russian. (yeah your going to through out Macarthy and Patton arn't you? might want to think about that first though.)

We turned the tide becuase we had numbers, and an undamaged infrastructure. 

That is true, U.S.´ ability to replace lost ships, tanks, planes etc. etc. was what kept the Americans one step ahead of the other nations during WW2.

There was that, but as for Germany, there was a lot of things they did that cost them the war. As for supply of lost and damaged machines. German was too up on making multiple models of planes, tanks and other things that if they had stuck with one or 2 that worked and mass produced those they would have had some of the greatest advantages on the battle field. They had like 15 differnt types of tanks all were good but they didn't have a huge supply. and parts were not inter changable. You couldn't take a Tiger tank parts and use them in a Panther. or any other for that matter. They had some of the greatest engineers and scientists but manufacturing machines for War not being consisten with production was part of their downfall. They always had to have somthing bigger and better in such a short time frame.

About tanks....

About the something bigger and better...in the east the Russians were doing bigger and better tanks. To kill shermans there was no need of Tigers(though they proved to be very efficient at it)or Panthers, but to battle with Iosif Stalin tanks ,KV's and T34-85 swarms ...yes, they were needed as air is needed to breath.

Germany lost because they stretched themselves in too many fronts vs to many enemies.

It wasn't just tanks it was everything they built. But yes, that is the number one reason right there that you mentioned. Spread too thin across too many fronts against numerous enemies. On top of that they underestimated their opponents. Take the invasion into Russia and their failed attempt at taking Stalingrad. Epic fail on Germnany's part. And that is just one example lol.

Modifié par Peregrin25, 15 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[ReXspec]

daqs wrote...

You know, I've spent most of my life around fighting men and women, and most of the rest of it learning about, writing about, and teaching about ones that lived in the past. I tend to respect them immensely, and I especially respect those who have done so in the service of my adopted country (the United States). And the ones who've posted in this thread are right, after a fashion: morale, fighting spirit, esprit de corps, whatever - that can win battles, and has. It's one of Clausewitz's old dicta: the fog of war might obscure things to the commanders at the top, friction might prevent their orders from being carried out properly or whatever, but moral forces could compensate in part for those problems.

But high morale cannot and will not ever compensate for the sort of technological and numerical inferiority that the space navies of the united galaxy face in the Reaper War. Because, make no mistake: victory on the ground is nice, but it is irrelevant without victory in space. I don't doubt for a second that the armies of the Citadel races could be pitted against any Reaper ground force and win - even win handily, especially if they had high morale. But that's not really the decisive part of the war - the space fighting is. A victorious ground force could be annihilated by a Reaper capital ship in minutes. And the Reapers would undoubtedly take an even greater toll on a ground force before it is able to even reach the surface of a given planet.

It is in space naval combat that morale is much less useful. It doesn't matter how motivated you are, how ready to die you are - a motivated crew can't compensate for a technologically inferior vessel. High morale among the crew doesn't endow a ship with the ability to dodge a Reaper dreadnought's main guns, or provide a ship with enough armor to withstand a hit. High morale won't change the calculus of firepower and armor. Compare it not to the modern small-unit combat in the brushfire wars of Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, with which our soldiers here on BSN have experience, but to a modern naval battle (if such a thing existed). Pit a modern US Navy carrier battle group against the naval forces of Russia, Iran, or even China, and the Americans would wipe out the enemy before they even got within radar range of the carrier at the battle group's heart, no matter how well-motivated the Iranians or whomever might be. And I think we can all guess which fleet is the Reapers and which is the Citadel races in that analogy.

None of this is to say that morale isn't good or useful or necessary. It is. But high morale will not compensate for a deficiency all across the board, in numbers and in technology. And, it's worth noting, it historically has not done so, even in land engagements. Rare is the example of a battle won by an army that was outnumbered, outgunned, and outthought, but whose high morale permitted them to carry the day anyway. But, in land battles where everything else has been more or less equal, morale can and has been a key factor in determining the victor. We cannot say that the Citadel races are "more or less equal" to the Reapers.

I suppose the thing is that a soldier is told that high morale can win all on its own, because he or she needs to believe that that's true. That's what having high morale is: you need to believe you can win, even if it's not true. It's what prevents some of the soldiers here from having any sort of an objective opinion on the matter. They have experience, and I respect that, but they do not tend to have a neutral perspective.

---

On a side note, I never really understood why this argument about conventional victory was even necessary. The people who developed the IP took great pains to state that conventional victory is impossible, ergo it is impossible. That's the way it is. You might as well argue about what color Liara's skin is, or whether Arcturus really is in Alliance space. It's not coming from one unreliable source, it comes from pretty much everybody Shepard talks to on the subject, with pretty much nary a dissenting voice. You might believe that the story would have been better if the forces of the united galaxy won with some sort of conventional victory, and you might disagree with the writers' decision to make the Reapers so powerful that conventional victory was impossible, but it seems ridiculous to claim that the writers are wrong. It's their IP.

The sad part about that is, even with the magic space bomb that is the Crucible, I think it's entirely plausible to think that the deciding factor in the Reaper War is going to be morale.  In essence, against a technologically superior force like the reapers, that is all we have.  At the same time though, I don't think it's fair to count out galactic forces on a conventional level.  If the arrival of the Sword fleet to Earth indicated anything (assuming you got maximum assets) even the fleets can put up a fight and wreak some serious havoc.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 03:09 .

[NS Wizdum]

daqs wrote...

You know, I've spent most of my life around fighting men and women, and most of the rest of it learning about, writing about, and teaching about ones that lived in the past. I tend to respect them immensely, and I especially respect those who have done so in the service of my adopted country (the United States). And the ones who've posted in this thread are right, after a fashion: morale, fighting spirit, esprit de corps, whatever - that can win battles, and has. It's one of Clausewitz's old dicta: the fog of war might obscure things to the commanders at the top, friction might prevent their orders from being carried out properly or whatever, but moral forces could compensate in part for those problems.

But high morale cannot and will not ever compensate for the sort of technological and numerical inferiority that the space navies of the united galaxy face in the Reaper War. Because, make no mistake: victory on the ground is nice, but it is irrelevant without victory in space. I don't doubt for a second that the armies of the Citadel races could be pitted against any Reaper ground force and win - even win handily, especially if they had high morale. But that's not really the decisive part of the war - the space fighting is. A victorious ground force could be annihilated by a Reaper capital ship in minutes. And the Reapers would undoubtedly take an even greater toll on a ground force before it is able to even reach the surface of a given planet.

It is in space naval combat that morale is much less useful. It doesn't matter how motivated you are, how ready to die you are - a motivated crew can't compensate for a technologically inferior vessel. High morale among the crew doesn't endow a ship with the ability to dodge a Reaper dreadnought's main guns, or provide a ship with enough armor to withstand a hit. High morale won't change the calculus of firepower and armor. Compare it not to the modern small-unit combat in the brushfire wars of Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, with which our soldiers here on BSN have experience, but to a modern naval battle (if such a thing existed). Pit a modern US Navy carrier battle group against the naval forces of Russia, Iran, or even China, and the Americans would wipe out the enemy before they even got within radar range of the carrier at the battle group's heart, no matter how well-motivated the Iranians or whomever might be. And I think we can all guess which fleet is the Reapers and which is the Citadel races in that analogy.

None of this is to say that morale isn't good or useful or necessary. It is. But high morale will not compensate for a deficiency all across the board, in numbers and in technology. And, it's worth noting, it historically has not done so, even in land engagements. Rare is the example of a battle won by an army that was outnumbered, outgunned, and outthought, but whose high morale permitted them to carry the day anyway. But, in land battles where everything else has been more or less equal, morale can and has been a key factor in determining the victor. We cannot say that the Citadel races are "more or less equal" to the Reapers.

I suppose the thing is that a soldier is told that high morale can win all on its own, because he or she needs to believe that that's true. That's what having high morale is: you need to believe you can win, even if it's not true. It's what prevents some of the soldiers here from having any sort of an objective opinion on the matter. They have experience, and I respect that, but they do not tend to have a neutral perspective.

---

On a side note, I never really understood why this argument about conventional victory was even necessary. The people who developed the IP took great pains to state that conventional victory is impossible, ergo it is impossible. That's the way it is. You might as well argue about what color Liara's skin is, or whether Arcturus really is in Alliance space. It's not coming from one unreliable source, it comes from pretty much everybody Shepard talks to on the subject, with pretty much nary a dissenting voice. You might believe that the story would have been better if the forces of the united galaxy won with some sort of conventional victory, and you might disagree with the writers' decision to make the Reapers so powerful that conventional victory was impossible, but it seems ridiculous to claim that the writers are wrong. It's their IP.

Define "technologically inferior vessel". The Reapers are a different class of ship, that does not make our ships inferior. The USS Cole was almost sunk by a fishing boat and a bunch of determined people. Which is superior, a man in a pickup truck with an RPG, or an M1A2 Abrams? The M1A2 has a bigger gun, more armor, and superior tech, but it can still be damaged by "inferior tech". It all depends on how you fight. Wars do not have to be fought 1 on 1. If you can't take a direct hit from your enemies main gun, then you don't put yourself in that position. The Reapers do have weaknesses.

This discussion exists because there are cases in the Codex that show it is possible to win conventionally, there are cases in the game that show that it is possible, and because the tactical decisions made in the game make no sense.

A lot of people also seems to be underestimating just how difficult it would be to wipe out all organic life. The Reapers are going to be around for a while, and they would never finish their job if they had to send a full force to every planet.

Modifié par NS Wizdum, 15 mai 2012 - 03:10 .

[ReXspec]

Prime example of that is how the Turians used their vessels to outmanuever the Reapers during the initial invasion of Palaven.  They used the Reapers own size against them and destroyed many Reaper Capital ships as a result.  Of course, the Turian vessels ended up being wiped out.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 03:17 .

[Rip504]

tetsutsuru wrote...

Counterpoint, BUT I'm also not going to delve into this any further than with my next statement....

September 11, 2001.  An actual terrorist attack on the United States.

My counerpoint?  Mayor Giuliani.  New York  Fire Department.  New York Police Department.  Heart.  High morale.  Solid resolve.

I edit your post to shorten the length of mine,nothing else. I am not trying to misquote you.


Nice Post I agree.
Of course I can counter and explain though.

Now when the Reapers drop off another Billion husks? Does your morale drop again? Some do for sure. Or when you hear that  entire worlds have already fallen to the Reapers? Another boost to morale. I get a super soaker 3000 for Christmas I am a happy camper,then my arch nemesis shows up with his brand new super soaker 5000...(A light hearted joke) I am no longer happy. Morale can come and go as quickly as it is gained or lost. No not everyone will be effected in the same manner. So some will look up and see their reinforcements and think look at all the Reaper fodder. Or that is not enough & we will still lose. While others will see the Reapers reinforcements as a new challenge. I agree Morale can help,but IMO it is not the one word that makes a conventional victory possible. Although I do agree with the way you are using it,I do not feel Morale makes it possible as it is to easy to lose.

My New Orleans example shows how fast people lost hope and morale. Looting,killing,raping etc. New Orleans turned into a third world country in a few days. We had cops killing innocents. We had Cops,Soldiers,and civilians all losing hope and committing suicide. Over a hurricane... Morale did not pull us back,it was hard work and dedication. The New Orleans Saints raised our Morale and it did spread,but at this point New Orleans was already in the process of rebuilding. I was showing how a non-threat event killed morale and left people without hope. That is not the Billion year old Reapers turning your loved ones into Zombies. A race that has done this successfully for billions of years.

And your counterpoint is also a nice example of Morale. Agreed.
I honestly understand how you are using the term morale and what effect it can potentially have. I am just acknowledging that the effect can also be negative and morale can be broken & lost,hence morale is not the word I would use to claim conventional victory is possible.

Modifié par Rip504, 15 mai 2012 - 03:19 .

[KaeserZen]

ReXspec wrote...

Funny thing about WH40k is that they use the dice to simulate this conflagrancy and randomness that is present in real wars--but even then, war isn't isn't as nearly cut-and-dried.  And, again, I agree on the point of people basing opinions on limited experience.  That isn't what I have a problem with.  What I have a problem with is people who dismiss my experience even if I present it in a calm and logical manner.  I've had to bite my tongue (so to speak) several times in this thread and resist sounding like a drooling, bitter, **** of a vet.

Indeed, it's a limited simulation, and it gets easy to cope with the randomness after playing a bit. If it were to simulate any random factor possibly happening on the battlefield, each round would probably take a few years with dice rolls, he he he.

Hehe, I do beleive you're keeping a very cool head, it's pretty good ! Strengthen your point, actually.

Speaking of random things and going against the odds, I did had a few fight or flight moments when I was younger. I had this experience emphasizing morale. Near my neighboorhood were some small time mugger gangs that attacked people for the thrills, and one evening while I was going home, I got greeted by three of these guys.
Logically, based on the fact that they were a little older than me, and outnumbering me, I would have given them my stuff to avoid confrontation, but these guys were not as straightforward. When it became clear that, no matter what I would do, they would beat the crap out of me, I had an adrenaline surge and started attacking them. Needless to say, I was feeling pretty good this evening because I remember I just scored with a girl I was chasing for a few weeks, with much competition, he he he.

I had no martial training, nor was I strong and very fit at that moment. I just had this uncontrollable "Scroo this sheet" moment, and I did feel invicible, with my body feeling stronger than ever. And because they were not expecting an attack, I actually managed to take one out and damage another's leg so he wouldn't follow me.

I took a run for it, and the last guy started chasing me. If it wasn't for the random factor, I would probably have gotten seriously messed up : this guy actually fell down on the street, AND, I noticed a partly broken umbrella by some trashbin, all within a few seconds. When he saw me pick it up, because he was a bit stunned from the fall, he fled, and I didn't pursue him.

First thing I did was get in the first bar and get some scotch on the rocks to lower my heart rate, haha. I felt it would pound out of my chest.

So yeah, adrenaline and random factor can beat stronger odds.

[ReXspec]

Rip504 wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

Counterpoint, BUT I'm also not going to delve into this any further than with my next statement....

September 11, 2001.  An actual terrorist attack on the United States.

My counerpoint?  Mayor Giuliani.  New York  Fire Department.  New York Police Department.  Heart.  High morale.  Solid resolve.

I edit your post to shorten the length of mine,nothing else. I am not trying to misquote you.


Nice Post I agree.
Of course I can counter and explain though.

Now when the Reapers drop off another Billion husks? Does your morale drop again? Some do for sure. Or when you hear that  entire worlds have already fallen to the Reapers? Another boost to morale. I get a super soaker 3000 for Christmas I am a happy camper,then my arch nemesis shows up with his brand new super soaker 5000...(A light hearted joke) I am no longer happy. Morale can come and go as quickly as it is gained or lost. No not everyone will be effected in the same manner. So some will look up and see their reinforcements and think look at all the Reaper fodder. Or that is not enough & we will still lose. While others will see the Reapers reinforcements as a new challenge. I agree Morale can help,but IMO it is not the one word that makes a conventional victory possible. Although I do agree with the way you are using it,I do not feel Morale makes it possible as it is to easy to lose.

My New Orleans example shows how fast people lost hope and morale. Looting,killing,raping etc. New Orleans turned into a third world country in a few days. We had cops killing innocents. We had Cops,Soldiers,and civilians all losing hope and committing suicide. Over a hurricane... Morale did not pull us back,it was hard work and dedication. The New Orleans Saints raised our Morale and it did spread,but at this point New Orleans was already in the process of rebuilding. I was showing how a non-threat event killed morale and left people without hope. That is not Billion year old Reapers turning your loved ones into Zombies. A race that has done this successfully for billions of years.

And your counterpoint is also a nice example of Morale. Agreed.
I honestly understand how you are using the term morale and what effect it can potentially have. I am just acknowledging that the effect can also be negative and morale can be broken & lost,hence morale is not the word I would use to claim conventional victory is possible.

Remember that "conventional" does not mean using tactics or assets in the most obvious way.  I really am frustrated over the fact that people call the most recent conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan "conventional" or say that we use nothing but "conventional tactics" in those conflicts when we do anything but.

Again, I'm not saying morale is the sole factor in a major conflict, but it can be a major, if not deciding factor in a war or disaster.  It can make or break whole civilizations or armies as you have so aptly stated.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 03:33 .

[ReXspec]

KaeserZen wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Funny thing about WH40k is that they use the dice to simulate this conflagrancy and randomness that is present in real wars--but even then, war isn't isn't as nearly cut-and-dried.  And, again, I agree on the point of people basing opinions on limited experience.  That isn't what I have a problem with.  What I have a problem with is people who dismiss my experience even if I present it in a calm and logical manner.  I've had to bite my tongue (so to speak) several times in this thread and resist sounding like a drooling, bitter, **** of a vet.

Indeed, it's a limited simulation, and it gets easy to cope with the randomness after playing a bit. If it were to simulate any random factor possibly happening on the battlefield, each round would probably take a few years with dice rolls, he he he.

Hehe, I do beleive you're keeping a very cool head, it's pretty good ! Strengthen your point, actually.

Speaking of random things and going against the odds, I did had a few fight or flight moments when I was younger. I had this experience emphasizing morale. Near my neighboorhood were some small time mugger gangs that attacked people for the thrills, and one evening while I was going home, I got greeted by three of these guys.
Logically, based on the fact that they were a little older than me, and outnumbering me, I would have given them my stuff to avoid confrontation, but these guys were not as straightforward. When it became clear that, no matter what I would do, they would beat the crap out of me, I had an adrenaline surge and started attacking them. Needless to say, I was feeling pretty good this evening because I remember I just scored with a girl I was chasing for a few weeks, with much competition, he he he.

I had no martial training, nor was I strong and very fit at that moment. I just had this uncontrollable "Scroo this sheet" moment, and I did feel invicible, with my body feeling stronger than ever. And because they were not expecting an attack, I actually managed to take one out and damage another's leg so he wouldn't follow me.

I took a run for it, and the last guy started chasing me. If it wasn't for the random factor, I would probably have gotten seriously messed up : this guy actually fell down on the street, AND, I noticed a partly broken umbrella by some trashbin, all within a few seconds. When he saw me pick it up, because he was a bit stunned from the fall, he fled, and I didn't pursue him.

First thing I did was get in the first bar and get some scotch on the rocks to lower my heart rate, haha. I felt it would pound out of my chest.

So yeah, adrenaline and random factor can beat stronger odds.

That and using every tactic you can think of.  You decided to slow down one, take out the other, and wear out the last guy.  That is a prime example of using conventional tactics in unconventional ways.

conventional... I'm really starting to hate that word...

[Rip504]

When I say conventional,I mean beating the Reapers without the super weapon in ME3. Nothing more.
Also I am not stating that a conventional victory is impossible. We have a 1-10% chance at the very least.

Rip504 wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

Counterpoint, BUT I'm also not going to delve into this any further than with my next statement....

September 11, 2001.  An actual terrorist attack on the United States.

My counerpoint?  Mayor Giuliani.  New York  Fire Department.  New York Police Department.  Heart.  High morale.  Solid resolve.

I edit your post to shorten the length of mine,nothing else. I am not trying to misquote you.


Nice Post I agree.
Of course I can counter and explain though.

Now when the Reapers drop off another Billion husks? Does your morale drop again? Some do for sure. Or when you hear that  entire worlds have already fallen to the Reapers? Another boost to morale. I get a super soaker 3000 for Christmas I am a happy camper,then my arch nemesis shows up with his brand new super soaker 5000...(A light hearted joke) I am no longer happy. Morale can come and go as quickly as it is gained or
lost. No not everyone will be effected in the same manner. So some will look up and see their reinforcements and think look at all the Reaper fodder. Or that is not enough & we will still lose. While others will see the Reapers reinforcements as a new challenge. I agree Morale can help,but IMO it is not the one word that makes a conventional victory possible. Although I do agree with the way you are using it,I do not feel Morale makes it possible as it is to easy to lose.

My New Orleans example shows how fast people lost hope and morale. Looting,killing,raping etc. New Orleans turned into a third world country in a few days. We had cops killing innocents. We had Cops,Soldiers,and civilians all losing hope and committing suicide. Over a hurricane... Morale did not pull us back,it was hard work and dedication. The New Orleans Saints raised our Morale and it did spread,but at this point New Orleans was already in the process of rebuilding. I was showing how a non-threat event killed morale and left people without hope. That is not the Billion year old Reapers turning your loved ones into Zombies. A race that has done this successfully for billions of years.

And your counterpoint is also a nice example of Morale. Agreed.I honestly understand how you are using the term morale and what effect it can potentially have. I am just acknowledging that the effect can also be negative and morale can be broken & lost,hence morale is not the word I would use to claim conventional victory is possible.

Let's not forget to mention the world that nukes themselves when the Reapers show up.!. In ME3 of course.

Modifié par Rip504, 15 mai 2012 - 04:03 .

[KaeserZen]

ReXspec wrote...

That and using every tactic you can think of.  You decided to slow down one, take out the other, and wear out the last guy.  That is a prime example of using conventional tactics in unconventional ways.

conventional... I'm really starting to hate that word...

Hehe, to be perfectly honest with you, I don't think I even had time to think, everything just happened.

[tetsutsuru]

Again, just to reiterate: "Conventional Victory/Warfare" here simply means fighting the Reapers without using that stupid, space magic wand ill-conceived plot device, Crucible. Other than that, anything against the Reapers, shooting guns, throwing rocks, sticks, pulling a Banshee's hair tentacles, or what have you, are game.

Modifié par tetsutsuru, 15 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[Erield]

I didn't read all of the OP, and I haven't read any of the posts. I was really thinking (maybe hoping?) that the word would be boobs. Boobs are wonderful, magical things. They are the reason why The Trojan War was fought, and I firmly believe that they could (should?) have been used in the Reaper War.

[MakeMineMako]

ReXspec wrote...

Karolus_V wrote...

If some attack is going to well, don't worry, is an ambush.

A little bit of a grammar error, but I get what you are saying.

"If an attack is going well, it's probably an ambush."

I forget who said that specifically...

Murphy's Laws of Combat, if I'm not mistaken.