215 réponses à ce sujet

[Oldbones2]

Cypher_CS wrote...

@Oldbones, you are assuming that the people who managed Logistics BEFORE this war were complete dumbasses. Because, again, these are self sustaining systems.

And I'm saying this as a Logistics Officer.

@Angry one,
The clouds are on fire? Or are those just fires?
Yes, it's wrecked. But it's not beyond repair.

You have absolutely NO evidence to say that it is.
So, stop headcannoning yourself (whatever the hell that means).

Maybe you're not very good at your job then.

Let's talk about just FEEDING the remaining populations of planets.  We'll ignore the necessities of fuels, machinery needed for large scale agriculture and infrastructure to store and distribute the food when its harvested.

Worlds like Eden Prime have an abundance of food, and they have a huge amount of agriculture relative to their population.

Worlds like Earth or Thessia or even Illium, are covered in cities, and thus rely on intensive agriculture in specialized locations to provide their food (assuming you think they are all enclosed systems, which they aren't, the codex states that Illium imports water from nearby asteroids and planets).

Intensive agriculture is suprisingly fragile and can be disrupted by something as simple as a bad localized weather.  Add in a Reaper invasion that targets infrastructure and production facilities and you have a no high yield farms left b no way to quickly rebuild those farms.  The result, people starve

Now lets add back in the lack of transportation and storage (again because the Reapers targeted that stuff first) even if some food is produced it can't be distributed or stored for very long.  More starvation there.

And don't forget that there are several essential materials needed for growing food, which are in short supply RIGHT NOW in real life.  Namely phosphorus and freshwater.  After an invasion expect those supplies to dwindle since you can't gather them effectively, import them from other planets or recycle them for organic material (no recycling facilities left).  Even more starvation.


Now, agriculture is not unique.  Similar problems will exist with fuel and medical supplies. 

Now these problems will be at their most acute on the heavily populated worlds because a) these worlds have the most people to support and  Reapers target these worlds the most heavily.

So while not everyone will die (even on devastated worlds) many will starve/die from exposure/succumb to illness.

[Lookout1390]

What was the underlying purpose of the relay-destruction?

If the us vs. reaper threat was 'resolved'....then what was the ****ing point?

Seriously, **** you, Mac.

[Cypher_CS]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Cypher_CS, just for the record: do you actually think that Earth would still be capable of sustaining itself after being devastated like that?
My mother's family had to survive in the rubble left by WW2, and if it hadn't been for external support, they would have starved in the first winter. Even as it was, things were extremely tough, and my oldest aunt suffered from the medical long-term consequences of advanced starvation throughout most of her adult life. And that in a country that was (at that point) mostly dedicated to agriculture, with all of the allies making an effort at supporting the civillian populace.

Now, we can assume that technological advances render many things somewhat easier in the ME-universe. But when the Earth we see at the end of ME3 is cut off from the rest of the galaxy - the consequences for the war-torn regions would be beyond devastating.

Do you know how far Logistics, just Logistics, as a science, has advanced since WW2 until today?
Not too many years ago, Logistics was viewed as just another laymen job. Warehouse workers, dirty workers. Nothing more. Servants.
Today, the Commander of the HQ company is often the #2 or #3 man in the Regiment, right after the Regimental Commander and his XO (who also deals with Logistics). His Job today is not just to clean up after the fact, but to create a Logistical plan (which includes maintenance, medicince, evacuation, human resources and, obviously, materiel) based on the Regimental combat plan, and, most importantly, advise the Regimental Commander on that combat plan, with the Logistical view.

Sorry, but I do take pride in my military vocation.

With all due respect to your family - seriously, my grandfather was in the Russian military during WW2, and we are jewish family originally from Poland - what was then is not now.

So yes, I do believe Earth will be okay.
Again, it's not rosey. There will be more casualties from after affects of the war, there will be lack of food stuffs and other crises. However, it won't be the dark ages.

[Cypher_CS]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

As you may note, from reading my replies, I never said there wouldn't be damage or that all will be rosey.
There will be damage. There will be climate change. But not a nuclear winter.

Because?

I've explained this in a previous post here. Look it up.
Has to do with how a Nuclear Winter is created and what we are currently experiencing due to the events of the past two years (Fires, Volcanoes, etc').
There's been a whole discussion about it, spanning several replies. Don't be lazy and read it.

The Angry One wrote... 

Also, just for the sake of an accurate argument:
-You don't know the force with which the shots of these main guns hit. Not beyond knowing "it's powerful".

Once again the codex > you.

Dreadnoughts are kilometer-long capital ships mounting heavy, long-range
firepower. They are only deployed for the most vital missions. A
dreadnought's power lies in the length of its main gun. Dreadnoughts
range from 800 meters to one kilometer long, with a main gun of
commensurate length. An 800-meter mass accelerator is capable of
accelerating one twenty-kilogram slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s (1.3%
the speed of light) every two seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy
of about 38 kilotons of TNT, about two and a half times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.

Thank you, Angry One. I hereby stand corrected on that point.

The Angry One wrote... 

-We do know ships can survive re-entry, but that hugely depends on angle of approach, if all the Sci-Fiish force fields and mass effect fields and what not have failed. I'm assuming they fail, otherwise there wouldn't be much need for the ship to drop from orbit.

The mass amount of debris raining down, intact or not, will not be healthy.

Again, never said it will be rosey.
Never implied it either.

Not really fair of you to quote that and not actually read before where I reiterated that I'm not implying that all is rosey.

[Cypher_CS]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

@Angry one,
The clouds are on fire? Or are those just fires?

.....

Who cares about the clouds?

Well, my original quote, which you replied to and didn't quote here, specifically talks about showing clouds and clearings in the sky.
So what else can be on Fire if you reply was "yes, on fire".
Are the Clouds on Fire? Are the Clearings in the Sky on fire?

Here:

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

That's a great picture, showing clouds and clearings....

That are on fire. 

Maybe I wasn't clear on meaning that the clearings are of the skies - without clouds.
If that's the case, then - it's about the skies.
Which ties back to your question of why No Nuclear Winter. Again, read before that.

The Angry One wrote... 

Yes, it's wrecked. But it's not beyond repair.

You have absolutely NO evidence to say that it is.
So, stop headcannoning yourself (whatever the hell that means).

It's not beyond repair if the required help is available.

It is.
See the ramblings about Logistics and no Nuclear Winter and Self Sustainability and Other Forces in the System and in the Cluster. Phew... that's a lot of stuff.

[Jassu1979]

I can picture Mac Walters thinking something along the lines of: "The Citadel and the mass relays shaped galactic civilizations according to what the Reapers desired, preventing genuine innovation and autonomy. If we want to have a clean slate after beating the Reapers, we need to get rid of their poisoned technological "gifts" altogether, even if it hurts at first."

Something akin to that happens at the end of Dan Simmons's "Hyperion"-saga, where the galaxy breaks free of the instant-travel portals "donated" by the AIs to keep human culture static.

In theory, it's not such a bad idea.

Until you think about the state of the war-torn planets, the giant fleet amassed in sol system, and the almost total breakdown of long-distance travel and communication - at a time when pretty much every single species is down on their knees to begin with.

He just didn't think it through properly, and now other writers such as Weekes try (quite desperately) to minimize the damage by conjuring up all kinds of contingency measures.

Now, we could debate just how much realism we can expect from a sci-fi extravaganza. A certain suspension of disbelief is certainly part of the deal, or else you'd have to walk away as soon as the first anthropomorphic alien appears on the scene.
But there certainly are different degrees of realism, even in SciFi.

At the one end of the spectrum, you've got "Star Wars" - which is basically high fantasy with space ships. In that scenario, you do not have to worry that the exploding death star will have any effect on Endor and its native population, because that would be at odds with the cheery happy ending the writers aimed for.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have "hard" science fiction that aims to be as realistic and technologically plausible as possible.

Mass Effect certainly isn't altogether plausible, but it's no "Star Wars", either. If we were to place it on a scale between these extremes, I'd place it roughly in the same spot as "Star Trek": it's not scientifically accurate, but it at least *tries* to use technobabble to appear plausible.

Now, keeping all that in mind, I do not think the writers should expect us to rationalize all the damage away. A cut-off disaster zone *will* suffer tremendously; even more so if the ailing inhabitants are used to a life of utter dependency on high tech.
If I placed you in the middle of a war-torn, ruined city - just how long would you survive without aid? Especially if you were shell-shocked, or wounded, or just recovering from seeing all of your friends and family murdered?

Now, somebody is sure to say something like: "Did you expect puppies and rainbows? This is a WAR!"
But we're not talking about the war. We are talking about the *aftermath* of the same potentially causing *more* casualties than the war itself, and all because some writer did not think things through properly, crippling the galaxy even further when it was already down.

[Jassu1979]

Also, the whole "dependency on Reaper tech must end"-angle pretty much becomes a moot point if the gap will be filled by utilizing dead Reapers, and/or Synthesis is supposed to be the "best" option.

[Cypher_CS]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough.

It is not going to be rosey or peachy or Star Wars incest like!

It is going to be tough. People will die. Some will starve.
I'm merely going against the extremist underlying implication that some here are taking (some angry people are taking), that we are left not only with a sad ending - that Shepard is dead - but also with a completely catastrophic ending, one where there's no going back from. Dark ages.

It's not dark ages. It's going to be tough, yes. But it will be manageable.
Think Haiti. Think Japan.

Actually, Japan is a great example.
Even today, rescue forces around the world are taking Japan as an example, as the epitome of preparedness for natural and unnatural disasters. We study their methods of educating people on how to survive and we study their plans.

So, maybe think of the destruction on Earth as a cross between the state of Haiti after the Earthquake and the preparedness of Japan with all these military forces that are able to render help.

[Oldbones2]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough.

It is not going to be rosey or peachy or Star Wars incest like!

It is going to be tough. People will die. Some will starve.
I'm merely going against the extremist underlying implication that some here are taking (some angry people are taking), that we are left not only with a sad ending - that Shepard is dead - but also with a completely catastrophic ending, one where there's no going back from. Dark ages.

It's not dark ages. It's going to be tough, yes. But it will be manageable.
Think Haiti. Think Japan.

Actually, Japan is a great example.
Even today, rescue forces around the world are taking Japan as an example, as the epitome of preparedness for natural and unnatural disasters. We study their methods of educating people on how to survive and we study their plans.

So, maybe think of the destruction on Earth as a cross between the state of Haiti after the Earthquake and the preparedness of Japan with all these military forces that are able to render help.

The dark age won't come solely because the Reapers invade or destroy things.  It will come as a result of the lack of communication and travel between previously interconnected and deeply interdependant systems.  Imagine if tomorrow morning, all electricty and fossil fuels, even steam power disapeared forever.  Sure it might be possible to, in a few hundred years build alternate tech, but in the mean time, hello dark age, hello massive regress of society.

You want to take a historical example?

Look at Rome, when the western empire collapsed, it literally caused the DARK AGES.  Because no one was upholding the roads or offering reliable communication.

[Cypher_CS]

You do realize that Progress is not a Linear thing, don't you?

Rome didn't have any back up systems, any back up policies to rely on.
We have those today. Not even planned things, but just contingencies that are easily accessible.

There is communication.
There is travel - albeit much slower.
There are forces, military forces, that will uphold the peace. Uphold the law. Support logistics.
Outside of Total Nuclear devastation, there really isn't really any scenario that will plunge us into a Dark Age. Sure, it will be relatively dark for us, but not the Dark Ages as you describe it.

The Industrial Revolution itself was the major exponential catapult in this regard.

[Taboo]

It's bad, but not as bad as a Dark Age, as Cypher says.

We WILL survive. But it will take a great deal of effort. One of the great strengths that we have is just that, the will to survive.

[majormajormmajor]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's bad, but not as bad as a Dark Age, as Cypher says.

THAT'S NOT WHAT CASEY SAID

[Taboo]

majormajormmajor wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's bad, but not as bad as a Dark Age, as Cypher says.

THAT'S NOT WHAT CASEY SAID

TOO BAD HUDSON.

ALL INTERPRETATIONS OF ART ARE VALID.

HE CAN'T DO DIDDLY POOP.

[Averdi]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Rome didn't have any back up systems, any back up policies to rely on.
We have those today. Not even planned things, but just contingencies that are easily accessible.

And most of those rely upon the mobility provided by standard transportation systems (that's one reason we plan and invest in such systems, after all).  In ME, the relays are standard.  While no doubt conventional FTL will help ammeliorate shortages, I can't see it doing enough to prevent societal collapse in some locations, particularly highly poplulated industrial areas.

There is travel - albeit much slower.

Much slower.  Anything more than a few months away via FTL I can't see being a factor in the short term, which is when the major crunch will be.

There are forces, military forces, that will uphold the peace. Uphold the law. Support logistics.

Perhaps.  It may be an even bet that those forces become embroiled in civil strife as dwindling stockpiles and lack of relief promote factionalism and greater destruction, similar to what the Drell experienced.

Outside of Total Nuclear devastation, there really isn't really any scenario that will plunge us into a Dark Age. Sure, it will be relatively dark for us, but not the Dark Ages as you describe it.

The Western Europe Dark Age is actually pretty apt, I think.  It was noted as such for the technological and social stagnation/regression that occured, not even wholesale dealth.  The post-reaper galaxy might be relatively bettere or worse, but I don't think the analogy is too extreme.

The Industrial Revolution itself was the major exponential catapult in this regard.

That's an, "We'll come through and grow stronger," argument, which is fine to make.  But it's easy for we who are descendents of those who survived periods of want to see the virtues of how such events improved us; we're the evolutionary suvivors.  Right now we're watching the Colosseum burn, and plenty aren't going to make it though the winter.

And I still don't understand why it was desired or necessary from a story or logical standpoint, which to me makes those deaths and the end of conventional galactic civilization pointless as well.

Modifié par Averdi, 05 juin 2012 - 01:17 .

[Alchema]

But, since the relays were built by Protheans, (so it's possible for organics to make again) they can be built again. Only problem is if you chose destroy, you'd be left with no resources to start over easily.


EDIT: Forget what I said there.

Modifié par Alchema, 05 juin 2012 - 01:21 .

[Oldbones2]

Cypher_CS wrote...

You do realize that Progress is not a Linear thing, don't you?

Rome didn't have any back up systems, any back up policies to rely on.
We have those today. Not even planned things, but just contingencies that are easily accessible.

There is communication.
There is travel - albeit much slower.
There are forces, military forces, that will uphold the peace. Uphold the law. Support logistics.
Outside of Total Nuclear devastation, there really isn't really any scenario that will plunge us into a Dark Age. Sure, it will be relatively dark for us, but not the Dark Ages as you describe it.

The Industrial Revolution itself was the major exponential catapult in this regard.

Looking at progress from a personal perspective, no.  It's a series of inventions and implementations of technologies into society in a cluster. 

Looking back at it, its absolutely linear.

Further, Rome had tons of backup systems.  But no one designs a backup system that assumes the entire technology it safeguards will disapear completely and forever. 

To put it in current example, the US government does not have enough backup fossil fuel (ready to use) to run our military for a year.  It has about a month's worth.  And we aren't engaged in a life or death struggle with a potential need for those emergency reserves either. 

We don't have anywhere close to what we'd need to run the civilian commerce for a month. 

Military forces need pay, even if they forgo that, they need food, fuel, cloths.  And no one can make these things.  So I don't think that the fleets are capable of maintaining control of the civilians, when they can't even supply their own troops.

Consider this, you don't need EVERY aspect of society to fail to cause a collapse.  Like I said, Rome had backups.

But society isn't a reinforced bunker.  It's a house of cards.  Some can be pulled out and nothing happens.  But if you get just the right one, (historically related to ease of travel or comminication), the whole thing comes crashing down.

Modifié par Oldbones2, 05 juin 2012 - 02:49 .