419 réponses à ce sujet

[UFGSpot]

rev1976 wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

rev1976 wrote...

arkonite167 wrote...

Attempting to beat the reapers with conventional warfare is like a flea climbing up an elephant's leg with intentions of rape.

pretty sure thats what america thought about korea in the 50's and again with vietnam in the 70's, and lets not forget the ussr and afganistan in the 80's.

noticing a theme yet?

if not ill give you an even more striking example - the battle of teutoborg forest. a few scraggly assed tribes of german "barbarians", little more than bronze aged "savages" wipe out 3 legions, 3 cavalry detachments and 6 cohorts of auxiliaries, 20,000 fighting men of the most advanced military on the earth at that time.

its called asymmetric warfare

Battle != War. No one has said organic forces would lose EVERY fight. What they are saying is over time, the Reapers will be victorious.

you missunderstand the significance
the fact remains that a ragtag group with much fewer numbers, **** all training (only armenius had had actual military training, for which im sure he thanked rome considerably ) and weapons and armour which are vastly inferior CAN wipe out a vastly superior force, in fact so thouroughly destroy them that not one survives.

just because conventional warfare is a bust does not rule out the opportunity for total victory by other means, and ONLY conventional warfare is specificly referred to as impossible during the game.

And your real world examples are irrelevant because in almost all those cases the technologically superior force does not engage in total war, using all the power and resources at their disposal. Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam would have ended rather differently had the US/Russia used atomic weapons. The Reapers do not hold back.

Oh and I researched your example of the Teutoburg Forest battle. You left out the part where over the next several years the Romans regrouped with their superior resources, invaded and pillaged the Germanic tribes responsible.

Modifié par UFGSpot, 28 juin 2012 - 03:02 .

[rev1976]

you think those are the only examples of a vastly inferior force winning a decisive victory against "impossible odds" lol google some, learning is fun
ill let you in on a lil secret - you can bet your ass the romans at teutoburg werent holding back, or the macedonians when they were ass kicked by the greek hoplites, the list goes on and on...

[UFGSpot]

rev1976 wrote...

you think those are the only examples of a vastly inferior force winning a decisive victory against "impossible odds" lol google some, learning is fun
ill let you in on a lil secret - you can bet your ass the romans at teutoburg werent holding back, or the macedonians when they were ass kicked by the greek hoplites, the list goes on and on...

And you keep using arguments of individual battles instead of complete wars. The Reapers are committing GENOCIDE. No prisoners taken, no holds barred. And as you get weaker, they are getting stronger by converting your resources into more and more troops.

Of course the Romans weren't holding back, and as they regrouped and kicked the crap out of the Germans supports my argument and not yours. You used the example, not me.

Modifié par UFGSpot, 28 juin 2012 - 03:06 .

[rev1976]

and what? earth is a battle, palavin is a battle, thessia is a battle.
wars are made up of battles - not 'everyone gets together in one place and decides things in one big fight'
battles which CAN be won, win enough of them and guess what? you win the war

you dont have to believe me, just pick up a damn history book

Modifié par rev1976, 28 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[JPVS]

Using Earth's historical wars as a basis for an argument saying guerrila war agains the Reapers would be possible is foolish at the least. Supply centers are different, technology level is different, aggressiveness different, available supply lines different, available tactics completely different, available means of transportation, extremely different. Too many different things, the comparison is useless and irrelevant

[rev1976]

lmao - and people say that IT theorists are blind to facts?
whatever
ill stick with historical precident thanks much, you can stick with your imaginary universe and "cause casey hudsen says so"

[JPVS]

rev1976 wrote...

and what? earth is a battle, palavin is a battle, thessia is a battle.
wars are made up of battles - not 'everyone gets together in one place and decides things in one big fight'
battles which CAN be won, win enough of them and guess what? you win the war

you dont have to believe me, just pick up a damn history book

And your military knowledge clearly is lacking. Try to extrapolate things to space battles and you'll see just how irrelevant the historic records of previous wars are. Plus, did you not notice how irrelevant ground forces were against Reaper Capitol ships? Tanks could barely destroy a destroyer, let alone a Capitol ship. Given time enough, Capitol ships ravage a planet, its resource producing centers, its population. All they need is blast everything in their path, which they can do continuously (unlike the defenders that need to rest).

[JPVS]

I also suggest you try and look up the closest thing you have: naval battle records.
If there is a comparison then it is thus: the organics are the old Indian American civilizations and the Reapers are the Spanish (the difference in technology is relatively close, with the major difference being: the Spanish knew **** of the terrain while the Reapers know everything)

[UFGSpot]

rev1976 wrote...

and what? earth is a battle, palavin is a battle, thessia is a battle.
wars are made up of battles - not 'everyone gets together in one place and decides things in one big fight'
battles which CAN be won, win enough of them and guess what? you win the war

you dont have to believe me, just pick up a damn history book

You are quite arrogant in this assertion. You are charging me to read history but ignoring it yourself. You act like every battle is fought at optimum strength. You ignore the fact that you don't get to press a reset button after every win and go into the next at full power. The war with the Reapers is a war of attrition. Wars of attrition on earth end when 1 side is wiped out, or when 1 or both sides decide it's just too costly to continue and lose the will to fight. The Reapers WILL NEVER DECIDE TO STOP. They already have superior numbers and tech, and on top of that they replenish their ground forces much faster. Once they begin systematically destroying your infrastructure (ship yards, supplies) you can't sustain.

You are trying to extrapolate the odd earth battle into a rationale for winning an entire war against a tireless, technologically and numerically superior force thats entire purpose is to utterly destroy. Not occupy, not conquer but to wipe out it's targets.

Modifié par UFGSpot, 28 juin 2012 - 03:24 .

[UFGSpot]

rev1976 wrote...

lmao - and people say that IT theorists are blind to facts?
whatever
ill stick with historical precident thanks much, you can stick with your imaginary universe and "cause casey hudsen says so"

Yeah because you looked up the battle of reaper hill back in 1862 to prove your point.

Modifié par UFGSpot, 28 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[ArchDuck]

Should it have been possible? Yes.

Yes for many reasons. Because the games have been about doing the impossible, because Shepard has been a hero that finds a way to do it no matter what others say, because they developed weapons that can hurt & destroy Reapers, because TIM developed tech to scramble Reaper communication, because everyone was united, because the codex had entries describing tactics that was allowing the destruction of Sovereign class reapers (some without taking any return casualties), and mainly because the games were supposed to be about player choice.

Why take the choice of going "conventional" against the Reapers away?
Make it harder? Sure.
Make it require 3 games of choices? Sure.
Make it completely impossible? Petty and against what the series originally stood for: Player choice/agency & doing the impossible.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 28 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[UFGSpot]

delete

Modifié par UFGSpot, 28 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[rev1976]

given time? i didnt think it through? seriously my sides hurt from laughing, whats with your fascination with ground troops?
you totally miss the point of asymmetric warfare

here i'll clue you in a lil
example = palavin (this takes into account your own words "Given time enough, Capitol ships ravage a planet"

the turians and krogan are slowing the reaper destruction - as stated in game (hell the turians alone were slowing it considerably)
a small to medium fleet of citadel alliance vessels need only sit outside the system and target lone or small groups of reaper forces (especially when theyre on the ground) done right citadel alliance forces win by simple attrition of the reapers in that system. they dont need to face all the reapers there at any one time in a single battle - that is CONVENTIONAL warfare which would be stupid. they just need to choose their battles and use a force small enough to escape after mission completion yet large enough to deal with the force theyre sent to destroy (1 or 2 reapers at any one time) that is ASYMMETRIC warfare and it works regardless of groudnd based, naval, or air based warfare. in fact it works extremely damned well in a 3d environment like air based warfare just google "Carl Gustav von Rosen" and the "Biafra Baby Fleet"

and im ever so sorry for my "arrogance" in providing proof to support my statements that ASYMMETRIC warfare is possible via numerous citations of historical REAL precident when obviously i should be listening to your be all and end all exclaimation based on what? 2, maybe 3 refrences where CONVENTIONAL warfare is stated to be unwinable in a make believe context in a computer game.
your right, MY arrogance is obviously astounding in its fathomless depths. i would bow before your obvious magnificance in supplication but i dont think youd be able to see my penitential musings past your ego.

Modifié par rev1976, 28 juin 2012 - 03:36 .

[sp0ck 06]

Except "focus firing" isn't going to work. Reaper ships have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to take out allied dreadnaughts with 1 or 2 shots, or just ram them with little to no discernible damage. The Reaper ships are faster, they do not need to refuel, they can enter atmosphere, and they have nothing to protect.

I don't understand why people keep claiming conventional victory should be possible. All three games pound home the fact that the Reapers are unstoppable in a straight up fight.

Admiral Hackett, who would know better than us, repeats this numerous times in ME3.

Stop saying we should be able to beat the Reapers conventionally.

[ArchDuck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Except "focus firing" isn't going to work. Reaper ships have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to take out allied dreadnaughts with 1 or 2 shots, or just ram them with little to no discernible damage. The Reaper ships are faster, they do not need to refuel, they can enter atmosphere, and they have nothing to protect.

I don't understand why people keep claiming conventional victory should be possible. All three games pound home the fact that the Reapers are unstoppable in a straight up fight.

Admiral Hackett, who would know better than us, repeats this numerous times in ME3.

Stop saying we should be able to beat the Reapers conventionally.

I wish people would quit holding up Admiral Hackett. The man is a military idiot. He lost fleets because of his poor tactics and stupid decisions. If the turians had been in charge of the human fleets the losses would have been minimal and there would have been more than a few Reaper remains decorating Sol system.

Or at least that is the only reasonable assumption I can come to after reading actual tactics being highlighted in the Battle of Palaven .

Modifié par ArchDuck, 28 juin 2012 - 03:38 .

[JPVS]

rev1976 wrote...

given time? i didnt think it through? seriously my sides hurt from laughing, whats with your fascination with ground troops?
you totally miss the point of asymmetric warfare

here i'll clue you in a lil
example = palavin (this takes into account your own words "Given time enough, Capitol ships ravage a planet"

the turians and krogan are slowing the reaper destruction - as stated in game (hell the turians alone were slowing it considerably)
a small to medium fleet of citadel alliance vessels need only sit outside the system and target lone or small groups of reaper forces (especially when theyre on the ground) done right citadel alliance forces win by simple attrition of the reapers in that system. they dont need to face all the reapers there at any one time in a single battle - that is CONVENTIONAL warfare which would be stupid. they just need to choose their battles and use a force small enough to escape after mission completion yet large enough to deal with the force theyre sent to destroy (1 or 2 reapers at any one time) that is ASYMMETRIC warfare and it works regardless of groudnd based, naval, or air based warfare. in fact it works extremely damned well in a 3d environment like air based warfare just google "Carl Gustav von Rosen" and the "Biafra Baby Fleet"

and im ever so sorry for my "arrogance" in providing proof to support my statements that ASYMMETRIC warfare is possible via numerous citations of historical REAL precident when obviously i should be listening to your be all and end all exclaimation based on what? 2, maybe 3 refrences where CONVENTIONAL warfare is stated to be unwinable in a make believe context in a computer game.
your right, MY arrogance is obviously astounding in its fathomless depths. i would bow before your obvious magnificance in supplication but i dont think youd be able to see my penitential musings past your ego.

Wow, ignoring several codex entries and in-game dialog (that start to appear later on in the game) to try and be correct. Sure, that makes you right indeed. Sorry for doubting you.

[UFGSpot]

rev1976 wrote...

given time? i didnt think it through? seriously my sides hurt from laughing, whats with your fascination with ground troops?
you totally miss the point of asymmetric warfare

here i'll clue you in a lil
example = palavin (this takes into account your own words "Given time enough, Capitol ships ravage a planet"

the turians and krogan are slowing the reaper destruction - as stated in game (hell the turians alone were slowing it considerably)
a small to medium fleet of citadel alliance vessels need only sit outside the system and target lone or small groups of reaper forces (especially when theyre on the ground) done right citadel alliance forces win by simple attrition of the reapers in that system. they dont need to face all the reapers there at any one time in a single battle - that is CONVENTIONAL warfare which would be stupid. they just need to choose their battles and use a force small enough to escape after mission completion yet large enough to deal with the force theyre sent to destroy (1 or 2 reapers at any one time) that is ASYMMETRIC warfare and it works regardless of groudnd based, naval, or air based warfare. in fact it works extremely damned well in a 3d environment like air based warfare just google "Carl Gustav von Rosen" and the "Biafra Baby Fleet"

Stop throwing asymmetric warfare like I don't understand the concept. You think the reapers are just gonna keep sending 1 reaper to the system for you to blow up? At some point they show up en masse and wipe you out. You run away. Maybe you don't get utterly destroyed but you take some losses. Over time those losses add up. Meanwhile the reapers are reaping and destroying your means to resupply and replace your losses. You are losing your shipyards and supply lines.

So here are the basic tenants of it from wikipedia since you keep bringing it up, and clearly googling it yourself to find examples (like the hoplites you mentioned)

• One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the decisive English Longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example. 

• Technological inferiority usually is cancelled by more vulnerable
  infrastructure which can be targeted with devastating results.
  Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply systems in
  highly populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and
  morale, while the weaker side may not have these structures at all.[citation needed]

• Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and
  allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for
  several centuries the Greek hoplite's (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well known example.[citation needed]

• If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may
  be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and
  selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective
  means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans.
  Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play
  on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since) provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.[citation needed]

• If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or clearly marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush,
  but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its
  advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding
  law. Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants from using civilian
  settlements, populations or facilities as military bases,
  but when an inferior power uses this tactic, it depends on the premise
  that the superior power will respect the law that the other is
  violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the
  propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss. As seen in most
  conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries, this is highly unlikely as the
  propaganda advantage has always outweighed adherence to international
  law, especially by dominating sides of any conflict.[citation needed]

• As noted below, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one recent example of asymmetric warfare. Mansdorf and Kedar[6]
  outline how Islamist warfare uses asymmetric status to gain a tactical
  advantage against Israel. They refer to the "psychological" mechanisms
  used by forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas in being willing to exploit
  their own civilians as well as enemy civilians towards obtaining
  tactical gains, in part by using the media to influence the course of
  war.

Bullet 1- Reapers are both numerically and technologically superior.

Bullet 2- Reapers don't have vulnerable infrastructure and supply despite their technology advantage. We do

Bullet 3- Training and tactics. Reapers have been reaping and committing genocide for a long, long time. Pretty much everything that can be done to them someone has tried. The have EONS of experience, and can instantly pass that knowledge to new forces

Bullet 4- Made irrelevant by the Reapers committing total war. Can't hide in the terrain when the reapers are going scorched earth. They are infinitely patient, and will never lose the will to fight.

Bullet 5- Reapers don't bother with stuff like the Geneva Convention

Bullet 6- You cannot demoralize or terrorize the reapers

[savionen]

Seems like a lot of people forget one key weakness of the Reapers. Building their fleet is an extremely slow process. It could potentially take billions of humans to create a human reaper. They have a finite amount of ships.

Reapers are also WEAK when they land. They have to land in order to reap. They may have infinite ground forces but that doesn't really matter when the important part of the battle is primarily in space.

If the Alliance finds some tactic that they can stay out of Reaper sight, they can rebuild. The Reapers can't.

Modifié par savionen, 28 juin 2012 - 03:45 .

[Grifman1]

rev1976 wrote...

if not ill give you an even more striking example - the battle of teutoborg forest. a few scraggly assed tribes of german "barbarians", little more than bronze aged "savages" wipe out 3 legions, 3 cavalry detachments and 6 cohorts of auxiliaries, 20,000 fighting men of the most advanced military on the earth at that time.

its called asymmetric warfare

Damn, this is bad history.

1)  The Germans weren't bronze age, they used iron weapons/armor just like the Romans
2)  It wasn't a few scraggly tribes, it was a large force united under the command of Arminius
3)  It wasn't asymmetric warfare at all - it was an ambush in terrible terrain against a strung out Roman column that included large numbers of civilians, and that was not expecting and unprepared for a fight.

If you are going to use history, then at least get it right.

[UFGSpot]

savionen wrote...

Seems like a lot of people forget one key weakness of the Reapers. Building their fleet is an extremely slow process. It could potentially take billions of humans to create a human reaper. They have a finite amount of ships.

Reapers are also WEAK when they land. They have to land in order to reap. They may have infinite ground forces but that doesn't really matter when the important part of the battle is primarily in space.

I'm not forgetting anything. Once the reapers blow up a shipyard your ability to build new ships is now zero. Now to even gain the ability to build again it takes a long time. You have to maintain your supply lines to the ship yard as well. You are ignoring just how many reapers there are. They can sustain the losses. We cant.

[JPVS]

Honestly, do the math, study a bit more about military warfare, extrapolate it to space battles and different levels of technology, imagine how quick the Reapers adapt and move, imagine how many they can lose comparing to the defenders. See logistics, see difference in needs of resources and time, see available resting places and re-suply points. See the codex entries and in-game information. See all that without ignoring many things to suit your arguments (doing so just takes away all credibility), then make your evaluation. And if after that you honestly believe it possible, then I leave you to believe that (though I suggest a bit more study)

If your point is that the game was pointing out to make that possible, through some way other than the Crucible/Catalyst, then you are right, yes. For several reasons (some right, many wrong) that didn't happened even after the EC. Since that did not happened, and people still wanted to refuse, we got a "refusal" ending that pretty much sums up what would happen in the given situation: the Reapers win. If they didn't it would have been just as much space magic as synthesis.

[UFGSpot]

Grifman1 wrote...

rev1976 wrote...

if not ill give you an even more striking example - the battle of teutoborg forest. a few scraggly assed tribes of german "barbarians", little more than bronze aged "savages" wipe out 3 legions, 3 cavalry detachments and 6 cohorts of auxiliaries, 20,000 fighting men of the most advanced military on the earth at that time.

its called asymmetric warfare

Damn, this is bad history.

1)  The Germans weren't bronze age, they used iron weapons/armor just like the Romans
2)  It wasn't a few scraggly tribes, it was a large force united under the command of Arminius
3)  It wasn't asymmetric warfare at all - it was an ambush in terrible terrain against a strung out Roman column that included large numbers of civilians, and that was not expecting and unprepared for a fight.

If you are going to use history, then at least get it right.

This. He keeps throwing out the term like I don't understand it, when clearly he doesn't himself as it applies to the situation presented in the game.

[Grifman1]

savionen wrote...

Seems like a lot of people forget one key weakness of the Reapers. Building their fleet is an extremely slow process. It could potentially take billions of humans to create a human reaper. They have a finite amount of ships.

Kind of irrelvant when:

1) You have an overwhelming advantage in numbers
2) A number of major production centers are under Reaper control (Earth, Thessia, Palaven).  No reinforecments will be built in those systems.  And given that building ships takes time, no quick reinforcements for the good guys either.

[JPVS]

savionen wrote...

Seems like a lot of people forget one key weakness of the Reapers. Building their fleet is an extremely slow process. It could potentially take billions of humans to create a human reaper. They have a finite amount of ships.

Reapers are also WEAK when they land. They have to land in order to reap. They may have infinite ground forces but that doesn't really matter when the important part of the battle is primarily in space.

If the Alliance finds some tactic that they can stay out of Reaper sight, they can rebuild. The Reapers can't.

Explain to me how you rebuild without supply lines and planets from which to take resources, and without population. Plus, explain to me how the fleets could kill even 10% of the thousands of Reaper capitol ships that exist.

[dbt-kenny]

Winning a battle does not win you the war.
So they might of pushed off earth but been so beat up doing it they could not stop the next attack.