419 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

UFGSpot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

We are also told that this cycle is unique.  For starts, this cycle was able to retain it's C3I and actually organize a galaxy-wide resistance.  Apparently that's never happned before.

-Polaris

Where has it been stated that no cycle has EVER united against the Reapers. The only unique thing about our cycle is we were the first to finish the crucible and plug it in.

Chorbin confirms it.  Until our cycle, the Reapers have always taken the citadel first every 50000 years.  Chorbin likens it to rings on a tree since each activation leaves a unique genetic footprint on the Keepers.

-Polaris

[JimmyJr]

i don't believe conventional victory could have been possible, for all the reasons stated in this thread and more.

specifically, i don't think it's been mentioned yet but, do you remember, while walking around the citadel, one of those news announcrments says something in the line that, the war is putting a severe strain in the economy and they predict that in one year it will collapse ?

if you think about the practicality of things, the reapers have two things, quantity and quality, on an absurdly higher order of magnitude than us.

add to the that the fact they don't seem to have ANY of the logistical problems we have:
- population to feed and defend;
- infrastructure to support the military;

and lastly, can't really be understood in their basic motivations and capabilities which makes them unpredictable:
- they ignored the citadel, and basic warfare rules, which damned hackett's initial strategy
- but after that, in just a glimpse of time, not only do they seize it, but are, somehow able to transport it. wow, did we even know they could do that ? did we even know the citadel could be "moved" ? what else are they capable of that we can't even imagine ?

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

JPVS wrote...

We are told this cycle is unique by the survivor of the previous cycle who had no information on the cycles before. The possibility of having other cycles where the races united is quite large.

No it's not.  Until the Protheans modified them, NO ONE figured out the Citadel was a trap until too late.  This is confirmed by Chorbin.  That means that until our cycle the Reapers always took the Citadel first and always shut down all the C3I in the galaxy.

That means this is the first time the Reapers actually face a united galaxy.

-Polaris

true, sadly united doesn't equate to prepared and able to defeat the reapers. 

[Biotic Sage]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I too can remember nothing in any of the lore that suggests anything other than isolated victories are possible.  The entire Reaper force is too massive and too powerful.  Their harvesting/extermination tactics perfectly designed to collapse infrastructure and wittle away at the opposition.  Going to war with the Reapers would be as successful as trying to jump to the sun, some people may get a little closer, but it's all negligible because no one really has a chance trying to get to the sun in that manner.  The Crucible is a different METHOD than conventional warfare.  It is the back door, the plan B.

Reapers can not replenish Ship Losses (at least not easily), are technologically static, and are extremely gunshy of taking any ship casualties (for obvious reasons since each ship is an entire stored civillization).  We know it took them 300 years to finish off the Protheans and the Protheans started off in far worse shape than this cycle does.  A hit-and-run asymetrical war against the Reapers is exactly the kind of war that can be ultimately won...but the cost would be catastrophic.

-Polaris

Like I said man, if you can still come to that conclusion and you truly do know the lore, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you to think otherwise.  By the same token, just understand that there's nothing you can say to me that would sway me away from my outlook: that you and many like you have your viewpoints because you personally would be more entertained by that kind of story and are cherrypicking pieces of lore to fit into a self-made jigsaw that doesn't match up to what has actually been presented to us.  Your above reasoning is just more evidence to me.  Javik admitted that hit and run tactics and a war of attrition was pointless and that there was no hope in it.  He never implied that "if we only had united" or "if we only had more ships" then those tactics would have suddenly worked.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 28 juin 2012 - 09:22 .

[IanPolaris]

Warrior Craess wrote...

pretty sure that Robert E Lee proved than no matter how competent the general, he can not win a war if the industrial base isn't equal.  Considering that the reapers need no industrial base, and we do (which they destroy excedingly well) I'm of the mind that regardless of how brilliant our military may be, it's a lost cause to fight a conventional war. Or even an asymmetrical war. 

That would be interesting news to the People's Republic of Vietnam or for that matter the Muhajadeen of Afghanistan.

Robert E Lee had the unfortunate bad luck to eventually run into a general (Grant) that wouldn't let him have the freedom to maneuver enough to make up the difference.  Grant paid for that in a lot of union blood.

-Polaris

[OblivionDawn]

IanPolaris wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Also, when the Admiral of your entire fleet says that you can't win conventionally then...

Hackett saying that you can't win is reason enough to believe it.

The problem is that Hackett isn't any smarter or more competant in military matters than the people who write him, and many of them have shown...shall we say....less than stellar familiarity with the existing lore or military sci-fi (not to mention military tactics) in general....?

-Polaris

The people who write the lore decide the technology used in Mass Effect warfare, and therefore the military tactics invovled in that warfare. Because of that, Hackett is one of the MOST credible people when it comes to military matters.

Honestly, who would know better than the writers exactly how powerful the Reapers are, lol?

People that plan war for a living.  A general from 2,000 years ago would actually be quite competant even today.  While the technology and it's tactical and strategic implications would take a lot of getting used to, the basic rules and maxims of war have not changed.  MIlitary officers today still read and are still disciple of Sun Tzu (for example).  The bald fact is that the people that wrote this don't think the way that real military leaders would.

-Polaris

That was actually a rhetorical question.

The real answer is that no one would know better than the writers, because the writers can make the Reapers as poewrful as they please.

They were already made out to be terrifyingly powerful since Mass Effect 1. And Bioware knows that suddenly making the Reapers beatable by conventional means would not only cheapen them as a whole, but it would completely undermine the purpose of the Crucible. They would basically have to change the entire game because most of the resource gathering would be pointless.

[Biotic Sage]

IanPolaris wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

We are also told that this cycle is unique.  For starts, this cycle was able to retain it's C3I and actually organize a galaxy-wide resistance.  Apparently that's never happned before.

-Polaris

Where has it been stated that no cycle has EVER united against the Reapers. The only unique thing about our cycle is we were the first to finish the crucible and plug it in.

Chorbin confirms it.  Until our cycle, the Reapers have always taken the citadel first every 50000 years.  Chorbin likens it to rings on a tree since each activation leaves a unique genetic footprint on the Keepers.

-Polaris

That's actually a good point, but still doesn't account for the overwhelming force of the Reapers.  Yes, our cycle is unique in that the Reapers didn't take the Citadel.  However, to me it seemed like Citadel + Overwhelming force equals Overkill times 2.  Now it's just Overwhelming force, which is still Overkill times 1.  Still overkill.

[IanPolaris]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Like I said man, if you can still come to that conclusion and you truly do know the lore, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you to think otherwise.  By the same token, just understand that there's nothing you can say to me that would sway me away from my outlook: that you and many like you have your viewpoints because you personally would be more entertained by that kind of story and are cherrypicking pieces of lore to fit into a self-made jigsaw that doesn't match up to what has actually been presented to us.  Your above reasoning is just more evidence to me.  Jarvik admitted that hit and run tactics and a war of attrition was pointless and that there was no hope in it.  He never implied that "if we only had united" or "if we only had more ships" then those tactics would have suddenly worked.

Actually he does.  He says that the greatest strength of this cycle is that we AREN'T wedded to a single tactic or way of doing things and that means we can adapt far better than his people could.

-Polaris

[Biotic Sage]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Like I said man, if you can still come to that conclusion and you truly do know the lore, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you to think otherwise.  By the same token, just understand that there's nothing you can say to me that would sway me away from my outlook: that you and many like you have your viewpoints because you personally would be more entertained by that kind of story and are cherrypicking pieces of lore to fit into a self-made jigsaw that doesn't match up to what has actually been presented to us.  Your above reasoning is just more evidence to me.  Jarvik admitted that hit and run tactics and a war of attrition was pointless and that there was no hope in it.  He never implied that "if we only had united" or "if we only had more ships" then those tactics would have suddenly worked.

Actually he does.  He says that the greatest strength of this cycle is that we AREN'T wedded to a single tactic or way of doing things and that means we can adapt far better than his people could.

-Polaris

Exactly.  So we can adapt and rally behind one banner despite our differences to actually implement the Crucible plan, something the other cycles failed to do.

[JPVS]

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

JPVS wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris

So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3? 

Of course the Geth fleet sat back and ate popcorn.....


-Polaris

And of course so will all the reaper destroyers, which actually make up the bulk of  thier fleet.  And while a destroyer can't go toe-to-toe with a dreadnought they should be rather more than capable of actually taking down the bulk of our fleets, the cruisers and frigates. 

I find it funny that people simply don't bother with a better research and simple math equations. They had millions of cycles, of which came out millions of capitol ships and at least three times that much destroyers. Even if half were destroyed so far, there would still be thousands of Reaper capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers.
Even if you reduce that number to 10% and assume that was how many were guarding Earth, you'd still have hundreds of capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers. Now compare that to the half-a-hundred dreadnaughts and thousands of cruisers+frigates the organics have.

Aside from ignoring, it is even funnier how they pick up little concepts like "oh the Prothean and their VIs said this cycle was unique and better than their cycle". But what about the cycles before them? They have no info and neither do we. And yet people make the following assumption: "this cycle is indeed unique and the races have enough ships to defeat them". And things that were mentioned from ME1 are also ignored (like how tough it was to bring down a Reaper capitol ship, like how many times it is said the Reapers are far too powerful, like how many times it is indicated that even though some Reapers are killed, thus indicating there was war in the previous cycles, the organics always lost thus far).

Like it was already said: the entire franchise points to how impossible would be to face the Reapers in current terms, and thus a different approach has to be made, a solution found, in order to terminate the Reaper threat. At the beggining of ME3 we are led to believe that solution is the crucible, which is presented as a weapon (rather than a simply energy source). If that had been the case, then battling them was possible.
But since the crucible was later on considered as "not a weapon but rather an energy source" by the project leaders, then victory against the Reapers through conventional means is not possible. Making that possible would have made the entire Reaper threat as laughable, it would have diminuished it, it would have gone against the saga canon and would have been just as much space magic as the current endings.
Of course such ending would have pleased the fans as most would have ignored all these massive contradictions because it would "feel right to be able to defeat them by strength of arms", just like it felt right to have final scene with Anderson and TIM.

[Oransel]

OblivionDawn wrote...

The real answer is that no one would know better than the writers, because the writers can make the Reapers as poewrful as they please.

No. Tragedy of Mass Effect series is that we can no longer trust writers = we can interpret and speculate as we please. Lies, retcons , asspulls like Crucible, Deus Ex Machina of starkid in a game that is advertised as a story wrote by writers and players together lead to a unique conclusion. For me, ME series is no longer about what writers say. Now this Universe plays by my rules. As I said, that has never happened before, but this horrible situation is a direct result of writers abandoning their own lore.

[Athaniar994]

I remember hearing that the Reapers feared a united galaxy, and that it was the only way to stop them. That, and the fact that I had 100% readiness and everything STILL died in Refusal just makes it seem like an even bigger middle finger to the fans.

[Warrior Craess]

Oransel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The foundations of this were set in the timeline between ME2 and ME 3.

Here is where the problems begin. ME3 plot with Crucible does not belong to the lore. That is the route of all problems, tbh.

gah please don't qoute me out of context to support your theory. 

I'm not addressing the plot of the crucible. I'm talking about the vaildity of a winning campaign via conventional/unconventional means.  

from the very beginning of ME1 no one in any position of power believes in the reaper threat.  Opening scene of ME2 miranda is raging against the alliance sending Shepard after geth. When you speak with anderson in ME2 on the crucible he explains what happened to the remains of soveriegn, and it's not it was broken down and studied so that we could be better prepared to fight the reapers.  The Council refuses to aid you, pretty much forcing you to remain with Cerberus in order to continue to fight the reapers.  

if you want to blame something for the very real lack of conventional warfare success blame ME1 and 2...  You do not defeat an enemy by denying their very existance.  can't be done. yet thats exactly what the governments of the Galaxy did. 

[Xa1u5]

I attribute the existence of the question if the war could have been won conventionally on the overall (IMHO) mediocre writing of the series. I think the intent was that there should be not a single reason to believe things could end on a high note without some greater force intervening. The fact that Shepards seems to overcome insurmountable odds all the time didn't help, combined with the Repears being portrayed as nearly invincible, I think they wrote themselves into a corner with no graceful way to get out of...

[IanPolaris]

Oransel wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

The real answer is that no one would know better than the writers, because the writers can make the Reapers as poewrful as they please.

No. Tragedy of Mass Effect series is that we can no longer trust writers = we can interpret and speculate as we please. Lies, retcons , asspulls like Crucible, Deus Ex Machina of starkid in a game that is advertised as a story wrote by writers and players together lead to a unique conclusion. For me, ME series is no longer about what writers say. Now this Universe plays by my rules. As I said, that has never happened before, but this horrible situation is a direct result of writers abandoning their own lore.

+1

-Polaris

[Icinix]

Indeed. They can be beaten conventionally.

Individual Reapers ARE beaten conventionally. First Sovereign, then the Collector base, then numerous little bits throughout ME3 with some great pieces in the codex as its unfolding.

It would just be insanely, insanely, insanely hard. Where ME1 and ME2 really set up that it was possible though is the fact that the Reapers were delayed, not once, not twice - but three times.

First the Keeper signal, then defeating sovereign, then the Alpha relay. They were behind schedule - some forces behind the scenes were aware of the Reapers and taking steps. Hackett and Anderson, the Shadow Broker, Garrus and his task force - plus who knows how many others. They were not able to take out the seat of galactic government, until some arbitrary event at the end game where they went, oh yeah - the citadel - we forgot about that, the thing thats been a our first strike point for like ever!
There are numerous tactics that have been discussed on these forums and elsewhere that could work within the lore and the science. I honestly believed going into ME3 we were setting ourselves up for an amazing all stops pulled war of attrition with our decisions involving needing to sacrifice worlds to defend others, to lose races so others could fight on - with no matter how the game ended - the galaxy was in a right mess. Something akin to the Star Wars galaxy at the end of the Yuuzhan Vong war (or even worse.)

Anyway, its all kind of moot now, whats done is done - but it really missed an opportunity to show choices mattering through 3 games, an opportunity to write a story that didn't have a push here to win button, an opportunity for the bad guy to not be the bad guy, and numerous other things that could have made it really, really amazing - so yes, the Reapers could have been defeated conventionally - and one possible moment before the credits should have been them being defeated conventionally albeit with a huge cost.

[Biotic Sage]

JPVS wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

JPVS wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris

So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3? 

Of course the Geth fleet sat back and ate popcorn.....


-Polaris

And of course so will all the reaper destroyers, which actually make up the bulk of  thier fleet.  And while a destroyer can't go toe-to-toe with a dreadnought they should be rather more than capable of actually taking down the bulk of our fleets, the cruisers and frigates. 

I find it funny that people simply don't bother with a better research and simple math equations. They had millions of cycles, of which came out millions of capitol ships and at least three times that much destroyers. Even if half were destroyed so far, there would still be thousands of Reaper capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers.
Even if you reduce that number to 10% and assume that was how many were guarding Earth, you'd still have hundreds of capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers. Now compare that to the half-a-hundred dreadnaughts and thousands of cruisers+frigates the organics have.

Aside from ignoring, it is even funnier how they pick up little concepts like "oh the Prothean and their VIs said this cycle was unique and better than their cycle". But what about the cycles before them? They have no info and neither do we. And yet people make the following assumption: "this cycle is indeed unique and the races have enough ships to defeat them". And things that were mentioned from ME1 are also ignored (like how tough it was to bring down a Reaper capitol ship, like how many times it is said the Reapers are far too powerful, like how many times it is indicated that even though some Reapers are killed, thus indicating there was war in the previous cycles, the organics always lost thus far).

Like it was already said: the entire franchise points to how impossible would be to face the Reapers in current terms, and thus a different approach has to be made, a solution found, in order to terminate the Reaper threat. At the beggining of ME3 we are led to believe that solution is the crucible, which is presented as a weapon (rather than a simply energy source). If that had been the case, then battling them was possible.
But since the crucible was later on considered as "not a weapon but rather an energy source" by the project leaders, then victory against the Reapers through conventional means is not possible. Making that possible would have made the entire Reaper threat as laughable, it would have diminuished it, it would have gone against the saga canon and would have been just as much space magic as the current endings.
Of course such ending would have pleased the fans as most would have ignored all these massive contradictions because it would "feel right to be able to defeat them by strength of arms", just like it felt right to have final scene with Anderson and TIM.

Nice job bringing the actual math in!  English major here, so sometimes I forget to dive into the actual implied numbers rather than just sticking with close analysis of the narrative.  Great points too, about the Protheans and us not having the actual data of the thousands of cycles before us.  Maybe one of them actually did stop the Reapers from using the Citadel, but after they failed anyway the Reapers reset the trap.

[OblivionDawn]

Oransel wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

The real answer is that no one would know better than the writers, because the writers can make the Reapers as poewrful as they please.

No. Tragedy of Mass Effect series is that we can no longer trust writers = we can interpret and speculate as we please. Lies, retcons , asspulls like Crucible, Deus Ex Machina of starkid in a game that is advertised as a story wrote by writers and players together lead to a unique conclusion. For me, ME series is no longer about what writers say. Now this Universe plays by my rules. As I said, that has never happened before, but this horrible situation is a direct result of writers abandoning their own lore.

The story, barring pre-ending DLC, is done. What's this about trust? It's meaningless. The game is what it is. Sure there are some parts I don't like, but that's the same for any story.

Sure, you can interpret and speculate as you please, but again, you can do that with any story.

You can headcanon that you beat the Reapers conventionally. But making that possible in the official sense would make most of the game pointless and terrible. And honestly, the game doesn't need to take anymore hits to its story.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 28 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[Helios969]

This is the wrong question to ask.  The question is can the allied forces win an unconventional war against the Reapers without using the crucible?  I say yes, but it would be brutal.  You'd have to prepared to use WMD on your own populations when a system was lost, ensuring there was no population left to be harvested, simultaneously wiping out most or all the Reaper forces occupying a given world.  You'd have to operate in smaller cells, each capable of independent action so that individuals or cells indoctrinated could be triaged appropriately.  Unconventional methods such as slamming asteroids into Soveriegn-class Reapers or suicide ships traveling at FTL speeds.  I don't care what kind of plating or kinetic barrier tech the Reapers employ, they're not surviving those impacts.  And let's not forget the giant thresher maws...just kidding:)

At any rate this is merely an academic exercise, so people should be coming up with creative ways to conduct assymetric warfare against Reapers.  Think outside the box using some semblence of tactics and knowledge of physics, (please no more space magic.)

What are the known weaknesses of the Reapers?   Firing chamber (ala Independence Day) is one.  Two were destroyed this way.  Was the one on Tuchunka a Soveriegn-class, anyone?  Any others known?

Modifié par Helios969, 28 juin 2012 - 09:36 .

[JPVS]

Biotic Sage wrote...

JPVS wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

JPVS wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris

So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3? 

Of course the Geth fleet sat back and ate popcorn.....


-Polaris

And of course so will all the reaper destroyers, which actually make up the bulk of  thier fleet.  And while a destroyer can't go toe-to-toe with a dreadnought they should be rather more than capable of actually taking down the bulk of our fleets, the cruisers and frigates. 

I find it funny that people simply don't bother with a better research and simple math equations. They had millions of cycles, of which came out millions of capitol ships and at least three times that much destroyers. Even if half were destroyed so far, there would still be thousands of Reaper capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers.
Even if you reduce that number to 10% and assume that was how many were guarding Earth, you'd still have hundreds of capitol ships and tens of thousands of destroyers. Now compare that to the half-a-hundred dreadnaughts and thousands of cruisers+frigates the organics have.

Aside from ignoring, it is even funnier how they pick up little concepts like "oh the Prothean and their VIs said this cycle was unique and better than their cycle". But what about the cycles before them? They have no info and neither do we. And yet people make the following assumption: "this cycle is indeed unique and the races have enough ships to defeat them". And things that were mentioned from ME1 are also ignored (like how tough it was to bring down a Reaper capitol ship, like how many times it is said the Reapers are far too powerful, like how many times it is indicated that even though some Reapers are killed, thus indicating there was war in the previous cycles, the organics always lost thus far).

Like it was already said: the entire franchise points to how impossible would be to face the Reapers in current terms, and thus a different approach has to be made, a solution found, in order to terminate the Reaper threat. At the beggining of ME3 we are led to believe that solution is the crucible, which is presented as a weapon (rather than a simply energy source). If that had been the case, then battling them was possible.
But since the crucible was later on considered as "not a weapon but rather an energy source" by the project leaders, then victory against the Reapers through conventional means is not possible. Making that possible would have made the entire Reaper threat as laughable, it would have diminuished it, it would have gone against the saga canon and would have been just as much space magic as the current endings.
Of course such ending would have pleased the fans as most would have ignored all these massive contradictions because it would "feel right to be able to defeat them by strength of arms", just like it felt right to have final scene with Anderson and TIM.

Nice job bringing the actual math in!  English major here, so sometimes I forget to dive into the actual implied numbers rather than just sticking with close analysis of the narrative.  Great points too, about the Protheans and us not having the actual data of the thousands of cycles before us.  Maybe one of them actually did stop the Reapers from using the Citadel, but after they failed anyway the Reapers reset the trap.

And even the math I did was wrong on purpose! Lol
Half of millions either results in a few millions or several hundred thousands. But the essence is thus: there are dozens of times more Reaper ships than there are of remaining organic ships.

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

pretty sure that Robert E Lee proved than no matter how competent the general, he can not win a war if the industrial base isn't equal.  Considering that the reapers need no industrial base, and we do (which they destroy excedingly well) I'm of the mind that regardless of how brilliant our military may be, it's a lost cause to fight a conventional war. Or even an asymmetrical war. 

That would be interesting news to the People's Republic of Vietnam or for that matter the Muhajadeen of Afghanistan.

Robert E Lee had the unfortunate bad luck to eventually run into a general (Grant) that wouldn't let him have the freedom to maneuver enough to make up the difference.  Grant paid for that in a lot of union blood.

-Polaris

grrrr your not very consistant in your arguements. In both cases They we're supplied by nations with nearly the same industrial ability. in both cases they didn't actually win any battles, they simpley survived and wore down the will of their enemies (meaning they induce war weariness into the mix)  niether case is relative to the reapers. 

1 they don't require a working infrastructure.
2 they will never become war weary. 

lastly the generals in those conflicts were about evenly matched.  And by the time Lee ever faced Grant on a field of battle the war was already well lost.  had nothing to do with grant denying him maneuverablity.  Civil war didn't end because Robert E lee lost a battle. it ended becuase the north destroyed/denied the south access to any industrial infrastructure. 

[BCMakoto]

Helios969 wrote...

What are the known weaknesses of the Reapers?   Firing chamber (ala Independence Day) is one.  Two were destroyed this way.  Was the one on Tuchunka a Soveriegn-class, anyone?  Any others known?

No, it was a smaller one. But as shown in the last mission on earth, those things can be killed with a nuclear launcher. I don't think ship weapons wouldn't be able to kill it.

Modifié par LPKerberos, 28 juin 2012 - 09:42 .

[Warrior Craess]

Helios969 wrote...

This is the wrong question to ask.  The question is can the allied forces win an unconventional war against the Reapers without using the crucible?  I say yes, but it would be brutal.  You'd have to prepared to use WMD on your own populations when a system was lost, ensuring there was no population left to be harvested, simultaneously wiping out most or all the Reaper forces occupying a given world.  You'd have to operate in smaller cells, each capable of independent action so that individuals or cells indoctrinated could be triaged appropriately.  Unconventional methods such as slamming asteroids into Soveriegn-class Reapers or suicide ships traveling at FTL speeds.  I don't care what kind of plating or kinetic barrier tech the Reapers employ, they're not surviving those impacts.  And let's not forget the giant thresher maws...just kidding:)

At any rate this is merely an academic exercise, so people should be coming up with creative ways to conduct assymetric warfare against Reapers.  Think outside the box using some semblence of tactics and knowledge of physics, (please no more space magic.)

What are the known weaknesses of the Reapers?   Firing chamber (ala Independence Day) is one.  Two were destroyed this way.  Was the one on Tuchunka a Soveriegn-class, anyone?  Any others known?

and you'd be wrong. Please read the arguements we make against it. Then try to understand what no infrastructure means to our ability to fight.  No more guns, no more medical supplies, no more armor, no more thermal clips, no more food, no more clean water.  Every person lost to the reapers becomes a reaper. 

to win a war of atttrition you have to have more fighting capability than your enemy. We don't.  End of story. 

[JPVS]

LPKerberos wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

What are the known weaknesses of the Reapers?   Firing chamber (ala Independence Day) is one.  Two were destroyed this way.  Was the one on Tuchunka a Soveriegn-class, anyone?  Any others known?

No, it was a smaller one. But as shown in the last mission on earth, those things can be killed with a nuclear launcher. I don't think ship weapons wouldn't be able to kill it.

That we can assume to be an extremely weak Reaper. The others always took a lot more than a simple Cain heavy weapon. And required pin-point firing.


Oh, and before anyone tries to apply military knowledge and tactics to what I said (with the number of Reapers being dozens of times larger than the number of ships), I remind you that fighting in space is completely different than fighting in a planet. You don't have landscape and other features to provide tactical advantages. You can only relly on speed (which Reapers don't have) and the accuracy of guns (which the Reapers have). MAybe you can take cover in the other side of a planet, but that's just about as much cover as you will ever get. The number of tactics available if thus greatly reduced in a space battle. In the end, it always comes down to numbers of a trumph card.

[Oransel]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Oransel wrote...

No. Tragedy of Mass Effect series is that we can no longer trust writers = we can interpret and speculate as we please. Lies, retcons , asspulls like Crucible, Deus Ex Machina of starkid in a game that is advertised as a story wrote by writers and players together lead to a unique conclusion. For me, ME series is no longer about what writers say. Now this Universe plays by my rules. As I said, that has never happened before, but this horrible situation is a direct result of writers abandoning their own lore.

The story, barring pre-ending DLC, is done. What's this about trust? It's meaningless. The game is what it is. Sure there are some parts I don't like, but that's the same for any story.

Sure, you can interpret and speculate as you please, but again, you can do that with any story.

You can headcanon that you beat the Reapers conventionally. But making that possible in the official sense would make most of the game pointless and terrible. And honestly, the game doesn't need to take anymore hits to its story.

In a game where we I am forced to choose between 3 impossible and highly untolerable endings (for me) and 1 "Game Over" ending, why can't they add 1 more impossible ending that will be tolerable for me and many other people? Ideally, Bioware should rewrite ME3 from scratch with abandoning Crucible plot because it is a horrible mess plot-wise, but that is not an option for writers. That's why I go with compromise of conventional victory on high EMS to be put in existing game.

Conventional victory is almost impossible, just like Suicide mission or stopping Sovereign were almost impossible missions. ME1 and ME2 gave us clear hints on conventional victory being possible if certain circumstances would be meet. It is in no way diminishing Reaper threat.