676 réponses à ce sujet

[Ztrobos]

The Prothean empire spanned the known galaxy, they had more advanced technology, a battle-hardened culture and they where unified under a single strong leadership, and they still fought a hopeless war down to the very last man. You fancy your chances? Cause I do'nt.

[savionen]

Ztrobos wrote...

The Prothean empire spanned the known galaxy, they had more advanced technology, a battle-hardened culture and they where unified under a single strong leadership, and they still fought a hopeless war down to the very last man. You fancy your chances? Cause I do'nt.

This cycle also has better technology and has reverse-engineered weapons based off of Sovereign.

Aside from that, the Protheans were still shut off from eachother and all of their leaders were dead before the battle even began. The Protheans were immensely screwed and still fought back well, they even managed to kill several Reapers and survive for a century.

Modifié par savionen, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:32 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Where a fanbase decries "suspension of disbelief is broken!" when they get anything they think cheapens the plot, what could possibly cheapen the Reapers more than to have them lose conventionally to a galaxy that has already sustained heavy losses? The galaxy is big, but it does not have unlimited supplies or military forces. The Reapers have been straining everyone's resources long before the fight for Earth as well.

Sovereign took multiple fleets to bring down. It had geth aid, but that has been more than made up for with even more Destroyers and countless Oculi. The only way conventional victory is remotely possible is if the galaxy has more ships than Reapers do. Sovereign-class Reapers alone would put that number in the tens of thousands, if you go by 50,000 year periods for creating one and take the age of our own planet. Destroyers are probably even greater in number. And then there's the Oculi. You think the fleets you brought can out-might the Reapers? I think you should be laughed at.

I've read the Codex entries. They prove next to nothing. Four dreadnoughts with Thanix cannons can take down a Capital Ship with Thanix cannons? Cute, but circumstances are not always going to be ideal in accomplishing that. Dreadnoughts are a liability in close combat, so if a Capital Ship brings in Destroyer/Oculus reinforcements, now you need to bring in support of your own to counter that, and will likely lose a few ships in the process. Suddenly, the notion of 4 Dreadnoughts > 1 Captial Ship is a bit misleading. And how many dreadnoughts are there, anyway? Less than 150, going by the Wiki. Assuming circumstances are always ideal and only one dreadnought is lost in a fight with a Capital Ship, that's about enough power to take out approximately 160 Capital Ships, if my math is correct (but again, I was being VERY generous). That is figure is pitiful if you plan to put all your chips into conventional-victory.

And for as long as the Reapers are still alive out there, the ground forces are going to be getting decimated. Indoctrination and husks will wipe out the ground underneath you. Any planetside facilities being relied on will go dark. Hammer Team doesn't last more than a few minutes before Anderson tells you "we're being overrun at every turn!" and that's even in a high-EMS scenario.


I mean, can people really not see the dissonance in their statements when they say, "the catalyst cheapens the Reapers! We need to go back to when Sovereign sounded scary and unbeatable... then defeat them all conventionally and ride off into the sunset!" 

Here's another good one, "the Crucible/Catalyst are stupid because it's a magical macguffin and a deus ex machina... we can beat the Reapers, because we have the Thanix cannon!" It's not a deus ex machina if you approve of it, apparently.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:33 .

[LiarasShield]

Ztrobos wrote...

The Prothean empire spanned the known galaxy, they had more advanced technology, a battle-hardened culture and they where unified under a single strong leadership, and they still fought a hopeless war down to the very last man. You fancy your chances? Cause I do'nt.

Once again javik explains that they were too much the same and couldn't adapt that is the reason they lost

[moater boat]

Ztrobos wrote...

The Prothean empire spanned the known galaxy, they had more advanced technology, a battle-hardened culture and they where unified under a single strong leadership, and they still fought a hopeless war down to the very last man. You fancy your chances? Cause I do'nt.

Javick explains that even during his cycle the races never united to fight the reapers. Also they suffered a surpise attack on the citadel when the relay opened to darkspace.

[Auztin]

I'm neutral on this subject.
Conventional Victory Possible?Yes.Could they win at that moment?No.
It reminds me of The Alamo.They can & could have won but the opposing numbers of the enemy would eventually overrun them & that happened.Reapers had the numbers.

[Klijpope]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Eluril wrote...

I've said before and will say it again: people wanting a straight conventional victory are like those that want the Elf, Dwarf, and Human armies in Lord of the Rings to storm the black gate and have Aragorn behead Sauron in a one on one duel. <snip>

A good analogy.

The reapers = Sauron and the Nazgul
The Normandy crew et al = The Fellowship
The Crucible = The One Ring
The Citadel = Mount Doom (and Minas tirith, rolled into one 
The Illusive Man = Saruman, or Gollum (which makes me chuckle)...

Destroy = destroy the Ring
Control = use the Ring, replace Sauron
Synthesis = Frodo marries Sauron?

very bad analogy. The ring was forged by Saron himself, and if he regains it he will become nigh invincible, an destroying it will kil him.
The crucible only works fr the good guys, is introduced a the end of the trilogy.


Besides, Isildur pwned Sauron with a broken sword

So, are you saying a conventional victory was possible in RotK? That's the analogy.

It takes a woman and a hobbit to take out a nazgul; therefore, we pair up our shield maidens with our hobbitses - we'd only need eight pairs to take out the rest of the nazgul. Legolas killed 43 orcs at Helm's Deep, therefore every elf is worth 40 or so orcs in every battle. This is the kind of calculation folk seem to be doing to justify a conventional victory in ME3.

[savionen]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Where a fanbase decries "suspension of disbelief is broken!" when they get anything they think cheapens the plot, what could possibly cheapen the Reapers more than to have them lose conventionally to a galaxy that has already sustained heavy losses? The galaxy is big, but it does not have unlimited supplies or military forces. The Reapers have been straining everyone's resources long before the fight for Earth as well.

Sovereign took multiple fleets to bring down. It had geth aid, but that has been more than made up for with even more Destroyers and countless Oculi. The only way conventional victory is remotely possible is if the galaxy has more ships than Reapers do. Sovereign-class Reapers alone would put that number in the tens of thousands, if you go by 50,000 year periods for creating one and take the age of our own planet. Destroyers are probably even greater in number. And then there's the Oculi. You think the fleets you brought can out-might the Reapers? I think you should be laughed at.

I've read the Codex entries. They prove next to nothing. Four dreadnoughts with Thanix cannons can take down a Capital Ship with Thanix cannons? Cute, but circumstances are not always going to be ideal in accomplishing that. Dreadnoughts are a liability in close combat, so if a Capital Ship brings in Destroyer/Oculus reinforcements, now you need to bring in support of your own to counter that, and will likely lose a few ships in the process. Suddenly, the notion of 4 Dreadnoughts > 1 Captial Ship is a bit misleading. And how many dreadnoughts are there, anyway? Less than 150, going by the Wiki. Assuming circumstances are always ideal and only one dreadnought is lost in a fight with a Capital Ship, that's about enough power to take out approximately 160 Capital Ships, if my math is correct (but again, I was being VERY generous). That is figure is pitiful if you plan to put all your chips into conventional-victory.

And for as long as the Reapers are still alive out there, the ground forces are going to be getting decimated. Indoctrination and husks will wipe out the ground underneath you. Any planetside facilities being relied on will go dark. Hammer Team doesn't last more than a few minutes before Anderson tells you "we're being overrun at every turn!" and that's even in a high-EMS scenario.


I mean, can people really not see the dissonance in their statements when they say, "the catalyst cheapens the Reapers! We need to go back to when Sovereign sounded scary and unbeatable... then defeat them all conventionally and ride off into the sunset!" 

Here's another good one, "the Crucible/Catalyst are stupid because it's a magical macguffin and a deus ex machina... we can beat the Reapers, because we have the Thanix cannon!" It's not a deus ex machina if you approve of it, apparently.

Dreadnaughts are not required to kill Reapers, that's the point. Dreadnaughts have the offense needed to kill Reapers, cruisers and frigates have the same guns as Dreadnaughts. We have tens of thousands of frigates and cruisers. Alliance ships are also more evasive than Reapers. In order for a Reaper to dogfight with Alliance ships they have to reduce their mass (which also takes out their shields). So either Alliance ships can fly around them in circles, or the Reapers can be taken down because their shields are out.

Does the Crucible not cheapen the Reapers? Making a massive army and taking them out with unified tactics and new technologys sounds like a lot better death for the Reapers than being taken out the Crucible. You realize that even with like 1000 EMS the Crucible still works and kills all Reapers? In every scenario the Reapers lose, and the player really has no part in it. So much for being invincible and all powerful.

Stacking 100000 EMS would be boring, but what's wrong with the Geth creating a virus, the Krogan uniting and becoming very powerful and invading the Reapers, the the Salarians creating new tech, etc. Mix that all together with conventional victory and Thanix cannons and they're by no means DEM.

They also DO NOT make 10+ Reapers every cycle. They made ZERO Reapers in the Prothean cycle, they also lost several.

Modifié par savionen, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:39 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:41 .

[savionen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

At least my standpoint with conventional victory is that it should have been possible, what happened clashes with the lore of the game. Every CG movie the Alliance pretty much rolls over and dies, no reason to argue against that.

[moater boat]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

[LiarasShield]

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

Brings me back to the whole my synthetic kill you so that you won't make synthetics that will kill you O_o

[Kamfrenchie]

Klijpope wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Eluril wrote...

I've said before and will say it again: people wanting a straight conventional victory are like those that want the Elf, Dwarf, and Human armies in Lord of the Rings to storm the black gate and have Aragorn behead Sauron in a one on one duel. <snip>

A good analogy.

The reapers = Sauron and the Nazgul
The Normandy crew et al = The Fellowship
The Crucible = The One Ring
The Citadel = Mount Doom (and Minas tirith, rolled into one 
The Illusive Man = Saruman, or Gollum (which makes me chuckle)...

Destroy = destroy the Ring
Control = use the Ring, replace Sauron
Synthesis = Frodo marries Sauron?

very bad analogy. The ring was forged by Saron himself, and if he regains it he will become nigh invincible, an destroying it will kil him.
The crucible only works fr the good guys, is introduced a the end of the trilogy.


Besides, Isildur pwned Sauron with a broken sword

So, are you saying a conventional victory was possible in RotK? That's the analogy.

It takes a woman and a hobbit to take out a nazgul; therefore, we pair up our shield maidens with our hobbitses - we'd only need eight pairs to take out the rest of the nazgul. Legolas killed 43 orcs at Helm's Deep, therefore every elf is worth 40 or so orcs in every battle. This is the kind of calculation folk seem to be doing to justify a conventional victory in ME3.

Except no.

Just about the entire mordor army was defeated in th battle where Isidur killed Sauron. The thing is that they can replace Orcs faster than humans, so Isildur falling t the rig influence give auron the occasion to rebuild his army.  But the mordo army and the nazguls are defeatable by normal means. Arrows, swords, you name it.

t's jst that the middle earth
 is xhaused after such a long conflict.
(And it's fantasy)



The reapers are more like the Axis and the galaxy is the soviet Union. Yes they strike fast and hard, an have better gear, but ultimately, the USSR can win.


Also, someone brought the husks on table, husk should be no problem if anyone has a  machine gun

fr the rest, bring heavy weapons

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:47 .

[eye basher]

some people don't understand fire burns even if they've already turned their hand into charcoal.

[savionen]

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

Exactly. The Alliance and united galaxy do indeed have several advantages against the Reapers. Would it be an easy victory, absolutely not. Would they have to find more advantages in ME3, absolutely. But ME3 pretty much tears out all of these advantages even though they're all over ME1, 2, and 3. Especially in the cutscenes. A cruiser can outmaneuver a Reaper but then they still show it moving 2 miles per hour and getting creamed.

Modifié par savionen, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:47 .

[Redbelle]

savionen wrote...

Ztrobos wrote...

The Prothean empire spanned the known galaxy, they had more advanced technology, a battle-hardened culture and they where unified under a single strong leadership, and they still fought a hopeless war down to the very last man. You fancy your chances? Cause I do'nt.

This cycle also has better technology and has reverse-engineered weapons based off of Sovereign.

Aside from that, the Protheans were still shut off from eachother and all of their leaders were dead before the battle even began. The Protheans were immensely screwed and still fought back well, they even managed to kill several Reapers and survive for a century.

But, as Javik has said, the Prothean empire only had one response to the Reaper threat and it didn't work. And the Protheans found they couldn't change sufficiently enough to effect different strategies.

As one of my favourite Smallville villans once said.....'You don't go into a situation with one plan. YOU GO IN WITH TEN"!!!

Shepards cycle has the bulk of all the species military prowess contained in one fleet. that means more than just ships, that means different strategies and different appliactions of technology. The Reapers may be able to develop a means of combating one or two species, but by developing a strategy the Reapers will expose themselves to counter strategies. It's the diversity of the Alliance fleet that is key is offsetting the Reapers raw power. The Reapers have been factored and their strength's and weaknesses analysed so as to avoid them where they are strong and hit them where they are weak. And the Alliance has the diversity of specialists to do this, thus keeping the Reapers off balance.

I admit, the overpowered nature of the Reapers still makes them hard opponents.But the allies know what the Reapers want and how they aim to achieve it. They can predict the Reapers. Massive advantage. But at this point we need to ask what a win is.

A conventional win would imply that one side is victorius over the other side. But lets look at the Reapers specifically. Even if the Reapers win, they have taken the hardest hit in terms of numbers for the longest of times. They have lost the advantage of surprise thanks to Liara's time capsule and will face the next cycle with fewer Reapers. They have have won the battle for Earth, but they lost the long drawn out war. So in this sense, and perspective, Shepard's cycle and the Prothean cycle and further back won the war with the Reapers.

Or to put it another way. I watched a re-enactment of Hanibal vs a roman army on a computer. The fight played out as a one sided victory for Hanibal who marched on........ I then had my turn at fighting the battle and though I won I'd lost 50% of the army......... I'd won the battle but lost the war since I didn't have to numbers to continue.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:51 .

[eye basher]

yes we beat the reapers on earth with just are guns and lost most of the galaxys warships doing it so question how do we beat the rest of the reapers in every other system in the galaxy.

[humes spork]

moater boat wrote...

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

"Stop using counter-evidence to argue against my claims!"

[Zero132132]

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

That's impossible. We never see more modern tech like the Thanix cannon against a Reaper. Making any claims about the Reaper war being winnable or unwinnable without ME3 basically means you headcanon everything.

[savionen]

humes spork wrote...

moater boat wrote...

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

"Stop using counter-evidence to argue against my claims!"

It's more of that ME1 and ME2 cite advantages against the Reapers, and Reaper weakneses (no, not IWIN-buttons). Certain parts of ME3 do, too. And pretty much none of them are actually used in ME3.

"Argh! We can't win against the Reapers!" - Doesn't even turn the main cannons or engine on.

Modifié par savionen, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .

[Dragoonlordz]

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

It shows you what happens when all your fleets gathered go up against a lot of theirs. If never see it then it allows for theories to have some freedom. The what if and such. But when showed what is then that overrides whatever theory you might have had.

When talk about ME1 you mean when they showed a single Reaper steam roll thorugh all your gethered fleets at Citadel? Took out half or more of entire gathered forces. ME2 you did not fight a Reaper you fought a single Collector ship and few Occuli.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:59 .

[moater boat]

Zero132132 wrote...


That's impossible. We never see more modern tech like the Thanix cannon against a Reaper. Making any claims about the Reaper war being winnable or unwinnable without ME3 basically means you headcanon everything.

EXACTLY!

Based off what we know from ME1 and ME2 it would have been completely possible for the writers to write ME3 to have a plausible conventional victory. Thank you for proving my point. The reason that a conventional victory is not possible in ME3 right now is because the writers made it that way. All the people that wanted a conventional victory are saying Bioware could have and should have written the game so that a conventional victory can happen instead of the crapfest we got.

[moater boat]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

It shows you what happens when all your fleets gathered go up against a lot of theirs. If never see it then it allows for theories to have some freedom. The what if and such. But when showed what is then that overrides whatever theory you might have had.

Oh my God, do you seriously still not understand?
We are talking about how ME3 was written, you can't say that ME3 should have been written that way because of the way it is written!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

savionen wrote...

Dreadnaughts are not required to kill Reapers, that's the point. Dreadnaughts have the offense needed to kill Reapers, cruisers and frigates have the same guns as Dreadnaughts. We have tens of thousands of frigates and cruisers. Alliance ships are also more evasive than Reapers. In order for a Reaper to dogfight with Alliance ships they have to reduce their mass (which also takes out their shields). So either Alliance ships can fly around them in circles, or the Reapers can be taken down because their shields are out.

Doesn't matter. Every Reaper requires sacrificing many ships to take it down. We do not have an infinite supply.

The dreadnought approach probably requires the least sacrifice under ideal circumstances. Even that minimal-cost approach garners a very pitiful sum of dead Reapers.

Does the Crucible not cheapen the Reapers? Making a massive army and taking them out with unified tactics and new technologys sounds like a lot better death for the Reapers than being taken out the Crucible. You realize that even with like 1000 EMS the Crucible still works and kills all Reapers? In every scenario the Reapers lose, and the player really has no part in it. So much for being invincible and all powerful.

Low-EMS Destroy leads to barely functional Crucible that also gets Earth glassed in the process, so it's not all the same. Also, thanks to the EC's new Refusal path, the Reapers don't always lose in every scenario. You can force the galaxy to fight conventionally and not choose any option from the Crucible, then the Reapers win the war.

Stacking 100000 EMS would be boring, but what's wrong with the Geth creating a virus, the Krogan uniting and becoming very powerful and invading the Reapers, the the Salarians creating new tech, etc. Mix that all together with conventional victory and Thanix cannons and they're by no means DEM.

I agree with you but thanks to ME2's crappy plot, we can't have that. The only way ME2 got us better prepared for fighting the Reapers was the invention of the Thanix cannon. ME3 had too much catching up to do while outstanding issues like the krogan genophage and geth-quarian conflicts all needed a resolution to them.

After Tuchanka/Rannoch, you have three core missions before Earth. Assuming there's no more space on the disc to fit more in, you're left with A LOT of things to fit into a very small window to make things work out for a conventional victory.

They also DO NOT make 10+ Reapers every cycle. They made ZERO Reapers in the Prothean cycle, they also lost several.

No proof. The Codex proves that many Destroyers are made in a given cycle. There is usually at least on capital ship built as well. Even a success rate of 20% is enough to put the CS count in the 10s of 1000s.

[Klijpope]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Klijpope wrote...
So, are you saying a conventional victory was possible in RotK? That's the analogy.

It takes a woman and a hobbit to take out a nazgul; therefore, we pair up our shield maidens with our hobbitses - we'd only need eight pairs to take out the rest of the nazgul. Legolas killed 43 orcs at Helm's Deep, therefore every elf is worth 40 or so orcs in every battle. This is the kind of calculation folk seem to be doing to justify a conventional victory in ME3.

Except no.

Just about the entire mordor army was defeated in th battle where Isidur killed Sauron. The thing is that they can replace Orcs faster than humans, so Isildur falling t the rig influence give auron the occasion to rebuild his army.  But the mordo army and the nazguls are defeatable by normal means. Arrows, swords, you name it.

t's jst that the middle earth
 is xhaused after such a long conflict.
(And it's fantasy)



The reapers are more like the Axis and the galaxy is the soviet Union. Yes they strike fast and hard, an have better gear, but ultimately, the USSR can win.


Also, someone brought the husks on table, husk should be no problem if anyone has a  machine gun

fr the rest, bring heavy weapons

Well, I did actually ask whether a conventional victory was possible in Return of the King. I'm not using the entirety of Tolkien's oeuvre in the analogy, just the stuff that is relevant.

The Axis/Red Army point is pretty weak. The Reapers outnumber us in capital ships to dreadnoughts 400+ to 1. And, all our bases belong to them. The analogy is better if the galaxy is the germans in the Stalingred kessel, the the reapers are the soviets, but like a hunred USSR's put together, and armed with mass accelerator weapons and biotics and kinetic shields.

In ME3, the reapers have pretty much already won at the beginning, and they aren't even trying that hard. They're quite happy for it to take centuries. In game, Liara states all our resources will be gone in one year. 

The a conventional victory is clearly impossible is both implicit (from what we know of individual reapers, and the cost it took to defeat them, and then the sheer number of reapers facing us), and explicit (everyone says a conventional victory is impossible, every time it comes up).

Everyone, you do realise you are contradicting Admiral Hacket!