676 réponses à ce sujet

[C9316]

Because most of said people probably haven't been in a war.

[BerzerkGene]

PinkysPain wrote...

Maybe the people in the next cycle think it's a good idea to connect a doomsday weapon they don't understand to a known trap device from the Reapers they also don't understand? The only reason anyone would think that is more realistic than conventional victory in this cycle has internalized the colour choices and Starchild as the true protagonist. You make Walters proud :/

Sadly apt.
Making things you don't understand usually leads to horrible consequences. OH WAIT!

[BerzerkGene]

Turran wrote...

The thing is, I hate to say this as I sound really dick-like, people who believe that conventional victory could of worked, are just wrong.

Because the writers have quite clearly wrote it as not working. You can argue that it might be possible, but it just isn't.
No one believed us about the Reapers, they believed Sovreign was the last one, a mistake by the characters in the game. So it was already too late to try and fully secure a planet by Mass Effect 3.

There were thousands, atleast, making up the Reapers. Their army increased by millions everytime they took over a planet.
Every 'soldier' they gained through reaperising someone, 2 people/soldiers lost from us. The guy who got reaperised and the friend who can't stand to shoot him.

The story was wrote, as seen in the game, that the worlds instantly fell and crumbled. With this, there was nearly no single place everyone could regroup and try and secure a planet, which should be able to support billions and billions along with materials for ships and buildings and bunkers and guns and ammo and turrets.
Along with the support, it needs to also stay under the Reaper radar, or they will have 100+ Reapers falling on their heads.

The Reapers themselves take a lot of ships to be brought down. Sovereign took the whole of Citadel defence along with the Alliance fleet. It was also distracted because it was trying to work the Citadel at the same time.
A Reaper (Because the Thannix Cannons were not used in the fighting) could burst into the ranks of our army and spin around rapidly if they wanted to, simply just cutting our ships in half as our fleet can't out move a Reaper.

That alone would be enough to break the 'front lines' of a defense, along with this they had the smaller Reapers attaching themselves to ships and pulling them apart.

Honestly with the events of Mass Effect 3, there just isn't a way to win conventionally. 

The ground war thing can be solves rather easily. Get some Yahg. Tougher than Krogan and smart as Salarians. Enough brute force to beat the tar ouf a brute with their bare hands. I don't know about you, but if i saw some creepy ass abomination i would not hesitate, no matter who it was, not even my own family.

Instantly fell...yeah. No. If they had fallen instantly their fleets would have been utterly destroyed and they would have been completely useless. The Turian military had pulled back to a safer location, but were still fighting, then even win back much of Palaven with the Krogan.

Stop using sovereign as an example. 1) it was ONE fleet. 2) Sovereign didn't even shoot, he let the Geth do all the work. 3) Thanix cannons had not been invented. 4) Sovereign was surrounded by Geth ships before he charged in, they were shielding him.
The thing is if he was truly that unstoppable he would have just gone and done everything himself, barged right through the fleet and activated the citadel.
If they could do the spinning thing, why not just do it? It would be simple, effective and result in the least losses. By AI standards, perfect.
Ships can out manouvere Reapers. Bigger ones should maintain range so that their absurd melee capabilities cannot be used. The smaller ones, Frigates or less, can fly circles around them. Because they have no engines. They have a mass effect core that allows them to move, but no actual engines like the Normandy.

The thing about those events is they show little to nothing of your entire force, any kind of strategy or our good friends the Thanix.

[Ticonderoga117]

humes spork wrote...
That, or you're grossly overstating the importance and power of Thanix Cannons!.

Because a glorified MacGuyvered heavy transport that got annihilated anyways by a light cruiser designed for stealth recon and not heavy combat without Thanix Cannons! is totally the equivalent of a two-kilometer dreadnought designed for the singular purpose of exterminating organic life.

Oh, I know why it is. However, when two games gave me the feeling that "Hey, you can beat impossible odds if you prepare enough and work together!" then the third game says "Nah dawg, it's sacrifice and loss and more grimdark stuff. War is hell!" I feel there is a thematic disconnect that then translates into plot.

However, I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here.

Now, I'm fine with a plot device. Cool, we have to work to build something that will help us defeat space squids. However, this I feel was horribly borked in game. If you really want to drive the fact home that we can't win this thing without a "cruicble", then show this in the first half of the game. Have a Thessia like mission at the beginning, but make it nice and long to keep the pacing good and to keep hope alive for a bit. Maybe a series of missions would actually be ideal.

After this setup, you can then show that yeah, this isn't going to work too well, then develop the "cuicible" plot.

Some caveats:
-No GlowBoy. Seriously, this guy cheapens the Reapers even more than a conventional victory.
-Keep the Crucible a Prothean thing. Having it handed down throughout the millions of years is a stupid idea.

There, I have now fixed the game's plot (more or less) for both of us. You keep "can't beat them conventionally", I can't complain that it "feels forced", and GlowBoy is gone which makes EVERYONE happy.

[nitefyre410]

Because given all the variables that have been presented... it should be possible  

The reality is that it is not and that just it.

[BerzerkGene]

humes spork wrote...

Gamedwarf24 wrote...

Besides, one of the largest themes of the ME franchise was Shepard overcoming impossible odds when people were telling him its impossible. Saren and Sovereign said that their victory was inevitable. Shepard beat them.

Name one "impossible" task in the entire trilogy Shepard was able to accomplish alone. One of the major underlying themes of the trilogy is also that no person, group, or even species is an island. You're expecting Shepard to have sole, direct agency over the final outcome of a galaxy-wide war.

The grand irony here is that which everyone complains about -- the Crucible -- is a plot device solely constructed to ensure Shepard, and the player, that agency. No matter how you construct it, "conventional victory" endings would have constituted a loss of that direct agency.

So...unite a huge force that is ultimately a waste of time. Shepard's very life is basically impossible. The Beacon should have killed him/her. After being killed he/she was braindead and should not have been able to be revived. But yes it is about overcoming impossible odds, through mutual cooperation, unity, diversity.

I was not expecting to have direct contol over an entire war, you have superiors after all. Your job is to get the galaxy at your back so they can win the fight.
Who cares about the agency? You have about as much agency in the endings as you would if you won through military force and tactics. Theres no epic battle, theres a beam of light that solves everything. I won't even get into why that makes no sense.

[BerzerkGene]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Because given all the variables that have been presented... it should be possible  

The reality is that it is not and thats just it.

You, my friend, are exactly right.
Based on avaliable evidence, cutscenes, information, codex entries and the like actually killing them all through gratitous use of force(applied properly). The end battle in ME3 basically forgets all of those.
No reason is given why its not possible, other than people saying it is.
This is what happens when it is unclear why something cannot happen.

[Ticonderoga117]

C9316 wrote...

Because most of said people probably haven't been in a war.

Let's see what history has to say about "a larger enemy getting trounced by a smaller one".

-The Revolutionary War (Sure, we had French help, but Great Britain still could've crushed us like a bug.)
-The Winter War (Russia attacks Finland. Finland stomps Russian forces outnumbered more than 2:1 and the Russians had better tanks.)
-Battle of Midway (3 US carriers versus 4 Japenese carriers and a HUGE fleet. US wins a stunning victory.)
-Battle of Marathon (Persians greatly outnumber the Greeks. Persians get stomped on.)
-Most of the US Civil War (Despite being outnumbered and under-supplied, the South stomped on the North. The North only managed a victory because we finally found some generals smarter than thier predecessors (And Hackett in ME3)


Let's see what history says about a less advanced army fighting one that is more advanced.
-Vietnam! (Farmers with AK-47's force a US cease fire and withdrawl, when the US had tanks, better fighters, bombers that drop a world of hurt, and a very large navy)

[BerzerkGene]

BrotherShepherd wrote...

Put simply there can be no conventional victory of arms with the reapers, you cannot trade forces evenly or even effectivly with them, you cant starve them and for every soldier you lose they gain one.

The reapers also have undetectable indoctronated spys EVERYWHERE so they know everything you will do, where your ships will recharge, where you are mining the fuel for you'r ships from, where you will attack.

The only ''conventional victory'' you could achive would be going battlestar galatica on them and just up and loiter in unexplored space in complete radio silence and hope that the reapers do not learn of it.

I can tell you as an experienced RTS player that ''Going door to door killing reapers'' will not work because you are trading 10 of you'r ships for 1 of his and without anyway to rebuild those lost ships you will eventually lose all you'r steam and just die.

You do not trade forces evenly when they outmatch you in terms of firepower and durability. That would be extraordinarily stupid. You use your strengths against their weaknesses. Namely agility and the fact they can only fire forward. Smaller ships like the normandy would be able to hit them from behind before they had even begun to turn around.

The "indoctrinated spies" somhow missed the giant crucible being built. So do they know everything? No.

That is not viable for so many reasons, the most prevelant being resources.
The trading ships is what should not happen based on the evidence, especially if tactics are applied properly. You also have heard of the term 'salvage' right?
The bulk of the reaper armada is meant to be at Earth. Beating them would take a huge chunk of the threat away. Unless the rest of the reapers came together and pushed back, they would lose. Otherwise waiting for them to come to you would seem like the best plan.

[BerzerkGene]

Turran wrote...

You all seem to want to re-write the entire story/battle to suit conventional victory.

Maybe we could of possibly won a conventional victory if every ship had the Thannix Cannon attached to it. But they didn't.
Maybe we could of won it is we turtle inward and held of one planet. But we didn't.
But maybe..!

Sorry to break it to you, but no way conventional could of won.
The planets crumbled almost instantly, even the Turians were forced out of their home world.
Governments were struggling as the incident with Udina showing politicians were becoming desperate and non trusting of one another.

If we had won back Earth, there was not enough supplies on that single planet for a massive re-group.
There wasn't enough resources to patch all the damaged ships together and replace those lost. There was still the entire globe to keep pushing with limited ammo, guns and vehicles to drive the Reapers off along with their ground forces and secure the planet.

Rushing at Earth was a the 'final push', it was the last desperate hope to get the Crucible to work.

Every ship? No. But many ships were meeant to have them. The alliance can even give some to the geth, so they have so many they can spare some.

'Conventionally' Does not mean the Hackett way, fly straight at them and fire. ANY stratagey would be better. Most notably concentrating fire(firing at everything when they're so powerful is just stupid).

You win back Earth, the bulk of the reapers are dead, including harbinger, the one who is most dangerous. Salvage is used to patch the ships(you seriously didn't consider that?) What things can be made, are, then you split your force in 2 to take out the lesser defended places. Deal with the smaller amounts of reaper forces, if possible, taking ones parked on planets from orbit.
Why you would bother to secure the whole planet, i have no idea, all you would need is one continent, preferably Australia, and you would be able to hold out for some time, or forever, husks have not demonstrated an ability to swim. A rather notable vehicle is entirely absent. The Hammerhead, while not that tough, it would be perfect for hit and runs, running over husks and general fast transportion.

No one knew what the hell the Crucible did. They had not even tried to face the Reapers together. The Crucible is like a big bomb, its meant to bring a quick end to a bloody war, but if it doesn't work, that doesn't mean the war is over. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a terrible idea anyway. Everyone has a back up plan.

[BerzerkGene]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Why do people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible?

Its not possible because the writers either didn't understand naval ship tactics or they just didn't want it to be possible.

Both are probable. They should have played more Homeworld.
However if they wanted to make it totally impossible then they went about it wrong. They gave us a powerful weapon that could be mass produced, then retconned it into obscurity.

[BerzerkGene]

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.

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.

I would not mind if i was shown exactly why it was impossible, my questions and evidence would end. Because i would be able to see exactly why its not possible. Based on evidence, it is possible. Difficult and in need of better military tactics, but possible

[ArchDuck]

C9316 wrote...

Because most of said people probably haven't been in a war.

Love the ad hominem attacks that have been leveled on these forums. Essentially I've seen this a fair bit "Your point isn't valid because your stupid. Because I said so, Na!"
Which incidentaly, has nothing to do why a non-crucible victory couldn't have been possible.

By definition the people saying it is impossible are wrong. Very unlikely, requires Reaper screw ups, would take huge losses or other things are fine.

Improbable =/= Impossible

Using the term impossible shows a lack of willingness to consider the alternative as well as a lack of understanding of the word. It is an absolute. If there is a chance, no matter how remote, then it is incorrect to use it.

[BerzerkGene]

babachewie wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

babachewie wrote...

Im playing ME3 again and both Liara and Hackett both state at the beginning that we cannot win this conventionally. I would think the Top guy in the Alliance Military would know what he's talking about.

hackett is a tool.
History is full of incompetent generals.
Just look at ww1 or the allies at beginning of ww2, or the russians generals after the purge, or the generalsn in vietnam and indochin, or the corrupt guys who support bad weapon projects.

or just look at th  amirals/defense committee at the bginning of me3.
bunch of tools

As for the on that get killed by a cain, it is a reaper, with a hades canon mounted on it. The hades canon is an AA gun that can be mounted on the back of a destroyer sized reaper.

What a stupid and baseless response with no evidence to back it up. So just because you have the history channel you know a thing or two about war or decision making right? Well I was in the military and served under great leadership. I think I know a thing or two about spoting a good leader who knows what he's doin. Also if they could be beaten conventionally then they would of be been beaten conventionally. Especially after the refuse ending. I dont see how thats not understood. You can write all the fan fiction you want and come up with all kinds of bogus bullcrap reasons like incomptent generals or whatever lame and sad excuse, but whatever bioware says can happen is what can happen. If they created it so that they could of been beaten that way, it would of been in there.

7 whole fleets are supposedly rolled right over. Calling their tactics crap seems valid.

But thats the thing. We're not shown why we lose, we just lose, nigh on instantly. Why freaking bother with the choices deal if you could just win anyway and do what you want? The fact that so much is left up entirely to interpretation was exactly what was wrong with the original endings. According to the codex, relays exploding meant everything was destroyed. No reason was given why the relays don't wipe out everything.
Yes they created it so it was impossible. But we're still not told why. People keep going on about the thousands of reapers still spread across the galaxy. The bulk are meant to be at earth.
So where are the other 19500? With those numbers, and their power, they would not even need a trap, they would just spread and destroy everything in their wake. There would be more than 20 reapers for every single star system. A small fleet would have no chance.
Yet their being held off. Strange eh.

[Zero132132]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Because most of said people probably haven't been in a war.

Let's see what history has to say about "a larger enemy getting trounced by a smaller one".

-The Revolutionary War (Sure, we had French help, but Great Britain still could've crushed us like a bug.)
-The Winter War (Russia attacks Finland. Finland stomps Russian forces outnumbered more than 2:1 and the Russians had better tanks.)
-Battle of Midway (3 US carriers versus 4 Japenese carriers and a HUGE fleet. US wins a stunning victory.)
-Battle of Marathon (Persians greatly outnumber the Greeks. Persians get stomped on.)
-Most of the US Civil War (Despite being outnumbered and under-supplied, the South stomped on the North. The North only managed a victory because we finally found some generals smarter than thier predecessors (And Hackett in ME3)


Let's see what history says about a less advanced army fighting one that is more advanced.
-Vietnam! (Farmers with AK-47's force a US cease fire and withdrawl, when the US had tanks, better fighters, bombers that drop a world of hurt, and a very large navy)

Humans don't fight wars the way the Reapers do. Individual battles you mention don't really count, because that isn't the war, just one battle. In every single war you mentioned, the only necessary objective was to make the war effort costly enough that the invaders decided to just go home. Reapers have no home to return to. You're also not describing battles between enemies with massive disparities in technology.

A more apt description is the invasion of the Americas by Europeans. Better technology, more numbers, no chance that they'll just turn tail and go home... think we know how that one turned out.

[humes spork]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Let's see what history has to say about "a larger enemy getting trounced by a smaller one".

-The Revolutionary War (Sure, we had French help, but Great Britain still could've crushed us like a bug.)
-The Winter War (Russia attacks Finland. Finland stomps Russian forces outnumbered more than 2:1 and the Russians had better tanks.)
-Battle of Midway (3 US carriers versus 4 Japenese carriers and a HUGE fleet. US wins a stunning victory.)
-Battle of Marathon (Persians greatly outnumber the Greeks. Persians get stomped on.)
-Most of the US Civil War (Despite being outnumbered and under-supplied, the South stomped on the North. The North only managed a victory because we finally found some generals smarter than thier predecessors (And Hackett in ME3)


Let's see what history says about a less advanced army fighting one that is more advanced.
-Vietnam! (Farmers with AK-47's force a US cease fire and withdrawl, when the US had tanks, better fighters, bombers that drop a world of hurt, and a very large navy)

You know, most of your examples here are rife with irony.

The Revolutionary War was fought unconventionally -- the Americans waged an asymmetric campaign the Brits were ill-prepared to counter, especially logistically and economically. As the war continued it became increasingly unsustainable for the Brits, who were still reeling from the Seven Years' War* ten prior in which British involvement was truly global.

Vietnam was another war that was won, as you admit, asymmetrically. The Americans scored tactical victories consistently against the NVA. Even Tet was a fairly decisive American tactical victory. Tet was also a decisive American strategic loss, as the offensive cemented the war's extreme unpopularity when it was never very popular in the first place.

The problem with both these examples is waging an asymmetric campaign against the Reapers would be ineffective. The Reapers aren't a democracy, and don't have to worry about the popularity or cost of the war. The Reapers are immune to psychological warfare, and have no concerns for the morale of its forces or citizenry, and have no need for justifying the war.

The Pacific Front and the Civil War are also ironic choices.

Midway was the turning point for the Japanese, who prior had won tactical victory after another, yet those victories were strategic losses as they came at great economic and material cost without seriously hampering American wartime production. Most notable of those being the Battle of the Coral Sea, the (first in world history) carrier battle a month prior to Midway the Japanese won, yet at such great cost American victory at Midway was possible.

As far as the Civil War, the South had lost the war long before Grant was put in charge. To wit, Antietam was the end of the Confederacy's ambitions to win, even though to that point and even afterwards until Gettysburg the South had consistently won battles (amounting to tactical victories but strategic losses). Between the capture of New Orleans and the loss of European support, the war was no longer sustainable to the South while the North's industrial base gave it the decisive logistic advantage. The South's only realistic hope was to capture Washington and force a quick surrender, and with the end of the Maryland campaign that was no longer possible -- the South didn't have the money, men or materiel.

The problem with both of those examples is they demonstrate that winning battles is, counterintuitively enough, no clear indication of who is winning the war. A belligerent can score as many tactical victories as they can, but unless those tactical victories are also strategic victories they amount to nothing in terms of winning the war. This relates to ME3 in the fact that many of the "victories" people who claim conventional victory possible cite are in fact strategic losses.

Moreover, both of those examples demonstrate that tactical victories matter not so much to winning a war effort as the ability to produce, field, and maintain a fighting force (i.e. logistics), and in fact tactical victories can even harm a war effort (as was the case with the Coral Sea). That relates to ME3 in that organic races have little to no ability to sustain the war effort -- industrial centers were destroyed, garden worlds occupied or blasted, and entire populations captured means there's no capability to reinforce or sufficiently resupply existing military forces, which spells doom in a protracted war of attrition (what many pro-conventional victory folks claim to be "the key to victory").

* Little known fact, and tangential, but I'll share it because it's hilarious. The war started because some French soldiers threatened to shoot a cow.

Modifié par humes spork, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:47 .

[humes spork]

BerzerkGene wrote...

I would not mind if i was shown exactly why it was impossible, my questions and evidence would end.

Making a claim of charity means nothing when you in fact aren't being charitable at all.

Glossing over or discarding counter-arguments and counterevidence because it's convenient to your side to do so is not being charitable.

[Jonesey2k]

 While I'd like to think we could do some damage to the reapers... We know for a fact that they are at LEAST 37 million years old... If somebody hasn't defeated them already then I don't think this cycle will either!

[marcustheMezz]

 Yes, it is possible, because...
1. Codex states that 3 or 4 dreadnoughts concentrating fire on a single reaper would destroy it, they're not as invincible as the cutscenes dictate, honestly I blame most ships that get destroyed by reapers on poor tactics, just shooting at whatever, no ganging up on them.
2. They have thanix cannons, which are basically a version of the same weapon the reaper ship uses, which they got from studying sovereign's remains. No other cycle could have had these.
3. Sovereign barely participated in the attack on the citadel, did no one see the tons of geth ships that were doing all the work? Watch the ME1 citadel invasion cutscene again, Sovie kills all of 2 ships itself.
4. The reapers do not have thousands of ships, from that cutscene at the end of ME2, people counted how many reapers they saw in it, I think it was around 140 or something.
5. The citadel's mass relay(how reapers got to the universe from dark space) was disabled, the reapers would use it to hit civilizations where they were most vulnerable before they even knew they were under attack, thus sending their fleets into chaos. With an intact military network, this changes the odds against the reapers greatly.

[BerzerkGene]

humes spork wrote...

moater boat wrote...

 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.

This is the point.

You're arguing what should have been as if it is. This is a conversation about what is. This is not a conversation about what the game is not, or vastly more importantly this is not a conversation about what the game should have been. Is and ought are two completely different propositions. There is a huge difference between the two.

If you believe things ought to have been different, you are more than free to do so. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. To a certain extent, I actually agree with that opinion. Just because you believe things ought to have been different doesn't mean that what it is changes.

In the product we are given, conventional victory is impossible. You dislike that, we get that. You believe conventional victory should have been possible. That doesn't change that conventional victory is impossible, and what should have been possible is an entirely different topic. Arguing that it does, or that they are the same thing, makes you look very silly.

Well , kinda. It should happen ebcause all the evidence and assets are there and were given no reason why it is not possible other than "because we said so". I'm sorry but thats not a reason.
It would be the same as saying that in the Homeworld 2 game it is impossible to win, you are vastly outnumbered, outgunned and the enemy is always stronger than you and is everywhere. You can still win. Not easy, but entirely possible. Even without using what is essentially a spaceship version of a giant gun, as in the entire ship is a weapon.
With ME its a bit different. In homeworld 2 you are given an enemy which is literally impossible to kill. So you trap it and get the hell out of there. Winning sometimes mean just making sure the other guy doesn't get what he wants. You eventually encounter 4 of these unkillable things and it takes the equivilant force of a supernova to kill them. It requires sacrificing the last of an entire ancient race. But they do it.

The Catalyst being the boss, is still a bad guy. We have no reason to believe him, especially if hes winning. Winning through tactics, firepower and intelligence seems vastly more plausible than an uncaring AI god taking pity on organics it really does not give a crap about.

[Zero132132]

Jonesey2k wrote...

 While I'd like to think we could do some damage to the reapers... We know for a fact that they are at LEAST 37 million years old... If somebody hasn't defeated them already then I don't think this cycle will either!

Older. The oldest confirmed Reaper is the Leviathan of Dis, estimated to be nearly a billion years old. Confirmed to be a Reaper by Balak.

If you follow the 50k year cycle and assume a full billion years, that's 20,000 successful cycles. Even if you relax the assumption substantially, assume 'nearly a billion' means 900 million, that our cycle was uncharacteristically short and that the true average is 70k, and that the Leviathan of Dis is the oldest Reaper, a remnant from the very first cycle, that's still just shy of 13,000 cycles (about 12,857). These assumptions that decrease the total number of victories that the Reapers have had also have no support from in-game lore.

[TookYoCookies]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I'm willing to listen if you're willing to look at the evidence that it's extremely unlikely...

-It took a good chunk of the Alliance fleet to take down Sovereign, while he wasn't fighting back

-It took a good chunk of the Quarian fleet to take down the Rannoch Reaper, while he wasn't fighting back

-It took the galaxy's biggest Thresher Maw and a good amount of luck to take down the Tuchanka Reaper, and it was a small one.

-The galaxy's best military, the Turians, were being decimated, so much so that Palaven had to be fully evacuated.

-Hammer was being overrun on Earth. It would also take just a few Reapers to decimate the ground forces, really.

-The Migrant Fleet is made up of mostly civilian ships

-The Alliance Fleet was weakened during the Sovereign/Geth attack

-It's been said or implied many times that the Salarians and Asari aren't built for conventional war.

-The Reaper force at Earth wasn't the entire Reaper force, and they were still winning.

-It takes one Reaper to take out 10 of our ships and it takes ten of our ships to take out a Reaper...

Well guys?

Becuase your not in charge. and we can probably find someone who isnt a huge p*ssy to put in charge, and wont waste time crying about how "We cant win conventionally, blah blah.." .. When was the last time any war was won f*cking conventionally?? Nut the f*ck up .

[Zero132132]

marcustheMezz wrote...

 Yes, it is possible, because...
1. Codex states that 3 or 4 dreadnoughts concentrating fire on a single reaper would destroy it, they're not as invincible as the cutscenes dictate, honestly I blame most ships that get destroyed by reapers on poor tactics, just shooting at whatever, no ganging up on them.

So assume that four dreadnoughts can successfully kill one Reaper with no losses 50% of the time. There's no in-game evidence of this at all, and since we're losing consistently, there's reason to doubt it, but whatever. The other 50% of the time, only one dreadnought goes down.

We have a grand total of 85 dreadnoughts in the galaxy; 39 Turian, 20 Asari, 16 Salarian, 9 Human, and 1 Volus. That means taking out less than 170 capitol ships, since even assuming 100% success at killing a Reaper, at some point you'll have less than 4 left.

There aren't enough dreadnoughts for this argument to imply victory.

2. They have thanix cannons, which are basically a version of the same weapon the reaper ship uses, which they got from studying sovereign's remains. No other cycle could have had these.

So what? What evidence do you have from ANY of the games that Thanix canons make amazingtastic Reaper killers? The only relevant codex entry says that we have better luck with Thanix canons, but there's no information on either thier prevalence or their actual success.

That aside, there's a logistical problem with making very many of them. The actual amount of platinum required in ME2 is unitless, only given as 15,000. However, this is the entirety of the platinum on most platinum rich planets/moons (some actually have less), and there are a grand total of 34 of these in ME2. You're not scouring the whole galaxy, but you're seeing a fair chunk of it that's close to any relays. How many of these, realistically, can we even BUILD in the galaxy?

3. Sovereign barely participated in the attack on the citadel, did no one see the tons of geth ships that were doing all the work? Watch the ME1 citadel invasion cutscene again, Sovie kills all of 2 ships itself.

The issue isn't how killtacular he was, the issue is exactly that he WASN'T participating much. He basically docked with the Citadel and didn't even notice that an entire fleet was firing at him at the same time. Since all 5 fleets actually lose war asset points if they participate, it was more than that, and that's discounting non-human forces. He withstood a ****LOAD of firepower, and when he did take out ships, he did it with no effort; single laser beam, and the ship's dead.

4. The reapers do not have thousands of ships, from that cutscene at the end of ME2, people counted how many reapers they saw in it, I think it was around 140 or something.

Bull****. Watch the scene again (relevant bit at about 1:00). You don't see the edge of the fleet at all. If they counted 140, then that's an absolute minimum.

5. The citadel's mass relay(how reapers got to the universe from dark space) was disabled, the reapers would use it to hit civilizations where they were most vulnerable before they even knew they were under attack, thus sending their fleets into chaos. With an intact military network, this changes the odds against the reapers greatly.

This is the only rational argument people have actually put forward, but it's one that still disregards the capabilities that are seen in all three games.

The simple truth is that regardless of any point made, the Reapers aren't approaching this war the way we'd have to. They don't have their own worlds or supply lines. Their ground forces are assimilated from the population of their victims. Through indoctrination, they can learn of any plan presented, while there's absolutely no way to figure out what THEIR plans are. They have no supply lines or specific modes of production, so there's no way to attack them in any position that will be more meaningful than any other. Conversely, our own resources are open to siezure or destruction.

More than this, the way we fight wars is to just make it so costly that the opponent eventually gives up. The reapers don't have a "give up" option. If they retreated back to dark space, then what? What happens next? Doing so would give the galaxy more time to prepare, pursue them, and would provide no benefit towards their ultimate goal, which is to destroy galactic civilization. They have no reason to flee, even if they may face extinction; fleeing guarantees loss, and they have no other purpose than victory.

No. Just... no. They aren't like any enemy in any war in the real world, so examples of asymmetric warfare don't really have any relevance.

[BerzerkGene]

humes spork wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

I would not mind if i was shown exactly why it was impossible, my questions and evidence would end.

Making a claim of charity means nothing when you in fact aren't being charitable at all.

Glossing over or discarding counter-arguments and counterevidence because it's convenient to your side to do so is not being charitable.

My point being that knowing absolutely nothing is what made the endings horrible in the first place. I'm not being charitable at all. I simply want answers. Answers that make sense.
A cutscene showing why you lose(reaper reinforcements, whatever) would explain so much. You should not make assumptions about the player. Again, this is why the endings were so terrible and still kind of are.

Bad writing is not really a defence for Bioware. Although it has become a recent trend.

[Zero132132]

TookYoCookies wrote...

Becuase your not in charge. and we can probably find someone who isnt a huge p*ssy to put in charge, and wont waste time crying about how "We cant win conventionally, blah blah.." .. When was the last time any war was won f*cking conventionally?? Nut the f*ck up .

Something tells me that you're not the planning type.

"Oh, a set of rational reasons that we shouldn't pursue combat in a specific way, since we'll probably all die? **** THAT! Quit being such a ****! Try punching the Reapers in the face instead of being a whiny baby about it!"

This sort of thinking (that you attack regardless of reason) is usually the reason that wars are lost.

Modifié par Zero132132, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:14 .