Funkdrspot wrote...
How do i start naming space battles in
a series that doesn't really have many to speak of? How many times have
we engaged in guerilla campaigns?
Your point does not even
begin to address mine. You talk about LOS as a necessity to fight.
I talk about missles not requiring constant LOS as a strategic advantage
for guerilla warfare.
Since there are so few seen or discussed in the codex, it should be easy to point out the ones where line of sight was an issue.
Not requiring LOS would be a
tactical advantage in a fleet battle,
if you had a weapon system that could reliably provide that advantage. Which missiles demonstrably can not do.
Funkdrspot wrote...
EVERYTHING gets jammed by
reaper tech so your point is moot. Yes, missles take longer but that's
not the main concern. The main concern is maximum payload in minimum
exposure time and distance.
Untrue. Direct fire weapons are NOT jammed by Reaper tech. You are correct that the main concern is maximum payload in minimum exposure time, which the Turians achieved by jumping into the middle of the Reaper fleet and outmaneuvering the Reaper capital ships while pummelling them with spinal mount mass accelerators.
Your no-LOS missile tactic would leave at least one ship exposed to interception while being required to stay on station to guide in the slowest weapons delivery system in the Mass Effect arsenal.
Funkdrspot wrote...
Actually thanix cannons have the shortest range, then missles, then mass accelerator weapons.
Your entire point is based on an assumption ( "Theoretical range is meaningless because, no matter what, you're still
going to have to close within range of the Reapers' weapons in order to
effectively strike at them." ) with no proof to back up your claim.
I take it back. Missiles don't potentially have the shortest effective range. There's nothing 'potentially' about it. Unless you're equiping your missiles with mass effect drives, then they are non-relativistic weapons. That means that at normal engagement ranges it would take so long for them to arrive on target as to be useless. The only time I can see them being useful is at what the codex describes as 'knife fight' ranges, which is probably why they are only discussed as being used on Fighters, and why we only see frigate class starships using them.
Thanix cannons, are, therefore, not the shortest ranged weapon in Mass Effect fleet combat. In fact, the Codex directly states that Reaper weapons, which include Thanix cannons, outranged anything in the Turian fleet, which is what prompted the Turians to attempt the 'jump in and outmaneuver' tactic in the first place.
Really, if you're in range to use a missile, and you can mount one, there's no reason not to use a Thanix cannon.
Funkdrspot wrote...
Assumption. You argue that because missles are less effective against reapers that suddenly they're never effective.
1. A Reaper can 1shot a dreadnaught
2. A reaper shrugs off MA weapons
3. Thanix can somewhat bypass their shields BUT they have longer thanix range than we do.
4. For a firing solution for option 3, see option 1 first.
False. My premise is, and has been, that missiles are simply not a superior delivery system in the Mass Effect universe compared to direct fire weapons. It would be foolish to presume that missiles are never effective when we see two of them, under specific circumstances, disable a Destroyer enough for it to be destroyed by small arms fire.
1. Now you're making the assumption that because a Reaper can one shot any ship of the line it always will. There are shown occasions when Reapers simply missed, both escort vessels and capital ships, and there
are discussed situations where Reapers were unable to bring their weapons to bear at all before being destroyed. By direct fire weapons.
2. Demonstrably untrue. Reapers do not shrug off direct fire weapons, and in this case I assume you mean mass accelerators.
- The Turians destroy several Reaper capital ships with spinal mounts.
- Cruisers, which use mass accelerators, are described as being able to go
toe to toe with Destroyers. - The Destroyer on Rannoch was destroyed by
orbital bombardment from mass accelerators, and - In the battle for Earth
fleet cinematic we see a Cruiser dismembering a capital class Reaper
with its spinal mount mass accelerator before being destroyed.
What can be claimed is that Reapers can take several hits from a mass accelerator before the damage starts to take its toll, but they absolutely do not 'shrug them off'.
3. Irrelevant. Again, every successful combat against a Reaper this cycle has happened at short or point blank range. Which is actually an advantage to us in hit-and-run guerilla warfare, since we can mount Thanix cannons on our fastest and most maneuverable ships, and even our largest ships are capable of outmaneuvering theirs when it comes to bringing main weapons to bear. It obviously won't happen every time, but in
guerilla warfare, you don't fight when the conditions aren't stacked in your favor unless you have to.
4. Direct fire weapons don't have to be guided in the way Missiles do against the Reapers. So you have the option of lingering on station and taking multiple shots if the conditions are favorable, rather than the
requirement of babysitting the slowest weapon in your aresenal as it putters around whatever LOS blockage you've decided works best.
Funkdrspot wrote...
As
for your last point, making an entire fleet worth of missles would
probably be cheaper and faster to the 10x power than making a
dreadnaught. You propose trading losses with an enemy that outnumbers
us, overpowers us and has no weakness.
and
Funkdrspot wrote...
It's mitigated through your
abundant use of assumption. Then you don't even bother to touch the
point that getting in range to use thanix cannons means the reapers
already have you in range. How do you wage a guerilla campaign when
you're trading losses? You can't. Please stop talking warfare. Just
stop.
Everything I've stated comes from in game conversations, cutscenes, or Codex entries. You, however, make the demonstrably false claim that closing to range with the Reapers is an automatic loss, when, in fact, the only times we have ever inflicted damage, much less won, against the Reapers it was at close or point blank ranges. You also, make the false claim that I am suggesting we 'trade losses'. I never claimed any such thing.
Missiles in the Mass Effect universe provide no tactical advantage in fleet combat vs mass accelerators. They are, in fact, an inferior weapon system compared to relativistic direct fire weapons such as mass accelerators and Thanix cannons, due to long transit times and comparative ease of avoidance or countermeasure. Even at the one range they are useful, they are a substitute rather than a superior choice.
To put it another way, denying line of sight is not a tactical advantage when you have no effective way to exploit it, and missiles in the Mass Effect universe do not provide that exploit.
Modifié par TK514, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:51 .
Retour en haut
.jpg)
