Tritium315 wrote...
What, exactly, are the advantages of a missile.
thisisme8 wrote...
Because it's about 2 posts of people wondering how, 4 or 5 posts that explain, and the other 6 pages are people still mad about the endings and using any thread where they think there is a plot hole or inconsistency to dog on BioWare.
thisisme8 wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
What, exactly, are the advantages of a missile.
First off, you don't need line of sight when shooting a missile. Second, missiles are fire and forget weapons which allow for "strikes." Third, missiles can deliver a payload to neutralize an entire area in single blast. Fourth, missiles can be fitted with different warheads that allow for different functions. I can go on...
thisisme8 wrote...
look at the top of the page, and no, missiles aren't better inherently than cannons, but can be in certain situations - and vice versa. Different function, price, result.
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
look at the top of the page, and no, missiles aren't better inherently than cannons, but can be in certain situations - and vice versa. Different function, price, result.
Should've been more exact. The benefits of Thanix Cannons VS Thanix Missles.
Cannon's win in every situation except in the tons of munitions you can load them with in this instance. However, unless it's a nuke, any other warhead is worthless really.
Tritium315 wrote...
Line of sight really matters when you're shooting **** that's like 100 meters away. Also "fire and forget" is irrelevent when **** is moving a relativistic velocities since your projectiles will hit the target instantly anyway. Finally, no payload outside of a big ass nuke can deliver damage that comes even close to the amount delivered by a mass accelerator.
All those advantages of missiles are only advantages when you compare missiles to modern munitions. Cannons in the mass effect universe are better in every way. There's a reason the navy is developing railguns to replace surface to surface missiles launched from battle ships.
Tritium315 wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
What, exactly, are the advantages of a missile.
First off, you don't need line of sight when shooting a missile. Second, missiles are fire and forget weapons which allow for "strikes." Third, missiles can deliver a payload to neutralize an entire area in single blast. Fourth, missiles can be fitted with different warheads that allow for different functions. I can go on...
Line of sight really matters when you're shooting **** that's like 100 meters away. Also "fire and forget" is irrelevent when **** is moving a relativistic velocities since your projectiles will hit the target instantly anyway. Finally, no payload outside of a big ass nuke can deliver damage that comes even close to the amount delivered by a mass accelerator.
All those advantages of missiles are only advantages when you compare missiles to modern munitions. Cannons in the mass effect universe are better in every way. There's a reason the navy is developing railguns to replace surface to surface missiles launched from battle ships.
Funkdrspot wrote...
What are you basing your opinion on? Just like The Angry One, you're most likely angry about the ending and lashing out at anything and everything Mass Effect.
1. Cannons require LOS. Missles do not
2. Thanix cannons are not regular cannons. Meaning while they will continue at the same speed, they will NOT continue at the same heat level. Thus effectiveness is reduced to a certain range
3. The Reapers have farther thanix cannon range than everyone else. By the time you're in range to shoot Thanix cannons, so are they
4. The nature of a missle is that it allows for more destruction in a shorter timeframe. You could let off an entire battery of missles and jump to FTL or you could stand around shooting your thanix cannon while in range of a reaper that can destroy a dreadnaught in 1 hit.
Funkdrspot wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
What, exactly, are the advantages of a missile.
First off, you don't need line of sight when shooting a missile. Second, missiles are fire and forget weapons which allow for "strikes." Third, missiles can deliver a payload to neutralize an entire area in single blast. Fourth, missiles can be fitted with different warheads that allow for different functions. I can go on...
Line of sight really matters when you're shooting **** that's like 100 meters away. Also "fire and forget" is irrelevent when **** is moving a relativistic velocities since your projectiles will hit the target instantly anyway. Finally, no payload outside of a big ass nuke can deliver damage that comes even close to the amount delivered by a mass accelerator.
All those advantages of missiles are only advantages when you compare missiles to modern munitions. Cannons in the mass effect universe are better in every way. There's a reason the navy is developing railguns to replace surface to surface missiles launched from battle ships.
Circular logic. Why do you keep going back to payload when it's already been established that payload size is not the answer by itself? Thanix is not inherently stronger than Mass Accelerator, but it's the combo of speed and heat designed to bypass a shield that was never created to block that much heat.
Seriously, you should read the codex. It explains in detail why thanix is better against reapers.
Lastly, how do you think that a railgun on a seafaring vessel has any relevance to cannons in space when dealing with shields?!
thisisme8 wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
Line of sight really matters when you're shooting **** that's like 100 meters away. Also "fire and forget" is irrelevent when **** is moving a relativistic velocities since your projectiles will hit the target instantly anyway. Finally, no payload outside of a big ass nuke can deliver damage that comes even close to the amount delivered by a mass accelerator.
All those advantages of missiles are only advantages when you compare missiles to modern munitions. Cannons in the mass effect universe are better in every way. There's a reason the navy is developing railguns to replace surface to surface missiles launched from battle ships.
Line of sight always matters. If you can see them, they can damn well see you. Fire and forget is important in a fluid battlefield. Once you have a lock, you can fire and forget (hence the name) even if the target has moved, if you have moved, if you lose line of sight, etc. Regarding the size of the payload, it sounds like you're placing too much emphasis on direct damage when missiles can be used for a variety of things that "lasers" would perform poorly against.
Think about this: While protecting the missiles, the Destroyer is firing his lazors at you. If he had a simple napalm, he could have ended it quick. But no, all he had was his super powerful laser that had no way to deal significant damage to an area. And that damage doesn't need to be as powerful as a nuclear missile to kill Shep and crew. Hell, a few cheap missiles can wipe out entire groups of enemy ground forces. They were difficult to use on earth because of the Hades Cannons, but by looking at London in the game, I bet the reapers were kicking themselves in the quads for not having a few.
kleindropper wrote...
I would assume they are like a Sabot tank round, where the missile first punctures the shielding and armor and then spits the molten metal at the speed of light.
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Funkdrspot wrote...
What are you basing your opinion on? Just like The Angry One, you're most likely angry about the ending and lashing out at anything and everything Mass Effect.
1. Cannons require LOS. Missles do not
2. Thanix cannons are not regular cannons. Meaning while they will continue at the same speed, they will NOT continue at the same heat level. Thus effectiveness is reduced to a certain range
3. The Reapers have farther thanix cannon range than everyone else. By the time you're in range to shoot Thanix cannons, so are they
4. The nature of a missle is that it allows for more destruction in a shorter timeframe. You could let off an entire battery of missles and jump to FTL or you could stand around shooting your thanix cannon while in range of a reaper that can destroy a dreadnaught in 1 hit.
1. In space, LOS is all you need. For ground targets, same thing. Fire from space can hit anything on the ground.
2. True. However, they aren't interceptable like missles.
3. The final battle cutscene says otherwise.
4. You're assuming 1 Missle = The output of 1 cannon. Considering the button could be held down for awhile, I doubt it.
Counterarguements:
1. On Earth we see that those missles can be jammed quite easily. A cannon would've been easy as pie to hit that Destroyer right in the eye.
2. Depending on the situation, cannons can react faster.
Example:
An Alliance cruiser is getting ready to FTL into knife-fighting range of Reapers, hoping to catch them by the rear-ends. You can then train your broadsides to aim in the general direction to reduce adjustment time. The cruiser FTLs in, adjusts quickly thanks to the VI's, the cannons fire off a volley, and then the cruiser FTLs out. This process get's decidedly more dicey with missles. Remember, those guys are pretty good hackers. I doubt most of your missles would hit anyway.
Thanix missles can have benefits over cannons in certain circumstances and their benefits currently are in-line with a guerilla campaign that hackett is fighting
Tritium315 wrote...
Mass accelerator rounds travel so fast that once you fire you've already hit, there is no time to move. You don't need to lock on or lead your target when you hit things instantly. Additionally if targets are so far away that you wont hit instantly (ie in space) then a missile will run out of fuel long before it gets to the target at which point it can no longer correct its own trajectory.
As far as payload. You do realize that mass accelerators aren't lasers. The force they deliver is based on the speed at which they are moving, and that force is significantly higher than any payload a missile can have (short of a big ass nuke). A mass accelerator will leave a bigger crater and will 'cause that crater than a missile and will 'cause that crater to appear in a shorter period of time while costing significantly less per projectile to create said crater.
Regarding for your scenario: That entire scene made no sense since the destroyer's laser is a thanix like mass accelerator (assuming destroyers have the same armament as sovereign class reapers) and should have annihilated that entire block just from impacting with the ground. If he had missiles they probably would have been tiny explosions and traveled very slowly because Bioware doesn't understand physics.
Additionally, as has been stated earlier, missiles shouldn't even work anymore because every starship is equipped with GARDIAN lasers which shoot down any missile automatically (especially when there are only 2 of them).
1. In space, LOS is all you need. For ground targets, same thing. Fire from space can hit anything on the ground.
Modifié par thisisme8, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:25 .
kleindropper wrote...
I would assume they are like a Sabot tank round, where the missile first punctures the shielding and armor and then spits the molten metal at the speed of light.
mass perfection wrote...
It is not a thing you can comprehend.
Funkdrspot wrote...
See, i'm not arguing the dominance of missles over cannons. I'm simply giving examples that
a) Thanix missles can exist and we currently employ similar tech in our current missles
Tritium315 wrote...
Funkdrspot wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
Tritium315 wrote...
What, exactly, are the advantages of a missile.
First off, you don't need line of sight when shooting a missile. Second, missiles are fire and forget weapons which allow for "strikes." Third, missiles can deliver a payload to neutralize an entire area in single blast. Fourth, missiles can be fitted with different warheads that allow for different functions. I can go on...
Line of sight really matters when you're shooting **** that's like 100 meters away. Also "fire and forget" is irrelevent when **** is moving a relativistic velocities since your projectiles will hit the target instantly anyway. Finally, no payload outside of a big ass nuke can deliver damage that comes even close to the amount delivered by a mass accelerator.
All those advantages of missiles are only advantages when you compare missiles to modern munitions. Cannons in the mass effect universe are better in every way. There's a reason the navy is developing railguns to replace surface to surface missiles launched from battle ships.
Circular logic. Why do you keep going back to payload when it's already been established that payload size is not the answer by itself? Thanix is not inherently stronger than Mass Accelerator, but it's the combo of speed and heat designed to bypass a shield that was never created to block that much heat.
Seriously, you should read the codex. It explains in detail why thanix is better against reapers.
Lastly, how do you think that a railgun on a seafaring vessel has any relevance to cannons in space when dealing with shields?!
Anything shot in atmosphere at 3000 km/s will melt from friction with air.
Funkdrspot wrote...
See, i'm not arguing the dominance of missles over cannons. I'm simply giving examples that
a) Thanix missles can exist and we currently employ similar tech in our current missles
Retour en haut
