TK514 wrote...
1. Name one space battle in Mass Effect where LOS was an issue. In fact, given that every ship of the line shown, including the Reapers, relied on direct fire weapons to deliver their payload, it's safe to say that LOS would rarely be an issue in ME fleet warfare, by the simple deduction that if the two sides don't have LOS, they are going to have to maneuver until they do before engaging.
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.
TK514 wrote...
2. Missiles have longer travel times to reach their target and are succeptible to anti-missile systems, purpose built decoy systems, and, as blatantly demonstrated in ME3, environmental effects on their critical systems. To be anything approaching useful, you're still going to have to close to almost point blank ranges, and even then they are still absurdly vulnerable. Again as demonstrated in ME3. So, against the Reapers, direct fire weapons, even shorter range ones like the Thanix cannon, have potentially better range and accuracy.
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.
TK514 wrote...
3. To reiterate the above, as demonstrated in ME3, missiles have a potentially shorter effective range than any other weapon in the fleet. They are demonstrably unreliable against the Reapers. 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.
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.
TK514 wrote...
4. You could also fire off your entire payload of missiles have have absolutely nothing happen because none of them could stay on target. And those that did stay on target would still have to survive a Reaper's own GUARDIAN countermeasures. At which point you've wasted a lot of resouces building expensive space junk, and wasted a lot of ammo storage that could have been used to support your less costly and more effective direct fire weapons.
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.
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.
TK514 wrote...
Cliffnotes: Theoretical range advantage of missiles is mitigated, if not completely negated, by Reaper technology. Direct fire weapons in the Mass Effect universe, on the other hand, do not suffer from the same sluggish time to target or degredation of accuracy.
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.
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
Retour en haut
or did you forget whose the deadliest son of a **** in space.
