225 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Brakensiek wrote...

The Hades Cannon Reaper obviously is a different variant as it is missing it's main spinal canon. Whatever it is was made after the occupation of Earth in order to repel any air assault, possibly even orbital assaults. The Hades Cannon may not even use kinetic barriers since it's purpose is not space combat and instead diverts all power to it's cannon.

The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

[arial]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
.

I'm going to paste the same thing I wrote to Arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

Even if that's true (and I do not think it is), there is no reason to believe the two should have the same armor and kinetic barrier strength.

There is actually a real-life precedent to this. Many tanks and SP's (self-propelled guns) share a common chassis, but have different thicknesses of armor plating, especially in the turret/gun housing.

You still don't get the point.
Hades cannon is a weapon that is mounted on a destroyer. A "hades cannon" is not a Reaper variant, It's a weapon.

if it was "mounted on a Reaper" it would still have the normal "head" of a Reaper.

Just because a device has a similar base, does not make it the same device

[chemiclord]

Damn this thing blew up all to hell before I could even use my "Oh hey!" bit.

I am disappoint.

[Apollo-XL5]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Whatever the specific details are, if there actually is no way to defeat the reapers, then I can accept that but that means everyone in the ME universe dies and is harvested.

The concept of a magic device that kills reapers at the push of a button sitting on mars is the most retarded idea I've ever heard.

There is no magic
Are you calling the death star in star wars space magic
or the omega 13 in galaxyquest
or the great machine in babylon 5
or the moment in doctor who (what the doctor used to defeat daleks and timelords)
or the ancient weapons platform on dakara or the ark of truth in Stargate sg1.
These are all super weapons in these sci fi shows and films but there is no space magic.

[Sgt Stryker]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
.

I'm going to paste the same thing I wrote to Arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

Even if that's true (and I do not think it is), there is no reason to believe the two should have the same armor and kinetic barrier strength.

There is actually a real-life precedent to this. Many tanks and SP's (self-propelled guns) share a common chassis, but have different thicknesses of armor plating, especially in the turret/gun housing.

You still don't get the point.
Hades cannon is a weapon that is mounted on a destroyer. A "hades cannon" is not a Reaper variant, It's a weapon.

Getting close, but not quite. The Hades cannon is mounted on the legs of a destroyer. Not on a destroyer itself. Therefore there is no reason to believe that destroyers are as poorly armored/shielded as these cannon-destroyer-leg combos. If that was true, then there would be no need to use the Thanix missile trucks. Just have one dude with a Cain sneak through the rubble and pop one off.

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Brakensiek wrote...

The Hades Cannon Reaper obviously is a different variant as it is missing it's main spinal canon. Whatever it is was made after the occupation of Earth in order to repel any air assault, possibly even orbital assaults. The Hades Cannon may not even use kinetic barriers since it's purpose is not space combat and instead diverts all power to it's cannon.

The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Ahem.

Tealjaker94 wrote...

The power draw on a Hades Cannon is probably enormous. It's quite reasonable to assume it would not be able to maintain its kinetic barriers due to the power requirements.

[Brakensiek]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Note that I said Hades Cannon Reaper as in a Reaper with a giant cannon on it's back.  Please try to keep up.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

arial wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

arial wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

source?

Common sense.
Well you even admitted it was anti-aircraft weapon, and the wiki that your going dismiss as actual proof. but honestly, i though this was common sense. It's a weapon, not an actual reaper.
Swallow your pride, just admit it.

http://masseffect.wi...ki/Hades_Cannon

look, several of us have proven you wrong, so accept it, you were mistaken no big deal.

the fact you are constantly trying to prove your self after weve proven you wrong on several occassions just makes you look pathetic

You seem like a nice gal or guy (Can't tell). Please don't humiliate yourself, you have no self-defense to what I just posted, no leg to stand on. I know where you were coming from, I now know that you though a "hades cannon" was a Reaper variant instead of a weapon. But it's not, It is a weapon. and now you respond by just saying you have proven me wrong when I just counter your whole argument., and it is very hypocritical of you of saying that I look pathetic, because you actually really do right now.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Brakensiek wrote...

The Hades Cannon Reaper obviously is a different variant as it is missing it's main spinal canon. Whatever it is was made after the occupation of Earth in order to repel any air assault, possibly even orbital assaults. The Hades Cannon may not even use kinetic barriers since it's purpose is not space combat and instead diverts all power to it's cannon.

The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Ahem.

Tealjaker94 wrote...

The power draw on a Hades Cannon is probably enormous. It's quite reasonable to assume it would not be able to maintain its kinetic barriers due to the power requirements.

So your agreeing with me?

[D24O]

The srs in the thread is getting to critical levels.

[Qeylis]

Oh my goodness, this doesn't matter. If the Hades was a Destroyer, or a AA gun, it makes no difference.

The Codex says that it takes 4 Alliance Dreadnoughts to kill one Reaper Dreadnought (pre-Thanix cannon). Therefore, a conventional war comes down to numbers. The Salarians and Turians have Thanix on most of their ships. This gives most of their smaller ships the firepower of an Alliance Dreadnought.

I assume that a single Alliance Dreadnought could destroy a single Reaper Destroyer without assistance.

Once again, these numbers are pre-Thanix. Post Thanix, we would need far less to take down a Reaper of any class.

If there are enough ships with this kind of firepower in the galaxy, then we win. If there are not, then we loose.

[shodiswe]

The Rannoch and Tuchanka reapers were only destroyers though... insignificant... and just one of them..

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Brakensiek wrote...

The Hades Cannon Reaper obviously is a different variant as it is missing it's main spinal canon. Whatever it is was made after the occupation of Earth in order to repel any air assault, possibly even orbital assaults. The Hades Cannon may not even use kinetic barriers since it's purpose is not space combat and instead diverts all power to it's cannon.

The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Ahem.

Tealjaker94 wrote...

The power draw on a Hades Cannon is probably enormous. It's quite reasonable to assume it would not be able to maintain its kinetic barriers due to the power requirements.

So your agreeing with me?

I'm saying that whether or not you're right is irrelevant. Even if we assume the Hades Cannon is just a gun on a full-fledged Reaper destroyer, the destroyer would be considerably weaker than any of the other ones we face due to the power requirements of the Hades Cannon. It's likely that the other destroyers would not have been one-shotted by a Cain.

[Kelwing]

Beating Reaper Destroyers conventionally is easy. The problem lies with the Capital ships. One would need to get past their shielding to get bombs on the hull or a way to weaken/drop the shielding. Then they are a simple matter of shoot at will. Course allies will lose ships but it wouldn't be as much a one sided battle anymore.

[arial]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

arial wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

arial wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

source?

Common sense.
Well you even admitted it was anti-aircraft weapon, and the wiki that your going dismiss as actual proof. but honestly, i though this was common sense. It's a weapon, not an actual reaper.
Swallow your pride, just admit it.

http://masseffect.wi...ki/Hades_Cannon

look, several of us have proven you wrong, so accept it, you were mistaken no big deal.

the fact you are constantly trying to prove your self after weve proven you wrong on several occassions just makes you look pathetic

You seem like a nice gal or guy (Can't tell). Please don't humiliate yourself, you have no self-defense to what I just posted, no leg to stand on. I know where you were coming from, I now know that you though a "hades cannon" was a Reaper variant instead of a weapon. But it's not, It is a weapon. and now you respond by just saying you have proven me wrong when I just counter your whole argument., and it is very hypocritical of you of saying that I look pathetic, because you actually really do right now.

like we said, A Hades Canno is not a Reaper, nore is it Mounted on the back of a Reaper, it is an AA gun Reapers deployed. It has the same Legs as a Reaper but that is it. It is an independent device that operates on its own.

The Hades Canno IS NOT a Reaper, it IS NOT mounted on a Reaper, it just shares a similar chassis

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
.

I'm going to paste the same thing I wrote to Arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

Even if that's true (and I do not think it is), there is no reason to believe the two should have the same armor and kinetic barrier strength.

There is actually a real-life precedent to this. Many tanks and SP's (self-propelled guns) share a common chassis, but have different thicknesses of armor plating, especially in the turret/gun housing.

You still don't get the point.
Hades cannon is a weapon that is mounted on a destroyer. A "hades cannon" is not a Reaper variant, It's a weapon.

Getting close, but not quite. The Hades cannon is mounted on the legs of a destroyer. Not on a destroyer itself. Therefore there is no reason to believe that destroyers are as poorly armored/shielded as these cannon-destroyer-leg combos. If that was true, then there would be no need to use the Thanix missile trucks. Just have one dude with a Cain sneak through the rubble and pop one off.

So you admit it's a weapon, and mounted in a destroyer? so how does it make it any weaker again?

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Zhargo, and I could tell you that Hades Cannon is actually the name of the whole gun + legs contraption. You can only prove me wrong by pointing at the same old wiki article, which can be wrong. Face it, neither you can prove arial wrong, or arial prove you wrong. We don't KNOW if it is a Destroyer or not, we can only THINK it is, or it isn't.

But what we know for sure is that Reaper Hades Cannon thing (no matter, Destroyer or not) does not share the exact same design and capabilities as ordinary Reaper Destroyer, so we have no base to assume that what works just fine on Hades Cannon Reaper thing will work on ordinary Reaper Destroyer. In fact, the game is quite clear it takes a lot more to destroy an ordinary Destroyer - concetrated fire of good portion of Migrant Fleet, Kalros or 2 x Thanix salvo.

EDIT: Basically, what Tealjaker94 said.

Modifié par Pitznik, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Brakensiek wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
The hades cannon IS NOT A REAPER OR REAPER VARIANT. IT IS A WEAPON, THAT IS MOUNTED ONTO A REAPER. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Note that I said Hades Cannon Reaper as in a Reaper with a giant cannon on it's back.  Please try to keep up.

I took it as that you meant it was an actual Reaper, I apologize.

[arial]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
.

I'm going to paste the same thing I wrote to Arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

Even if that's true (and I do not think it is), there is no reason to believe the two should have the same armor and kinetic barrier strength.

There is actually a real-life precedent to this. Many tanks and SP's (self-propelled guns) share a common chassis, but have different thicknesses of armor plating, especially in the turret/gun housing.

You still don't get the point.
Hades cannon is a weapon that is mounted on a destroyer. A "hades cannon" is not a Reaper variant, It's a weapon.

Getting close, but not quite. The Hades cannon is mounted on the legs of a destroyer. Not on a destroyer itself. Therefore there is no reason to believe that destroyers are as poorly armored/shielded as these cannon-destroyer-leg combos. If that was true, then there would be no need to use the Thanix missile trucks. Just have one dude with a Cain sneak through the rubble and pop one off.

So you admit it's a weapon, and mounted in a destroyer? so how does it make it any weaker again?

it is mounted on the "Legs" of a destroyer, not a destroyer.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Zhargo, and I could tell you that Hades Cannon is actually the name of the whole gun + legs contraption. You can only prove me wrong by pointing at the same old wiki article, which can be wrong. Face it, neither you can prove arial wrong, or arial prove you wrong. We don't KNOW if it is a Destroyer or not, we can only THINK it is, or it isn't.

But what we know for sure is that Reaper Hades Cannon thing (no matter, Destroyer or not) does not share the exact same design and capabilities as ordinary Reaper Destroyer, so we have no base to assume that what works just fine on Hades Cannon Reaper thing will work on ordinary Reaper Destroyer. In fact, the game is quite clear it takes a lot more to destroy an ordinary Destroyer - concetrated fire of good portion of Migrant Fleet, Kalros or 2 x Thanix salvo.

But she holds no proof whatsoever, at least I'm providing a decent argument.

[arial]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Zhargo, and I could tell you that Hades Cannon is actually the name of the whole gun + legs contraption. You can only prove me wrong by pointing at the same old wiki article, which can be wrong. Face it, neither you can prove arial wrong, or arial prove you wrong. We don't KNOW if it is a Destroyer or not, we can only THINK it is, or it isn't.

But what we know for sure is that Reaper Hades Cannon thing (no matter, Destroyer or not) does not share the exact same design and capabilities as ordinary Reaper Destroyer, so we have no base to assume that what works just fine on Hades Cannon Reaper thing will work on ordinary Reaper Destroyer. In fact, the game is quite clear it takes a lot more to destroy an ordinary Destroyer - concetrated fire of good portion of Migrant Fleet, Kalros or 2 x Thanix salvo.

But she holds no proof whatsoever, at least I'm providing a decent argument.

Ive listed lots a proof, you just choose to ignore it as it makes your arguement invalid

[Selene Moonsong]

The argument over the Hades cannon is over. Agree to disagree and move on from this point forward.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

[quote]arial wrote...


Getting close, but not quite. The Hades cannon is mounted on the legs of a destroyer. Not on a destroyer itself. Therefore there is no reason to believe that destroyers are as poorly armored/shielded as these cannon-destroyer-leg combos. If that was true, then there would be no need to use the Thanix missile trucks. Just have one dude with a Cain sneak through the rubble and pop one off.[/quote]So you admit it's a weapon, and mounted in a destroyer? so how does it make it any weaker again?
[/quote]it is mounted on the "Legs" of a destroyer, not a destroyer.
[/quote]So your trying to make a speculation that because of that, it therefore makes it weaker?

Edit-Fine....the Mod wins.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:24 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
.

I'm going to paste the same thing I wrote to Arial

Wait do you think a Hades cannon is a reaper? No!!!!. The Hades cannon is a separate unit, like a weapon. The Destroyer mounts a the Hades cannon on to itself, but the two are still separate units. Therefore, what your classifying as a "Hades cannon" is a destroyer.

Even if that's true (and I do not think it is), there is no reason to believe the two should have the same armor and kinetic barrier strength.

There is actually a real-life precedent to this. Many tanks and SP's (self-propelled guns) share a common chassis, but have different thicknesses of armor plating, especially in the turret/gun housing.

You still don't get the point.
Hades cannon is a weapon that is mounted on a destroyer. A "hades cannon" is not a Reaper variant, It's a weapon.

Getting close, but not quite. The Hades cannon is mounted on the legs of a destroyer. Not on a destroyer itself. Therefore there is no reason to believe that destroyers are as poorly armored/shielded as these cannon-destroyer-leg combos. If that was true, then there would be no need to use the Thanix missile trucks. Just have one dude with a Cain sneak through the rubble and pop one off.

So you admit it's a weapon, and mounted in a destroyer? so how does it make it any weaker again?

Look at the screenshots again. It looks like someone chopped off the top half of a destroyer, kept the legs, and mounted the cannon onto those legs. The cannon is mounted onto the legs of a destroyer, not onto a complete destroyer. There is no reason to believe that a destroyer's kinetic barrier generators are all housed in the legs.

[D24O]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

I'm saying that whether or not you're right is irrelevant. Even if we assume the Hades Cannon is just a gun on a full-fledged Reaper destroyer, the destroyer would be considerably weaker than any of the other ones we face due to the power requirements of the Hades Cannon. It's likely that the other destroyers would not have been one-shotted by a Cain.

I'm throwing my support behind this line of thinking. This is like that Thanix missile thread, 10 pages about an obscure weapon mentioned once in that terrible Earth level. Not a big deal AFAIC.