1098 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

BleedingUranium wrote...


No, to eat he needs food. Money is irrelevant in war-time.

..and to obtain that food, he needs money to purchase it.


At this point you are arguing against one of the basic maxims of war. You can't wage war without the monetary means to do so.

This is what happens when a the economy of a nation at war goes belly up:

Over the course of the Pacific War, the economies of Japan and its occupied territories all suffered severely. Inflation was rampant; Japanese heavy industry, forced to devote nearly all its production to meeting military needs, was unable to meet the commercial requirements of Japan (which had previously relied on trade with Western countries for their manufactured goods). Local industries were unable to produce at high enough levels to avoid severe shortfalls. Furthermore, maritime trade, upon which the Empire depended greatly, was sharply curtailed by damage to the Japanese merchant fleet over the course of the war.
 
By the end of the war, what remained of the Japanese Empire was wracked by shortages, inflation, and currency devaluation. Transport was nearly impossible, and industrial production in Japan's shattered cities ground to a halt. The destruction wrought by the war eventually brought the Japanese economy to a virtual standstill.

Japanese economic history


What that doesn't mention is because of the economic conditions in Japan at the time, the population was also on the brink of mass starvation. When a nation can no longer feed its own people, it cannot effectively wage war either.

The collapse of the galactic economy would be the final nail in the coffin for the Citadel species. It wouldn't be a question of if they'd lose, but rather when.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:50 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

I doubt the genocide would take centuries with 20,000 ships.

My question is: Where are they all?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

We know that the Leviathan is one billion years old.

We know that cycles are ~50,000 years.

1,000,000,000/50,000 = 20,000.

There are, assuming only 1 Reaper of any kind is made per cycle and that the Leviathan is the first ever Reaper, 20,000 Reaper ships. 

Minimum.

I'm not quite sure how that's hard to figure out.

It's not hard to figure it, it's hard not to question. Your math accounts for one variable - the assumptiong that a Reaper is generated each cycle. It does not account for the cycles that did not produce a Reaper and it does not account for Reaper casualties. You essentially counting every Reaper possibly ever 'born,' it would be like the Reapers assuming that there are 30 billion people on Earth. There's nothing you can do about it, the Reapers' numbers are entirely unknown to us, this is the game's fault. My own estimates are below 1,000 dreadnoughts, based on how many Reapers we have seen and how the Reapers harvested each cycle previously.

It also assumes that ONLY one Reaper is generated each cycle, when there's no evidence to show that it's not more than that.

Quite frankly, it's easily on the "best case" scenario side that there are only 20,000 Reapers than it is on the "worst case" side. 

And what would the worst case scenario be?

Worst case? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So that's the bare minimum of when the Reapers "could" have started the cycle. 

Assuming one Soverign per cycle? 96,000 Soverigns.

Assuming 3 Destroyers per cycle? 276,000 Destroyers.

That's about where I'd put "worst" case at.

Which, by the way, is not something I'm suggesting they have - if anything, I'd assume their numbers are somewhere in the middle of the two, but I always try to use "best" case in order to argue, simply because "best" case is still INCREDIBLY FREAKING BAD to try and overcome.

[BerzerkGene]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

We know that the Leviathan is one billion years old.

We know that cycles are ~50,000 years.

1,000,000,000/50,000 = 20,000.

There are, assuming only 1 Reaper of any kind is made per cycle and that the Leviathan is the first ever Reaper, 20,000 Reaper ships. 

Minimum.

I'm not quite sure how that's hard to figure out.

It's not hard to figure it, it's hard not to question. Your math accounts for one variable - the assumptiong that a Reaper is generated each cycle. It does not account for the cycles that did not produce a Reaper and it does not account for Reaper casualties. You essentially counting every Reaper possibly ever 'born,' it would be like the Reapers assuming that there are 30 billion people on Earth. There's nothing you can do about it, the Reapers' numbers are entirely unknown to us, this is the game's fault. My own estimates are below 1,000 dreadnoughts, based on how many Reapers we have seen and how the Reapers harvested each cycle previously.

It also assumes that ONLY one Reaper is generated each cycle, when there's no evidence to show that it's not more than that.

Quite frankly, it's easily on the "best case" scenario side that there are only 20,000 Reapers than it is on the "worst case" side. 

And what would the worst case scenario be?

Apparently my estimate of 50k.

[BleedingUranium]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

If Levithan killed the Derelict Reaper from ME2 (which is very speculative), than it was no ordinary Reaper, and it makes Harbinger look like a girl scout,

As for TDKR part, no comment.

Unfortunately no, the derelict one was taken out by a massive planetary cannon that glanced off a planet, leaving a huge scar.
How and why a reaper would rebel is ridiculous to even contemplate.

...umm, what? Please elaborate.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Worst case? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So that's the bare minimum of when the Reapers "could" have started the cycle. 

Assuming one Soverign per cycle? 96,000 Soverigns.

Assuming 3 Destroyers per cycle? 276,000 Destroyers.

That's about where I'd put "worst" case at.

Which, by the way, is not something I'm suggesting they have - if anything, I'd assume their numbers are somewhere in the middle of the two, but I always try to use "best" case in order to argue, simply because "best" case is still INCREDIBLY FREAKING BAD to try and overcome.

Why does Earth's age come into it? And how is assuming a constant Reaper reproduction number without accounting for casualties the "best case" scenario? If the Reapers thought that way, their odds would be much worse than they currently think. If there are atleast 20,000; then where are they all? The majority of their forces are in Sol, and there aren't even 100 in the space battle near the end of the game. And don't tell me the rest of them are busy harvesting on Earth because that is ridiculous. The most we've ever seen were 295.

[Conniving_Eagle]

BezerkGene, you're a proponent of conventional victory? Yes?

[tanisha__unknown]

I don't know about energy consumption of thanix cannons. They could be fitted into frigates, but into fighters? I imagine you'd need a decent generator to power them (Normandy's was top of the line) and even if you can fit the cannon, you probably can't fit the generator

[AlexMBrennan]

Why does Earth's age come into it?

Because the Reapers can only make species that developed on Earth into sovereign-class Reapers, duh. [That is to say, this has to be true for the statement about Earth's age to make any sense at all. It is, of course, utterly ridiculous]

As for the OP: Yes, thanix-armed fighters are a good idea. They have vastly improved our chances. It wasn't good enough, however, as you would have noticed if you had paid any attention at all to anything Hacket, Liara, Anderson, or anyone else say in the game.

That's the premise of the game. Sure, there may be issues like the one raised by OP, but that's a matter of bad writing. *Lore* is that conventional victory (i.e. anything not requiring a plot device to even the odds - Crucible, keystone army reveal a la LotR, DA, etc or key design flaw a la Star Wars) is impossible

But you get a cookie for finding yet another plothole

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:08 .

[BerzerkGene]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


We know that the Leviathan is one billion years old.

We know that cycles are ~50,000 years.

1,000,000,000/50,000 = 20,000.

There are, assuming only 1 Reaper of any kind is made per cycle and that the Leviathan is the first ever Reaper, 20,000 Reaper ships. 

Minimum.

I'm not quite sure how that's hard to figure out.

Fair enough, its close to one billion, but Harbinger is the oldest Reaper.
Thats the thing, minimum. One sovereign class is suposedly made each cycle with a bunch of destroyers(not counting cycles like the protheans). I still find 20k to be...very little. It makes it seem like previous cycles were rather successful in fighting off the reapers.
While i personally think the oculi mean nothing unless they have 3-4 times more of them than the reapers themselves, which i find hard to believe. They would have to wear out, being partially organic(not in the way the reapers are, mind you). plus being one shotted doesn't make them that impressive.
Destroyers don't hold up against normal weaponry for long, their armour does grant them reasonable toughness, but they have a huge weakspot.
Sovereign class are very tough. Harbinger however is probably a fleet unto himself. If you said beating the reapers, i would say sure, possible, beating the reapers that have harbinger with them...eeeh looks iffy. He can beamspam like a bastard.

20,000 IS very little. It is the absolute best case scenario that the alliance can hope for. That there are ONLY 20,000 Reaper ships.

It STILL is enough to show that the organics have NO CHANCE.

Honestly, you're sitting here saying that Oculi would wear out and that Destroyers are just huge weak spots that can't take a hit while ignoring the facts that if the Oculi are wearing out... the ENTIRE ORGANIC FLEET is way past "worn out" and that these giant floating weak spots of Destroyers can still one shot any ship in the organic fleet. 

You can kill a Reaper. You can kill a few Reapers. You cannot kill the Reapers en masse. 

Not really. No chance would mean literally no chance, they waltz up to the citadel and every world with zero difficulty and just win. That didn't happen.

The fleet looked fine to me. Fired up even. The forces of the galaxy have been worn down, for sure, but they didn't go quietly and you have some couple hundred thousand ships still.
I would not have the destroyers shoot anymore if i were the Reapers, once you make a god bleed, he is no longer a god. Having dedicated "sniper" ships to take out destroyers when they began to charge their weapon would be a prudent course of action. The fact the Reapers still suck with aiming helps too, if they miss everything and  keep getting wailed on every time they fire, they essentially become useless, or just shields for the dreadnoughts.

You can kill reapers en masse, definitely not the Hackett way though. I'm still pissed at him being so terrible at his job. But again, killing Harbinger would be the real issue. He is the Reaper's biggest asset.

[BleedingUranium]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Worst case? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So that's the bare minimum of when the Reapers "could" have started the cycle. 

Assuming one Soverign per cycle? 96,000 Soverigns.

Assuming 3 Destroyers per cycle? 276,000 Destroyers.

That's about where I'd put "worst" case at.

Which, by the way, is not something I'm suggesting they have - if anything, I'd assume their numbers are somewhere in the middle of the two, but I always try to use "best" case in order to argue, simply because "best" case is still INCREDIBLY FREAKING BAD to try and overcome.

Why does Earth's age come into it? And how is assuming a constant Reaper reproduction number without accounting for casualties the "best case" scenario? If the Reapers thought that way, their odds would be much worse than they currently think. If there are atleast 20,000; then where are they all? The majority of their forces are in Sol, and there aren't even 100 in the space battle near the end of the game. And don't tell me the rest of them are busy harvesting on Earth because that is ridiculous. The most we've ever seen were 295.

Exactly! [/Anderson]

There are not 20,000 Reapers. That's the absolute most there could be, and only if you go by the listed age of the Leviathan, at one billion. If that's be retconed since ME1, or if the Batarians are lying and boasting as usual, there goes that idea. The only solid number we have is 37 million years old. That would be about 740 Sovereign-class Reapers. Considering the Reapers most likely couldn't make one every cycle and considering losses, this is a much more reasonable number. 740-1000ish

[BerzerkGene]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BezerkGene, you're a proponent of conventional victory? Yes?

You know it.
Mostly because i've used Homeworld 2 as a battle simulator, its bloody hard to win, but possible.
Theres so much that simply doesn't make sense for it to not be possible, like i said, freaking hard, but not outside the realm of possibility. Thanix cannons are my biggest gripe.

[BerzerkGene]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

 
By the end of the war, what remained of the Japanese Empire was wracked by shortages, inflation, and currency devaluation. Transport was nearly impossible, and industrial production in Japan's shattered cities ground to a halt. The destruction wrought by the war eventually brought the Japanese economy to a virtual standstill.[/quote]

Japanese economic history
[/quote]
Yeah, a galactic war does not compare with earth history, again, if i'm not allowed to use historical examples of people overcoming impossible odds, you can't use tha.

[Conniving_Eagle]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BezerkGene, you're a proponent of conventional victory? Yes?

You know it.
Mostly because i've used Homeworld 2 as a battle simulator, its bloody hard to win, but possible.
Theres so much that simply doesn't make sense for it to not be possible, like i said, freaking hard, but not outside the realm of possibility. Thanix cannons are my biggest gripe.

Well if you're going to support conventional victory, then drop this premise of there being 20,000 Reapers, because it makes your agrument ridiculous. If there were 20,000 Reapers, everyone would be doomed. Of course, if there were 20,000 Reapers, they wouldn't have to operate the way they did. There aren't that many.

[BerzerkGene]

Jinx1720 wrote...

I don't know about energy consumption of thanix cannons. They could be fitted into frigates, but into fighters? I imagine you'd need a decent generator to power them (Normandy's was top of the line) and even if you can fit the cannon, you probably can't fit the generator

A fair concern, but its specifically stated that they can be mounted on fighters and fire reliably every 5 seconds. The Normandy had 2, remember. They kind of combined into a bigger beam.
"The weapon's relatively small size allows it to be mounted on most fighters or frigates, including the Normandy SR-2, and gives them firepower rivaling cruisers"
So there are some restrictions, but not many.

[BerzerkGene]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BezerkGene, you're a proponent of conventional victory? Yes?

You know it.
Mostly because i've used Homeworld 2 as a battle simulator, its bloody hard to win, but possible.
Theres so much that simply doesn't make sense for it to not be possible, like i said, freaking hard, but not outside the realm of possibility. Thanix cannons are my biggest gripe.

Well if you're going to support conventional victory, then drop this premise of there being 20,000 Reapers, because it makes your agrument ridiculous. If there were 20,000 Reapers, everyone would be doomed. Of course, if there were 20,000 Reapers, they wouldn't have to operate the way they did. There aren't that many.

Actually i was operating under the fact there was 50,000 reapers. Including destroyers and Dreadnoughts.
Simply based on firepower alone, with thanix cannons, we still win.

[BerzerkGene]

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

If Levithan killed the Derelict Reaper from ME2 (which is very speculative), than it was no ordinary Reaper, and it makes Harbinger look like a girl scout,

As for TDKR part, no comment.

Unfortunately no, the derelict one was taken out by a massive planetary cannon that glanced off a planet, leaving a huge scar.
How and why a reaper would rebel is ridiculous to even contemplate.

...umm, what? Please elaborate.

Thats supposedly what the Levithan DLC is about, a rebellous reaper that killed one of its own. I do not see the logic behind it.
I may have just got my Levithans crossed, not sure.

[BleedingUranium]

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

If Levithan killed the Derelict Reaper from ME2 (which is very speculative), than it was no ordinary Reaper, and it makes Harbinger look like a girl scout,

As for TDKR part, no comment.

Unfortunately no, the derelict one was taken out by a massive planetary cannon that glanced off a planet, leaving a huge scar.
How and why a reaper would rebel is ridiculous to even contemplate.

...umm, what? Please elaborate.

Thats supposedly what the Levithan DLC is about, a rebellous reaper that killed one of its own. I do not see the logic behind it.
I may have just got my Levithans crossed, not sure.

I know about Leviathan, I meant why do you think it's ridiculous that a Reaper could go rogue? That is what it's about.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:23 .

[BerzerkGene]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Why does Earth's age come into it?

Because the Reapers can only make species that developed on Earth into sovereign-class Reapers, duh. [That is to say, this has to be true for the statement about Earth's age to make any sense at all. It is, of course, utterly ridiculous]

As for the OP: Yes, thanix-armed fighters are a good idea. They have vastly improved our chances. It wasn't good enough, however, as you would have noticed if you had paid any attention at all to anything Hacket, Liara, Anderson, or anyone else say in the game.

That's the premise of the game. Sure, there may be issues like the one raised by OP, but that's a matter of bad writing. *Lore* is that conventional victory (i.e. anything not requiring a plot device to even the odds - Crucible, keystone army reveal a la LotR, DA, etc or key design flaw a la Star Wars) is impossible

No, thanix are not used at all during ME3, they're mentioned(like 3 times, mostly in codex and war asset entries), but never used.
Honestly i stopped caring about anything Hackett said as soon as i saw the huge armada you get just charging straight at the reapers. Worst Military Commander Ever.

Not really, the lore basically says how possible it is, but the story and dialogue like to constant reinforce how doomed everyone is, despite...everything. The premise of the game is beating the reapers and saving the galaxy. I do not recall morphing all life in the galaxy into some kind of hybrid with magic ever being central to the plot.

The fact it makes no sense doesn't help. Countless civilisations helped design the perfect battery to destroy the race of unstoppable killing machines.
Sure, i buy that.

[Conniving_Eagle]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BezerkGene, you're a proponent of conventional victory? Yes?

You know it.
Mostly because i've used Homeworld 2 as a battle simulator, its bloody hard to win, but possible.
Theres so much that simply doesn't make sense for it to not be possible, like i said, freaking hard, but not outside the realm of possibility. Thanix cannons are my biggest gripe.

Well if you're going to support conventional victory, then drop this premise of there being 20,000 Reapers, because it makes your agrument ridiculous. If there were 20,000 Reapers, everyone would be doomed. Of course, if there were 20,000 Reapers, they wouldn't have to operate the way they did. There aren't that many.

Actually i was operating under the fact there was 50,000 reapers. Including destroyers and Dreadnoughts.
Simply based on firepower alone, with thanix cannons, we still win.

No. You're crazy if you think that.

[Han Shot First]

BerzerkGene wrote...

Yeah, a galactic war does not compare with earth history, again, if i'm not allowed to use historical examples of people overcoming impossible odds, you can't use tha.

Dude, you can't be serious.

You are seriously arguing against one of the most basic maxims of war.


"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…"

- Sun Tzu



You cannot wage war if you don't have the economic means to do so. Wars have been won by destroying an enemy's economy.

Logistics win wars, and all the beans, bullets and bandages that an army needs require money. Every piece of equipment the Alliance fields, from the dreadnoughts all the way down to the Avengers, costs money to both build and maintain. It costs money to feed those soldiers and keep them resupplied. It costs money to train them. It costs money to transport them. It costs money to give them medical treatment.

A broke nation can no more wage an effective war than a starving man could run a marathon.

Total galactic economic collapse = total defeat. Without question.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:28 .

[BerzerkGene]

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

If Levithan killed the Derelict Reaper from ME2 (which is very speculative), than it was no ordinary Reaper, and it makes Harbinger look like a girl scout,

As for TDKR part, no comment.

Unfortunately no, the derelict one was taken out by a massive planetary cannon that glanced off a planet, leaving a huge scar.
How and why a reaper would rebel is ridiculous to even contemplate.

...umm, what? Please elaborate.

Thats supposedly what the Levithan DLC is about, a rebellous reaper that killed one of its own. I do not see the logic behind it.
I may have just got my Levithans crossed, not sure.

I know about Leviathan, I meant why do you think it's ridiculous that a Reaper could go rogue? That is what it's about.

Primarily because they're all genocidal monsters without a hint of regret, empathy or mercy.
But also because the Catalyst has complete control of them and is the collective intelligence of the Reapers.
If he doesn't control them all, thats fine, but he still knows everything they do, he would know if one was going to rebel. If he isn't the collective intelligence, then he totally lied at the end there and while i don't find that implausible, he has no reason to.
Then again, he makes no sense anyway.

[BleedingUranium]

BerzerkGene wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Why does Earth's age come into it?

Because the Reapers can only make species that developed on Earth into sovereign-class Reapers, duh. [That is to say, this has to be true for the statement about Earth's age to make any sense at all. It is, of course, utterly ridiculous]

As for the OP: Yes, thanix-armed fighters are a good idea. They have vastly improved our chances. It wasn't good enough, however, as you would have noticed if you had paid any attention at all to anything Hacket, Liara, Anderson, or anyone else say in the game.

That's the premise of the game. Sure, there may be issues like the one raised by OP, but that's a matter of bad writing. *Lore* is that conventional victory (i.e. anything not requiring a plot device to even the odds - Crucible, keystone army reveal a la LotR, DA, etc or key design flaw a la Star Wars) is impossible

No, thanix are not used at all during ME3, they're mentioned(like 3 times, mostly in codex and war asset entries), but never used.
Honestly i stopped caring about anything Hackett said as soon as i saw the huge armada you get just charging straight at the reapers. Worst Military Commander Ever.

Not really, the lore basically says how possible it is, but the story and dialogue like to constant reinforce how doomed everyone is, despite...everything. The premise of the game is beating the reapers and saving the galaxy. I do not recall morphing all life in the galaxy into some kind of hybrid with magic ever being central to the plot.

The fact it makes no sense doesn't help. Countless civilisations helped design the perfect battery to destroy the race of unstoppable killing machines.
Sure, i buy that.

Well, BW has stated they wanted the space battle to feel epic and familiar, so it does look like what you'd expect from most SciFis, don't read into the details too much, as that battle is nota good source for how we'd actually do in a galactic battle with Reapers, the Codex is much more reliable.

Not sure why you think Thanix cannons aren't being used. Many things you should know are in the codex. There are a number of entries about fighting Reapers, and us doing very well.

[BleedingUranium]

Han Shot First wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Yeah, a galactic war does not compare with earth history, again, if i'm not allowed to use historical examples of people overcoming impossible odds, you can't use tha.

Dude, you can't be serious.

You are seriously arguing against one of the most basic maxims of war.


"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…"

- Sun Tzu



You cannot wage war if you don't have the economic means to do so. Wars have been won by destroying an enemy's economy.

Logistics win wars, and all the beans, bullets and bandages that an army needs require money. Every piece of equipment the Alliance fields, from the dreadnoughts all the way down to the Avengers, costs money to both build and maintain. It costs money to feed those soldiers and keep them resupplied. It costs money to give them medical treatment.

A broke nation can no more wage an effective war than a starving man could run a marathon.

Total galactic economic collapse = total defeat. Without question.

No, money is something we created, nothing truely costs anything. Only lives and time. All you need is sleep, food, and time. Money is irrelevant, it's not a real thing.

[Alez Zinai]

Han Shot First wrote...
...
You can't fight a war without money.

If the economy collapsed, so would the war effort.



"The sinews of war are endless money."


---Cicero

not quite so - you can wage war without money if there is no need to trade goods, thou you cannot wage war without economy. Galactic economy will collapse in a year but it doesn't mean that council races will not adapt some new military economy - there are many cases in human history when civil economy was changed to military one.