Aller au contenu

Photo

"Machines can be broken"-Conventional Victory Support Thread


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1098 réponses à ce sujet

#326
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

BerzerkGene wrote...

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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

#327
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

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 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.

No, you don't get it, any Earth war cannot be compared to a war with the Reapers.
As much as i love Sun Tzu, he never wrote anything about a war for the very survival of a species Or a space war, or fighting against AI.
Again, money means nothing, money is an idea. You can't eat money, you can't shoot money out a gun. Money was only introduced because bartering became too hard to do.
You keep finding things throughout the game about things not needing money, Shepard slavages a crapton of stuff and just gives it to people, while many pay him in return thats mostly just a gameplay incentive to do them. If they rewarded me with weapons and upgrades, i'd prefer that.

#328
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 194 messages

BleedingUranium wrote...


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.


Name a single war in human history where economic considerations were not a determining factor in either how the war was waged, or who won it, even when national survival was at stake.


No, you don't get it, any Earth war cannot be compared to a war with the Reapers.


No, you don't get it. You can't wage war with an economy based around primitive bartering and you can't feed and supply whole armies and fleets on charity.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:40 .


#329
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

Han Shot First wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...


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.


Name a single war in human history where economic considerations were not a determining factor in either how the war was waged, or who won it, even when national survival was at stake.





If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .


#330
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.

#331
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.


I'm an ITer, and from that point of view the best is Destroy. However, looking at it from a literal point of view, I would pick Control, assuming the kid is telling the truth (which I don't believe either).

#332
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

Rhosyn wrote...

Expense is a factor that can be ignored in this instance as in a war for survival, people will work essentially for free, so long as they're provided with neccesities.


To start--this is the first fallacy. Expense cannot be ignored when the materials you intend to make the QEC for these unmanned drones you talk about cost MONEY. Wartime will not make them stop costing money. Even if the materials are given gratis, it will cost ships fuel, time, and credits to get it to the production lines. To say that a war does not require money is to ignore every war ever fought in recent human history.

Assuming it can be done immediately is the next fallacy. When your sources of production are being destroyed and/or converted, your productivity goes down. Meaning less thanix cannons (that still have to be created while the ship's undergoing retrofits which would normally take months if not years). Meaning more occupied territory. Meaning more ships get shot down if they risk that flight path to get you the QEC materials. Multiple colonies are taken out. Palaven and Earth are engaging in orbital and planetside warfare almost immediately. Most of the galaxy is already under occupation by the time you get off the Citadel!

Third fallacy? Assuming that we are on equal footing with the Reapers. This ignores every battle we've ever seen, where they cut through or FLY through several ships at a time. The oculi can EASILY destroy a fighter or cut through the hull of a ship, and were only piloted by Collectors during the events of ME2. They are not piloted by husks at all, in either game.

Fourth fallacy - Basic biological function. Breaks in morale, supplies, sleep...Not to mention the indoctrination of powerful officials. Was I the only one paying attention when they talked about the Reaper tactics during the last cycle? :) No secret is perfectly kept, and the Reapers would have found out about the retrofits and had a shooting gallery--assuming they didn't have the shipyards sabotaged by indoctrinated agents. The Reapers aren't dumb. Remember how Anderson said they immediately started targeting even nuclear missile silos, because they -might- be able to help?

Don't even get me started if Cerberus finds out, what with their tendency to start ransacking human colonies yet to be hit...

Fifth fallacy - Kamikaze runs. Ignoring the oculi will result in the fighters being destroyed, possibly even the frigates. Those fighters will be outnumbered and destroyed due to their lack of proper armor. Not to mention, using a smaller Thanix cannon will not result in them same damage output as a dreadnought, or even a frigate.

We aren't talking about human history. We aren't even talking about humans really. Faced with galactic extinction what do you think would happen, people charge money, or decide to use their expertise to help and possibly survive? Quibble about money AFTER you save your asses. Get a bunch of creditors, who cares! As long as you survive.

Mostly the main worlds of the galaxy are being attacked, its only until very late into the game that the reapers have spread wide, several months to a year later. The geth production facilities would be entirely in tact as well as the Quarians, who build their own ships with their fleet. The alliance ones mostly have been taken out, yes, but the Turians and Asari are doing fine, the Salarians are crazy secretive and the Volus are businessmen, with ready production lines. Thanix cannons though are ALREADY present. Most of the Alliance and Turian fleets have them, Almost all the Quarian fleet has them and you can have the geth sent some.

The QEC isn't that big of an issue, the SR2 has the quantum entanglement, which has no fixed range, it works from one end of the galaxy to the other. From Earth to wherever hackett is, for example, at the same time. Alliance and Batarian space were the first to fall, by the time you reach the citadel, the battle for palaven has just begun. The Asari manage to hold the Reapers off until Thessia, the Salarians and Hanar manage to hold them at bay through unknown means. They barely bother with Tuchanka.

Morale again, really? Its do or die, either you do something useful or you die. There isn't any going back, morale would be grim, but determined. It would be somewhat similar to the Halo storyline, the Covenant were more advanced, had more ships, more troops but humanity still managed to effectively fight against them for over 20 years. Sleep is not an issue, its why we invented shifts. You say the Reapers aren't dumb, i beg to differ. If they had gone to the citadel in force, shut off the relays, they would have won. That would have been it, the war would be lost. Each species would be on its own and the Reapers could harvest at their leisure. The Reapers target the silos because they actually could have helped. Reapers are vastly weaker on planets, a good nuke hit would have crippled or killed one. Indoctrination eh. Then why is the catalyst so surprised when the
crucible shows up? He didn't say "Oh yeah, i knew about this, but let
you build it, although i had no idea what it does." No, it was a secret, at least to the Reapers.

Cerberus didn't find the crucible. moving on.

The oculi are terrible shots, are easily destroyed by escort fighters(no idiot deploys important assets without escorts). Thanix cannons however, one gives a fighter the firepower rivalling a cruiser, a cruiser has 1/4 the firepower of a dreadnought. 4 dreadnoughts can kill a reaper dreadnought, therefore, 16 fighters would kill a reaper. Thanix's can be mounted on fighters, they aren't scaled down, thats the basic size. You would scale them up for anything larger than the Normandy, which mounts two.

#333
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 194 messages

If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.


In order to fight an army needs to eat and it needs equipment to fight with. Both of those things cost money. You can't feed, equip, and supply armies on charity and hope.

You also can't keep that army in the field if the homefront is starving.

You can't name a single instance where a nation was able to wage war without a war chest because there isn't one. And there never will be.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:48 .


#334
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

Han Shot First wrote...


If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.


In order to fight an army needs to eat and it needs equipment to fight with. Both of those things cost money. You can't feed, equip, and supply armies on charity and hope.

You also can't keep that army in the field if the homefront is starving.

You can't name a single instance where a nation was able to wage war without a war chest because there isn't one. And there never will be.


No, they don't "cost money", that's the problem you can't get past.

#335
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

Han Shot First wrote...


If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.


In order to fight an army needs to eat and it needs equipment to fight with. Both of those things cost money. You can't feed, equip, and supply armies on charity and hope.

You also can't keep that army in the field if the homefront is starving.

You can't name a single instance where a nation was able to wage war without a war chest because there isn't one. And there never will be.

No, because this isn't a friggin galactic war against genocidal AIs and hopefully never will be.
Human economics do not have a place here.
If you cannot fight directly against the reapers, you train to do so, if you can't do that, you make ships and weapons, if you can't do that, you mine for materials, if you can't do that, you grow the food for people to eat, if you can't do that, you give medial assistance, if you can't do that, you assist the scientists building the enormous battery(still a stupid concept), if you can't do that then you drive tanks, if you can't do that....ad infinitum
Waging a war doesn't simply mean the soldiers, if all contribute, all win in the end.
No one would say "Well, you're out of money so obviously i can't give you these high powered thanix cannons to arm your ships."
More like "Doesn't matter, if you lose we all die, take the damn things."

#336
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.


I'm an ITer, and from that point of view the best is Destroy. However, looking at it from a literal point of view, I would pick Control, assuming the kid is telling the truth (which I don't believe either).

Agreed. If IT was true (which i sorely wished it was, but it was shot down by Bioware) then destroy would be the best and suddenly the endings are crazy, but make a degree of sense. Also helps explain how Shep survived splosion to the face and orbital impact in melted armour.

Personally i just hate comitting genocide simply to survive, which consists of a slightly wistful looking liara and everyone doing their own thing while i bleed to death. Was not impressed. Where was the closure!?

I thought in the original endings control was the best, because it seemed to have the best chance of rebuilding the relays before everyone starved, Edi survives and stuff too. Now i just kind of think the Narration is badass and i don't have to comit genocide or use actual magic.

Modifié par BerzerkGene, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:59 .


#337
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...


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.

Maybe...
Nah, i think it makes the odds even, making tactics, coordination and intelligence key to victory.
Anyway, "There is no genius without a hint of madness."

Modifié par BerzerkGene, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:04 .


#338
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.


I'm an ITer, and from that point of view the best is Destroy. However, looking at it from a literal point of view, I would pick Control, assuming the kid is telling the truth (which I don't believe either).

Agreed. If IT was true (which i sorely wished it was, but it was shot down by Bioware) then destroy would be the best and suddenly the endings are crazy, but make a degree of sense. Also helps explain how Shep survived splosion to the face and orbital impact in melted armour.

Personally i just hate comitting genocide simply to survive, which consists of a slightly wistful looking liara and everyone doing their own thing while i bleed to death. Was not impressed. Where was the closure!?

I thought in the original endings control was the best, because it seemed to have the best chance of rebuilding the relays before everyone starved, Edi survives and stuff too. Now i just kind of think the Narration is badass and i don't have to comit genocide or use actual magic.


Without turning this into an IT discussion (we do have a thread for that Image IPB), I'd like to clarify that BW has not shot IT down at all, quite the opposite. Not hints or anything, straight up statements. They didn't say it's true, but they said it's still a "valid interpretation of the endings". So, IT is still just as on the table as before, EC really didn't alter it at all. It's a common misconception Image IPB

#339
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.


I'm an ITer, and from that point of view the best is Destroy. However, looking at it from a literal point of view, I would pick Control, assuming the kid is telling the truth (which I don't believe either).

Agreed. If IT was true (which i sorely wished it was, but it was shot down by Bioware) then destroy would be the best and suddenly the endings are crazy, but make a degree of sense. Also helps explain how Shep survived splosion to the face and orbital impact in melted armour.

Personally i just hate comitting genocide simply to survive, which consists of a slightly wistful looking liara and everyone doing their own thing while i bleed to death. Was not impressed. Where was the closure!?

I thought in the original endings control was the best, because it seemed to have the best chance of rebuilding the relays before everyone starved, Edi survives and stuff too. Now i just kind of think the Narration is badass and i don't have to comit genocide or use actual magic.


Without turning this into an IT discussion (we do have a thread for that Image IPB), I'd like to clarify that BW has not shot IT down at all, quite the opposite. Not hints or anything, straight up statements. They didn't say it's true, but they said it's still a "valid interpretation of the endings". So, IT is still just as on the table as before, EC really didn't alter it at all. It's a common misconception Image IPB

Mmm, well i feel that no news is just that, no news. Unless the real ending really was planned as dlc, then its not going to happen. I personally feel Marauder Shields by koobismo is the real ending.
Its the speculation game to keep people interested. If a dlc came out that was the real total and complete ending, and was the IT, unless it was free, i wouldn't get it.
Its on the table, but thats where it stays. Which is too bad. It has much more merit than "Build giant battery to combine with deus ex machina for things that are total nonsense and plot breakers!"

#340
BleedingUranium

BleedingUranium
  • Members
  • 6 118 messages

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...


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.


Which makes this DLC a huge sign saying "Control doesn't work, don't do it!"

Which is odd, i find it the ending that makes the most sense. Brain uploading as opposed to tube that somehow destroys all synthetics or green beam of magic that warps all life in the galaxy.
But starchild makes a mockery of anything approaching logic, sense or Mass Effect lore, its why i still despise the endings.
Even if its a big sign not to do it, it won't change a damn thing. Few assets here and there for some strange reason a reaper on your side, which cannot be justified.


I'm an ITer, and from that point of view the best is Destroy. However, looking at it from a literal point of view, I would pick Control, assuming the kid is telling the truth (which I don't believe either).

Agreed. If IT was true (which i sorely wished it was, but it was shot down by Bioware) then destroy would be the best and suddenly the endings are crazy, but make a degree of sense. Also helps explain how Shep survived splosion to the face and orbital impact in melted armour.

Personally i just hate comitting genocide simply to survive, which consists of a slightly wistful looking liara and everyone doing their own thing while i bleed to death. Was not impressed. Where was the closure!?

I thought in the original endings control was the best, because it seemed to have the best chance of rebuilding the relays before everyone starved, Edi survives and stuff too. Now i just kind of think the Narration is badass and i don't have to comit genocide or use actual magic.


Without turning this into an IT discussion (we do have a thread for that Image IPB), I'd like to clarify that BW has not shot IT down at all, quite the opposite. Not hints or anything, straight up statements. They didn't say it's true, but they said it's still a "valid interpretation of the endings". So, IT is still just as on the table as before, EC really didn't alter it at all. It's a common misconception Image IPB

Mmm, well i feel that no news is just that, no news. Unless the real ending really was planned as dlc, then its not going to happen. I personally feel Marauder Shields by koobismo is the real ending.
Its the speculation game to keep people interested. If a dlc came out that was the real total and complete ending, and was the IT, unless it was free, i wouldn't get it.
Its on the table, but thats where it stays. Which is too bad. It has much more merit than "Build giant battery to combine with deus ex machina for things that are total nonsense and plot breakers!"


Well, a sub-theory of IT is that the Crucible is actually a Reaper trap, which explains how they are so bad at letting each cycle learn about it and build it. And that they can know about it and not do anything, if you save the fake Rachni Queen. The most common idea is that it would actually be a mass-indoctrination device to pacify everyone everywhere. Our way out would be to reverse its effects somehow, so it fires a mass-anti-indoctrination beam thingy everywhere, unindoctrinating everyone, including the Reapers themselves.

Sorry for the tangent, but hey, it kind of got back on topic Image IPB

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:33 .


#341
xxskyshadowxx

xxskyshadowxx
  • Members
  • 1 123 messages
Conventional victory is quite simple, since the developers pigeon-holed Shepard all alone up with the brain controlling the Reapers.

Just find out where it's power box, processor, whatchamacallit is (Hell, just tell the thing you won't believe a thing it says till it proves it actually exists, and is not a hallicination brought on by blood loss....and the dang thing is prolly arrogant enough to show you where "it" actually is). After that, shoot it with your infinate ammo gun to blow it up, then everyone can just blow the braindead pawns right out of the stars. :D

Modifié par xxskyshadowxx, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:34 .


#342
Ztrobos

Ztrobos
  • Members
  • 128 messages

BerzerkGene wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.


In order to fight an army needs to eat and it needs equipment to fight with. Both of those things cost money. You can't feed, equip, and supply armies on charity and hope.

You also can't keep that army in the field if the homefront is starving.

You can't name a single instance where a nation was able to wage war without a war chest because there isn't one. And there never will be.

No, because this isn't a friggin galactic war against genocidal AIs and hopefully never will be.
Human economics do not have a place here.
If you cannot fight directly against the reapers, you train to do so, if you can't do that, you make ships and weapons, if you can't do that, you mine for materials, if you can't do that, you grow the food for people to eat, if you can't do that, you give medial assistance, if you can't do that, you assist the scientists building the enormous battery(still a stupid concept), if you can't do that then you drive tanks, if you can't do that....ad infinitum
Waging a war doesn't simply mean the soldiers, if all contribute, all win in the end.
No one would say "Well, you're out of money so obviously i can't give you these high powered thanix cannons to arm your ships."
More like "Doesn't matter, if you lose we all die, take the damn things."


Does´nt matter. You think this is the first time in history when a society could not afford to loose a war? The bottom line is you will loose ships faster than your volunteer workers could finnish them, even IF you had access to earth´s factory districts. Wich you no longer have.

It boils down to logistics: Can you gather enough materials, food, equipment and men and transport them to a place where they can do some damage?  Maybe once or twice, at heavy cost to your own rescourses, but in the long run? Where will your thranix-mounted starships come from? Not Earth or Palaven for sure.

Your proud workers will not continue "ad infinitum". More likely, they will continue until their last hope has left them, and then they will throw themselves in the sea.

And you will have lost.

#343
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

Ztrobos wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


If a nation lost a war because they "ran out of money", that nation is an idiot.


In order to fight an army needs to eat and it needs equipment to fight with. Both of those things cost money. You can't feed, equip, and supply armies on charity and hope.

You also can't keep that army in the field if the homefront is starving.

You can't name a single instance where a nation was able to wage war without a war chest because there isn't one. And there never will be.

No, because this isn't a friggin galactic war against genocidal AIs and hopefully never will be.
Human economics do not have a place here.
If you cannot fight directly against the reapers, you train to do so, if you can't do that, you make ships and weapons, if you can't do that, you mine for materials, if you can't do that, you grow the food for people to eat, if you can't do that, you give medial assistance, if you can't do that, you assist the scientists building the enormous battery(still a stupid concept), if you can't do that then you drive tanks, if you can't do that....ad infinitum
Waging a war doesn't simply mean the soldiers, if all contribute, all win in the end.
No one would say "Well, you're out of money so obviously i can't give you these high powered thanix cannons to arm your ships."
More like "Doesn't matter, if you lose we all die, take the damn things."


Does´nt matter. You think this is the first time in history when a society could not afford to loose a war? The bottom line is you will loose ships faster than your volunteer workers could finnish them, even IF you had access to earth´s factory districts. Wich you no longer have.

It boils down to logistics: Can you gather enough materials, food, equipment and men and transport them to a place where they can do some damage?  Maybe once or twice, at heavy cost to your own rescourses, but in the long run? Where will your thranix-mounted starships come from? Not Earth or Palaven for sure.

Your proud workers will not continue "ad infinitum". More likely, they will continue until their last hope has left them, and then they will throw themselves in the sea.

And you will have lost.

*Doesn't *lose.
You would lose them if you use them ineffectively. Which is a stupid idea.
Can you? Yes. The whole Miracle at Palaven was one operation by the turians and krogan. When you get access to the tireless merciless machines, whole new options open up. Helps when you have the Elcor flotilla too, which are specifically stated to be predominantly troop transports.
It doesn't boil down to logistics, it boils down to a plan. In intelligent plan. Which the whole sword, shield and hammer fleets is not.
Where will they come from? Have you read nothing i've written? They're already here. I don't know exact numbers but at least 50k heavy ships have them. If you use them at minimum effectiveness thats probably 10,000 dead reapers. Add in ships like the normandy and thanix armed fighters and those numbers rise. If the Reapers continued to try and cover the galaxy, they would be spread far too thin. if they massed together, it would open up new places to harvest from. There are enough spare thanixes to be gifted to the geth too, so yeah. As for production, Earth didn't really have that much, compare to the volus and geth, the former basically arming the turians and the latter having no restrictions and nigh infinite manpower.

I would not expect them to work forever, a few months at most, and again, production lines would be run autonomously, either VI's or Geth. Jobs specifically tailored to machines should be done by machines. Technically you could just have the geth run the entire infastructure of the war, mining, production, shipping, they could do it all. Organic pilots would be the most needed, soldiers would be largely unnecessary in my plans. I would rather spend the time building rather than wasting what i have. But then again, i wouldn't build something with a 0% success rate.
Their last hope is Shepard, basically. As long as Shepard lives, the war can continue, its the whole point of shepard's epic speeches. Hope, either through reasonable arguments or badassery and intimidation.

Modifié par BerzerkGene, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:00 .


#344
BerzerkGene

BerzerkGene
  • Members
  • 520 messages

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

Conventional victory is quite simple, since the developers pigeon-holed Shepard all alone up with the brain controlling the Reapers.

Just find out where it's power box, processor, whatchamacallit is (Hell, just tell the thing you won't believe a thing it says till it proves it actually exists, and is not a hallicination brought on by blood loss....and the dang thing is prolly arrogant enough to show you where "it" actually is). After that, shoot it with your infinate ammo gun to blow it up, then everyone can just blow the braindead pawns right out of the stars. :D


Yeah...Shepard's radio still works, call in joker, thanix the crap out of starkid, see how he feels about that.
Killing him at worst would put the reapers under their own control(who knows what happens then) and at best, cripple them.

#345
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 423 messages

Taboo-XX wrote...

And I'm telling you you can't touch them.

At all.

That's the point.

There is nothing you can do.

Only the combined force of four Dreadnoughts will really do anything and that's difficult to do.

Bioware has stated that it is impossible without using the Crucible.

Accept this and move on.


The Reapers are only undefeatable by Shepard's cycle. With a cycle with sufficent warning, preparation and resources it's entirely feasible for them to be defeated conventionally. With a good amount of those things it'd become a curb stomp battle and the reapers will be the smear on the floor.

Everytime someone says it's impossible to defeat the Reapers I facepalm. Shep's cycle being unable to do it =/= impossible to do.

#346
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages
I'd argue that the Reapers are only unbeatable in ME3 by plot induced stupidity, improper tactics and a gross exaggeration of Reaper numbers.

I find this defeatist talk of inevitability depressing and it makes me wonder why so many readily accept this.

BerzerkGene wrote...

Yeah...Shepard's radio still works, call in joker, thanix the crap out of starkid, see how he feels about that.
Killing him at worst would put the reapers under their own control(who knows what happens then) and at best, cripple them.


At the very least, responding to "The cycle continues." with "If the cycle is going to continue, it'll do so without YOU." would make for one hell of a last stand.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .


#347
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages
This thread is great for a laugh. It's always amusing when people try to bring in military expertise when they have none. Bringing up examples like the Millennium Challenge only heightens the hilarity.


I expect a good laugh after work today when I can read through all of this.

#348
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This thread is great for a laugh. It's always amusing when people try to bring in military expertise when they have none. Bringing up examples like the Millennium Challenge only heightens the hilarity.


I expect a good laugh after work today when I can read through all of this.


Well now you know what it feels like whenever I read one of your posts.

#349
F4H bandicoot

F4H bandicoot
  • Members
  • 1 247 messages

Modifié par F4H bandicoot, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:17 .


#350
Bushido Effect

Bushido Effect
  • Members
  • 1 096 messages

Taboo-XX wrote...

Dude.

This will not, and never can, apply to the Reapers.

You cannot win conventionally. You are told this twice before going to the Citadel for the first time.

You either use the Crucible that you have permission to use, or you die.

It's really ****ing simple.


Hackett would agree.  

This ain't the 21st century, fighting other humans on a single tiny planet, Earth.  This is total Milky Way War!

Modifié par Bushido Effect, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:19 .