1098 réponses à ce sujet

[Legbiter]

Not possible. The Reapers show up massively outnumbering and outgunning the Citadel races and proceed to utterly crush them. All of the major homeworlds are captured along with their industrial and manpower base in a few months. Getting the Crucible to the Citadel was the last throw of the dice.

[Lord Goose]

Honestly, I wouldn't feel bad about losing the battle for
Earth. It wasn't a good mission except for talking to
squaddies. Palaven you need to go there to get the best hope for
convetional victory, Primarch Victus. This guy writes the book
on "not fighting them by the book" which is what we
needed. Sadly, that never came into play. Thessia can still exist because there's some tech in that
beacon that can help.

Actually everything before Thessia could work just fine. Since Shepard simply gathers War Assets at that point. Brokering alliance between Krogans and Turians, making peace between Geth and Quarians, are still ways to create army powerful enough to fight against the Reapers.

Sanctuary and Cronos could work as part of ''deal with Cerberus'' sub-story line.

And I disagree. Shepard was hero of the Mass Effect story. Making him only part of the story would have been bad decision. And they would probably made an MMORPG, or something if they did it.

[MacNasty]

saracen16 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
That's how the story goes. Refuse the Crucible and die. Are you willing to do

And that's bad storytelling.

Your opinion.

Against conventional enemies, yes. We can beat one Reaper conventionally. We can destroy an entire base and its attendant Collectors in one stroke. But we can't beat the Reapers because of many reasons (see below).

1. They don't require supply lines or planets, but we do. Every time a planet falls, a mass relay is destroyed, or a fleet goes into battle, we lose our supply lines because it means less planets and less ships to defend them.

2. They don't require morale. We do. They've got an inexhaustible supply of ships and troops, and they have the turians against the wall. Even with the galaxy's might, there is no way we can continue to fight them and expect our morale to be high when we lose exhaustion and - as evidenced by the game - momentum.

3. They are without number. We have numbers. But they're too many. They've spanned eons of cycles and have become increasingly efficient at their task. They've learned and adapted. That they managed to reach those numbers from ONE REAPER initially is a miracle on its own.

4. They are intelligent and more advanced than we are technologically and tactically. We can hope to beat one battle, but strategically and logistically, they will beat us.

And there are others in the game's story and codex. This is not "because we say so". This is because it's there and you're saying it's possible. Do not ignore the proof before you.

1. The Reapers are slow and methodical. They are not quick because they don't care. Considering this, while Earth may be down, the rest of the Alliance is a-ok and still producing. Besides, they do need resources, they need to refill thier main weapons and get materials to build husk implants. Plus, to them we are resources.

Arcturus station is destroyed, and the Alliance is building the Crucible. I doubt they could muster the strength to destroy them.

2. Morale, sure. Material and ships? No. There are only X amount of Reapers. X amount of Destroyers. X amount of Occuli. They don't spring up out of the ground.

X amount of Reapers over eons (billions of years) = Eons / 50,000 years = 2 x Eons / 10^5 = 2 x 10 ^ 9 / 10^ 5 = 20,000 Sovereign class Reapers AT LEAST + more than that amount of destroyers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the allied forces of the galaxy have.

3. Again, they are not invincible, nor without number. There is only so many of them. Husks are the only "unlimited" portion of thier forces because as long as we are still kicking, theres a CHANCE they can make another husk, but since this is a space-war problem, this isn't too worrying.

TOO many of them, and they are invincible as a whole. Countless eons prove that they are unstoppable and undefeated. There is no race that has survived beyond 50,000 years. And even in space do the warriors need resources. The Reapers in the space war, following your "logic", do not require supply lines for husks or otherwise as they can defeat the organics by cutting off their supply lines.

4. They are also prone to not "thinking outside the box". Do the same plan cycle after cycle against people who developed along the lines they wanted. Deviate from that, and you can be a big pain in the butt.

A big pain in the butt isn't going to kill the Reapers, just slow them down.

Plus, the codex has this:

Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the
Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy.
This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence,
weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated.

We never develop any ot these because the Crucible or Bust.

The organic civilizations have had eons to do that, to learn from the past. There is no indication that they can be beaten conventionally. Here's the Codex again for you:

"The Reapers are technologically superior to the organic species of the galaxy -- but the degree of that superiority is a matter of debate in the intelligence community.The Reapers' thrusters and FTL drives appear to propel them at more than twice the speed of Citadel ships. Estimates of their location in dark space suggest they can travel nearly 30 light-years in a 24-hour period.Reaper power sources seem to violate known physical laws. Reapers usually destroy fuel infrastructure rather than attempting to capture it intact, indicating that Reapers do not require organic species' energy supplies. Consequently, the Reapers attack without regard for maintaining supply lines behind them, except to move husks from one planet to another. Unlike Citadel ships, Reapers do not appear to discharge static buildup from their drive cores, although they sometimes appear wreathed in static discharge when they land on planets.The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers.The kinetic barriers on a Reaper capital ship can shrug off the firepower of a small fleet. Weapons specifically designed to overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on Reaper ships, similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective defense against organic species' fighters."There's more...

1. The thing about destroying them, is everyone is focused on going back to Earth, where we know A LOT of Reapers are. Why go fight the largest portion of them? You have spoken of morale, but when you send all of our forces at such a large portion of their fleet, that's rather foolish.You could have used that fleet to liberate planets, but with the crucible...

2. Even with all those years, there is no saying how many Reapers were destroyed each cycle. Maybe in some cylces they lost a dozen, or two dozen, and only made one. We only know of the Protheans war, yet even then there are no numbers of their fleets and how many reapers they downed. Assuming that they never EVER lose a ship is a pretty foolish notion.

3. I agree they are invincible as a whole... For now. So that's why we shouldn't face their whole group with our fleet, so we have time to reverse engineer their technology, learn their tactics, find better ways to kill them. Then they won't be so powerful.

4. A big pain in the butt is a start. If you start out as that, then you learn and improve, then you become a threat.

Yet in every other cycle, their leadership was dead, they were cut off and the reapers would kill them system by system. They can't do that now, they can't afford to. We have learned from the past, and with Javik, who has a lot of experience fighting Reapers, that could help. There's no saying the other species all learned from the past, or even had indication as to whether or not the Reapers actually were coming.

[saracen16]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
Arcturus station is destroyed, and the Alliance is building the Crucible. I doubt they could muster the strength to destroy them.

Simple, don't build the hazy plot device of uncertainty.

The Reapers are a certainty, so your point fails.

An estimation. A guess. They could only have 300 Capital class Reapers for all we know.

Yet, my "estimation" is more grounded in the actual story. The "300" number has no basis whatsoever.

Don't fight them as a whole. That's stupid. Defeat in detail.

You're intentionally misreading my post. The entire Reaper armada will win the war, but a few of them can lose a battle. The former is more important, but the latter clearly isn't.

How do you know?

Simple: the Reapers. And our disadvantages can not go away in a fortnight.

Because no one else even knew Reapers existed until they knock on your door. We were different thanks to the Protheans. Plus, all we need is a single piece of tech that negates thier kinetic barrier advantage. That's it, and we have crude forms already.

You're asking for space magic, like Rips said. And you're missing the point: the kinetic barrier is just one advantage of theirs. They also have weapons and numbers, and even without kinetic barriers, they can win. What makes you so sure that such a measure won't affect OUR kinetic barriers as well?

[Rip504]

We do not have the "time",Reapers can also adapt,stated by Javik. An Alien who has seen them do so,as have we. Reapers can also learn and improve,becoming more of a threat. We have only seen one Reaper Tactic,it is foolish to think they can not adapt or have no other means. Obviously we have boarded a dead Reaper. Also have killed a very select few.


I have seen and shot down many Conventional victory arguements. I am tired of quoting stats.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13002151/5

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12878011/6#12881295 <- Dreadnought & Thannix Cannon stats.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12941102/26#13084775

I have multiple post in each thread.
It is tiresome.

Modifié par Rip504, 06 août 2012 - 09:55 .

[Vlk3]

I do not support three coloured endings, especially synthesis, which I despise.
But I'm also convinced that conventional victory would take years, maybe even hundreds of years. Shepard and most of his/ her friends would die some day and wouldn't even see the last Reaper falling. Maybe Liara would live to tell the story having this long lifespan of asari. Anyway, all generations would live their entire life fighting a war and facing it's atrocities, same as Protheans once did.
Therefore, to me, the Crucible isn't that unreasonable way to end the Reaper threat. And it's not even bad writing, coming up with such a device. But the way it works is a complete failure, unfortunately. It should disrupt enemies shields so that they could be easily destroyed (the outcome still depends on your war assets). Or it could even destroy all synthetics and that would be more acceptable than what we got. I can sacrifice EDI and geth for that; it even makes some sense.
But the Catalyst- what a terrible idea...all this space magic that is involved is even worse. Really, synthesis? I may understand artistic motivations behind this ending, but half-synthetic plants, animals and every race in galaxy as a result of green explosion is just utter nonsense to say it politely. I can imagine that evolution of intelligent species will be replaced one day by synthetic implants and genetic engineering, but not like that. And don't even tell me about all those rainbows and bunnies, and one big peace-loving family involved in that ending.
Control is more acceptable but still leaves huge plotholes.

There should have been only one possible ending (with some variables depending on the choices). It would not destroy ME Universe the way current endings did. Now it's only possible to create prequels and this is not satisfactory. I'm suprised that Bioware decided to end it that way.

Modifié par Vlk3, 06 août 2012 - 10:05 .

[Ledgend1221]

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

[Rip504]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

They are killing Billions. The bulk of our forces have around 100 Dreadnoughts. (a few more) How will we replace the loss of life and soldiers? Why will the Reapers allow us to divide and conquer? Why can't the Reapers divide and conquer? Why can't the Reapers adapt and change their tactics?


I think it is safe to assume after the many cycles of the Reapers,that the Reapers have indeed seen more then one military strategy. They have been successful against every one of them. It is foolish to assume they have not seen multiple military strategies.

Modifié par Rip504, 06 août 2012 - 10:20 .

[danby]

Skirata129 wrote...

it struck me that a method of overwhelming the Reaper fleet has already been exploited in a modern military exercise to great effect. In an exercise pitting a low tech force against a carrier battlegroup, the Opfor commander achieved victory by swarming the carrier with PT boats armed with rocket launchers.

Could not this same idea be extrapolated to the mass effect universe? Take many small, lightly armored and fast fighters and frigates, arm them with thanix cannons and mob the Reapers. Sure many of them would be shot down, but the Reaper capital ships would be swarmed with the effective firepower of several hundred dreadnaughts, without being presented with the relatively slow and large target a dreadnaught usually displays.

Other methods could be viable of course. Opinions on this and other conventional victory suggestions?

EDIT 1&3 : fixed typos and posting link to wargame where this technique was used. funny, the Admiral in charge's position lines up pretty well with certain defeatists in the game and on these forums... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 This was also the strategy used by the French Navy during the 19th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeune_%C3%89cole

EDIT 2:  Another way to increase total numbers for these swarm attacks would be to equip civillian vessels with Thanix weaponry, particularly sporting craft. These could very well be better suited to this type of assault as civilian craft designed purely for speed and maneuverability but lacking armor seem better suited to getting close and evading fire than an equivalent military fighter, designed to be able to take at least a modicum of punishment. Think of a Nissan GTR versus a Humvee or jeep for a good parallel.

EDIT 3: made this the conventional victory support thread since we're discussing a bit more than just my original tactic.

The problem with your idea is that the reapers have millions of aircraft carrier groups.    The pt boats might be able to take down a few aircraft carriers but they would be wiped out by the hundreds of thousands of other ones.

Probably a better comparison would be the entiretey of the armed forces from ww1 vs the american army of today.  They have tanks/planes/machine guns/ships,  but the american armed forces of today would wipe the crap out of all of them even faceing overwhelming numbers.

[MacNasty]

Vlk3 wrote...

I do not support three coloured endings, especially synthesis, which I despise.
But I'm also convinced that conventional victory would take years, maybe even hundreds of years. Shepard and most of his/ her friends would die some day and wouldn't even see the last Reaper falling. Maybe Liara would live to tell the story having this long lifespan of asari. Anyway, all generations would live their entire life fighting a war and facing it's atrocities, same as Protheans once did.
Therefore, to me, the Crucible isn't that unreasonable way to end the Reaper threat. And it's not even bad writing, coming up with such a device. But the way it works is a complete failure, unfortunately. It should disrupt enemies shields so that they could be easily destroyed (the outcome still depends on your war assets). Or it could even destroy all synthetics and that would be more acceptable than what we got. I can sacrifice EDI and geth for that; it even makes some sense.
But the Catalyst- what a terrible idea...all this space magic that is involved is even worse. Really, synthesis? I may understand artistic motivations behind this ending, but half-synthetic plants, animals and every race in galaxy as a result of green explosion is just utter nonsense to say it politely. I can imagine that evolution of intelligent species will be replaced one day by synthetic implants and genetic engineering, but not like that. And don't even tell me about all those rainbows and bunnies, and one big peace-loving family involved in that ending.
Control is more acceptable but still leaves huge plotholes.

There should have been only one possible ending (with some variables depending on the choices). It would not destroy ME Universe the way current endings did. Now it's only possible to create prequels and this is not satisfactory. I'm suprised that Bioware decided to end it that way.

Someone who sees the truth... Everyone seems to think we people say conventional victory, they mean to charge all the reapers and win immediately. It would take a long time, and many people would die, and generations might even pass. BUT, it could work. And I agree, the Crucible wasn't as bad as people make it out to be, yet it would have been better had they thought out a better way for it to work. Maybe make it so there's no space magic, and it weakens them instead. I personally think they should have planned ahead, and foreshadowed the true way to win before, but that's too much to ask I suppose...

Rip- You seem to think the second we do something that their entire strategem will change. If we, instead of going to Earth, attack in multiple places simeultaneously, we could do some real damage. Use our fleets to inflict damage across the galaxy, securing multiple places. And sure, they've seen many strategies, but they haven't seen any of a galaxy united. Because we're the first cylce with this chance, so we are a completely different threat to them, different than anything they have faced before. Also, you forget Geth Dreadnoughts, who are not limited by the Treaty of Farixen. As well as with the amount of dreadnoughts now, we could use the resources to make more dreadnoughts instead fo the Crucible. Which, can be built by Geth, who are only limited by the resources they have.

And Danby, I wouldn't say that. It would be more like the German forces in world war 2 facing the rest of the forces. They have more advanced technology, but they're not invincible. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me to be a good one, better than most, if not all I have seen.

[Chashan]

Rip504 wrote...


They are killing Billions. The bulk of our forces have around 100 Dreadnoughts. (a few more) How will we replace the loss of life and soldiers? Why will the Reapers allow us to divide and conquer? Why can't the Reapers divide and conquer? Why can't the Reapers adapt and change their tactics?

That number includes civilians they slaughter for their own damned pleasure.

While cas-reps are high, it would be interesting to see how many Reap-hurr husks the Turians tolled the Reap-hurrs in exchange. Not to say Reap-hurrs may not be as concerned at throwing 100 husks at ten Hierarchy troops, but still...

As for "adaptation" of tactics...we hardly see any of that. Reap-hurrs keep applying their bull-rush and non-sensical planetary-drops, they do get blown up even if that requires suicidal operations of select ground-troops. And then there is the interesting entry that the galactic forces_are_"holding steady and winning in key locations".

Somehow, that makes me doubt the Reap-hurrs are as ingenious and unstoppable as is suggested.

I think it is safe to assume after the many cycles of the Reapers,that the Reapers have indeed seen more then one military strategy. They have been successful against every one of them. It is foolish to assume they have not seen multiple military strategies.

Something BW would have owed to present us on-screen had they wanted to opt for that. As is, the cards are not as stacked in the Reap-hurrs' favour as some here make it out to be.

EDIT: There is also the comment by someone from BW, I think it was Mr Weekes even, to consider that this cycle is something of an anomaly as far as downed Reapers are concerned. To me, this possibly suggests that this cycle is "anomaly" enough to dispel Reap-hurr supremacy in the intragalactic theatre.

Modifié par Chashan, 06 août 2012 - 10:35 .

[Rip504]

The Geth whom were getting beat by the Quarians before Reaper aid? Yea I did not account for them. The number still lingers under 200,and I am unimpressed. Do not assume I mean right away,you are stating it may take a long time to defeat the Reapers. Well they can adapt and change at anytime. The Prothean race was a united galaxy,split by Reaper forces. Javik also stated the war was going meh,then the Reapers changed their tactics to adapt to the Protheans form of fighting. After which the Protheans no longer stood a chance. Proof the Reapers can adapt and overcome,and it obviously didn't happen over night.

If we could fight a war on multiple fronts and have a chance of winning,wouldn't at least one military leader suggest this? The entire galaxy chose the crucible,not just Hackett.

The Geth are/were being controlled by the Reapers. The Reapers would have full knowledge and access to any and all Geth resources. At least for the time they controlled them. The Geth can also die mid playthrough,at which point they are not allies. Not to mention Reaper attacks or Indoctrinated agents,during the creation of these new dreadnoughts. So throw away the Crucible to build dreadnought and Thannix Cannons, Which any Reaper is capable of destroying in one shot. A Reaper is capable of destroying more then one dreadnought at a time also.

Chashan wrote...

As for "adaptation" of tactics...we hardly see any of that. Reap-hurrs keep applying their bull-rush and non-sensical planetary-drops, they do get blown up even if that requires suicidal operations of select ground-troops.

Somehow, that makes me doubt the Reap-hurrs are as ingenious and unstoppable as is suggested.

I think it is safe to assume after the many cycles of the Reapers,that the Reapers have indeed seen more then one military strategy. They have been successful against every one of them. It is foolish to assume they have not seen multiple military strategies.

Something BW would have owed to present us on-screen had they wanted to opt for that. As is, the cards are not as stacked in the Reap-hurrs' favour as some here make it out to be.

EDIT: There is also the comment by someone from BW, I think it was Mr Weekes even, to consider that this cycle is something of an anomaly as far as downed Reapers are concerned.To me, this possibly suggests that this cycle is "anomaly" enough to dispel Reap-hurr supremacy in the intragalactic theatre.

Obviously it includes civilians. The loss of Husk life... Is the loss of Allied life...The Reapers adapted in the Prothean war,that was indeed being fought with a different military strategy... "Anomaly" is your secret to conventional victory? Ok.

Modifié par Rip504, 06 août 2012 - 10:49 .

[MacNasty]

Rip504 wrote...

The Geth whom were getting beat by the Quarians before Reaper aid? Yea I did not account for them. The number still lingers under 200,and I am unimpressed. Do not assume I mean right away,you are stating it may take a long time to defeat the Reapers. Well they can adapt and change at anytime. The Prothean race was a united galaxy,split by Reaper forces. Javik also stated the war was going meh,then the Reapers changed their tactics to adapt to the Protheans form of fighting. After which the Protheans no longer stood a chance. Proof the Reapers can adapt and overcome,and it obviously didn't happen over night.

If we could fight a war on multiple fronts and have a chance of winning,wouldn't at least one military leader suggest this? The entire galaxy chose the crucible,not just Hackett.

The Geth are/were being controlled by the Reapers. The Reapers would have full knowledge and access to any and all Geth resources. At least for the time they controlled them. The Geth can also die mid playthrough,at which point they are not allies. Not to mention Reaper attacks or Indoctrinated agents,during the creation of these new dreadnoughts. So throw away the Crucible to build dreadnought and Thannix Cannons, Which any Reaper is capable of destroying in one shot. A Reaper is capable of destroying more then one dreadnought at a time also.

Chashan wrote...

As for "adaptation" of tactics...we hardly see any of that. Reap-hurrs keep applying their bull-rush and non-sensical planetary-drops, they do get blown up even if that requires suicidal operations of select ground-troops. And then there is the interesting entry that the galactic forces_are_"holding steady and winning in key locations".

Somehow, that makes me doubt the Reap-hurrs are as ingenious and unstoppable as is suggested.

I think it is safe to assume after the many cycles of the Reapers,that the Reapers have indeed seen more then one military strategy. They have been successful against every one of them. It is foolish to assume they have not seen multiple military strategies.

Something BW would have owed to present us on-screen had they wanted to opt for that. As is, the cards are not as stacked in the Reap-hurrs' favour as some here make it out to be.

EDIT: There is also the comment by someone from BW, I think it was Mr Weekes even, to consider that this cycle is something of an anomaly as far as downed Reapers are concerned.To me, this possibly suggests that this cycle is "anomaly" enough to dispel Reap-hurr supremacy in the intragalactic theatre.

Obviously it includes civilains. The loss of Husk life... Is the loss of Allied life...The Reapers adapted in the Porthean war,that was indeed being fought in a different military strategy... "anomaly" is your secret to conventional victory? Ok.

The Protheans lacked one thing, however. The ability to adapt. This is stated straightforward by Javik, he says that is why they lost. They could not adapt, they stuck to one strategem, and the Reapers used that against them. And I wouldn't say united, considering that they fell into the same trap as everyone else.

Also, I suppose for a coherent argument, we may need to set up what we would be facing them by. For a conventional victory, I would personally say going by the all the best way would help greatly, and possibly be required. You can't really afford to lose anyone. Curing the genophage, however, would be done, even if you lost some Salarian support.

[Rip504]

They were united under one ruling body. One Ideal. One United Race. Yea,they lost the Citadel,not their way. Which is what the Reapers adapted to,their fighting style. So you say we can adapt. I agree. I say so can the Reapers. So if each side has to adapt and change multiple times,no argument can be held. As it will all be void once everyone adapts. I can counter the Conventional Victory scenario all day,and I have in game content and statistics to fall back on. You are creating a new untold story.

I slightly agree with the rest of what you said. The only problem is,there is no cannon. Forcing us to accept the same outcomes to defeat them Conventionally,defeats the purpose and playstlye of ME3 as a game. Where as the Crucible allows for many different playstyles and outcomes,while still being able to obtain any ending. Be it R,B,G.

Modifié par Rip504, 06 août 2012 - 11:19 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

Really? Only take a year to crank out "several" more dreadnoughts? after ME1, the Alliance Navy started construction on three new dreadnoughts. By the time ME3 started, one had been completed.

That was in peacetime. 

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 06 août 2012 - 11:17 .

[Chashan]

Rip504 wrote...


They were united under one ruling body. One Ideal. One United Race. Yea,they lost the Citadel,not their way. Which is what the Reapers adapted to,their fighting style. So you say we can adapt. I agree. I say so can the Reapers. So if each side has to adapt and change multiple times,no argument can be held. As it will all be void once everyone adapts. I can counter the Conventional Victory scenario all day,and I have in game content and statistics to fall back on. You are creating a new untold story.

I slightly agree with the rest of what you said. The only problem is,there is no cannon. Forcing us to accept the same outcomes to defeat them Conventionally,defeats the purpose and playstlye of ME3 as a game.

Which is a good thing in the case of Rejection, as hard-won up-hill battle against the Reapers that eventually drives them back, if not outright destroy them, can be made up there. 

Looking forward to fannon of that kind in the future at any rate. 

[Ledgend1221]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

Really? Only take a year to crank out "several" more dreadnoughts? after ME1, the Alliance Navy started construction on three new dreadnoughts. By the time ME3 started, one had been completed.

That was in peacetime. 

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

"That was in peacetime."

Exactly. Its now wartime. You have the combined efforts of Quarians, Geth, Humans, Turians, Salarians and Krogan.
A total war effort.

Defeat is stupid. Accept it.

[MacNasty]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

Really? Only take a year to crank out "several" more dreadnoughts? after ME1, the Alliance Navy started construction on three new dreadnoughts. By the time ME3 started, one had been completed.

That was in peacetime. 

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

"That was in peacetime."

Exactly. Its now wartime. You have the combined efforts of Quarians, Geth, Humans, Turians, Salarians and Krogan.
A total war effort.

Defeat is stupid. Accept it.

He has a point. Look at WW2. That took the US out of the depression, drastically increased the rates of production. When people are in true danger, production increases. So it's actualy a good thing it's in wartime, not to mention with the combined forces of the galaxy.

And to Rip. I looked in some of those threads, and it seemed that you were actually losing some of those arguments. I mean the person who you were arguing before here, ticonderoga also had in game statistics. I'm not going to spend the entire night searching for a bunch of statistics, as I can see we are both going to stand our ground, and it will change nothing. Because with adaptation, it is hard to tell who can win. Yet if we adapt and also increase our technology, by taking their's and reverse engineering it, then I think we can win. We've inflicted quite a few casualties as is, and with technology on par with the reapers, I'd say we can inflict more than quite a few. Also, no intention of offending you, but it seems a big part of your arguments is the Reapers adapting. But when we say that we can adapt too, it suddenly is impossible? I understand with both sides adapting it's going to get a bit iffy, yet you seemed quite sure that our adapting was impossible...

[The Spamming Troll]

so has anyone ever given a reason why conventional victory is impossible? other then "bioware wrote it that way."

because i have yet to see it.

its hard for me to understand how someone can so quickly accept the impossibility of conventional victory, but totally falls behind deus ex machina starchild BS.

i mean the reapers cant be beaten without deus ex machina. period? well then! thank god for deus ex machina.

deus ex machina > talented writers?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 07 août 2012 - 12:06 .

[Rip504]

MacNasty wrote...


And to Rip. I looked in some of those threads, and it seemed that you were actually losing some of those arguments. I mean the person who you were arguing before here, ticonderoga also had in game statistics. I'm not going to spend the entire night searching for a bunch of statistics, as I can see we are both going to stand our ground, and it will change nothing. Because with adaptation, it is hard to tell who can win. Yet if we adapt and also increase our technology, by taking their's and reverse engineering it, then I think we can win. We've inflicted quite a few casualties as is, and with technology on par with the reapers, I'd say we can inflict more than quite a few. Also, no intention of offending you, but it seems a big part of your arguments is the Reapers adapting. But when we say that we can adapt too, it suddenly is impossible? I understand with both sides adapting it's going to get a bit iffy, yet you seemed quite sure that our adapting was impossible...

I do not speak in Bias. It is obvious you do. Our adapting into a magical victory. Yea,I consider it highly improbable. Our ability to adapt? No I agree we can adapt.

What in game statistics? Exactly. No need to look them up,because they are simply not there. Quite a few? Less then ten vs Billions of Allied lives lost. Quite a Few? Lmao. The Reapers adapt to us. They are in NO rush. As much as we can adapt,so can they.(Nothing more then a counter to your,"we can adapt" derp Yes we can,so can they. Just because we can & will adapt,it does not in any way mean conventional victory is possible. Just for the simple fact The Reapers can also adapt. Your argument countered by your argument. Nothing more then that.)

Our level of Tech will increase during this war,no matter the case. But to assume it will rival the Reapers Tech is a bit much. "But Thannix Cannons can hurt Reapers." Yea and Reapers can take out multiple dreadnoughts using Thannix Cannons. The battle for Earth is a testimony to Reaper strength& Tech vs ours. The longer the war last,the less likely we are to win. A dramatic change in the war would need to occur. Space Magic,which we already have in game as well.

We are losing Billions of lives. What is going to stop this? At the current pace,without space magic. No a conventional victory within our current ME universe is simply not possible. It would require some sort of space magic. Simple Math points to this. We lose Billions,they lose 5. Eventually our numbers will start to dwindle,while we barley dent the Reaper population. Also with each loss,the Reapers gain strength. We have committed Billions of ground troops to the Reaper threat. When we lose life and strength,they gain it. Obviously not every life lost is converted. A lot are though. We lose Billions,they gain Billions.

Modifié par Rip504, 07 août 2012 - 12:01 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

Really? Only take a year to crank out "several" more dreadnoughts? after ME1, the Alliance Navy started construction on three new dreadnoughts. By the time ME3 started, one had been completed.

That was in peacetime. 

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

"That was in peacetime."

Exactly. Its now wartime. You have the combined efforts of Quarians, Geth, Humans, Turians, Salarians and Krogan.
A total war effort.

Defeat is stupid. Accept it.

It's now wartime. Where the Reapers are decimating planets wholesale. Where billions upon billions of people are dying. Where their first targets were our production facilties and resupply stations.

But sure, no prob, because of the POWER OF FRIENDSHIP or whatever, we can go ahead and build tons and tons of dreadnoughts out of cookies and hugs.

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

[Father_Jerusalem]

MacNasty wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

It takes reapers 50000 years to replace 1 or 2 of their losses. It would only take us a year to crank out several more dreadnoughts. Plus using massive numbers to take out small reaper fleets will work. They have set themselves up for a Divide and Conquer.

Really? Only take a year to crank out "several" more dreadnoughts? after ME1, the Alliance Navy started construction on three new dreadnoughts. By the time ME3 started, one had been completed.

That was in peacetime. 

Refuse is stupid. Accept it.

"That was in peacetime."

Exactly. Its now wartime. You have the combined efforts of Quarians, Geth, Humans, Turians, Salarians and Krogan.
A total war effort.

Defeat is stupid. Accept it.

He has a point. Look at WW2. That took the US out of the depression, drastically increased the rates of production. When people are in true danger, production increases. So it's actualy a good thing it's in wartime, not to mention with the combined forces of the galaxy.

I must have missed the part in WW2 where the Japanese landed in the continental United States after obliterating almost our entire military force, scattering the few surviving warships and wiping out billions of people, destroying our entire infrastructure in the process.

Stupid outdated textbooks, I guess.

(p.s. in this metaphor, the Japanese and Germans would have had to have done the same thing to England and Russia as well)

[Rip504]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...



I must have missed the part in WW2 where the Japanese landed in the continental United States after obliterating almost our entire military force, scattering the few surviving warships and wiping out billions of people, destroying our entire infrastructure in the process.

Stupid outdated textbooks, I guess.

(p.s. in this metaphor, the Japanese and Germans would have had to have done the same thing to England and Russia as well)

Maybe America are the Reapers in this case... Using their Tech,Strength,experience,and numbers to swiftly help end a World War... After sustaining unexpected Losses. Germany was a Prothean type race. Uniting under Fire and killing millions for their cause.. America,rather the Allied Nations did face a united threat,in which millions of lives were being lost.

Modifié par Rip504, 07 août 2012 - 12:17 .

[MacNasty]

Rip504 wrote...

MacNasty wrote...


And to Rip. I looked in some of those threads, and it seemed that you were actually losing some of those arguments. I mean the person who you were arguing before here, ticonderoga also had in game statistics. I'm not going to spend the entire night searching for a bunch of statistics, as I can see we are both going to stand our ground, and it will change nothing. Because with adaptation, it is hard to tell who can win. Yet if we adapt and also increase our technology, by taking their's and reverse engineering it, then I think we can win. We've inflicted quite a few casualties as is, and with technology on par with the reapers, I'd say we can inflict more than quite a few. Also, no intention of offending you, but it seems a big part of your arguments is the Reapers adapting. But when we say that we can adapt too, it suddenly is impossible? I understand with both sides adapting it's going to get a bit iffy, yet you seemed quite sure that our adapting was impossible...

I do not speak in Bias. It is obvious you do. Our adapting into a magical victory. Yea,I consider it highly improbable. Our ability to adapt? No I agree we can adapt.

What in game statistics? Exactly. No need to look them up,because they are simply not there. Quite a few? Less then ten vs Billions of Allied lives lost. Quite a Few? Lmao. The Reapers adapt to us. They are in NO rush. As much as we can adapt,so can they.(Nothing more then a counter to your,"we can adapt" derp Yes we can,so can they. Just because we can & will adapt,does it in any way mean conventional victory is possible. Just for the simple fact The Reapers can also adapt. Your argument countered by your agruement. Nothing more then that.)

Our level of Tech will increase during this war,no matter the case. But to assume it will rival the Reapers Tech is a bit much. "But Thannix Cannons can hurt Reapers." Yea and Reapers can take out multiple dreadnoughts using Thannix Cannons. The battle for Earth is a testimony to Reaper strength& Tech vs ours. The longer the war last,the less likely we are to win. A dramatic change in the war would need to occur. Space Magic,which we already have in game as well.

We are losing Billions of lives. What is going to stop this? At the current pace,without space magic. No a conventional victory within our current ME universe is simply not possible. It would require some sort of space magic. Simple Math points to this. We lose Billions,they lose 5. Eventually our numbers will start to dwindle,while we barley dent the Reaper population. Also with each loss,the Reapers gain strength. We have committed Billions of ground troops to the Reaper threat. When we lose life and strength,they gain it. Obviously not every life lost is converted. A lot are though. We lose Billions,they gain Billions.

It seems you got offended...

Well, the in game statistics being that they aren't the infallalible machines they are made out to be. While those dreadnoughts will be destroyed instantly, if you have all four fire at a reaper before it turns around fully, than it's dead, correct? We can turn faster, so saying that we lose by that standard instantly is wrong. Plus, when you reverse engineer something, it tends to get very close to, if not at the level of, the Reapers. And the "less than 10" that we know about. I'm fairly sure we know about more than ten at the least, because of the Turians. And saying the longer the war goes on, the less likely we are to win is a bit much. We haven't seen enough of this war to say how things are playing out. We're losing, true. Yet, we don't know how fast the Reapers will adapt, or how fast our technology will increase, or how fast we will lose each planet. Saying a conventional victory is "simply not possible" is a bad way of putting it. Highly unlikely? Maybe not incredibly unlikely, but I'd say something along the lines of unlikely. Personally, if I were to be able to make decisions there are certain decisions I would make, that I think could easily help. I know I can't, but I figured I would just add that in. Also, no need to degenerate to the "derp" things and the like. Keeping the conversation civil is not hard. With them being in no rush, that is helping us, you should realize that. they take planets slowly, and that gives us time to regroup advance and adapt. About the fact that we would need space magic, you're assuming we would go in and attack the largest portion of their force directly. If we attack them in smaller groups, with large fleets to fight smaller groups than them, not only would that increase the morale, it would also serve to provide subjecs for research, and advancement of technology, not to mention we can secure areas. I understand there would be losses, but with smart tactics, the losses can be minimized. 

To say you don't speak in bias is a flat out lie. No offense. We all speak in bias. No matter what you think, bias comes into our arguments. I admit I likely am speaking in bias, but to say one isn't is a rather arrogant way of looking at things.

I realized this lacks a bit of structure, but I kept looking up at random parts of your post and responding to them...

[RoboticWays]

I just like to imagine how badass the race that blew the derelict reaper to shreds in ME2 felt after they did it.