343 réponses à ce sujet

[Peranor]

The Twilight God wrote...

anorling wrote...

People can of course speculate and try to come up with their own logical reason for Harby not to fire. But in the end thats just "headcanon". If people are looking for writers intent there is none to be found.

You can't think of a single rational for the concept that Harbinger wants Shepard alive?

If your train of thought is that you must be hand feed every detail and shouldn't be required to recall past events to decipher the context of present situations or that all events must be self-contained and not foreshadowed I'm not going to argue with you as you clearly want to believe what you want to believe. 

You're not listening to me. I and many other people could come up with lots of reasons as to why Harby wouldn't want to attack the Normandy. What I'm saying is that I believe Bioware didn't have a reason. They forgot about it. They never thought about it. I believe there is no writers intent for the weird evacuation scene. That is what I'm saying. English isn't my first language, so I sometimes have problem finding words to describe things. But I feel I made myself pretty clear about that part.
So If you're going to continue with the childish "hand/spoonfeeding" and "ignorance" comments and just keep ignoring what I'm writing then I'm not going to argue with you either.

[Maxster_]

Han Shot First wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

[Here we go again.
Explosion of the Normandy would've ended that retarded offence in swift and deadly way. A lot more effective than shooting individual soldiers.

No, it wouldn't.

The destruction of the Normandy SR1 was no where near that dramatic. Destroying the SR2 would have killed everyone aboard and a few Marines in the immediate vicinity, but it would not have even come close to annihilating the entire ground force.

Watch Earth intro and explosion of a crusier.

The Normandy during the evac scene is simply not important from a military point of view. It doesn't pose a threat to Harbinger, it isn't directly involved in the attack, and it is in the rear evacuating wounded. The priorities were the dismounted infantry, tanks, and gunships that actually did pose a threat to Harbinger and who were closing rapidly on the beam. Harbinger stuck to his priority targets, like the disciplined professional that he is.

You have no credibility saying something about " military point of view", after saying that unless directly ordered not to leave position and role, a soldier would do anything he wants in a battle, especially running away from position to do some retarded things. You never were in a military. That is called a desertion, and punished by death in a war.

Also, entire retarded offensive never posed a threat to a Harbringer.
And Harbringer deliberately lowered power of his guns just for fun. He could just one-shot entire retarded offensive with a main gun.

Modifié par Maxster_, 01 octobre 2012 - 04:50 .

[Maxster_]

anorling wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

anorling wrote...

People can of course speculate and try to come up with their own logical reason for Harby not to fire. But in the end thats just "headcanon". If people are looking for writers intent there is none to be found.

You can't think of a single rational for the concept that Harbinger wants Shepard alive?

If your train of thought is that you must be hand feed every detail and shouldn't be required to recall past events to decipher the context of present situations or that all events must be self-contained and not foreshadowed I'm not going to argue with you as you clearly want to believe what you want to believe. 

You're not listening to me. I and many other people could come up with lots of reasons as to why Harby wouldn't want to attack the Normandy. What I'm saying is that I believe Bioware didn't have a reason. They forgot about it. They never thought about it. I believe there is no writers intent for the weird evacuation scene. That is what I'm saying. English isn't my first language, so I sometimes have problem finding words to describe things. But I feel I made myself pretty clear about that part.
So If you're going to continue with the childish "hand/spoonfeeding" and "ignorance" comments and just keep ignoring what I'm writing then I'm not going to argue with you either.

I like my Starchild Arcade Game Theory

Modifié par Maxster_, 01 octobre 2012 - 04:52 .

[jstme]

Han Shot First wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

[Here we go again.
Explosion of the Normandy would've ended that retarded offence in swift and deadly way. A lot more effective than shooting individual soldiers.

No, it wouldn't.

The destruction of the Normandy SR1 was no where near that dramatic. Destroying the SR2 would have killed everyone aboard and a few Marines in the immediate vicinity, but it would not have even come close to annihilating the entire ground force.

The Normandy during the evac scene is simply not important from a military point of view. It doesn't pose a threat to Harbinger, it isn't directly involved in the attack, and it is in the rear evacuating wounded. The priorities were the dismounted infantry, tanks, and gunships that actually did pose a threat to Harbinger and who were closing rapidly on the beam. Harbinger stuck to his priority targets, like the disciplined professional that he is.

Harbinger is a prophet....
Because it clearly understands that armed starship traveling to the beam from Earth's orbit in a matter of seconds is not a threat, while a slow chopper flying to the beam is a clear OMG danger danger danger.
Thinking about it some more, maybe Harby knew that chopper = plot armor in ME3 and thus indeed much more dangerous then something that merely took down collector base.  

[Han Shot First]

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


The destruction of the Normandy SR1 was not anywhere near as dramatic as the destruction of the dreadnought at the beginning of ME3. As such, there isn't any indication that destroying the Normandy would have caused significant casualties beyond the crew of the ship and the few Marines caught in the immediate vicinity. Also, the Normandy was deployed quite a ways back from the beam, making it much less of a priority than the tanks, gunships, and dismounted infantry that were much nearer to the beam and rapidly closing.

[b]So, you have no proof that Normandy explosion would not be effective against infantry.[b] Especially knowing that most explosive thing is eezo core, that on SR-2 have size of cruiser drive core.
Also, dreadnought can't enter the atmosphere, and in intro  was cruiser that was destroyed.
So it is exactly same as intro explosion.

It seems that you never read the codex, and don't know what are you talking about.
And, it is completely retarded, that Harbringer not destroyed Normandy.

You likewise have no proof that the Normandy explosion would annihilate the ground force. Both of our arguments are based entirely on the destruction of other ships in the game. You are basing yours on the destruction of the dreadnought, and I'm basing mine on the destruction of the Normandy SR1.

And it is a dreadnought that is destroyed in the atmopshere, not a cruiser. It is even referred to as a dreadnought in dialogue.

The truth is that we can only guess at what the damage would have been if the Normandy SR2 was destroyed. I think the Normandy SR1 however makes a much better comparison than a dreadnought. And the destruction of the Normandy SR1, was not that impressive.

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


I've already covered that. The frigates would then become priority targets and most would probably not even survive to disembark their troops. The infantry are safer while disbursed on the ground.

You haven't covered nothing. Frigates are faster than reaper dreadnoughts, and with thanix they can fight back. So,  first plan - use stealth frigate normandy to unload troops before the beam, frigate packs act as cover, and entire fleet as a distraction. If that fails, backup plan - using frigate packs to try to unload as many troups as they can. If that is also fails, then full ground invasion.

Also why infantry should be safer, exactly? Their only task to get inside the citadel seize control of it, and open wards.
And in that situation, their losses are completely irrelevant, and actually lesser than what we got.

The frigates could do absolutely no damage to Harbinger. The Normandy SR1 was able to destroy Sovereign only because Shepard had already managed to bring down its shields. It takes the equivalent of four dreadnoughts to damage a Sovereign class Reaper. An attack by a pack of frigates on Harbinger would be no more dangerous to him than attack by a swarm of gnats.

Also your plan to use the Normandy to disembark troops is wouldn't work, which is why the Alliance didn't go that route. If the Normandy were actually involved in deploying troops it would have become a priority target for Harbinger, and  wouldn't have been airborne for long.

Maxster_ wrote...


You said you served in military to back up your position in discussion?

Lets recap:

I had said that from a military point of view, Harbinger targeting the ground force and not focusing on the Normandy was sound. You then hammered out a snarky reply, attempting to mock my use of that phrase by using it multiple times to point out elements you considered flawed.

I only mentioned my military service in reply to that, and it wasn't with the intent of bolstering my argument. In fact any discussion of real world militaries only has a very limited application to Mass Effect, since ME is fiction. I do however take issue with someone whose only exposure to either the military or infantry tactics is a few Call of Duty games, attempting to mock my use of the phrase 'military point of view.' In short, think I have a better handle on that, than you. 

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


Where and when did Admiral Hackett issue orders that the Normandy was not break off from Sword under any circumstances? Joker can't disobey orders that don't exist.

lolwut? So, any soldier in a battle that hasn't given specifical order to not to leave, have right to run anywhere and do anything he want?

By saying that you lost any credibility. Just admit that you lied about your military service.

You quite obviously do not have a single clue of what you are talking about. Seriously, just stop.

In the real world units often are given some flexibility to act in the absence of orders, and to adapt to the situation at hand. The very nature of combat is chaotic and you want your small unit leaders to be able to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Any army that is inflexible and exists in an enviroment where nothing can happen without orders from high command is one that is doomed to defeat.

Additionally, you do not know what the Normandy's orders are or even who it was attached to. It is likely, given that no one attempts to command the Normandy to rejoin Sword, is that Hackett had specifically detailed the ship out to use as Shepard saw fit.

As for my military service, I served four years in the US Marine Corps.

If you want to continue to make that an issue however, I could post proof. But you'd also have to make it worth my while. We could make a wager out of it. If I post images both past and present, and/or my DD-214 (proof of service) or Honorable Discharge certificate, you'd have to donate $50.00 (or the equivalent) to a veteran's charity of my choosing. You of course, would also have to offer proof of payment.

If you live outside the US I'll find a suitable charity for wounded or disabled British, Australian, Canadian, ect veterans. So you'd be donating for your own.

What say you?

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


1 and 2: A shuttle would have made more sense for the medevac, but just about every other criticism of the evac scene is invalid. It is also a minor issue, as the Normandy is more dramatic (in fiction sometimes drama trumps realism), and Cortez was potentially dead and the shuttle potentially destroyed.

3. Deploying troops from the Normandy just would have gotten the Normandy destroyed, and those troops along with it. The infantry is safer making the push while disbursed on the ground.

1, 2 - is not a minor issue, it is completely retarded and ooc for Shepard and crew. It also not dramatic, just so retarded that it is laughable, because completely unrealistic, stupid, and ooc.
Also saying that only Cortez can pilot the shuttle in entire allied fleets - retarded just the same.

3. You again evading point, that Harbringer was drawn to a beam because of that retarded ground invasion. If Normandy was used first to deploy the troops reapers wouldn't have time to react, leaving beam undefended.

Why wouldn't Cortez be able to pilot a shuttle to Earth? Space is vast, and if the Normandy could maneuver through all those ships to make it to Earth, a much smaller shuttle certainly could.

The ground invasion was necessary because the Reapers had London garrisoned with troops and anti-aircraft weaponry. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to get close to the beam without it. Remember one of the primary objectives of the ground invasion early on was taking down the Reapers anti-aircraft capabilities.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 01 octobre 2012 - 06:20 .

[SaidRael]

I was just looking at the emotional scene. *crying*

[Dark_Caduceus]

Ummmmm, no.

First of all this is just supposition, stop trying to make excuses for their bad writing.

Second of all, if the Reapers can't use any visual detection then ANY stealth ship would be able to just get in the Reaper lines and cut them apart.

Third, if the Normandy's code was altered to make it invisible to Harbinger at close range, then why can other Reaper ships detect across solar systems when it pings?

Nope, just terrible writing, not surprising.

[CronoDragoon]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Third, if the Normandy's code was altered to make it invisible to Harbinger at close range, then why can other Reaper ships detect across solar systems when it pings?

IFFs are not a cloak for a ship. They are a code proactively sent out by ships to identify themselves to anyone picking up the code. Thus, if the IFF's code is the only thing being broadcast from the ship, it is effectively scanned as a Reaper.

Guess what isn't identical to that IFF code? Scanning signals. The moment a Reaper picks that up, it knows despite the IFF that this isn't a Reaper.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


The destruction of the Normandy SR1 was not anywhere near as dramatic as the destruction of the dreadnought at the beginning of ME3. As such, there isn't any indication that destroying the Normandy would have caused significant casualties beyond the crew of the ship and the few Marines caught in the immediate vicinity. Also, the Normandy was deployed quite a ways back from the beam, making it much less of a priority than the tanks, gunships, and dismounted infantry that were much nearer to the beam and rapidly closing.

[/quote]
So, you have no proof that Normandy explosion would not be effective against infantry. Especially knowing that most explosive thing is eezo core, that on SR-2 have size of cruiser drive core.
Also, dreadnought can't enter the atmosphere, and in intro  was cruiser that was destroyed.
So it is exactly same as intro explosion.

It seems that you never read the codex, and don't know what are you talking about.
And, it is completely retarded, that Harbringer not destroyed Normandy.
[/quote]

You likewise have no proof that the Normandy explosion would annihilate the ground force. Both of our arguments are based entirely on the destruction of other ships in the game. You are basing yours on the destruction of the dreadnought, and I'm basing mine on the destruction of the Normandy SR1.

And it is a dreadnought that is destroyed in the atmopshere, not a cruiser. It is even referred to as a dreadnought in dialogue.

The truth is that we can only guess at what the damage would have been if the Normandy SR2 was destroyed. I think the Normandy SR1 however makes a much better comparison than a dreadnought. And the destruction of the Normandy SR1, was not that impressive.
[/quote]
As i thought, you have no idea about ME lore at all.

Cruisers are middle-weight combatants, faster than dreadnoughts,
and more heavily-armed than frigates. Cruisers are the standard patrol
unit, and often lead frigate flotillas. Cruisers cannot land on medium
or high-gravity worlds, but do possess the ability to land on
low-gravity planets.



Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge
their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit.
The decks of large vessels are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis
of thrust, so that the "top" decks are towards the front of the ship
and the "bottom" decks are towards the rear of the ship.


Sovereign

The attack on Eden Prime demostrated Sovereign's ability to generate mass effect fields powerful enough to land on a planetary surface. This implies it has a massive element zero core, and the ability to generate staggering amounts of power.



Only dreadnoughts capable of withstand medium-high-low gravity are reapers, because of their drive core(which is much larger than anything any existing race made for ships). And certainly not a Earth Alliance dreadnought.

Even if they could, [b]which is completely contradicts ME lore, use of that dreadnought in intro is completely retarded. Range of combat for dreadnoughts is thousands of km. And in atmosphere, they would just destroy themselves using main gun at that range.

So it was a cruiser, and it's explosion is my proof. And you have none, except for your fantasies based over EAWare ignorance of their own lore.

They are even stated that was a error.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


I've already covered that. The frigates would then become priority targets and most would probably not even survive to disembark their troops. The infantry are safer while disbursed on the ground.
[/quote]
You haven't covered nothing. Frigates are faster than reaper dreadnoughts, and with thanix they can fight back. So,  first plan - use stealth frigate normandy to unload troops before the beam, frigate packs act as cover, and entire fleet as a distraction. If that fails, backup plan - using frigate packs to try to unload as many troups as they can. If that is also fails, then full ground invasion.

Also why infantry should be safer, exactly? Their only task to get inside the citadel seize control of it, and open wards.
And in that situation, their losses are completely irrelevant, and actually lesser than what we got.[/quote]

The frigates could do absolutely no damage to Harbinger. The Normandy SR1 was able to destroy Sovereign only because Shepard had already managed to bring down its shields. It takes the equivalent of four dreadnoughts to damage a Sovereign class Reaper. An attack by a pack of frigates on Harbinger would be no more dangerous to him than attack by a swarm of gnats.

Also your plan to use the Normandy to disembark troops is wouldn't work, which is why the Alliance didn't go that route. If the Normandy were actually involved in deploying troops it would have become a priority target for Harbinger, and  wouldn't have been airborne for long.
[/quote]
So, you are continuing to completely ignore points that you don't like.
[b]The only reason Harbringer was near the beam, is because of that retarded ground assault

Read again what i wrote.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


You said you served in military to back up your position in discussion?
[/quote]


Lets recap:

I had said that from a military point of view, Harbinger targeting the ground force and not focusing on the Normandy was sound. You then hammered out a snarky reply, attempting to mock my use of that phrase by using it multiple times to point out elements you considered flawed.

I only mentioned my military service in reply to that, and it wasn't with the intent of bolstering my argument. In fact any discussion of real world militaries only has a very limited application to Mass Effect, since ME is fiction. I do however take issue with someone whose only exposure to either the military or infantry tactics is a few Call of Duty games, attempting to mock my use of the phrase 'military point of view.' In short, think I can have a better handle on that, than you. 
[/quote]
That's internet you know. How do you know that your opponent never served the military in a rank of commanding officer?
It was intent to bolster your argument and it failed miserably.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Where and when did Admiral Hackett issue orders that the Normandy was not break off from Sword under any circumstances? Joker can't disobey orders that don't exist.
[/quote]
lolwut? So, any soldier in a battle that hasn't given specifical order to not to leave, have right to run anywhere and do anything he want?

By saying that you lost any credibility. Just admit that you lied about your military service.[/quote]

You quite obviously do not have a single clue of what you are talking about. Seriously, just stop.

In the real world units often are given some flexibility to act in the absence of orders, and to adapt to the situation at hand. The very nature of combat is chaotic and you want your small unit leaders to be able to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Any army that is inflexible and exists in an enviroment where nothing can happen with out orders from high command is one that is doomed to defeat.
[/quote]
Lol what? Joker completely ignoring chain of command, leaving position and role in a fleet, to follow retarded order of ashored officer? And that is a flexibility?
Also, captain or xo of normandy in no way unit leaders. Shepard have no experience leading even frigate pack, and he is most experienced in commanding fleet warfare on entire ship.
No sane commanding officer would place anyone from Normandy on even frigate pack leader, especially in that fight.
And chain of command to Hackett are much longer than just frigate pack leader.

Also, this again clearly shows, that you have no idea what are you talking about. Army without chain of command, or soldiers and unit leaders ignoring their position and role for "flexibility" - is no army at all.
[quote]
Additionally, you do not know what the Normandy's orders are or even who it was attached to. It is likely, given that no one attempts to command the Normandy to rejoin Sword, is that Hackett had specifically detailed the ship out to use as Shepard saw fit.
[/quote]
Yeah, i don't know exactly, to whom normandy captain is answering, and size of chain of command to Hackett.
I do, however, know lore of ME regarding fleet tactics, and military doctrines and tactics of US, Nato countries and other. Of course i don't remeber any possible detail.
Those things are teaching at most universties in Russia(with military faculty, which are most).
[quote]
As for my military service, I served four years in the Marine Corps.

If you want to continue to make that an issue however, I could post proof. But you'd also have to make it worth my while. We could make a wager out of it. If I post images both past and present, and/or my DD-214 (proof of service) or Honorable Discharge certificate, you'd have to donate $50.00 (or the equivalent) to a veteran's charity of my choosing. You of course, would also have to offer proof of payment.

If you live outside the US I'll find a suitable charity for wounded or disabled British, Australian, Canadian, ect veterans. So you'd be donating for your own.

What say you?
[/quote]
Not interesed, thanks.
I don't really care served you in military or not. Either you have no idea about desertery, flexibility and how bad is to ignore your chain of command in a war. Or you just trying to defend ME3 retardness so hard, that started to undermine your own credibility by saying things which you know as clearly untrue.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


1 and 2: A shuttle would have made more sense for the medevac, but just about every other criticism of the evac scene is invalid. It is also a minor issue, as the Normandy is more dramatic (in fiction sometimes drama trumps realism), and Cortez was potentially dead and the shuttle potentially destroyed.

3. Deploying troops from the Normandy just would have gotten the Normandy destroyed, and those troops along with it. The infantry is safer making the push while disbursed on the ground.



[/quote]
1, 2 - is not a minor issue, it is completely retarded and ooc for Shepard and crew. It also not dramatic, just so retarded that it is laughable, because completely unrealistic, stupid, and ooc.
Also saying that only Cortez can pilot the shuttle in entire allied fleets - retarded just the same.

3. You again evading point, that Harbringer was drawn to a beam because of that retarded ground invasion. If Normandy was used first to deploy the troops reapers wouldn't have time to react, leaving beam undefended.

[/quote]

Why wouldn't Cortez be able to pilot a shuttle to Earth? Space is vast, and if the Normandy could maneuver through all those ships to make it to Earth, a much smaller shuttle certainly could.

The ground invasion was necessary because the Reapers had London garrisoned with troops and anti-aircraft weaponry. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to get close to the beam without it. Remember one of the primary objectives of the ground invasion early on was taking down the Reapers anti-aircraft capabilities.
[/quote]
What is cortez have to do with anything? Allied fleet has lot of pilots, as is ground forces.

Anti-aircraft weaponry barely enough to destroy a shuttle, completely annihilates a frigate. Yeah, sure.
Ground invasion is completely retarded, unneeded and led to 100% losses of a ground forces. Everyone involved in planning that retarded clown show of a operation, is having a negative IQ.

Modifié par Maxster_, 01 octobre 2012 - 07:29 .

[Maxster_]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Third, if the Normandy's code was altered to make it invisible to Harbinger at close range, then why can other Reaper ships detect across solar systems when it pings?

IFFs are not a cloak for a ship. They are a code proactively sent out by ships to identify themselves to anyone picking up the code. Thus, if the IFF's code is the only thing being broadcast from the ship, it is effectively scanned as a Reaper.

Guess what isn't identical to that IFF code? Scanning signals. The moment a Reaper picks that up, it knows despite the IFF that this isn't a Reaper.

Please tell me, oh enlightened one, how exactly reapers are tracking Normandy SR-2 in a FTL? You do know, I suppose, that inter-system is on FTL, yes?

[thearbiter1337]

Yet Traynor says that the Rannoch Reaper fired at them a few times

[The Twilight God]

anorling wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

anorling wrote...

People can of course speculate and try to come up with their own logical reason for Harby not to fire. But in the end thats just "headcanon". If people are looking for writers intent there is none to be found.

You can't think of a single rational for the concept that Harbinger wants Shepard alive?

If your train of thought is that you must be hand feed every detail and shouldn't be required to recall past events to decipher the context of present situations or that all events must be self-contained and not foreshadowed I'm not going to argue with you as you clearly want to believe what you want to believe. 

You're not listening to me. I and many other people could come up with lots of reasons as to why Harby wouldn't want to attack the Normandy. What I'm saying is that I believe Bioware didn't have a reason. They forgot about it. They never thought about it. I believe there is no writers intent for the weird evacuation scene. That is what I'm saying. English isn't my first language, so I sometimes have problem finding words to describe things. But I feel I made myself pretty clear about that part.
So If you're going to continue with the childish "hand/spoonfeeding" and "ignorance" comments and just keep ignoring what I'm writing then I'm not going to argue with you either.

Everyone is ignorant. For instance, I don;t know your real name. In that regard I am ignorant. No need to get offending.

For the record you never said "you believe". You made claims of absolute authority that there is no reason and that the scene was a goof up. Never were your words ever so humble as to imply you felt it was merely an opinion on your parts. That it was not conveyed in your post may be due to the language barrier.

[Han Shot First]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...



And it is a dreadnought that is destroyed in the atmopshere, not a cruiser. It is even referred to as a dreadnought in dialogue.


[/quote]

As i thought, you have no idea about ME lore at all.

*snip*

Only dreadnoughts capable of withstand medium-high-low gravity are reapers, because of their drive core(which is much larger than anything any existing race made for ships). And certainly not a Earth Alliance dreadnought.

Even if they could, which is completely contradicts ME lore, use of that dreadnought in intro is completely retarded. Range of combat for dreadnoughts is thousands of km. And in atmosphere, they would just destroy themselves using main gun at that range.

So it was a cruiser, and it's explosion is my proof. And you have none, except for your fantasies based over EAWare ignorance of their own lore.

They are even stated that was a error.

[/quote]

I'm well aware of what the lore states regarding dreadnoughts and planets with medium or high gravity.

The ship thet gets destroyed in Earth's atmopshere however, is a dreadnought. It both looks like a dreadnought and it is referred to as one in actual in-game dialogue. Case closed.

While that appears to have been a case of previously established lore having been forgotten, an in game explanation for how the dreadnought was able to enter Earth's atmosphere can be found. The lore itself actually only states that dreadnoughts can't land on planets with with medium or high gravity. The dreadnought in question, of course did not land on Earth. It was still very much in the atmosphere when it was destroyed. There is also nothing in the lore that states that a dreadnought wouldn't survive trying to land on Earth. For all we know the prohibition against landing on planets with medium or high gravity could be linked more to difficulty in trying to escape that planets gravity well, and either difficulty or an outright inability to achieve escape velocity.

In short, it may not be that a dreadnought can't land on an Earth-like planet. But rather that it might get stuck there.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...



So, you are continuing to completely ignore points that you don't like.

The only reason Harbringer was near the beam, is because of that retarded ground assault.

Read again what i wrote.[/quote]


And a ground assault was needed, because London was both garrisoned by Reaper troops and protected by anti-air defenses. The Alliance wouldn't have been able to get near the beam without it.





[quote]Maxster_ wrote...



That's internet you know. How do you know that your opponent never served the military in a rank of commanding officer?
It was intent to bolster your argument and it failed miserably.

[/quote]

I knew you never served in the military by posts that indicated you had a very poor understanding of how real world militaries operate.

A good example of that is the post where you seemed to indicate that the Normandy could not leave Sword under any circumstances, unless specifically ordered to do so by high command. That's just not how it works in the real world. Or I should say, that isn't how it works for modern militaries. Armies that serve dictatorships in the Middle East or Africa are another story.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


Lol what? Joker completely ignoring chain of command, leaving position and role in a fleet, to follow retarded order of ashored officer? And that is a flexibility?

Also, captain or xo of normandy in no way unit leaders. Shepard have no experience leading even frigate pack, and he is most experienced in commanding fleet warfare on entire ship.

No sane commanding officer would place anyone from Normandy on even frigate pack leader, especially in that fight.
And chain of command to Hackett are much longer than just frigate pack leader.

Also, this again clearly shows, that you have no idea what are you talking about. Army without chain of command, or soldiers and unit leaders ignoring their position and role for "flexibility" - is no army at all.
[/quote]

Oh boy, where to start...

Joker ignored chain of command: Care to point to a single line of dialogue, or a cutscene, where Joker disobeys an order from Hackett? Care to point to the scene where Joker is ordered to rejoin Sword and refuses? Oh that's right..you can't, because no such scene exists. You've completely made that up. Let me repeat: There is no scene where the Normandy is given orders that specify that it is not to leave Sword under any circumstances. Joker cannot disobey an order that does not exist.

The notion that Joker disobeyed orders is both an example of you inserting your head canon into the game, and an example of you not having the slightest idea of how real world militaries function.


Shepard is not a unit commander:   All of the Alliance personnel assigned on a permanent basis to the Normandy, are part of a single unit. And Shepard is their commanding officer. Ergo, he is a unit commander.


Nothing happens without orders from higher up the chain of command: Wrong again. A capable army is one in which authority is delegated to subordinates, initiative in junior officers and NCOs is both developed and encouraged, and one which posseses flexibility and an ability to adapt the plan to any circumstance.




[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Additionally, you do not know what the Normandy's orders are or even who it was attached to. It is likely, given that no one attempts to command the Normandy to rejoin Sword, is that Hackett had specifically detailed the ship out to use as Shepard saw fit.
[/quote]

Yeah, i don't know exactly, to whom normandy captain is answering, and size of chain of command to Hackett.
I do, however, know lore of ME regarding fleet tactics, and military doctrines and tactics of US, Nato countries and other. Of course i don't remeber any possible detail.
Those things are teaching at most universties in Russia(with military faculty, which are most).
[/quote]


Your contention that the Normandy could not detach from Sword under any circumstance, is a good example of why a few books, articles, or classes never trump real world first hand experience.

That's just not how it works in the real world.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


1 and 2: A shuttle would have made more sense for the medevac, but just about every other criticism of the evac scene is invalid. It is also a minor issue, as the Normandy is more dramatic (in fiction sometimes drama trumps realism), and Cortez was potentially dead and the shuttle potentially destroyed.

3. Deploying troops from the Normandy just would have gotten the Normandy destroyed, and those troops along with it. The infantry is safer making the push while disbursed on the ground.



[/quote]
1, 2 - is not a minor issue, it is completely retarded and ooc for Shepard and crew. It also not dramatic, just so retarded that it is laughable, because completely unrealistic, stupid, and ooc.
Also saying that only Cortez can pilot the shuttle in entire allied fleets - retarded just the same.

3. You again evading point, that Harbringer was drawn to a beam because of that retarded ground invasion. If Normandy was used first to deploy the troops reapers wouldn't have time to react, leaving beam undefended.

[/quote]

1 and 2: Yeah, well...

Also, I never said Cortez was the only pilot.

3. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to land without the Hades cannons being destroyed. Ergo, a ground attack was necessary.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


The ground invasion was necessary because the Reapers had London garrisoned with troops and anti-aircraft weaponry. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to get close to the beam without it. Remember one of the primary objectives of the ground invasion early on was taking down the Reapers anti-aircraft capabilities.
[/quote]
What is cortez have to do with anything? Allied fleet has lot of pilots, as is ground forces.

Anti-aircraft weaponry barely enough to destroy a shuttle, completely annihilates a frigate. Yeah, sure.
Ground invasion is completely retarded, unneeded and led to 100% losses of a ground forces. Everyone involved in planning that retarded clown show of a operation, is having a negative IQ.
[/quote]

You are making things up again.

There is no difference in the scenes of shuttles being destroyed by anti-aircraft fire during the attack by Hammer or by the Reaper Destroyer early in ME3. In both the shuttles are destroyed, so saying that the anti-aircraft fire could 'barely destroy a shuttle' is quite a stretch. There also is not any text or dialogue in the game that states that frigates would not be vulnerable to the same anti-aircraft fire.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 octobre 2012 - 05:30 .

[CmdrShep80]

Eterna5 wrote...

tivesz wrote...

The only problem here, that Harbinger does have 6 big-ass eyes...there's no way he doesn't see the normandy floating around in the middle of the battlefield.

Are you sure they're eyes? They could simply be lights or sensors. Do you have any source at all that claims that Reapers have eyes like Organics do. 

some people just don't look out the viewport despite all the tech they have at their disposal. It's happened a lot in space based shows. For some reason people forget their eyes can see things sensors can't. 

[Maxster_]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...



And it is a dreadnought that is destroyed in the atmopshere, not a cruiser. It is even referred to as a dreadnought in dialogue.


[/quote]

As i thought, you have no idea about ME lore at all.

*snip*

Only dreadnoughts capable of withstand medium-high-low gravity are reapers, because of their drive core(which is much larger than anything any existing race made for ships). And certainly not a Earth Alliance dreadnought.

Even if they could, which is completely contradicts ME lore, use of that dreadnought in intro is completely retarded. Range of combat for dreadnoughts is thousands of km. And in atmosphere, they would just destroy themselves using main gun at that range.

So it was a cruiser, and it's explosion is my proof. And you have none, except for your fantasies based over EAWare ignorance of their own lore.

They are even stated that was a error.

[/quote]

I'm well aware of what the lore states regarding dreadnoughts and planets with medium or high gravity.

The ship thet gets destroyed in Earth's atmopshere however, is a dreadnought. It both looks like a dreadnought and it is referred to as one in actual in-game dialogue. Case closed.

While that appears to have been a case of previously established lore having been forgotten, an in game explanation for how the dreadnought was able to enter Earth's atmosphere can be found. The lore itself actually only states that dreadnoughts can't land on planets with with medium or high gravity. The dreadnought in question, of course did not land on Earth. It was still very much in the atmosphere when it was destroyed. There is also nothing in the lore that states that a dreadnought wouldn't survive trying to land on Earth. For all we know the prohibition against landing on planets with medium or high gravity could be linked more to difficulty in trying to escape that planets gravity well, and either difficulty or an outright inability to achieve escape velocity.

In short, it may not be that a dreadnought can't land on an Earth-like planet. But rather that it might get stuck there.

[/quote]
So, you have no proof. As always. And completely ignoring proof that i provide.
You, my friend, is a demagogue.

First. dreadnoughts can't land on any planets, and cruisers can only land on low gravity world.
This is shows again, that you do not know ME lore, and haven't even bothered to read something regarding dreadnoughts. Well, given that you haven't even read what i wrote...
Great method of discussion - ignore every proof that you do not like, and continue to repeat already debunked points.

Your entire quote is demagogy.
Knowing about eezo and ME lore in general, it is clear, that to land on planet, and landing is means entering gravity well, ship must lower his mass in proportion - the close you are to center of gravity well, the more mass reduction eezo core must provide. Possible levels of mass reduction dictated by size of eezo core. The larger core is, the more mass could be reduced.
That directly means, that pass certain point(depends on planet gravity) into gravity well, ship will just fall onto it and crash, without ability to return. And that certain point depends on planet gravity, mass of the ship and size of ship mass effect core.
That, my friend, directly means, that dreadnoughts can't enter the atmosphere of Earth pass certain point("Atmosphere" is a large thing, and depends on solar radiation levels). And that certain point is far away from near surface.
So, your demagogy failed you.

Also, you completely ignored codex entry for Sovereign, and for dreanoughts. Because it completely contradicts your point.

Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge
their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit.

The attack on Eden Prime demostrated
Sovereign's ability to generate mass effect fields powerful enough to
land on a planetary surface. This implies it has a massive element zero
core, and the ability to generate staggering amounts of power.

Also, link again. I know, that you will ignore it completely again, because it completely nullifies everything you said about dreadnoughts, but i will quote it. Also i'm writing not for you, you are completely hopeless demagogue.

First post:
[quote]Baryonic_Member wrote...

While running about the catwalks in Vancouver, Kaidan/Ashley call in on the radio that they're "trying to take down the Dreadnought". We then see a Reaper destroying a ship that's hovering in mid air with a few shots. Now there's a number of problems with this.

>The Codex clearly states that Dreadnoughts are kilometre long vessels which cannot enter atmosphere even on low gravity worlds. Even Carriers cannot enter atmosphere on a planet with 1 G.

>The Codex states that the main gun of Sovereign would be able to destroy any Alliance ship with a single shot.

Anyone else bothered how unserious BioWare seem to be about consistency?

[/quote]

Second post
[quote]Sylvf wrote...

[quote]Baryonic_Member wrote...

While running about the
catwalks in Vancouver, Kaidan/Ashley call in on the radio that they're
"trying to take down the Dreadnought". We then see a Reaper destroying a
ship that's hovering in mid air with a few shots. Now there's a number
of problems with this.

>The Codex clearly states that
Dreadnoughts are kilometre long vessels which cannot enter atmosphere
even on low gravity worlds. Even Carriers cannot enter atmosphere on a
planet with 1 G.[/quote]

We
actually noticed this one. Ash and Kaidan's recording sessions were
over by the time we had finalized art and realized that at the distance
we could see the ship, there was no way it should be a dreadnought.
Unfortunate, but there wasn't much we could do.

(I don't comment
on this kind of thing too often, but it bothered one of our other
writers quite a bit so I'd like to stick up on his behalf.)
[/quote]

Third post
[quote]Sylvf wrote...

[quote]Praetor Shepard wrote...

@Sylvf,

So this ship that blows up in that sequence is what's being referred to over the comm?: social.bioware.com/uploads_user/1158000/1157264/184052.jpg[/quote]

Hard to tell from the small picture, but I believe so - it is the ship whose shockwave knocks you down.

    I hope you could answer this question though, so is the Normandy SR2 nearby in a docking bay or somewhere in atmo?



I actually don't know - that was Mac's level, and he'd have more details on what he pictured going down, and when.

    Edit: At any rate, thanks for letting us know. {smilie}



No problem!

[/quote]

So, even EAWare admitted that was a error, and this was certainly not a dreadnought. Judging from a lore, it should be a frigate.
But it seems your fantasies based on confirmed lore error, is more important to you, than lore itself, and game authors. You are completely deluded.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...



So, you are continuing to completely ignore points that you don't like.

The only reason Harbringer was near the beam, is because of that retarded ground assault.

Read again what i wrote.[/quote]


And a ground assault was needed, because London was both garrisoned by Reaper troops and protected by anti-air defenses. The Alliance wouldn't have been able to get near the beam without it.
[/quote]
No it was not needed. And you have no proof about air defence capable of shutting down a frigate.
All that was in game, that it barely shuts down a shuttle. Which armor and kinetic shields are nowhere near strength of kinetic shield of a frigate. Also this so called "air defense" is easily destroyed by hand held heavy weaponry. That means, that main gun a frigate and thanix cannons completely and easily obliterate that defense by one-shotting it. They don't even need to hit it.
Allied frigate strike force would easily unload ground forces near the beam, completely suppress defences and destroying that lone destoyer.

Entire priority:earth is completely unneeded and retarded.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...



That's internet you know. How do you know that your opponent never served the military in a rank of commanding officer?
It was intent to bolster your argument and it failed miserably.

[/quote]

I knew you never served in the military by posts that indicated you had a very poor understanding of how real world militaries operate.

A good example of that is the post where you seemed to indicate that the Normandy could not leave Sword under any circumstances, unless specifically ordered to do so by high command. That's just not how it works in the real world. Or I should say, that isn't how it works for modern militaries. Armies that serve dictatorships in the Middle East or Africa are another story.
[/quote]
Oh, we can play that game the other way. But i won't care, you are demagogue, and won't worth of my time. I served in Russian Space Forces, for 2 years, m.d. 73736(Moscovskaya oblast), 2004-2006 year, as lieutenant and then senior lieutenant(promoted in service).

So, now tell me, how often you completely ignored chain of command? And how well your "flexibility" excuse worked with your commanding officer?

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


Lol what? Joker completely ignoring chain of command, leaving position and role in a fleet, to follow retarded order of ashored officer? And that is a flexibility?

Also, captain or xo of normandy in no way unit leaders. Shepard have no experience leading even frigate pack, and he is most experienced in commanding fleet warfare on entire ship.

No sane commanding officer would place anyone from Normandy on even frigate pack leader, especially in that fight.
And chain of command to Hackett are much longer than just frigate pack leader.

Also, this again clearly shows, that you have no idea what are you talking about. Army without chain of command, or soldiers and unit leaders ignoring their position and role for "flexibility" - is no army at all.
[/quote]

Oh boy, where to start...

Joker ignored chain of command: Care to point to a single line of dialogue, or a cutscene, where Joker disobeys an order from Hackett? Care to point to the scene where Joker is ordered to rejoin Sword and refuses? Oh that's right..you can't, because no such scene exists. You've completely made that up. Let me repeat: There is no scene where the Normandy is given orders that specify that it is not to leave Sword under any circumstances. Joker cannot disobey an order that does not exist.

The notion that Joker disobeyed orders is both an example of you inserting your head canon into the game, and an example of you not having the slightest idea of how real world militaries function.
[/quote]
Lol, you are very funny.
Of course there is no cutscene where Joker is ordered anything. Sure, that means that Joker never received any orders, and basically doing whatever he wanted
You are clearly have no idea what military service is. And never commanded anyone, especially large groups of units.
Also, you never read codex of ME, about fleet tactics.
[quote]
Shepard is not a unit commander:   All of the Alliance personnel assigned on a permanent basis to the Normandy, are part of a single unit. And Shepard is their commanding officer. Ergo, he is a unit commander.
[/quote]
That's demagogy.
Prove with ingame video, or codex entry that Shepard commanded at least frigate pack.

Selfquote:
No sane commanding officer would place anyone from Normandy on even frigate pack leader, especially in that fight.
And chain of command to Hackett are much longer than just frigate pack leader.

[quote]
Nothing happens without orders from higher up the chain of command: Wrong again. A capable army is one in which authority is delegated to subordinates, initiative in junior officers and NCOs is both developed and encouraged, and one which posseses flexibility and an ability to adapt the plan to any circumstance.
[/quote]

Selfquote:
No sane commanding officer would place anyone from Normandy on even frigate pack leader, especially in that fight.
And chain of command to Hackett are much longer than just frigate pack leader.

There is major difference between initiative and leaving fleet assigned role and position. First should be encouraged, second should be punished by death as desertery.

You seems to fail to grasp, that there could exists standart and trained battle tactics and assigned roles for ships. That is also detailed in ME codex. That thing is also taught in war academies in real world.

For example, we have standart tactics for mechanized infantry platoon in defense, offense, counter-fight, and march. This is frakking basics, without which, you have completely no idea how to command a platoon at all(units in platoon are led by sergeants, not officers).
Also, platoon must follow orders from company officers, and follow their battle plan. And this is goes up to division level, at which it is practically capable of everything.
Mechanized infantry division(motostrelkovaya divisiya) have three motorized infantry regiments, air defense regiment, helicopter support units, tank regiment, artillery regiment, signal units(also on batallion and company level), missile anti-tank batallions, reconnaisance units and support(medical, chemical, engineers and joined units(for a specific task).


And you are telling me, that, for example, anti-aircraft regiment, SUDDENLY decides to leave their position in a battle, and go to do some retarded things like helping the wounded, completely ignoring their role in division for task, they are not suited for? Lol What?!
And that all goes with a excuse of "flexibilty"? Really? In a war time, there is high probability, that officer in charge of that unit will be shot dead by a his commanding officer, without even a tribunal.
More funny, is when in battle, support signal unit on division level, SUDDENLY decides that they want to go over that hill, and make a defensive position there. To hell with division orders, information exchange on all levels. We want to sit here!

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Additionally, you do not know what the Normandy's orders are or even who it was attached to. It is likely, given that no one attempts to command the Normandy to rejoin Sword, is that Hackett had specifically detailed the ship out to use as Shepard saw fit.
[/quote]

Yeah, i don't know exactly, to whom normandy captain is answering, and size of chain of command to Hackett.
I do, however, know lore of ME regarding fleet tactics, and military doctrines and tactics of US, Nato countries and other. Of course i don't remeber any possible detail.
Those things are teaching at most universties in Russia(with military faculty, which are most).
[/quote]


Your contention that the Normandy could not detach from Sword under any circumstance, is a good example of why a few books, articles, or classes never trump real world first hand experience.

That's just not how it works in the real world.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, for someone who can't tell the difference between iniative and desertery, you sure have a lot of credibility.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


1 and 2: A shuttle would have made more sense for the medevac, but just about every other criticism of the evac scene is invalid. It is also a minor issue, as the Normandy is more dramatic (in fiction sometimes drama trumps realism), and Cortez was potentially dead and the shuttle potentially destroyed.

3. Deploying troops from the Normandy just would have gotten the Normandy destroyed, and those troops along with it. The infantry is safer making the push while disbursed on the ground.



[/quote]
1, 2 - is not a minor issue, it is completely retarded and ooc for Shepard and crew. It also not dramatic, just so retarded that it is laughable, because completely unrealistic, stupid, and ooc.
Also saying that only Cortez can pilot the shuttle in entire allied fleets - retarded just the same.

3. You again evading point, that Harbringer was drawn to a beam because of that retarded ground invasion. If Normandy was used first to deploy the troops reapers wouldn't have time to react, leaving beam undefended.

[/quote]

1 and 2: Yeah, well...

Also, I never said Cortez was the only pilot.

3. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to land without the Hades cannons being destroyed. Ergo, a ground attack was necessary.
[/quote]
3. Normandy and few frigates packs would just easily cleansed entire area from that paper thin pathetic defence, on approach, by one shooting with main guns and thanix cannons. Maybe they would lose some frigates, which is highly unlikely, given the very low speed of hades projectiles, and weak impact of those projectiles. Given that smallest fleet like Earth Alliance fleet, having more than a 100 frigates, that paper thin air-defense is completely irrelevant, as are lone destroyer.

Entire earth:priority battleplan is completely retarded, this mission is completely unneeded. The only reason that retarded crap even exists, is because EAWare decided turn ME saga of heroic victory and overcoming obstacles, into tale of utterly crushing defeat, unconditional surrender to a worst possible enemy, and commitance of 3 kinds of warcrimes for a "uplifting victory".

But you clearly showed that you have no idea of military tactics and ME lore, and ME saga in general.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


The ground invasion was necessary because the Reapers had London garrisoned with troops and anti-aircraft weaponry. The Normandy wouldn't have been able to get close to the beam without it. Remember one of the primary objectives of the ground invasion early on was taking down the Reapers anti-aircraft capabilities.
[/quote]
What is cortez have to do with anything? Allied fleet has lot of pilots, as is ground forces.

Anti-aircraft weaponry barely enough to destroy a shuttle, completely annihilates a frigate. Yeah, sure.
Ground invasion is completely retarded, unneeded and led to 100% losses of a ground forces. Everyone involved in planning that retarded clown show of a operation, is having a negative IQ.
[/quote]

You are making things up again.

There is no difference in the scenes of shuttles being destroyed by anti-aircraft fire during the attack by Hammer or by the Reaper Destroyer early in ME3. In both the shuttles are destroyed, so saying that the anti-aircraft fire could 'barely destroy a shuttle' is quite a stretch. There also is not any text or dialogue in the game that states that frigates would not be vulnerable to the same anti-aircraft fire.


[/quote]
There is difference. Reapers are clearly capable of lowering power of their guns. Like a Harbringer did, when he was shooting soldiers just for lulz, with lowered power which is haven't even killed Shepard. When he could just one-shot entire retarded offensive by using his main gun, obliterating everything in 2km diameter(actually more, his main gun are more powerful than those of Earth Alliance), and structural damage up to 15 km. And he could shoot twice, just to be sure.
Also, weapon that barely destroys a shuttle, will not even penetrate a kinetic barrier on a frigate.
[quote]There also is not any text or dialogue in the game that states that
frigates would not be vulnerable to the same anti-aircraft fire.[/quote]
There is no proof that frigate could be vulnerable to a shot that barely destroys a shuttles. Instead it is the opposite, kinetic barriers on a frigate is much more powerful that those on shuttles.

You haven't provided any proof of your assertions at all, demostrated demagogy methods, complete ignorance of ME lore, intentionally ignoring opponet's proof several times. You don't know anything about military tactics.

So, you are failed again. I honestly don't expect much from you, you are clearly incapable of discussion.

Modifié par Maxster_, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:23 .

[macrocarl]

BW didn't forget about Harby. You see him clearly in the background. They animated him there. Before that they had meetings and people sat around and created the EC so players could have more closure. It wasn't like BW was in the midst of composing the scene and Harby walked in on his own volition. So since that couldn't be the answer then it's obvious that BW left it up to the player to figure out why. If you don't like that, then that's valid. What's not is saying that BW has no street cred in story telling and stuck Harby in the evac scene by accident.

[Maxster_]

macrocarl wrote...

BW didn't forget about Harby. You see him clearly in the background. They animated him there. Before that they had meetings and people sat around and created the EC so players could have more closure. It wasn't like BW was in the midst of composing the scene and Harby walked in on his own volition. So since that couldn't be the answer then it's obvious that BW left it up to the player to figure out why. If you don't like that, then that's valid. What's not is saying that BW has no street cred in story telling and stuck Harby in the evac scene by accident.

Read the topic name before posting. That is an advice.

[macrocarl]

I did. Also I read the thread and was responding to some stuff written above my post. Check it out it'll all make sense to you. That is also advice.

[Maxster_]

macrocarl wrote...

I did. Also I read the thread and was responding to some stuff written above my post. Check it out it'll all make sense to you. That is also advice.

So please enlighten me, why Harbringer deliberately lowered power of his guns, to shoot individual soldiers, while he could just one-shot entire retarded offensive with his main gun?