330 réponses à ce sujet

[Tomwew]

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

I don't think it would be a perfect deception; hence the Reapers trying to kill us after scanning star systems. Plus with all those AA towers around it would be far too much of a risk. Not to mention Harvesters and other potential defenses we don't know about it. Wasn't it also said there were gravitational disturbances near the beam, preventing shuttles and what not from getting close?

what? it's too much of a risk to send the normandy for the sake of saving the galaxy, but not for the sake of two squadmates? you must see this is a poorly done scene? the second i heard shep call for the normandy my faith in the Ec to fix things was gone, and this is the least worse part.

[evilgummybear]

Question, how do ppl know its harbringer??
All reapers look the same, crab or squid like machines lol

[Applepie_Svk]

evilgummybear wrote...

Question, how do ppl know its harbringer??
All reapers look the same, crab or squid like machines lol

That´s bad question, it doesn´t matter if it´s Harbinger, Kitty or Fluffy ... what matters is that this is a Reaper and Sovereign class ship which is stronger known kind of ships around ...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:12 .

[evilgummybear]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

evilgummybear wrote...

Question, how do ppl know its harbringer??
All reapers look the same, crab or squid like machines lol

That´s bad question, it doesn´t matter if it´s Harbinger, Kitty or Fluffy ... what matters is that this is a Reaper and Sovereign class ship which is stronger known kind of ships around ...

well ppl are calling it harbringer, as in the harbringer from ME2 that taunts shepard?
As far as i know, all i see is that its a normal reaper that goes  "PEW PEW PEW"

harbringer wasnt even in ME3 the way i see it.

[111987]

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

I don't think it would be a perfect deception; hence the Reapers trying to kill us after scanning star systems. Plus with all those AA towers around it would be far too much of a risk. Not to mention Harvesters and other potential defenses we don't know about it. Wasn't it also said there were gravitational disturbances near the beam, preventing shuttles and what not from getting close?

what? it's too much of a risk to send the normandy for the sake of saving the galaxy, but not for the sake of two squadmates? you must see this is a poorly done scene? the second i heard shep call for the normandy my faith in the Ec to fix things was gone, and this is the least worse part.

By the evac time, the AA guns are taken down, as are most hostiles in the area.

[111987]

evilgummybear wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

evilgummybear wrote...

Question, how do ppl know its harbringer??
All reapers look the same, crab or squid like machines lol

That´s bad question, it doesn´t matter if it´s Harbinger, Kitty or Fluffy ... what matters is that this is a Reaper and Sovereign class ship which is stronger known kind of ships around ...

well ppl are calling it harbringer, as in the harbringer from ME2 that taunts shepard?
As far as i know, all i see is that its a normal reaper that goes  "PEW PEW PEW"

harbringer wasnt even in ME3 the way i see it.

The glowing yellow eyes are a huge clue, as is the missing front leg...traits only Harbinger has. Not to mention you know Harbinger is on its way...

[spirosz]

So, Shepard running back to the Normandy for a few minutes to have a quickie with Liara wouldn't be fired at by Harby?

Right.

For a perfect being, it sure does have terrible sight.

[GreyLycanTrope]

evilgummybear wrote...

Question, how do ppl know its harbringer??
All reapers look the same, crab or squid like machines lol

He's specifically refered to as Harbinger by Joker "Harnbinger broke away from the battle and is heading your way" or something to that effect I can't remmber the exact phrasing.

Also Harby is unique amongst the Reapers, he's physically larger than the others, has yellow eyes, and is missing the central tentacle the others have:

Harby on the left, standard captial class Reaper on the right.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 17 janvier 2013 - 05:00 .

[WolfyZA]

Master Che your post is o moronic I didnt even finish it... Sorry but its true I used my "Reaper brain"

[Han Shot First]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


You are making the assumption that Harbinger 1) had control over the beam, and 2) that the main gun and the supporting weapons have the same capaibilities and limitations.

That is a rather large assumption, and also head canon.
[/quote]
It is irrelevant had Harbringer control over the beam, or Catalyst had. They decided not to shut it down for no reasons.
2) is making no sense. You are saying that Harbringer suddenly can't use his main gun?
As always, you just ignore ME lore, in a debate about ME lore.

[/quote]

There is nothing in the codex regarding the targeting systems of Harbinger's main gun, or the capabilities and limitations of both the Reaper's main guns and supporting weapons regarding dismounted infantry.

You are making an assumption that the main gun was just as capable (or more so) of engaging dismounted infantry as any supporting weapons. That is all well and good, but it is head canon.

You seem to struggle with seperating what is actually lore in the game, from what you've just made up in your head. 

Arguments from head canon are simply not valid.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


You are making the assumption that just because the Reapers' main guns are able to track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL speeds in space, that they are well suited for tracking and adjusting for man-sized targets on the ground travelling at between 5 and 8 miles per hour, or that they are even capable of firing at dismounted infantry at close range. You are comparing apples to oranges and basing your conclusions entirely on your personal head canon on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun, and how its targeting systems function.
[/quote]

Why exactly a 400kt explosion should be targeted on individual soldiers?
Comrade, you are making no sense.
Yeah, lol, try to evade that.

[/quote]

Again, you have absolutely no information on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun or its targeting system. You are filling in a gap in the lore with your own private head canon, and then trying to impose it on everyone else.

How do you know it can even fire at a target from that close range with the main gun? How do you know that Harbinger engaging ground targets at the close of a range with the main gun won't cause collateral damage to itself?

The atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagaski exploded with a yield of about 22 kilotons of TNT. We are told that the main guns of Reapers impact with a yield of 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if Harbinger's main gun was on the weaker end, that would still give its main gun 6 times the destructive power as the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Since Harbinger is the flagship of the Reaper fleet however, it is far more likely that its main gun is at the upper end. At 454 kilotons its main gun could unleash 20x the destructive power of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.

How do you know that Harbinger would be impervious to collateral damage from engaging ground targets with its main gun from that close of a range?

The short answer: You don't.




[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Just because the Reapers main gun can track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL in space doesn't necessarily mean that the main gun would be well suited to perform a similar task for dismounted infantry.
[/quote]

He can miss a 1-2 kilometers, it does not change the fate of the infantry.
Anyway, dreadnoughts in space battles shoot from tens of thousands kilometers, they are designed to hit other moving dreadnoughts, which are 800-1000 meters in length, and far less from forward projection(except asari).

So, if Harbringer ever needed to hit exact soldier from a low orbit, he could just do that. Not that he needs that, anyway.
[/quote]


Different tools for different tasks, just like the real world. Its really not that difficult to understand.

Different weapons systems have different capabilities and limitations. Just because a Reaper's main gun can destroy starships travelling at FTL from vast distances, doesn't mean the main gun is equally well suited for engaging small ground targets at nearly point blank range.

That is an assumption on your part that is not supported at all by the actual in game canon. In short, it is your head canon.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

We know next to nothing about how Harbinger's weaponry functions. The codex entries are rather vague and sparse on details.
[/quote]

We know enough. It is used in precise orbital bombardment of an military installations.
As is for every dreadnought in ME.
It also used in space combat, which requires a lot more precision due to a greater range.
You just demonstrating again that you ignoring ME lore.[/quote]

No, you're demonstrating that you are making up your own lore. Sorry sport, but it doesn't work that way.

There is nothing in the game that states that a Reaper's main gun is equally well suited to engaging dismounted infantry at extremely close range, than its supporting weapons.

You're just assuming thats the case.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Please quite the section from the codex where we are given details on the targeting systems for both the Reapers' main guns, and their supporting weapons? Please quote the section where we are given the capabilities and limitations of both in regards to tracking and engaging dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
Your premise is flawed. Deliberately.
Why would reapers even need to target individual infantry when one shot will glass entire area of several kilometers in diameter?
And yes, of course they can target individual moving infantry. Any dreadnought can, and reapers have better targeting systems.

As for codex - link
Read entire page, and stop spewing nonsense already.

[/quote]

....and you've got nothing.

Came up empty on trying to find something in the lore where we are given details on the capabilties and limitations of the Reapers' main guns, huh?

Well get back to me if you ever do manage to find something on the maximum and minimum effective ranges, safe minimum distance from targets, and details on targeting systems.

Basically anything other than your own personal head canon will do.




[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

How do we know that the weapons being fired by Harbinger during the beam rush scene were in fact the betters tools for that particular task, due to both the capabilities and limitations of both weapons systems?
[/quote]
We know that it is used in orbital bombardment. Therefore, this entire sequence with descending Harbringer makes absolutely no sense.

The capital ships bombarded defense installations and industrial
centers, annihilating entire cities with populations in the low
millions, including Adelaide, Hamburg, Al Jubail, and Fort Worth.
Meanwhile, Reaper destroyers descended into the atmosphere to melt roads
and capture population centers with minimal loss of life. This is not
an example of the Reapers being merciful. More likely, they are herding
their prey to make the coming harvest that much easier.


As i said, you just deliberately ignoring ME lore.

[/quote]

Are you arguing that Harbinger should have sit back in orbit and obliterated London from space, or are you arguing that he should have used his main gun on the ground team during the beam rush? Because those are two completely different scenarios.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote..

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Incorrect.

I'm afraid I'm much more versed on how artillery weapons function than you. I'd suggest you refrain in the future from discussing topics you are completely ignorant of.
[/quote]
Lol.
Reaper capital ships is long range space combat and orbital bombardment ships.
So, using them at a few kilometer range without their main weapon, is the same as howitzer's squad moving from position to engage enemy, dismounts and engage infantry with handguns.
So, it is you who have no idea about military tactic and strategy.
Or you are so desperate to "win" this debate that you deliberately ignoring this.
My guess - is the former.[/quote]

You're reaching.

Harbinger engaging the ground team with supporting weapons is potentially the same as a tank crew engaging dismounted infantry with their machine gun. As I stated earlier, the reason why tanks have machine guins is that they are often more effective in engaging dismounted infantry than the tanks' main gun, despite the main gun firing a much more destructive projectile.

A similar example holds true with artillery batteries. Many howitzers are capable of direct fire, however it is not an ideal scenario, and the battery's machine guns (and not the howitzers themselves) are used to secure their perimeter. Direct fire for an artillery unit is a last resort.

How do we know that the same might not hold true for the Reapers?



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


While howitzers are indirect fire weapons, many weapons systems do in fact have direct fire capabilities. The M-198 howitzer that was used for many years by both the US Army and Marine Corps (as well as the Australian military), is capable of direct fire against both armored vehicles and dismounted infantry. In fact there are a couple of examples of it being used in exactly that capacity during both the Gulf War and the more recent invasion of Iraq.

Direct fire however is not the primary function it was designed for, and would generally be used only when artillery unit's position was being attacked or in danger of being overrun. In the direct fire role it is also, because of the limitations of the weapon, generally going to be a less effective weapon in engaging dismounted infantry than machine guns despite firing a far more destructive round. That is why artillery batteries also field machine guns to secure their positions. Those machine guns, rather than the howitzers, are the primary defense against an assault by dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
You are making less and less sense.
So, you basically said that main role of an artillery is not to engage infantry in direct fire role.
And that those situations only possible because of own command mistakes, or enemy cleverness.
That is obvious.
Only role of artillery is to indirectly fire from long range.
Of course, it can be used in other ways.
So, you can hammer a nail with a microscope. That doesn't mean that microscope created to hammer nails.

And of course, it is just another demonstration of how you ignoring common sense.[/quote]

Look, its really not that difficult to understand.

Howitzers are an indirect fire weapon that also have a direct fire capability. However the direct fire capability is not its primary function, and so generlly you are going to want to leave the direct fire to direct fire weapons like machine guns.

Got it?

The analogy about using microscopes to hammer nails isn't a good one, because the howitzer is in fact designed with a direct fire capability. A microscope isn't designed to hammer nails.

Anyway, the point is that we don't know if the Reapers main guns are designed with the same capabilities for engaging ground targets at close range as their supporting weapons. Like the examples of the main battle tank or howitzer crew, perhaps the Reapers are better off using supporting weapons to engage dismounted infantry at close range than their main gun.

In fact, we can surmise that it is probably the case since that is what actually happens in the game.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


So, reapers are dreadnoughts, designed for long range space combat and orbital bombardment. They destroyed countless civilizations fighting space battles and bombarding planets.

And suddenly, in your nonsensical headcanon, effective use of a reaper dreadnought is to not use his main weapon, deliberately lower power of his secondary weapons, and all that to hunt individual soldiers for no reason.
Riiight
[/quote]


Are we talking about Harbinger engaging the ground team with his main gun during the beam rush, or sitting back and conducting an orbital bombardment of London from space? Because those are not the same thing, and you are having difficulty keeping track of which argument you want to make.

Harbinber certainly had the capabilities to bombard London from orbit. We know the main gun could be used for that.
A better question would be whether he'd want to.

But that wasn't what this discussion was about. It was about whether Harbinger could use the main gun during the beam rush, and whether the devs having Harbinger use supporting weapons to engage the dismounted infantry was somehow a lore error. As for that, it most certainly is not a lore error, as there is nothing in the lore that states that Harbinger could use its main gun at close range while on a planetary surface, to engage dismounted infantry.

The argument that Harbinger firing supporting weapons rather than the main gun during the beam rush somehow violates lore, is rubbish. It is a nit pick that relies soley on individual head canon.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

Anyway, just watch that, and then say to me, that reapers are far less powerful than SA dreadnoughts(or every council race for that matter).
Because only that way your contrived nonsense could ever work.
You know, "Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light speed.."
[/quote]

And there is nothing in the lore that indicates that Harbinger could engage dismounted infantry at close range with its main gun. We know absolutely nothing about the capabilities of its main gun, how its targeting system operates, or what the minimum safe distance would be (for itself) to engage ground targets.

That it could safely engage ground targets from that range is a large assumption.

Your head canon however, does not equal game canon.




[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Why do tanks have machine guns in addition to their main guns? I'll tell you why...because generally speaking those machine guns are going to be a more effective weapon at engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than the tank's main gun.
[/quote]
You are just spewing nonsense, again.
First, tanks were created in WW1 as means to break through machine-gun ridded trenches. Of course, tanks were always anti-infantry machines, with guns to level defenses, and machineguns to destroy infantry.

But, this of course, unrelated to ME. Because reapers are space ships, designed for long range combat. And secondary weapons are designed against smaller ships, like cruisers or frigates.
You are saying, that infantry suddenly came to orbit and surrounded Harbringer, so he have no other means than to use power-lowered secondary weapons? [/quote]

Again, how do you know that Harbinger can safely engage ground targets from an extremely close range with its main gun? You don't.

Stop. Inserting. Head Canon.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the lore regarding the capabilities of a Reapers' main gun in ground targets at close range while in planetary atmospheres.

The tank comparison is relevent because it is a vehicle that is outfitted with more than one weapon, because its main gun is not a jack-of-all-trades. It comes equipped with a machine gun because in many situations, the main gun would be less well suited to engaging dismounted infantry than a machine gun.

Likewise, why should the Reapers' main gun be a jack-of-all-trades? How do we know that the supporting weapons aren't actually better for engaging ground targets at close range?

The argument that the beam rush scene is somehow bad because Harbinger doesn't use his main gun is a ridiculous nit pick without any basis in the actual lore of the game, and based entirely on player head canon regarding the capabilities of that weapon.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


While not absolute canon, we can at least surmise that the Reapers' supporting weapons are in fact better than the main guns for engaging dismounted infantry, because that is what Harbinger uses in the beam rush scenes. At least that has some actual basis on in-game content, rather than declaration that the main gun would be better based entirely on one's own personal head canon.
[/quote]
Bwahahaha.
Ignoring ME lore, as always.

[/quote]



What lore would that be? The stuff you make up in your head is not canon.

I repeat: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODEX REGARDING THE CAPABILITIES OF THE REAPERS' MAIN GUN IN ENGAGING GROUND TARGETS AT CLOSE RANGES WITHIN PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


It was a dreadnought. Ashley and Kaidan refer to it as such in dialogue.
[/quote]
Lol.

Dreadnoughts are blah blah blah

*snip*

And of course, this.
Bioware admitted their mistake.
[/quote]

Bioware admitted it was a mistake, but no corrections were made. So what is canon? The model or the dialogue? They conflict.

IMO if it is called a dreadnought, its a dreadnought. Other people may interpret that scene differently, which is why I added that it wouldn't matter even if the destroyed ship was a cruiser.



[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Even if it were a cruiser however, the comparison would still fail. The SR2 was a frigate and the closest comparable ship would be the Normandy SR1, not a heavy cruiser.
[/quote]
What is "heavy cruiser"? Another asspull, i guess.
Anyway, Normandy SR-2 is almost twice the size of SR-1, so it is very large frigate, comparable with cruiser.

[/quote]

The design of that ship is described as a human heavy cruiser in the art book. Hence, at the very least it is a heavy cruiser.

The Normandy SR2 is a frigate.


[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

Well anyway, you already have no credibility.

*snip*

Lol. Another "real life example" from a military pretender.

*snip*

"Military experience", my ass
*snip*

Given your "examples", you never had any experience in the military.[/quote]

Because I disagree with you, even though you don't have a single clue what you are talking about, it must mean that I never served in the military? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

But why don't you put your money where your mouth is. How 'bout I provide proof, and you provide the equivalent of $50.00 to a charity of my choosing? Of course in return you'd have to provide proof of payment.

Of course if I failed to provide proof, I'd do likewise for a charity of your choosing.

Put up or shut up.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 janvier 2013 - 06:28 .

[Galbrant]

People still try to use the Reaper IFF as evidence? Wow...

[111987]

Galbrant wrote...

People still try to use the Reaper IFF as evidence? Wow...

It is evidence. Jeez. The Salarians use it in their stealth dreadnoughts; why do this unless it actually fools Reapers?

EDI says she can disguise the Normandy as a living Reaper.

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...
It is evidence. Jeez. The Salarians use it in their stealth dreadnoughts; why do this unless it actually fools Reapers?

That part always make me laugh, shows bioware doesn't give a crap about some form of restraint in lore anymore.

111987 wrote...
EDI says she can disguise the Normandy as a living Reaper.

She "says" unfortunatly disgusing a ship doesn't hide the people walking or running towards it.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
It is evidence. Jeez. The Salarians use it in their stealth dreadnoughts; why do this unless it actually fools Reapers?

That part always make me laugh, shows bioware doesn't give a crap about some form of restraint in lore anymore.

111987 wrote...
EDI says she can disguise the Normandy as a living Reaper.

She "says" unfortunatly disgusing a ship doesn't hide the people walking or running towards it.

Harbinger's focus is on the people still charging towards the beam.

It will all come down to an individual's suspension of disbelief. Some people will never believe that the Normandy wouldn't have been shot down, that Harbinger never would have even taken the chance. And that's fine.

[Galbrant]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
It is evidence. Jeez. The Salarians use it in their stealth dreadnoughts; why do this unless it actually fools Reapers?

That part always make me laugh, shows bioware doesn't give a crap about some form of restraint in lore anymore.

111987 wrote...
EDI says she can disguise the Normandy as a living Reaper.

She "says" unfortunatly disgusing a ship doesn't hide the people walking or running towards it.

Exactly.  The IFF isn't a excuse for Harbinger's stupidity.  Destroying the Normandy will make Harbinger job a hell of a lot easier. 

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...
Harbinger's focus is on the people still charging towards the beam.

And were did this come from? do reaper havea selective tarrgeting mechanism now, They kill people, that's what they do and what we see them to do, don't start Headcannon things that aren't there, likewise Harbinger isn't even hear firing during Shepard's attempt to evacue his squadmate.

111987 wrote...
It will all come down to an individual's suspension of disbelief. Some people will never believe that the Normandy wouldn't have been shot down, that Harbinger never would have even taken the chance. And that's fine.

No is at simple as it gets: Harbinger could and probably should have fire at the normandy yet it didn't for reasons unknown.

Modifié par Fixers0, 17 janvier 2013 - 06:50 .

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
Harbinger's focus is on the people still charging towards the beam.

And were did this come from? do reaper havea selective tarrgeting mechanism now, They kill people, that's what they do and what we see them to do, don't start Headcannon things that aren't there, likewise Harbinger isn't even hear firing during Shepard's attempt to evacue his squadmate.

111987 wrote...
It will all come down to an individual's suspension of disbelief. Some people will never believe that the Normandy wouldn't have been shot down, that Harbinger never would have even taken the chance. And that's fine.

No is at simple as it gets: Harbinger could and probably should have fire at the normandy yet it didn't for reasons unknown.

Well, it's kind of logical to be firing at the people closest to the thing you want to stop them from getting too...

It's why everything in front of Shepard is being blown up, rather than Mako's half a mile away or something.

You likely don't hear tons of blasts going on so you can actually hear what's being said...

Harbinger could have shot the Normandy, but it didn't. One possible reason is because the Normandy was disguised as a Reaper, and thus gave Harbinger enough pause to allow it to escape.

[Indy_S]

The scene is stupid. It's just that simple. The fact that Harbinger didn't shoot the Normandy is just stupid.

He only shoots things approaching the beam? That's great because the Normandy was just moving very rapidly towards the beam. 'Perpendicular' doesn't matter because Harbinger knows that the Normandy can turn; it doesn't always travel in straight lines.

[Pick a color]

Harbinger can't see through his tears. Geez, it was a very touching goodbye. He can't just go around shooting blindly.

[Outsider edge]

111987 wrote...

Galbrant wrote...

People still try to use the Reaper IFF as evidence? Wow...

It is evidence. Jeez. The Salarians use it in their stealth dreadnoughts; why do this unless it actually fools Reapers?

EDI says she can disguise the Normandy as a living Reaper.

If the reaper IFF made the Normandy fully stealthed against the reapers they would have been able too dock on the collector base in ME2 without a hitch. However reaper fighters/drones noticed the Normandy once they went through the Omega 4 relay how do you explain that? Or is it that a reaper like Harbinger the oldest and likely the most advanced reaper is actually blind and has too rely on his sensors while their fighter drones do have optical sensors?

The evac scene makes no sense at all. However the writer(s) who made that scene are not really too blame since they were put into a corner with the task of explaining teleporting squadmates.

Also another question for all the defenders. If Harbinger is so efficient in killing everyone approaching the beam how come Anderson manages too reach the Citadel unscathed? In his casual attire no less which he was wearing while adressing the troops in Hammer base.

[deatharmonic]

Han Shot First wrote...


Also destroying the Normandy in no way guarantees that you wipe out the ground team. If the destruction of the Normandy SR1 was anything to go by, the destruction of the SR2 would not have been that dramatic. At best it would have killed and wounded some people in the immediate vicinity, but it certainly wouldn't have eliminated the entire ground team. And it would have been a distraction that potentially buys enough time for someone to make it to the beam.

What are you basing that on? The SR1 made a pretty damn big bang. I don't know how you can deduce the force of the blast from the SR2's destruction by looking at the SR1, and furthermore say it wouldn't be as much.

... Still waiting for an answer.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


You are making the assumption that Harbinger 1) had control over the beam, and 2) that the main gun and the supporting weapons have the same capaibilities and limitations.

That is a rather large assumption, and also head canon.
[/quote]
It is irrelevant had Harbringer control over the beam, or Catalyst had. They decided not to shut it down for no reasons.
2) is making no sense. You are saying that Harbringer suddenly can't use his main gun?
As always, you just ignore ME lore, in a debate about ME lore.

[/quote]

There is nothing in the codex regarding the targeting systems of Harbinger's main gun, or the capabilities and limitations of both the Reaper's main guns and supporting weapons regarding dismounted infantry.
[/quote]

You are doing this on purpose, right?
Or you are just retarded?

Space ship designed for space combat and orbital bombardment, why the hell it even needs weapons designed to fight dismounted infantry?
This is fake premise you are using, AGAIN.

Reaper dreadnought can glass entire area with one shot, why the hell it even needs to target individual soldiers? You are daft?

[quote]
You are making an assumption that the main gun was just as capable (or more so) of engaging dismounted infantry as any supporting weapons.[/quote]

This weapon can glass entire area from tens of thosands kilometers, with one shot, and it can do this perfectly from a low orbit.
Speeds and ranges of ME space combat requires much more precision than orbital bombardment.
I know it useless, you are just ignoring everything.
[quote]
That is all well and good, but it is head canon.
[/quote]
No, it is real ME lore, which you are deliberately ignoring, again.
[quote]
You seem to struggle with seperating what is actually lore in the game, from what you've just made up in your head. 
[/quote]

You are even ignoring links to ME wiki now.
Pathetic.
I'm using established ME lore, and you are just ignoring everything that doesn't fit your hallucinations.
[quote]
Arguments from head canon are simply not valid.
[/quote]
Yes. And this is why you have no credibility arleady.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


You are making the assumption that just because the Reapers' main guns are able to track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL speeds in space, that they are well suited for tracking and adjusting for man-sized targets on the ground travelling at between 5 and 8 miles per hour, or that they are even capable of firing at dismounted infantry at close range. You are comparing apples to oranges and basing your conclusions entirely on your personal head canon on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun, and how its targeting systems function.
[/quote]

Why exactly a 400kt explosion should be targeted on individual soldiers?
Comrade, you are making no sense.
Yeah, lol, try to evade that.

[/quote]

Again, you have absolutely no information on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun or its targeting system. You are filling in a gap in the lore with your own private head canon, and then trying to impose it on everyone else.
[/quote]
This is false statement, as almost everything you said.
If you are so ignorant, that have no idea about kinetic weapons, of newtonian  physics for that matters - it is not my problem, you just demonstrating your ignorance, again.

I'll try to make that simple.
Main weapon system in MEU is a kinetic impact cannons(mass accelerators). This is fact from ME lore.
This weapon system is possible because of eezo ability to lower and raise mass.
http://masseffect.wi...ki/Element_Zero
[quote]Element Zero[/b] (Atomic Number 0, Chemical Symbol Ez), also known as 'eezo', is a rare material that, when subjected to an electrical current, releases dark energy which can be manipulated into a mass effect field,
raising or lowering the mass of all objects within that field. A
positive current increases mass, a negative current decreases it. This
'mass effect' is used in countless ways, from generating artificial
gravity to manufacturing high-strength construction materials[/quote]
Mass accelerators
[quote]A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using precisely-controlled electromagnetic
attraction and repulsion. The slug is designed to squash or shatter on
impact, increasing the energy it transfers to the target. If this were
not the case, it would simply punch a hole right through, doing minimal
damage.
Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero.
A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater
speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously
unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint
chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon.
However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy.
This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are
suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor
on slug velocity.
[/quote]

Dreadnoughts

[quote]A dreadnought's power lies in the length of its main gun. Dreadnoughts
range from 800 meters to one kilometer long, with a main gun of
commensurate length. An 800-meter mass accelerator is capable of
accelerating one 20 kg. slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s every two
seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy of 38 kilotons1 of TNT, three times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.
[/quote]
[quote]Sovereign[/b] is the flagship of the rogue Spectre Saren Arterius. An enormous dreadnought larger than any other ship in any known fleet, Sovereign is crewed with both geth and krogan. At two kilometers long, its spinal-mounted main gun is likely capable of penetrating another dreadnought's kinetic barriers with a single shot.
The prevailing opinion is that Sovereign is a geth construct, while others believe it is a Prothean relic. Its design, however, hints at a more alien and mysterious origin. The attack on Eden Prime demonstrated 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.
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia....hicxulub_crater
This is an effect of a kinetic impact. You know, asteroid that destroyed dinosaurs.
You do realise, that asteroid impacts have the same principle of kinetic impact, that used in ME weaponry, right? I'm not going to lecture another dreman on physics, so that's all you'll get on topic.

So no, we know exactly how ME kinetic weapons are functioning. Try to evade 400kt explosion, clown.

[quote]
How do you know it can even fire at a target from that close range with the main gun? How do you know that Harbinger engaging ground targets at the close of a range with the main gun won't cause collateral damage to itself?
[/quote]

You are just pathetic.
You do realise, that there is no reason for Harbringer to descend from orbit, do you? :lol::lol:

[quote]
The atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagaski exploded with a yield of about 22 kilotons of TNT. We are told that the main guns of Reapers impact with a yield of 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if Harbinger's main gun was on the weaker end, that would still give its main gun 6 times the destructive power as the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Since Harbinger is the flagship of the Reaper fleet however, it is far more likely that its main gun is at the upper end. At 454 kilotons its main gun could unleash 20x the destructive power of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.
[/quote]
Finally, you stopped to ignore ME lore and sum of humanity's knowledge, to some extent. Being backed into a corner.
[quote]
How do you know that Harbinger would be impervious to collateral damage from engaging ground targets with its main gun from that close of a range?
[/quote]
You do realise, that there is no reason for Harbringer to descend, do you?
[quote]
The short answer: You don't.
[/quote]
It is irrelevant, your "argument" is based on false premise.
Harbringer have no reason to descend, he could just obliterate entire area with one shot right from orbit.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Just because the Reapers main gun can track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL in space doesn't necessarily mean that the main gun would be well suited to perform a similar task for dismounted infantry.
[/quote]

He can miss a 1-2 kilometers, it does not change the fate of the infantry.
Anyway, dreadnoughts in space battles shoot from tens of thousands kilometers, they are designed to hit other moving dreadnoughts, which are 800-1000 meters in length, and far less from forward projection(except asari).

So, if Harbringer ever needed to hit exact soldier from a low orbit, he could just do that. Not that he needs that, anyway.
[/quote]


Different tools for different tasks, just like the real world. Its really not that difficult to understand.
[/quote]

That is why howitzer squads dismounts and engage infantry with handguns, no less.
There of course is no reason, why howitzers squads should be deliberately used as infantry, other than stupidity. But from a military pretender(or incompetent moron) - such nonsense is expected.
[quote]
Different weapons systems have different capabilities and limitations. Just because a Reaper's main gun can destroy starships travelling at FTL from vast distances, doesn't mean the main gun is equally well suited for engaging small ground targets at nearly point blank range.
[/quote]
Shows that you don't give a damn about ME lore.
On a first glance i thought you were just mistaken with this FTL nonsense, but you just have no idea what you are talking about.
FTL. Faster Than Light.
Kinetic weapons. Slower than light.
There is no means of tracking ships in FTL, because sensors works on electromagnetic waves, which, surprise, travel at light speed in vacuum.

Shows that you just spewing nonsense, and using terms you have no idea what they even means.

The reason, why reaper should target individual ground targets, when he could just glass entire area with all those ground target in one shot - remains a mistery.

Actually, i, of course, know, that you saying this nonsense deliberately, because you have no other means of defending your point, other than sticking to an obviously false premise, deliberately ignoring everything that demonstrates that this premise is false.
There is no mistery in hypocrisy.


[quote]
That is an assumption on your part that is not supported at all by the actual in game canon. In short, it is your head canon.
[/quote]
Lol.
You are so pathetic.
You deliberately ignored link to ME codex, i provided, and now pretending that there is no information in lore.
[quote]
Space Combat 
Shells lofted by surface navies crash back to earth when their
acceleration is overwhelmed by gravity and air resistance. In space, a
projectile has unlimited range; it will keep moving until it hits
something.
Practical gunnery range is determined by the velocity of the
attacker's ordnance and the maneuverability of the target. Beyond a
certain range, a small ship's ability to dodge trumps a larger
attacker's projectile speed. The longest-ranged combat occurs between
dreadnoughts, whose projectiles have the highest velocity but are the
least maneuverable. The shortest-range combat is between frigates, which
have the slowest projectile velocities and highest maneuverability.
Opposing dreadnoughts open with a main gun artillery duel at
EXTREME ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers. The fleets close,
maintaining evasive lateral motion while keeping their bow guns facing
the enemy. Fighters are launched and attempt to close to disruptor
torpedo range. Cautious admirals weaken the enemy with ranged fire and
fighter strikes before committing to close action. Aggressive commanders
advance so cruisers and frigates can engage.
At LONG range, the main guns of cruisers become useful. Friendly
interceptors engage enemy fighters until the attackers enter the range
of ship-based GARDIAN fire. Dreadnoughts fire from the rear, screened by
smaller ships. Commanders must decide whether to commit to a general
melee or retreat into FTL.
At MEDIUM range, ships can use broadside guns. Fleets
intermingle, and it becomes difficult to retreat in order. Ships with
damaged kinetic barriers are vulnerable to wolf pack frigate flotillas
that speed through the battle space.
Only fighters and frigates enter CLOSE 'knife fight' ranges of 10
or fewer kilometers. Fighters loose their disruptor torpedoes, bringing
down a ship's kinetic barriers and allowing it to be swarmed by
frigates. GARDIAN lasers become viable weapons, swatting down fighters
and boiling away warship armor.
Neither dreadnoughts nor cruisers can use their main guns at
close range; laying the bow on a moving target becomes impossible.
Superheated thruster exhaust becomes a hazard.[/quote]
[quote]
Space Combat: Combat Endurance
Heat limits the length and intensity of ship-to-ship combat. Starships generate enormous heat when they fire high-energy weapons, perform maneuvering burns, and run on-board combat electronics.
In combat, warships produce heat more quickly than they can
disperse it. As heat builds within a vessel, the crewed spaces become
increasingly uncomfortable. Before the heat reaches lethal levels, a
ship must win or retreat by entering FTL. After an FTL run, the ships halts, shuts down non-essential systems, and activates the heat radiation gear.
Combat endurance varies by ship design and by the battle's
location. Battles in the deep cold of interstellar space can go on for
some time. Engagements close to a star are brief. Since habitable worlds
are usually close to a star, battles over them are usually more
frantic.
[/quote]
[quote] Space Combat: Planetary Assaults 
Planetary assaults are complicated if the target is a habitable
garden world; the attackers cannot approach the defenders straight on.[/b
The Citadel Conventions
prohibit the use of large kinetic impactors against habitable worlds.
In a straight-on attack, any misses plough into the planet behind the
defending fleet. If the defenders position themselves between the
attackers and the planet, they can fire at will while the attacker risks
hitting the planet.
Successful assaults on garden worlds hinge upon up-to-date
intelligence. Attackers need to determine where the enemy's defenses
are, so they may approach from an angle that allows them to fire with no
collateral damage. Note this is not necessary for hostile worlds.
Once control of orbit has been lost, defensive garrisons disperse
into the wilderness. An enemy with orbital superiority can bombard
surface forces with impunity. The best option for defenders is to hide
and collect reconnaissance in anticipation of relief forces.
Given the size of a planet, it is impractical to garrison entire
conquered worlds. Fortunately, colonization efforts tend to focus on
building up a dozen or fewer areas. Ground forces occupy the spaceports,
industrial facilities, and major population centers. The wilderness is
patrolled by unmanned aerial vehicles1
and satellite reconnaissance. If a defender unit is spotted, airmobile
rapid deployment units and satellite artillery are used to pin down and
destroy them.
[/quote]
[quote]Citadel Conventions 
These diplomatic talks occurred in the wake of the Krogan Rebellions, as a response to the destruction of the conflict and an attempt to distance the Council from the brutal krogan warfare.
The Conventions regulate the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. A
WMD causes environmental alteration to a world. A bomb that produces a
large crater is not considered a WMD; a bomb that causes a "nuclear
winter" is.
Use of WMD is forbidden on "garden" worlds like Earth,
with ecospheres that can readily support a population. If a habitable
world is destroyed, it will not be replaced for millions of years. The
Conventions do not forbid the use of WMD on hostile worlds or in sealed
space-station environments. Many militaries continue to develop and
maintain stockpiles.The Conventions graded Weapons of Mass Destruction into tiers of concern. Tier I is the greatest threat to galactic peace.
TIER I: Large kinetic impacters, such as asteroid drops or
de-orbited space stations. Effectively free and available in any system
(in the form of debris left over from planetary accretion), kinetic
impacters are the weapons of choice for terrorists and "third galaxy"
nations.
TIER II: Uncontrolled self-replicating weapons, such as
nanotechnology, viral or bacteriological organisms, "Von Neumann
devices", and destructive computer viruses. These weapons can lie
dormant for millennia, waiting for a careless visitor to carry them on
to another world.
TIER III: Large energy-burst weapons such as nuclear or antimatter warheads.
TIER IV: Alien species deliberately introduced to crowd out
native forms necessary for the health of an ecosystem. Ecological
tampering can take years to bear fruit, making it difficult to prove.
[/quote]
[quote] Space Combat: Pursuit Tactics 
Dependent on light, sensors cannot detect objects moving at a
faster-than-light speeds. No ship can be detected at interstellar
ranges. Detection at interplanetary ranges suffers from light speed lag:
observers see ships not where they appear to be but where they were
when the light bearing their image left them, minutes, hours, or days
before. To counteract light speed lag, battle fleets surround themselves
with spheres of screen and scouting frigates.
Pursuers cannot detect ships and directly intercept them.
Instead, pursuers track where objects were, where they were heading, and
at what speed they were moving. Such data reliably predicts an object's
future location and for pursuit along its light-lagged "wake". Ships
trying to evade pursuit follow erratic zigzag courses, requiring
pursuers to make stops to update their projections.
[/quote]
[quote]
Space Combat: Trans-Relay Assaults
The crucial choice for any attack through mass relays
is how to divide the fleet for transit. The accuracy of a relay's
mass-projection depends on the mass being moved and how far it’s going.
Any long distance and/or high mass jump will see "drift". That is, a
ship may be hundreds or millions of kilometers from its intended drop
point, in any direction from the relay.
Distance can't be chosen by admirals, but a relay is told how
much mass to transit. For example, if told to move a million metric tons
of mass, the relay will scan the approach corridor, find four
250,000-ton freighters, and transit them together, maintaining their
relative positions.
A commander has the option of moving his fleet as one large,
coherent formation that may be wildly off-position, or breaking it up
into many smaller formations that will be individually closer to the
intended attack point, but could be widely dispersed.
Conservative assault doctrine holds that fleets should be moved
en masse, maintaining concentration of force and reducing the chances of
collision. The only time it is reasonable to split up a formation is
during blockade running[/quote]
[quote]
Weapons: Mass Accelerators
Mass accelerators propel solid metal slugs via electromagnetic
attraction and repulsion. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be
accelerated to extremely high speeds, permitting previously
unattainable projectile velocities.
The primary determinant of a mass accelerator's destructive power
is length. The longer the barrel, the longer the slug can be
accelerated, the higher the slug's final velocity, and therefore the
greater its kinetic impact. Slugs are designed to squash or shatter on
impact, increasing the energy they transfer to its target. Without
collapsibility, slugs would punch through their targets while inflicting
only minimal damage.
Rather than being mounted on the exterior, starship guns are housed inside hulls and visible only as gun portholes from outside.
A ship's main gun is a large spinal-mount weapon running 90% of
the hull's length. While possessing destructive power equal to that of
tactical nuclear weapons, main guns are difficult to aim. Because ships
must be able to point their bows almost directly at their targets, main
guns are best used for long-range "bombardment" fire.
Approximately 40% of the hull's width, broadside guns inflict
less damage and can be mounted with greater numbers and more
flexibility. The modern human Kilimanjaro-class dreadnoughts mount three
decks with 26 broadside accelerators apiece for a total salvo weight of
78 slugs per side, firing once every two seconds.
However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact
energy. While the mass effect fields suspending the rounds mitigate the
recoil, recoil shock can still rattle crews and damage systems.

[/quote]
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

We know next to nothing about how Harbinger's weaponry functions. The codex entries are rather vague and sparse on details.
[/quote]

We know enough. It is used in precise orbital bombardment of an military installations.
As is for every dreadnought in ME.
It also used in space combat, which requires a lot more precision due to a greater range.
You just demonstrating again that you ignoring ME lore.[/quote]

No, you're demonstrating that you are making up your own lore. Sorry sport, but it doesn't work that way.
[/quote]
Another false statement.
I've even posted relative parts of ME lore in this post, so you can not pretend there is no such thing.
Well, you can, but at a cost of your credibility. Which you don't have already.
[quote]
There is nothing in the game that states that a Reaper's main gun is equally well suited to engaging dismounted infantry at extremely close range, than its supporting weapons.
[/quote]

This again.
There is no reason for space ship to engage infantry at extremely close range! NO REASON AT ALL.
Stop pretending that there is.
[quote]
You're just assuming thats the case.
[/quote]
There is no reason for space ship to engage infantry at a close range, other than STUPIDITY.
Yes, reapers are portrayed as utter morons in ME3, so that's is your defense? :lol:
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Please quite the section from the codex where we are given details on the targeting systems for both the Reapers' main guns, and their supporting weapons? Please quote the section where we are given the capabilities and limitations of both in regards to tracking and engaging dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
Your premise is flawed. Deliberately.
Why would reapers even need to target individual infantry when one shot will glass entire area of several kilometers in diameter?
And yes, of course they can target individual moving infantry. Any dreadnought can, and reapers have better targeting systems.

As for codex - link
Read entire page, and stop spewing nonsense already.

[/quote]

....and you've got nothing.
[/quote]
Lol.
You just ignored everything in that link.
But no worry, i posted most of it in this post.
[quote]
Came up empty on trying to find something in the lore where we are given details on the capabilties and limitations of the Reapers' main guns, huh?
[/quote]
Pathetic.
[quote]
Well get back to me if you ever do manage to find something on the maximum and minimum effective ranges, safe minimum distance from targets, and details on targeting systems.
[/quote]
Why would i bother? It is clear that you deliberately ignoring ME lore, and in this link were enough info.
Also, you are in no position to give me orders, clown.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

How do we know that the weapons being fired by Harbinger during the beam rush scene were in fact the betters tools for that particular task, due to both the capabilities and limitations of both weapons systems?
[/quote]
We know that it is used in orbital bombardment. Therefore, this entire sequence with descending Harbringer makes absolutely no sense.

The capital ships bombarded defense installations and industrial
centers, annihilating entire cities with populations in the low
millions, including Adelaide, Hamburg, Al Jubail, and Fort Worth.
Meanwhile, Reaper destroyers descended into the atmosphere to melt roads
and capture population centers with minimal loss of life. This is not
an example of the Reapers being merciful. More likely, they are herding
their prey to make the coming harvest that much easier.


As i said, you just deliberately ignoring ME lore.

[/quote]

Are you arguing that Harbinger should have sit back in orbit and obliterated London from space, or are you arguing that he should have used his main gun on the ground team during the beam rush? Because those are two completely different scenarios.
[/quote]
Oh, finally, you are showing some signs of intelligence. Or i'm just imagining things.
Yes, dear alternatively gifted person, there is no single reason for Harbringer to descend from orbit, other than STUPIDITY.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote..

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Incorrect.

I'm afraid I'm much more versed on how artillery weapons function than you. I'd suggest you refrain in the future from discussing topics you are completely ignorant of.
[/quote]
Lol.
Reaper capital ships is long range space combat and orbital bombardment ships.
So, using them at a few kilometer range without their main weapon, is the same as howitzer's squad moving from position to engage enemy, dismounts and engage infantry with handguns.
So, it is you who have no idea about military tactic and strategy.
Or you are so desperate to "win" this debate that you deliberately ignoring this.
My guess - is the former.[/quote]

You're reaching.
[/quote]
[quote]
Harbinger engaging the ground team with supporting weapons is potentially the same as a tank crew engaging dismounted infantry with their machine gun. As I stated earlier, the reason why tanks have machine guins is that they are often more effective in engaging dismounted infantry than the tanks' main gun, despite the main gun firing a much more destructive projectile.
[/quote]
You have no idea what "tank" is. How it was created, and for what role.
Actually your example with howitzers fits.
[quote]
A similar example holds true with artillery batteries. Many howitzers are capable of direct fire, however it is not an ideal scenario, and the battery's machine guns (and not the howitzers themselves) are used to secure their perimeter. Direct fire for an artillery unit is a last resort.
[/quote]
No, you are again showing your ignorance.
You have no knowledge of military history, tactics and strategy.
Role of a tank - to engage infantry and level defenses by direct fire, while providing cover from return fire.
Role of an artillery - is to bombard enemy positions from a long range via indirect fire.
[quote]
How do we know that the same might not hold true for the Reapers?
[/quote]
Because reapers are portrayed as intelligent cunning and adaptive in ME1, not as incompetent morons like you.

You have not a slightest idea about tanks and artillery roles. That's just pathetic. So much for "military professional" :lol:
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


While howitzers are indirect fire weapons, many weapons systems do in fact have direct fire capabilities. The M-198 howitzer that was used for many years by both the US Army and Marine Corps (as well as the Australian military), is capable of direct fire against both armored vehicles and dismounted infantry. In fact there are a couple of examples of it being used in exactly that capacity during both the Gulf War and the more recent invasion of Iraq.

Direct fire however is not the primary function it was designed for, and would generally be used only when artillery unit's position was being attacked or in danger of being overrun. In the direct fire role it is also, because of the limitations of the weapon, generally going to be a less effective weapon in engaging dismounted infantry than machine guns despite firing a far more destructive round. That is why artillery batteries also field machine guns to secure their positions. Those machine guns, rather than the howitzers, are the primary defense against an assault by dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
You are making less and less sense.
So, you basically said that main role of an artillery is not to engage infantry in direct fire role.
And that those situations only possible because of own command mistakes, or enemy cleverness.
That is obvious.
Only role of artillery is to indirectly fire from long range.
Of course, it can be used in other ways.
So, you can hammer a nail with a microscope. That doesn't mean that microscope created to hammer nails.

And of course, it is just another demonstration of how you ignoring common sense.[/quote]

Look, its really not that difficult to understand.
[/quote]
Exactly. Your ignorance is astonishing.
[quote]
Howitzers are an indirect fire weapon that also have a direct fire capability. However the direct fire capability is not its primary function, and so generlly you are going to want to leave the direct fire to direct fire weapons like machine guns.

Got it?
[/quote]
Primary role for a reaper capital ship is space combat and orbital bombardment.
And there is no role for a reaper capital ship to engage individual soldiers. You know, soldiers can not fly into orbit and force reaper to defend against them.
[quote]
The analogy about using microscopes to hammer nails isn't a good one, because the howitzer is in fact designed with a direct fire capability. A microscope isn't designed to hammer nails.
[/quote]
It fits perfectly.
Reapers are not designed to engage individual soldiers. And individual soldiers can not fly into orbit to force reaper to defend against them.
And secondary weapons of reaper are designed to eliminate smaller ships. In space combat.
And there is no infantry in space combat. You do realise that?
[quote]
Anyway, the point is that we don't know if the Reapers main guns are designed with the same capabilities for engaging ground targets at close range as their supporting weapons. Like the examples of the main battle tank or howitzer crew, perhaps the Reapers are better off using supporting weapons to engage dismounted infantry at close range than their main gun.
[/quote]
1. Your example only demonstrates your ignorance, and shows that you have no idea about military tactics and artillery|tank roles.
2. There is no reason for a reaper to engage dismounted infantry at a close range, other than STUPIDITY. Same as there is no reason for howitzer's squad to deliberately dismount and engage infantry with assault rifles, other than STUPIDITY.
[quote]
In fact, we can surmise that it is probably the case since that is what actually happens in the game.
[/quote]

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


So, reapers are dreadnoughts, designed for long range space combat and orbital bombardment. They destroyed countless civilizations fighting space battles and bombarding planets.

And suddenly, in your nonsensical headcanon, effective use of a reaper dreadnought is to not use his main weapon, deliberately lower power of his secondary weapons, and all that to hunt individual soldiers for no reason.
Riiight
[/quote]


Are we talking about Harbinger engaging the ground team with his main gun during the beam rush, or sitting back and conducting an orbital bombardment of London from space? Because those are not the same thing, and you are having difficulty keeping track of which argument you want to make.
[/quote]
No, comrade, that is you who have no idea what you talking about. There is no single reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage individual soldiers at a close range, other than STUPIDITY.
Go read topic from the start.
[quote]
Harbinber certainly had the capabilities to bombard London from orbit. We know the main gun could be used for that.
A better question would be whether he'd want to.
[/quote]
Yes, he descended, lowered power of his guns and engaged individual soldiers, because reasons.
[quote]
But that wasn't what this discussion was about. It was about whether Harbinger could use the main gun during the beam rush, and whether the devs having Harbinger use supporting weapons to engage the dismounted infantry was somehow a lore error. As for that, it most certainly is not a lore error, as there is nothing in the lore that states that Harbinger could use its main gun at close range while on a planetary surface, to engage dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
No, topic is about priority:earth mission making absolutely no sense.
No, Harbringer engaging infantry at close range is not a lore error.
This is deliberate dumbing down of a Harbringer, which in turn generates a enormous plothole.
[quote]
The argument that Harbinger firing supporting weapons rather than the main gun during the beam rush somehow violates lore, is rubbish. It is a nit pick that relies soley on individual head canon.
[/quote]
You made up that "argument" yourself, because you can not defend against real arguments. That is demagogy, comrade.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

Anyway, just watch that, and then say to me, that reapers are far less powerful than SA dreadnoughts(or every council race for that matter).
Because only that way your contrived nonsense could ever work.
You know, "Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light speed.."
[/quote]

And there is nothing in the lore that indicates that Harbinger could engage dismounted infantry at close range with its main gun. We know absolutely nothing about the capabilities of its main gun, how its targeting system operates, or what the minimum safe distance would be (for itself) to engage ground targets.
[/quote]
There is no single reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage individual soldiers, other than STUPIDITY of said reaper.
And this STUPIDITY, in turn, generates a plothole.
[quote]
Your head canon however, does not equal game canon.
[/quote]

Said by someone who deliberately ignores game lore, and makes up nonsense, to "prove" his "point". So much credibility



[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Why do tanks have machine guns in addition to their main guns? I'll tell you why...because generally speaking those machine guns are going to be a more effective weapon at engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than the tank's main gun.
[/quote]
You are just spewing nonsense, again.
First, tanks were created in WW1 as means to break through machine-gun ridded trenches. Of course, tanks were always anti-infantry machines, with guns to level defenses, and machineguns to destroy infantry.

But, this of course, unrelated to ME. Because reapers are space ships, designed for long range combat. And secondary weapons are designed against smaller ships, like cruisers or frigates.
You are saying, that infantry suddenly came to orbit and surrounded Harbringer, so he have no other means than to use power-lowered secondary weapons? [/quote]
Again, how do you know that Harbinger can safely engage ground targets from an extremely close range with its main gun? You don't.
[/quote]

There is no single reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage infantry at close range, other than STUPIDITY.
[quote]
Stop. Inserting. Head Canon.
[/quote]


[quote]
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the lore regarding the capabilities of a Reapers' main gun in ground targets at close range while in planetary atmospheres.
[/quote]
There is no single reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage infantry at close range, other than STUPIDITY.
[quote]
The tank comparison is relevent because it is a vehicle that is outfitted with more than one weapon, because its main gun is not a jack-of-all-trades. It comes equipped with a machine gun because in many situations, the main gun would be less well suited to engaging dismounted infantry than a machine gun.
[/quote]
No, it is another demonstration that you have no idea what "tank" is, and what its role is.
[quote]
Likewise, why should the Reapers' main gun be a jack-of-all-trades? How do we know that the supporting weapons aren't actually better for engaging ground targets at close range?
[/quote]

At first you were saying that reapers have limitations when engaging infantry at a close range.
Especially funny that reapers are designed for space combat from ranges like tens of thousands kilometers against moving targets, and thousands of kilometers for their secondary weapons, against even more fast moving targets.
And now you are saying that reapers deliberately designed their capital ships for a close range fights with infantry, and HORRIBLY FAILED at that.
Wow doesn't even cover this © smudboy.

I like how you making reapers more and more retarded with each iteration, and all that to defend EAWare's garbage writing. So credible.
[quote]
The argument that the beam rush scene is somehow bad because Harbinger doesn't use his main gun is a ridiculous nit pick without any basis in the actual lore of the game, and based entirely on player head canon regarding the capabilities of that weapon.
[/quote]

[quote] Weapons: Mass Accelerators 
Mass accelerators propel solid metal slugs via electromagnetic
attraction and repulsion. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be
accelerated to extremely high speeds, permitting previously
unattainable projectile velocities.
The primary determinant of a mass accelerator's destructive power
is length. The longer the barrel, the longer the slug can be
accelerated, the higher the slug's final velocity, and therefore the
greater its kinetic impact. Slugs are designed to squash or shatter on
impact, increasing the energy they transfer to its target. Without
collapsibility, slugs would punch through their targets while inflicting
only minimal damage.
Rather than being mounted on the exterior, starship guns are housed inside hulls and visible only as gun portholes from outside.
A ship's main gun is a large spinal-mount weapon running 90% of
the hull's length. While possessing destructive power equal to that of
tactical nuclear weapons, main guns are difficult to aim. Because ships
must be able to point their bows almost directly at their targets, main
guns are best used for long-range "bombardment" fire.
Approximately 40% of the hull's width, broadside guns inflict
less damage and can be mounted with greater numbers and more
flexibility. The modern human Kilimanjaro-class dreadnoughts mount three
decks with 26 broadside accelerators apiece for a total salvo weight of
78 slugs per side, firing once every two seconds.
However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact
energy. While the mass effect fields suspending the rounds mitigate the
recoil, recoil shock can still rattle crews and damage systems.
[/quote]
[quote] Starships: Dreadnought 

The dreadnought
is the ultimate arbiter of space warfare; millions of tons of metal,
ceramic, and polymer dedicated to the projection of firepower against an
enemy vessel of like ability. No sane commander would face a
dreadnought with anything less than another dreadnought.
A dreadnought's power lies in the length of its main gun.
Dreadnoughts range from 800 meters to one kilometer long, with a main
gun of commensurate length. An 800-meter mass accelerator is capable of
accelerating one 20 kg. slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s every two
seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy of 38 kilotons1 of TNT, three times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.
When used to bombard planets, some of this kinetic energy is lost
due to atmospheric re-entry friction. As a rule of thumb, each Earth-atmosphere of air pressure saps approximately 20% of a projectile's impact energy.
The turian fleet presently has 37 dreadnoughts; the asari, 21; and the salarians, 16. Humanity has six with an additional hull under construction at Arcturus Station. Alliance battleships are named for the mountains of Earth.
Everest-class: Everest, Fuji, Elbrus.
Kilimanjaro-class: Kilimanjaro, Tai Shan, Shasta, Aconcagua (under construction).
[/quote]
Based on head canon, riiight
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


While not absolute canon, we can at least surmise that the Reapers' supporting weapons are in fact better than the main guns for engaging dismounted infantry, because that is what Harbinger uses in the beam rush scenes. At least that has some actual basis on in-game content, rather than declaration that the main gun would be better based entirely on one's own personal head canon.
[/quote]
Bwahahaha.
Ignoring ME lore, as always.

[/quote]



What lore would that be? The stuff you make up in your head is not canon.

I repeat: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODEX REGARDING THE CAPABILITIES OF THE REAPERS' MAIN GUN IN ENGAGING GROUND TARGETS AT CLOSE RANGES WITHIN PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES.
[/quote]
I'm tired of your false premise.
There is no reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage infantry at a close range, other than STUPIDITY.


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


It was a dreadnought. Ashley and Kaidan refer to it as such in dialogue.
[/quote]
Lol.

Dreadnoughts are blah blah blah

*snip*

And of course, this.
Bioware admitted their mistake.
[/quote]

Bioware admitted it was a mistake, but no corrections were made. So what is canon? The model or the dialogue? They conflict.

IMO if it is called a dreadnought, its a dreadnought. Other people may interpret that scene differently, which is why I added that it wouldn't matter even if the destroyed ship was a cruiser.
[/quote]
It is a cruiser, even authors said that.
Your headcanon is pure nonsense, you just ignoring lore and authors admittance of lore errors. You are so desperate to "win" this debate, that's just pathetic.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Even if it were a cruiser however, the comparison would still fail. The SR2 was a frigate and the closest comparable ship would be the Normandy SR1, not a heavy cruiser.
[/quote]
What is "heavy cruiser"? Another asspull, i guess.
Anyway, Normandy SR-2 is almost twice the size of SR-1, so it is very large frigate, comparable with cruiser.

[/quote]

The design of that ship is described as a human heavy cruiser in the art book. Hence, at the very least it is a heavy cruiser.
The Normandy SR2 is a frigate.

[/quote]
There is no "heavy cruiser" in lore.
Stop using your nonsensical headcanon as a "proof".

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

Well anyway, you already have no credibility.

*snip*

Lol. Another "real life example" from a military pretender.

*snip*

"Military experience", my ass
*snip*

Given your "examples", you never had any experience in the military.[/quote]

Because I disagree with you, even though you don't have a single clue what you are talking about, it must mean that I never served in the military? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
[/quote]
You have no knowledge of military tactics and strategy, about roles of tanks and artillery, no knowledge of military history.
[quote]
But why don't you put your money where your mouth is. How 'bout I provide proof, and you provide the equivalent of $50.00 to a charity of my choosing? Of course in return you'd have to provide proof of payment.

Of course if I failed to provide proof, I'd do likewise for a charity of your choosing.

Put up or shut up.
[/quote]
Why should i bother?
It is clear that either you are military pretender or just incompetent moron.
[b]Especially given that you always use your supposed military background as a means to gain credibility in debates.
Or you are just an incompetent moron.
Or there is another variant - you are so desperate to win this debate, so you deliberately making no sense and demonstrating astonishing ignorance.
Take your pick.

Modifié par Maxster_, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:50 .

[Tomwew]

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

I don't think it would be a perfect deception; hence the Reapers trying to kill us after scanning star systems. Plus with all those AA towers around it would be far too much of a risk. Not to mention Harvesters and other potential defenses we don't know about it. Wasn't it also said there were gravitational disturbances near the beam, preventing shuttles and what not from getting close?

what? it's too much of a risk to send the normandy for the sake of saving the galaxy, but not for the sake of two squadmates? you must see this is a poorly done scene? the second i heard shep call for the normandy my faith in the Ec to fix things was gone, and this is the least worse part.

By the evac time, the AA guns are taken down, as are most hostiles in the area.

o.k discounting the contrivance that full blown reapers can't see the normandy, but their AA guns and ground troops (directly or indirectly controlled by them and containing reaper tech) can, why, after they've been destroyed do they go ahead with the beam run instead of sending the normandy? it still makes no sense.

[jstme]

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

I don't think it would be a perfect deception; hence the Reapers trying to kill us after scanning star systems. Plus with all those AA towers around it would be far too much of a risk. Not to mention Harvesters and other potential defenses we don't know about it. Wasn't it also said there were gravitational disturbances near the beam, preventing shuttles and what not from getting close?

what? it's too much of a risk to send the normandy for the sake of saving the galaxy, but not for the sake of two squadmates? you must see this is a poorly done scene? the second i heard shep call for the normandy my faith in the Ec to fix things was gone, and this is the least worse part.

By the evac time, the AA guns are taken down, as are most hostiles in the area.

But there is huge freaking Sovereign-class reaper ship now. With firepower of dozens of AA batteries and destroyers combined.

[Outsider edge]

Holy pyramid Batman!!!