Khavos wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
Khavos wrote...
I'm unclear why you think biotic attacks wouldn't be effective at range.
They can't be used at long ranges.
What's your source for that, out of curiosity?
In Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 I believe all the maps were small. It has been awhile since I've played either game, but as far as I can remember in both games when you first saw the enemy they usually looked to be within 100 meters of Shepard. In Mass Effect 1 however you did have some very large maps on the uncharted worlds, and if you had Shepard and company dismount early from the Mako to engage enemies on foot you would need to be at close range in order to use biotics. IIRC (again, its been awhile) some of the assault rifles/sniper rifles had longer ranges.
Granted gameplay and lore are not always the same thing. But since the lore on biotics says nothing about range you're left with gameplay and speculation. Given the difficulty in controlling biotic powers as described in the books, and taking into account the significant limitations of both the human eye and guesswork aiming, it is difficult to imagine biotics as anything other than a short range weapon. This is probably one instance where the gameplay would bear at least some semblance to the reality for those particular characters.
Khavos wrote...
Biotics are portrayed very inconsistently depending on which source you're pulling from, which is why I'm curious if there's a consensus and, more importantly, what that consensus is based upon. Thus far, it seems to entirely be speculation or outright, "This works, because I say so."
The very nature of this thread invites speculation because Mass Effect is an RPG rather than a futuristic military sim. You're basically asking questions about the tactical doctrine of the Alliance (or their alien equivalent) in dealing with enemy biotics, when of course no such field manuals would exist in game. What information there is in the codex regarding the organization or tactics of the various military factions tends to be sparse, and since it is typically (if not always) written by people with no prior military experience, it doesn't always make sense.
In short there is no way to answer how a biotic can be countered without speculating. If the ground rules for discussion are going to be 'no speculation,' than there can be no discussion.
Back to speculating...
Modern infantry tactics are dominated by the machine gun. With much higher rates of fire, more ammunition, and longer ranges than assault rifles, machine guns are by far the most deadly weapon at a rifle squad's disposal. As such all squad and platoon level infantry tactics revolve around getting their own machine guns into a position to do the maximum amount of damage to the enemy or suppressing the enemy so that they can be outflanked by a maneuver element. Of course the flip side to that is that the enemy is likely fielding its own machine guns, and they pose just as a big a threat to you as your guns do to them. Thus you have both sides with the goal of maneuvering for a better position and attempting to knock out each other's guns.
How does that relate to biotics?
The machine gunner is simultaneously both the deadliest person in a fire team, and the most in danger. The second he opens up on that gun, if the enemy is in a position to effectively engage him most of the incoming is going to be headed his way.
I see biotics as being in a similar predicament. Like the machine gunners they might have the potential to do a fvckton of damage or to suppress the enemy, but if the enemy isn't completely suppressed the moment they're identified as biotics they are going to be drawing lots of fire. If you are a run-of-the-mill rifleman, you probably don't want to stick too close to the biotic. On the hand they'd probably be popular with the machine gunners. Finally they'd have someone to share the incoming with.
The introduction of biotics to warfare would have likely caused some shifts in tactics. Machine guns are probably still a greater threat at range, but biotics *might* be considered a greater one at close range. In either case, both are going to be priorities. I imagine that like machine gunners biotics would have a high potential for inflicting a lot of damage, but the flip side would be that they would also be a lot more likely be to be wounded or killed than a rifleman.
There are also a multitude of ways in which biotics can be wounded or killed, as they aren't invulnerable. Barriers can give way just like standard shielding. Machine guns, as ever, would remain a threat. So would enemy riflemen. Activating their abilities or being identified by their lighter equipment could get a mortar or artillery strike called on them. Is the biotic within grenade range? Any enemy snipers providing overwatch? Does the enemy field its own biotics? Are the opposing infantry supported by armor or perhaps an anti-tank element, armed with rocket launchers or rocket propelled grenades?
Any and all of the above could be thrown a biotic once he activates an ability or is otherwise identified.
Modifié par Han Shot First, 01 février 2014 - 10:30 .
Retour en haut
Just kidding, let me think of something...uhm...
