58 réponses à ce sujet

[Pantegana]

So I've reinstalled ME3 yesterday and while playing I've noticed a thing I hadn't noticed before. The war assets computer says both the first and the third fleets lost a third of their ships while defending the citadel council, but I remember from ME1 that there was only the fifth fleet.

Dafuq happened?

[katamuro]

Yes, exactly. Its a retcon to make the situation more desperate. While only the Fifth fleet was involved as from ME2 we know it lost 8 cruisers while turians 20, somehow now its a third and from 3 fleets.

[ahsari2014]

The fifth fleet is the fleet of admiral Hacket and the other fleets are also under his command at this crucial moment. So they are therefor not mentioned specificly. I think! I might be wrong.

[JasonShepard]

Eh. Maybe they just divided the losses between the fleets, rather than leave the Fifth Fleet at a vastly reduced strength.

[Pantegana]

JasonShepard wrote...

Eh. Maybe they just divided the losses between the fleets, rather than leave the Fifth Fleet at a vastly reduced strength.

Man, a third of ships from each fleet is definitely severe beating.
I mean, three ships that loose a third of their ships sound more severe than the 8 original cruisers lost by the alliance. Sounds more like they made it worse for the alliance rather than dividing the losses.

Modifié par Pantegana, 21 février 2014 - 02:39 .

[Derpy]

All the fleets bought Skyrim and that is what they do now forever.

[katamuro]

I think it was a move to make the Crucible the only way out, hence "we cant defeat them conventionally" so building it is the only choice. If against the Sovereign and a geth fleet only 8 human ships +20 turian ships + damaged Destiny Ascension were enough to destroy it even when a Reaper had the advantage of surprise, well you can do the maths, each Council species fleet has tens of thousands of ships. Its the same reason why we dont see Thanix cannons used, they suddenly realized that if even only human and turian fleets had 10% of their ships refitted with Thanix cannons then the firepower would be enough to pose a serious threat to reapers. IF a Normandy SR2 could destroy a Collector cruiser which we know is huge compared to SR2 with only two shots, then a cruiser or a dreadnaught equipped with such weapons...

Plus if you get both geth and quarian fleets on your side together with more advanced asari ships, then with human and turian fleets acting as the main force the rest were easily more then enough to deal with the Reapers on each homeworld, or at least be enough of a worry that reapers would not just rush in. Plus if the Crucible was changed from the space-magic dispenser to some kind of Reaper specific EMP, or communication disrupter, or reprogramming of the mass relays to not accept reaper ships then the conventional victory would be quite plausible.

[TurianRebel212]

Wrex ate them.


He was really hungry after the final battle.

[von uber]

The power of the reapers is not a static thing across the series and appears to be very dependent on the situation and as the plot demands.
It's certainly not 1 reaper is roughly 4 dreadnoughts as is stated because that is proven incorrect in me1 and me2 and me3!

[AlanC9]

JasonShepard wrote...

Eh. Maybe they just divided the losses between the fleets, rather than leave the Fifth Fleet at a vastly reduced strength.

That would be the standard thing to do. There's no reason to leave one fleet understrength and the others at full strength.

[Pantegana]

AlanC9 wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Eh.
Maybe they just divided the losses between the fleets, rather than leave
the Fifth Fleet at a vastly reduced strength.

That would be the standard thing to do. There's no reason to leave one fleet understrength and the others at full strength.

Yeah
but the thing doesn't say "the fifth fleet was reintegrated with ships
taken from the third and first", it clearly states that the third and
first fleets suffered losses at the battle of the citadel.

[katamuro]

AlanC9 wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Eh. Maybe they just divided the losses between the fleets, rather than leave the Fifth Fleet at a vastly reduced strength.

That would be the standard thing to do. There's no reason to leave one fleet understrength and the others at full strength.

Well that is true most of the time but 3 fleets each with a third of the ships lost means one whole fleet was lost. Since it never has been said anywhere that the whole of the Fifth Fleet was lost in the me1 it is safe to assume that is not the case and there is something fishy going on. ME1-3 have several significant retcons some less visible than others. Also the protheans were also retconned in ME2, in ME1 they were very similar to humans but that was changed in ME2. 

[AlanC9]

It doesn't really matter how many ships the humans lost at the battle. The entire human fleet is small compared to the rest of Citadel forces. Whether they retconned or not, the force ratio would be about the same.

The real ME3 retcon is how much weaker they made the Reapers. The force of Sovereigns shown at the end of ME2 would have curbstomped the Citadel fleets in a week.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

It doesn't really matter how many ships the humans lost at the battle. The entire human fleet is small compared to the rest of Citadel forces. Whether they retconned or not, the force ratio would be about the same.

Umm, actually, the human fleets are second only to the turians.  And they get around the Treaty of Farixan by building carriers, which are as big as dreadnoughts but wihtout the big honkin' space cannon.  And instead carry dozens of fighters.

The real ME3 retcon is how much weaker they made the Reapers. The force of Sovereigns shown at the end of ME2 would have curbstomped the Citadel fleets in a week.

The power level of Reapers seems unchanged.  If they seem weaker, it's because of thanix technology and the galaxy now has something of a clue what they're up against now that Shepard is being taken seriously.  But the sheer number of them (if we believe they've been around for a billion years) means they should have taken the entire galaxy easily, yes.

[themikefest]

The Alliance would not of lost that many ships if they had enough common sense to fire at the reaper from behind

[ImaginaryMatter]

themikefest wrote...

The Alliance would not of lost that many ships if they had enough common sense to fire at the reaper from behind

Limitations of the cutscene. Plus, I know they changed this in ME3 but those tentacle's look fairly flexible, who's to say it couldn't fire backwards? And in the cutscene they just showed the front side with the ships stationary because it's much easier to animate?

[themikefest]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

themikefest wrote...

The Alliance would not of lost that many ships if they had enough common sense to fire at the reaper from behind

Limitations of the cutscene. Plus, I know they changed this in ME3 but those tentacle's look fairly flexible, who's to say it couldn't fire backwards? And in the cutscene they just showed the front side with the ships stationary because it's much easier to animate?

Bioware just did it like that just to show how powerful the reaper is. I believe the reapers are weak on the backside. And if they were able to fire backwards why didn't they when the Turians came out of ftl and fired on them. They had to turn around to fire at the Turains according to the Battle of Palaven

[ImaginaryMatter]

themikefest wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

themikefest wrote...

The Alliance would not of lost that many ships if they had enough common sense to fire at the reaper from behind

Limitations of the cutscene. Plus, I know they changed this in ME3 but those tentacle's look fairly flexible, who's to say it couldn't fire backwards? And in the cutscene they just showed the front side with the ships stationary because it's much easier to animate?

Bioware just did it like that just to show how powerful the reaper is. I believe the reapers are weak on the backside. And if they were able to fire backwards why didn't they when the Turians came out of ftl and fired on them. They had to turn around to fire at the Turains according to the Battle of Palaven

As I said before, they added that in ME3. The thing is if you have flexible tenticles, why wouldn't they be able to shoot backwards? Even in their relaxed mode some of the tentacle tips are facing backwards. I know the Reapers lose all common sense in ME3, but if you had free range to design a ship who's weapon capacties weren't limited by the length of a mass accelerator why would you design it to only fire in one direction?

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It doesn't really matter how many ships the humans lost at the battle. The entire human fleet is small compared to the rest of Citadel forces. Whether they retconned or not, the force ratio would be about the same.

Umm, actually, the human fleets are second only to the turians.  And they get around the Treaty of Farixan by building carriers, which are as big as dreadnoughts but wihtout the big honkin' space cannon.  And instead carry dozens of fighters.

You sure about that?

The Treaty of Farixen stipulates the amount of dreadnoughts a navy may own, with the turian peacekeeping fleet being allowed the most. As of 2183, the turians had 37 dreadnoughts, the asari had 21, the salarians had 16, and the Alliance had 6 with another under construction. As of 2185, the dreadnought count was 39 turian, 20 asari, 16 salarian, and 8 human. By 2186, humans construct a ninth dreadnought, and the volus have built a single dreadnought of their own. The geth, unbound by the treaty, possess almost as many dreadnoughts as the turians. In preparation for the retaking of their homeworld, the quarians fitted their Liveships with dreadnought cannons, effectively making them dreadnought-class vessels. The batarians are stated to possess dreadnoughts, but the exact number is unknown.

Unless the humans have a lot of carriers relative to the other races, I don't see how they are second only to the turians. Note that the turians have at least some carriers of their own by ME3.

The power level of Reapers seems unchanged.  If they seem weaker, it's because of thanix technology and the galaxy now has something of a clue what they're up against now that Shepard is being taken seriously.  But the sheer number of them (if we believe they've been around for a billion years) means they should have taken the entire galaxy easily, yes.

I meant that an unknown number of those 200+ cuttlefish in the ME2 ending aren't Sovereign-class anymore. (Assuming you buy that count; I forget who did that. But it's on the low end of projected Reaper numbers anyway.) In addition to them being somewhat technologically weaker relative to Citadel fleets, as you say.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It doesn't really matter how many ships the humans lost at the battle. The entire human fleet is small compared to the rest of Citadel forces. Whether they retconned or not, the force ratio would be about the same.

Umm, actually, the human fleets are second only to the turians.  And they get around the Treaty of Farixan by building carriers, which are as big as dreadnoughts but wihtout the big honkin' space cannon.  And instead carry dozens of fighters.

You sure about that?

The Treaty of Farixen stipulates the amount of dreadnoughts a navy may own, with the turian peacekeeping fleet being allowed the most. As of 2183, the turians had 37 dreadnoughts, the asari had 21, the salarians had 16, and the Alliance had 6 with another under construction. As of 2185, the dreadnought count was 39 turian, 20 asari, 16 salarian, and 8 human. By 2186, humans construct a ninth dreadnought, and the volus have built a single dreadnought of their own. The geth, unbound by the treaty, possess almost as many dreadnoughts as the turians. In preparation for the retaking of their homeworld, the quarians fitted their Liveships with dreadnought cannons, effectively making them dreadnought-class vessels. The batarians are stated to possess dreadnoughts, but the exact number is unknown.

Unless the humans have a lot of carriers relative to the other races, I don't see how they are second only to the turians. Note that the turians have at least some carriers of their own by ME3.

The Alliance military is of great concern to the galaxy. At first contact with the turians, they were completely inexperienced. Turian disdain turned to respect after the relief of Shanxi, where the humans surprised them with novel technologies and tactics. The human devotion to understanding and adapting to modern space warfare stunned the staid Councilraces. For hundreds of years, they had lived behind the secure walls of long-proven technology and tactics. The Council regards the Alliance as a "sleeping giant". Less than 3% of humans volunteer to serve in their military, a lower proportion than any other species. While competent, Alliance soldiers are neither as professional as the turians nor as skilled as the asari. Their strengths lie in fire support, flexibility, and speed. They make up for lack of numbers with sophisticated technical support (V.I.s, drones, artillery, electronic warfare) and emphasis on mobility and individual initiative. Their doctrine is not based on absorbing and dishing out heavy shocks like the turians and krogan. Rather, they bypass enemy strong points and launch deep into their rear, cutting supply lines and destroying headquarters and support units, leaving enemies to "wither on the vine". On defensive, the human military is a rapid reaction force that lives by Sun Tzu's maxim, "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Garrisons are intended for scouting rather than combat, avoiding engagement to observe and report on invaders using drones. The token garrisons of human colonies make it easy for alien powers to secure them, for which the Alliance media criticizes the military. However, the powerful fleets stationed at phase gate nexuses such as Arcturus are just a few hours or days from any colony within their sphere of responsibility. In the event of an attack, they respond with an overwhelming force


 Starships: Carriers %3D%3D

All races provide their fleets with organic fighter support. Cruisers fit a handful in the space between the interior pressure hulls and exterior armor. Dreadnoughts have a hangar deck within the hull. Humans – who had only recently "graduated" from surface to space combat – were the first to build ships wielding fighters as the main armament. In fleet combat, carriers stay clear of battle, launching fighters bearing disruptor torpedoes. Fighters are the primary striking power of the ship; if a carrier enters mass accelerator range of the enemy, things have gone very wrong. It is possible to recover and rearm fighters during combat, though most carriers seal the flight deck and try to stay out of the way. The flight deck is essentially a corridor through the armor and into the heart of the vessel. A single well-placed torpedo is enough to gut a carrier. Alliance carriers are named after great leaders, artists, and intellectuals from human history. Starships: FightersFighters are single-pilot combat small craft. They are lightweight enough that they can be economically fitted with powerful element zero cores, making them capable of greater acceleration and sharper maneuvers than starships. Kinetic barrier shields changed starship battles from short, vicious bloodbaths to extended, indecisive slugging matches. Only the main gun of a dreadnought could punch a mass accelerator slug through the barriers of an opposing dreadnought. This changed with the development of the fighter-launched mass disruptor torpedo, a short-ranged weapon that can penetrate kinetic barriers to destroy their projector assemblies. Starship GARDIAN defenses must be overwhelmed through swarm tactics. Fighter groups can take heavy casualties pressing their torpedo attacks home. Once fighter-launched torpedoes have crippled an enemy's barriers, the mass accelerators on frigates and cruisers can make short work of them. Interceptors are a type of fighter optimized to attack other fighters, with no ability to damage starships. Interceptors are used to screen friendly units from incoming fighter attack. Humans were the first to use carriers, and are more innovative than the other Council Races.  Plus , looks like carriers may arguably be more effecting against Reapers than dreadnoughts.  At least, the disruptor torpedos their fighters use are.

I meant that an unknown number of those 200+ cuttlefish in the ME2 ending aren't Sovereign-class anymore. (Assuming you buy that count; I forget who did that. But it's on the low end of projected Reaper numbers anyway.) In addition to them being somewhat technologically weaker relative to Citadel fleets, as you say.

I'd argue that the reveal of destroyer-class Reapers only makes them stronger.  It does not reduce the number of Soverign-class Rreapers out there, and in fact creates order of magnitude more of these "lesser" Reapers.

A couple hundred SOverign class ones might still be a losing proposition to the galaxy, but at least every Reaper destroyed measurably weakens them overall.  But with the number ME3 showed, you can kill three or four Reapers on foot and it's like "So what?"

Modifié par iakus, 21 février 2014 - 07:05 .

[AlanC9]

None of that quoted material supports your inflated figure for human military strength. (The low per-capita number of humans in the military points in the opposite direction.)

I don't follow how introducing destroyers makes the Reapers weaker than they otherwise would have been. Some of the 200 Sovereigns could have been retconned down to destroyer size. Without destroyers they're stuck with 200 Sovereigns, which would be far more powerful than what we see in ME3 even after they weakened the capital type somewhat.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 février 2014 - 12:05 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

None of that quoted material supports your inflated figure for human military strength. (The low per-capita number of humans in the military points in the opposite direction.)

You mean besides the Council races, including the turians, are concerned about what humanity could do if it can accomplish this much with such a comparatively small military per capita?

Your own analysis is based entirely on how many dreadnoughts a given race has.  That is not an absolutel measuring stick on military strength. 

I don't follow how introducing destroyers makes the Reapers weaker than they otherwise would have been. Some of the 200 Sovereigns could have been retconned down to destroyer size. Without destroyers they're stuck with 200 Sovereigns, which would be far more powerful than what we see in ME3 even after they weakened the capital type somewhat.

You know how the saying goes:  "Quantity has a quality of it's own"  By introducing destroyers, the reaper numbers have inflated to, conservatively, 5-10 times their original numbers.  No longer is one reaper made per cycle.  Now it is many reapers per cycle.  Now all those Sovereign class reapers have destroyer backup.

Modifié par iakus, 22 février 2014 - 12:12 .

[Invisible Man]

as for explaining the human fleet losses to the reaper/geth forces in the battle for the citadel... why not simply change three human fleets took 1/3 losses, to the 5th fleet took heavy casualties, causing vessels from the 1st & 3rd fleets to be reassigned to reinforce the 5th? that's what navies do to cover losses when rebuilding one force will take too much time. though I do wish the human military had stayed like the alliance fleets in me1, seemed more reasonable than simply... boom, in 3 years humans have filled all the military gaps with glitter.

---edit
in retrospect, I guess that last part was I little severe. blame my acid reflux.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 22 février 2014 - 01:36 .

[Invisible Man]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

As I said before, they added that in ME3. The thing is if you have flexible tenticles, why wouldn't they be able to shoot backwards? Even in their relaxed mode some of the tentacle tips are facing backwards. I know the Reapers lose all common sense in ME3, but if you had free range to design a ship who's weapon capacties weren't limited by the length of a mass accelerator why would you design it to only fire in one direction?

maybe the tentacle lasers are like the guardian lasers of the council races, while the reaper's heavy weapons are the big forward facing ones we see in me3?

[Arcian]

Pantegana wrote...

So I've reinstalled ME3 yesterday and while playing I've noticed a thing I hadn't noticed before. The war assets computer says both the first and the third fleets lost a third of their ships while defending the citadel council, but I remember from ME1 that there was only the fifth fleet.

Dafuq happened?

Super MAC happened.