58 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

I just head canon that a third of the fleets were lost in attrition with the Reapers. Having losses not be replaced three years after the events of ME1 is silly.

[AlanC9]

Well, ship construction takes years ITRW. A Ticonderoga-class cruiser takes three years to build. Also note that at least some ships were replaced. SSV Hong Kong comes to mind.

[Han Shot First]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, ship construction takes years ITRW. A Ticonderoga-class cruiser takes three years to build. Also note that at least some ships were replaced. SSV Hong Kong comes to mind.

The Normandy SR2 took two years to build, and that was a more technologically advanced starship with stealth capability and a unique drive core. Although a smaller class of ship than cruisers I would think the more complicated and state-of-the-art nature of the Normandy would have given it a longer period of construction.

Even if that isn't the case however and cruisers take longer to build, I still prefer to head canon that the losses were attrition from the Reaper War. If the losses were only from the first Battle of the Citadel only the 5th Fleet should be affected. It is possible that the fleets could have been reorganized to spread the losses from that battle out, but given that we know that the Alliance lost 8 cruisers, those missing 8 ships shouldn't account for 1/3 of the entire Alliance fleet.

I think the ME2 dialogue with Al-Jilani and the ME3 war asset description contradict each other.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 22 février 2014 - 06:27 .

[Dr_Extrem]

good question .. there is no satisfying answer out there.


in mass effect 1, only the acturus fleet participated in the battle of the citadel. 

but, there was a problem with the writers coordination in the first game. originally, the first fleet was meant to be the to be the arcturus fleet and the fifth fleet to be stationed at the citadel (how else could rear admiral michailovich conduct a surprise inspection?). this somehow got mixed up.

what we know is, that admiral hackett (head of the fifth fleet in me1) was the one in charge of the "entire arcturus fleet" when they came through the mass relay to reenforce the heavily reduced citadel fleet (only a token force remained at the citadel due to the councils orders and the remaining fleet was obliterated by the big ass geth fleet and sovi).


now to the facts (before me3 happened):

we know (from the codex), that:
- dreadnoughts are a reserve asset - they are saved for long planed strategic encounters. in addition, they are onlöy suited for long range engagements (they are too sluggish to be useful in a knife fight). 
- cruiser class ships are the work horse of the fleets - they are the classic "first response" class. they are flexible, fast and easily deployed.
- the arcturus fleet does not have a lot of time to assamble the fleet - it is very likely, that they send in their first response units and patrol fleets
- during the events of mass effect 1, the alliance fleet only has 6 dreadnoughts (i doubt, that they are all stationed at arcturus). 2 years later (me2), they have 8.
- when the fleets arive in me1, we can only see classe of capital ships - and they are cruisers. an old tabletop rule states it perfectly - "what you see, is what you get" and i do not see even one bloody dreadnought.
- it is possible, that hackett observes the battle and gives his orders from the "war room" in acrturus station. we do not know if he is actually "on scene".
- not even one alliance dreadnought was lost during the battle of the citadel. shepard knows all the ships that were destroyed (shep also states, that the alliance owes the fifth fleet all their medals). if a dreadnought was lost, shepard would have mentioned it.


yes ... they threw everything they had (ready) at sovereign - but saren took control over the citadel and locked the relay network. shepard had to unlock the relays (with vigils code) to grant the fleet access to the serpent nebula. only the fith fleet was able to strike at sovereigh. it was hardly all the alliance had - only all they could mobilise on short notice. the moment saren locked the network, the other alliance fleets were not able to gather at arcturus - and the other fleets are hours if not days of travel away from each other.


basically, the state of the fleets was heavily retconed in mass effect 3 and the codex entries / stories from me 1 and 2 were ignored.

[Han Shot First]

Multiple writers are a necessity in a game like Mass Effect, but one of the drawbacks is stuff like this. Sometimes coordination gets lost and you have two writers creating content that contradicts the other.

[katamuro]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

good question .. there is no satisfying answer out there.


in mass effect 1, only the acturus fleet participated in the battle of the citadel. 

but, there was a problem with the writers coordination in the first game. originally, the first fleet was meant to be the to be the arcturus fleet and the fifth fleet to be stationed at the citadel (how else could rear admiral michailovich conduct a surprise inspection?). this somehow got mixed up.

what we know is, that admiral hackett (head of the fifth fleet in me1) was the one in charge of the "entire arcturus fleet" when they came through the mass relay to reenforce the heavily reduced citadel fleet (only a token force remained at the citadel due to the councils orders and the remaining fleet was obliterated by the big ass geth fleet and sovi).


now to the facts (before me3 happened):

we know (from the codex), that:
- dreadnoughts are a reserve asset - they are saved for long planed strategic encounters. in addition, they are onlöy suited for long range engagements (they are too sluggish to be useful in a knife fight). 
- cruiser class ships are the work horse of the fleets - they are the classic "first response" class. they are flexible, fast and easily deployed.
- the arcturus fleet does not have a lot of time to assamble the fleet - it is very likely, that they send in their first response units and patrol fleets
- during the events of mass effect 1, the alliance fleet only has 6 dreadnoughts (i doubt, that they are all stationed at arcturus). 2 years later (me2), they have 8.
- when the fleets arive in me1, we can only see classe of capital ships - and they are cruisers. an old tabletop rule states it perfectly - "what you see, is what you get" and i do not see even one bloody dreadnought.
- it is possible, that hackett observes the battle and gives his orders from the "war room" in acrturus station. we do not know if he is actually "on scene".
- not even one alliance dreadnought was lost during the battle of the citadel. shepard knows all the ships that were destroyed (shep also states, that the alliance owes the fifth fleet all their medals). if a dreadnought was lost, shepard would have mentioned it.


yes ... they threw everything they had (ready) at sovereign - but saren took control over the citadel and locked the relay network. shepard had to unlock the relays (with vigils code) to grant the fleet access to the serpent nebula. only the fith fleet was able to strike at sovereigh. it was hardly all the alliance had - only all they could mobilise on short notice. the moment saren locked the network, the other alliance fleets were not able to gather at arcturus - and the other fleets are hours if not days of travel away from each other.


basically, the state of the fleets was heavily retconed in mass effect 3 and the codex entries / stories from me 1 and 2 were ignored.

Exactly what I have been saying for quite a while. Clear and very present retcon. 

As to the ship build times, considering that the way today ships are built are basically almost the same as 20 years ago and considering that for the past 20 years the cost of military projects have been balooning. Aslo we still use the traditonal manufacturig techniques, so we make the parts separately then assemble then all by hand. Each ship is basically hand-made. Now in 2183 the state of technology allows for guns to have mini-assemblers in them that manufacture bullets. Add to that that robotics would be much more advanced so I doubt that the more dangerous parts of making a cruiser is still human-only operation. 
Plus add to that the fact that each Ticenderoga-class cruiser is only one of 27 ships of this class ever built. In ME universe Alliance fleet has thousands of ships, with cruisers probably making up the bulk of it, and as you know mass production of anything makes it much more economically viable and you can make them faster. Also since the alliance is a growing power with more colonies each year I think that its fleet was also growing with ships built all the time.

[Dr_Extrem]

katamuro wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

good question .. there is no satisfying answer out there.


in mass effect 1, only the acturus fleet participated in the battle of the citadel. 

but, there was a problem with the writers coordination in the first game. originally, the first fleet was meant to be the to be the arcturus fleet and the fifth fleet to be stationed at the citadel (how else could rear admiral michailovich conduct a surprise inspection?). this somehow got mixed up.

what we know is, that admiral hackett (head of the fifth fleet in me1) was the one in charge of the "entire arcturus fleet" when they came through the mass relay to reenforce the heavily reduced citadel fleet (only a token force remained at the citadel due to the councils orders and the remaining fleet was obliterated by the big ass geth fleet and sovi).


now to the facts (before me3 happened):

we know (from the codex), that:
- dreadnoughts are a reserve asset - they are saved for long planed strategic encounters. in addition, they are onlöy suited for long range engagements (they are too sluggish to be useful in a knife fight). 
- cruiser class ships are the work horse of the fleets - they are the classic "first response" class. they are flexible, fast and easily deployed.
- the arcturus fleet does not have a lot of time to assamble the fleet - it is very likely, that they send in their first response units and patrol fleets
- during the events of mass effect 1, the alliance fleet only has 6 dreadnoughts (i doubt, that they are all stationed at arcturus). 2 years later (me2), they have 8.
- when the fleets arive in me1, we can only see classe of capital ships - and they are cruisers. an old tabletop rule states it perfectly - "what you see, is what you get" and i do not see even one bloody dreadnought.
- it is possible, that hackett observes the battle and gives his orders from the "war room" in acrturus station. we do not know if he is actually "on scene".
- not even one alliance dreadnought was lost during the battle of the citadel. shepard knows all the ships that were destroyed (shep also states, that the alliance owes the fifth fleet all their medals). if a dreadnought was lost, shepard would have mentioned it.


yes ... they threw everything they had (ready) at sovereign - but saren took control over the citadel and locked the relay network. shepard had to unlock the relays (with vigils code) to grant the fleet access to the serpent nebula. only the fith fleet was able to strike at sovereigh. it was hardly all the alliance had - only all they could mobilise on short notice. the moment saren locked the network, the other alliance fleets were not able to gather at arcturus - and the other fleets are hours if not days of travel away from each other.


basically, the state of the fleets was heavily retconed in mass effect 3 and the codex entries / stories from me 1 and 2 were ignored.

Exactly what I have been saying for quite a while. Clear and very present retcon. 

As to the ship build times, considering that the way today ships are built are basically almost the same as 20 years ago and considering that for the past 20 years the cost of military projects have been balooning. Aslo we still use the traditonal manufacturig techniques, so we make the parts separately then assemble then all by hand. Each ship is basically hand-made. Now in 2183 the state of technology allows for guns to have mini-assemblers in them that manufacture bullets. Add to that that robotics would be much more advanced so I doubt that the more dangerous parts of making a cruiser is still human-only operation. 
Plus add to that the fact that each Ticenderoga-class cruiser is only one of 27 ships of this class ever built. In ME universe Alliance fleet has thousands of ships, with cruisers probably making up the bulk of it, and as you know mass production of anything makes it much more economically viable and you can make them faster. Also since the alliance is a growing power with more colonies each year I think that its fleet was also growing with ships built all the time.

dreadnoughts are build at arcturus station and/or other space docks. building a ship in zero-g adds difficulty. imo, it evens out the advances in fabrication techniques.

after the battle of the citadel, the alliance only built 2 additional dreadnoughts and on eof them (the aconcagua) was already under construction in me1 (at arcturus staion).

the bulk of (every) fleet are cruisers. they are die bloody infantry - the workhorses of the fleets.


basically, the might of the alliance (dreadnought) fleet was built while shepard waited for his/her trial ... sure ... its more likely, that the writers pulled them out of their backsides.



the alliance fleet was designed in a different way. they have less dreadnoughts than other council races (it takes time and money to build them) - the turians have 39, the asari 21 (with the da) and the salariens 16. the alliance bypasses the limitations. in me1 the alliance could have 7 dreadnoughts (37 divided by 5) but they could not "catch up" within 2 years, because a dreadnought is a big investment. the alliance military doctrine is simple. be fast and mobile and hit the enemy where it really hurts. dreadnoughts can not do this. during the first contact war, the alliance had over 200 vessels in service - only a few ships (most likely the everest class) were dreadnoughts. most of the ships were and are frigates (wolfpack flotillas) and cruisers.

personal opinion: i would have promoted this doctrine. i would have build more cruisers and and far more frigates. frigates are fast, agile and hard to hit and find. especially when they are equiped with stealth drives. firing disruptor torpedos and missiles at close range can wreak havoc on any fleet - in addition, dreadnoughts are useless at close range. cruisers can easily destroy unguarded space stations or supply ships. backed by carriers and their (remote controled) fighter wings, a fleet of cruisers and frigates does not need dreadnoughts.

[katamuro]

Why would zero-g construction add to the difficulty of constructing a space-ship? Manoeuvring hull-plates is easier, you can work literally in all directions without worrying about falling. Plus artificial gravity exists, they can manipulate mass-effect fields. Fabrication and manufacturing should be much easier and quicker in ME universe than in the current world.

Dreadnoughts are effective because if in a fight for a planet or a space station which needs at least some of the ships to stay more or less still protecting it, each shot can probably damage smaller ships quite seriously. Also considering the real world, if someone has the weapon, even if you dont really want it you have to build it because the other guy has it. Battleships were built because of that, aircraft carriers were built before they became actually effective. Nuclear bombs. no one really wants to use them and in a war they would be as dangerous to your own forces as the enemy but they still have them because otherwise the other guy might just use them. Same goes for dreadnoughts in ME universe, they are a strategic weapon, a weapon of standoff, its something to show the others that you can actually play on the same field as them. But yeah generally a wolfpack flottila with carrier support would win against a dreadnought.

[AlanC9]

katamuro wrote...

- when the fleets arive in me1, we can only see classe of capital ships - and they are cruisers. an old tabletop rule states it perfectly - "what you see, is what you get" and i do not see even one bloody dreadnought.

This was acknowledged to be a development error. In any event we shouldn't see dreadnoughts anyway, since they'd have engaged from much further away. But trying to reconcile ME cutscenes with the lore is a fool's game.

In ME universe Alliance fleet has thousands of ships

Source?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 février 2014 - 10:14 .

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

katamuro wrote...

- when the fleets arive in me1, we can only see classe of capital ships - and they are cruisers. an old tabletop rule states it perfectly - "what you see, is what you get" and i do not see even one bloody dreadnought.

This was acknowledged to be a development error. In any event we shouldn't see dreadnoughts anyway, since they'd have engaged from much further away. But trying to reconcile ME cutscenes with the lore is a fool's game.

In ME universe Alliance fleet has thousands of ships

Source?

I do not know what is worse. Retconing the battle of the citadel or trying to "explain" it with a design error.

 when you play a game, the character does not know that the cruiser is actually a dreadnought - he/she must sees a cruiser. This is a classical meta gaming error. What I see or reed in game is important - not what a dev tells me via twitter. I besides ... the alliance only has 6 dreadnoughts in me1 and it is doubtful that all of them participate in a fight, where they are useless (knife fight) and most likely not even available.

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

 when you play a game, the character does not know that the cruiser is actually a dreadnought - he/she must sees a cruiser. This is a classical meta gaming error. What I see or reed in game is important - not what a dev tells me via twitter. I besides ... the alliance only has 6 dreadnoughts in me1 and it is doubtful that all of them participate in a fight, where they are useless (knife fight) and most likely not even available.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Bio isn't going to ever feel obligated to canonize their cutscene mistakes. Maybe they'll do that, maybe they won't. It depends on what works best for the universe. FWIW, I agree that the scene works better with cruisers.

My only point was that it doesn't make sense to get too attached to the cutscenes.

[Andrew Lucas]

Arcian wrote...

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.

Yeah sure lets blame every MEU flaws in Mac Walters, why not?
I forgotted that he is the only writer in ME dev team..
Geez..

Modifié par JShepardN7, 22 février 2014 - 11:09 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
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?

Right. Because that didn't happen. Maybe it could have happened in the future, but it did not. Do you have something that actually did happen?

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

If you've got an alternative metric, let's see it.

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.

200 Sovereigns would crush the organic forces even without destroyers. And now that there are destroyers there don't have to be 200 Sovereigns.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 février 2014 - 11:45 .

[Invisible Man]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
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?

Right. Because that didn't happen. Maybe it could have happened in the future, but it did not. Do you have something that actually did happen?

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

If you've got an alternative metric, let's see it.

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.

200 Sovereigns would crush the organic forces even without destroyers. And now that there are destroyers there don't have to be 200 Sovereigns.

to the first point it was stated (in me1's codex iirc) that given the small size of the alliance military compared to the overall size of the human population, and also given the fact that the much smaller human spaceborne forces were as or nearly as effective as the larger forces of the turian military (because of tactics and adaptability) that if the humans began to militarize they would become a new powerhouse. 

---2nd edit
with the above statement I was paraphrasing, so don't try to treat it as an exact quote.

to the second, about a military being/not being judged my the amount of dreadnaughts in their navy. well the humans (as of me1) proved dreadnaughts aren't everything. in the early 20th century battleships & dreadnaughts did rule the waters, that is until torpedoes leveled the playing field. at that point a small group of very low coast patrol vessels could sink a dreadnaught, or a force of destroyers could turn a small fleet of battleships & dreadnaughts from an attack simply by the threat of a torpedo attack (which is actually a historical recorded event in ww1)

as for the final part. I don't have much to add.

---edit
as for the construction of warships. construction of a spacefaring warship has to be a lot more complex than building water bound warships that aren't always as big as their spaceborne equivalents. so comparing the construction time of say a cruiser in todays navy, and say an earth alliance cruiser, isn't that a tad bit unfair?  

Modifié par Invisible Man, 23 février 2014 - 08:26 .

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

 when you play a game, the character does not know that the cruiser is actually a dreadnought - he/she must sees a cruiser. This is a classical meta gaming error. What I see or reed in game is important - not what a dev tells me via twitter. I besides ... the alliance only has 6 dreadnoughts in me1 and it is doubtful that all of them participate in a fight, where they are useless (knife fight) and most likely not even available.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Bio isn't going to ever feel obligated to canonize their cutscene mistakes. Maybe they'll do that, maybe they won't. It depends on what works best for the universe. FWIW, I agree that the scene works better with cruisers.

My only point was that it doesn't make sense to get too attached to the cutscenes.

i want to go here: shepard does not have a twitter account. to shepard, it does not matter what a writer states on twitter, because his/her reality (the game) did not change. only the way the observer explaines it afterwards. this can work more or less well.
shepards reality does not change and therefore mine does not as well (shepard represents the character in the games universe - we only know, what shepard does).  
lets look at blade runner as an other example. ridley scott stated afterwards, that deckard is a replikant but he did not change the movie to make it clear. our base of assessment does not change. the movie shows us several clues, that bolster both assumptions.
deckard is obsessed with old pictures - like replicants but he does not possess any of their benefits (not even in the face of danger).

just like you, i am convinced, that the battle of the citadel works better with cruisers. it is logical, reflects the military doctrine and strength of the systems alliance and is in harmony with the codex.
why should we not get attached to cut scenes? especially this one? this is lore in action. the battle of the citadel cements the codex and makes it believable - the universe becomes alive. if we should not get attached to the cutscenes in a cinematic experience, the experience failes to convince. and on what base do we decide which cutscene is not as important as the one we saw before? the cutscenes are the blood of mass effect - they are transition points and places of important plot points. without cutscenes, we would not know the terror and effects of indoctrination. saren would not have got his redemption etc.  cutscenes are important to drive the story - in fact, mass effect is told through the cutscenes. when shepard does something of relevance, we get a cutscene.


retcons do not "work best" for any story. it is the death of continuity and continuity is what makes stories believable and strong.

in the case of the battle of the citadel, the retcon only wants to bolster an (already) ultimate statement - the reapers can not be stopped, even if we throw everything the galaxy has at them. but we did knew that before. even the might of the complete alliance fleet would not have stopped sovereign (in time) - we stopped it, because shepard somehow kills its "conciousness". the retcon in me3 was not necessary, stupid and too obvious.

lets assume that the cruiser-thing really was a design mistake. why did they not change it afterwards? thats what we do with errors - we patch them out. alternatively (when you do not want or can change the previous story), you use it to your own advantage. a retcon is the worst way to make amends.
if you have to correct an error from me1, me2 is the place to do it. if you do not make amends here, you automatically confirm your "error" as to be a part of the story.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 23 février 2014 - 06:31 .

[Fayfel]

It's amusing to see the codex quoted to argue that humanity is powerful when the writer who wrote it has unequivocally stated that humanity is at best a third rate power.

[AlanC9]

Invisible Man wrote...
to the first point it was stated (in me1's codex iirc) that given the small size of the alliance military compared to the overall size of the human population, and also given the fact that the much smaller human spaceborne forces were as or nearly as effective as the larger forces of the turian military (because of tactics and adaptability) that if the humans began to militarize they would become a new powerhouse.

Maybe that could have happened in a few years or decades. But that didn't happen. (Like I said.)  And it can't happen during ME3, since 95% of the human race falls under Reaper control right at the start of the war. (Not sure about what percentage of production went with the population since they don't give us GPP figures for the planets)

Similarly, dreadnoughts haven't been replaced in the ME2. The WW2 parallel doesn't work here -- or if it does, we're in 1940, not 1945.

as for the construction of warships. construction of a spacefaring warship has to be a lot more complex than building water bound warships that aren't always as big as their spaceborne equivalents. so comparing the construction time of say a cruiser in todays navy, and say an earth alliance cruiser, isn't that a tad bit unfair?  

Unfair in precisely which way? If the construction of the spacefaring warship is "more complex," aren't you implying that constructing the spacefaring warship would take longer? Doesn't matter, really -- MEU warship construction times are whatever Bio wants them to be.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 février 2014 - 11:14 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Amakiir wrote...

It's amusing to see the codex quoted to argue that humanity is powerful when the writer who wrote it has unequivocally stated that humanity is at best a third rate power.

in me 1+2, humanity is still a third rate power (with very strong potential). the codex is very clear .... if we take the number of dreadnoughts as a scale to measure the alliances power, it is far behind the other council races.
there is nothing to argue about that. in me3, the alliance mutates to a force that dwarfes even the turians (war assets comparision). suddenly, we see flotillas of dreadnoughts patroling over earth. where did they come from?during the events of mass effect 2, humanity had 8 dreadnoughts - and they were scattered over the alliances territory.


the battle of the citadel made it clear, that the reinforcements from the alliance alone, were not enough to take down sovereign - but that was never doubted in the first place. we have to keep in mind, that saren and sovereign disabled the relay network to isolate the citadel - shepard reactivated the citadel relay to give the alliance fleet acces. it is still cheap to retcon the battle, by adding virtual dreadnoughts (and blaming technical limitations afterwards - really .. adding one more ship model was a problem that could not be solved?). as if 1 or 2 of them would have made a difference in a knife fight.

the alliance fleet was not only decimated by sovereign - the geth were formidable enemies as well. they took a huge toll on the alliance fleet and the citadel defense forces. actually, sovereign does not even have to take on the destiny ascention - the geth took care of her and the bulk of the fleet. sovereign just took the beeline to the citadel tower to invite its friends to the party ... ok .. the turian warship was in the way but thats all.

[Wulfram]

The idea that humanity had the lowest rate of military service never made much sense to me. I mean, how does that fit at all with the characterisation of the Asari? Not to mention the Volus.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

I'll just post this here.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12076415/1

Modifié par TheOneTrueBioticGod, 24 février 2014 - 08:13 .

[Invisible Man]

Wulfram wrote...

The idea that humanity had the lowest rate of military service never made much sense to me. I mean, how does that fit at all with the characterisation of the Asari? Not to mention the Volus.

I can actually see the asari as having a larger military percapita vs. humanity. as for the volus, I don't actually count them because they rely on the turian military for protection. 

[katamuro]

considering Asari, Turians and Salarians the thee other council powers have been in space for hundreds of years before humanity and have probably dozens if not hundreds of colonies with large populations, trillions of citizens, then sure Alliance cannot compare to them in the level of power however it can compare to Batarians who have also been in space far longer than humans. The reason why the council species are so cautious with humanity is because as I understand it isn't afraid of fighting with anyone who comes at them. Slavers? Batarians? sure no problem. The reason why alliance is colonizing the Traverse is because no other species is willing to be put in such danger. if asari or turians or even salarians wanted to crush the slavers and pirates, batarians, they could, considering their fleet sizes are supposed to be in thousands. Quarian fleet has 50,000 ships with most of them as it was said non-combatants or just too old to actively participate in combat. In ME2 in the system where Haestrom is we find a planet which has something like 5000 geth ships, and that is only a part of their whole fleet. So humanity might have several thousand ships, enough certainly to go head to head with Batarians if such a need arises. 

 

However that is all just a guess. There has been little-to none official lore based numbers on anything apart from dreadnought numbers and we all know how they like to retcon all kinds of stuff.

[AlanC9]

I still gotta ask what they actually retconned. At the end of ME2 we see enough Reapers to easily crush the Citadel military. And in ME3 we get.... enough Reapers to crush the Citadel military. If anything, the Reapers are underperforming a bit in ME3.

[katamuro]

The retcon was not about the Reapers. the retcon was about how many ships were lost in the battle with the Sovereign and the geth fleet. Sure it is never truly stated how many ships of each council species were lost in the battle but why would then shepard remember only the eight cruisers and no other ships? then say that Turians lost 20 cruisers? That doesnt seem to translate to the third of fleet lost for 3 different fleets. And Joker says that the fifth fleet is ready for action, he didnt say any other ones are. It is a debatable issue of who and how many ships were lost but if the power level of the reaper was one Reaper vs one fleet( three thirds make one) then the war could have been easily won with a few dozen reapers, maybe a hundred. Not the horde of them that we see. 

[Han Shot First]

Yeah...it would probably have made more sense for the Asari to have a lower percentage of their population in military service, but for its military to be larger thanks to a much larger civilian population to draw from.