235 réponses à ce sujet

[Tankfriend]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
In a battle against the reapers, if you stay at range and fire your guns, you ARE going to get decimated, ( the reaper main gun will shred your fleet in seconds ). In order to survive you need to get in close so that their main guns are infective, and then use your broadside guns to blast at them, and for your shields and armor to be able to survive their weaker weapons.

You will get decimated equally if you close in though.
The main issue is that whatever you do, the Reapers will come out on top.
If you stay at long range for as long as possible to use your conventional dreadnoughts, the Reapers might be able to return fire (if they indeed have spinal weapons) and use their superior maneuverability to evade your own projectiles.

If you go up to medium range to bring up your cruisers and broadside dreadnoughts, the Reapers might already be in range for their respective type of weapon for that range as well (we don't really know anything about the effective range of EHDWs like the Thanix, for instance) which would again give them the advantage in overall firepower. Especially as a single shot of an EHDW is enough to destroy a cruiser class vessel. I doubt that dreadnoughts would fare that much better in that regard. They might take another hit or two but if they are not destroyed after that, they are most likely out of the battle for good. The main problem here is that Reapers have more than one EHDW, likely around six as an average (they seem to be mounted on the "tentacles").

And if you even go up to close range to bring in the rest of your forces (frigates, for instance), your cruisers are getting difficulties to line up their guns as well. Your broadside dreadnoughts (if they are still alive) might still be able to fire but they are likely no longer able to maneuver correctly in a tightly packed battle at those ranges. Add to that that the Reapers are suffering far less from aiming penalties (the "tentacles" are flexible so they can line up easier) and they can simply smash through ships like paper and you have an extremely one-sided battle yet again.
And that is not even taking into account the vast amount of firepower that is necessary to just incapacitate (but not destroy) a Reaper in the first place (Derelict Reaper).

[SaulTighsEyePatch]

It's pretty certain at this point that the galaxy won't win by a straight up slugmatch with the Reapers and that Shepard is gonna have to find some other way to defeat them. I only hope it won't be some lame-ass BS method like "Upload a virus that causes them all to shut down!!111 lOloLololOL!!"

[DaeJi]

Reaper shields are impervious to Dreadnought fire. It's mentioned in the game. As powerful as dreadnoughts are, one on one they lose horribly against a Reaper.

[Drakron]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Stupid beyond belief, yet has been used in many SCI-FIs, real life battles, Even in Mass Effect.

Yet?

Prove it ... no, I will prove it.

HMS Hood, sunked by the KMS Brismark 5th salvo from 15 to 18 km of distance.
Battle of the Leyte Gulf, USS West Virginia opened fire with its main guns at 20,800 meters hitting the INS Yamashiro.

Why did the Geth Cruisers/Dreadnoughts and Frigates get in close to the Destiny Ascension when they could have blasted it from a very large distance? Why did the Alliance Fleet surround Sovereign at very close range, while the Normandy Itself was flying around at point blank range until the shields went down?

Maybe because your prespctive of size is distorded due lack of points of reference and the size of space?

Lets start with Sovereign, its 2 Km in size so looking at the FMV that shows them comming out of the nebula they are about 1/5 of Sovereign in size (the lagest silluetes) that puts then off being dreadnaughts.

http://images3.wikia...ges/8/86/Ww.JPG
http://images1.wikia...11-16-38-71.png

There are problems with ships indentification and their actual sizes, look at this

http://images1.wikia...12-37-22-09.png

You see the SR-1 Normandy and what is beling labeled as a Terran Cruiser but they look to be of similar size.

Why did Shepard order Joker to get in close, even with the Thanix, to finish the collector ship?

One reason, using the same FMV for a scene that can lead to diferent outcomes ... happens a lot in the game.

If you want a more tactical reason, the Normandy is a frigate and so a knife fighter that have a upper hand at close fighting as the Collectors ship is more of a cruiser (the wiki keeps calling that), also the SR-2 destroys the Collectors ship at a distance using the Thanix.

To also exemplify with a real life battle. Why did Nelson engage the Spanish and French fleet at Trafalgar at POINT BLANK range? Why did he sail his ships through enemy cannon fire, taking heavy damage, just so he could get close to them? A plan which most thought was insane, and yet was one of the greatest victory in naval warfare to date ( 21 ships captured one sunk, and no ships lost )

So there were battleships in 1805? the HMS Dreanaught would only be launched a century later.
Also the HMS Victory was a Ship of the line, a type of warship that vanished and was replaced by Ironclad FRIGATES that happen to be the ancestor of Battleships.

Also the Battle of Trafalgar was not won by "sailing his ship by enemy fire" but by cutting the enemy formation in half, also it did exposed his ship to broadside attacks as they could not return fire.

And Nelson died.

You want to compare a Ship of the Line with a Ironclad? you want for me to bring up the USS Monitor?

You cannot compare Starship Warfare against Reapers to that of 20/21 Century naval warfare. A torpedo in real life can do serious damage to a ship, in ME universe? Not so much. Nor can you compare the fact that aircraft in the modern world can sink a ship easily, when in ME a fighter can't do squat.

Yet you just did with 18th century naval warfare.

Also fighters DO more that squat, they launch torpedos that at least will bring down the kinetic shields making the ship hull vunerable to attacks by frigates, why do you think mankind created carriers as a loophole in the limitations of dreadnaughts?

In a battle against the reapers, if you stay at range and fire your guns, you ARE going to get decimated, ( the reaper main gun will shred your fleet in seconds ). In order to survive you need to get in close so that their main guns are infective, and then use your broadside guns to blast at them, and for your shields and armor to be able to survive their weaker weapons.

The problem is as its was said again and again is neither cruisers or dreadnaughts can enter close range combat as their main weapons have dificulty to adquire moving targets at such distances, the Codex is CLEAR about it, also THAT is how dreadnaughts FIGHT, they have the range and use it.

Keep in mind what Sovereign DID, he closed the wards because the moment he docked with the Citadel Tower he was a stitting duck, he could NOT move.

If its not moving there is no problem in moving in close, in fact the tower seems surrounded by the wards ams and the ships would have to close in in order to hit it without having to worry about hitting a ward arm instead.

It can evade shots forever? The Normandy SR-2 in a pitched battle against the drones, takes several hits, some quite serious. If you don't get Thanix you also take a serious hit from the Collector Cruiser.

Yes, if you cannot gain a fire solution you are NOT going to hit squat, there are MANY factors involved, that is why submarines spend a LOT of times adquiring a firing solution and THEN launch the torpedos as their targets usually can outrun then and outmanuver them.

Modifié par Drakron, 28 février 2010 - 10:50 .

[Guanxii]

Well the very premise of ME2 is that we are assembling (and then perfecting through top of the line experimental upgrades) literally the finest ship/crew that money can buy and then taking them with us on a death-trip into "hell-itself". 
No other ship has or could ever have returned from the Omega-4 relay therefore it's officially the most bad-ass ship in the galaxy. period. 

The Alliance/council are still decimated after the events of ME1 and don't have the resources to create another SR-1 let alone a SR-3 and at least 50% players will have gone rogue from Cerberus by the end of the game so I don't see where the money would come for a SR-3 or Normandy Dreadnaught and as others have mentioned Sovereign ripped right through Turian Dreadnaught fleets in the battle of the Citadel - so I don't see the value of them, personally.

That's not to say that the SR-2 couldn't get some cool upgrades though and more of it could be made enterable to accommodate returning ME1 squad members - no new ones hopefully - too little time for character development.

Modifié par Guanxii, 01 mars 2010 - 12:28 .

[TornadoADV]

I hate to say it but that would be a pretty tiny crater. The projectile that hit the Derelict Reaper also caused the "scar" on the planet Klendagon - that is, a massive valley that spans the entire southern hemisphere of a planet that is slightly larger than Earth. And that was just a glancing blow so 25MT worth of firepower is nowhere near what that projectile was capable of.

That's just really bad ret-conning coming into effect from ME1 due to the new writing staff. A weapon large enough to cause a glancing gouge that huge on an Earth sized planet would of completely obliterated anything in it's path and then caused an extinction level event on the world that eventually stopped it.

A 25MT warhead would be more then enough to completely destroy a Reaper.

The Alliance/council are still decimated after the events of ME1 and don't have the resources to create another SR-1 let alone a SR-3 and at least 50% players will have gone rogue from Cerberus by the end of the game so I don't see where the money would come for a SR-3 or Normandy Dreadnaught and as others have mentioned Sovereign ripped right through Turian Dreadnaught fleets in the battle of the Citadel - so I don't see the value of them, personally.

8 Cruisers lost =/= decimation in a Cruiser force easily exceeding 100. There were no Dreadnoughts besides the Destiny present at the Battle of the Citadel. Sov rammed little more then Frigates and Cruisers out of the way.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 01 mars 2010 - 07:32 .

[Tankfriend]

TornadoADV wrote...
That's just really bad ret-conning coming into effect from ME1 due to the new writing staff. A weapon large enough to cause a glancing gouge that huge on an Earth sized planet would of completely obliterated anything in it's path and then caused an extinction level event on the world that eventually stopped it.
A 25MT warhead would be more then enough to completely destroy a Reaper.

Even if it were just a cheap retcon, we would still have to face the fact that we simply don't know how much a 25MT warhead would actually do to a Reaper, despite whatever it would do to a "normal" object in real-life. Mainly because ME is still (and by far, that is) fiction - if the writers think that a Reaper can withstand a 25MT warhead it will, whether we like it or not.

But the more pressing issue is that there is no retcon involved in this at all. On the contrary, it is a precise continuation of what was known in ME1 already - that the rift on Klendagon was caused by a mass accelerator weapon of unimaginable magnitude. TIM confirms this very same story when he tells us about Cerberus finding the weapon and the target. There is not even a tiny bit of retcon in there. If that inevitably means that a Reaper can shrug off a 25MT warhead like a tiny fly, then that's the way it is. Again, whether we like it or not.

As a side comment to "nuke it" in general: Just look to popular culture, be it in movies, books, comics, games etc.- whenever it somehow comes to a difficult military situation there are immediately some people popping up (hard-line commanding officers usually do the trick) who have no better idea than taking the supposedly easy route and just push the big red button. Interestingly enough, there are a few typical outcomes for this as well:
a) The nukes are not fired because someone conveniently comes up with a better solution at just the right time.
 The nukes are fired but actually don't solve the problem at all.
c) The nukes are fired but actually make the problem even worse.
Only in rare cases will they actually do their job and even then they tend to do so only at tremendous costs (e.g. friendly fire).
This site has it summed up nicely, imo.
http://tvtropes.org/...php/Main/NukeEm

I cannot see Bioware making nukes one of the few (if not the only) Reaper-killer weapons from that point of view - they themselves are quite firmly rooted in popular culture with their story telling.

Modifié par Tankfriend, 01 mars 2010 - 11:22 .

[Enraged Chicken]

Nuclear bombs are a massive release of energy. In an vacuum this energy would be mostly electro magnetic. I would think that reapers have hardened electronics more than capable of withstanding the EMP. Unless you are talking about detonating one inside a reaper, in which case I gotta ask, how do you get past its sheilds.

Furthermore in the codex it clearly stats that the impact from dreadnought's mass driver is in the megatonne range.

[ImperialOperative]

Why are people talking about nukes? This isn't fragging independence day.

[addiction21]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Why are people talking about nukes? This isn't fragging independence day.

I call it the Independence Day Syndrome. Humans can defeat anything with their quick wits, a "give them hell" attitude, and a couple nukes.

[War Houndoom]

DaeJi wrote...

Reaper shields are impervious to Dreadnought fire. It's mentioned in the game. As powerful as dreadnoughts are, one on one they lose horribly against a Reaper.

When? I never heard anything about about that.

[TornadoADV]

Enraged Chicken wrote...

Nuclear bombs are a massive release of energy. In an vacuum this energy would be mostly electro magnetic. I would think that reapers have hardened electronics more than capable of withstanding the EMP. Unless you are talking about detonating one inside a reaper, in which case I gotta ask, how do you get past its sheilds.
Furthermore in the codex it clearly stats that the impact from dreadnought's mass driver is in the megatonne range.

Dreadnought Main Gun firepower is in the Kiloton range, equal to 3 Fatmans (36 Kilotons). To put that in perspective, a Nuclear Tomahawk carrys a 100 Kiloton warhead. The Kinetic shield would either be locally suppressed with a Disruptor Torpedo or by use of GARDIAN to fry the array.

TO STATE IT BLUNTLY, A DREADNOUGHT WOULD HAVE TO FIRE IT'S MAIN GUN OVER 640,000 TIMES TO EQUAL THE POWER OF A SINGLE B41 NUCLEAR BOMB.

Also, I don't know what you're smoking, but the main power of a nuclear weapon is the massive thermal energy, burning more then 5 times hotter on the surface then main sequence stars like the Sun (36000 Kelvin to roughly 3000 to 5000 Kelvin.) You don't see Reapers flying into stars, do you?

Why are people talking about nukes? This isn't fragging independence day.

Mentioned not only in the Codex of both Mass Effects as being outlawed for use on Garden Worlds due to Convention, but used as a plot device in one UNC Sidemission in the Voyager Cluster in ME1.

But the more pressing issue is that there is no retcon involved in this at all. On the contrary, it is a precise continuation of what was known in ME1 already - that the rift on Klendagon was caused by a mass accelerator weapon of unimaginable magnitude. TIM confirms this very same story when he tells us about Cerberus finding the weapon and the target. There is not even a tiny bit of retcon in there. If that inevitably means that a Reaper can shrug off a 25MT warhead like a tiny fly, then that's the way it is. Again, whether we like it or not.

It is a retcon, they took a known in ME1 (In a cluster you can't get to unless you get the Biotic Commune UNC mission.) and farked with it to somehow have a hardly damaged Reaper at one end and a defunct superweapon at the other. (That somehow the Council Races couldn't figure out for 1000 years, it's a goddamn hack job.)

This also completely precludes the fact in ME1 where the Normandy, a Frigate was able to One Hit Kill Sov when it's shields dropped with either a spinal mounted gun less then a fourth the size of a Dreadnought or a single Disruptor Torpedo that Sov's armor couldn't even stop.

It's extremely bad retcon. There is nothing to logically suggest Reapers are unstoppable juggernauts from ME1 besides the fact that Turians can't shoot straight.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 02 mars 2010 - 05:59 .

[Tankfriend]

TornadoADV wrote...
It's extremely bad retcon. There is nothing to logically suggest Reapers are unstoppable juggernauts from ME1 besides the fact that Turians can't shoot straight.

No, it's not a retcon. A retcon would have been something along these lines:
ME1:"Well, that valley is huge and all but it's just a natural thing on that planet, don't bother."
ME2: "Oops, that valley has always been (as in: even in ME1 it has already been, despite whatever was told there) the sideeffect of a massive mass accelerator projectile."
Or to put with wiki words: "Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

There is no change in that respect in ME1 and ME2 at all, though. ME1 clearly states that the valley on Klendagon was most likely caused by a massive mass accelerator projectile and ME2 simply confirms that very statement by adding in the things we were missing in ME1 (weapon and target).

There is nothing to logically suggest Reapers are unstoppable juggernauts from ME1

Erm... they are millions of years old, the ones responsible of galaxy-spanning eradication of organic species, have by far superior weapons, shields, armour and maneuverability, they have created the Citadel and the Mass Relays, with at least Mass Relays being capable of withstanding a supernova without taking damage, they can brainwash organics at will given a sufficient distance, they can (possibly, as of ME1; Vigil mentions this) repurpose/enslave organics into servants and they can "transfer their consciousness" via cybernetic implants. On top of that, there is an unknown but possibly large number of them around. What of that exactly does not point towards unstoppable juggernauts? ME2, in that regard, is adding only a few points to the same story when compared to ME1.

This also completely precludes the fact in ME1 where the Normandy,
a Frigate was able to One Hit Kill Sov when it's shields dropped with
either a spinal mounted gun less then a fourth the size of a
Dreadnought or a single Disruptor Torpedo that Sov's armor couldn't
even stop.

http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=689075&forum=123
Apparently the ending cinematic was finished before the codex was and they didn't get around to re-designing the cutscene to then fit the codex. And I've also read in another thread that the devs supposedly put in "super-normandy" just for the coolness factor. Too bad I cannot find either of the threads mentioned anymore.
In any case, consider this a case of "writers armament" - the Normandy was supposed to destroy Sovereign in that cutscene so it could. If the devs have now gone to say that a Reaper actually can withstand much more than that tiny little sting in ME1, then that is where we're at now (this would be a retcon, btw, because it contradicts what we have seen before).

That somehow the Council Races couldn't figure out for 1000 years, it's a goddamn hack job.

I doubt the Council would even care about something like that. Given of what we have seen of them so far (utter stupidity and ignorance would be a good description imo), they would probably even ignore it on purpose so they don't risk someone somewhere getting a mad idea of reactivating and using that weapon to threaten galactic peace and stability.

Modifié par Tankfriend, 02 mars 2010 - 11:28 .

[DaeJi]

War Houndoom wrote...

When? I never heard anything about about that.

I would say more, but it's a spoiler. However, at one point in the game, depending on your conversation choices, EDI will tell Shepard that Reaper shields stand up to Dreadnought fire rather well.

[leezhanwei]

holy **** im all set for a damn dreadnought, sounds bloody cool

[Sleepicub09]

I support a dreadnuaght

[TornadoADV]

Tankfriend wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...
It's extremely bad retcon. There is nothing to logically suggest Reapers are unstoppable juggernauts from ME1 besides the fact that Turians can't shoot straight.

No, it's not a retcon. A retcon would have been something along these lines:
ME1:"Well, that valley is huge and all but it's just a natural thing on that planet, don't bother."
ME2: "Oops, that valley has always been[/i] (as in: even in ME1 it has already been, despite whatever was told there) the sideeffect of a massive mass accelerator projectile."
Or to put with wiki words: "Retroactive continuity[/b] (often shortened to retcon[/b]) is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

There is no change in that respect in ME1 and ME2 at all, though. ME1 clearly states that the valley on Klendagon was most likely caused by a massive mass accelerator projectile and ME2 simply confirms that very statement by adding in the things we were missing in ME1 (weapon and target).

There is nothing to logically suggest Reapers are unstoppable juggernauts from ME1

Erm... they are millions of years old, the ones responsible of galaxy-spanning eradication of organic species, have by far superior weapons, shields, armour and maneuverability, they have created the Citadel and the Mass Relays, with at least Mass Relays being capable of withstanding a supernova without taking damage, they can brainwash organics at will given a sufficient distance, they can (possibly, as of ME1; Vigil mentions this) repurpose/enslave organics into servants and they can "transfer their consciousness" via cybernetic implants. On top of that, there is an unknown but possibly large number of them around. What of that exactly does not[/i] point towards unstoppable juggernauts? ME2, in that regard, is adding only a few points to the same story when compared to ME1.

This also completely precludes the fact in ME1 where the Normandy,
a Frigate was able to One Hit Kill Sov when it's shields dropped with
either a spinal mounted gun less then a fourth the size of a
Dreadnought or a single Disruptor Torpedo that Sov's armor couldn't
even stop.

http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=689075&forum=123
Apparently the ending cinematic was finished before the codex was and they didn't get around to re-designing the cutscene to then fit the codex. And I've also read in another thread that the devs supposedly put in "super-normandy" just for the coolness factor. Too bad I cannot find either of the threads mentioned anymore.
In any case, consider this a case of "writers armament" - the Normandy was supposed[/i] to destroy Sovereign in that cutscene so it could[/i]. If the devs have now gone to say that a Reaper actually can withstand much more than that tiny little sting in ME1, then that is where we're at now (this[/i] would be a retcon, btw, because it contradicts what we have seen before).

That somehow the Council Races couldn't figure out for 1000 years, it's a goddamn hack job.

I doubt the Council would even care about something like that. Given of what we have seen of them so far (utter stupidity and ignorance would be a good description imo), they would probably even ignore it on purpose[/i] so they don't risk someone somewhere getting a mad idea of reactivating and using that weapon to threaten galactic peace and stability.

So all you got is cop-outs. Got it.

1. It IS a retcon, for all was logical, it could of been a shot on the other side of the galaxy that missed it's target and glanced off the side of the planet. Instead there's magically enough info CONSIDERING THE GALAXY IS NOT STATIC AND STAR SYSTEMS AND PLANETS CONSTANTLY CHANGE POSITION IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER. And Cerberus McGuffins the ability to not only judge the distance and angle of the shot, but the shot the time was taken to find not only the weapon but the target that just so happens to be a Reaper. Right.

2. a.) Normandy killed one with a single shot, they aren't anything without their shields and Turians who can't aim. b.) You keep stating like the Mass Relay getting shunted by a Super Nova means something, it doesn't, Reapers are not Mass Relays. c.) McGuffin story device. d.) McGuffin story device e.) Numbers mean what, exactly? f.) Turians can't shoot straight and Sov didn't have time to ****** around, so he rammed them, that doesn't exactly scream "Juggernaut" to me, that screams "LEARN TO AIM FROM A PLACE BESIDES THE STORMTROOPER ACADEMY OF MARKSMENSHIP!"

3.) Cop-Out because you can't admit I'm right, got it.

4.)  Another Cop-Out, got it.

Next.

[Tankfriend]

TornadoADV wrote...
1. It IS a retcon, for all was logical, it could of been a shot on the other side of the galaxy that missed it's target and glanced off the side of the planet. Instead there's magically enough info CONSIDERING THE GALAXY IS NOT STATIC AND STAR SYSTEMS AND PLANETS CONSTANTLY CHANGE POSITION IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER. And Cerberus McGuffins the ability to not only judge the distance and angle of the shot, but the shot the time was taken to find not only the weapon but the target that just so happens to be a Reaper. Right.

Logic is entirely irrelevant for determining whether something is a retcon or not. And that's because of the very definition of retcon: A retcon retroactively changes something that was said in a previous member of a series and claims that it has always been the way it is in the new member of the series. And that's it. It is entirely irrelevant how the retroactive change happens, it is only important that a retroactive change happens for something to be a retcon. The issue of that change being logical or illogical in the overall context is an entirely different thing
And given that the Klendagon valley issue in ME2 does not introduce anything that changes or even contradicts what we were told in ME1 but, on the contrary, adds more of the very same story, it by sheer force of definition cannot be a retcon.

It's actually more likely a revision (retroactively adding more information without changing/contradicting earlier information) but depending on how one looks at it even that could be considered a stretch because of the necessary retroactivity:
ME1 already mentioned that the valley on Klendagon was caused by a weapon, so naturally there have to be a weapon and target present. ME2 basically just tells us what the target (that we already suspected) is.
Whatever the point of view on that issue,  I personally prefer to make an express distinction between retcon and revision, because they are working in very distinct ways. But if you see revision as a subtype of retcon like wiki does for example, then I'll accept this point as a revisionary retcon. But even then, it is by all means no true retcon.

I give you the point of the entire calculation business being quite a lucky stroke for Cerberus (though it would not be impossible given sufficient funds, processing- and manpower) but sadly that is what we are stuck with as far as the story is concerned. You obviously don't like it but then again one doesn't have to like everything about a story.

2. a.) Normandy killed one with a single shot, they aren't anything without their shields and Turians who can't aim.

Well, back to the business of retcon and logic. As I have already said, ME2 clearly retconned the ME1 ending sequence because it showed us that a Reaper obviously can take far more firepower without getting destroyed outright than it could in ME1. That retcon might not be logical when looking back to ME1, but as I have said above, a retcon does not have to be logical.
Apart from that, there still is the issue of Sovereign getting "killed" by Shepard and how that might have impacted the entire scene afterwards. I guess we won't really know about this until Bioware decides to finally tell us more about the entire "Assuming control"/"Reaper spirit-whatever-transfer" business. Until then, we are stuck with ME2 retconning the Reapers into being able to take more damage than ME1 showed us.

b.) You keep stating like the Mass Relay getting shunted by a Super Nova means something, it doesn't, Reapers are not Mass Relays.

I neither claimed that that would inevitably have to mean something nor that Reapers are Mass Relays. But seriously, if you are capable of building something that can resist a supernova, wouldn't you try to use that technology for something else as well? It does not have to mean that Reapers can withstand a supernova, I give you that, but it does provide a serious display of ability and power.

Let's just make a very simple hypothetical analogy here: 
-> You make your armour from material A.
-> Then you research a technology to make something else from material B.
-> B is superior to A in every aspect.
-> What exactly would argue against adapting that tech and exchanging A for B entirely?

c.) McGuffin story device. d.) McGuffin story device

And? That is not a reason to dismiss these details as if they don't have any significance at all. They actually do their job quite well - driving on the story in some cases and adding more support to the power and superiority of the Reapers which in turn is a prime factor and motive in ME's story line.

e.) Numbers mean what, exactly?

Come on, you must have heard of the saying that "quantity is a quality of its own". Reapers already are superior technologically and then they also come in large numbers - the combination of both quantity and quality is about the epitome of superiority you can have in respect to raw military power. In respect to the galactic forces, quantity is about the only quality they have until they can seriously boost their technology. It's not been said for nought throughout the series so far that it would take a united galaxy to beat the Reapers.

f.) Turians can't shoot straight and Sov didn't have time to ****** around, so he rammed them, that doesn't exactly scream "Juggernaut" to me, that screams "LEARN TO AIM FROM A PLACE BESIDES THE STORMTROOPER ACADEMY OF MARKSMENSHIP!"

You seem to miss out on the fact that ramming and destroying a ship without taking a scratch yourself or even getting slowed down by it is quite a remarkable feat in and off itself already, even if you have the advantage in weight and size.

4.)  Another Cop-Out, got it.

Look... the Council is easily one of the most hated groups in the entire ME series so far from a player perspective, largely due to their incapability to actually get a move on and leave their "It'll be alright, you'll manage by yourself." and "We won't get involved"-dreamworld. That said, why should they even care a bit about finding a massive mass accelerator cannon when they never want to enter into any conflict in the first place? Even if there were rumours that their enemies took that cannon and got it working again they would likely "dismiss that claim" (to aptly cite the Turian Councilor) until they got hit by it for the first time.

3.) Cop-Out because you can't admit I'm right, got it.

I'm sorry that it is getting to this low a level of arguments. Firstly, I already admitted some points to you as far as they seem to be acceptable to me. Secondly, there are quite a lot of sensible points on my side of the argument that you don't even seem to consider but conversely just throw away as "cop-outs". Thirdly, stay cool. There is no reason to start shouting and sounding angry as if I were beating you to death or anything.

Modifié par Tankfriend, 02 mars 2010 - 09:38 .

[Ariella]

War Houndoom wrote...

Drakron wrote...

I always amused about asking about dreadnought.

A dreadnought is a battleship, basicly its a "all big guns" that as WW II shown they ere useless as carrier aircraft made then obsolete.

In mass effect they seem about the same, a "big guns" warship as they are build around their main gun but that means they are huge, the Normandy is a frigate that is not a very large ship so what would be the point of the SR-3 (that a dreadnaught would NOT get that classification as SR indicates "Stealth Reconnaissance") being one as it would be ... oh about 1 kilometer in size?

The sheer size would make it larger that the hubs we see in see in the games.

Ah your right, A dreadnought is not really stealthy so guess we can't call it the SR-3, but thats beside the point I'm trying to make here, thanks for the correction though.

Dreadnoughts are designed to be in the battlelines... It would be a waste of resources for the Alliance or whomever to give Shepard a dreadnought to putter around the galaxy in. Plus Shepard is a Marine, not a Naval officer. His/her training is not in commanding capital ships in battle, but ground based squad tactics and command.

Bigger does not mean better.

[Halo Quea]

Ariella wrote...

War Houndoom wrote...

Drakron wrote...

I always amused about asking about dreadnought.

A dreadnought is a battleship, basicly its a "all big guns" that as WW II shown they ere useless as carrier aircraft made then obsolete.

In mass effect they seem about the same, a "big guns" warship as they are build around their main gun but that means they are huge, the Normandy is a frigate that is not a very large ship so what would be the point of the SR-3 (that a dreadnaught would NOT get that classification as SR indicates "Stealth Reconnaissance") being one as it would be ... oh about 1 kilometer in size?

The sheer size would make it larger that the hubs we see in see in the games.

Ah your right, A dreadnought is not really stealthy so guess we can't call it the SR-3, but thats beside the point I'm trying to make here, thanks for the correction though.

Dreadnoughts are designed to be in the battlelines... It would be a waste of resources for the Alliance or whomever to give Shepard a dreadnought to putter around the galaxy in. Plus Shepard is a Marine, not a Naval officer. His/her training is not in commanding capital ships in battle, but ground based squad tactics and command.

Bigger does not mean better.

Shepard was the XO of the Normandy at the start of ME1.  Also he's N7 Special Forces, which is like a Navy Seal or Delta Force Ranger.   They can hold rank in the Navy.

[Sierra Oscar]

Shepard is a small unit covert ops esque commander, not an admiral, I suspect forcing him into that role would end in Shepard becoming (Quite amusingly) strategically embarrassed with the aid of several torpedoes, much like placing a platoon commander in charge of an aircraft carrier.



the Normandy plays perfectly to Shepard's strengths - fast, stealthy, capable of hitting above it's weight and then carry out a sharpish exfil, anything else would be too slow and cumbersome.



Would be happy with a Destroyer, but sadly they don't exist in ME....

[addiction21]

Sierra Oscar wrote...

Shepard is a small unit covert ops esque commander, not an admiral, I suspect forcing him into that role would end in Shepard becoming (Quite amusingly) strategically embarrassed with the aid of several torpedoes, much like placing a platoon commander in charge of an aircraft carrier.

the Normandy plays perfectly to Shepard's strengths - fast, stealthy, capable of hitting above it's weight and then carry out a sharpish exfil, anything else would be too slow and cumbersome.

Would be happy with a Destroyer, but sadly they don't exist in ME....

From my understanding frigates in the ME universe seem to fill that role destroyers have in a traditional sense.  To be a screen for the larger ships while still packing decent firepower that can be directed at larger capital ships once their defense are lowered.
It is just some speculation on my side.
Also the SR1-Normanday being a stealth recon ship would not be as heavily armed and armoured as your typical ship built for combat and combat alone.
With that said I would like the humans to build themselves some Battle Cruisers with big hulking Thanix cannons or even build a cruiser size ship around a single massive Thanix cannon. Cheaper then a Dread but can put the fear of god into a dread commander.
/Ramble off

[Sierra Oscar]

addiction21 wrote...

From my understanding frigates in the ME universe seem to fill that role destroyers have in a traditional sense.  To be a screen for the larger ships while still packing decent firepower that can be directed at larger capital ships once their defense are lowered.
It is just some speculation on my side.
Also the SR1-Normanday being a stealth recon ship would not be as heavily armed and armoured as your typical ship built for combat and combat alone.
With that said I would like the humans to build themselves some Battle Cruisers with big hulking Thanix cannons or even build a cruiser size ship around a single massive Thanix cannon. Cheaper then a Dread but can put the fear of god into a dread commander.
/Ramble off

Agreed, from a role perspective Me frigates most certainly do phase out the need for destroyers, however I've always loved the classification 'destroyer', has considerable more punch to it than frigate or cruiser

[addiction21]

Sierra Oscar wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

From my understanding frigates in the ME universe seem to fill that role destroyers have in a traditional sense.  To be a screen for the larger ships while still packing decent firepower that can be directed at larger capital ships once their defense are lowered.
It is just some speculation on my side.
Also the SR1-Normanday being a stealth recon ship would not be as heavily armed and armoured as your typical ship built for combat and combat alone.
With that said I would like the humans to build themselves some Battle Cruisers with big hulking Thanix cannons or even build a cruiser size ship around a single massive Thanix cannon. Cheaper then a Dread but can put the fear of god into a dread commander.
/Ramble off

Agreed, from a role perspective Me frigates most certainly do phase out the need for destroyers, however I've always loved the classification 'destroyer', has considerable more punch to it than frigate or cruiser

Whats in a name? EVERYTHING
Destroyer is definitely a more imposing name then frigate.

[primero holodon]

A giant hulking ship like a dreadnought dosn't exactly command the finesse and subtlety that being a spectre demands.