Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 18:37:41 GMT
You're still not following. The Treaty of Farixen limits the number of dreadnoughts a species can have based on the number that the Turians have. However, the other races want more ships overall, so they build carriers (defined under the treaty as large ships that DON'T have that big gun). Technology advancements, as a result, go into those carrier class ships and the dreadnought tech just sort of stagnates. It is part of the reason why the dreadnought became obsolete IRL. The other factor is that at longer ranges, your projectile (unless it is guided to change course) can be tracked for a longer period of time... giving the target a bigger opportunity to either destroy your projectile or move out of its path. There would be a threshhold where fighting from farther away would become a liability, not an advantage. It's a balancing act... what is optimum is not always the largest projectile fired from the farthest distance away. Why not build bigger aircraft carriers?... because, again, you want to build more aircraft carriers so that you can spread your forces over a larger area and deploy them more efficiently to locations near where the carrier is located. You have to consider that they may have to defend more than one location and those locations may be very far apart from each other... so, you would station your carriers in different parts of the galaxy so that the nearby ones could respond quickly and then, if necessary, you could pull in the ones from farther away to reinforce the fighters already engaged in the battle. It's more about balancing size vs. speed of deployment than shear firepower. Dreadnoughts never became obsolete in the Mass Effect universe. You're projecting real life history into the Mass Effect universe without any source of evidence to support it. About your two points they have merits, but have no little base in the Mass Effect universe to be proper answer to this question. There is nothing that says dreadnoughts reached an optimal size, or that a bigger, faster gun would not be worthy it. Considering battles in the ME universe open with dreadnoughts firing, having one that can fire for farther away seems a very good idea. And the aircraft point is a valid one too. But if we look to real life, carriers tend to be quite big, as their strength is proportional to the amount of aircrafts it can carry. It's reasonable to expect that there is an certain size that becomes to big, but we do not know if that was already reached in the ME universe. I accept that you're just really fishing to substantiate your idea that building the Nexus should have been "too expensive"; so you're missing the point about the Treaty of Farixen being a MIRROR of the Washington Naval Treaty of WWI... one of the consequences of which was the loss of interest by nations in building dreadnoughts, which were limited under the treaty, and prefering to build carriers, which were not limited. Being more interested in having a "larger navy" and just a few "bigger ships" resulted in them pouring their research monies into way to make the carriers better... which, combined with their disadvantages as opposed to carriers, ultimately, led to the dreadnoughts becoming obsolete. That ME's dreadnoughts have some disadvantages (maneuverability, enemies being able to track fire from a long distance, unable to land on planets to discharge, etc.) and the Treaty of Farixen means that the races, other than the Turians, can build only a limited number of them. This means they probably switched their research away from the "bigger gun" scenario you're trying to push here. We don't know how large or how many carriers the Alliance has or the Asari have... we aren't shown them (because they tend to stay back of the battle and as they deploy their ships... so they are not shown in the battle over Earth). For all we know, they may have many of them and they may be quite large. (The Wiki does say they are dreadnought-sized). Dreadnoughts, like the Destiny Ascension seem to be in short supply - Again, because the dreadnoughts (i.e. the ships with the large guns) are limited by Farixen... but, as I said, I don't even think the DA was the Asari's only dreadnought since we are shown a second similar looking ship in the battle over Earth. It seems unlikely that the Destiny Ascension deploys fighters... we're never shown it doing so... even before the 5th Fleet moves in to save it (if that's what the player decides) in ME1. The geth dreadnought is the only dreadnought we're shown that deploys fighters. That still doesn't change the fact that they are building navies with the need to cover a large galaxy with a larger number of ships rather than trying to cover it with fewer larger ships. The Nexus, on the other hand, is the only one they need to build. That they build 4 much smaller Arks shows that they don't want to put everyone whose going on one ship (just in case), but the plan was obviously that everyone would ultimately stay on the Nexus until viable worlds were found to colonize.
|
|
Wulfram
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Origin: wulfram77
Posts: 493 Likes: 856
inherit
692
0
Nov 23, 2024 23:01:54 GMT
856
Wulfram
493
August 2016
wulfram
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
wulfram77
|
Post by Wulfram on Dec 14, 2016 19:01:26 GMT
I don't think the established council races have been particularly seeking to subvert the Treaty of Farixen. It suits them fine, keeping their position balanced and safe without requiring an expensive and pointless arms race. The Salarians didn't even make use of their full entitlement. And if the council races thought themselves under collective threat then they could presumably simply agree to a higher limit, since the point of farixen is to preserve the relative position.
Its only the Alliance, which aspired to great power status while being classified under the treaty as a lesser power that had any real need to look for alternatives, hence why they were the pioneers of the Carrier. Other powers do seem to have followed the Alliance lead, but this is likely because they think they're a worthwhile part of their force mix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 19:17:59 GMT
I don't think the established council races have been particularly seeking to subvert the Treaty of Farixen. It suits them fine, keeping their position balanced and safe without requiring an expensive and pointless arms race. The Salarians didn't even make use of their full entitlement. And if the council races thought themselves under collective threat then they could presumably simply agree to a higher limit, since the point of farixen is to preserve the relative position. Its only the Alliance, which aspired to great power status while being classified under the treaty as a lesser power that had any real need to look for alternatives, hence why they were the pioneers of the Carrier. Other powers do seem to have followed the Alliance lead, but this is likely because they think they're a worthwhile part of their force mix. Shifting focus away from building dreadnoughts isn't subverting the Treaty... it's complying with it. A dreadnought is, by definition, the ship class with the big gun, so the Treaty's intent was to limit the "big guns." To be able to build more dreadnoughts, you wouldn't need to go back to renegotiate the Treaty... you would just need to convince the Turians to build more dreadnoughts... which is what they do if you wind up allowing Sovereign to destroy the Destiny Ascension. However, if the Turians intent is to build more dreadnoughts quickly... they are not going to be super-sizing them at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
2073
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 19:19:28 GMT
By 2185 the dreadnought count among the major powers was 39 Turian, 20 Asari, 16 Salarian, and 8 Human. A 9th Alliance dreadnought was under construction and was completed right before the Reaper War.
Who knows where the count stood by the 2nd battle of Earth, since all the major powers had likely lost some dreadnoughts in preceding battles, with the possible exception of the Salarians. Even so it's likely none of them was reduced to a single dreadnought, particularly the Asari, who chose to use hit & run attacks against the Reapers rather than engage in pitched battles.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 14, 2016 19:38:32 GMT
You're still not following. The Treaty of Farixen limits the number of dreadnoughts a species can have based on the number that the Turians have. However, the other races want more ships overall, so they build carriers (defined under the treaty as large ships that DON'T have that big gun). Technology advancements, as a result, go into those carrier class ships and the dreadnought tech just sort of stagnates. It is part of the reason why the dreadnought became obsolete IRL. The other factor is that at longer ranges, your projectile (unless it is guided to change course) can be tracked for a longer period of time... giving the target a bigger opportunity to either destroy your projectile or move out of its path. There would be a threshhold where fighting from farther away would become a liability, not an advantage. It's a balancing act... what is optimum is not always the largest projectile fired from the farthest distance away. Why not build bigger aircraft carriers?... because, again, you want to build more aircraft carriers so that you can spread your forces over a larger area and deploy them more efficiently to locations near where the carrier is located. You have to consider that they may have to defend more than one location and those locations may be very far apart from each other... so, you would station your carriers in different parts of the galaxy so that the nearby ones could respond quickly and then, if necessary, you could pull in the ones from farther away to reinforce the fighters already engaged in the battle. It's more about balancing size vs. speed of deployment than shear firepower. Dreadnoughts never became obsolete in the Mass Effect universe. You're projecting real life history into the Mass Effect universe without any source of evidence to support it. About your two points they have merits, but have no little base in the Mass Effect universe to be proper answer to this question. There is nothing that says dreadnoughts reached an optimal size, or that a bigger, faster gun would not be worthy it. Considering battles in the ME universe open with dreadnoughts firing, having one that can fire for farther away seems a very good idea. And the aircraft point is a valid one too. But if we look to real life, carriers tend to be quite big, as their strength is proportional to the amount of aircrafts it can carry. It's reasonable to expect that there is an certain size that becomes to big, but we do not know if that was already reached in the ME universe. Carriers are still a new thing in the ME universe. Other races utilized fighter craft, but it was the humans who designed ships just to carry them (the other races simply provided hangars for them in their cruisers and dreadnoughts). So I'm thinking carrier technology is still in its infancy in the ME-verse
|
|
Abramsrunner
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy
Origin: Abramsrunner
Posts: 765 Likes: 3,906
inherit
152
0
3,906
Abramsrunner
765
August 2016
abramsrunner
Mass Effect Trilogy
Abramsrunner
|
Post by Abramsrunner on Dec 14, 2016 20:01:52 GMT
I keep reading the thread name as "Why not build bigger Doughnuts". I keep clicking on the thread, & leaving disappointed.
|
|
azarhal
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 9,754 Likes: 27,639
inherit
1519
0
27,639
azarhal
9,754
Sept 9, 2016 12:15:16 GMT
September 2016
azarhal
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by azarhal on Dec 14, 2016 20:33:00 GMT
I keep reading the thread name as "Why not build bigger Doughnuts". I keep clicking on the thread, & leaving disappointed. Well a spaceship shaped like a torus with lots of big guns around it would be both a Doughnut and a Dreadnought.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Dec 14, 2016 21:16:14 GMT
Not to derail this thread (and it has been thoroughly discussed twice elsewhere), but we do assume that the Ai was initially operating off of 2.5M year old data, gathered via telescope arrays and other assorted instruments. Everything we know suggests that they gathered all data they could, and planned to rendezvous in Andromeda and begin validating current conditions. Things ended up being far different than they hoped and expected. These differences are the basis for our adventure, it would seem. I thought it worth addressing, but back to the thread at hand... Yep, sorry for derailing here as well but I hadn't seen these discussions because I would have totally gotten into them as the idea to go to Andromeda based on 2.5 million year old scan data in a universe where they know that whole galactic civilizations easily rise and/or fall within 50.000 years (so about 2% of that time frame) is even more irrational. I'd rather they just retcon FTL sensors in there actually. If I see one of those threads pop up again, I'll elaborate. But anyway, carry on.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 14, 2016 21:30:53 GMT
Not to derail this thread (and it has been thoroughly discussed twice elsewhere), but we do assume that the Ai was initially operating off of 2.5M year old data, gathered via telescope arrays and other assorted instruments. Everything we know suggests that they gathered all data they could, and planned to rendezvous in Andromeda and begin validating current conditions. Things ended up being far different than they hoped and expected. These differences are the basis for our adventure, it would seem. I thought it worth addressing, but back to the thread at hand... Yep, sorry for derailing here as well but I hadn't seen these discussions because I would have totally gotten into them as the idea to go to Andromeda based on 2.5 million year old scan data in a universe where they know that whole galactic civilizations easily rise and/or fall within 50.000 years (so about 2% of that time frame) is even more irrational. I'd rather they just retcon FTL sensors in there actually. If I see one of those threads pop up again, I'll elaborate. But anyway, carry on. Heck 2.5 million years ago humanity's earliest ancestors were still figuring out stone tools and hadn't even dreamt up this newfangled "fire" thing...
|
|
Thrombin
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Posts: 895 Likes: 1,300
inherit
1491
0
Aug 14, 2019 15:29:00 GMT
1,300
Thrombin
895
Sept 8, 2016 11:35:16 GMT
September 2016
thrombin
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
|
Post by Thrombin on Dec 15, 2016 13:35:29 GMT
Yep, sorry for derailing here as well but I hadn't seen these discussions because I would have totally gotten into them as the idea to go to Andromeda based on 2.5 million year old scan data in a universe where they know that whole galactic civilizations easily rise and/or fall within 50.000 years (so about 2% of that time frame) is even more irrational. I'd rather they just retcon FTL sensors in there actually. If I see one of those threads pop up again, I'll elaborate. But anyway, carry on. It's a very short amount of time in terms of development of the planet itself, though. They're not looking at the scans to tell them whether the systems are populated or what tech level their civilization is, they are just looking for systems that might have planets with the conditions to support life. For that purpose nothing is likely to be changing over such a relatively short time (in geological terms) as 2.5 million years. With respect to the topic at hand, though, it's basically a case of cost-efficiency. Because bigger means exponentially more expensive it becomes less and less efficient a trade-off the bigger you go. You'd eat up your entire budget on one ship and have a fleet of one. As the Codex says, it becomes prohibitively expensive. 100 cruisers are better than 1 super-dreadnought and that's probably the kind of trade-off you'd be making. Maybe if you could make your super-dreadnought indestructible, it might work but, even then, only if you are planning on an offensive campaign rather than a defensive one. You can still only kill one ship at a time and be in one place at a time and while you are doing that all the other enemy ships are just flying past you to attack their targets!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 13:49:27 GMT
Not to derail this thread (and it has been thoroughly discussed twice elsewhere), but we do assume that the Ai was initially operating off of 2.5M year old data, gathered via telescope arrays and other assorted instruments. Everything we know suggests that they gathered all data they could, and planned to rendezvous in Andromeda and begin validating current conditions. Things ended up being far different than they hoped and expected. These differences are the basis for our adventure, it would seem. I thought it worth addressing, but back to the tead at hand... Yep, sorry for derailing here as well but I hadn't seen these discussions because I would have totally gotten into them as the idea to go to Andromeda based on 2.5 million year old scan data in a universe where they know that whole galactic civilizations easily rise and/or fall within 50.000 years (so about 2% of that time frame) is even more irrational. I'd rather they just retcon FTL sensors in there actually. If I see one of those threads pop up again, I'll elaborate. But anyway, carry on. Why - Aren't we allowed to try to discuss something at least from a different angle for a change? If people don't want to make the leap to Andromeda, honestly, I say just don't buy the game. What's irrational is that constant beating of that poor old dead horse here on BSN. The people on the Andromeda voyage left the Milky Way because they wanted to... escape all the negativism in the Milky Way.
|
|
inherit
1286
0
2,137
SofNascimento
1,316
Aug 27, 2016 13:51:04 GMT
August 2016
sofnascimento
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by SofNascimento on Dec 15, 2016 15:10:47 GMT
Yep, sorry for derailing here as well but I hadn't seen these discussions because I would have totally gotten into them as the idea to go to Andromeda based on 2.5 million year old scan data in a universe where they know that whole galactic civilizations easily rise and/or fall within 50.000 years (so about 2% of that time frame) is even more irrational. I'd rather they just retcon FTL sensors in there actually. If I see one of those threads pop up again, I'll elaborate. But anyway, carry on. It's a very short amount of time in terms of development of the planet itself, though. They're not looking at the scans to tell them whether the systems are populated or what tech level their civilization is, they are just looking for systems that might have planets with the conditions to support life. For that purpose nothing is likely to be changing over such a relatively short time (in geological terms) as 2.5 million years. With respect to the topic at hand, though, it's basically a case of cost-efficiency. Because bigger means exponentially more expensive it becomes less and less efficient a trade-off the bigger you go. You'd eat up your entire budget on one ship and have a fleet of one. As the Codex says, it becomes prohibitively expensive. 100 cruisers are better than 1 super-dreadnought and that's probably the kind of trade-off you'd be making. Maybe if you could make your super-dreadnought indestructible, it might work but, even then, only if you are planning on an offensive campaign rather than a defensive one. You can still only kill one ship at a time and be in one place at a time and while you are doing that all the other enemy ships are just flying past you to attack their targets! That is only speculation. The Quarians experience with the Geth dreadnought was that even with their superior numbers they couldn't do much damage, even at close range which is a dreadnought weakness. A fleet made only of dreadnoughts would be a bad idea, but having super powerful ships that could be sent in key locations is a sound strategy that is employed by the US today (with carriers though, not dreadnoughts). Even the Turians strategy of jumping behind the Reapers to take advantage of the former bigger mobility would come to nothing against Reapers flying in a proper formation.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Dec 15, 2016 15:20:00 GMT
Even the Turians strategy of jumping behind the Reapers to take advantage of the former bigger mobility would come to nothing against Reapers flying in a proper formation. What is the proper formation for the reapers? Does anyone know? What the turians did worked. Will it last? No. The reapers will make adjustments to prevent that from happening again. No matter what is done, whether its having larger dreadnoughts, being able to one-shot a reaper, the reapers win by numbers alone.
|
|
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
N6
At sunrise there is the sunset.
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
XBL Gamertag: No.
PSN: No
Posts: 5,220 Likes: 5,079
inherit
At sunrise there is the sunset.
2139
0
5,079
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
5,220
November 2016
thelastvanguardian
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
No.
No
|
Post by Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger on Dec 15, 2016 18:35:10 GMT
|
|
Larry-3
N3
Make it simple but significant.
Posts: 334 Likes: 419
inherit
772
0
419
Larry-3
Make it simple but significant.
334
August 2016
larry3
|
Post by Larry-3 on Dec 15, 2016 19:38:19 GMT
Feel free to correct any mistakes and errors, but I... believe... this is the correct hierarchy of ships...
Smallest to largest
1: Corvette 2: Cutter 3: Frigate 4: Destroyer 5: Cruiser 6: Battlecruiser 7: Battleship 8: Dreadnought 9: Carrier
Also, regarding Dreadnoughts, I do not believe it wouod be beneficial to construct some sort of super dreadnought. There would be more cons than pros.
|
|
inherit
2329
0
May 14, 2018 17:19:50 GMT
20
zallister
41
December 2016
zallister
|
Post by zallister on Dec 15, 2016 22:11:09 GMT
Maybe there is a Technology that makes Battleships obsolete, if anyone want to Research it.
I remember, that in some turian war, one faction sucsessfully manipulate the security System of the FTL engine of a freighter and let it crush into a colony. Even Shuttles have FTL engines. So, if you had missles that could hit you with a Speed faster than light and you could fire that missles from a small ship like a frigate or Cruiser, that a Battleship would only a big target and a waste of Money.
|
|
inherit
Banshee
771
0
Sept 4, 2018 23:27:21 GMT
5,053
BansheeOwnage
I was called Ryder before it was cool... ...I'd love to, you know, be social and things.
1,231
August 2016
bansheeownage
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
11290
7428
|
Post by BansheeOwnage on Dec 16, 2016 4:00:52 GMT
Or fleets of Drones equipped with a QEC link Use swarm! It's super effective! It would, because it would fire faster. So it would be harder to dodge. The Reapers bigger guns and more advanced targeting computers allow them to target enemies from farther away. So it's only not about if the "bullet" will eventually reach its destination, it's also about how fast it will travel. Where do you get that a bigger gun is necessarily a faster gun?... because it's not. If you watch the Earth battle, you can clearly see that the big guns are the slower ones in that battle. Even the Reaper lasers are very slow-firing weapons, needing to recharge between hits. That's why Shepard can take the one down on Rannoch. SofNascimento is correct, the larger (longer) the gun, the faster the projectile. That's how magnetically-accelerated projectiles work and is stated directly in the codex. Using cutscenes, but especially the Fleets Arrive cutscene as an example is unfortunately invalid, since it really makes no sense either tactically or within the lore. I'm pretty sure Bioware themselves said they decided to make it look cool rather than make sense. Understandable, since watching dreadnaughts engage each other from thousands of kilometers away wouldn't be all that entertaining. That is, if you're talking about projectile speed at all. I feel like you might have misunderstood the above post and were referring to rate of fire. If so, ignore that. But it's also worth noting that fighting that destroyer on Rannoch made probably the least amount of sense of anything in the trilogy, so I wouldn't really point to it as evidence of anything other than Bioware wanting Shepard to one-on-one a Reaper and win. I imagine smaller, more agile spacecraft would be harder to target, let them get in close enough to fire an energy weapon or a disruptor torpedo. Dreadnoughts are only good for long-range combat. And preferably stationary targets. Apparently, they were mounting Thanix cannons onto fighters in ME3, allowing them to have comparable firepower to cruisers. That should have allowed a squadron of them to engage and destroy a Reaper capital ship...
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Dec 26, 2016 21:31:55 GMT
to be fair the bigger a ship is the more it cost to build,maintain,and run. and unlike having lets say a few dozen cruisers instead a massive drednought can only be in one place at one time. One of the biggest reasons to build large ships like a super carrier or a massive battleship is essentially a huge "look at what we can do" it is great for intimadation as well you can put one next to a planet that is threatening rebelion and it scares the daylights out of people.
|
|
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
N6
At sunrise there is the sunset.
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
XBL Gamertag: No.
PSN: No
Posts: 5,220 Likes: 5,079
inherit
At sunrise there is the sunset.
2139
0
5,079
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
5,220
November 2016
thelastvanguardian
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
No.
No
|
Post by Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger on Dec 26, 2016 22:43:15 GMT
to be fair the bigger a ship is the more it cost to build,maintain,and run. and unlike having lets say a few dozen cruisers instead a massive drednought can only be in one place at one time. One of the biggest reasons to build large ships like a super carrier or a massive battleship is essentially a huge "look at what we can do" it is great for intimadation as well you can put one next to a planet that is threatening rebelion and it scares the daylights out of people. Don't understand. Where does the intimidation factor play in? Don't all species have the capability to build ships of the equal intimidating size? So for one to say look what we can do. The others can say the same thing.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Dec 27, 2016 1:54:45 GMT
to be fair the bigger a ship is the more it cost to build,maintain,and run. and unlike having lets say a few dozen cruisers instead a massive drednought can only be in one place at one time. One of the biggest reasons to build large ships like a super carrier or a massive battleship is essentially a huge "look at what we can do" it is great for intimadation as well you can put one next to a planet that is threatening rebelion and it scares the daylights out of people. Don't understand. Where does the intimidation factor play in? Don't all species have the capability to build ships of the equal intimidating size? So for one to say look what we can do. The others can say the same thing. This is technically true. But in a real world comparison when a large country say the U.S. is feeling threatened and wants to make a statement they will fly bombers and such nearby or pull up an aircraft carrier just off their coast. Yes those other countries can build a ridiculously big and powerful ship but they don't have one. Think of it that way. And it's not just size it is the sheer fire power of it. It's alot like when a cat is threatened and fluffs up to make it bigger only the fluffed up hair equals enough power to destroy a city or possibly a continent
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Dec 27, 2016 2:04:45 GMT
Don't understand. Where does the intimidation factor play in? Don't all species have the capability to build ships of the equal intimidating size? So for one to say look what we can do. The others can say the same thing. This is technically true. But in a real world comparison when a large country say the U.S. is feeling threatened and wants to make a statement they will fly bombers and such nearby or pull up an aircraft carrier just off their coast. Yes those other countries can build a ridiculously big and powerful ship but they don't have one. Think of it that way. And it's not just size it is the sheer fire power of it. It's alot like when a cat is threatened and fluffs up to make it bigger only the fluffed up hair equals enough power to destroy a city or possibly a continent Actually a good way to put it is think of it like this. and this is a completly made up scenario. It would be like if puerto rico deciding it didn't want to be part of the U.S. anymore and america responding by pulling up an air craft carrier next to the island and flying military air craft low to the ground. It would scare the crap out of them and make them think twice. Same principle just space ships and planets instead of boats and countries
|
|
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
N6
At sunrise there is the sunset.
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
XBL Gamertag: No.
PSN: No
Posts: 5,220 Likes: 5,079
inherit
At sunrise there is the sunset.
2139
0
5,079
Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger
To find the secrets of the universe: Think in terms of energy, frequency & VIBRATION -Nikola Tesla
5,220
November 2016
thelastvanguardian
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
NO. NEVER. AGAIN.
No.
No
|
Post by Atemporal Vanguardian-Debugger on Dec 27, 2016 4:07:48 GMT
This is technically true. But in a real world comparison when a large country say the U.S. is feeling threatened and wants to make a statement they will fly bombers and such nearby or pull up an aircraft carrier just off their coast. Yes those other countries can build a ridiculously big and powerful ship but they don't have one. Think of it that way. And it's not just size it is the sheer fire power of it. It's alot like when a cat is threatened and fluffs up to make it bigger only the fluffed up hair equals enough power to destroy a city or possibly a continent Actually a good way to put it is think of it like this. and this is a completly made up scenario. It would be like if puerto rico deciding it didn't want to be part of the U.S. anymore and america responding by pulling up an air craft carrier next to the island and flying military air craft low to the ground. It would scare the crap out of them and make them think twice. Same principle just space ships and planets instead of boats and countries So in short that island of Puerto Rico defects? Hmm interesting scenario. However where would this work in Mass Effect Lore? Which species would go up to another like that and make such claim. Also there is another scenario played out for by that scenario: The one where the rebelling state cares not for the country from which it is rebelling; nor any show of force that state cares to flex and or show: "We see your dreadnought class aircraft carrier and even thought it stands higher than the statue of Liberty -we simply don't care. We will think for ourselves -Acknowledge that or suffer the consequences". *The primary state looks at each other and laughs... "Bomb them to oblivion"* *Defectors should be horrified but instead smile and click a button device.* *The big old aircraft carrier is incinerated.* *Primary state looks horrified* *Defectors smile and say: "You were saying."* Remember the old adage: Maior sunt, magis cadunt or The bigger they are the harder they fall.
|
|
Princess Trejo
N3
A new hope, fool!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 457 Likes: 407
inherit
1927
0
Nov 15, 2016 21:25:56 GMT
407
Princess Trejo
A new hope, fool!
457
November 2016
halfdanthemenace
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Princess Trejo on Dec 27, 2016 14:06:15 GMT
Bigger isn't always better.
|
|
inherit
1286
0
2,137
SofNascimento
1,316
Aug 27, 2016 13:51:04 GMT
August 2016
sofnascimento
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by SofNascimento on Dec 27, 2016 15:13:21 GMT
Bigger isn't always better. When it comes to dreadnoughts, size is equal to power. Of course, too big a dreadnought wouldn't be viable, as there other factos in play than just firepower. But considering the Arks are 1.5km, then 50% larger dreadnoughts would be a viable option since the arks could have been built with private money (forgetting for a sec the Nexus, which is ridiculously big). But then... what would a viking understand of warfare?... !
|
|
Princess Trejo
N3
A new hope, fool!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 457 Likes: 407
inherit
1927
0
Nov 15, 2016 21:25:56 GMT
407
Princess Trejo
A new hope, fool!
457
November 2016
halfdanthemenace
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Princess Trejo on Dec 27, 2016 15:26:02 GMT
Bigger isn't always better. But then... what would a viking understand of warfare?... ! Tell that to the Brits, French and Greeks.
|
|