Remove ads

Shepard Quest Mk VII, Age of Revy (ME/MCU)

Reader mode
UberJJK said:
I'll probably expand more on my reasoning later (trying to get the plan out now) but we significantly benefit from a focus on weapon power over economics. We can easily swap out low power weapons for high power ones across our entire fleet allowing for a nearly instant power increase when the Reapers show up. Economics meanwhile is a long grind and even with Paragon Industries the Alliance is very much a late comer to the game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This seems like a decent way for the treaty to fail though.

The other sides are not stupid. If they find out that our ships are designed to be rapidly remodeled to treaty breaking ships at minimal expense and time, then they'll regard those ships as having broken the spirit of the treaty already.

On top of that, your proposal places no limitations on carriers and missile equipped vessels.
 
[X] The Numbers Must Grow

10ebbor10 said:
This seems like a decent way for the treaty to fail though.

The other sides are not stupid. If they find out that our ships are designed to be rapidly remodeled to treaty breaking ships at minimal expense and time, then they'll regard those ships as having broken the spirit of the treaty already.

On top of that, your proposal places no limitations on carriers and missile equipped vessels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is because we don't have any such higher power weapons just yet. Not until we research that next level of laser. And they are not designed specifically for that either.

So far our new warfare paradigm actually discourages carriers and missile equipped ships... we are going for laser builds after all. Which means pinpoint accuracy and rate of fire through the roof. Both of together means this is a non issue currently.

Well night everyone.
 
Last edited:
[X] The Numbers Must Grow

Any ship we make can be remodelled. It's the whole point of modularity. Plus it's not like we will do it for any old reason...
 
@tri2 - I think the building section needs some reworking.

First up it straight up doesn't keep track of buildings under construction which could lead to them getting lost. Unless "Build Date" is supposed to mean "Completion Date" in which case there are a fair amount of missing buildings.

Secondly the numbers for a lot of buildings are incorrect. In order:
  1. We have 3 Space Factory Is in orbit of Mindoir not 5.
  2. We have 1 Lab III on Mindoir (2 if you convert the Theory Lab III into regular Labs) not 4.
  3. We have 1 Lab I on Mindoir (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 0.
  4. We have 6 Assault Grade Campus Shields on Mindoir not 8 (although I can only account for 4 of them so that may have been an error).
  5. We have 1 Bombardment Grade Campus Shield on Mindoir not 2.
  6. We have 1 Lab I on Elysium (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 2.
  7. We have 1 Lab II on Elysium (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 0.
  8. We have 0 operational Factory IIIs on Benning; they are under construction thus their Production should not be counted which it currently is.
  9. We have 0 operational Factory IIIs on Demeter; they are under construction thus their Production should not be counted which it currently is.
tri2 said:
no construction of buildings this turn, IC reasoning of priority war contract from SA for more ships ASAP. Next turn no demand on production besides your usual contracts.
so removing all production required from upkeep and other contracts, you have enough for 28 ships. All profits calculated by taking cost of production from sales price, which is basically twice the production cost in pure profit before tax.

going to sleep now. will answer more questions later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't really answer the root of my question; are we using Credits or Production for building? Because your rational for no construction implies we are using Production but the values given in the Paragon Industries threadmark (like 40 million for a Factory I) is straight up incompatible with that since we produce less then 5 million Production per quarter. If we are using Credits then an alternate reason for no construction (like the SA putting a temporary halt on all construction for this quarter) is needed. If we are using Production then those values need adjusting.



10ebbor10 said:
This seems like a decent way for the treaty to fail though.

The other sides are not stupid. If they find out that our ships are designed to be rapidly remodeled to treaty breaking ships at minimal expense and time, then they'll regard those ships as having broken the spirit of the treaty already.

On top of that, your proposal places no limitations on carriers and missile equipped vessels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are no limitations on carriers and missile boats because there is no call for limitations there. The Treaty of Farixen is solely about limiting Dreadnoughts and the definition of a Dreadnought until now was a spinal gun of X meters or greater. After we demonstrated that our Lite Laser Pyndas are basically tiny Dreadnoughts everyone was suddenly very concerned about high energy lasers. Thus the treaty being changed to ban energy levels to cover laser weaponry.

Problem with your complaint is that our ships are already designed that way. Every Lite Laser Pynda is designed to be hyper-modular. Even if the Citadel straight up bans laser weaponry outside of GARDIANs we can just casually swap to MACs. There is no real avoiding that outside scrapping every Lite Laser Pynda. Oh and the Zamas we are selling the Hanar next quarter are equally hyper-modular.

Also ultimately the treaty is an active hindrance. The Reapers are coming with thousands of Dreadnoughts while the entire Citadel has less then one hundred.
 
No research?

We need laser rifles. And power armor for infantry, namely those that cannot fly. That would make the armor cheaper so that they can be equipped for the whole alliance army. Marines get the flying armor.
 
Last edited:
The only question I have for the treaty is why is there such a disparity in firepower between the two weapon types. The limits on ballistic weapons are 3-4 magnitudes higher than the limits on the energy weapons. I feel I don't have the reasoning as to why this huge gap exists.
 
TerrisH said:
The only question I have for the treaty is why is there such a disparity in firepower between the two weapon types. The limits on ballistic weapons are 3-4 magnitudes higher than the limits on the energy weapons. I feel I don't have the reasoning as to why this huge gap exists.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mass Effect has shields that block physical projectiles but do not stop lasers, IIRC.

So while the limit on lasers is a lot lower, the destructive power of the laser is greater than that of a physical projectile of equal energy.
 
10ebbor10 said:
Mass Effect has shields that block physical projectiles but do not stop lasers, IIRC.

So while the limit on lasers is a lot lower, the destructive power of the laser is greater than that of a physical projectile of equal energy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not a lot lower, over a thousand times lower. It's not the existence of the difference, it's the size of the difference that I'm questioning.
 
Darkcore41 said:
@ubberJJK why would we support restrictions based on energy. Rev has the lead in energy production.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The argument is that if we have large fleets with low powered weapons, its much easer to scale that into a credible threat to the reapers than a small fleet with high powered weapons.
One requires we make lots of Arc Reactors and retrofit them, the other requires we make new ships with hulls and drive cores.

From an in universe perspective, the fact that humans have such a dominant lead in the energy department makes this a far more even handed deal and likely to be accepted by the other races.
Its something of an olive branch saying that we aren't looking to exploit this for a dominant military advantage.
 
Last edited:
UberJJK said:
@tri2 - I think the building section needs some reworking.

First up it straight up doesn't keep track of buildings under construction which could lead to them getting lost. Unless "Build Date" is supposed to mean "Completion Date" in which case there are a fair amount of missing buildings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Completion Date, what are we missing?
Secondly the numbers for a lot of buildings are incorrect. In order:
  1. We have 3 Space Factory Is in orbit of Mindoir not 5.
  2. We have 1 Lab III on Mindoir (2 if you convert the Theory Lab III into regular Labs) not 4.
  3. We have 1 Lab I on Mindoir (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 0.
  4. We have 6 Assault Grade Campus Shields on Mindoir not 8 (although I can only account for 4 of them so that may have been an error).
  5. We have 1 Bombardment Grade Campus Shield on Mindoir not 2.
  6. We have 1 Lab I on Elysium (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 2.
  7. We have 1 Lab II on Elysium (2 if you convert the Theory Labs I) not 0.
  8. We have 0 operational Factory IIIs on Benning; they are under construction thus their Production should not be counted which it currently is.
  9. We have 0 operational Factory IIIs on Demeter; they are under construction thus their Production should not be counted which it currently is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How did you get these numbers, this is not what we confirmed in the convos?
And when are the factories on benning and demeter where meant to be finished?
hmmmm, the boons of Bioware have rained down upon you and instantly constructed more buildings! For they find their Shepard doing their work! :p
This doesn't really answer the root of my question; are we using Credits or Production for building? Because your rational for no construction implies we are using Production but the values given in the Paragon Industries threadmark (like 40 million for a Factory I) is straight up incompatible with that since we produce less then 5 million Production per quarter. If we are using Credits then an alternate reason for no construction (like the SA putting a temporary halt on all construction for this quarter) is needed. If we are using Production then those values need adjusting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry you are correct, forgot to format the numbers to dollars, yes they should be paid in credits, not production so you can still build. Will edit that in later.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top