Remove ads

Shepard Quest Mk VI, Technological Revolution

Reader mode
Hoyr said:
This formation is usually considered a poor one as it put one's dreadnoughts up front increasing the odds of losing one of these valuable ships. The standard fleet formation is FCDC, or Frigate-Crusier-Dreadnought-Carrier, for good reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A proposal has been put forth to change the name from Dreadnought to Dread-alot to reflect their general caution and timidity...
 
Take a look at WWII, eastern front. Take a look at what german AA (8.8 guns) were used for there. Then tell me with a straight face that AA is only useful against air targets.
 
UberJJK said:
What are you talking about? Of course renting should be cheaper. For example I just looked up what it costs to rent/buy a 2 bedroom apartment in the same building. Renting comes in at $670/week vs $750,000+ to buy. At that rate it would take 21 years for the rent to match the cost, and even longer if you take into account the various costs of ownership included in the rent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, you don't get it.

Renting should be cheaper over the short term, not over the long term. For a house, 21 years or more makes sense because a house generally lasts quite a long while. For our warships, the time you calculated was 81 years, and those warships aren't going to last that long. Even if we weren't going to make them obsolete within a few years, we'd need to put the breakeven point at 30 years or so.

Over the lifetime of the vessel, rent needs to be more expensive than buying, because the renter had to buy the ship and wants to make a profit.
 
Anti-No said:
Take a look at WWII, eastern front. Take a look at what german AA (8.8 guns) were used for there. Then tell me with a straight face that AA is only useful against air targets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The flak was usefull against tanks because of it's high muzzle velocity and big rounds, both of which were needed to hit high flying targets.

The situation in this universe is entirely different. There is no flak, there is no russian armor. Instead we get lasers, barrier shields and arc reactors.

You can't just compare them because they're both things that shoot at flying stuff.
 
Last edited:
Slayer Anderson said:
OOC we know the Batarians have access to a 'master relay' which will allow them to access any relay.

The 'unknown' relay they're using to attack the SA is a cover story. If the council knew about the advantage they really have, they would have no choice but to attack the Batarians for fear of what just happened to the SA happening to them next.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The irony is that this whole "super-encrypted navigation system" cover-up is arguably worse than the crime. Canonically the drive systems and navigation are tied together with sensors by "Prothean" technology to prevent anyone from turning ships into FTL bombs, but the Batarians apparently can mess with that setup. This implies they have the ability to make FTL planet-killers, and that they have deployed them against humanity.
UberJJK said:
Holy shit! I had no idea they were that significant. I always got the feeling in the game that while xenophobia was common groups like Terra Firm were more fringe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The mid-2160s was during the Skylian Blitz, and in canon should be the middle of Terra Firma's ascendancy; by 2170 they should be on the wane, allowing things like a joint human-Turian weapons development project.
 
10ebbor10 said:
The flak was usefull against tanks because of it's high muzzle velocity and big rounds, both of which were needed to hit high flying targets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The 8.8 flak guns were used against infantry charges as well. So: Meant against air targets, but used against everything. In games you can have a quad machinegun that magically can't be used against ground targets or similar. In the real world soldiers tend to use what they have to protect themselves.

Now, let's look at AA in mass effect.

Missiles? Well, why make them air targets only? The missiles have to be able to go through shields and armor, meaning they hit rather hard. Sure, they may be best against air targets, but why go out of your way to not be able to target ground vehicles with it? We have flying tanks that can drive around on the ground. Not being able to shoot at them when they have landed sounds like a bad call.

Guns or laser turrets? Cheaper ammo, but line-of-sight only. Now, why would you make certain your AA crews cannot protect themselves against an infantry charge if that happens?

In games you often can't do this. Reason? Seems to me to be game balance, a lot of the time.
 
Last edited:
Um, guys?

I'm wondering if Reapers can use our tech to indoctrinate people like a plague...

Researching brain-shielding and up just raised in priority, big-time.
 
All is one. Was that made by Morinth? A sari mindsex is mind reading, mind organization, and mind control. If they put an ardat in a lab they could replicate their abilities with vastly more precision and gentleness.

We need that banned in human space and to crack it open like an egg.
 
I'm in favor of the Batarian Raids, personally.

With the Reaper Tech they've DEFINITELY GOT, they have to be studying that shit somewhere.
 
Anti-No said:
The 8.8 flak guns were used against infantry charges as well. So: Meant against air targets, but used against everything. In games you can have a quad machinegun that magically can't be used against ground targets or similar. In the real world soldiers tend to use what they have to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A situation borne out of necessity, because the Germans screwded up. Games are an even worse comparison than WWII.

Missiles? Well, why make them air targets only? The missiles have to be able to go through shields and armor, meaning they hit rather hard. Sure, they may be best against air targets, but why go out of your way to not be able to target ground vehicles with it? We have flying tanks that can drive around on the ground. Not being able to shoot at them when they have landed sounds like a bad call.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, you'd have some guidance issues, like telling the missile to avoid trees and other stuff. But for the rest, you totally could but it'd be extremely wastefull. AA missiles are large because they need to catch up with a small and very fast plane. Using those on a nearby ground target is a bad idea.

Guns or laser turrets? Cheaper ammo, but line-of-sight only. Now, why would you make certain your AA crews cannot protect themselves against an infantry charge if that happens?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The needed gun depression could have effects on the vehicle's design. In addition, targetting equipment on the AAA would just go to waste if you pushed them into a ground assault thing.

Stuff is pushed in different roles for a reason.

In games you often can't do this. Reason? Seems to me to be game balance, a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is not a video game.
 
10ebbor10 said:
No, you don't get it.

Renting should be cheaper over the short term, not over the long term. For a house, 21 years or more makes sense because a house generally lasts quite a long while. For our warships, the time you calculated was 81 years, and those warships aren't going to last that long. Even if we weren't going to make them obsolete within a few years, we'd need to put the breakeven point at 30 years or so.

Over the lifetime of the vessel, rent needs to be more expensive than buying, because the renter had to buy the ship and wants to make a profit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why wouldn't they last that long? Nimitz-class aircraft carriers have an expected lifetime of 50 years, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a thirty year lifespan, Los Angeles-class submarines have an expected 42 year lifespan. All three of those are naval vessels that spend their entire lives in the sea; one of the most hostile environments out there for machines.

The depths of space meanwhile are a far kinder environs. Especially with things like kinetic barriers limiting/eliminating damage from space dust and micrometeorites.

Hell just look at the Migrant Fleet. Their liveships have been operating for 300+ years continuously. No overhauls in a shipyard, no downtime, just 24/7 use and whatever repairs can be made while keeping the ship operation. With proper care I wouldn't be surprised if you could double that lifespan.

The real issue is that ships become outdated. That said prior to Revy changes tended to be on a timeline measured in decades and incremental enough that they were less replacement time and more block upgrade time.
 
UberJJK said:
Why wouldn't they last that long? Nimitz-class aircraft carriers have an expected lifetime of 50 years, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a thirty year lifespan, Los Angeles-class submarines have an expected 42 year lifespan. All three of those are naval vessels that spend their entire lives in the sea; one of the most hostile environments out there for machines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Once you reach the 30 year mark, it's less the lifetime of the vessel that matters, and more the lifetime of the person. You need to get a certain return of investment on a product, and most people don't want to see their investment finally break even on their deathbed.

If you could invest the money you saved from not buying the ship immediately, and get greater results than the additional expense that lending would be, then nobody would buy.
 
Has anyone made a write-in to do a free-the-slaves mission? We could even combine it with combating the pirate colony threat by pulling out their travel data from the pirate wreckages shot down when we guard the colonies. Then have a strike force prepared to take down the pirate nests and free any captive slaves.
 
Last edited:
10ebbor10 said:
Well, you'd have some guidance issues, like telling the missile to avoid trees and other stuff. But for the rest, you totally could but it'd be extremely wastefull. AA missiles are large because they need to catch up with a small and very fast plane. Using those on a nearby ground target is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have used hydra missiles on ground targets though. It's pretty nasty stuff.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.

The only reason I would want to deal with Litinana at all is to buy their product so we can reverse engineer cures to them and distribute them freely, because fuck you.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.
 
Anhur Clean Up:
[X] Stay (Low Risk, Low Profit)
-[X] One-third of forces stay (~25% of total ground forces) 224 Million

Systems Alliance Contract:
[X] Just the Pyndas (High Risk, 20% Costs as Profit)

Colony Guarding:
[X] Guard Colonies (Medium Risk, Medium Profit)
-[X] Deploy Three-Quarters (75%) of ParSec's forces 1.125 billion/quarter.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top