Voting is open
Man our racial choice and stat distribution do not match up well. Primary martial on a martial focused character. Our bonuses are to our distinctly middling learning and diplomacy. Time to be master of none I guess.

Overspeccing for the beginning of a game is a terrible idea.

You either want to minmax for the whole game or not at all. Unless you can respec.

It doesn't matter how good a military commander we are if we can't do diplomacy, considering that we need others in anything but the immediate term. Standing alone would make for a good story, but would not have us last long.

By a good story I mean a tragedy, filled with epic last stands and eventually death.

A master of none is honestly our best option if we want to survive.
 
The PC's character sheet is up! Your name is Mira T'Vael.

I derived your traits from four things: whether or not you were a biotic, what your primary stat and background was, your race, and the flavor text of your racial choice. In your case, you were a military officer able to get the military on-side for an outright coup, and were explicitly noted as a young firebrand. Hopefully this explains the stats you've received.
 
You either want to minmax for the whole game or not at all. Unless you can respec.
This is true, the rest of your post I think is misguided. Firstly, the current character build isn't min-maxed for anything. That is half my complaint, that we aren't optimized in general, much less for what I think should be the priority.

However, I also think that you misread our starting position. We are cut off and under siege. We are engaged in a military struggle that we are doomed to loose unless decisive action is taken. There will be no long term if we fail now. It is essential that we secure ourselves. A strong focus would provide something that we could leverage to secure ourselves a future. It doesn't even have to be a martial focus. Thus when you say:
It doesn't matter how good a military commander we are if we can't do diplomacy, considering that we need others in anything but the immediate term.
What you forget is how important the short term is right now. There will be no diplomatic scheming if we all die to the Rachni. If we had chosen Korlus we could have tried to slow long game, but we chose Virmire and all that it entails.

In brief I have two points. First, as a general rule generalist builds are sub-optimal. A specialist build gives you clear strengths to leverage and weaknesses that can be offset via planning and subordinates. A generalist build means diluting yourself. You essentially run into the old issue of defending nothing, by trying to defend everything. Take the Rachni problem as an example. A specialist can approach the issue via their strength and deal with it in that manner. A martial character via military force, an intrigue build via cunning plots or a stewardship build by increasing efficiency. A specialist build can attempt all of these, but they are less likely to succeed. Essentially, specialist builds guarantee a single path to success, whereas generalizing guarantees multiple paths to not failing too badly. Take your pick, I know which I prefer.

Secondly, long term planning is good. However, you mustn't get so consumed with dreams of tomorrow that you neglect today. If we don't pay enough attention to our current issues then we simply won't be around in 100 years to reap the payout of our careful preparation.
 
You either want to minmax for the whole game or not at all. Unless you can respec.
We are in a republic. If the current skill set of our character is not up to the needs of the moment, (s)he can step down.
Also, you understimate how much industry may help with diplomacy. With high enough output we can plainly buy what we need. intrigue, on the other hand...
 
Void Navy: 2nd Virmire Defense Fleet (1 Heavy Cruiser, 6 Light Cruisers, 23 Frigates, 43 Corvettes; Flagship VDV Sentry)

Ground Forces: Virmire Defense Armies (400,000,000 beings under arms), Virmire Void Marines (50,000 beings under arms)

So I don't know much about how helpful each of these ships are in Mass Effect, but I do know we want more. Any ideas on what we want?
 
Well, martial and stewardship at top. That's good.
Learning almost as high as stewardship? WTF? It's pretty literally a dump stat. And abysmal intrigue surely will bite us in the ass if Mira is to try and play politics.

Nice job, guys. It shall be hilarious.
 
Yeah I'm happy about that stat line up. 22 Starting Martial is absurd and our 18/17 Stewardship/Learning is well suited to helping us keep the economy going during the war, our Diplomacy is very Meh but atleast it's not Freddy Level, and yeah our Intrigue is soooooooo bad. Thankfully we're going to be fighting giant bug armies for the next few decades/centuries so we have time to improve it.

Though that Reckless Trait is going to need tempering yeah.
 
This is true, the rest of your post I think is misguided. Firstly, the current character build isn't min-maxed for anything. That is half my complaint, that we aren't optimized in general, much less for what I think should be the priority.

However, I also think that you misread our starting position. We are cut off and under siege. We are engaged in a military struggle that we are doomed to loose unless decisive action is taken. There will be no long term if we fail now. It is essential that we secure ourselves. A strong focus would provide something that we could leverage to secure ourselves a future. It doesn't even have to be a martial focus. Thus when you say:

What you forget is how important the short term is right now. There will be no diplomatic scheming if we all die to the Rachni. If we had chosen Korlus we could have tried to slow long game, but we chose Virmire and all that it entails.

In brief I have two points. First, as a general rule generalist builds are sub-optimal. A specialist build gives you clear strengths to leverage and weaknesses that can be offset via planning and subordinates. A generalist build means diluting yourself. You essentially run into the old issue of defending nothing, by trying to defend everything. Take the Rachni problem as an example. A specialist can approach the issue via their strength and deal with it in that manner. A martial character via military force, an intrigue build via cunning plots or a stewardship build by increasing efficiency. A specialist build can attempt all of these, but they are less likely to succeed. Essentially, specialist builds guarantee a single path to success, whereas generalizing guarantees multiple paths to not failing too badly. Take your pick, I know which I prefer.

Secondly, long term planning is good. However, you mustn't get so consumed with dreams of tomorrow that you neglect today. If we don't pay enough attention to our current issues then we simply won't be around in 100 years to reap the payout of our careful preparation.

In regards to your first part, that's my point.

Going full military would have been min-maxing for a specific period of the game without the ability to respec. Instead we went the don't minmax route.

In regards to the second part, the problem is that one path to success is not what we need. We need a path to success while also not failing in any of the other paths. This is Virmire, not the other two. We can't afford to be utterly incompetent at any of the majorly relevant things. I.E Military, Stewardship and Diplomacy. A single failure will hurt, badly. Not getting allies? We get crushed. Lose an important battle? We get crushed. Fail to keep our economy running or our military production going? We get crushed.

We can't afford to have a weakness the Rachni can exploit, especially because we are extremely unlikely to be able to get anything better than mildly competent subordinates.

This isn't the heart of civilization. It was the frontier, before the Rachni.

We can't afford to have any of those 3 be a dump stat, and a double military batarian build almost certainly would have Diplomacy be it.

Heh. Spellchecker want's to turn Batarian's into Bavarians.
[X] Rename the planet Cadia.
Now.
Do it.

...Now I almost wish the Crazy-specced Batarian could have won so that we could rename him Creed.
 
So I don't know much about how helpful each of these ships are in Mass Effect, but I do know we want more. Any ideas on what we want?
Overview first. Your PC's analysis of what you want will come with Turn 1.

Corvettes are a minor part of the Mass Effect lore, one which typically gets very little attention. They're ten-crew craft used for combat and survey. Picture sci-fi staples like the Millenium Falcon or the Ebon Hawk, for scale. I'm defining them as tending to do well in picket ship and scouting roles. Good for screening larger vessels, but not much heavy armament of their own. That said, they're very maneuverable, cheap to make, and in lots of numbers can dump enough cheap munitions downrange to threaten larger vessels.

Frigates are destroyers -- screens for the larger vessels which can also threaten larger ships in wolf packs of four to six thanks to high maneuverability and the ability to carry effective torpedoes. That said, they are flimsy in comparison to most ships. They are often assigned to more hazardous scouting and survey work due to having greater firepower than corvettes while still being able to land on planets. They are also often used to screen larger vessels in fleet engagements. The Normandy SR-1 was a frigate. They get up to 100 meters in length.

Light cruisers are the earliest that you can start defining vessels as ships of the line. They're the smallest vessels where it's practical to mount a spinal cannon, and thus get a big jump in firepower. They're relatively fast, can maneuver well, and are more heavily armored than frigates, to the point where they can stand up to heavy blows to a limited extent. They're the infantry of most fleets due to being very cost-effective. Light cruisers are the flagships of typical peacetime patrol missions, and form the flanks of the battle line in serious fleet engagements. They can land on planets, but only very low-gravity ones. Light cruisers are typically 300 to 400 meters in length. The Normandy SR-2 straddled the line between frigates and light cruisers.

Heavy cruisers fill the same doctrinal role as light cruisers, and are in general larger and tougher in every way. Heavy cruisers are generally what you see in a situation that calls for heavy firepower but doesn't demand a dreadnought. Most planetary fleets will have at most heavy cruisers, and will make them their flagships. They are slower than light cruisers and can be outmaneuvered if supported improperly. It's a very, very rare planet that a heavy cruiser can land on and take off from again, but they do exist. There are no clear canonical examples of heavy cruisers, but the smaller Reapers may qualify. Heavy cruisers are typically 500 to 700 meters in length.

Dreadnoughts are the largest and most powerful ships in existence. 800 meters to a kilometer in length, they possess unmatched firepower, armor, and shielding. Dreadnoughts are strategic weapons and the premier space combat vessels. Nothing can stand up to them in a stand-up fight save another dreadnought. They allow navies to engage at unmatched range and with incredible power. That said, they are very slow and their firepower depends on aligning their spinal cannons with their target, making them vulnerable to swarms of large craft that get close. They demand a comprehensive screen of smaller escorting vessels. Dreadnoughts cannot land on planets at all; not if they want to come back up. At present, neither the canonical Treaty of Farixen nor the canonical Citadel Conventions exist, and there is thus no restriction on the use or construction of dreadnoughts. That said, few polities are capable of affording them. The Destiny Ascension was a dreadnought, and the largest of Reapers like Sovereign and Harbinger, at over double the typical size, are examples of super-dreadnoughts.

Carriers exist in the canonical games, but are only invented by humanity. They do not yet exist in this quest. Fighter craft are similarly marginalized; they have no role in void naval warfare.
 
Last edited:
I never understood the point of carriers and fighters in a setting with canon point-defense systems that can only be beat through swarm tactics. That's basically suicide for the pilots and a waste of space that could have been used for missile pods or something.
 
I never understood the point of carriers and fighters in a setting with canon point-defense systems that can only be beat through swarm tactics. That's basically suicide for the pilots and a waste of space that could have been used for missile pods or something.
The point is that BioWare is not filled with military historians and doesn't quite get what, "perfect PD targeting," means. Frustrating, yeah? When/if carriers and fighters become a thing I plan on making a few tweaks to make them even slightly feasible.
 
Last edited:
I never understood the point of carriers and fighters in a setting with canon point-defense systems that can only be beat through swarm tactics. That's basically suicide for the pilots and a waste of space that could have been used for missile pods or something.
The point is that the load of Eezo in a torpedo is so high that its too unstable to be launched from a significant distance. Or something stupid like that.
ME writers never quite got scale or physics.
 
Atomic Rockets examines the problems with Space Fighters: Space Fighters - Atomic Rockets

@PoptartProdigy I think you should be reading Atomic Rockets in general for this quest. It's a great resource on putting science into sci-fi.
Atomic Rockets makes good points in general about space fighters, but they tend to contradict themselves here and there in that article, or overlook some obvious counterpoints to their argument. They're also basing their argument on at least a few premises which I know are faulty. A decent reference, but not a convincing logical proof against the feasibility of small fighter craft in space environments.

Regardless, though, fighters are a long way off in this quest -- if indeed they ever really appear! I think we can safely table that for now.

Now git, all of you. ;) I have to write you an update. :D
 
I'm sort of curious. Given our militarization, relative affluence, and the sheer desperation of the defense of our homeworld, are we going to be looking at a military treating tactical deployment of WMDs as a given ala Pentomic divisions (but actually functional)? It makes sense, and I imagine Neutron Bombs/Enhanced Radiation Warheads are pretty brutal on Rachni, but it would definitely be an interesting departure from conventional warfare in ME- and have a lot of unique cultural ramifications.

To be honest, with the advanced nuclear physics the Virmirians(?) have (eg; smaller cleaner thermonuclear warheads) there'd be very little reason not to be basing their military around operating in atomic battlefields unless the Rachni have a means of forcing every engagement to miraculously be in urban environments.
 
The GARDIAN laser PD system has "perfect" accuracy within a very limited envelope. The massive waste heat from firing begins to degrade the system (lenses and heat sinks) after 4-6 shots from a single turret. This by the time of canon, roughly 2 millenia of refinement with IR lasers. The Salarian Union had prototype UV lasers that had significantly better performance, but were less reliable.

Actually, in Mass Effect, it is heat dissipation in space which is the primary limiter of combat performance/endurance. Non-critical systems are disengaged, even certain life support functions such as artificial gravity. At critical heat capacity, the crew is in danger of heat stroke or worse, and vulnerable components begin to break down or melt. Different races might have different physiological tolerances or doctrinal limits, but so sane commander would allow their ship to reach that state if given the choice (though when you get to the question of what is sane for Krogan, just remember Shepard's conversation with Wrex on Tuchanka in ME2).
 
I'm sort of curious. Given our militarization, relative affluence, and the sheer desperation of the defense of our homeworld, are we going to be looking at a military treating tactical deployment of WMDs as a given ala Pentomic divisions (but actually functional)? It makes sense, and I imagine Neutron Bombs/Enhanced Radiation Warheads are pretty brutal on Rachni, but it would definitely be an interesting departure from conventional warfare in ME- and have a lot of unique cultural ramifications.

To be honest, with the advanced nuclear physics the Virmirians(?) have (eg; smaller cleaner thermonuclear warheads) there'd be very little reason not to be basing their military around operating in atomic battlefields unless the Rachni have a means of forcing every engagement to miraculously be in urban environments.

If you look at the Mass Effect wiki, assuming it's true, then since during the Krogan Rebellions neither side had any qualms against using weapons of mass destruction against each other routinely, with the Council firing first, then logically the bans against it came into place due to that war rather than before it. Or the Council are gigantic hypocrites.
 
Given all the secrets revealed in ME3, what makes you think they weren't always gigantic hypocrites?

It's the difference between secretly being hypocrites and openly being a hypocrite. One allows you to laugh at everyone following your rules, the other leads to extreme internal dissent. Followed by the deployment of a Spectre to deal with the problem. If they openly break rules, it's the second. If they do it clandestinely or with disposable tools, it's the first.

I thought it was a bit obvious that the council wasn't as "good" as it pretended to be back in ME1 when I first realised they run a black ops squad who can legally do anything and nobody can legally do anything to stop them.
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top