Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
: It's like saying that a modern aircraft carrier is seriously undermined when
: they are insufficiently crewed, or when they run short on JP-8. If that
: happens, it's not going to perform anywhere near its typical combat
: efficiency. It's not so much a drawback as it's an expected requirement.
You're not going to hear any disagreement from me. I could still think of a lot more than the lack of fuel or a reduced crew that significantly undermines the likes of the Nimitz-class from a more tangible standpoint.
: Environmental and situational factors are effective precisely because they're
: rare and unexpected to the party on the receiving end. If they weren't,
: crews would know how to mitigate or avoid the factors. That's why Cole's
: Last Stand couldn't change the tides of war. He took out hundreds of
: Covenant warships, but it wasn't a strategy that could be repeated.
: Therefore, "Vulnerable to newborn stars" is not a key weakness
: of Covenant ship designs.
Seems like you're hung up a little too much on that one instance and not ingenuity in general. I understand that the odds of a CRS or a FFG taking on a CAS, and coming out on top, is almost impossible. There still is a chance and it's that one time where Shadow of Intent was nearly outmatched.
: ... you do realize how... what?
: What definition of 'dispatch' did you mean? Because if you meant "blow
: it out of the metaphorical water", I can't see any ship in the UNSC
: or Covenant arsenal performing such a feat. There is no weapon possessed
: by either side with an effective range beyond several light-minutes.
That, my dear, was just a loose use of the term. :P
: Kind of like Mass Effect. The Codex can talk about light-lag and engagement
: ranges to the writer's content, but the visual effects artists aren't
: going to deliver anything more ambitious than reheated Star Wars scenes.
That's a shame too. One thing that interested me so much about the Codex was how treaties were signed to prohibit ships from firing their cannons towards enemies with planets behind them. Captains would have to maneuver their ships in an absurd fashion and fleet planners would have to base an operation around these rules. That kind of thing is an incredibly plausible and grounded mentality that could only come from a space-faring combat fleet.
CF 1-22-16 | GrimBrother One | 1/22/16 5:07 pm |
HHHHNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG *NM* | Mixmasterchief | 1/22/16 5:11 pm |
davidfuchs, Grizzlei, Archilen, scarab & Quirel | MacGyver10 | 1/22/16 5:22 pm |
Yep | davidfuchs | 1/22/16 5:56 pm |
Re: Yep | Grizzlei | 1/22/16 6:03 pm |
Re: Yep | Quirel | 1/23/16 3:01 am |
Re: Yep | davidfuchs | 1/23/16 8:45 am |
Re: Yep | Quirel | 1/24/16 4:05 am |
Re: Yep | davidfuchs | 1/24/16 11:48 am |
Yep Yep | Grizzlei | 1/23/16 1:40 pm |
YAYAYAYAYAYAYAAY! | Grizzlei | 1/22/16 6:01 pm |
Re: *NM* | zofinda | 1/22/16 6:20 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | ChrisTheeCrappy | 1/22/16 6:31 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 1/24/16 4:35 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | scarab | 1/24/16 7:26 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/24/16 11:27 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Archilen | 1/25/16 12:35 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/25/16 12:01 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 1/26/16 3:53 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/26/16 11:59 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/27/16 12:00 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 1/27/16 4:58 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Grizzlei | 1/27/16 12:10 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 1/27/16 3:03 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Grizzlei | 1/27/16 10:04 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 2/1/16 4:29 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Grizzlei | 2/1/16 11:43 am |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Quirel | 2/1/16 6:32 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | Grizzlei | 2/1/16 8:03 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 2/1/16 8:49 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/24/16 11:13 pm |
Re: CF 1-22-16 | General Vagueness | 1/25/16 7:46 pm |