• Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Examples
• Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Download
• Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Chart

May 26, 2013  Rendering Thread Exception on Noveria I got to Noveria and got to the garrage and stuff. I made it to the place where there is the little cutscene showing a Geth Armature and then I killed it and the surround Geth.

If you force it into a military context where its only about guns and starships and you ignore certain lowballed interpretations of Star Wars (and they do exist) then yeah you probably could say the Reapers lose. In actuality there's no reason they HAVE to lose apart from contrivance.Think about it: The Reapers are essentially an entirely spaceborne force who do not have any known fixed assets or installations to defend usually (not unlike the Tyranids.) If they need or want something, they take it in various ways from others (not unlike Chaos Space Marines. And yes I'm putting this in a 40K context, because its very illustrative and people rarely question those abilities in the 40k context.) They can engage in espionage, sabotage, mind control and brainwashing and are willing to act over long timescales (what with their indoctrination abilities, which whilst far from game winning, is very useful to them in a long term campaign.)There's no reason for them to rush headlong at the Republic and lose.

They can play a longer game, they can manipulate events behind the scenes (so can Palpy, and this would actually be the conflict I'd anticipate. The Sith don't like competition) Their abilities aren't going to give them an instawin (Star Wars can wank too if we get to 'insta win' wanking, thus proving why such line of thinking is pointless) but they can be a challenge if they fight more in line with their inclinations and their strengths. Click to expand.and it is comments like this, however they were intended to make, that provoke the other side to try and prove it is wrong.And actually, since some 'powerlevelling' involves a degree of cherrypicking, Mass Effect can wank itself out some if they reinterpret shit and ignore other stuff the same way other settings do (favorable interpreations, treating specific numbers as low ends/outliers/errors, etc.) I mean this would be totally consistent, since in some ways the Codex is a joke.As long sa the calcs didn't butcher science or break the rules (at mod discretion of course. People forget how much of SB moderation involved the judgement of the mods in question) they'd be valid. Click to expand.No, people keep insisting there is a single answer to the firepower issue when there isn't one. You can't 'overestimate' ambiguity any more than you can underestimate it. All settings have it, including Mass Effect (people are willing to ignore the implications of the Codex when it was certain things like the Great Rift on Kaledon, or various hints at 'megatons' existing despite the 'kilotons' also existing.

Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Examples

And that's just the shit off the top of my head and not the other end of the scale (unshieldd frigates being shot down by small arms fire being the least impressive I can remember offhand.). Click to expand.I would much prefer 100x fewer Mass effect vs Halo threads in general. I'd in fact create much virtual bloodshed to see this done, in fact. (hint hint)Edit: I assure you that I probably could not only escalate Mass Effect calcs to some degree comparable to many factions like Star Wars and 40K (even to gigaton or teraton range), but I could also construct a justification for it at least as good for any other setting. People probably don't bother considering those because, as a rule, deviation from the Holy Codex is frowned upon (and some people will literally rage at you for doing so) and because it's not something explicitly laid out but implied by certain implications. And no, I don't mean solely by the Great Rift 'calc' either, that has its own built in silliness and issues.

Click to expand.As for Mass Effect shields stopping particle weapons, it explicitly states in the mass effect codex that ME shields are almost completely worthless against directed energy weapons. Unless you can provide me with concrete evidence otherwise, you're on shaky ground here. Hell, one of the unique weapons in ME 2 is a particle beam that ignores shields.Ranges in battletech are. I have this quote from page 36 of Total Warfare that addresses it. To put it simply, we don't have good ranges for battletech weaponry, nevermind it Battlespace ranges. But if you wish to take the rules literally as written, naval PPCs have a range of just shy of 1000 km. Missiles can go for hundreds of thousands, and range from simple high explosive to nukes.

As for the firepower of a PPC? A standard heavy PPC can vaporize a ton of armour per shot. A Naval ppc does 10x as much damage. This is especially notable because battletech armour is very nearly unique in scifi in that it is a nearly perfect ablative material.

Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Download

It requires the complete destruction of all the armour on a location to damage any of the structure protected by that armour. Nothing in the real world comes even close to comparing to that. And warships carry hundreds or thousands of tons of this armour. The McKenna class Battleship I referred to earlier? It carries an armament of 12 Naval Laser Canons, 12 Naval Autocannons, 6 missile tubes, and 48 naval PPCs.

A NOTE ON SCALE AND THE RULESClassic BattleTech turns represent ten seconds of real time, while each hex on a mapsheet represents thirty meters of a battlefield (for the exception, see Aerospace Movement, p. However, players should note that such “real world” terms are abstractions when applied to the board game. Classic BattleTech is a game, nota detailed simulation. Therefore, the real world must take a back seat to game play—for simplicity, length of play, space required and simple enjoyment.For example, while only a single ’Mech can occupy a hex, it does not actually take up the entire hex. A 30-meter-wide hex offers plenty of room for a twelve-meter-tall ’Mech to move around and avoid fire. In real-world terms, another ’Mech could easily fit in that space as well. However, for ease of play, a ’Mech tactically controls the hex it occupies even though it does not physically fill that space.

Therefore, only a single ’Mech is allowed in a hex.Weapon ranges provide another example. Players will quickly realize that the longest-range standard weapon in the game can only hit targets out to thirty hexes (900 meters) from the attacker. Real-world primary main battle tank weapons have operational targeting ranges in excess of 4,000 meters. Because ClassicBattleTech mapsheets are only seventeen hexes long, recreating real-world ranges on a table would require more than seven mapsheets laid end to end, for a playing space greater than twelve feet in length. Not many people have that type of table space, nor would it provide players with any tactical maneuvering room. Anywhere a player might move a unit on the map, an attacker could hit that unit.Finally, the abstractions of real-world factors such as firing distance often can enhance the aesthetic of the game universe.

Classic BattleTech has always been about “in-your-face” combat, which works best with closer ranges. Players are encouraged to remember such abstractions and not get bogged down.

Click to expand.Numbers come from the Fall of Reach novelization. Max velocity on ODP MAC guns is.04 c and they have an effective range of about 20,000km. Almost identical to mass effect guns that way, except for about 30,000 times as massive, and with correspondingly higher KE.

Shitty visual effects also happens in the exact same manner you describe in the cinematics for Mass Effect, so we either apply it to both universes and their range drops dramatically for each of them, or we apply it to neither and trust the numbers they give us. I am inclined towards the latter. Or they engage at knife fight ranges and demonstrate firepower in the sub-Kt to Kt region, also you don't seem to know what a phaser is, because it's a nadion particle beam, not a DEW, that would be a laser. Now onto the bulk of your post.We see them fight at utterly point blank ranges all the time, sure if we go high end then a single galaxy class could likely stomp out the reapers, but they for the most part fight well within visual range and well within range of even frigates, let alone the tens of thousands of Km the reapers typically engage at, phasers likewise can vary in firepower to the point of being completely harmless to vaporising continents.

But then again so can the reapers if we want to be silly. Their shields work exceptionally well against phasers and pinpoint kinetic strikes, but against larger scale kinetic strikes they fail spectacularly, the achingly slow impact of the Scimitar completely plows through the shield on the enterprise.

Battlegrinder did a rather nice overview of this, I'll see if I can get his post for you. Click to expand.Again we have the 'shitty SFX' versus provided numbers. This is especially prevalent in trek where we get listed ranges on screen as being multiple thousands of kilometers and then directly cut to a shot showing two ships nose-to-nose no more than 10km away.

Here, like with the Halo and ME cinematics, I am able to suspend my disbelief sufficiently to realize that what the art department makes doesn't supersede the writing and dialogue. Trek ships exceed the range of ME ships by more than an order of magnitude, a simple scan from their amazing sensors would show this advantage, and any star fleet captain is smart enough to make use of this. As for damage, we have seen trek ships blow up, disintigrate, or otherwise destroy things with FAR superior mass, armour, and shielding to a Reaper. They engage at ranges of at best a few dozen kilometres sitting stock still in space, they have 60-70 hives in total and hives can be brought down railgun fire (Which I will note are firing shots at a far slower velocity than any ship mounted weapon in ME) to the dart bays which run across their broadside. Hives are unshielded, slow, vulnerable to soft kills (destruction of their sensors, engines and weapon ports), fight at too short ranges, with too slow weapons and with not enough ships. They beat the ancients because the ancients also sat still in space and hammered at their enemy and they beat them by drowning them in numbers until they stole a ZPM and began to churn out hive clones en masse. Firepower is not everything, context matters a lot.You're new so I'll give you some advice, lurk moar.

Click to expand.The only time that the railguns did ANYTHING but superficial damage was when they knew where to target specifically to cause a chain reaction inside the hanger bays. As for wraith hive ship firepower, they were able to destroy the battleships of the ancients. The Ancients who, I might add, have shields better by far than the Goa'ould who have been shown to shrug off a 2 gigaton nuclear warhead like it was NOTHING.Regardless, all of this shit is off topic or stuff for another thread.

It is the last post I will make about it here. ME is pretty weird in the fact kinetic barriers supposdely don't stop 'particle beams' yet they have tons of examples of 'particle beam' and 'particle beam like' weapons existing. It's one of those goofy things that is really on par with stuff like 'Why the UNSC still uses MAC guns and not lasers on their ships' but sometimes you just gotta roll with it and find a way to make sense of it. Sufficed to say, ME seems to have a fairly liberal view of what qualifies as 'beam weapons' and especially 'particle beams' (remember cee-fractional chunks of molten metal are also BEAM WEAPONS.) So you can have an issue where its more a matter of degree rather than being a binary. EG certain kinds of particle beam weapons probably can be blocked (or at least mitigated) by shields (and hence would have better effect than more strictly projectile weaponry). Reapers, having much stronger ME fields, can naturally mitigate beam weapons (at least particle beams, but it also implies lasers as well for some reason) even more.Which in turn means that whilst they're not as VULNERABLE as the Citadel Races and their contemporaries, they can still be threatend by the weapons that fall under those definitions (remember that context for such weaponry will also matter.

Just because ti looks like a glowy bolt or something does not mean its automatically a beam weapon.)Also, Halo, battletech and Stargate have nothing to do this this strictly speaking. If they were being used as illustrative examples, it has long since moved BEYOND illustrative and into an entirely separate sub-debate which belongs elsewhere. Click to expand. A particle beam is not a DEW, it's a stream of incredibly fast particles that all still have mass a directed energy weapon would be a laser. Furthermore the reason particle weapons are hard to stop for ME shields is because they take an order of magnitude more energy to propel the beam than a standard slug, this is noted in the entry for the particle beam. Yes they are harder for barriers to stop because they are far more energetic.

Where is it shown that the particle beam ignores barriers? You can be hit with it and take it on the barriers, I can't recall it bypassing shields for enemies. Ranges in battletech are. I have this quote from page 36 of Total Warfare that addresses it. To put it simply, we don't have good ranges for battletech weaponry, nevermind it Battlespace ranges. But if you wish to take the rules literally as written, naval PPCs have a range of just shy of 1000 km. Missiles can go for hundreds of thousands, and range from simple high explosive to nukes As for the firepower of a PPC?

A standard heavy PPC can vaporize a ton of armour per shot. A Naval ppc does 10x as much damage.

This is especially notable because battletech armour is very nearly unique in scifi in that it is a nearly perfect ablative material. It requires the complete destruction of all the armour on a location to damage any of the structure protected by that armour. Nothing in the real world comes even close to comparing to that.

And warships carry hundreds or thousands of tons of this armour. The McKenna class Battleship I referred to earlier? It carries an armament of 12 Naval Laser Canons, 12 Naval Autocannons, 6 missile tubes, and 48 naval PPCs. Numbers come from the Fall of Reach novelization.

Max velocity on ODP MAC guns is.04 c and they have an effective range of about 20,000km. Almost identical to mass effect guns that way, except for about 30,000 times as massive, and with correspondingly higher KE.

Shitty visual effects also happens in the exact same manner you describe in the cinematics for Mass Effect, so we either apply it to both universes and their range drops dramatically for each of them, or we apply it to neither and trust the numbers they give us. I am inclined towards the latter. Click to expand.Oh wow, so to clarify, you want me to ignore the visuals so you get to use the calcs you like?No, how about that?

I'm gonna take you're numbers there, and go look at cutscene from Halo (any of them really) and then laugh. These things happened, the visuals occurred, there's no getting away from that, they are in fact canon and I am perfectly fine in using them to crap all over whatever numbers you care to come up with. But hell if you want to play the 'waah then I'll use it for Mass effect' card then I'll play along, here's what a 20Kt bomb did.Reapers, by their description fire several hundred 'Kilotons' So yeah, sure, let's go with gigaton Macs, I'll raise you death star reapers.The point is that you can fiddle the numbers to get you pretty much anything, MAC calcs especially can be anywhere from autocannon to mass scatter events. The only reason ME's are considered more consistent is because we don't see them as much. And what we do see is hilariously random, ranging from the previously shown '20 Kt' to orbital strikes going off like C4 from a fleet pounding away. It's all variable.

Rendering Thread Exception Mass Effect Chart

Again we have the 'shitty SFX' versus provided numbers. This is especially prevalent in trek where we get listed ranges on screen as being multiple thousands of kilometers and then directly cut to a shot showing two ships nose-to-nose no more than 10km away. Here, like with the Halo and ME cinematics, I am able to suspend my disbelief sufficiently to realize that what the art department makes doesn't supersede the writing and dialogue.

Trek ships exceed the range of ME ships by more than an order of magnitude, a simple scan from their amazing sensors would show this advantage, and any star fleet captain is smart enough to make use of this. As for damage, we have seen trek ships blow up, disintigrate, or otherwise destroy things with FAR superior mass, armour, and shielding to a Reaper. Click to expand. You don't seem to understand my point, I know that they can do these things, but they also can do so much, much, much worse. And yes, what we see does in fact have to be included, the fact that you don't like it, doesn't matter because it happened, the Enterprise has had to close to literal jumping distance to fire before.

This happens, you seem to be under this strange notion that I have to sit down and play ball with your calcs, I don't. I am perfectly okay to go 'no' and get the other ball then demand you play with that one instead, and the funny thing is both balls are perfectly okay to play with. Because we have seen Shields in TNG fail spectacularly with far less energetic impacts, and withstand far more energetic impacts. Click to expand.They did damage to wraiths dart launch bays yes that was my point, and they did so via penetration. I am also well aware the Wraith beat the Ancients.

Are you aware of what context is? Because the Ancients adopted a tactic of 'sit there and pound' from less than a hundred miles, and the wraith copied them. Their firepower is completely irelevant when they can be brought down by a couple of boarding parties, a 400 kt hit to the vulnerable dart bays, the destruction of their outward comms, sensors, weapons and engines all of which comprise the superstructure of the ship. But as Connor said, we should probably drop it. The point was that just going 'hurr durr Mass effect is weak' was rather ignorant because we can mess with the numbers whichever way we want to get a right that is over before anyone even sees the reapers, to the reapers wondering why the universe is chucking enough firepower to shatter planets at them. Or, as Connor said, they never fight at all. ME is pretty weird in the fact kinetic barriers supposdely don't stop 'particle beams' yet they have tons of examples of 'particle beam' and 'particle beam like' weapons existing.

It's one of those goofy things that is really on par with stuff like 'Why the UNSC still uses MAC guns and not lasers on their ships' but sometimes you just gotta roll with it and find a way to make sense of it. Sufficed to say, ME seems to have a fairly liberal view of what qualifies as 'beam weapons' and especially 'particle beams' (remember cee-fractional chunks of molten metal are also BEAM WEAPONS.) So you can have an issue where its more a matter of degree rather than being a binary. EG certain kinds of particle beam weapons probably can be blocked (or at least mitigated) by shields (and hence would have better effect than more strictly projectile weaponry). Reapers, having much stronger ME fields, can naturally mitigate beam weapons (at least particle beams, but it also implies lasers as well for some reason) even more.Which in turn means that whilst they're not as VULNERABLE as the Citadel Races and their contemporaries, they can still be threatend by the weapons that fall under those definitions (remember that context for such weaponry will also matter. Just because ti looks like a glowy bolt or something does not mean its automatically a beam weapon.)Also, Halo and Stargate have nothing to do this this strictly speaking. If they were being used as illustrative examples, it has long since moved BEYOND illustrative and into an entirely separate sub-debate which belongs elsewhere.

Click to expand.I'm really confused where the notion that Barriers don't stop particle weapons comes from. They stop plasma just fine, it's just the pesky fact that all that EM radiation and heat generated gets pumped into the suit, and therefore emitters. They're really bad at stopping particle beams yes, but they do interact with them.

It's likely that CBT's are better at this than standard barriers, they'd aid in breaking up the particle beam itself, or breaking it's coherence enough to make it far less lethal than what it was. We know that they stop particle beams, the protheans used them, and you can pick it up and kill things with a particle beam, they still have to batter down the shields to do it, it's just really easy to do that. I'm pretty sure that when the codex says it cannot stop radiation, heat and toxins it means under normal unaltered circumstances, because you can use barriers as airlocks to keep in pressure without freezing half the ship in open space, so clearly at certain points it can stop radiation to some extent. It's just prohibitively costly when it comes to the barriers power, or the emitters stress tolerance to do it against more weaponized forms of it, or to be useful for infantry in the field. I'm really confused where the notion that Barriers don't stop particle weapons comes from. They stop plasma just fine, it's just the pesky fact that all that EM radiation and heat generated gets pumped into the suit, and therefore emitters. They're really bad at stopping particle beams yes, but they do interact with them.

It's likely that CBT's are better at this than standard barriers, they'd aid in breaking up the particle beam itself, or breaking it's coherence enough to make it far less lethal than what it was. We know that they stop particle beams, the protheans used them, and you can pick it up and kill things with a particle beam, they still have to batter down the shields to do it, it's just really easy to do that. I'm pretty sure that when the codex says it cannot stop radiation, heat and toxins it means under normal unaltered circumstances, because you can use barriers as airlocks to keep in pressure without freezing half the ship in open space, so clearly at certain points it can stop radiation to some extent.

It's just prohibitively costly when it comes to the barriers power, or the emitters stress tolerance to do it against more weaponized forms of it, or to be useful for infantry in the field. Click to expand.It's not just the Codex I suspect, but other stuff like the 'Normandy Surviving Collectors in ME2'. It comes from the Codex:It's not just the Codex I suspect, but other stuff like the 'Normandy Surviving Collectors in ME2'. Click to expand.Ah, must have missed that, how odd. But as I said, the temperature and toxins one is weird, since barriers can be used as airlocks. So unless the toxins take the form of subatomic poisons they should be able to stop them, and since no ships seem to freeze from the inside out in space they clearly keep in heat.

The plasma comes from toroids arcing between each other and converting the air into short lived plasma. Ehhh, it's likely we're never really going to know why, or how it all works. Since Reaper barriers can stop lasers to a small extent I'd chalk it up to the barriers on ships simply not being able to stop DEW's because of power concerns and overloading emitters.

But then we have no idea how or when barriers plateau in terms of energy in-barrier strength, or if the energy in has anything to do with it rather than the way the barriers are aligned.I'd hope Andromeda clears it up when it comes out but I have the feeling it'd make it even more confused.Ah well, I'll leave the in depth analysis to you, I'm just here to make pity comments and look cool. Click to expand.Doubt it.

If anything I expect more inconsistencies because ME seems to be following roughly the same pattern other franchises do, which means 'shared universe'. Inconsistencies of some kind are inevitable (and even when you have a SINGLE author inconsistencies can creep in for various reasons - Stephen King's Dark Tower series, Star Wars OT vs Prequels, and the Honorverse are all examples.) and the only difference will be in degree (eg ME might have somewhat LESS inconsistency than other settings - so far - but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. It's still relatively new compared to most more established (and more inconsistent) settings, so as more material comes out I expect inconsistency to grow, not lessen. I mean look at what's been happening with Halo.)If you want consistency in the setting, look to your own efforts, and don't expect the fiction to do it for you. The fiction is entertainment first and it generally owes you personally nothing beyond that.

Analysis is not a passive exercise. No, people keep insisting there is a single answer to the firepower issue when there isn't one. You can't 'overestimate' ambiguity any more than you can underestimate it. All settings have it, including Mass Effect (people are willing to ignore the implications of the Codex when it was certain things like the Great Rift on Kaledon, or various hints at 'megatons' existing despite the 'kilotons' also existing. And that's just the shit off the top of my head and not the other end of the scale (unshieldd frigates being shot down by small arms fire being the least impressive I can remember offhand.).

Click to expand.And people also tell me I'm wrong and there is no ambiguity in 40K firepower (of course they won't agree on what the 'unambigious' numbers are, either, but nevermind. NO AMBIGUITY.) Clearly you don't understand what I meant, since 'open to interpretation. Always has been, always will be' is the majority of it. If you want to pretend there is no different way of viewing fiction but your own, that's your business, but don't be surprised when (shock and amaze) people might disagree with you. Star Wars firepower debates have been going on for longer than you or I have been debating them, and they're not magicalyl going to go away just becuase you declare there is no ambiguity. (and no, cherrypicking isolated examples to 'prove' that is not going to work unless you're prepared to go through the entire damn series and present a comprehensive and statistically valid sample to back up your argument.

Which I'm not worried about given that would be a colossally time consuming pain in the ass to not only research but analyze. Besides which, people have ALSO been cherrypicking examples out of SW evidence for longer than you or I have debated it, and if it didn't resolve issues then it won't now.)Edit: Fun example. I mentioned Mass Effect biggatons? Well there's one quip I've taken some enjoyment in mocking the Reapers for for its silliness.

The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT.

Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers. Click to expand.The quote as intentionally made is pretty damn silly, because there's no way that kilotons of molten metal at cee fractional speeds will survive to hit the planet (leading to the mental image of reapers ejaculating molten metal over targets.) But the 'ejaculation' thing could arguably be true (someone invoked 'variable settings' for the guns, and its true.) If it was KE and molten lets say it drops at only 2-3 km/s or so (low end of hydrodynamic shaped charge behavior) Since I'm wanking, naturally the high end yield is 454 kilotons. At around 3 km/s each kg of mass will have something like 4.5 MJ of KE (a bit over 1 kg of TNT equivalent in energy terms) and that also translates to a bit 420,000 tons of molten stuff sprayed over our hypothetical silo. Which sounds alot more plausible and ominous!But let's consider it another way. The recoil impulse of that much mass at that velocity is some 1.2e12 n-s. We know Thanix has a substantially higher speed than mass accelerators (and whilst the actual fraction of lightspeed may be debatable in context, I think its safe to say 10% is not too small or too hueg) The KE at that level of recoil is something like.

4.5 gigatons I believe. Recoil is significant, but well within rationalizing for the bullshit reapers are capable of (and given we don't know their actual mass or accelerative capabilities anyhow A ship a few tens of megatons in mass and a handful of gees accelerative capability can handle that. But if you want REALLY hilarious, imagine 400 thousand tons of molten metal at 30,000 km/s - that's like 45 teratons. REcoil is even WORSE, but nothing worse than PETATON level factions have to cope with in terms of firepower and recoil and shit (Halo, 40K, Star wars, anyone who claims a biggaton yield will invariably face some measure of this problem. If they can rationalize it, anyone can.)And before we go 'codex says kilotons' bear in mind we also have shit like the Klendagon rift as mentioned, and you're going to be hard pressed rationalizing THAT (or finding a better way to rationalize the 'coating shit in molten metal for no good reason' stuff.) And its not like the yields for the Reapers are that ironclad anyhow. Just because they're using a estimated yield (whcih ranges from high kilotons to megatons depending on your example I might add anyhow) doesn't mean that they're fighting at the utmost limit of their capability (in fact the Rift and the Reaper surviving that hit, however glancing, might REQUIRE them being able to hold back in order to make internal sense. Maybe the Reapers are programed to not act like a SB and go out MAXIMUM POWER ALL THE TIME and to conserve resources and not put their systems under unneeded strain unless required.

I have done a revised calculation on the size of the Alliance navy.There is eight fleets in the Alliance navy. There is 12 capital class ships in the Alliance navy (9 dreadnoughts, 3 carriers).

So half of the fleets will have two capital class ships. One fleet will have two dreadnoughts, three fleets will have a dreadnought supported by a carrier.Since the first fleet is the largest I assume it has two dreadnoughts.Fifth fleet had a third of its vessels destroyed in the battle of the Citadel. This was eight cruisers and their escorts.So 24 cruisers in the Fifth fleet and one dreadnought in the Fifth fleet as well. There is roughly five frigates in a flotilla and cruisers lead several flotillas in fleet battles seeing as the Fifth fleet has 63 scouting flotillas and only 24 cruisers.So 63 scouting flotillas along with the frigate escorts for the cruisers we come up with 435 frigates for the Fifth fleet.Then there are the destroyers mentioned by Revelations.

Welcome toThis subreddit is a forum for people who love the Mass Effect universe - the games, books, comics, and DLC.Join 's officially endorsed Discord channel RulesAll rules are subject to moderator discretion. If you have a question about a removal or the reason for removal, please. Please read the sidebar before posting. No harassment, flaming, discrimination, bigotry, unsolicited sexual commentary, or incitement of illegal activity.

Political discussions that approach unruliness will be locked and removed. No spoilers in titles. Tag spoilers in comments and text as shown below. You must flair all your submissions correctly and appropriately. No, low-effort posts, or posts created only for ranting and not discussion.

Self-promotion is allowed twice per month for active members only (not including low-effort posts). Self promotion should be limited to a 1:9 link post ratio. All posts must be Mass Effect-related in content, not just in title. No DAE posts or grandstanding posts. No Ryder- or Shepard-sharing.

Please see our sister subs, and. List of banned topics: Manveer Heir, AnthemFAQPlease read the following FAQ before posting. Submissions regarding FAQ questions will be removed.

Also check out our.What does 'OT' stand for?In our sub, 'OT' stands for 'Original Trilogy,' and refers to Mass Effect 1-3, excluding Andromeda.Is the ME3/MEA multiplayer still active?Yes. Please visit.Which DLC should I get?Check out by.Is Mass Effect: Andromeda really that bad / worth it?Andromeda went on sale pretty soon after release and currently goes down to about $5-10 USD.

Are some threads discussing this topic, but most users will say that the game is worth getting at the discounted price.Do I need to play the OT before playing Andromeda?Technically, no. However, it is generally highly recommended you do so, as playing the OT will greatly enhance your understanding of MEA.What mods are available/recommended for Andromeda?Tagging SpoilersSpoilers can be posted in the comments using the following formatting: SPOILER(#s 'Femshep is best Shep.' )which will show up in your post like this:For game-specific versions: ME1 SPOILER(#s 'Femshep is best Shep.' )ME2 SPOILER(#s 'Femshep is best Shep.'

)ME3 SPOILER(#s 'Femshep is best Shep.' )MEA SPOILER(#s 'Sara and Scott are twins.'