Talk:Starships

If humans are only allowed 1 Dreadnaught, then why do they have 7? Three Elbrus-class dreadnought plus one under construction, three Everest-class Dreadnought (one is not named, the SSV Everest says it is one of three), and a single Kilimanjaro-class Dreadnaught.


 * It works by ratio, 5:3:1. For every five dreadnoughts the turians have, the asari are allowed to have three, and humans one. So if the humans have seven dreadnoughts, the asari have... what... twenty one dreadnoughts, and the turians thirty five. -- Tullis 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an Elbrus-class dreadnought; There are 3 Everest-class dreadnoughts and 4 Kilimanjaro-class dreadnoughts (one of the four is under construction).76.117.235.231 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * can someone post a picture of a human alliance dreadnought, i cant be the only one curious about the design Mako Pro 07:09, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * A Systems Alliance dreadnought would have to appear in the game before anyone could post a picture of one! :P SpartHawg948 07:34, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in the bonus disc for the platinum hits edition of Mass Effect, the art design for the Alliance ship in the attack on the Citadel is described as an "Alliance dreadnought". I find it interesting that both this, and the design for the geth cruiser, are rejected here while the design for the turian cruiser identified on the same disc is accepted without question.  I know why the Alliance ships aren't called dreadnoughts- there are far more than 6 of them in that fleet- but that still leaves the question why we are trusting this source identify the turian cruisers as such.  Tophvision 20:50, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny thing about that though, Toph... the reason the turian cruiser is accepted without question but not the "Alliance dreadnought" or the geth cruiser is because the turian cruiser ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THE GAME. Kind of a big distinction there, eh? No Alliance dreadnoughts appear in game. It has been stated by the writers at BioWare that the human ships in the climactic battle are cruisers (refer to Stormwaltz's comments on the subject at Talk:Alliance Navy, and that no Alliance dreadnoughts appear, and (as has been detailed below ad nauseam, there is no solid proof that geth cruisers appear either. None. So, that is why we accept one but not the others. I don't see why you would find that all that interesting, as nothing I have said here is a revelation or anything, all of it has been here for a while now. :) SpartHawg948 22:41, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Large Military Vessels
Larger warships are classified in one of four weights After which follows a list with 5 different qualifications....157.100.47.114 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

''DESTROYERS are small, slow ships that are heavily armed and used for system and space station defence. The destroyers of the Systems Alliance carry a crew of about 20, roughly the same as frigates. Destroyers don't carry any form of dropships or fighters but are armed almost as heavily, if not heavier, than cruisers. It is still unknown what Alliance destroyers are named after. (See Page 7 in the Prologue of Mass Effect: Revelation)''

I removed this. This type of ship is not used in the Alliance Navy, at least as seen in the (game) year of 2183. Thus it does not appear in the in-game codex. Further, the writeup appeared to be entirely speculation on the part of the writer. If someone wants to add destroyers due to a reference in the novels, I'd suggest rewriting based on the idea that the classification is no longer used. They would be light escort vessels that morphed over time into the frigate designation (as has happened IRL in the post-WWII era). Stormwaltz 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frigates, destroyers, AEGIS cruisers, carriers, and some scout vessels are still the main craft in the current military, frigates and destroyers are still separate craft. Furthermore, it should be noted that Drew wrote the books and is the lead-writer on the game, and as such if he mentioned destroyers, it would make sense for them to still remain, especially since as of yet a fast-assault craft has not been identified in the Alliance Navy as frigates are basically just scout vessels carrying small strike teams and used for hit and run attacks, cruisers being used to screen other ships while also taking a beating, and the dreadnoughts and carriers being used for long-range interdiction and bombardment. A craft actually meant for close-mid range combat, as well as capable of bombardment of battle-stations or other craft (such as depth-charges for a destroyer) as of yet does not exist, and the current explanations have quite a few issues in regards to military based styles. --Delsana 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know this is a couple months old and I don't wanna open up a new can of worms or anything, but factual inaccuracies about the US military drive me nuts! Stormwaltz is quite correct in his example of changing naval designations. Frigates DID NOT exist in the US Navy till after WWII. Before that, there were destroyers and destroyer escorts. And in another example, the US Navy appears to be phasing frigates out of service again. No new frigate has been built for the US Navy in 20 years. Only 30 are left in service, with the Navy intending to retire them very soon, and when they are decomissioned, they will not be replaced by new frigates, but by smaller Littoral Combat Ships. So in reality, there are no "issues in regards to military based styles", as military designations fluctuate fairly often (historically speaking). SpartHawg948 09:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
Is it really necessary to link to a new page for each ship, even if it has only a single sentence of description? If there is a paragraph or less of information about a ship, shouldn't it be on this page for the sake of convienience?

The critical ships that play a role in the main story, and derelicts Shepard can explore should still have their own pages, naturally, but I don't see why some of these other ships need their own pages when the information could be included here without disorganizing or over-complicating the page.

Carrier
From a comment Shepard makes in the game when being interviewed, and due to parallels between the ratio of dreadnoughts allowed and the real-life treaty between the US, Britain, and Japan concerning battleships, I believe carriers area human speciality. That, or something about human carriers gives them or the human fleet an edge over the other Citadel fleets. Shepard does say that human carriers showed the turians, salarians, and asari that humans can think "outside the box."
 * That was the impression I got as well. From what Shepard said, it seemed like the underlying implication was that the carrier had been developed by the Systems Alliance, and that if the other races were even involved in developing carriers, they were struggling to catch up. On that note, I intend to remove the line that claims that dialog "suggests" that Alliance carriers have some advantage over other race's carriers. If anything it suggests that other races do not have carriers. SpartHawg948 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * humans have dedicated ships for fighters but other races have fighters although they are probably used like russian sea fighters like the Yak 48 which could luanch from cruiser/carrier shipsDerekproxy 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently made a post about this on the ME forums:


 * Alliance fighters can be analogized to German tanks in 1939. The great powers of that time dispersed their tanks into infantry formations and used them as support weapons. The Wehrmacht built formations around their tanks to exploit their mobility. IIRC, the French had more tanks than the Germans did in 1940, but they could not maneuver as nimbly as the panzer divisions could.


 * The trend in Council tactics at the time of the First Contact War was to have small groups of fighters as an organic support element to each individual ship. A cruiser might have 2-4 fighters carried aboard; a dreadnought might have 6-12. The fighters would act on the direction of their ship, in support of its attacks. The Alliance built carriers that could send several dozen fighters, and had them operate together as a cohesive attack force. That allowed them to accomplish a lot more.


 * Another relevant analogy is the early days of naval aviation, when aircraft carriers and floatplanes were doctrinally limited to act as scouts for the battleship line. Aircraft bombs were seen as useful support, but not considered decisive or capable of sinking enemy capital ships on their own. It took Taranto and Pearl Harbor to finally kill that meme.


 * Alliance carriers were unique 25 years ago. I haven't given enough thought on how the other races have embraced them. If they have, the Council races have many times the industrial capacity of the Alliance, and they can certainly out-build us.


 * Stormwaltz 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * True they could out build but it took the allies decades to match german tanks and only won because of the fact the germans were out produced tank wise plus i think the only race that would be interested in carriers would be the Turians as they are the military might of the Council plus the council is more concerned about Dreadnoughts like Destiny Ascension not carriers so Humans probably field more carriers then any other raceDerekproxy 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I seem to always be nit-picking, but I think attention to detail is very important, so Derekproxy, the plane you are thinking of is the Yak-38, not 48. The Yak-48 was a regional business jet design that eventually evolved (w/ some Israeli help) into the Gulfstream G200. SpartHawg948 10:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

my bad I'm better with guns and armored vehicles like tanks and APCs eventhough i signed into the marines to fly the MV-22B but life had other plans for meDerekproxy 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it took the Allies less than a decade (approx 5 years for the brits, 3 for us, and 2 for the soviets) to surpass the germans in quanitity (and in the case of the soviets, quality) of tanks, not decades. And actually, the british and french actually had better tanks than the germans in 1939, they just didn't employ them effectively. SpartHawg948 09:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the first good tank the US produced was the M1 that came decades after WW2 the Patton series was just a bunch of modified Shermans plus the Leo 1 out classed any Patton in fact the Leo2 was used to make the M1 the only thing that would have won the Nato cold war if it went hot was better training I don't what armor we olny made tanks that could out perform the super tigers which were nothing but over engineered to where they would work right and the french tanks were not better then any panther plus this should go on our talk pagesDerekproxy 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to what Stormwaltz wrote about other races adopting and using carriers - who says they'd want to? Example: The Soviet navy was larger than the American navy for quite some time. The Russians, put simply, could out-build us for most of the cold war. That said, how many super carriers did they produce during that time? Zero. They attempted to build several, yet scrapped the effort. The only major carrier that they completed was made post-cold war (the Admiral Kuznetsov), and it wasn't a super carrier at all. It functioned more along the lines of an advanced version of our amphibious assault ships. The Russians were also a fan of battlecruiser-esque ships like the Kiev-class carriers. Overall, they didn't buy into nor adopt our carrier strategy - and they were our greatest enemy for the better part of 50 years. What's to say that the Citadel races would want to immediately adopt or even use carriers? The entire plot of Mass Effect shows that the Citadel races are stagnating and do not want to disrupt the status quo with change. They like big powerful dreadnaughts, so they're going to keep fielding and using big powerful dreadnaughts. Given the comments made by Shepard, other races are likely fielding carriers after seeing human use of them, but it's probably more of an experimental and trial-basis support ticket than an actual piece of their doctrine. While I can accept that other races could adopt this technology, based on what I saw in ME, I'd have a VERY difficult time believing that any major race adopted carrier doctrine along the lines of humans. --HaierPhilips 22:45, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Some interesting debates about in-universe carriers that were had:
 * http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=655193&forum=123&sp=0
 * http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=655017&forum=104.&sp=15 --HaierPhilips 22:55, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, for the sake of accuracy, I must point out a couple things. 1) The Admiral Kuznetsov was not completed post-cold war. She was commissioned in 1990, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was considered a functioning unit of the Soviet Navy, even though technically she is not considered to have become "fully operational" until 1995. And it's not accurate to say that it operates along the lines of an amphibious assault ship. It's more akin to a light carrier (which the USN hasn't used for quite some time, but many other nations, primarily european, have). As for supercarriers, the Soviets never gave up building them. Two supercarriers of the Ulyanovsk class were under construction, and work continued right up until the collapse. The ships were canceled by the new Russian Federal government. Regardless, I find your in-game logic spot-on, just wanted to correct some historical inaccuracies. SpartHawg948 23:03, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

On another note... why does the entry say the Alliance "may" have been the first to field carriers? The codex explicitly says they were. Tophvision 02:31, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

i agree with spart. it seems to me that humans took their (by the beginning of mass effect) 220 odd years of naval carrier use and translated it into space combat. the other races never devopled naval carriers because they either a) had no need, or b) devolped space travel before doing so (not as illogical as it sounds). and the Kuznetov is even more precisally a CTOL carrier minus catapults (hence the ramp) plus lots of really badass missiles in VL silos on the flight deck edges. she is the worlds prettiest carrier, in my opinion. she looks... purposeful. HAD 21:01, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dropships and Planetary Assault / Exploration Craft

 * Moved to User talk:Delsana as it does not refer to the Starships article. --Tullis 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dropships are starships, a discussion zone is meant to discuss inconsistencies or problems or ideas, it isn't a forum true, but open discussion wasn't the point nor was it what happened, and dropships were mentioned above, I simply made a logical decision, and it wasn't "combative" to state how it was insulting to the military if in fact, it would be considered an insult to their tactical and logical capabilities. --Delsana 04:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough, please
Delsana, this is NOT the purpose of a Talk page. Talk pages are used to discuss or make comments about the article they are attached to. They are not a free space to post long treatises regarding your personal dislikes within the game, and the wiki does not exist to host individuals' soapboxing. You have effectively been spamming Talk pages with your personal opinions, which belong on a forum and NOT on a wiki. I have also already warned you about combative language, and am therefore disappointed to see phrases like "this is just insulting to the military as well as common sense in all forms" appearing.

Please remove this from the Talk page forthwith, and in future please restrict comments of this length and tone to a more appropriate venue like the BioWare official forums. --Tullis 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Im with you Tullis plus why would the Systems Alliance use dropships when their frigates can drop troops and vehicles onto planets as seen with the Normandy on Virmire and when ever the Mako is dropped onto a planetDerekproxy 23:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recoil
""An 800-meter mass accelerator is capable of accelerating one 20 kg. slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s (1.3% of light speed) every two seconds." While the acceleration strains plausibility, it was necessary to retain the 38kt damage mark." This implies that the recoil force of operating the mass accelerator would instantly propel a 20,000 metric ton ship backwards at a rate of 4m/s (8.46 MPH). Doing so would knock every crew member to the ground as if they casually stepped down out of a vehicle that was traveling at a human's running speed. This could be mitigated if the Mass-Effect field of the ship artificially increased the mass of the ship (requiring a huge power input).


 * I just noticed this comment, and I have no idea when it was added or by who. Mass accelerators are suspended in a cradle of flywheels that absorb most of the force of recoil. The kinetic energy stored in the flywheels is then used to partially power the next shot by that weapon. Stormwaltz 16:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, don't forget that larger ME ships have their decks arranged perpendicular to their thrust axis, according to the codex. The recoil would push crewmembers up, not to the side.  Also, the mass effect-generated artificial gravity can likely compensate for the recoil. Tophvision 21:30, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Also, if a Mass-Effect field is used to artificially reduce the weight of a slug prior to being fired (as stated in the Codex regarding weapons technologies) in an effort to increase velocity, then the slug velocity would drop down immediately after leaving the effective range of the Mass-Effect field as per the conservation of momentum (e.g. If you make something heavier mid-flight without the input of additional motive force, then its velocity will decrease proportionally to the increase in mass). So, I guess that means Mass Effect is SciFi...


 * Is there any chance we can stop putting new comments in the middle of a comment that someone else left here? I can kind of see why the first one by Stormwaltz was interjected, to answer a point with a direct counterpoint, but the second comment really should have gone at the end. We need to encourage people to treat threads as threads, not to give them the impression that 'other users and their comments be damned! I can put my post wherever I want, even if it's in the middle of someone else's!' That may have been a little melodramatic, but the point still stands. Please, unless directly responding to a point made in the original post, put your comments at the end of other users comments, not in the middle. Thanks, SpartHawg948 21:37, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ships don't use missles
There was a post on the official forums by one one the game designers, Chris L'Etoile. Here is what is said: "I've explained this previously,but it's been a while. :)

Obviously, people can build missiles in the IP. They're well within the tech base. However, canonically, no one builds them for use in space combat.

The final cutscenes of ME1 were far along in development before the designers noticed they relied on missiles. The designers told the animators, "There are no missiles in the IP. Defensive lasers never miss." The animators told the designers, "We have too much work to do to go back and change these."

So, despite what you see in the cutscenes, missiles are not used in Mass Effect space combat.

Anything you saw that you interpreted as a missile was a hallucination caused by Sovereign's indoctrination of you. Please consult a qualified medical specialist."

But they DO have mass effect torpedoes, which could easily be confused with missiles Mako Pro 07:06, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Link http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=685301&forum=144&sp=30 --96.52.254.124 02:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

so what delivers nuclear weapons are the fired from ships cannons or do fighters do suicide runs because if they luanch it they'll most likely be in the blast radius as they attack ships up close and what does the normandy use to attack as it is a warships and has offensive armerments so what does it use?Derekproxy 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If I had to guess (which is all this is)- any nuclear weapons that may be deployed are probably launched by cannon (there is precedent (Nuclear Artillery), or they may possibly take the form of bombs or missiles launched from fighters (remember, ships don't use missiles, no one said anything about fighters). Just because a fighter launches a nuke doesn't mean it'll be in the blast radius. Since 1945 planes have been configured to drop nukes and not blow themselves up, a fighter should be able to do it quite easily. As far as the Normandy, it uses GARDIAN lasers and presumably mass accelerator cannons, the same as other Alliance warships. SpartHawg948 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the nuclear artillery was a sham to scare the russians in the cold war the troops firing that shell would be caught in the blast making a nuke cannon impractical as wasting a gun isn't artillery stragtegy I was in the marines for a short time plus my grand father was an officer who took part in the sham of the nuke gun. as for the fighers and nukes the planes now are ment to drop nukes on ground targets not air craft and the only air to air nuke missile was abandoned for that reason. Plus the fighters would need a big nuke to break a sheild and fighters are said in the codex to get up close and personal in a fleet battle to hit the large ships where it hurts so they would be in the blast zone of a nukeDerekproxy

There is a post by the very same guy in the very same thread regarding nukes. "Nukes are deliberately excluded from naval warfare because -- contrary to what popular culture says -- they are useless in a vacuum. Most of the damage of a nuclear blast is heat and shock, transmitted by the medium of Earth's atmosphere. The radiation damage decreases at an inverse square. In order to damage an enemy ship with a nuclear blast, you have to get the bomb redonkulously close to them (which is unlikely, given the capabilities of GARDIAN CIWS suites). It's cheaper to fling a bunch of 20kg slugs at 1.3% of lightspeed than it is to build a bunch of slow-moving nuclear-tipped missiles. For more in the ineffectualness of nukes in space, refer to Winchell Chung's awesome Atomic Rockets site." Link to the thread page: http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=685301&forum=144&sp=15 Link to Winchell Chung's awesome Atomic Rockets site: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#nuke 96.52.254.124 05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * contrary to what the above post says, nukes would not be useless in a vacuum, because the resulting EMP blast would still destroy most electronics within its effective range, electromagnetic radiation CAN travel through a vacuum Mako Pro 07:06, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so, because all ships use optical computers rather than electronic circuits. Optical systems are not affected by EMP. Once optical systems are developed, electronics won't be used in spacecraft, for the simple fact that stars and other cosmic phenomena routinely produce EMP effects. There's a reason NASA sweats when the shuttle's in orbit during a solar flare. -- Stormwaltz 09:23, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the most lethal part of blast would be limited to about 1 km. Also, yes, disruptor torpedoes are used- but mainly by fighters, not the ships themselves. Tophvision 20:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * they are most likely using the javelin torpedo launcher because according to the codex, "The Javelin is an experimental close-assault weapon fitted on a handful of newer Alliance warships. It consists of a "rack" of two or more disposable disruptor torpedo tubes bolted or magnetically "slung" on to a ship’s exterior armored hull. The torpedoes are fired on converging trajectories, and detonate in a precisely timed sequence that allows the dark energy emitted by their warheads to resonate. This magnifies the resulting space-time warp effects. Javelin mounts are most often fitted on swift frigates, which expect to enter "knife fight" torpedo ranges as a matter of course. Javelins may also be fitted on heavier ships during short range engagements, such as trans-relay assaults. They are particularly useful in this role for dreadnoughts, which are unable to lay their main guns on targets at close range." .  also, regarding nukes, the radius of the EMP depends on the size of the nuke, so a bigger nuke would have a bigger EMP, though it would be easier to just make an EMP without using a nuke, but either way, an EMP would annihilate reapers, geth, etc. Mako Pro 06:58, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

No speculation please
Ok, there wasn't a terrible amount of space in the summary bubble, so here is why I removed the bit about SA frigates being used to transport marines and vehicles into ground combat. It's speculation w/out a solid basis in fact. SA Frigates carry a small marine complement (w/ 3-4 man "away teams") and one small IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) for use in rapid response situations. Nowhere has it been said that the Systems Alliance Military employs it's frigates to carry troops and vehicles into ground combat. SpartHawg948 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not speculation as the codex states the Mako was ment to fit into a frigate and through out the game the Normandy is seen doing this the only thing special for the Normandy is that its a specter's ship if all makos were ment for frigates then its not speculation frigates act as troop transportsDerekproxy 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes it is. There is a big difference between carrying a few troops and a vehicle or two and being a troop transport. An aircraft carrier in the US Navy carries a small number of Marines, as well as helicopters which can carry them. Does this make the carrier a troop transport? No. The codex does state that the MAKO was meant to fit in SA frigates. However, there is NOTHING in the codex that states that the role of a frigate (SA or otherwise) is to act as a troopship. In fact, the codex lists the frigate's role as reconnaissance/skirmisher. Seven marines and a MAKO hardly qualifies a ship as a troop transport. As there is NO evidence that the SA employs frigates as troop transports (which was your original premise), it's speculation. SpartHawg948 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright alright it is although I wonder if the SAMC operates its own ships like USMC wasp and america class shipsDerekproxy 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna say it's unlikely, given that the Wasp and America classes, not to mention the Tarawa class are operated by the US Navy, the Marines merely operate off of the ships. SpartHawg948 08:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Geth ships besides dropships
It's often assumed that the only Geth ship class seen in Mass Effect is the dropship, a frigate about the same size as the main character's frigate the Normandy. However, I think that some other geth vessels were in fact present at the Siege of the Citadel towards the game's end.

- here is a video of the battle. At first, it would appear that only dropships were with Sovereign, since it's clear that all the ships surrounding it at 0:13 are dropships. At other moments, ships of other sizes can be seen. The Normandy passes one such ship at 4:50, and shortly later at 4:55 it flys through wreckage of several Geth ships that are clearly larger than it.

Can it be safely assumed that a class of Geth cruisers was present at the battle as well as the dropships? Tophvision 11:36, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the ships in this video at 3:35 are Geth cruisers. I also found a video were the relative size of the dropship compared to the Normandy can be assessed. Here at 0:40 you can see the Normandy landing at the bomb site, and taking back off again at 1:55. A dropship heads for the same site at 6:20. Does anyone else see notable design difference between the Geth ships in the last video and this ship? To me sections of the ship seem longer proportionally- particularly the head and "shoulders" part. The head doesn't seem angled down as much on the "cruisers" as the dropship, and the cruisers seem to lack the "claws" the dropship has. Tophvision 12:06, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a "safe" assumption to make, to be honest. The Normandy seems to change size fairly randomly (not uncommon in sci-fi movies and games). Claws can be retracted, and just because individual geth dropships have variations between them, doesn't mean they're an entirely new class of ship. --Tullis 14:29, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * But would you agree there is evidence? I would think the design team wouldn't have such a gross difference in size between the Normandy and the Geth ships in the siege of the citadel. Also, in that video shortly before the Normandy's fly-by an Alliance cruiser fires upon a geth ship, and while they are not shown in the same frame, the geth ship seems similar in size to the cruiser when both are compared to the size of what the cruiser fires. Tophvision 15:42, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a geth ship at 1:50 seems comparable in size to a turian cruiser. Tophvision 15:47, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I gotta say that in this context, there is no such thing as a "safe" assumption. There are just assumptions, and assumptions are speculation. And not to sound rude, but I'm seeing a lot of "seems". "Seems comparable to...", "Seems similiar in size to...", "Seem longer proportionally..." and that does place it securely in the realm of the speculative. SpartHawg948 03:23, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * We could just as easily say the ships defending the Citadel with the Destiny Ascension "seem" to be turian cruisers, because we have no outright statement they are. My point is, a single instance of an out-of-proportion Geth ship would not be enough to prove it's a cruiser and not a dropship, but as you can see, I've collected multiple examples of evidence of cruiser-sized geth ships. From that we can draw a probable conclusion. Tophvision 13:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, just wanted to interject that we do have a source stating that the ships w/ the Ascension are turian cruisers. On the Mass Effect Limited Edition disc, in the Design Galleries section, Casey Hudson, while commenting on the ship you were referring to states, "This is the final design for the turian cruiser". Just wanted to point that out. So no, not really analogous to the situation we are faced with now. SpartHawg948 20:50, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ships are not only classified according to size, but to function. You could make the Normandy the size of a carrier, but if she can't actually carry fighters / interceptors, she's still essentially a frigate. We know that cruisers are the standard patrol vessels, and the turian ships we have images of don't have a main gun, so they're unlikely to be dreadnoughts; the Alliance pioneered carriers, so those turian vessels are likely to be cruisers.
 * On the other hand, we know absolutely nothing whatsoever about geth military doctrine, fleet deployment, construction, etc. We know that dropships are frigates because you can get the Codex entry on frigates from the claw on Feros. But saying there were geth cruisers is pure speculation based on a video. And if there were other geth ships that were larger and distinctive from dropships, this image certainly doesn't show them. --Tullis 15:03, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to concur. We're not really in the business of drawing "probable conclusions" based on rather circumstantial evidence. We have no idea of how far the geth ships are from the reference points you are using, just assumptions. And as the resident speculation buster on this wiki, I have to point out that an assumption based on an assumption just won't fly (no pun intended). Also, in that capacity I want to add a caveat, so we can avoid a repeat of the section above this one- the dropships are also frigates thing is geth-specific, not a generalized statement. As for the other races, the codex clearly states that firgates are skirmishers and recon ships. Please, no attempts to resurrect the whole 'SA uses their frigates as troopships' thing. SpartHawg948 20:50, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I just found out- on the bonus disc of the Platinum Hits edition of Mass Effect (that's what I have), in the design galleries section for the Geth ships Casey Hudson starts it with what he calls the "final design" for the "geth cruiser". It's the straighter, elongated ship I've been trying to point out. So, if you're going to accept his comment that the turian ships he remarks about on the same disc are cruisers, you have to accept that there is a geth dropship in the game. I'm sure now that some images need to be renamed from "geth dropship" to "geth cruiser". Tophvision 14:00, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a picture to verify this BEFORE you start doing wholesale revision of pages, please? --Tullis 14:26, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to take screenshots from an Xbox disc, so if you can tell me how to do so that would be helpful. Until then I can't, all I can say is that it's the first image in the design gallery for geth ships off that disc. If I can't get the screenshot I'll just wait for other users who have the disc to confirm. Tophvision 14:32, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen the same image, however there are clear visual differences between the two (the in-game dropship and the drawing of the cruiser) that I haven't seen in the evidence you have provided. For example, the cruiser features an array of what appear to be antennae on it's dorsal hump which are clearly lacking in the geth ships over Ilos, which conveniently enough are pictured with their dorsal humps plainly visible. With the ships at the Citadel, again, when you see them close up as they exit the relay, no antenna banks are visible. Also, if you will note, the geth cruiser is much bulkier under the dorsal hump, and the bow does not "flare up" as much, for lack of a better term. From what I am able to determine, none of the geth ships you've presented share these distinguishing features. So basically, for the ones on Ilos, I'm gonna say no, not cruisers. The most distinguishing feature is that "antenna bank", and even though the shot puts the area where this should appear on the ship front and center, it isn't there. Simple enough. As for the ships at the Citadel, they do not appear to me to be cruisers, they look like the dropship/frigates. I will, however, accept the possibility they are cruisers, and should solid evidence be presented, I'll happily make the appropriate edits myself. SpartHawg948 21:16, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I think that the modele ship named "geth cruiser" in ME2 is a good evidence, right ?
 * Yes and no. We do now have pretty conclusive proof that there are geth cruisers that were apparently present in the geth fleet at the Citadel, although we've still seen no proof that any of them appeared on-screen in ME. So yes, there are geth cruisers that were at the Citadel, but no, there is still no proof geth cruisers were at Ilos. SpartHawg948 22:35, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single one of the ships you buy as a model is seen in-game at some point or another. I recall the description being along the lines of "a model of a geth cruiser as those common at the Battle of the Citadel".  Combined with the previously "not solid" evidence I already put forth, that should prove that much of the ships in the battle of the Citadel were cruisers. Tophvision 22:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't I already agree that at least some of the ships at the Battle of the Citadel were cruisers? Let's see the replay! "We do now have pretty conclusive proof that there are geth cruisers that were apparently present in the geth fleet at the Citadel". Not good enough? Well let's see part II! "So yes, there are geth cruisers that were at the Citadel" Weird! Seems like I already agreed with you! SpartHawg948 23:04, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I didn't read carefully. Tophvision 23:13, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pages/acknowledgement for ship classes
On another note, should their be pages for individually identified ship classes, such as the turian cruiser, geth cruiser, or human dreadnought? (the design is noted as a "dreadnought" by Casey Hudson on the Platinum Hits bonus disc)? Right now the only class of ship that seems to have its own page is the geth dropship. Even if not, can they at least be acknowledged in the "Notable Starships" section of the Starships page, along the lines of "Unnamed Turian Cruiser class".

Also, can images from aforementioned bonus disc identified as "final designs" be used as images for the wiki? There are several "final" fighter designs and the like that are shown on the disc that never get clearly shown in the game. If such images are usable, how would I extract them from the disc? Tophvision 14:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unnamed Turian Cruiser class"? What? No. If we don't have information on the class or name of ship, there's no point having a section for it. We have a screenshot. That is all. If we get more information in the future, I'll gladly clear the way for it. But we don't have a section for batarian Hensa-class dreadnoughts, so why should we have one for a class we don't even have a name for? In fact, we don't have classes for human cruisers either, only their names.
 * Dropships have their own page because other geth units do. I say again: we don't have enough info on geth cruisers to have a dedicated section for them. What would we put in it? They might have been used in the battle for the Citadel but you only see them for a split second? There's enough to justify a note in the trivia section of Geth Dropship, and that's about it. --Tullis 14:42, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, alright, I'll just note it in the trivia section of the Geth dropships. I'll continue looking for a way to post screenshots of the designs from the bonus disc in the meanwhile. Tophvision 14:45, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Well, barring a page, can it be at least noted in the notable starships section? It's not a page or a section, just a notation that there is in fact an identified model for these ships.

Perhaps we could have a page for unnamed ships in general and the pictures that go along with them?Tophvision 14:47, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what we already have at the top of this page? Pictures of unnamed turian and human cruisers in the appropriate sections?
 * I don't think a dedicated page would be worthwhile, but if we had enough pictures to need it, we could put a gallery on this page with captions underneath. Would that work? --Tullis 14:50, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the Notable Starships section is for individual vessels, not classes. The one exception is of course the quarian Liveships, however, they qualify b/c they are 3 unique and utterly irreplaceable vessels. Putting classes of ship in there would throw the whole thing off. SpartHawg948 21:20, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Cruiser vs Frigate drive core discharge
Forgot to mention in edit summary, but it is not accurate to state "Unlike frigates, cruisers and larger vessels cannot land on a planet's surface". Please refer to Tremanre. Also, the codex specifies that "Larger vessels like dreadnoughts cannot land and must discharge into a planetary magnetic field". Seems to imply that vessels smaller than dreadnoughts (ie cruisers and below) can land. SpartHawg948 23:26, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * That planet is clearly an exception: it says "Tremanre's miniscule gravity allows even cruiser-sized vessels to land safely for direct grounding.". The codex specifically says "Unlike larger vessels, frigates are able to land on planets" in the entry for frigates. We can put "Normally only frigates can land on planets, but cruisers can land on rare extremely low-gravity planets".  Also, the codex says "Ships that can land arrange their decks laterally, so the crew can move about while the vessel is on the ground." Cruisers aren't considered to be ships that normally land, even though they rarely can, so it would be logical to put that frigates have laterally arranged decks, while cruisers and up have decks perpendicular to the thrust axis. Tophvision 00:37, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just going off what the codex says. Again, it says that larger vessels like dreadnoughts can't land. It doesn't say larger vessels like cruisers and dreadnoughts. The fact that it singles out dreadnoughts as vessels that can't land seems pretty telling. And that would seem to cover the other bit as well, wouldn't it? Since it only states that dreadnoughts can't land, I think we should keep things the way they are, as I would prefer to not contradict the codex. SpartHawg948 00:48, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * The codex also singles out frigates as the ships that land, and that larger vessels than frigates can't. Combine that with the fact that Tremanre indicates that cruisers normally don't land.  It's not a contradiction. Tophvision 01:46, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't single them out as the only ships that can land. It states that they can land, unlike larger ships, which is consistent with the statement that larger ships such as dreadnoughts can't land. Cruisers appear to be a middle ground, or gray area, being able to land on some, but not necessarily all, planets. This, combined with the fact that there are at least some planets (even if they are in the minority) that cruisers can land on, means that it is a contradiction of the codex to state unequivocally that "cruisers and larger vessels cannot land on a planet's surface." If there are at least some planets that cruisers can land on, then cruisers can land on planets, just with conditions. Stating otherwise is like stating that 'unlike reptiles, mammals cannot lay eggs, but rather give birth to live young' even after having been shown a platypus. Sure, not all mammals can lay eggs, but some can. Cruisers can't land on all planets, but they can land on some. Stating otherwise is a contradiction of established fact, and basing other theories or assumptions (perpendicular deck layout) on this faulty assumption is likewise incorrect. SpartHawg948 01:58, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "unlike larger vessels" means... unlike larger vessels. It doesn't say "larger vessels like dreadnoughts", it just says larger vessels.  Cruisers are "larger vessels" than frigates.  Simple.  I conceded that the wiki entry can say "Normally only frigates can land on planets, but cruisers can land on rare extremely low-gravity planets", but that doesn't mean we have to outright exclude the fact that under normal conditions, frigates are the only ships that can land on planets. Tophvision 02:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If you will refer to my first post, all I was trying to do is point out that it is inaccurate to say that cruisers cannot land on planets when it has been demonstrated that they can. And based on that fact, it would be pure speculation to state that the decks of cruisers are perpendicular to the thrust axis, as the codex states that this is only done on ships that cannot land, while "Ships that can land arrange their decks laterally". As has been demonstrated, cruisers can and do land from time to time, so it is unreasonable to make assumptions on deck layouts, as there is just not enough conclusive information. SpartHawg948 02:36, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I guess there isn't outright conclusive evidence that cruisers have perpendicular decks.  Would it be alright to note under dreadnoughts that they have perpendicularly arranged decks?Tophvision 03:26, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would! We can say definitively that dreadnoughts cannot land, and so would logically have none of the design features necessitated by the possibility of landing to discharge drive cores, so that would be A-OK! Plus, can't really point to any "large ships" larger than dreadnoughts (except maybe the quarian Liveships). SpartHawg948 03:39, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * And Sovereign. But it is notably called out as being a MASSIVE exception that Sovereign can land on a planet, and required Sovereign's (Codex-hypothesised) immense eezo core to pull it off. --Tullis 13:24, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * The Tremanre description does imply that it is rare for there to be a planet that cruisers can land on. "Tremanre's miniscule gravity allows even cruiser-sized vessels to land safely for direct grounding." Emphasis on "even."Tophvision 21:31, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... Not sure why this is really an issue anymore... The entry specifically states that "Cruisers normally cannot land on planets, but do possess the ability to land on low-gravity planets". It still makes it clear that it is a rarity that a cruiser will find a planet it can ground on, I just preferred to not state unequivocally something we don't know for certain. Erring on the side of caution is not something to be made light of. Also, "can sometimes land on rare low-gravity planets" didn't seem the best wording. So, even if the planet is low-gravity, they can only land on it sometimes? What about the other times? The current version says the same thing but is clearer about it. SpartHawg948 21:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Engines
I don't see any information about ship engines here (ion drives, fusion torches, etc.), nor could I find a specific page for them. Is there already a page that I overlooked? If not, should we put information on engines here, or start a new page for them? Tophvision 14:17, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's Codex info on the FTL drives, thrusters etc. --Tullis 21:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bearing that in mind, we already have an FTL page, and there doesn't seem like enough info about thrusters to justify another page, as pretty much all the info we have is found in the Codex already. And there's no real precedent for putting info on ships systems on this page as it's about the actual ships themselves, mainly about classification. Therefore I'd suggest putting a link to the thrusters codex entry and the FTL in the Starship Attributes system and calling it good! SpartHawg948 21:59, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I went to add aforementioned links, noticed that an FTL link is already at the top of the page, so not going to throw that in under attributes. If someone really wants to, I won't object, but I for one am not going to since it's already on the page. SpartHawg948 22:37, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Human Dreadnought counts?
Does anyone else expect it to rise exponentially? --Oblivion nerd 22:02, March 16, 2010 (UTC) Not Really. Wouldn't production be pretty much constant for any war machine? Having more dreadnoughts will not increase it. Katamariguy 8:40 GMT April 24, 2011

Destiny Ascension & asari dreadnought number
Whether or not the player let the Destiny Ascension be destroyed, the codex entry still says 20. This may be a codex error, or oversight. The developers forgot to make the "Dreadnought" entry variable depending on that decision. There is no news about a dreadnought different than the Ascension being destroyed. If you're going to say "Well, maybe one did, we just didn't here about it", does the entry still say twenty if you did destroy the Destiny Ascension? If yes, then it likely is an oversight, one which we can correct. Tophvision 20:26, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does I just checked and even then it still says twenty. I'm thinking that it is an oversight but maybe the Ascension is in its own category becuase of its size. That is why i reverted twice about it. However considering we keep a copy of the codex here and it is incorrect, I went off the ingame one. Lancer1289 20:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * After going through the games I have, I saw that no matter the decision the ME2 codex says 20. I'm thinking that the asari maybe lost a dreadnought either way at the Citadel and that is the reason for the discrepency. While only the turians and humans have confirmed casualties at the Battle of the Citadel, other species probably lost ships too and my thinking is the asari lost a dreadnought either way. Lancer1289 21:46, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think oversight on the developers' part is the most plausible explanation for this incongruity. Assuming all asari dreadnoughts are of the same model and all dreadnoughts in general are around a kilometer in length, the Destiny Ascension was clearly the only dreadnought of any kind present at the Battle of the Citadel other than Sovereign. That leaves two possibilities: the missing asari dreadnought was lost in some other conflict that for whatever reason is not mentioned in ME2 and happens only in cases where the player saves the Council in ME, or the developers forgot to make a second Codex entry for the Council-savers. Occam's Razor points to the latter. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:06, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Three possibilities, actually. The missing dreadnought could have been decommissioned (removed from service) for any of a number of reasons, be it age, obsolescence, budgetary issues, etc. And as for it being lost due to conflict, don't forget that it could have been lost due to a simple accident as well. SpartHawg948 01:42, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, didn't think of that. However, I'd think if such a change was intentional it would be explained somehow. Oh well, not that it matters (and then ME3 ends in a battle wholly dependent on how many allied dreadnoughts Shepard has on hand...). -- Commdor (Talk) 02:35, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see any reason they'd add info that was that trivial and inconsequential to... well, to anything. The asari have 20 dreadnoughts (rather than 21, as in 2183, as one was retired following cuts to the defense budget). Hardly relevant info right there. I mean, they didn't feel the need to explain the extra dreadnoughts in the turian and human fleets, or to explain the lack of change in the salarian figure. If anything, that's what I find most curious. The turians and humans added dreadnoughts, the asari lost one (by means unknown), and the salarians? No change. SpartHawg948 02:45, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the codex did not make a mistake. After all, Ascension was destroyed as the default choice in ME2 if your character wasn't imported. If you did saved the Ascension, another dreadnought could be decommissioned or destroyed off-game. 02:56, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Notable Ships?
So... when did the policy become that a ship had to be directly encountered in a book or game to be notable? I honestly can't recall that discussion. Seems a little bogus to me, or at the very least extremely inconsistent. SpartHawg948 22:45, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're going to call the section "Notable Starships", there has to be some threshold for that notability. Since no one else had established what makes a ship notable and thus fit for inclusion in this section, I did. We can always change the section to "Known Starships", which would allow all known starships to be added, if that's what you would prefer. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:49, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what I'd prefer at all, though I do wish that policies could be set a bit less unilaterally, with at least some discussion, along the lines of "Hey, since there doesn't appear to be an established policy for this, I was thinking ___", instead of policies being created with no notice and implemented with no comment. IMO, the Azedes does seem notable, in that it was the ship responsible for discovering the raloi and introducing them to Citadel space. It's at least as notable (using the actual definition of the word) as many of the freighters listed as notable. SpartHawg948 22:52, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an on-the-spot move which no one objected to at the time. I've got no problem with changing the definition of notable as used here, as long as there is a definition of some sort which can be adhered to. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:56, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit that I did not object at the time, but that was more due to my having taken a cursory glance at the edits in question than anything else. If the proposal had been stated anywhere, such as on this talk page on in a policy forum, I would indeed have objected. The issue here is that notability is inherently subjective. We really don't have a set standard for it, which should be obvious from even a quick look at the notable (insert race here) sections on race pages, and the notable ships section on the Migrant Fleet page. My issue with this proposal (i.e. 'it has to be directly encountered in a game or book) is that it does exclude ships that are mentioned but not directly encountered which are easily more notable (again, using the definition of the word) than many ships encountered in-game which are therefor considered "notable". SpartHawg948 23:01, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. Again, my sole concern here is that if we use "notable" in the section title, we have to have it mean something, i.e. there must be notable ships (which get to be featured on this page) and non-notable ships (which don't get to be featured). -- Commdor (Talk) 23:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but again, that is a bit subjective. What makes Pitne For notable, but not the Expat? What makes Matriarch Dilinaga notable, but not Morinth's sisters? For that matter, what makes Joker notable, but not Donovan Hock? It's all subjective, and open to interpretation, and as much as I hate to admit it, the "notability" question is one that needs to be examined on more of a case-by-case basis. SpartHawg948 23:28, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the state of how notable something is depend how closely tied it is to the narrative? I mean, Pitne For is responsible for furthering the plot to recruit Samara, the Expat isn't notable for anything other than miscellaneous comments about the colonies. As for Matriarch Dilinaga, wouldn't it be because she has those diaries (of whatever worth they are within the context of the game world) whereas Morinth's sisters are of subjective quality only in terms from the SB dossier on Samara (and not actual characters in their own rights). As for Joker and Hock, I would actually argue that both are notable -- FeeZ 06:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm fresh out of bright ideas. I'm willing to support whatever the majority comes up with. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC)