This is the talk page for Alliance Navy.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

"Regardless, the devastation of the Citadel Fleet meant the Alliance Navy was left as the most powerful single military force among the Citadel races. This fact alone meant humanity's place in galactic society was assured."

I don't remember precisely what's said in Ascension, but this is not true. The Fifth Fleet was the largest concentration of military force near the Citadel. The combined fleets of the asari, turians, and salarians still outnumber the Alliance's forces by something like 11 to 1 (based solely on the dreadnought ratio established by the Treaty of Farixen). Stormwaltz 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ascension, p4: "The Citadel forces had been decimated by the geth, leaving the Alliance fleet unchallenged as the galaxy's single most dominant power."
But if that's inaccurate I guess the article needs changing. --Tullis 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think even though the Citadel fleet was destroyed, the Council races must have ships in order to defend their respected territories.

Battle for the CitadelEdit

  • Did any Alliance dreadnoughts take part in the battle? The videos seem to portray a fleet of cruisers (since they're larger than the Normandy and more numerous than Dreadnoughts). There were far more than six ships in the videos and they all looked exactly the same. This leads me to believe that the dreadnoughts did not take part in the fight. Ninsegtari 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Codex: Space Combat General Tactics, dreadnoughts are hellishly effective but only at long range. Once you get closer they become more of a liability because they can't use their main gun and because of heat dispersion problems. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alliance didn't want to risk their dreadnoughts in a (technically) CQC environment like the area around the Citadel. --Tullis 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dirty Little Secrets time. The cruisers in the battle of the Citadel are using a model intended to be an Alliance dreadnought. The cinematics department didn't read the Codexes specifying that humanity only has six, and only uses them for long ranged combat. When we saw shots showing up to 15 "dreadnoughts" on screen at a time, we had to re-designate the model as a cruiser. Stormwaltz 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

i believe the model was also changed slighty. the dreadnought in concept art was soposed to have four engines. and be massive in comparison... i wonder if they reskined the model or something similer and got rid of the engines :) -- 13:57, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Known Vessels Edit

I'm not sure I agree with arbitrarily throwing all the minor vessels on this page. It bulks the page out unnecessarily and means ships of interest get lost. Either we delete the ship's pages -- in cases like the Hyderabad that might be best -- or we return things the way they were. --Tullis 17:32, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

We can create Alliance Vessels page, and list all vessels on that page. I think that putting every ship on its own page don't give anything, and make unneeded separation. The Hastings and the Normandy should get their place on the top (although the Normandy should have its own page), other then those two, I don't see other vessels that need their own space. --silverstrike 17:44, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not creating a "catch-all" page for them. I've changed things up a bit, and will fix the redirects for this. Hopefully this will streamline the page slightly. --Tullis 17:48, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the SSV Hastings should have its own page, but does the SSV Iwo Jima needs its own page? It could easily be merged with the Mass Effect: Revelation article. The same way the SSV Hyderabad was merged with Alsages planet page. --silverstrike 17:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
I think the manner of its destruction warrants its own page, for demonstrative purposes if nothing else. --Tullis 18:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's notable in the manner in which it was brought down. Also, speaking of notable, why no mention of the cruiser Hyderabad- the one that is mentioned to have destroyed a batarian pirate frigate? It's got at least as much to make it notable as, say, the Tokyo. SpartHawg948 19:31, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
That I removed because it was quoted three times, on the Tunerron, Hyderbad and Eluam articles, and the entire substance of it is already on Alsages' page. --Tullis 19:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine by me, I was just referring to the fact that it doesn't appear on this page. I think it should go under notable vessels, or at the very least other vessels. After all, the SSV Hastings and SSV Iwo Jima are still listed here even though they have their own pages. It's more a thoroughness thing for me, I guess. As it is an Alliance Navy vessel (and one of the more prominent ones in the in-game lit) it should be listed on the Alliance Navy page. SpartHawg948 08:19, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but what is the SSV Hyderabad. Reading this article has made me want to find out , but the Alsages page has barley anything on it.Tandy212 20:17, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

An Alliance cruiser which destroyed a batarian pirate frigate. All the info can be found either on this page or the Alsages page. There may seem to be barely anything about the Hyderabad there, but literally every known fact from the game about the ship can be found on those two pages. The only thing from the old SSV Hyderabad article not included is that the ship is named for the city of Hyderabad, either the one in India or the one in Pakistan (or both). SpartHawg948 21:00, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Names Edit

Why are some in bold and others not?--Xaero Dumort 18:27, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be done only when additional information follows the name of the ship. I'd guess it's for formatting clarity only. -- Stormwaltz 19:42, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Carriers & Mass Accelerator Cannons Edit

I would think carriers would not have main cannons, since then, being dreadnought-sized ships, they would be in violation of treaty. While the codex does not explicitly say that carriers do not have a main cannon, it does say that fighters are the main armament and that carriers are not meant to go into battle directly: "Humans...were the first to build ships wielding fighters as the main armament," "Fighters are the primary striking power of the ship; if a carrier enters mass accelerator range of the enemy, things have gone very wrong." If carriers had a main mass accelerator cannon, why would this be an issue? They could engage in combat just as well as other ships.

Although, part of this rides on the assumption that carriers are in fact dreadnought-sized. While it says this on the wiki's page for Starships, it doesn't say this for the entry of carriers in the codex.Tophvision 01:16, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • The problem there is that you are assuming that, as dreadnought sized ships, carriers would have dreadnought sized mass accelerators, or none at all. Who is to say that they don't have smaller models, more along the lines of those mounted by cruisers or frigates, to be used as a last line of defense? Perfect example: real world aircraft carriers are physically as large or larger than battleships. Going by the logic you were using there, a carrier must have main guns as large as those of a battleship, or none at all. Not true. Many carriers mounted guns for defense against planes and ships, but guns that were substantially smaller than those carried by battleships. (the carriers Lexington and Saratoga mounted guns typically found on heavy cruisers, guns too big for AAA but much smaller than the 16-inchers of battleships, the more contemporary French carrier Clemenceau carried 100mm guns, and many others mounted guns in the 3 to 5 inch range) And just like the codex says, even though these carriers were armed with cannon as secondary weaponry (in some cases cannons typically found on heavy cruiser), it was very much a fact that if they found themselves within the range of enemy guns, something had gone very wrong. Just look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
  • A statement that fighters are the main armament of carriers also does not preclude the carrying of a gun. Ships generally have (and Alliance ships are shown to possess) secondary and tertiary armament. Again, look at a modern Nimitz class supercarrier. There is no doubt that the vessel's main armament is it's aircraft. Does that mean it has no guns? No. Far from it. The Nimitz class vessels also carry secondary and tertiary armament consisting of guns and missiles. Stating that carriers don't carry guns when there is no proof of this is speculation, plain and simple. SpartHawg948 05:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, each carrier would be equipped with GARDIAN for protection against enemy fighters and mass accelerator projectiles. The GARDIAN is analogous to the CIWS system used on the contemporary carrier classes, the Nimitz-class and Ford-class Super Carriers. I am thinking, and this is speculation, that there are carrier battle groups in the Mass Effect universe. In this situation, the carrier is protected by three lines of defense: its' fighters, its' escorts, and its' guns. Throwback 05:48, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Those are all factually accurate statements, but not really relevant to this discussion, no offense. The matter at hand was whether or not ME carriers possess Mass Accelerators, not GARDIAN systems. And while yes, the GARDIAN could be likened to the Phalanx systems aboard the Nimitz class, it could also be likened to the Sea Sparrow missiles. My point was that even the Nimitz class features multiple weapons systems, including guns, hence the fact that the main body of my argument consisted of pointing out the heavy gun armament of carriers even during the era of the battleship. SpartHawg948 05:53, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

These are the relevant quotes from Carriers: ‘’In fleet combat, carriers stay clear of battle, launching fighters bearing disruptor torpedoes. Fighters are the primary striking power of the ship; if a carrier enters mass accelerator range of the enemy, things have gone very wrong. It is possible to recover and rearm fighters during combat, though most carriers seal the flight deck and try to stay out of the way. The flight deck is essentially a corridor through the armor and into the heart of the vessel. A single well-placed torpedo is enough to gut a carrier. ‘’

While you were doing a St. Valentine’s Day massacre on my earlier quote, I feel you missed some points.

1.) The guns on a carrier of WWII were designed to destroyed aircraft. Though powerful, they were as powerful as one needed for killing an airplane. Guns on battle cruisers were designed for sinking other battle cruisers, and for clearing a beachhead for amphibious landings. Though they were capable of destroying military assets, in every other respect, they weren't the same.
2.) The modern carriers not only have to protect themselves from aircraft, they have also to contend with projectiles. Though carriers are well protected, a carrier can be taken out of action by a well-placed missile. This is why carriers are surrounded by a miles-wide perimeter of air, sea, and underwater assets.
3) The description of combat and of carriers, especially, is more reflective of the modern age than that of a war fought 65 years ago.

Throwback 06:34, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • I am familiar with the quotes, as Tophvision pointed them out in the original post. I'm not sure what is meant by me doing a "St Valentines Day Massacre" on your post. I merely pointed out that it didn't really address the intent of my post, nor did it have anything to do with the point the thread was discussing. I pointed out that, while somewhat correct, an analogy you made could be interpreted differently. Hardly analogous to lining six men up against a wall and mowing them down with automatic weapons. Maybe a little less melodrama next time?
  • As for your points 1) Half-true. As I pointed out, the Lexington and Saratoga mounted 8-inch guns that were purely intended for use against ships and had no use as anti-aircraft guns, and the smaller 3 and 5-inch guns mounted on other carriers were dual purpose, meaning they could (and were) used against both ships and planes (refer to Battle off Samar, where two USN escort carriers used their 5" dual-purpose guns against Japanese warships). If the carriers only had guns to shoot down planes, they wouldn't have been outfitted with dual-purpose large caliber guns, as the smaller, more rapid-fire 20mm and 40mm guns were much better at throwing up a wall of flak. The larger guns were mounted because they could also be used to ward off enemy vessels. They were guns, they were mounted on carriers, and they were there at least in part to defend the carriers from other ships. These are the points I was making, points which are all accurate.
  • 2) Not really relevant to the point I was making that SA carriers could have guns to provide a last line of defense against enemy ships.
  • 3) The quotes are reflective of both, as modern carrier warfare draws heavily from lessons learned in World War II (funny how operational practices and procedures draw so much from actual experience). Regardless, my point still remains the same. There is no sourcing for claims that SA carriers do not mount Mass Accelerators. SpartHawg948 06:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that carriers don't mount mass accelerator cannons at all. Only that they don't mount a main, ship-length cannon. Tophvision 14:00, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

But the concept of a "main" gun is pretty vague. Again, refer to the 8-inch guns, which is described as the "main battery of United States Navy heavy cruisers and two early aircraft carriers". Even though these were carriers, and their primary armament was their aircraft, they were considered to have main gun batteries, which were clearly intended as the secondary armament. Stating that "main" magnetic accelerator must refer to a ship-length gun is itself speculation. And at the end of the day, there is still no source for the claim that SA carriers don't have a main gun or battery. SpartHawg948 19:44, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Fine then, I'll just leave it as saying fighters are the main armament of carriers. Tophvision 20:04, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Works for me! Contains no speculation, so we're good to go! SpartHawg948 20:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro class question Edit

"The Kilimanjaro class is armed with 156 broadside mass accelerator cannons, 78 on each side. The broadside guns are each as long as 40% of the ship's width."Where can I find the reference material to suporting this statement? Ubernerd101 23:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question! I'm not quite sure myself. Maybe from the guy giving the impromptu lecture about proper fire control in the Citadel customs section? Although I'm pretty sure I've listened to everything he had to say and don't recall that. I'll see if I can't find out. SpartHawg948 23:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
The new "Mass Accelerators" secondary entry in the "Ships and Vehicles" section of ME2's codex. Tophvision 23:14, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
And there it is! Thanks! I was just leaving you a message to ask about it, and here it is! Huzzah! SpartHawg948 23:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Ubernerd101 03:29, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Normandy's class Edit

I don't recall a class name being defined for the Normandy SR-1. Is there a source for this in ME2? Tophvision 23:21, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure they got the class name from the fact that the Normandy is the lead (and as far as we know only) ship in it's class. SpartHawg948 23:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there was a report about a Normandy class vessel in the loudspeaker on Ilium. L3zl13 16:04, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I wrote a news piece about a Normandy class vessel for the Citadel news, but I can't confirm it was still in at ship. The requirements to hear it are rather extreme -- you have to have killed the Council in ME1, and be at a certain point (I forget where) in the critical path chain of Horizon-Collector Ship-IFF. -- Stormwaltz 20:53, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, the first ship of the class tends to share the its name with the class name. Weather the "Normandy Class" is an offcial designation or an unoffcial one it makes sence that this name would be used inside the Mass Effect universe, especially considering the fame surrounding the SSV Normandy. -- Looq 00:15, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

there are 2 ssv normandy classes the normandy and the ssv ain julatThe geth rule 02:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Source of Names for Cruisers at Battle of the Citadel Edit

What is the source for these ships? I have collected what I believe to be all the codexes and I haven't seen one yet that lists all the ships.Throwback 22:02, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're listed in the Codex entry entitled "Rise of the Alliance" if you choose the Paragon ending at the end of ME. The character I have it on saved the Council and nominated Anderson, although I don't think who you nominate to the Council factors into this one. SpartHawg948 22:05, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Added note: if I remember correctly; sacrificing the human fleet at the Battle of the Citadel will result in unique dialogue when talking to al-Jilani (the journalist) in Mass Effect 2. Shepard lists the names of the ships destroyed if you choose the Charm option. Bronzey 11:43, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed correct! SpartHawg948 10:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have the list of the ships destroyed in the Battle of the Citadel? I think the tables should indicate that, instead of just "participated in battle" (or something to that effect). — Pepoluan 04:23, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
The ships listed as participated in the battle are the ones that were destroyed there. The issue is that they are only labeled as destroyed if you chose the Paragon route at the end of the first game. There is no indication that they were destroyed if you chose the Renegade option and held the fleet back to keep it from getting damaged fighting the geth. So, canonically, we list them as "participated", because we know for sure that they were there, but not that they were destroyed. SpartHawg948 04:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we should put a footnote using the "‡" symbol, explaining that "These ships will be destroyed in the Battle of the Citadel if Shepard chose to let the council die". — Pepoluan 04:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry... was dealing with a situation on another wiki. To give you an impression of what I was putting up with, when the admin of that wiki (big shock, I'm not an admin there too!) ruled in favor of the other guy, the aforementioned other guy left me the following message: "i believe the appropriate response is: na-na-na-na-na."
Talk about mature. Anywho, I can sort of see the reasoning there, but I'm not sure I'm sold on it. See, I'm all about precedent, and I'm not quite sure I approve of the precedent this would be setting. The info is presented elsewhere, and I'm not so sure about adding "canon footnotes"... SpartHawg948 05:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Which is why I asked for input first rather than just "go out there and edit". Thanks for the inputs :) — Pepoluan 06:31, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! Always happy to help! :) SpartHawg948 06:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Possible cruiser crew discrepancy Edit

Not sure if this is really something to be included in the article or not but found it interesting. In Mass Effect: Ascension, while describing the Idenna, a decommissioned batarian Hensa-class cruiser serving in the Migrant Fleet, it's noted that the Idenna had, at the time, a crew of 693, whereas an Alliance cruiser of comparable size would have a crew of approximately 80. However, in the Codex entry on Human Diplomatic Relations (available if you import an ME character who saved the Council), 8 Alliance cruisers are listed lost at the Citadel along with "their 2400 crew". This averages out to 300 personnel per ship, which would seem to suggest one of two things- either there are multiple types of cruiser (which is also implied in the first game when Rear Admiral Mikhailovich states that for the price of the Normandy the Alliance could have got a heavy cruiser) with vastly disparate crew sizes (which would also suggest the Hensa-class are themselves light cruisers), or this could be some retcon on the part of BioWare. Either way, it's pretty interesting. SpartHawg948 07:43, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I noted that myself, and come to similar conclusions. In my opinion the human cruiser during the battle of the citadel are heavy ones, because they are quiet big and seems slow and well armed. But it's only speculation of course. Cyphius 15:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The only thing that struck me as odd about that was the prospect that there would be such a vast disparity in crew sizes between ships, 300 on a heavy cruiser and 80 on a light, although I suppose that when they said a comparable Alliance ship in ME:A, they could have been referring not just to size, but to age, although you'd think older ships would have less automation, and therefor larger crews. Hmmm... It's not outside the realm of the possible though. The Brooklyn class of light cruisers from the late '30s had crews of 868, while the Des Moines class of heavy cruisers from the late '40s had crews of 1799. Not quite as disparate as 80-300, as if that were the case the Des Moines would have crews of 3255, but still something to think about. SpartHawg948 20:55, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think 80 crews for something as big and powerful as a cruiser is waaaaay to low. 180 is much more acceptable. I'll personally think the number should be 180, but somehow the "1" got dropped. :) — Pepoluan 04:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cruiser Armaments Edit

This was a point that was disputed earlier and this hopefully provides the evidence one way or the other. At 4:47 in this video as cruiser can be seen firing two projectiles from its underside that clearly do not come from its two bow main guns. They also are seen, unlike a projectile fired from a mass accelerator, emitting smoke contrails and directly impacting the ship without the ships kinetic barriers attempting to deflect it. Now this may just be one of those “yeah it’s highly probable but it can’t be proven” kind of ideas, so just stop me there, but I would have to say, in light of those three facts, that they are Javelin torpedoes. One codex entry hints at the possibility of them being mounted on “heavier ships during short range engagements, such as trans-relay assaults”, which the Battle of the Citadel would qualify as, but no conclusion could be made. With this being in-game video I was hoping it would be a bit more concrete as to the fact do cruisers carry the Javelin Torpedo?NightsKnight 02:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

And what proof do you have. While it is unlikely they could also be Disruptor torpedoes. However they could even be just missiles that aren't mentioned in the Codex. There is no proof that that is or isn't Javelin Torpedoes, so its speculation. Lancer1289 02:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it was possible (I wouldn't say probable) but can't be proven. The weapons don't (to me at least) seem to be coming from external pods bolted to the ship, as Javelins would, and the Codex also clearly states that very few Alliance ships actually have Javelins, most of these being frigates.. They're more likely standard disruptor torpedoes or possibly projectiles from secondary guns. The Codex entry you mention also makes no note of cruisers, simply heavier vessels, "especially dreadnoughts". Cruisers appear not at all. The Codex also clearly states that Javelins are launched "in large numbers and at short range", and while the range is debatable, two is clearly not a large number. So no, not concrete proof of anything. SpartHawg948 02:13, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the part slowly you can see that they travel for some distance, clearing the ship before the smoke contrails appear; now this plainly appears to be the cold launch technique described for both the Javelin and disruptor torpedoes. That along with the fact that they didn’t use their main gun (as why would you use your secondary guns over your main guns when your perfectly lined up?) would seem to make it clear that they are some short of torpedo weapon. As for not being able to see the tubes, it would seem clear to me at least the best place to put them would be on the inner section of the “wings” as so they would be protected from enemy fire. Now I guess you could argue that there not the Javelin torpedo, but with them being put in the codex with no definitively agreed upon in game mention or use seems very odd to me. NightsKnight 02:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Except that it is mentioned, just not on cruisers like you want it too, which is the point of this argument. It mentiones frigates, "on heavier ships during short range engagements, such as trans-relay assaults", and dreadnoughts. It makes no mention of cruisers, which is again the whole point of your argument. You have no proof that "heavier ships" means cruisers, and saying that cruisers carry Javelin, or Disruptors for that matter, is speculation. Now we know they carry some type of torpedoes or missiles, but you have no proof that it is Javelins. Also note that Codex does say that they are launched in large numbers, and two isn't a large numbers. We have no canonal proof that they are mounted on cruisers, but we do have for frigates and dreadnoughts. Lancer1289 02:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Why would you use your secondary guns over your main guns when your [main guns] are perfectly lined up?" Well, it occurs to me that guns need to be reloaded, don't they? And when you are close enough to use secondary armament, it makes no sense not to while your main guns are being reloaded. And again, the Codex explicitly states that Javelins are launched in large numbers (which these are not) and at short range, which you seem to be disputing for some reason ("If you look at the part slowly you can see that they travel for some distance, clearing the ship before the smoke contrails appear"). Why put them in the Codex without any in-game use or mention? Ask the people who wrote the Codex entries for Carriers and Interceptors. SpartHawg948 02:41, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
If you read on you will see that the reason for the whole “launched in large number” tactic is because of GARDIAN defense turrets and attackers have to overwhelm them with numbers. As no proof has ever been put forward to geth dropships having GARDIAN defense turrets, no large numbers would be needed to get through, so two may very well be enough to destroy one. The UNC: Geth Incursions mission on Casbin is proof enough that even the mako’s main gun is enough to severely damage (given enough time more than likely destroy) a geth dropship, so why would two ship launch torpedoes not do the job. So unless you want to speculate on geth dropships having GARDIAN that argument is not valid. And as for the heavier argument, really think about it why would their deployment skip over cruisers and go straight from frigates to dreadnoughts? Also tell me this what kind of ship is “heavier” than a frigate but below a dreadnought and is the only other ship class next to a carrier mentioned in the whole of the Mass Effect universe? Also considering the massive main gun on a dreadnought can shoot every two seconds I dont think a cruiser would have to worry about reload time. And the carrier and Interceptors do not use the Javelin so again not valid. NightsKnight 03:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)However GARDIAN doesn't defend against Mass Accelerator rounds, which is what the Mako's main gun shoots, so that argument is flawed. The Mako's main gun is a 155mm Mass Accelerator cannon, not a torpedo launcher. GARDIAN defends against missiles and torpedoes, not cannon rounds. As to smaller ships, destroyers are mentioned in the ME universe, which are between frigates and dreadnoughts in terms of tonnage. You just want it to say cruisers despite you have no backup and no canonal proof that it is, just speculation. And let's not open the "geth ships have or don't have GARDIAN systems". Bottom line is you have no proof for cruisers, just speculation and your interoperations, which is an opinion, and you just want the article to support your speculation, which again has no back up in canon. You want the article to say that cruisers have Javelin Torpedoes, then find some proof, and not your opinions and speculation. Lancer1289 03:16, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict second time)Addendum due to earlier edit conflict: And to what I got edit conflicted on, note that you don't know how long it takes for a cruiser to load its main gun, you again have only speculation, not facts that are backed up. You have only speculation and your opinions, and that is all you have presented so far as your evidence, which isn't valid evidence. Speculation isn’t allowed for a good reason as it is usually opinionated, which this whole argument is about. You have no proof so you twist things to support you, despite you have no actual evidence. Lancer1289 03:25, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) Ah, but there's the thing. Nowhere does it say that they are mounted on ships heavier than frigates bit lighter than dreadnoughts. Heavier ships could easily refer to dreadnoughts and carriers. It's speculation to assume cruisers are meant, and per your comments, speculation would seem to be a bad thing. And the Codex says that Javelins are launched in large numbers. It never says that they are launched in large numbers 'unless faced with foes without GARDIAN systems'. Assuming this is, again, speculation. Note also that geth dropships are also known to function themselves as frigates. Why assume that only the geth build frigates with no GARDIAN systems? Again, in order for any of this to make it into the article, definitive identification would be needed. After all, at 5:54 of the very video you link, we see that at least one projectile emerging from what you yourself identify as the cruiser's main guns looks decidedly like a torpedo. Knowing that torpedo-looking projectiles emerge from the main gun, why automatically assume these are anything else. Again, a definitive ID would be needed, which you yourself seem to have acknowledged in your very first post. And you cannot provide that identification. You said 'Now this may just be one of those “yeah it’s highly probable but it can’t be proven” kind of ideas, so just stop me there', and myself and Lancer have been trying to do just that, but for some reason, even though you asked us to, it isn't working. You need proof, and supposition, extrapolation, and speculation just don't cut it. SpartHawg948 03:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Addendum due to edit conlict- where, pray tell, does it say that carriers don't use Javelins? Find it for me. Not that it matters. My mention of them was (as was very clearly stated) in response to your asking why Javelins would be mentioned in the Codex despite not being definitively seen in-game. SpartHawg948 03:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed where is it mentioned that carriers don't use Javelins, I would like to know this. Also yes that appears to be a torpedo emerging from the gun, so what is it? You can't provide a definite answer, and no can I for that matter. You have only speculation and your opinions, neither of which is valid evidence or back up to support your claims. Until you can provide a definite answer, i.e. canonal proof, not speculation or interoperation, which is all you have presented to this point, then there is no point to continue this argument as it is going nowhere fast. Lancer1289 03:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
In your own words pray tell, does it say that cruisers don't use Javelins? If you recall the destruction of the Iwo Jima, ships have to drop barriers on planet so when you’re firing on the ship with the mako its barriers are down. Javelins bypass barriers with their mass, so this comparison was meant to point out it doesn’t take a lot of firepower to take out a geth dropship. I'll end with this, you two seem to disregard the massive amount of evidence pointing to the fact and will only ever agree with a line that says “cruisers use/have the Javelin”. I mean I’m not making up any of this stuff; it’s all based on codex entries and in game footage. All I’m doing is putting it together in a way that’s not in any way ridicules or impossible and is in fact highly supported. And SpartHawg948 I agreed with the first line of ur first post I have simply been countering your and Lancer1289 other statements, laying out a complete argument for the point of them having them. I would have laid all this out in my initial post if I could have anticipated all the possible counterarguments as I thought I had but clearly did not. NightsKnight 03:48, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the Codex doesn't say that cruisers don't carry Javelins. It matters that the Codex doesn't say that they do! That is what matters! Arguing that "Well, it doesn't explicitly say they don't carry them" is ludicrous, and does nothing to negate the fact that it does not confirm that they do! There is no massive amount of evidence. There is supposition and speculation, which you simultaneously warn others against while utilizing it yourself! The hypocrisy! The burden of proof is on you to prove canonically (without speculation, assumption, or extrapolation) that they do carry Javelins, not for us to prove that they don't simply because you insist they must! SpartHawg948 03:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, you have no evidence that cruisers do carry the missiles. Just because something says they don't, doesn’t instantly mean that they do. You are guessing, supporting your argument with assumptions, speculation, and extrapolation, which isn't valid backup, yet you seem to think they are. I agree with the evidence part, there is no massive amount of evidence, there is only your guesses. Just to reiterate, you have to prove with canonal evidence that cruisers have Javelin missiles, so far you haven't, and until you do, this argument serves no purpose. The burden of proof is you, not us, and so far, you have yet to prove anything. Lancer1289 04:11, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
By the way you do realize this is a talk page? What is posted here does not have to be a fact I was simply putting forward a theory based on what is shown and told by the game. I’ve never once stated “this is a fact”, (or what I did say can be plainly shown as true) in fact if you read what I said carefully, I nearly always use things like “it seems”, "i'd have to say", or “I don’t think”, all phrases clearly expressing an opinion. I really didn’t think I’d have to clarify my word usage and plainly “say in my opinion” before everything. I never intended for this talk to end with it being recognized and put down as a fact. It’s a theory, backed by what I would consider strong proof but you two clearly disagree and thats all right, its a theory. A theory starts out as a conglomeration of information put together from various sources to form an idea about something that cannot always can be definitely proven. I have simply been putting forth, what in my opinion, is the most logical answer to the question. I guess I’ll have to wait for ME3 and for a cruiser captain to say “launch all Javelins” before I’ll get the proof I need. NightsKnight 20:07, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
You did say though that this would provide evidence one way or the other, and concrete proof. Of course I realize that what is here does not have to be fact. I'm not daft, nor is Lancer. That's why neither of us ever asked you to stop posting things that aren't fact. You clearly did intend for this talk to end with it being declared fact and put into the article. Let's look at your own words, shall we? "This was a point that was disputed earlier and this hopefully provides the evidence one way or the other." "With this being in-game video I was hoping it would be a bit more concrete as to the fact do cruisers carry the Javelin Torpedo" Hmmm... pretty telling. Personally, the most logical (though still not canonical) answer is that they are disruptor torpedoes, not Javelins. There are just too many things that directly contradict the canon info we have on Javelins, which is why I argued the points I did. SpartHawg948 20:14, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I'm not daft as well. I'd also have to agree that you wanted this to end with the information being declared fact and posted in the article. Spart has already quoted what I was going to on that point, so there is no need to repeat. I also argued the points I did because of that reason, we have no proof and neither did you, all you had was your opinions and speculation, neither of which is appropriate or acceptable backup for this kind of information. Especially when there are so many other plausible explanations for what they could be. Personally I do they are Disruptor Torpedoes was well, but we have no proof of that either. We know they are some type of missiles/torpedoes, but we don't know for certain. Lancer1289 20:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Let’s examine what you just quoted against me. "Provides the evidence one way or the other”, it could be either direction to them having or not having them with no personal opinion or bias, not a solid stand on the issues. "A bit more concrete as to the fact", lets break that down, "a bit more", not conclusive but further adding, “concrete”, in case of the video, solid, not made up or imagined ,evidence based on what can be seem, “as to the fact", the issue being discussed, the manor at hand, the fact at hand. Now I hope that makes it clear as to what i had intended, that I did not intend for this to end with a true fact with all the evidence and exacting proof to go along with it, the “yes this is 100% undeniably a Javelin”. NightsKnight 20:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
And if you had lived up to your word when you said "Now this may just be one of those “yeah it’s highly probable but it can’t be proven” kind of ideas, so just stop me there", I'd be inclined to agree with the interpretation of your words that you provide above. But you didn't. Even when told multiple times that there was nothing new, or unique, or conclusive, or concrete, or anything that hadn't already been seen and brought up several times before, you refused to just stop, as you had said you would. Thus, it's pretty hard to accept your own interpretation of your words, as opposed to simply taking them at face value and looking at the fact that you continued to press the issue even when confronted with volumes of contradictory evidence, and without being able to cite any proof other than opinion and speculation. SpartHawg948 20:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Even after you were told several times that you have nothing but extrapolation, speculation, opinions, and supposition, you still continued to argue, instead of stopping at the beginning like you said you would. However, you didn't live up to your worlds about stopping, so I also have a hard time believing you. There is a mountain of contradictory evidence and the bottom line still is that we don't know what they were. You still insisted on arguing, even when asked to provide some other form of evidence, and not just speculation and your opinions. If you had stopped, I'd also be inclined to agree with the statement above, but since you didn't I have a hard time believing your interpretation as well. We don't know, neither do you, and unless you have some new evidence, that isn't speculation or any form of that, then this conversation is over in my opinion. Speculation isn't proof, no matter how it is twisted. Lancer1289 20:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don’t see how you don’t enjoy this debate with the three of us putting ideas forward as to the validity of the idea (at this point this would have been better put as a blog entry). Now your first line nailed it straight on the head (Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it was possible (I wouldn't say probable) but can't be proven.), none of this can be 100% proven and I 100% agree with you that it is speculation but that doesn’t mean we can't have very good, well thought-out, and debated speculation. I have only continued this in light of the counter points the two of you have brought up. Refining my argument, trying to refute your points, and farther add to the weight of my own side. I’m a firm believer in “beyond all reasonable doubt” and I argue as such, trying to place the largest amount of evidence I can on my side in the hope it proves so overwhelming to the issue that it wins. And just like the justice system not all “beyond all reasonable doubt” ideas are necessarily 100% true but more often than not they are at least close to it. No one here has to be right there is a middle ground called possible. This is after all a discussion on a completely pointless topic. PS as to the disruptor torpedoes point, they are described as being launched by the fighter releasing them ,pulling away, then after the ship is clear, no more than a second later, the motor ignites so the vessel is not damaged by the exhaust. Since the cruiser is not seen pulling away to avoid any sort of motor exhaust, I don’t believe the disruptor torpedo is the projectile in question. NightsKnight 21:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you exactly why I didn't enjoy this farce of a debate. So many of the things I hate to see in an argument were present here. 1) You initially conceded that, if this were a case where there was no conclusive proof, you would stop. Two editors told you that was the case. You didn't stop. 2) Several times you were presented with evidence that would refute, in full or in part, your argument, and you simply refused to acknowledge it or attempt to counter it. 3) You made unsubstantiated statements, then when pressed by two other editors to back these statements up, you did not. 4) You twisted and contorted the statements of others into caricatures of what they really were, allowing you to 'counter' them in what can only be described as textbook strawmen. 5) Your 'evidence' was 90% speculation, yet at the same time you warned your rhetorical opponents not to themselves speculate, lest they compromise their positions! There was just so much here that took this from a legitimate and enjoyable debate to a sham that was the rhetorical equivalent of bashing ones head against a brick wall. It wasn't enjoyable, it was frustrating, due entirely to your 'tactics' and 'debate style'. SpartHawg948 21:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
What evidence have you added to your side, certainly none that can be considered creditable or canonical. You wanted this debate to result in Javelins being added to the article as a definate form of cruiser armament, however there is no proof. It can't be proven one way or the other. Personally, this debate has gotten annoying because you kept arguing your point, no matter how many times you were asked to stop and provide proof. You have yet to do so. All you have is speculation, which isn't evidence, and an cannot be considered such. That being said, you have added nothing your evidence pile, while there is more evidence against you, than there is for you, which wasn't much to being with. You don't have overwhelming evidence to prove this, in fact there is overwhelming evidence against you. As to canon, we have no canon proof, which is what is needed in this case for it to go into the article. You have no canonical proof, only speculation, which isn't allowed in articles. There is no middle ground here because we don't know, and we aren't going to put speculation in the article, which is what you want.
As to the torpedoes, we don't know that they are, which we stated. You are just twisting that to further your goals of getting it into the article by saying that there is no other alternative. Also don't forget that ships probably can stand exhaust better than fighters, which have less armor and shielding.
Finally I haven’t enjoyed this debate one bit. 1) You didn’t counter any of the counter evidence that disproved your theory, in whole or in part. 2) You said you would stop, and you didn’t. 3) You didn’t backup your statements, even when asked to do so. 4) All the “evidence” you presented was speculation and had no basis in fact. Unlike canonical evidence, which does, and none of which you have. 5) You twisted statements and our comments to suit your needs without responding to them at all. You have yet to produce any evidence to say that cruisers have Javelin torpedoes, and you still kept arguing that you did. You kept avoid arguments against you, which is one of my biggest pet peeves, you didn’t try to even refute evidence against you, which is a large amount compared to the evidence you have, which again isn’t much. This debate wanted off topic a while ago, and could be easily replicated at that point by Spart and myself bashing our heads against a concrete wall. Lancer1289 21:42, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

My Question is why they resembled lava balls, and more strangely, how they appeared to FUSE TOGETHER. Katamariguy 8:25 GMT April 24, 2011

Fleet Numbers Edit

Does anyone know how many ships the navy had at the time of Mass Effect (2183)? Just askin' because I've never heard of any definite number, not even an estimate. --Kluutak 10:11, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Over 200. It's on the Systems Alliance page.--Fight or Die 10:14, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, other than dreadnought counts, the only figure we have is the 200+ figure, which is given at the start of the First Contact War. If anything, the number has likely gone up, probably by quite a bit, over the intervening time, as the Alliance established its position in the galaxy and muscled out the batarians. SpartHawg948 10:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Navy Insignia Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong but the insignia that user Darkstaruav added to the Navy page was the right one. You can see that on the Normandy ME3 and trailers of ME3.
Alliance Navy seal

--Morinth's Lover 09:57, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. So, I'll refine the question: Any indication that the logo appearing on the Normandy in ME3 is the seal of the Alliance Navy, as was claimed by the editor who added it? Not, say, the overall insignia of the Alliance military? Or of the fleet the Normandy is assigned to? Or a roundel used by the Alliance Navy, as opposed to the actual seal? For example, this appears on all USAF aircraft. Does that mean it's the seal of the Air Force? Nope. This is. What I'm driving at here is that we need confirmation that this is the seal of the Alliance Navy, not that it's an insignia seen on an Alliance warship. SpartHawg948 10:14, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
Good point. We'll wait for the official confirmation on Navy's Seal and/or Insignia.--Morinth's Lover 12:37, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this appears to be a mod of the Alliance symbol as we just don't know if that is official or not. So I agree we need confirmation on this one. Lancer1289 16:07, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

BioWare Store says Alliance Military. But still not "official" but as close as we are going to get. N7 Flight Suit--Xaero Dumort 16:03, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Curious and interesting though. Lancer1289 16:46, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

So, is it now official? Most of you who have Xbox played the ME3 Demo and saw the insignia on Navy officers and Anderson and even on the Alliance Navy building in Vancouver(if that's the city in the demo). Is it possible to put it in the article?--Morinth's Lover 20:42, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

It's on uniforms, buildings, aircraft, and starships in the demo, but that is still not concrete confirmation that it's the symbol of the Alliance Navy. I'm sure enough that it is given the symbol's prevalence, but we'll have to wait and see if ME3 resolves this to a certainty. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Fleets sources and discrepancy Edit

According to the article:

  • "First Fleet: Based at Arcturus Station, the First Fleet guards the mass relay connecting to Earth and serves as a reactionary force able to respond to any attack across three different clusters."
  • "Fifth Fleet: The Fifth Fleet is also known as the Arcturus Fleet, as it is based at Arcturus Station."

Doesn't make sense that they have two freaking fleets guarding the same station, even it is near Earth. Also, ME's universe is huge, we need to better source where it came from. Codex, dialogues, books -- I have no idea where the first fleet info came from so I can verify it. -- D. Cello 05:57, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

It is a little confusing, and IIRC both sources come from books or the games. Also IIRC, the Fifth Fleet was stated to be based at Arcturus, and at the Citadel, so again it is a little confusing. I can't remember where it states this, the First Fleet information IIRC comes from Revelation and Mass Effect, and the Fifth Fleet comes from Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Ascension. Lancer1289 06:02, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Not really that confusing. You're assuming that both fleets guard the same station. In all likelihood, what we have here is multiple fleets based out of one large, central base, but having different missions. Bases capable of supporting major naval formations tend to be pretty few and far between, so multiple fleets having headquarters in one location is not uncommon today, and I see no reason for the future to be any different. SpartHawg948 07:39, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
So they both originate from Arcturus, but they have different theaters of operation. I see. If so, why the first fleet, the one that protects Earth and the nearby clusters and stays at Arcturus isn't called "Arcturus Fleet", isntead of the fifth one that operates elseweher? oO -- D. Cello 08:51, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Likely because it's a rapid response fleet. The Fifth Fleet could very well be the fleet tasked with defending Arcturus Station, while the First Fleet "serves as a reactionary force able to respond to any attack across three different clusters." SpartHawg948 09:15, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Just read the first few lines again, it's all clear just from that. The First Fleet is a reactionary force, aka rapid response, it will go wherever is trouble. The Fifth Fleet guards Arcturus Station, so it's called Arcturus Fleet. The fact that they are both stationed at Arcturus doesn't matter. Just like the US Nvay has most of their Carriers based at Norfolk while they operate all over the place. And for the numbering, it would make sense that the First Fleet, which was probably the first they ever had, would go around to wherever trouble is. Once the Alliance Navy grew large enough they could then put certain Fleets to guard duty only. DS21200

Kupe Edit

Just wondering whether the Alliance surveyor ship 'Kupe' should be added to the list (see Amaranthine). It's presumably a dreadnought based on its name (see Mount Kupe).--Grandmaster Chen 21:22, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Two issues. We don't know whether survey ships are part of the Alliance Navy. Second it isn't a dreadnought. There are eight dreadnoughts in the Alliance Navy, Everest, Fuji, Elbrus, kilimanjaro, Tai Shan, Shasta, Aconcagua, and Orizaba. Kupe is not on that list, which comes right out of the Codex. See Codex/Ships and Vehicles##Mass_Effect_2_2. Lancer1289 21:25, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Given the context, it seems (to me at least) that the surveyor ship is named, not after Mount Kupe, but after Kupe, a mythical figure responsible for the Polynesian discovery of New Zealand. There are some clear parallels here... a surveyor vessel named after a mythical explorer of great renown. SpartHawg948 07:57, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Update! Bingo! Hit the nail on the head. From the Fortuna in-game description: "Kupe is named after the Polynesian who -- according to some Maori mythologies -- discovered Aotearoa (New Zealand)." So yeah, there's nothing whatsoever to support the Kupe being a dreadnought. And yes, it is also correct that there has been, as yet, no indication that the Kupe was an Alliance Navy ship or not. Now, were it to be referred to as the SSV Kupe, that'd be different. But it isn't. SpartHawg948 08:00, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ship KIA Edit

Can anyone tell me how can ship be "killed in action"? Maybe is better "defunct"? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question - English is not my first language.--Morinth's Lover 12:48, October 24, 2011 (UTC) I just saw that this is no longer present in Cruiser section, so nothing then.--Morinth's Lover 12:53, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)KIA could be used for ships, but from my experience it isn't common or widely used, destroyed or sunk is usually the correct term. However, the edit itself contained incorrect information about Adams being killed in the battle, when we have zero confirmation on it, and the fact that the ships aren't destroyed if you didn't choose to save the Ascension. The edit has been undone for those reasons, incorrect information, and canon issues. Lancer1289 12:55, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. --Morinth's Lover 15:26, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, KIA is never used in reference to ships. In order to be KIA, something has to be capable of being killed. Destroyed, lost, or lost in action would be appropriate, canon issues notwithstanding. SpartHawg948 19:30, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I think I saw it used once or twice when directly referencing the ship's name without a prefix, but I could have been mistaken. Regardless, Spart is correct, those are the terms that are used. Lancer1289 20:22, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Trident fighter Edit

Should there be added that one of the Alliance's fighters is F-61 Trident, as mentioned by Lieutenant Cortez who was piloting them? --VolteMetalic 10:23, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Geneva-class cruiser Edit

During the speech with Cortez on Citadel, there is mentioned a "SSV London" and "Geneva"-class cruiser. However, there is seen only a ship which is very similar to Kawloon... so, what to do? --VolteMetalic 23:02, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

The normal ship naming scheme suggests that it's a cruiser (named for cities of Earth), which is supported by the fact that there is a SSV Geneva. I'd say just add it to the table. Yanxa 22:46, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Human Dreadnought Edit

Heres a image, its some concept art for a Everest-class dreadnought:

Are you sure it is Everest-class? There were build only 3 of these, but when you will look in the final battle, there is more than three of these. I guess this is Kilimanjaro-class in fact. Overall it is pretty confusing. Another possibility is that both Everest and Kilimanjaro may look alike, just with different armament and layout, but can look like the same.

I Think the Top Right Ship is a Cruiser and the lager Bottom Right Ship is the Dreadnought, besides the pictures obviously concept art and those are never the final thing.-- 15:08, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Making pages for each class Edit

It'd be a relatively simple matter to do, so why not? Clumping them all together seems like a waste, especially considering there are individual Codex entries for each specification of ship. In addition, all the races in ME (Reapers excluded) use the same system, so I was thinking there'd be a Frigate page, Cruiser page, etc. While it may be nice to have all the eggs in one basket, this current one doesn't leave a lot of leeway for fleshing out.

So to reiterate, why not? Tiel424

And why should we? There is very little information about the classes, as pretty much all we have is in the article already. We do not have a use for one-line articles here. Lancer1289 18:33, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Marines = Fighters pilot ? Edit

Hello everyone

I wanted to ask :

During the last mission of Mass Effect 3, the Alliance pilot who command all the fighters (And who is himself a pilot) is noted "Marine" in the subtitles.

I have read that the Marine were kind of special corps (Commanded by the navy, but with special rank, like the Marine Corps today)

However, the Alliance also use Marines to use tanks or APC. So for it seems logic that the Marines use fighters (Just like Marines today use combat aircraft like helicopters or fighters) while the Navy use the large vessels.

I'd like a confirmation, and if yes, if we could write in the page that it is actually the Marines who use small vessels. TomZanovich 12:58, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

We don't know all the circumstances around this one so therefore we really can't provide a definite answer. Lancer1289 18:39, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Lost Ships Edit

In ME3 (saved the Council in first game), when examining the war assets it says that 1/3 of the ships in the 1st, 3rd, AND 5th fleets was lost saving the council in the Battle of the Citadel, and that the Alliance was unable to replace these losses before the Reapers invaded. Now, ignoring the fact that the only Alliance fleet we know of participating in the battle was the 5th (and that 3 entire fleets in close quarters would be a horrible liability), we know that only 8 ships were lost. Since that implies that there are only around 9 ships in a fleet, can we just assume that this is an error, and not canon? Because, given the scale of space combat that was both seen in the end of the first game and implied throughout the series, 9 isn't nearly enough ships.

Raiden of Dawn (talk) 00:17, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Reexamine the video again because the fact only eight ships were lost is so inaccurate that it isn't even funny. We see at least 5 other ships get destroyed, and there were others. We don't see the entire battle. And it is entirely possible that there were three fleets.
And the canon argument is so irrelevant that bringing it up, shows a lack of understanding, a lack of perception, and a lack of being observant. If this is going to turn into an argument, then that belongs elsewhere. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:21, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
Math time!
Let's go back, way back, to the first contact war. As per "Mass Effect: Revelation", the Alliance had about 200 ships at the time, which included frigates, carriers, cruisers, and at least two dreadnoughts. We know as per the Codex entry on the First Contact War that the Alliance had at least 2 fleet divisions. With this information, let's make an assumption that a "fleet" means 100 ships, divided between 1 dreadnought, roughly 10 cruisers, and 90 or so frigates. Let's see if that assumption holds up to other details.
If the Alliance saves the Destiny Ascension and the Council, Shepard tells Miss Al Jilhani (sp?) that they lost 8 cruisers in the battle. Is this consistent with visuals? Well, the visuals in the Battle of the Citadel are already rather suspect, with details such as the cruiser design originally being the dreadnought design before lore settled on the Alliance only having 6 dreadnoughts, resulting in the "cruisers" being out of proportion with the Normandy, and the presence of missiles when ship-to-ship missiles virtually do not exist in Mass Effect. However, the number is consistent with the visuals either way. In the Battle of the Citadel, from 4:05 to 4:15 we clearly see 5 Alliance cruisers get destroyed in the initial charge to save the Destiny Ascension. At 4:35, when Sovereign starts popping Alliance cruisers, 3, possibly 4, are destroyed. That leaves us with 8 or 9 cruisers destroyed on screen, a very close match of the given number of 8.
What fleets were at the Battle of the Citadel? In ME1, Hackett introduces himself as the admiral of the Fifth Fleet, and it appears that he commands the Alliance forces in the battle. The War Assets entries indicate that the First, Third, and Fifth Fleets were all involved in the Battle of the Citadel. This may seem inconsistent, but pay attention to the dialogue in the Battle of the Citadel. At 3:00 Joker says he's with the "entire Arcturus fleet". And at 3:40, Hacket simply says "Alliance ships, move in". The Fifth Fleet is never specifically mentioned, and Shepard does not mention the Fifth Fleet specifically in his/her interview. The only place the Fifth Fleet is mentioned are in the Codex entries for the battle. Keep in mind that these entries also indicate that the Destiny Ascension was sealed inside the Citadel until Shepard opened it, which is clearly not what the visuals of the battle show. In any case, it's a matter of the codex description of the battle vs the war asset entries. The dialogue is neutral on the matter.
So, let's go with the First, Third, and Fifth fleets being involved in the Battle of the Citadel. Going with the assumption that there are 10 cruisers in a fleet, and with the detail in the War Assets entries that each fleet lost about a third of their fleet, that means about 10 cruisers would have been lost in the battle. Again, very close to the given number of 8. Of course, there would have been many more frigates involved.
A few corroborating details about fleet sizes: First, we know that the Alliance has at least 8 fleets, which is a close match to having 9 dreadnoughts. We know as per an Alliance News Network update that the turians have at least 32 fleets, which fits their massive dreadnought advantage (39). The "Miracle of Palaven" codex entry says that three dreadnoughts and their attendant fleets deployed to assist another dreadnought (which was faking having drive problems).
When closely analyzed, it's my view that the various visuals, dialogue, codex entries are mostly consistent, and the specifically stated number of 8 cruisers lost is consistent with other details. Tophvision (talk) 01:28, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.