Mass Effect (video game)/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
Mass Effect (video game)/Headscratchers (view source)
Revision as of 18:14, 11 February 2016
, 8 years ago→Rear Admiral Mikhailovich
m (delink camelcase) |
|||
Line 385:
*** Unless you're turian. (^_^)b
** Like he said though, he is thinking about straight-up combat, and it is only one ship - it would be unlikely for it to be useful against entire militaries, because... it's just one ship. It might be worth investing in later, but since the turians did help make it, the advantages of it are shared with them (which an untrustworthy military would hate to do). There is a reasonable amount of justification to believe the funds and time they spend on it are more or less useless to the navy, and were just a PR stunt.
*** He does specifically mention in-dialogue that it cost as much to build the ''Normandy'' as it did to build his entire cruiser ''squadron''. Even if he acknowledges that it successfully does what its designed to do he's still visibly pissed off at its apparent lack of cost-effectiveness. Of course he's wrong, as the Normandy's stealth capability is not only unique but a potential strategic game-breaker if used in the proper sneaky ways, but his error is reduced from 'does not understand the basic concept of scouting' to 'does not have a very flexible imagination', which is far more believable.
** Mikhailovich also seems to be completely unaware of the significance of you being a Spectre. The Renegade option allows you to inform him of the fact that you answer to 3 very specific individuals, and he is likely to never, by any stretch of the imagination, be one of those individuals. This is part of why I like ''Normandy'' SR-2 more: she's your private ship (good luck taking her back if you want her, TIM), and no one questions the fact that you answer to the Council.
** Mikhalovich seems to be the conservative kind of commander who prefers what is proven and reliable over what is new and untested. Remember that for a lot of military officers, the terms "new" and "prototype" are synonymous with "unreliable." He likely prefers "tried-and-true" methods of recon (as he is in command of a "scout flotilla") probably including passive sensors and observation equipment and recon patrols with frigates. In fact, if he prefers passive observation, it would explain his complaint that the ''Normandy'' can only hide for a few hours at best, as opposed to passive sensors that could sit there indefinitely. He also seems to be of a negative opinion regarding covert operations as opposed to the "find em and kill em" mentality. All of these, combined together, would result in a competent if conservative officer who dislikes the ''Normandy'' because she's new and unreliable technology that doesn't fit with how he believes recon and naval combat should work.
*** ^This. There is a saying: generals fight the last war - the French generals who designed the Maginot Line were by no means stupid, but they failed to take into account the changing nature of warfare. The flip-side is that sometimes "new" doesn't mean better - look at all the vital war technologies that began their lives as military turkeys - the Type XXI U-Boat, the early rocket, and the gun (to name a few) were all far less useful than the older weapons they replaced, because the technology to make them combat-effective/build in large numbers wasn't yet there. Mikhailovich just tends towards older, proven methods - better not have an untried new piece of tech that might turn out to be overdesigned and inefficient (like the XXI boats), not a viable alternative to the old stuff (like the rocket, the early gun), not economical to mass produce (remember, they could have had a heavy cruiser or ''100 fighters'' for the same price) or some combination of all three. Mikhailovich would rather use stuff he knows will work than stuff he feels he can't rely on.
== Bullets and mass ==
| |||