On the battlefield of chess, how would the UNSC and Covenant starships match up?
- Thread starter alix965
- Start date
- Status
SchizophrenicMC
Well-Known Member
While I refuse to get into the rape that Starcraft poses, I feel I must go on about the Marathon-Battlestar note.
You keep comparing the two, and even incorrectly so. You make the gross assumption that the only weapon a UNSC Cruiser bears is its singular MAC cannon. For starters, they mount hundreds of missile tubes, many point-defense turrets, can carry several nukes, and they even have a small fighter contingent, as well as onboard marine squads. Further, MAC rounds don't take long to load, and the capacitors take only minutes to charge. The UNSC Cruisers, notably Halcyon and Marathon, were designed during the Insurrection, and thus, were designed to fend off human weapons and tactics. That means missiles, that means point defense. I fail to see how you can compare the point-defense systems of 2 ships, when we've never witnessed the capabilities of one of them.
I again want to point out armor. Cruisers are, by their very nature, the heaviest of ships. They outstrip all but carriers in size, and are so heavily armed and armored they can take quite an exhaustive amount of damage before buckling.
Read a Halo novel. The most-used weapon on any UNSC ship is the Archer Missile Tubes.
You say Vipers are more agile than Longswords, and while this may be true, the Longsword is far larger, more heavily armored, uses 2 100mm autocannons, multiple missile launchers, minelaying equipment, nuclear capability, and I'd assume greater acceleration, based on its engine pods.
Oh, and, uh, the big reason missiles are ineffective against Covenant ships? Covies have laser point-defense. They cut missiles in half long before they reach the hull. Whatever's left impacts on the shields. Same goes for nukes. And, in space, you don't even get the shockwave to cause damage. (Besides, UNSC ships carry nukes)
Oh, and a Battlestar fulfills the role of Carrier (maybe I'll give you Supercarrier, a class in both UNSC and Covenant armadas), and it does have the same tactical use. Further, it cannot adapt, because its only ability is to launch its fighter contingent. That's like me saying the Nimitz is a super-adaptable ship, capable of taking on a fleet of Destroyers. Ain't gonna happen. Nimitz ain't got the armor and its fighters, which take time to deploy, ain't got the arms to take down whole ships in one blow.
By the further note, Covenant Base Station: Unyielding Hierophant, and any UNSC orbital dock, or Super-MAC Platform. Look them up. Tell me how THEY rank for the "extremely self sufficient, with ordinance manufacturing" title.
Please, at least argue points that are accurate. You seem sophomoric.
You keep comparing the two, and even incorrectly so. You make the gross assumption that the only weapon a UNSC Cruiser bears is its singular MAC cannon. For starters, they mount hundreds of missile tubes, many point-defense turrets, can carry several nukes, and they even have a small fighter contingent, as well as onboard marine squads. Further, MAC rounds don't take long to load, and the capacitors take only minutes to charge. The UNSC Cruisers, notably Halcyon and Marathon, were designed during the Insurrection, and thus, were designed to fend off human weapons and tactics. That means missiles, that means point defense. I fail to see how you can compare the point-defense systems of 2 ships, when we've never witnessed the capabilities of one of them.
I again want to point out armor. Cruisers are, by their very nature, the heaviest of ships. They outstrip all but carriers in size, and are so heavily armed and armored they can take quite an exhaustive amount of damage before buckling.
Read a Halo novel. The most-used weapon on any UNSC ship is the Archer Missile Tubes.
You say Vipers are more agile than Longswords, and while this may be true, the Longsword is far larger, more heavily armored, uses 2 100mm autocannons, multiple missile launchers, minelaying equipment, nuclear capability, and I'd assume greater acceleration, based on its engine pods.
Oh, and, uh, the big reason missiles are ineffective against Covenant ships? Covies have laser point-defense. They cut missiles in half long before they reach the hull. Whatever's left impacts on the shields. Same goes for nukes. And, in space, you don't even get the shockwave to cause damage. (Besides, UNSC ships carry nukes)
Oh, and a Battlestar fulfills the role of Carrier (maybe I'll give you Supercarrier, a class in both UNSC and Covenant armadas), and it does have the same tactical use. Further, it cannot adapt, because its only ability is to launch its fighter contingent. That's like me saying the Nimitz is a super-adaptable ship, capable of taking on a fleet of Destroyers. Ain't gonna happen. Nimitz ain't got the armor and its fighters, which take time to deploy, ain't got the arms to take down whole ships in one blow.
By the further note, Covenant Base Station: Unyielding Hierophant, and any UNSC orbital dock, or Super-MAC Platform. Look them up. Tell me how THEY rank for the "extremely self sufficient, with ordinance manufacturing" title.
Please, at least argue points that are accurate. You seem sophomoric.
alix965
Well-Known Member
So...
If I were to build a chess set where the UNSC and Covenant spacecraft face-off, for practical purposes, is there any way to at least get the appearence of parity? i.e. a single piece composed of three Marathon destroyer class to one piece depicting a single Covenant Assault frigate.
Is there a gap in either fleet that cannot be filled?
p.s. Please bear in mind that almost everything we discuss in this forum (including this thread) is all make-believe, a little kindness goes a long way.
If I were to build a chess set where the UNSC and Covenant spacecraft face-off, for practical purposes, is there any way to at least get the appearence of parity? i.e. a single piece composed of three Marathon destroyer class to one piece depicting a single Covenant Assault frigate.
Is there a gap in either fleet that cannot be filled?
p.s. Please bear in mind that almost everything we discuss in this forum (including this thread) is all make-believe, a little kindness goes a long way.
I DID address the missile pods. The Primary Cylon weapons is a similar rapid firing launcher, the Galactica is built to counter it. Yes the Marathon would have lots, but It wouldn't be anything new for the BSG, carrying 514 point defense turrets. The Galactica has firing tubes for 12 nukes, and I would assume it has more to refill. The Marathon has 5 fusion rockets, from what I read they are only good against stationary targets as they are unguided. The Galacticas point Defense system Can pour out such a hig concentration of ordanance that it effectively creates a cloud around the ship that makes it VERY difficult for the enemy to penetrate. If the Cruiser is relying on Archers, its unlikely they will get any major damage on the BSG.
If it was just a carrier then it would NOT open fire with GUNS ON ITS HULL, on a basestar, It would juts sit back while its vipers and raptors blew stuff up. In the show you see with your own eyes, the BSG engaging enemy ships directly. Carriers don't do that, EVER. The Battlestar is a MULTI role ship. It is capable of launching a formidable fighter force, engaging multiple ships simultaneously with ship mounted weapons, and planetary operations. The Galactica Carries a large contingent of marines, and can bombard planets.
Here's a video that shows battlestars in action, it also includes viper fighter combat. At the end you will see a
battlestar ramming a base star in a last ditch attempt to let civilians escape. It was heavily outnumbered.
Those self replenishing turrets you mentioned are just that STATIONARY TURRETS, the Battlestar moves.
Yes the UNSC have fighters, but not in the numbers the Battlestar carries, Longswords may be bigger, but they would be hugely outnumbered, with smaller but equally armed fighters. The viper MK II has 2 wing mounted heavy autocannons, the MK VII has 3, one on the dorsal wing. They can also carry missiles.
Carriers don't do that. The nimitz is a carrier, and cant take on a fleet of destroyers cause it has no ship to ship weapons. One of the battlestar's roles is Carrier but another is battleship. They CAN take on a fleet of destroyers because they HAVE ship to ship weapons as well as fighters, and effective ones at that.
And I'm not saying its the same as a UNSC cruiser, its the colonial equivalent. And I would never want to see these go up against the UNSC, I would rather see them in the line of battle with Halcyons against the covenant, defending the earth they love as much as the UNSC.
If it was just a carrier then it would NOT open fire with GUNS ON ITS HULL, on a basestar, It would juts sit back while its vipers and raptors blew stuff up. In the show you see with your own eyes, the BSG engaging enemy ships directly. Carriers don't do that, EVER. The Battlestar is a MULTI role ship. It is capable of launching a formidable fighter force, engaging multiple ships simultaneously with ship mounted weapons, and planetary operations. The Galactica Carries a large contingent of marines, and can bombard planets.
Here's a video that shows battlestars in action, it also includes viper fighter combat. At the end you will see a
battlestar ramming a base star in a last ditch attempt to let civilians escape. It was heavily outnumbered.
Those self replenishing turrets you mentioned are just that STATIONARY TURRETS, the Battlestar moves.
Yes the UNSC have fighters, but not in the numbers the Battlestar carries, Longswords may be bigger, but they would be hugely outnumbered, with smaller but equally armed fighters. The viper MK II has 2 wing mounted heavy autocannons, the MK VII has 3, one on the dorsal wing. They can also carry missiles.
Carriers don't do that. The nimitz is a carrier, and cant take on a fleet of destroyers cause it has no ship to ship weapons. One of the battlestar's roles is Carrier but another is battleship. They CAN take on a fleet of destroyers because they HAVE ship to ship weapons as well as fighters, and effective ones at that.
And I'm not saying its the same as a UNSC cruiser, its the colonial equivalent. And I would never want to see these go up against the UNSC, I would rather see them in the line of battle with Halcyons against the covenant, defending the earth they love as much as the UNSC.
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't really been following this, but I get the feeling you mean that thing with the chess board literally. You aren't going to build a Halo Chess Game, are you?
Either way, depicting several sub-units in one figure is certainly a great idea, makes perfect sense and is worth keeping in mind for other occasions
SchizophrenicMC
Well-Known Member
Well, keep in mind, Alix, the Covenant Assault Carrier is second, only, to Supercarriers, Unyielding Hierophant (other ships of the class?) and High Charity, in size. There are Light Carriers, Corvettes, Battleships, Destroyers, Frigates, Light Cruisers, Cruisers, Supercruisers, and so on, within the Covenant armada. Maybe work with Destroyers, Corvettes, Assault Carriers, Battleships, and Cruisers (ships we've actually seen in Halo), and Seraphs for pawns. On the UNSC side, go for Marathons, Destroyers, Frigates, Space Stations, and Longswords, maybe.
I'll give you that Battlestars are fairly multirole, but they also appear to be the primary workhorse of the... Er... Humans? (It's been TOO long since I watched BSG) I did some research, and all UNSC ships carry Shiva nuclear missiles, the Marathon has TWO MAC cannons, 60-missile Oversized Archer tubes (unknown number of tubes; likely more than 300) an unknown amount of 50mm point-defense guns, and 2 meters of Titanium-A battleplate.
Battlestar (according to your new Re-imagining) has 24 heavy turrets, 514 point-defense turrets, 12 nuke tubes, and 4 20-Viper fighter contingents, as well as a handful of Raptors. The heavy turrets act more like missiles, according to video and their description, a la Galactica Wiki, so they fall under that category, and the rest just fits in place. Note: I found nothing about armor composition or structure, so I'm assuming it's not as heavily armored as a ship designed to combat slugs fired at a notable percentage the speed of light with SOME efficacy. We'll say 1 meter of titanium armor. Also, Battlestars are described as "a Colonial capital ship that combines the functions of an aircraft carrier and a battleship."
Anyway, based on descriptions of armament, a Marathon cruiser (Even Halcyon, to be honest) outstrips the combat capacity of a Battlestar, even accounting for the fighter wing. Even if you couldn't fire the MACs, the Archer missiles, in their massive numbers (60 volleys of 300+) would quickly overwhelm the point-defense ("mounted on the flight pods and other surfaces. Each barrel fires explosive rounds in bursts." <- can't make a cloud) turrets. Single Archer missiles are stated to be able to "disable all but the most heavily-armored UNSC ships." Imagining several get by the phalanx.... And this isn't to mention the single ships a Marathon carries, or its Shivas.
I'm sorry, but 50mm point defense vulcans (capable of continuous fire, rather than bursts) defeat missiles, from almost all angles, as well as a contingent of fighters that are that small, and the armor would likely not buckle under ship-sized flak guns. Let's just agree that UNSC cruisers are more heavily armed and suited to their role, and Battlestars aren't as armored, but more spacious and suited to their role. Again, you can't compare the two, as they serve different roles. It's like a machine gun and an air-to-air missile. They can dabble ineffectively at each other's work, but you can't really say one does the other's job better.
And, if the Galactica is less powerful than the Marathon (or the Autumn, if I can make Halcyons stick), then I wouldn't dare pit it against a Covenant ship of any class. (Though, if we were to weld a couple Frigates on, one on each of the flight pods.... I mean, its FTL is much more precise than UNSC...)
But, you do have a point. If I had to see it fight, I'd like to see it on the UNSC's side.
I'll give you that Battlestars are fairly multirole, but they also appear to be the primary workhorse of the... Er... Humans? (It's been TOO long since I watched BSG) I did some research, and all UNSC ships carry Shiva nuclear missiles, the Marathon has TWO MAC cannons, 60-missile Oversized Archer tubes (unknown number of tubes; likely more than 300) an unknown amount of 50mm point-defense guns, and 2 meters of Titanium-A battleplate.
Battlestar (according to your new Re-imagining) has 24 heavy turrets, 514 point-defense turrets, 12 nuke tubes, and 4 20-Viper fighter contingents, as well as a handful of Raptors. The heavy turrets act more like missiles, according to video and their description, a la Galactica Wiki, so they fall under that category, and the rest just fits in place. Note: I found nothing about armor composition or structure, so I'm assuming it's not as heavily armored as a ship designed to combat slugs fired at a notable percentage the speed of light with SOME efficacy. We'll say 1 meter of titanium armor. Also, Battlestars are described as "a Colonial capital ship that combines the functions of an aircraft carrier and a battleship."
Anyway, based on descriptions of armament, a Marathon cruiser (Even Halcyon, to be honest) outstrips the combat capacity of a Battlestar, even accounting for the fighter wing. Even if you couldn't fire the MACs, the Archer missiles, in their massive numbers (60 volleys of 300+) would quickly overwhelm the point-defense ("mounted on the flight pods and other surfaces. Each barrel fires explosive rounds in bursts." <- can't make a cloud) turrets. Single Archer missiles are stated to be able to "disable all but the most heavily-armored UNSC ships." Imagining several get by the phalanx.... And this isn't to mention the single ships a Marathon carries, or its Shivas.
I'm sorry, but 50mm point defense vulcans (capable of continuous fire, rather than bursts) defeat missiles, from almost all angles, as well as a contingent of fighters that are that small, and the armor would likely not buckle under ship-sized flak guns. Let's just agree that UNSC cruisers are more heavily armed and suited to their role, and Battlestars aren't as armored, but more spacious and suited to their role. Again, you can't compare the two, as they serve different roles. It's like a machine gun and an air-to-air missile. They can dabble ineffectively at each other's work, but you can't really say one does the other's job better.
And, if the Galactica is less powerful than the Marathon (or the Autumn, if I can make Halcyons stick), then I wouldn't dare pit it against a Covenant ship of any class. (Though, if we were to weld a couple Frigates on, one on each of the flight pods.... I mean, its FTL is much more precise than UNSC...)
But, you do have a point. If I had to see it fight, I'd like to see it on the UNSC's side.
ACDCrockr209
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute, when the heck did BSG come in?
I think this discussion should only be about Halo, adding another element like BSG throws everything off, even if they have some similarities.
Just my 2 cents.
-Pony
I think this discussion should only be about Halo, adding another element like BSG throws everything off, even if they have some similarities.
Just my 2 cents.
-Pony
Spartan137
Well-Known Member
As probably already stated, unless a UNSC fleet outnumbered a Covenant fleet 3:1, the Covenant would always win.
Sorry Crockr I have to say a few more things
You can't assume that the Battlestars have weaker armor than UNSC ships just because none of the wikis mention it. They've been hit directly with cylon missiles, and theres barely been a scratch. Remember these ships are the mainstay of the colonial fleet, they're the flagships if you will, they have to take quite a beating.
As for vipers, they make up for lack of armor with size and agility. It can also carry nukes. They accomplish what the longsword does, they're just smaller. Imagine 80 longswords strafing something, yes vipers can do that.
As for point defense battlestars use their flak guns and main cannons to create a wall "Both the point defense and main guns can work in tandem during combat to create a flak field around a battlestar in addition to targeting incoming enemy munitions over significant distance. Flak walls are generally cast less than half a dozen kilometers away from the ship, with a possibility to dial the delay of a flak projectile's time fuse. Automatic IFF targeting systems, pre-planned firing solutions and corridors presumably allow Vipers to safely launch through such a bombardment." 300 missiles isn't anything new for the BSG, the cylons do it all the time.
http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/f/fa/Galactica_fights_off_missile_salvos.jpg <tell me that's not a cloud
I must agree that the MAC cannon is the biggest advantage the UNSC have over the battlestars. But I'm sure that the UNSC would gladly give one to the colonies, in exchange for FTL navigation, and targeting technology.
Now what would suck would be a covenant cylon alliance.
Now I want to start writing a what if story, sucks I have no time.
You can't assume that the Battlestars have weaker armor than UNSC ships just because none of the wikis mention it. They've been hit directly with cylon missiles, and theres barely been a scratch. Remember these ships are the mainstay of the colonial fleet, they're the flagships if you will, they have to take quite a beating.
As for vipers, they make up for lack of armor with size and agility. It can also carry nukes. They accomplish what the longsword does, they're just smaller. Imagine 80 longswords strafing something, yes vipers can do that.
As for point defense battlestars use their flak guns and main cannons to create a wall "Both the point defense and main guns can work in tandem during combat to create a flak field around a battlestar in addition to targeting incoming enemy munitions over significant distance. Flak walls are generally cast less than half a dozen kilometers away from the ship, with a possibility to dial the delay of a flak projectile's time fuse. Automatic IFF targeting systems, pre-planned firing solutions and corridors presumably allow Vipers to safely launch through such a bombardment." 300 missiles isn't anything new for the BSG, the cylons do it all the time.
I must agree that the MAC cannon is the biggest advantage the UNSC have over the battlestars. But I'm sure that the UNSC would gladly give one to the colonies, in exchange for FTL navigation, and targeting technology.
Now what would suck would be a covenant cylon alliance.
Now I want to start writing a what if story, sucks I have no time.
SchizophrenicMC
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to continue to argue this. You don't grasp scale very well, and I can't change that.Sorry Crockr I have to say a few more things
You can't assume that the Battlestars have weaker armor than UNSC ships just because none of the wikis mention it. They've been hit directly with cylon missiles, and theres barely been a scratch. Remember these ships are the mainstay of the colonial fleet, they're the flagships if you will, they have to take quite a beating.
As for vipers, they make up for lack of armor with size and agility. It can also carry nukes. They accomplish what the longsword does, they're just smaller. Imagine 80 longswords strafing something, yes vipers can do that.
As for point defense battlestars use their flak guns and main cannons to create a wall "Both the point defense and main guns can work in tandem during combat to create a flak field around a battlestar in addition to targeting incoming enemy munitions over significant distance. Flak walls are generally cast less than half a dozen kilometers away from the ship, with a possibility to dial the delay of a flak projectile's time fuse. Automatic IFF targeting systems, pre-planned firing solutions and corridors presumably allow Vipers to safely launch through such a bombardment." 300 missiles isn't anything new for the BSG, the cylons do it all the time.
http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/f/fa/Galactica_fights_off_missile_salvos.jpg <tell me that's not a cloud
I must agree that the MAC cannon is the biggest advantage the UNSC have over the battlestars. But I'm sure that the UNSC would gladly give one to the colonies, in exchange for FTL navigation, and targeting technology.
Now what would suck would be a covenant cylon alliance.
Now I want to start writing a what if story, sucks I have no time.
All this being said, I stick by my idea: strap two frigates to a Battlestar, and call it a superweapon. Also, Cylon and Covenant ideology are so far separate, they'd probably start warring against each other, and I'd call that advantageous for us.
I dunno, someone mentioned it, posing a question as to the power of Covenant ships versus Colonials.
I started by mentioning the similarities between UNSC and Colonial ships. I never meant to start a competition between the two. The galctica is 1438.64m the marathon Class is 1,190m so we have a size in our brains. I also agree this argument is over.
The cylons want to wipe out humans, the covis want to activate the halos. I think they could find common ground. Besides, if the halos were activated, would the cylons be destroyed? They aren't exactly natural. It could be in their interest to activate the rings.
The cylons want to wipe out humans, the covis want to activate the halos. I think they could find common ground. Besides, if the halos were activated, would the cylons be destroyed? They aren't exactly natural. It could be in their interest to activate the rings.
SchizophrenicMC
Well-Known Member
Okay, to answer your question, and make this the last BSG note (I'll start a thread on that in a bit), it depends on your continuity. Cylons, in one continuity, are lizard people, controlling robotic exoskeletons. In the other, they ARE robots.
In any case, it doesn't come down to the Cylons' cunning, but the Covenant's religious acceptance. Or, rather, their lack, thereof. The Covenant could have easily tried to accept the humans into their ranks. Several times, I've heard of it brought up. (Humans fight just as ferociously as us, brother, or something.) They didn't, because they felt the human were a threat to their religion (indeed, they were, as the Reclaimers), and every other race was fought into submission before joining, anyway. The Cylons would have been no exception. Except, I don't think the Cylons have the firepower or numbers to fight the Covenant in a war. So, the infighting they would have would distract the Covenant's military, as well as the Cylons', from their full strength, while the Colonials and the UNSC, being human, and commonly against these aliens, would combine forces, and deal a damaging blow to both enemy parties... In my opinion...
- Status
