- OrderedComa
- |
- Noble Member
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
I'm just saying that from how Ghosts of Onyx puts things, and the fact the Headhunters were completely hidden from the rest of the III's it may be safe to assume that they were not a part of Kurt's III's at all.
Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they weren't Kurt's he was probably involved with the Headhunters in some slight capacity, maybe not training or anything, but he probably was involved in some slight way. But yeah I think it's safe to say that the Headhunters aren't really part of the main body of IIIs.
Its logical because assuming it did something is more prone to error than assuming it was just there already. In the original book that was the way it was made out to be. How can it have "just arrive" if it was around long enough for Cortana to assault it (something she would be hard pressed to do while on the Autumn without a linkup to the ONI grid or during a Covenant engagement).
Meh :/ Both equally illogical to me and as prone to error, but hey that's just me. I didn't say it just arrived, not what I meant at least, what I meant was it arrived somewhat close to the 30th. And IIRC, wasn't all information on the Circumference removed and the whole thing locked down because of Cortana's poking around in ONI's files to get Ackerson transferred to a field position again and not from trying to find stuff out about the Circumference itself, or rather something like that?
The Cole Protocol states that they do so on CONTACT with the Covenant, that doesn't mean handshaking distance but within visible/sensor range. When the Covenant show up, it usually means they're there for a reason. After all, I'm sure the UNSC could tell at that point the Covenant's mission was not conquest, but extermination.
That's kind of what I've been trying to say about the Cole Protocol all along, a situation where it was dead certain the Covenant would come directly across them, such as with Fermion, or within distance where it'd be possible for the Covenant to attack.
You are taking my analogy too literally. The reason I say they are pointing in one direction is because literally half of the position you are defending now no longer has any defenses. If all you guns are on one side of the planet you can only fire on things that are visible from that position which means the other side of the planet is a giant blind spot. Defending a planet is far different than defending a ground position. You have to worry about all three spatial dimensions.
And the range of the SMAC's was their falloff, in other words their effective accuracy as with any projectile weapon. The round can only move so fast and therefore as the distance increases the accuracy decreases. At some point the Covenant ships would just maneuver out of the way. That doesn't really mean anything for something BELOW the SMAC's, seeing as I'm sure they are designed to fire farther than their orbital distance from the planet. In that case there is no such thing as "out of range" in the planet's atmosphere (which is exactly where that ship is at the start of the game).
The last part has me confused. The UNSC wasn't "planning" for anything. A ship suddenly shows up, hell yeah they'll diver a portion of their defenses to destroying it. And if it is a prelude to a Covenant attack then grouping up their weapons in one nice, targetable cluster would be the LAST thing they would do.
I'm just saying what the book indicates, that all 20 SMACs are in one group together on one side of the planet. I'm not really saying it's smart, but that's how it seemed the book had set it all up.
If you ask me, firing below the SMACs at something that would be deliberately keeping out of effective range would be too risky, especially if it's in the planet's atmosphere. Firing a SMAC round at full strength (which is what would be required to even dent the Supercarrier and its defenses) into the atmosphere would not be a very wise move.
I was talking about Kat's plan, which she came up with basically right after the Supercarrier was discovered. I meant, if they already have a plan for removing the Supercarrier come up with, why would they move their SMACs to take it out and possibly lose several of them in the process.
Master Chief is an enlisted man, not an officer. I also think his idea, if he even had it, was based on the assumption they'd win the battle.
I'm sorry but I don't see what Chief being an enlisted man and not an officer has to do with what I said before :/
He did have it, it's in the book, that may indeed be true, but whatever he thought RED FLAG wasn't really scrapped until the deployments of Red and Blue Team.
Halo 2 was a point of civil war within the Covenant, its understandable for them to question their superiors seeing as that was the point. But, during Reach, CE and pretty much everything beforehand the Prophets indoctrinated the Covenant to despising Humanity to the point that they wouldn't even touch their weaponry and considered speaking in the human tongue disgusting.
And most of the Covenant engagements show their lack of competence in complex warfare. The Covenant's fighting methods are more akin the British in the American Revolution while the UNSC is the United States. On top of that I feel the main reason the Covenant were so rash in their combat techniques was because of their dogmatic approach. Altering their ways would be admitting defeat just as much as losing the battle.
They didn't just randomly start thinking that way as soon as they split off from the Covenant, they've thought that way since at least CE. It of course varries from Elite to Elite, but they've regarded Humanity as worthy opponents for a while. And I never said they liked Humanity, I just said they respected their tenacity and knew that Humans were not something to underestimate when fighting.