- superiorarsenal
- |
- Honorable Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
"Yes, SII's are normally superior to SIII's, but look at the budgets between the projects. Spartan II was only with less than a hundred recuits. Each Spartan III class counted with 300, and in some cases, a little bit more."
What does budget have to do with it? S-IIs costed so much because of training, MJOlNIR production/producing, Bio-aug research/application, abductions, flash clones, ect. S-IIIs on the whole only needed a significant amount of money in the housing and training department. SPI armor is cheaper, the bio-augs are less extreme, they were all orphans, and they didn't have the huge bill of MJOLNIR. 1 S-III is cheaper than 1 S-II. The goal of S-IIIs was to mass produce cheaper super-soldiers. The S-II project was to create highly lethal super-soldiers to do pin-point high-risk missions.
Another thing, the reason the S-III project was so big because the gene pool for their bio-augs was far greater. S-IIs were much more limited and had to have near perfect genes.
"You put a Spartan III with the same equipment and experience as the Spartan II's and they'd be equal. The augmentations were the same for both generations."
Prove the augmentations were the same. I saw nowhere that they were. They have different augmentations. S-II augs require a very specific gene pool. I have also never seen a S-III preform on the same level as a S-II. Master Chief, or any S-II, could take on any S-III. however, one S-II can't take on 5 S-IIIs and a S-II.