9,203
edits
Talk:Operation: TORPEDO: Difference between revisions
→Not a pyrrhic Victory
Forerunner (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::::::While I find your argument to be an intelligent one (been on B.net forums lately, lol), I just want to go back to basics. The Covenant lost a LOT more, as I orignally said, tens of thousands of troopers. And so what if they're S-IIIs? The UNSC has many other equally effective assets. It took the lives of only 298 Spartans to take the lives of an armada. <font color="black">Something<b>Different</b></font> 21:25, 19 April 2011 (EDT) | :::::::While I find your argument to be an intelligent one (been on B.net forums lately, lol), I just want to go back to basics. The Covenant lost a LOT more, as I orignally said, tens of thousands of troopers. And so what if they're S-IIIs? The UNSC has many other equally effective assets. It took the lives of only 298 Spartans to take the lives of an armada. <font color="black">Something<b>Different</b></font> 21:25, 19 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
::::::::Again, I feel that your view on the SPARTANs is that they are equal to regular marines - they are far more important and combat-effective. Had the Fall of Reach instead been a UNSC victory, it would have been pyhrrical even with the UNSC outnumbered by the Covenant because of two things: a major loss of life in SPARTAN supersoldiers and the UNSC's inability to replace its men and women and warships at a rate comparable to the Covenant, whose war machine has shown itself in fleets consisting of hundreds, and their liking for attacking minimally-defended systems en masse.-- '''[[User:Forerunner|<font color="blue">Fore</font>]]''[[User talk:Forerunner|<font color="green">run</font>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Forerunner|<font color="red">ner</font>]]''''' 21:34, 19 April 2011 (EDT) | |||