| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Archived}}
| | UNSC Surrendered? Whoa! This article is way off! Earth hasnt been even captured! Who wrote this article!--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
| == The Covenant Sepratists (All the Elites left the Covenant during the Schism) were not Swords of Sanghelios ==
| | :I made this article, but others have insisted on keeping that line. It comes from the description of a "thorougly conquered and covenant-held Earth" as described by Bungie for Halo 3. -[[User:ED|ED]] 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
| | Ok, but did the UNSC surrender? No, for all we know they could be still fighting even though the Covenant take the planet.--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
| | :Agreed. Change it if you want. -[[User:ED|ED]] 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Wasn't Swords of Sangheilios founded '''after''' the Human-Covenant war. The Elites that left the Covenant (all of them) and the ones that helped out humanity were just known as Covenant-Sepratists at the time and didn't officially form Swords of Sangheilios yet.
| | == what gives! == |
|
| |
|
| I think it would be better to replace [[Swords of Sanghelios]] with [[Covenant Remnants]], since it is unclear which Elites sided with humanity and if some didn't end up joining the Swords after the war ended. All we know is that every single Elite left the Covenant during the Great Schism, and the majority of them sided with humanity.[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 16:00, 5 February 2016 (EST)
| | if the convenet win what happens to man-kind?! do we just die and the covenet rules all? I need info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 |
|
| |
|
| The Swords of Sangheilios was founded in November 2552, when the war was still going on and during the Battle of Earth, before the Battle of the Ark.--[[User:Paulhalo121|Paulhalo121]] ([[User talk:Paulhalo121|talk]]) 06:20, 18 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Forerunner constructs as a 4th belligerent (side) ==
| |
|
| |
|
| In the infobox, surely the Forerunner constructs should be shown as a 4th side because they were against every side of the war for almost all of its entirety, except for a few battles that i will say below. '''So for this reason the Forerunner constructs should be a 4th side in the infobox.'''
| | if the convenet win what happens to man-kind?! do we just die and the covenet rules all? I need info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 |
| | :There is none yet. That's what [[Halo 3]] is for. We'll find out what happend to mankind when the game comes out. -[[User:ED|ED]] 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Remember, the only time the Forerunner constructs were on the UNSC side was a very small part of [[Battle of Installation 04]] in Halo CE (The Library and 343 Guilty Spark levels), just the control room of [[Installation 05]] at the end of Halo 2, and only the [[Battle of Installation 00]] and the 1st part of the Raid on Installation 04B in Halo 3. Apart from during these battles, the Forerunner constructs were against every other side in the war, and not allied with any one side. '''For this reason, Forerunner constructs should be placed as a sub-side on the UNSC side, separate from the UNEG/SoS, as well as a 4th side.''' Would it be ok for me to do this? Thoughts? --[[User:Paulhalo121|Paulhalo121]] ([[User talk:Paulhalo121|talk]]) 08:35, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Only a handful of Forerunner constructs were involved in the war, barely. While the Flood were also involved for a fairly short time too, they had a much larger impact with the size of their forces and the final battles having to prioritize dealing with the Flood as well. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 14:50, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
| | Theres a problem with this article, a few billion? Covenant, a few million? You must be nuts, a few billion is more like it, the grunts are cannon fodder, and most likely billions of them were killed in the war. |
| | :Not likely. As you can see on the "[[Heroic]]" difficulty of the Halo games (The generally accepted "real" difficulty in universe) you see that most humans aren't very good at killing Covenant, even Grunts. Casualties are even, at best. Add to that the billons of human civilians killed by the Covenant when they glass worlds, versus the fact that the UNSC has never attacked a single Covenant colony, I would say that is about right. -[[User:ED|ED]] 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Ok, i have added a note next to the 'Forerunner Constructs' part to address the Forerunner constructs involvement during the war in regards to side taking.--[[User:Paulhalo121|Paulhalo121]] ([[User talk:Paulhalo121|talk]]) 06:14, 18 April 2016 (EDT)
| | == Cleanup == |
|
| |
|
| | Can someone tag this for cleanup?--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 05:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
| | :What on the page needs work? -[[User:ED|ED]] 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Banished Inclusion==
| | The timeline.--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
| Should the Banished be included in the Covy war? I have not seen any something saying that they fought against humanity. But I have no yet read the entirety of the new Canon Fodder. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 13:51, 3 December 2016 (EST)
| |
|
| |
|
| Nevermind, in the Atriox trailer one of the places look like a devastated human city. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 13:59, 3 December 2016 (EST)
| | == If we do lose... == |
|
| |
|
| https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/news/canon-fodder-surface-features Quote from Kevin Grace: "These guys are mean, grizzled veterans who are used to fighting both humanity and the Covenant" I suppose that could simply mean they fought humans after the war, though. Hmmm. [[User:Japeth555|Japeth555]] ([[User talk:Japeth555|talk]]) 14:11, 3 December 2016 (EST)Japeth555
| | If we do lose, I'd rather hope that the humans were assimilated into the covenant rather than be exterminated. |
|
| |
|
| :Or future members of the Banished could've fought humans while they were still part of the Covenant; in fact many of them very likely did. I don't think there's enough info to assume the Banished, as in the faction itself, was an active party in the war. --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 09:11, 4 December 2016 (EST) | | :I find this unlikely. The Covenant considers us devils, not just obstacles to be assimilated. "When no single human brick lies atop another, then will we be satisfied with your destruction." Besides that, the Covenant is falling apart in civil war. I don't think they'll have time to enslave us properly as they race to reach the Ark first. --[[User:Dragonclaws|Dragonclaws]] 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
| | ::The logical thing for them to do would be to focus on one enemy at a time, but I suspect that humanity is so weak at this point that it wouldn't make much of a difference. -[[User:ED|ED]] 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :I think the Banished-Covenant conflict should be a separate article, as the Unggoy Rebellion is.[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 16:56, 24 December 2016 (EST)
| | == military force == |
| | | I able to evaluate it number : 1999 6 billions of population 22 millions of soldiers 2552 60 billions population 220 millions of soldiers + de concription. during war. It is impossible that the covenant have just 40 millions of troops an 6,000 star ships |
| ::Until we get more information about the conflict than "it was a thing", mentions in the Covenant's and Banished's respective articles should be enough. --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 11:14, 26 December 2016 (EST)
| |
| | |
| ==Pyrrhic pyrrhic pyrrhic== | |
| Why is every battle and war on this site described as a pyrrhic victory? Do the people using this not know what it is and think it just means "costly victory"? You can't have 10 pyrrhic victories in a row, that's the point of it being pyrrhic. It's not something you can maintain. It always has a citation but I really really doubt the Halo books use the word "pyrrhic" every 2 pages or so, because that's how often it is used on this site lol {{Unsigned|77.165.250.227}}
| |
| :Agreed, old halopedia editors had a real thing for stuff like this or "strategic/tactical X victory" etc. I tend to stick to how Wikipedia prefers this be done. I agree this should be removed.[[User:BaconShelf|BaconShelf - The Inners Will Never See Them Coming]] ([[User talk:BaconShelf|talk]]) 15:56, January 14, 2021 (EST)
| |
