Talk:Covenant battleship

Votes for Merge

 * Merge This is obviously a Covenant supercarrier as mentoned in Halo: First Strike which says there was a ship that had 5 bubies sectons, and larger then a carrier -- Fist of Rukt 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Against - Definately not. it is pure hypothesis that the supercarrier had "5 bulb [ous] sections". Cheers,  Relentless Recusant [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yours is the pure hypothesis. Mine is based on fact! -- Fist of Rukt 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, yours are both hypothesis, but RR's is a fanon name, while FistofRukt's is a fanon merge. I'll take a fanon name when a canon name isn't present over a fanon merge any day.--Rotaretilbo 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Against - As per myself.--Rot 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AgainstAgreed with RR.Bllasae 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge or not...this is still Important....
A Battleship is NOT s Class of Cruiser.... a Battleship is it's own group with Classes of Battleships...The Ship Template needs to be changed. --Gzalzi 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

NOT a Supercarrier
I think that it is fairly obvious that this is not a Supercarrier. The battlesip is stated to be only around 2km long. That is a lot shorter than an assault carrier which is about 5km long and a Supercarrier is supposed to be BIGGER than that. Also carrier's don't tend to be that well armed relying mostly on their escorts and their fighter craft. L55 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possble image
In Halo: Genises a large covenant vessel, the vessel that made contact. This ship could be a covenant battleship.-- Sozai 'Zorfitee xiizz'uee  FLEETCOMM 02:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Harvest
How in the world did everyone decide so quickly to move all the information about the Battle of Harvest from the supercarrier article to the battleship article? These ships are stated in First Strike to be 2 km long. The comparison image on the page, which presumably came from Genesis, indicates the mystery ship is pushing 6 km. I'm just curious... what's going on with this? Not to mention, if the battleship, one of the smaller(ish) ships in the covenant fleet is THIS powerful, how in the world did the lone supercruiser, a ship nearly twice this size, get destroyed by one human ship at the Battle of Reach? I was good with the idea of it being a supercarrier, as that's the only ship classification that would make sense to be larger than the 5.3 km long assault carrier, and be so incredibly strong. Quakeomaniac 04:32, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, we had this discussion in another talk page. Halo: Evolutions triumphs over Halo Wars: Genesis.外国 人 (7alk ) 04:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that, but it simply said it suggested a different size, but WHY has it been decided that Evolutions (which I admit to be unfamiliar with) is superior? Quakeomaniac 04:54, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * New Canon redefines Old Canon. Like how Halo Encyclopedia did to the Halo Universe...外国 人 (7alk ) 04:57, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye... I wish science ficion universes could be a bit more consistent. But we all know how it works, people want to make money off it, so they don't care too much, not like we fans do. Quakeomaniac 05:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

It was I who made the initial Supercarrier comparison images and added the pics to that page a few months ago. I pulled the size comparison from the tactical screens in the Everest bridge and did the calculations to get our ship's size. Also, anyone could see the truly massive size difference between ships within the artwork.

However, the pictures and info were moved to this page because, in most Halopedian's opinions, third-party literature canon supersedes third-party artwork canon. Does that make sense? When I originally posted the pics, it was because we had only one source of canon to go by and had to make the logical choice as to where it belonged. Now that we have two references, we have to pick the one that makes the most sense and is supported by the higher canon. In this case, it would be Evolutions.

The ship could be explained to have looked so big on the tactical battle screens in Genesis for many reasons. It was a different color (red) from the other UNSC ships (black) so maybe Cole had selected it on screen or something to enhance the image size. As for why it seemed so strong, it was humanity's first real battle with an alien vessel. In the first few seconds that the majority of Cole's fleet was destroyed, we hadn't discovered the "one-two punch" tactics that are necessary for UNSC ships to disable a Covvie's shields and then puncture the hull. It was likely mass chaos as the human ship commanders wildly emptied their arsenals and were picked off one by one. Cole changed this by deducing the proper battle plan to destroy the enemy--firing every single weapon in his fleet in .1 second intervals. Overkill? Maybe. But he obliterated the ship. --Nerfherder1428 17:26, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can certainly go with this logic here. Also, the covenant battleships as described in First Strike would presumably be EXTREMELY powerful ships anyway. Twelve energy projectors is an immense amount of firepower, enough to vaporize much of the human fleet in one salvo. If the ship can generate enough power to fire all of them at once, it is probably also capable of generating quite a powerful shield. After all the Incorruptible in GoO lost most of its power firing a single projector and a pair of plasma torpedoes. Quakeomaniac 12:03, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Naming
Not sure where the connection between the ships in First Strike and the one at Harvest is from. Is there any actual evidence they're the same class? The ship Cole encountered on Harvest was referred to as a "Super-Destroyer" on pg.471 of Evolutions. This seems to indicate it's a different class of ship, or alternatively "battleship" was used in First Strike to refer to capital ships in general, the actual class designation being Super Destroyer. In any case, the size comparisons are inconsistent with info from Evolutions. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 22:04, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Jugus, the size is the very reason that we moved the Harvest ship into this category. A battleship is two kilometers long. Evolutions also says that the Harvest ship is two kilometers long, one wide. The physical description and weapon loadout of a battleship in First Strike match this ship as well. I do agree that we can't be for sure, but I'm going to have to go back to look at your Super-Destroyer reference. (Nerfherder1428)


 * I'm confused. In case we're now using Evolutions as the reference for the size, isn't the 5703 meters comparison picture, which is still on the page, inaccurate? But anyways, it was referred to as a super destroyer, so I'm not sure what to make of it.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 13:01, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're using the Evolutions reference to size. I'm the one that made the 5703 calculation/picture for when we believed this ship was classified as a Supercarrier (so yeah, that comparison picture shouldn't still be there actually). But after the release of Evolutions and after someone moved all that ship's information to this article, I explained ^^above^^ why my original calculation from Genesis could easily be explained otherwise and why the Evolutions size does in face supercede that information in both canon and common sense. But yes, your newfound discovery of the title of "super destroyer" merits a little discussion. I suppose I'm with you on this one. So for the rest of you out there, any arguments against?--Nerfherder1428 00:54, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * So. Now that we have two names for the ships, Super Destroyer for the one at Harvest and "Battleship" for the ones seen in First Strike, should we split them or just call it "super destroyer"? My opinion? Keep it in one article and call it a super-destroyer. "Battleship" might simply be referring to capital ships in general, instead of a specific class. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 10:35, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, a Super-Destroyer is a modified variant of the standard Destroyer, so there should be a section within that article or at least a trivia. This is similar to the UNSC where we see a Phoenix-class Colony Ship refitted as a Command Starship in Halo Wars (It is possible that the original Phoenix-class Colony ships lack the side structure which sport the Defensive Turrets), and a Marathon-class Cruiser modified at the request of Preston Cole(with some odd attachments).-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 12:05, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well crap. Looking at the Halo Encyclopedia, it seems we have an even bigger problem. Not only does it list the "Covenant Battleship" as an actual title of one of the Covenant's starships, but it puts its length at two-HUNDRED meters (656 ft) rather than two-thousand. Yet it still includes the information about the dozen energy projectors and such. So...I highly suggest we at least create the Super Destroyer page with info about the Harvest ship. Unlike the Spirit of Fire and Everest modifications that were added to an existing class of ship (Phoenix and Marathon), this "Super Destroyer" is clearly and completely different in appearance from a standard destroyer, thereby suggesting a different class of ship (much like how Halcyons and Marathons are both cruisers). The Covenant Destroyer and Covenant Super Destroyer are literally nothing alike. So no, it should definitely get its own page rather than a section in the Destroyer article. As for this page, I'm all kinds of lost.


 * The two First Strike references we have don't make any sense. On page 32, we see the name Battleship, but it gives nothing more of a description than that they were preparing for plasma bombardment of Reach. As for the other link, page 301--not only does the featured quote NOT appear on the page (and I'm having difficulty finding it elsewhere), but the quote doesn't seem to specifically refer to a "Battleship" of any kind. In fact, the only ships that I saw described in the following battle are cruisers and carriers. The encyclopedia gives us that Battleships are 200 meters long and have 12 energy projectors (like other articles, they likely erroneously gleaned this information from Halopedia), but we have a as-of-yet unconfirmed source in First Strike that tells us a slightly different story. Jugus, any ideas?--Nerfherder1428 14:34, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Covenant ship capabilities
This appears to be another of those areas where Halo material contradicts itself. In TFoR we see the colossal supercruiser, a ship nearly twice this length, take but a single barrage from a puny halcyon class cruiser a third its own length (who knows on mass). This implies the supercruiser has little more powerful of a reactor than the autumn, a highly improbably scenario. Now, here we see a covenant battleship, vastly smaller than the supercruiser, taking on an entire fleet, surviving multiple barrages, and destroying a good third of said fleet. The books and Halo Legends/Genesis (?) seem to contradict each other. However, when I read the books, despite them being very good, I never feel like you should fear the Covenant. I never get the impression that they're really all that dangerous. It's more like OMG the Master Chief is the most invincible piece of tin ever put on the face of the universe, just follow him and the Covenant get pwned. I know this is a condescending manner to approach it, but regardless, the books are written to champion humans, I can see that. However, I think it is well known in the Halo canon that covenant vessels drastically overpower and tend to absolutely obliterate human fleets in space, but the PoA destroying a ship 3 times its size singlehandedly brings this into question. Essentially the point of all this mess is this: Are covenant ships realistically more like we see here on this page, or more like the novels? I personally think this depiction of a battle between human and covenant ship(s) is far better. It portrays the covenant as enormously superior and incredibly ruthless and powerful. It really does make you feel like we have zero chance. The novels fail to give this feeling. Any thoughts on my long idea here? Quakeomaniac 23:50, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just my own opinion but I would suggest that UNSC ships at the beginning of the war are inferior to those at the end even though they are the same classes and in many cases the same vessels. This may include the strength of MAC's, armor, etc. Then again, Cole's 162 ships performed in a similar manner to the 152 or so ships and an additional 20 ODP's at Reach, each effectively taking on approximately twice as many Covenant ships. This may also be attributed to the fact that heavy capital ships may have been more prevalent in the earlier parts of the war, so I would assume that it all depends of the capabilities of either side, though it is possibly also an inconsistency with other sources. -- 0RBITAL   01:45, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the big themes in Halo is how humanity has it's back against the wall and is slowly being pushed towards the brink of annihilation. I think the comic has the right of it, where one covenant capital ship can take out several UNSC capital ships before buying the farm. The novels kinda hint at this but also fail at it with stuff like the Keyes Loop, where apparently the Covenant had the collective IQ of a rock (I'm probably insulting the rock) to have allowed such a maneuver to happen. I mean the whole torpedoes following the Iroquois right into the Covenant Destroyer made me facepalm at the idiocy. It seemed like a stunt pulled right of of DBZ. Plus I always wondered how the Iroquois could fire two consecutive rounds and yet hit both covenant frigates which are probably several kilometers apart. No mention of firing one then maneuvering to fire the other, no it was 2 thuds and then he fired a wave of Archer missiles. Tactics my ass. More like blatant flaunting of plot shields because Keyes had to survive to die in Halo: CE.--Zervziel 17:31, January 30, 2010 (UTC)