User talk:CookieMonstersayshello

Archive 1

Archiving

Could you please link this to the your user talk archive. It's kinda the rules...1234fansofHalo 22:55, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

Do I bloody have to? --CookieMonstersayshello 16:19, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Covenant and UNSC strategies

Since I have a feeling you aren't willing to let this go, I thought I needed to settle this.

"as it ALWAYS bias if its stated the covenant are better strategists than the humans but NOT the other way round is that it?"

— You

You'd be wrong. It's definitely bias both ways around. However, there is something to be said about the viewpoint presented in the novels, which often depict humans as superior tacticians while Covenant tactics are repeatedly shown to be driven by doctrine or religious reasons (to name one instance, John's observation on page 111 of The Fall of Reach). Most importantly, their strategies or tactics aren't a defining factor in most Covenant victories; even if some of their victories are due to better strategic thinking, the Covenant don't need to be good strategists in order to win because their weapons and technology are so vastly superior. On the other hand, humans have to rely on cleverness or in most cases, numerical superiority. It's like pitting modern fighter jets against WW2-era planes; even if they used superior tactics, it's not like the fighter jets need any strategy other than "lock on and pull the trigger".

Still, you can't generalize it by saying the Covenant are better strategists than humans or the other way around. It's always a matter of individual commanders. People like Jacob Keyes or Preston Cole or others who continuously prevailed against Covenant obviously used better tactics than the Covenant commanders they faced. In the Covenant, there are practical commanders like Voro Nar 'Mantakree who are undoubtedly good tacticians, but likely more of those who let doctrine, personal beliefs, their honor codes, or blind zealotry cloud their judgment, like Tano 'Inanraree, Luro 'Taralumee or Ripa 'Moramee. There's also the issue that because the two civilizations and the technologies they use are so vastly different, they are ineligible for direct comparison. UNSC strategies or tactics aren't necessarily better than Covenant ones, they're just different. That difference alone may be what tips many battles in one faction's favor.

Coming back to the point about the perspective of the novels, I don't think a single novel, game or reference work has objectively acknowledged the tactical or strategic superiority of the Covenant that you keep on proclaiming. Unless you have a source where an omniscient narrator or a reliable character states that Covenant strategies are superior, you can't claim the Covenant are always better than humans just because you like them better. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 08:09, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Its not that I "like" the covenant better, but I do think considering the covenant are disadvantaged by religion they do fairly well against the Humans both tactically, technologically and strategically. And another issue ive come across:

The Elites, why the hell on the sangheili page does it ramble and ramble on about how awesome and excellent tacticians they are against Brutes but makes them look like idiots when they come the sangheili tactics to human tactics. Why? Why the hierarchy with Humans at the top, Elites second and Brutes even more inferior? Why the annoying mixed messages, either the Elites and Covenant ARE good tacticians or they ARENT. It has to be one or the other, and your implying the humans tactics are better than those of Rtas Vadum, Thel Vadam, Voro Nar 'Mantakree are you? Huh. Seriously, these mixed halopedian messages NEED to STOP right freaking now (yes i'm getting heat up because of the mixed messages that arent consistent).

Any examples of Covenant tactical brilliance against humans okay: Battle of Sigma Octanus: Although the Covenant lost overall when the Spartans werent helping the marines it says how "0600 Hours: Covenant forces ambush and obliterate all marine forces on the ground. Only 14 enlisted men survive. Corporal Harland assumes tactical command. They must have used tactics to do that, as ambushing IS a valid millitary tactic. Not to mention at the end of the battle the covenant managed to place a spy probe on the Iroqiuous (or however you spell it) so the Covenant could locate Reach and destroy the colony. The covenant cant be that daft if you think about it.

Battle of Alpha Base Another example of Covenant tactics: the Sangheili TRICKED the UNSC Marines and ODSTs into thinking they were a UNSC Pelican making there way in, the truth was they were an armed force sent in to assasinate the absent Spartan-117.

Battle of the Silent Cartographer Again the Covenant did a counter-attack that wiped out the Marine force practically behind 117's back. Use of tactics again.

And you also cant say that just because the UNSC may often inflict greater casualties on the Covenant makes them better tacticans (Fall of Reach), as there have many a few battles (mostly in space) where Admiral Cole's fleet suffers more losses than the Covie fleet yet he's thought of as a GENIUS for his victories no matter how pyrrhic they are.

I could just go on forever, any counter-arguments thats fine by me. But I still think these issues need to analysed more, rather than just popular Halo opinion screening what the facts are. --CookieMonstersayshello 08:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)