Editing Talk:Charon-class light frigate

==Authenticity & Source Availability?==
I'm a little bit confused about this one page. While I do want to believe it (and I do, for some odd reason), my only question is this: How does one know for sure that this is really the class of frigate when the [[Halo: The Essential Visual Guide]] has not yet come out in the United States (but may possibly already be out in the United Kingdom), own it and read it? There is, however, a preview available ([http://www.dorlingkindersley-uk.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781405365871,00.html?strSrchSql=Halo/Halo_The_Essential_Visual_Guide_DK_Publishing]) to download and read, I saw no mention of this, only the bit about the [[Paris-class heavy frigate]]. [[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 19:53, 5 July 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
:There have been some previews released of the book online. that's where the info is coming from. [[User:Halofan1234|PRESIDENT]][[User talk:Halofan1234|1234]] 20:37, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
::It's been out in the United States since yesterday I believe. Picked mine up today at a retail store. Amazon and all major book stores now have them available. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|July 5th, 2011}}
:::oh really I think I might go pick one up tomorrow. [[User:Halofan1234|PRESIDENT]][[User talk:Halofan1234|1234]] 20:53, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Make sure to call ahead before and if possible, have them hold it. I called a good five places, and only one of them had it in stock at the time, and it was their only copy. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|July 5th, 2011}}
:::::Alright thanks will do. [[User:Halofan1234|PRESIDENT]][[User talk:Halofan1234|1234]] 21:00, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I just checked Amazon. It seems you are right. I rest my case. But, I will not completely believe it unless I see it with my own eyes. [[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 19:19, 7 July 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
:::::::::::FYI, I just ordered the [[Halo: The Essential Visual Guide|book]] online at Amazon using Prime. I looked it over, all information is accurate. Case dismissed. [[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 13:53, 22 August 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330

== Midsummer Night ==

Given this frigate's classification as a [[UNSC light frigate|light frigate]], could we assume that the {{UNSCship|Midsummer Night}} is of this class?--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 11:33, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

:I thought of this yesterday, but gave up - we just don't have enough evidence. All we know of the ship is that the ''Midsummer Night'' is a light frigate modified for stealth missions. We can't even tell by the Hull numbers, either, as the Charon and Stalwart-class light frigates intersect - Charon-class frigates have numbers between "127" and "307" while Stalwart-class frigates have numbers like "142". As the US Navy rarely diverts from the "one-more-than-the-previous" system of numbering (FFG-1, FFG-2, etc.) unless on the grounds of radical deviation of a vessel's style, we can assume that the two ship classes were both in service and in production at the same time. However, the two serve noticably-different purposes due to their shapes - Charon-class frigates, with their enlargened hangers, appear more suited to ground and atmospheric operations than the Stalwart, which can also perform this action albeit to a presumably-smaller capacity. We do not know enough on the ''Midsummer Night'' to make a proper confirmation.-- '''[[User:Forerunner|<font color="blue">Fore</font>]]''[[User talk:Forerunner|<font color="green">run</font>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Forerunner|<font color="red">ner</font>]]''''' 12:09, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

::The ''Midsummer Night'' should be classified in the ''Stalwart''-class page. There's ample evidence to suggest it's a ''Stalwart''-class modified for stealth ops. We know of 3 of 4 types of UNSC frigates visually (and dimensionally). According to the comic TFoR:Covenant, we know the destroyer ''Iroquois'' is the same class as the ''Heart of Midlothian''. We know that destroyer class is 485m in length. We know the ''Stalwart''-class is 478m in length. According to the Fall of Reach novel (TFoR:p139), we also know that the ''Iroquois'' was 7m longer than frigates ''Midsummer Night'' and ''Meriwether Lewis''. This directly suggests the ''Midsummer Night'' and ''Meriwether Lewis'' are both ''Stalwart''-class frigates. I can tell you that the ''Midlothian'''s length was chosen ''because'' it was 7m longer than the Halo 2 frigate length. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 18:23, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

== That's Some Dark Humor ==

So, one of the major designs of the Charon-class light frigate is that it can transport a (Proportionally) large amount of ground troops.

The thing is is that the Charon of Greek mythology transported the dead across the River Styx to Hades. Sounds exactly like a Navy ship transporting Marines into combat, doesn't it? Basically calling them Dead Men Walking? [[User talk:Missing Mandible|Missing Mandible]] 16:35, 12 December 2011 (EST)

That's actually kind of clever [[User talk:SPARTAN-347|SPARTAN-347]] 20:38, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Or perhaps the Frigate is escorting its enemies to hell? I dunno. [[User:FatalSnipe117|<span style="color:green">'''pestilence'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/FatalSnipe117|<span style="color:green">'''Phil'''</span>]], ''[[User talk:FatalSnipe117|<span style="color:green">'''pestilence!'''</span>]]'' 20:39, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Let's keep in mind that not ''all'' the soldiers onboard die. Only that some of them do. But even those who manage to survive combat without getting killed are nonetheless casualties. Probably because they survived the trauma of losing their friends. Think about it. War Is Hell. --[[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 11:33, 13 December 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330
:I'm not saying that all of the soldiers will all die. I'm saying that it won't exactly fill me with confidence if I were transported to battle on a ship class named after an Escorter of the Dead. [[User talk:Missing Mandible|Missing Mandible]] 21:15, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::Understandable. Could be a case of really bad superstition, one that could very easily become true. --[[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 23:26, 13 December 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

==Shields on Charon Class Light Frigate==
This picture has conclusive proof that the Charon-class Light Frigate, as of Halo 4 has shields (notice the golden hue on the rightmost frigate) {{unsigned|SithSB}}

:That glow's just from explosions. Also, isn't that pic leaked content? [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 15:15, 5 November 2012 (EST)
::Looks like a spoiler to me, or either that, offical but early released content.--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Killamint</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 15:21, 5 November 2012 (EST)
:::'''Edit''': Link removed as per above.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 15:24, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Its not a spoiler in fact, it was released on waypoint as part of the Departure Spartan Ops episode. And that glow is reminsant of the one Infinity has when she rams a CCS-class Battlecruiser in the Spartan Ops Season 1 Trailer and flys through the debris. It a shield/ {{unsigned|SithSB}}
:Just a tip, ending your statement with "end of story" is both uncalled for and somewhat antagonistic. There is much discussion if people call for it. And sign your comments please. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}}

Understood, thank you.--{{User:SithSB/Sig}}

So, I have watched the Spartan Ops Departure CGI video several times and with out a reason for doubt, know that the Charon-class Light Frigates deployed from Infinity have shields which are golden colored. 

Link to the images of the shield flares:

[http://i.imgur.com/c5ntF.jpg]

[http://i.imgur.com/9j1t7.jpg]

So, based off visuals, the Charon-class frigates (they had their designs retconned) possess energy shields. 

--{{Unsigned|SithSB}}

:I think you mean "retrofitted". -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 20:57, 8 November 2012 (EST)

I'm sure he mean't retonned. Retrofited would be that the ship's design was changed in canon, but the Forward Unto Dawn's design changed after it was destroyed and drifting so reton would be more accurate. [[User talk:VARGR|VARGR]] 21:18, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Well it is established that the Huragok were working on Infinity and that in 2557 the ship posesses shields so it makes sence that Frigates docked onboard it would also be upgraded with shield systems. [[User talk:VARGR|VARGR]] 23:03, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Can some one add shields to the entry? It won't let me do it.---Sith
:There's no field for shields, that's why it's not showing up.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 18:50, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Is there a way to create a field sir?---SithSB

There is. Use <code>|othersystems=</code>.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  22:19, 17 November 2012 (EST)
:Ah, thanks Subtank, or whoever that was signing as Subs. :P--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 15:52, 19 November 2012 (EST)

==Redesign==
:It seems the design of the Charon-class frigates has been changed for [[Halo 4]]. Does anyone have an image of these said redesigns or did this never happen? [[User talk:Yoonhyuk-740|Yoonhyuk-740]] 19:54, 16 November 2012 (EST)
::Today i've added an image clearly showing it new design. You can see it on the gallery. [[User:Chief frank 001|<font color="LimeGreen">C</font>]][[User talk:Chief frank 001|<font color="RoyalBlue">F</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chief frank 001|<font color="Salmon">0</font>]]UoH/A Company|<font color="Gold">0</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Chief frank 001|<font color="GreenYellow">1</font>]]</sup> 23:00, 17 November 2012 (EST)
What this page really needs though is a side image of this ship type from Halo 4 to replace the Halo 3 one used at the top of the profile since it is a reton. The only place in the game you can see a clear shot of the type however appears to be in the final mission when flying in the open area. These models ma be a lower quality though as its hard to tell [[User talk:VARGR|VARGR]] 12:11, 29 November 2012 (EST)

:::I would suggest keeping the picture as it is. The redesign was unnecessary I'm hopeful that the Halo 4 version is all we ever see of it. If you work out the dimensions on just the aft half floating in space, it's close to the length of a cruiser! It's clearly MUCH larger than the Dawn should be. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 18:23, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

==Top picture==
Im thinking we should replace the halo 3 era picture on the top of the page with a halo 4 era picture. Anybody think the same?
[[User:Chief frank 001|<font color="LimeGreen">C</font>]][[User talk:Chief frank 001|<font color="RoyalBlue">F</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chief frank 001|<font color="Salmon">0</font>]]UoH/A Company|<font color="Gold">0</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Chief frank 001|<font color="GreenYellow">1</font>]]</sup> 21:49, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
:While it is a nice picture, it is however lightly rendered, meaning it probably wouldn't make a very good infobox image. That's my personal opinion. --[[User:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] ([[User talk:Xamikaze330|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Xamikaze330|contribs]]) 21:54, 11 March 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330
Well i find it very acceptable i tested it and it look great. [[User:Chief frank 001|<font color="LimeGreen">C</font>]][[User talk:Chief frank 001|<font color="RoyalBlue">F</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chief frank 001|<font color="Salmon">0</font>]]UoH/A Company|<font color="Gold">0</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Chief frank 001|<font color="GreenYellow">1</font>]]</sup> 22:38, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
:It's kinda light, though perhaps it could get put in the article body in the ''Halo 4'' section. Also, [[The Commissioning]] has confirmed that the "old" style frigate still exists in the post-war world. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 23:23, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
::That's true, but the old-style frigates in ''The Commissioning'' and ''Forward Unto Dawn'' are actually from the ''Paris'' class. Anyway, I think that the page image should be replaced by one from ''Halo 4'' as soon as the ''Castle Map Pack'' comes out. The ship on ''Daybreak'' may be rendered rather sparsely but it still represents the new canonical interpretation of the vessel. Hopefully we'll get a good look at a high-resolution ''Charon''-class frigate in the next season of ''Spartan Ops''. --[[User:Braidenvl|Courage never dies.]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|talk]]) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Don't be too quick to say the many frigates we see in Halo 4 are ''Charon''-class. They are visually different from the aft section of the ''Dawn'' in several details. I would suggest caution. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 19:06, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

::::Would you deem the differences drastic enough to identify them as their own distinct class? We have a page for a ''supposed'' [[UNSC frigate (Human-Promethean war)|post-Covenant War frigate class]] (they're never identified as frigates, but they look a lot like the redesigned ''Dawn''). This article could be used as a general hub page of sorts for 343's post-war frigate designs, even though there are a number of obvious visual differences between the ones seen in the ''Spartan Ops'' cinematics and in the campaign finale (provided the latter are frigates to begin with). What do you think? --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 13:40, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

:::Based on visual analysis alone, the ''Dawn'' is much larger than its Halo 3 variant if you just look at where the missiles come from and how big a play space that is. That alone would convince me the Spartan Ops frigates aren't the same as the ''Dawn''. The side 'wings' are different as well, plus the area where the missiles launch from (externally the environment of significance on the Halo 4 ''Dawn'' as far as gameplay goes) is not even present on the Spartan Ops frigates as they emerge from ''Infinity''. I'd suggest making the Spartan Ops frigate a separate class from the ''Charon''. The other image from Halo 4 looks to be a similar frigate to the Spartan Ops ones but like the others is a low-poly model. There's not much definition to those. My guess is they weren't meant to be seen close up.[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

== Shouldn't we change the images a bit? ==

Given that the UNSC Forward Unto Dawn has its entire profile redesigned, wouldn't this mean that even Bungie's version of the Charon-class has been retconned and that we should be changing the introductory images to 343i's version? I understand the rationale of the redesign: it was for gameplay, but nevertheless the entire ship class has been given a new makeover by 343i. — [[User:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">Ha</span>]][[User talk:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">came</span>]] 23:24, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

:Yes, the overall look has changed quite drastically, but for many, the Charon-class still looks as it did in Halo 3. We only have the aft section to go from as far as comparison goes. I'm quite willing to ignore the first level of Halo 4 as far as visuals go. Nothing else is affected. I see someone mistakenly put "Spartan Ops" as an appearance which is...optimistic I'm afraid... -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 09:33, 20 July 2013 (EDT)

::How is that so (''the Charon-class still looks as it did in Halo 3'')? Since FuD's appearance has changed in H4, wouldn't it be safe to assume that this change would apply retroactively to previous titles (i.e. H3 FuD has H4 FuD's design) unless there is a canon explanation for the sudden change in H4 (i.e. headcanon-trying-to-make-sense-however-ridiculous-it-is says that Cortana uses nanomachines to convert FuD's design). — [[User:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">Ha</span>]][[User talk:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">came</span>]] 02:33, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

::At the risk of sounding rude, what it still looks like "for many" is irrelevant and your willingness to ignore the visuals of an entire level counts for nothing. Halopedia goes with the canon, regardless of individual feelings towards it. If the appearance of something is retconned then we go with the changes. That said, there's no harm in including images of the original design in a appropriate areas (ie. the gallery and specific appearances). As far as I can tell, the only reason we haven't changed infobox images (which is what we're really talking about here) is that we don't have anything appropriate. We'd either have to change it to concept art, which is something usually avoided, or the damaged back half of the FUD, which again, not really appropriate.--[[User:Soul reaper|Soul reaper]] ([[User talk:Soul reaper|talk]]) 04:54, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

:::As far as I know, the ''Dawn'' is the only ''Charon''-class frigate in ''Halo 4'', so its redesign was more because of gameplay / resource constraints rather than for the sake of changing the canonical appearance. Similarly, the Scorpion didn't just get a turret in ''Halo: Anniversary'', it was only because of the re-use of the ''Reach'' model, while canonically the machine gun is still only manned by the pilot, and not by a passenger. In ''Halo 4'', I'm pretty sure that 343i used some aspects of the new frigate for the ''Dawn'' (which may explains why fans are confusing the new frigates for ''Charon''-class frigates). [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 08:16, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Reusing assets in a re-skinned game and creating new assets from scratch are entirely different. The new frigates were far less detailed as they were only ever distant. The Dawn on the other hand had a fully detailed redesign with concept art and merchandise to go with it. Regardless of the reason, the appearance has been changed and if we could, we'd update the main image to follow suit.--[[User:Soul reaper|Soul reaper]] ([[User talk:Soul reaper|talk]]) 09:49, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

:::It would be very interesting to stick the new ''Dawn'' into a hypothetical ''Halo 3: Anniversary'' and see how much we couldn't do anymore. No more Pelicans being dropped from beneath, no more Scorpions deployed to the Ark's surface, and most key to a cutscene, no Warthog jump into the back of one to rescue ourselves from a shattering Halo ring. I do fully understand your concerns, but so much of that ship does not even make internal sense within the context of Halo 4. If you pay attention to what levels things are on in the game, the decks don't make sense. Cortana indicates where you travel is greater than the actual trip. The dimensions of the ''Dawn'' are way off. The aft half of the ''Dawn'' is so large, the full ship would be pretty much cruiser length. How do you reconcile that to it's canonical length, width, and height? Look at the H4 Visual Guide page revealed on the ''Forward Unto Dawn'' entry: they still use the ship's Halo 3 dimensions, but it ''can't'' be right if you look at the dimensional ratios. The redesign introduces so many problems that they can't be reconciled with just being 'new'. So, in an effort to have things make sense, where do you draw the line. This is a case where if you take all canon info, it still doesn't add up. You'll have to pick and choose. - [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 10:42, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, hypothetical situations. Love doing these things in school. :3
::::I would think it is still possible to simulate those memorable scenes with a change in map geometry here and there (if not the geometry, the map texture will be updated, just like what was done to the natural walls in H1A... T&R comes to mind). The cinematic team would definitely have to make some risky changes to make sure it all fits in. It's doable, but fans (especially the hardcore story ones) would rage if they cannot/don't accept the changes (but history shows that this might change as an increasing number are warming up with H4's redesigns and 343i's efforts of expanding the franchise, ala ''"give 'em a chance"'' and/or ''"343i is [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod word of god]"'' comment).
::::As for the Dawn's appearance in H4, I would go with this: its new appearance is canon but its size (or scalability) in the campaign is exaggerated to accommodate gameplay (which has been done countless times in Halo). So, by eliminating the need to accommodate gameplay space, the real Dawn would be far smaller than its actual appearance, and certain events that transpired in H4's campaign with the Dawn would need to be reconsidered to make sure all makes sense. That being said, I am all in to change Charon's main picture to H4's redesign with H3 design moved to the gallery. It is important to stress that the Dawn's size is greatly exaggerated for gameplay space. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  11:59, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

:::::I'm pretty sure most of the Dawn's cutscene stuff would simply come down to changing the direction it's facing. In terms of changing the image though, what would we change it to? As far as I can tell [http://www.halopedia.org/images/9/9b/H4-Concept-Charon-Frigate.jpg this] is the most accurate image available but as it's concept art it may not be the best choice.--[[User:Soul reaper|Soul reaper]] ([[User talk:Soul reaper|talk]]) 12:12, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
:::::On a related note, I just found the site of one of the game's environmental artists (checked the credits to make sure he's legit). His portfolio has a bunch of Halo 4 stuff, including renders of the Dawn wreckage. [http://elicagler.wix.com/artportfolio#!portfolio check it out]--[[User:Soul reaper|Soul reaper]] ([[User talk:Soul reaper|talk]]) 12:22, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

:::I vote for keeping the image as-is. I'm (irrationally?) hopeful that if we see the ''Dawn'' in the future (post Halo 4) it will look as it did in Halo 3. As for changing the image, if you wish to use a Halo 4 reference, it will have to be the wrecked ''Dawn''....they never made an intact version of it... (Note that even in the Halo 4 Visual Guide preview they only show the wrecked portion.) - [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

If I remember correctly, in the ''Art of Halo 4'', Sparth mentioned that the original design of the ''Forward Unto Dawn'' wasn't really good because it looked like a bunch of boxes stuck together. While the concept art and the "wrecked" ''Dawn'' do have a new design, 343 didn't go as far as modeling a new and complete ''Forward Unto Dawn''. Of course they didn't need it, but if they had done it, it would have been somehow problematic. My main problem, it's the changed hangar, which would simply contradict what the ship did in ''Halo 3'' and how it was used. The concept art are what they are, just concept art, while the wrecked ''Dawn'' in ''Halo 4'' is mostly shown from certain angles to avoid showing the differences. Therefore, 343 probably redesigned the ''Dawn'' only so it could fit their need for a new and "classy" design, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the class itself changed. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

: That quote from the ''Art of Halo 4'' irks me something awful. That statement is a slap in the face to the many years of UNSC frigate design aesthetic. Don't you think that Bungie had figured out what a UNSC frigate design looked like between 2004 and 2010 with 3 iterations across two gaming platforms? His statement that it needed to be redesigned because it looked like boxes stuck together was condescending to those other concept and 3D artists. Now the new frigates designed in Spartan Ops...I'm all for that look because it incorporates Forerunner aesthetic to it, just like the ''Infinity'', but leave the ''Dawn'' out of it. It was an already established ship. How does it go from having 4 engines to only 3? How does the cryo deck change location from one game to the next? How does the fact that the hull label ''Forward Unto Dawn'' end up on the aft half in Halo 4 when in Halo 3 it was only on the forward half that made it back to Earth? They should have at most enhanced the ''Dawn'', not redesigned it. - [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 17:50, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

::We are forced to go with the easiest explanation: <u>visual retcon</u> by the art direction of Halo 4 (as provided by Art of Halo 4's description of the concept arts of FuD). It happened and there is no in-universe explanation for it whatsoever, thus we would have to resort to the only explanation, which is an out-universe explanation that provides that the FuD's design has been retconned in Halo 4 due to a change in art direction and that this design has always been the design for all Charon-class (even in Halo 3). I admit, that last part does not make any sense and a note providing an explanation of this would be necessary to reduce confusion for the readers and editors. Concept arts can be considered as actual content and not simply concept for a content: for example, while [[Thom-293|Thom]]'s face has never been shown in-game, the concept art of his face is considered as an actual content in the Halo universe, unless said otherwise by official parties of the franchise.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  13:38, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

:My preference will be to go with the Halo 4 Visual Guide's claim that the dimensions are the same as Halo 3 (which is a newer source than the Halo 4 game) and since the Halo 4 visual cannot possibly match the length/width/height ratio of the Halo 3 version or official late and great values, the Halo 3 version MUST be the correct one. :) That made me feel better figuring that out. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 14:23, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'd say it was a retcon only for the sake of the first level, it would be too extreme to retcon the whole class and every ''Charon''-class frigates that ever existed. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

:::As provided under this article's [[Charon-class_light_frigate#Halo_4_redesign|Redesign note]] and as I said before, the new redesign of the Dawn would be considered new canon but its appearance in the game is not entirely accurate as it is exaggerated to accommodate gameplay, similar to the treatment made to Halo 1's Maw campaign level. And since Halo 4 Visual Guide is a newer source than the game itself, I guess this is the best compromise to deal with this image issue. While we don't have an intact Charon-class model from Halo 4, the concept art which it was modelled from would be the appropriate image for the infobox, with all Halo 3-era images moved to the gallery with notes highlighting the design changes. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  14:54, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

::If there's a new redesign and it's intended, then why keep the inaccurate dimensions from the Halo 3 model in a newer source? It could be that 343i realized too late that it was a bad design move and they're showing in the new guide that the old dimensions are still the way to go. Since the old dimensions only apply to the Halo 3 version, maybe that's intended. One can only hope that if we see the ship again it will be the Halo 3 look. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

:::[[:File:Infinity_fud_scale.jpg|This image]], released prior to the game, explicitly shows that the original 490m length was always intended to remain canon. It's not something 343 Industries changed their minds on in the new ''Visual Guide'' because they "made a mistake".  Like Subtank has already said, the ship was only upscaled for the sake of gameplay, (just like the ''Autumn'' in ''The Maw''), whereas the new look is a retcon. Frankly, I much prefer the redesign anyway; it certainly beats the UNSC having three all-but-identical frigate classes. I think the ''Paris'' class pulls off the old look the best, and it seems that [[The Commissioning|343i agree]] [[:File:FUD-Infinity-Fleet.jpg|with this sentiment]].--[[User:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">'''''Our vengeance is at hand.'''''</span>]] [[File:Gravemind.svg|14px]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">Talk to me.</span>]]) 22:34, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

Interesting you use that particular image as it doesn't actually show an intact ''Dawn'' as it portends, but rather the Spartan Ops frigates which are not ''Charon''-class. I can't go into much now on the Halo 4 Visual Guide until September, unfortunately. The ''Dawn'' is not just upscaled, its canonical dimensional ratios (in the Halo 4 Visual Guide) cannot be reconciled with what we see on screen (compare length to height or length to width). It's not just the overall length, but the length to height ratio. 343i is aware of this discrepancy...I discussed it at great length with them. For this article, change the pic to what you wish. I don't think all ''Charon''-class (like Aegis Fate) look like the beginning of Halo 4...I think the ''Dawn'''s a one-off at best. This will be all I say on this for now. The discussion isn't really making progress. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

:Forgive me for asking on a wholly different topic but why do you keep saying that the frigates in Spartan Ops are not Charon-class? Also, either bad at math, saw the glued-box design as a stain on the art community or for whatever reason, it is apparent that the art director (that is Sparth?) was not aware the consequences of changing the UNSC Forward unto Dawn's design. — [[User:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">Ha</span>]][[User talk:Hacame|<span style="color:#6699FF; font-family:Futura; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold;">came</span>]] 00:38, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

::Wow, this is even longer than when I first brought up the [[Forum:Halo 4 discussion/Archive#Forward Unto Wrong|same issue]]. I'm gonna throw in my two cents to provide some insight into this matter. I fully agree with ScaleMaster117 and Imrane-117 that this "change" that 343i pulled off is unacceptable. However, I hate to say it, I'm gonna say Subtank is correct that we should change the image to its most recent interpretation. However, there is no real good image of the "new" Charon-class ship. Of course there will probably be one in [[Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide|this book]] when it comes out. Now for the opinions > [[Forum:The retcons made by 343i|Go here]].--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Killamint</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 10:35, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

:::[[Forum:The retcons made by 343i|Refer to my first comment here]]... --'''''[[User:Xamikaze330|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Halo;">Xamikaze330</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Xamikaze330|<font color="Blue">Transmission</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Xamikaze330|<font color="Green">Commencing</font>]]''''']</small> 11:43, 24 July 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

::You'll see in Spetember why the Spartan Ops frigates are not Charon-class. Can't tell you what they are before then, unfortunately...NDA. The ''Dawn'''s 2-pages in the new Visual Guide have been released to the public already. That's all you'll get. Keep in mind that in the printed book you'll also have a page crease for the spine. There's no better. (There's also no intact version.) Still hopeful this change is the ''Dawn'' only and not the Charon-class at large. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

:::Until such time then, we should now currently accept it as such until we have confirmation. But, for some odd reason, I disagree with the changing of the images. At least not yet. --'''''[[User:Xamikaze330|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Halo;">Xamikaze330</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Xamikaze330|<font color="Blue">Transmission</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Xamikaze330|<font color="Green">Commencing</font>]]''''']</small> 12:14, 24 July 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

::::My main concern is that [[:File:H4-Concept-Charon-Frigate.jpg|this concept art]] was only created for the sake of being broken in two (refer to the art book, p.122): it basically depicts the "not-canon" version of the ship as it appears in-game, but with the front part still intact. It was drawn with the idea that only the aft section would eventually be used. If we had a screenshot of the new design which clearly shows the new design, I would have to admit that we should use this new screenshot, but I'm reluctant to use such a concept art. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 12:43, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

:::::The concept art was also used to produce [http://www.megabloks.com/shop/construction-toys/halo/forward-unto-dawn/ this exclusive merchandise] with additional features such as the ability to "relive Halo moments" (which is essentially the first level of Halo 4). I am not proposing that we use the image of the merchandise as the image in the infobox, merely pointing out the fact that a merchandise was created based on the concept art, albeit with less detail. That being said, the concept art is the actual realisation of the Dawn and not only merely a conceptual art for developmental purposes. In other words, if there was ever an opportunity to show an intact Dawn in Halo 4, they could have shown it in the game. However, they chose not to and continued with the new developmental direction (be it gameplay, art, etc). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  13:29, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

::::::As I said I agree that they would usually tend to this design and it could have been realisable for ''Halo 4'', but Mega Bloks itself allows some artistic freedom, which is why the concept art could be used (I don't see why they would have chosen a ''Halo 3'' version to promote ''Halo 4'', of course it needed to be in line with the new design). But as Loftus mentioned it, I'm confident that from a "Halo 3 remake" perspective, their only possibility would be to enhance the original design. Don't forget that the ''Dawn'' and ''Charon''-class frigates in general have little to do with ''Halo 4''. The new design is "acceptable" and can be used without any particular constraint for the wreckage or other minor appearances such as the Mega Bloks kit or the image comparing ''Infinity'' to the ''Dawn''. The problem is that if taken into account from an in-universe perspective, it nullifies everything these frigates did in the past, how they were used and why they were originally created. Their role itself is gone and we just end up with a frigate with some Forerunner-ish aesthetic which sure looks cool and all new, but doesn't fit that much in the Haloverse. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

:::::::My comment was an attempt to convey that the concept art was not used solely for the purposes of getting the aft section of the ship in the game: the redesigned Dawn is the intended retcon 343i had in mind when they were developing ''Halo 4'', just as how they intended to change the John's armour (though that was handwaved with nanomachines conveniently stored somewhere aboard the ship).
:::::::Hypothetical situations such as a "Halo 3 remake" are based on opinions and loose facts and, reasonable as they may be, the question of whether it could work in such scenario is different for each individual. As you can observe in previous comments, there is a conflict when asked about the viability and reasonableness of changing cinematic in a hypothetical "Halo 3 remake". Unless there is an actual "Halo 3 remake", these comments would remain solely based on opinions and loose facts. The issue in hand must shift from a hypothetical scenario to something that is already in existence to ensure the discussion progresses positively. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  14:37, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

When I talked about ''Halo 3'', that was from a practical viewpoint. If we say the new design overrides all ''Charon''-class frigates that ever existed, as it was mentioned earlier here, then the ''Dawn'''s actions during the war are rendered impossible. Whether we talk about a remake or ''Halo 3'' itself, so this isn't really a loose fact. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 14:46, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

:Please refer to my "343i is word of god" comment above about the practicality of "Halo 3 remake". The ''Dawn''<nowiki />'s actions in the game itself is limited to only three appearances in Halo 3 as pointed out by Scalemaster. As per above comments, we have two groups with conflicting opinions on this: the first group (i.e. Imrane, Scalemaster) introduces the hypothetical scenario and considers all of the three appearances cannot be rectified, something the second group (Subtank, Soul reaper) disagrees since these appearances and new redesign can be reconciled by the cinematic team, albeit a risky decision if executed. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  14:47, 28 July 2013 (EDT)

::I'd support replacing the image if the new design was to make a canonical appearance somewhere (and I strongly consider it ''could'' happen, say in some books or in a War Games map). Thus far, we have a concept art and its design which was used by Mega Bloks (However, Mega Bloks have little concern about whether something's appearance fit or not in already established fiction); and eventually there's the ''Dawn'' wreckage which I think is dubiously representative of the canon. I'm only waiting to see how 343i could include this new design as a whole in the fiction. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 15:07, 28 July 2013 (EDT)

== In light of the H4:EVG ==
So, with respect to the above discussion, what would be done to the presentation of this article, or more specifically the introductory image? The H4EVG unveiled to the community that the new frigates are not that of Charon-class but of the newly Strident-class. However, despite this unveil, it remains to be an issue as this does not provide an in-universe/canon explanation for the radical change of design on the Forward unto Dawn, a Charon-class frigate that first appeared in H3. One could only assume Cortana's use of nanomachines must've affected the nanomachines to the extent that these machines themselves went rampant and changed the Dawn's structure.

With such lack of an in-universe explanation, I guess we are forced to go with an out-universe explanation. By simple deduction:
#The Forward unto Dawn's design has been radically altered in Halo 4;
#The Forward unto Dawn is a Charon-class;
#Thus, the Charon-class' design has been radically altered in Halo 4.

As other pointed out in the above discussion, this does not sync well with the hypothetical ''Halo 3: Anniversary''. However, consider a counter-hypothetical in which 343i initiates a ''Halo 2: Anniversary'' but doing so by changing the city layout of Mombasa to fit with the city layout presented in ''Halo 3: ODST''. Radical retcons are bound to happen, portion of the community will raise their pitchforks for this heresy, others will defend 343i's decision, and at the end, we are forced to accept retcons as they are presented. That being said, I guess we have sufficient grounds to change the image of the Dawn to its recent appearance. While there are no known intact 3D models of the Dawn in the game, I suggest using [[:File:H4-Concept-Charon-Frigate.jpg|this concept image]] as an introductory image as it shows the Dawn's full profile prior to being halved.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  20:08, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

:I know I've done my share of bitching over the redesigned ''Dawn'' here and on HBO. In my view, the ''Dawn''s outward appearance is seen only briefly in Halo 4 compared to extensively in Halo 3. My preference is the ''Dawn'' really looks like Halo 3's ''Charon''-class since the Halo 4 version is so freaking big it wouldn't be considered a frigate, being about the size of a cruiser (and that's just the damaged aft half). There's no easy way to deal with it. I'm just so hoping that if we see a future intact ''Charon''-class (in whatever media) that we'll once again see the ''Halo 3'' version. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

:I'd rather keep using the original. It's clear that things are going to keep changing, for better or worse <small>(but you know it's mostly worse)</small> and I think our past policy of always rushing to replace "old" designs with "new" ones has begun to wear out. I don't know what 343's stance is, but instead of enforcing a strict new-overrides-old policy, I'd rather see Bungie's Halo and 343i's Halo as though they're two different lenses through which the same universe is viewed. The original ''Essential Visual Guide'' still acknowledges Bungie's design and no matter how much we pretend it never existed it will always be there in ''Halo 3'' (''still'' a game, ie. supreme source of canon), in its un-halved, intact form. We can't, as of the present, get screenshots of the ''Dawn'' firing on the Forerunner Dreadnought or dropping off forces on the Ark with the ''Halo 4'' model. And the only "intact" version we have of the new design is a piece of concept art, which has never been regarded as primary canon, certainly not superior to in-game assets. I'm not saying it's not a tricky and complex issue. It's never easy when we can't make up justifications like "those Jackals are just a different subspecies". But for the reason that these thing are going to keep coming, there are other ways around it than an outright, uncompromising retcon. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 23:55, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

:(A bit late to the party but) I would agree with ScaleMaster and Jugus, that the Bungie design remains canonical ad that the depiction of the FUD as the Strident-class is for aesthetic purposed. Like depicting the Pillar of Autumn with the Marathon-class cruiser model in Halo 2, if you like. Or like using the Reach Banshees and Wraiths in Anniversary. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 03:20, 14 October 2013 (EDT)

::Just for fun, I tried my hand at depicting just how ridiculous the "new" ''Dawn'' is compared with the ''Halo 3'' version. I'm linking two images I made that show how improbably the Hyperion missile would've fit the ''Halo 3'' version ''Charon''-class and how oversized (despite the 'official' numbers) the ''Halo 4'' ''Dawn'' is. Just reflect on how ludicrously huge they portrayed the ''Halo 4'' ''Dawn'' for the sake of gameplay. (If they'd made the missile smaller and use the engine area of the ''Halo 3'' Dawn as the play space, the ship would still have worked out for them and there would have been no reason for a dramatic redesign.) -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:17, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

:::[http://msfm.seryan.com/specialpics/FUD_H3-Hyperion_H4-scaled.jpg Halo 3 Dawn section compared to Hyperion missile]

:::[http://msfm.seryan.com/specialpics/FUD_H3-Hyperion_H4-scaled2.jpg Halo 3 Dawn section compared to the Halo 4 Dawn section]

It seems like the playable area of the Halo 4 Dawn doesn't look that much larger than the canon Dawn too. And the missile is even more oversized when you consider that it's supposed to be nuclear and yet a smaller HAVOK nuke has a far bigger blast. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 23:08, 15 October 2013 (EDT)

Interesting...

I also have the H4:EVG, and while its true that the redesign was unnecessary and ultimately problematic, I think that it is somewhat of a mistake to completely dismiss the redesign, as absurd as it is.

As shown in the guide itself, the design of the FoD is still what 343 intended it to be, and the Strident-Class Frigates are modeled after it.

When I saw the newer Frigate class, my conclusion was that the Strident-Class is a heavy Frigate design based on the established Charon-Class design. Going further with that reasoning, perhaps the main differences between the two ship designs aside from armament and equipment, such as energy shielding, is size.

'''Charon-Class Light Frigate'''

Length: 1,607ft (490m)

Beam: 510ft (156m)

Height: 457ft (139m)

'''Strident-Class Heavy Frigate'''

Length: 1,887ft (575m)

Beam: 407ft (124m)

Height: 368ft (112m)

From some quick calculations I have made, the Strident-Class is 85 meters longer, 32 meters thinner, and 27 meters shorter, than the Charon-Class.

When I see this information, I believe that it is at least somewhat plausible, in my opinion, that the Strident-Class is simply an improved version of the older Charon-Class, given that it is a longer and leaner vessel, with a reduced beam and height.

This could be a design change to make it more easily deployed from the Infinity-Class line of ships, and make it a slightly less prominent target.

The Stridents have a heavier MAC than the Charons did, though they share the same point-defense and nuclear delivery system. Their Archer delivery systems, on the other hand, are different, since their designations aren't the same.

As for how this impacts the article, I agree that for now, the current image should remain, since 343 has not provided a proper asset to show an intact Charon-Class Frigate.

On a side note, for all of the rehashed designs and unnecessary revisions, one thing seems to at least be the same; the appearance of the Paris-Class Heavy Frigate.

From what was shown in Halo 4: Forward Unto to Dawn and even the map Wreckage, I have noticed that the Paris-Class has remained largely untouched. Just from the images on this site alone, if one inspects the structure of the fallen Frigate on that map, it becomes clear that core design is the same as it was when Bungie made it, though many details are missing on the in-game model.

From this, I wonder, aside from the obvious decision to allow some over-eager artists to change things for the sake of it, if there is more to the Charon-Class redesign and its successor class.

If one looks at the Frigate designs from Halo 2 to Halo: Reach, there has been very little diversity shown between classes, with the Halo 3 Frigate model retconning its predecessor, if one looks at the IaC seen in Halo 3: ODST. The only real exception is the Paris-Class, whose design has remained intact during the transition from Bungie to 343.

Perhaps a secondary purpose, even if incidental, is that perhaps the redesign also serves as a means to show a clear distinction between individual frigate designs, rather than them all looking the same.

As it now stands, it appears that each extant frigate design is very distinct from one another, with the Paris being starkly different from Strident, which is in turn distinguished from the as-yet unnamed, smooth-hulled class seen in the Didact's assault on Earth.

Given that the UNSC fleet mothballed so many old designs in favor of newer ones, perhaps the Strident is the successor to the Paris, Charon, and Stalwart classes, and the smaller, smooth-hulled design is an accompaniment to the Stridents.

Just some tidbits for thought.

--[[User:Exalted Obliteration|Exalted Obliteration]] ([[User talk:Exalted Obliteration|talk]]) 00:01, 16 October 2013 (EDT)

== Crew Capacity ==

This bothered me. I do clearly see the display in Forward Unto Dawn totaling crew capacity at 782, but that is a pathetically miniscule number for a vessel of this size, even if it is a frigate. Not including the engines, bridge pod, hangars, and lower section/cargo bay bit, a Charon-class still has "livable area" roughly equivalent to a modern aircraft carrier, which house up to 5000 people. Not to mention that with the retcons in Halo 4 and Forward Unto Dawn, the Dawn is way bigger than it was originally. 

Admittedly, the corridors on a UNSC ship are huge, and if the first few pages of Halo: The Flood are taken into account, each crew member gets his or her own small cabin, as opposed to a modern naval ship, where corridors can barely fit two people and the crew live in large "berths" cramped with bunks stacked three-high. 

So I can understand 782 being the capacity, but in light of the other things that display says (a running count of how long they've been without UNSC contact, the ship's structural status, and the number of survivors on board), I would assume that this terminal is displaying *current* status, as in "With only half the ship here, we can fit about 782." Anyone else think that should be mentioned as a possibility? [[User:Swordser|Swordser]] ([[User talk:Swordser|talk]]) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

:For one thing, we don't know the extent to which things are automated - for a starship like the Forward Unto Dawn, which doesn't (seem) to pack much room for fighters, in a navy where AIs exist for coordinated weapons targeting, I imagine you could cut back on a large weapons crew. We also know that maintenance drones exist, automating quite a few processes for ship repair and maintenance. You also need to take into account that some of the personnel space inside will be taken up by pilots and Marines - I don't know if they're generally counted as part of the "crew" though, someone with more knowledge will have to answer that. And, of course, significant internal space would be dedicated to housing missile stores and the MAC coilgun superstructure. 782 seems like a skeleton crew for a modern ship, but for a future spacecraft I don't know if you can call it unreasonable. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 01:28, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

::I've been working off an on with 343i on just this issue. Using a combination of actual military crew rosters as well as borrowing some from other sci-fi, notably Star Trek, I've worked out all the positions and crew to account for the 782 listed in Halo 4. I'll present my research to 343i and see what they think. Personally, I think that count is too high for a frigate. That's also assuming that 782 is indeed the crew required to run the ship and not embarked personnel like Marines/ODSTs. Thus the count would really be higher.

::The ''Charon''-class (ignoring the way outsized Halo 4 abomination) has a maximum of 21 decks minus 3 that are essentially the lower hangar and the two skids on the bottom which I won't count, so that's 17 useful decks crew can work in. The top 6 decks are very narrow so not many crew would be in those either. That makes only 11 decks that have any real spacious component to them. That's not a lot for the bulk of the crew. (I've also off and on been trying to make a full plan layout of the entire ship with known locations drawn in and making educated guesses as to the remainder, and this would help define how many crew can really fit.)

:: At any rate, it must be recognized that in Halo, the ship ceilings are higher than most other sci-fi or real world and spaces between decks are spacious (look at the ''Dawn'''s cut in half deck structure to see the relative spacing). I'm also assuming 782 is essentially cut in 3 making it 3 normal shifts per day (8 hours on duty, 8 hours off duty, and 8 hour sleep cycle) so the ship can be run on less than that count on normal routine. I think 782 is on the high side for a ship the Dawn's size but I think it can be justified. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

:::782 sounds ''very'' high for a warship which is typically obliterated by the dozens in fleet engagements, even if they have rotating shifts. You'd think most of the functions traditionally assigned to the squishy human crew would be given to drones — when there's less than a dozen people actually piloting the ship (less if they use an AI), what are the rest doing most of the time? Being blown up by curiously volatile pipes or wall panels? I hope we'll see your dissemination of the crew's roles some day. Out of curiosity, did you put any thought into how many or what sorts of maintenance robots a frigate (or other UNSC ships) would be using? You'd think AI-driven or remote-controlled drones would come in handy in situations involving EVA or ruptured reactors/other hazardous materials. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 01:39, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

::::All very good points. Automated drones and how much the standard smart AI would handle hadn't occurred to me. As for 782 seeming high, though, I took "crew capacity" to be "maximum crew this ship can house" not "minimum crew required for operation". Regardless, I believe that in Halo, since most if not all ships, but a Charon class especially, are expected to be carrying a complement of ground troops, the crew capacity would include said ground troops. I'm also very interested in hearing this crew breakdown, though -- and I'm glad other people think about small things like this as much as I do, or even more. One reason I like wikis. [[User:Swordser|Swordser]] ([[User talk:Swordser|talk]]) 03:24, 31 August 2014 (EDT)
== How many Archers does the ''Charon''-class have? ==
This question has bugged me for a while, how many Archer missiles does the ''Charon''-class light frigate have? - EpicZealot1239

:It's simple math. 50 missile pods, of 30 missiles per pod, equals 150 Archer missiles. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 08:44, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
::That's only true if you assume the pods are always the same size. If the size of an Archer missile is standard (an assumption in itself) and the ''Charon'' is way smaller than the ''Halcyon''-class to which you're making the comparison, there may be a smaller pod type that holds less. All that can be said for sure is there are 50 hatches for missiles on the ''Charon''-class in its ''Halo 3'' iteration. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 13:09, 4 September 2015 (EDT)