Talk:Covenant/Archive 2

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Covenant Millitary

Before the subjects here were removed, i just wanna point out that whoever put that the statement on Covenant Millitary about the covenant ground forces being less capable than human ground forces is so right it doesn't do the Covenant justice. Even Grunts obliterate UNSC Marines with ease so going up against brutes, elites or hunters the marines have no chance. Whoever put down "It may be noted that despite that their technology is far more superior to the humans and their numbers are much larger as well, the covenant as ground warriors are much less capable and are often defeated and are often forced to retreat to glass the planet from space" needs severe medical attention because I think that it A) Downgrades the covenant severly B) Is so not true.—This unsigned comment was made by 62.30.140.42 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

If the sentence degrades the article quality and stays untrue to canon, remove it. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's all right it's been removed anyway, cheers though.—This unsigned comment was made by 62.30.140.42 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

It's "so right", is it? Wonderful. People always see the light in the end. Please go away and read page 7 of Halo: The Fall of Reach, where Human forces "stonewall" Covenant forces on the ground at the Battle of Jericho VII, and page 8, where it reads, "On the ground, Spartans always won." Not to mention Human forces routinely tearing through Covenant ground forces in all of the games, Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST included. It's in space where the Covenant has the advantage.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
The UNSC are brilliant tacticians compared to the Covenant, who don't seem to have any plans, just going after anything. When it gets towards the end of the battle however, the UNSC chain of command will disintegrate and troops will become vulnerable. The 101st Drop Jet Platoon was destroyed by thousands of Unggoy. It doesn't mean that they are simply poor fighters, but that 45 men can't handle a thousand doses of burning plasma.-- Forerunner 19:57, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding human forces winning in the games; that is debatable. It all depends on gameplay and difficulty settings; higher difficulties will see that human forces will be easily eliminated by the opposing forces. The best illustration of a ground battle between the UNSC and the Covenant would be in Halo Legends; Homecoming, The Prototype, and The Babysitter.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

What was that about UNSC being brilliant tacticians as if the Covenant weren't !? I think you will find that if you read the article about Drones, at some point it will talk about a covenant tactic that can be used to wipe out a squad of UNSC Marines (which in the drones' case is to divert Marine fire upwards using the drones as a distraction whilst the infantry eliminate the marines or something like that). So the Covenant are good at ground combat as well as space it's just that there's much more of a difference in ability when it comes to UNSC-Covenant space combat as the covenant tend to be much more skilled at space combat than the UNSC, but even on ground when going against Marines or ODST the Covenant are still better than the UNSC it's only when the spartans help them, Marines' morale is boosted and that's probably why the UNSC wrongly get all the credit when going against the Covenant on ground-battles.

To debate against that you'll need to read this first "Yanme'e are deployed in battle situations, such as aerial insertions, among the Covenant, and, during the Great Schism, the Covenant Loyalists. They are used for surprise aerial ambushes and assaults, such as catching Human troops off guard and causing them to shoot upwards as a diversion so that their allies may attack on the ground. This is a common Covenant tactic that can be used to wipe out a whole squad of UNSC Marines."

This means the covenant millitary personell are excellent strategists and tacticians, they do have a mind you know they may have their flaws yeah which are exploited by the spartans but so do the UNSC and the covenant have slaughtered loads of spartans by 2552 a Jiralhanae killed one with his brute shot during Operation: First Strike which although wasn't on a planet it was still infantry combat (close-range).

That's right 90, and another strategy the covenant use involving the grunts is to use the latter to soften up the UNSC Soldiers the covenant are fighting and force the UNSC troops to waste ammo on the grunts and have the brute/elite leader finish them off. Often works as long as the chief isn't around.

Since apparently none of my comments made it over from the switch (THANKS) I'm going to say this very clearly. READ THE BOOKS. In ground combat, and this is stated very clearly in The Flood, several other books, and even in many incidents in-game (don't be stupid by assuming things based on Legendary play, which ARE HARDER FOR A REASON) that the UNSC is SUPERIOR in ground combat. They are physically weaker true, but are devestatingly accurate and far-superior in tactics, especially in MOUT. Even in close quarters Direct Action combat, a fire team of three ODSTs in the Bluff battle wiped out six Elite Special Operations troops and several grunts. The humans are better on the ground, period. Get over it. They win in space. --HellJump04 11:02, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Oh, and in Halo Wars? Yeah, UNSC infantry are vastly superior to Covenant Forces. Doesn't take a genius to see that one either. And, I have to add, UNSC ground troops have a tendency to WIN even when vastly outnumbered by enemies equipped with vastly superior weapons and technology. That says something about the warrior. Also try ODST. Those guys aren't augmented, they're simply highly trained. What the hell do I know about war though? I only served as a sniper with First Ranger battalion and several other Air Force and Army Special Operations units. That's what drew me to Halo as a series. It proves that the MAN makes the warrior, not the weapons and not the tech.--HellJump04 11:09, 23 October 2010 (EDT)


Covenant/UNSC ground combat debate:

I am gonna get straight, to the point. When I came up the examples of the Covies kicking stupid human ass on ground in Halo 2, that wasnt on Heroic or Legendary it was on NORMAL!!! 2 brutes basically took on a large group of freed marines and WON!!! So, for you to say that the UNSC frequently engage and destroy the Covenant in games and books is not right. I could have sworn in the archived talk page of the covenant empire there was a guy who also stated that the statement about UNSC being more skilled than Covenant at ground combat was wrong.

As he rightly pointed out, the books make it absolutely clear to the reader how ridiculously ineffective the Marines are against Covie ground forces. Battle of Sigma Octanus, the marines were doing an absolutely fine job repelling the covenant forces "translation" they were doing so badly that they had to call upon the Spartans to blow it up causing heavy civilian casualties in the process. Battle of Earth, humans couldnt defend it to save their lives, had to rely on the Chief to do all the work. Battle of Installation 00, Chief and the Sangheili did most of the work for the UNSC. Its only because of their use of tactical nukes and ridiculously overpowered and superhuman cyborgs known as spartans the UNSC manage to win a lot of the time on ground. Now since when was that, tactical skill...

Face it HellJump04, its the UNSC who suck at ground combat against the Covenant, yes Elites may have a high death rate but that's only because their shields are poor and their in-game health is so low the Elites are far more superior in skill than the humans far more manouverable, tactical. All the humans have to do is stand around and fire a few bullets and "aoouugharh" one dead Sangheili, they always have to gang up on one to kill one anyway. Also, the idea that the UNSC are the true warriors when it comes to being the MAN who make the warrior not the tech is also untrue "cough" spartans "cough".

What about, Battle of Reach (or should I say Fall of Reach), the Covenant before glassing absolutely RAPED the Marines (and MOST of the Spartans present for that matter). The fact that even on normal the Covenant manage to prevail against the Marines (and sometimes the ODSTs even who are more skilled than the "green man" marines), considering Heroic is meant to be the most realistic difficult is something to reckoned with. Any counter-arguments or disagreements you have feel free to post 'em.


Signed: CookieMonstersayshello


Firstly, don't repost from old archives. It takes up space, and adds nothing to the debate that hasn't been said. Just linking to the discussion is fine. Secondly, you're seeing the UNSC under pretty exceptional conditions - Sigma Octanus? Completely taken by surprise. We see that the Covenant are still mopping up when the Marines arrive in their Warthog, and have to bring Hunters in to finish the job - the occupants of the Firebase obviously put up a fight. Also, those "civilian casualties"? Entirely inflicted by the Covenant. The city had already been slaughtered by rabid Jackals and Grunts, and the Spartans saved a small number of people with the nuke. Reach? A fleet of three hundred warships and many millions of Covenant soldiers. Obviously regular Marines/Troopers aren't going to be able to go toe-to-toe with Elites or Brutes, who constitute a core warrior/officer shock troop class, but the entire point of them is that they are rare. Reach was the first time they were deployed in numbers that tipped the balance of the ground campaign so far away from humanity. Before that, the majority of Covenant troops were poorly armoured and trained Grunts, and lightly armoured/armed Jackals, against whom Marines and Jackals have a much better chance. Even then, Reach only fell with the Covenant taking heavy casualties - the defence of the planet by humanity practically wiped out an entire military sub-caste. Earth? Once again, an exceptionally large fleet and the problems of evacuating a planet full of billions of people. Notice that by the time Halo 3 starts, what started out as a fleet of hundreds has been reduced to about thirty - and you insist humanity isn't effective? These battles are known in-universe as the exceptions to the rule, not the standard to measure against.
You're also making the logical fallacy that Heroic is a "realistic" mode. This is a game that features superheated plasma whizzing about on spaceships on ringworlds. Claiming that any gameplay is "realistic" is absurd. No Bungie or 343 source has ever said that it is meant to represent how it would happen "in real life" - they just say it's "how it's meant to be played", ie; from a gameplay point of view. This is a product designed to entertain gamers, not a military simulator. It is representative at best, at worst merely a designer choice for gameplay balance and challenge. If the Marines in-game were a match for the Covenant, it would be a pretty easy game. In the universe, UNSC ground forces have the advantage in tactics and strategy, communication, and environmental familiarity. The Covenant use brute force and mass numbers.
Finally, I'd like to direct you to a few inconvenient facts concerning the Spartans. Firstly, the biggest effect they had was to UNSC morale - in World War Two, America published comics about Superman kicking the collective asses of Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler. Now imagine that Superman actually exists and that there are thirty five of them. They were a propaganda coup. Secondly, the Spartans are deployed in limited circumstances, usually as last-resort forces or as special operations forces for missions that could never be accomplished by "normal" humans - out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-flanked, and still win. Thirdly, with the exception of the suicide S-III Companies, there were never more than two dozen S-IIs. Spartans could never hope to win the war on their own, because they were spread far too thinly to have that huge a difference. But they were extremely valuable for motivating Marines and Troopers, and for precision strikes. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 06:35, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Covenant have just mass numbers and brute force..? Maybe for the Brutes yes, but what about the Elites I could have sworn it said several times enough for us Halopedians to get it through our heads, they are masterfully skilled tacticians or excellent tacticians renowned for their ferocity and decisive thinking. What about those covenants, and of course everyone uses strategy even if it invloves overwhelming force (take the flood for example). Or is Halopedia trying to create a social hierarchy in which:

Humans are at the top Elites second Brutes third

Cause I think that is wrong but then again im not Bungie so I couldnt possibly comment really.. but I do know that the Covenant are at least equals with the UNSC at ground combat if not better. The Spartans make the difference in every scenario, and it was probably the "spartan" humans who wiped out the skirmishers in the first place. That being said, the humans do do quite well in Alpha Base where they use the Elites honour code to their advantage. I think that side of the UNSC ground tactics is good, but seriously if only that could happen more often, save Earth a lot of trouble....

Having said all that this is only my opinion and is easily up for debate....

Signed: CookieMonstersayshello

I'm sorry, are you calling me racist?
Compared to other Covenant members, like the Grunts or Brutes, the Elites are superior tacticians and strategists. And they're not bad at it. But they still rely and brute force and numbers, even if they apply it in a much more intelligent manner. I'm not trying to create any sort of social hierarchy, because a society's military performance is not a reflection on the society's values or robustness. This is simply the mindset of the Elites, compared to that of humans - an emphasis on smaller, more effective teams cooperating, better communication between units, and different branches supporting each other. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 15:41, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Not so far that you are racist no. But there does seem to be some sort of social hierarchy made with humans at the top, Elites second and all other races at the bottom. As if the UNSC are supposed to be these "tactical role-models" and the Sangheili just look up to them (stupidly) and even consider their own tactics "dishonourable"... Thats what I mean, my point is how come covenant ground tactics always get slated on in the stories and other sources despite the fact that its blatantly obvious how "masterfully skilled tacticians" the elites are or how halopedia portrays them to be.. thats what im getting at. Halopedia implies even the elites suck at ground combat against the humans (and ground combat is pretty much the elites' life anyway so that cant be right)...

Signed: CookieMonstersayshello

I think that's just you. It's not because of your so-called, "social hierarchy" that we think humans are the best strategists (because on Halopedia (or Wikipedia, at least) we are not bias toward any species, especially fictional ones). It's because humans are the best strategists that we say they're the best strategists. You can't just call us racists when we say something you don't like. We have given sources to ANYTHING we put in the article. So, why don't you back into the article, and read the sources listed. Because again, we say they're the best strategists because they have shown evidence of that fact. Vegerot (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (EDT)!!

The tactics that Elites use are medieval, or roughly that. I don't mean that in any negative way - at the time, the tactics used by medieval armies were ideal for the types of battles they fought. The Covenant are still trapped in that mentality. The Elites are brilliant, and have proven innovative when compared to other Covenant species. Against humans, they're very good at small-scale operations - deploying and coordinating teams of warriors in combat. But on the larger scale, they're still using medieval tactics with technology beyond their understanding. Think about it. Give Henry V's army lasers and spaceships, and pit them against the US military. You'll find that the aristocracy has been groomed as officers since childhood, and have a mindset of how their combat should be, but there will be some who adapt. The US military will use far superior tactics and strategies, having the advantages of radio, a regimented chain of command, promotion by merit rather than by political/familial ties, etc, but they would still be out-gunned and, in keeping with medieval military practice, outnumbered. Instead of aristocrats, you have the Elites. Instead of Archers, you have Jackals; Grunts replace Pikemen, Brutes replace Knights, and Hunters are literal seige engines. Drones...the metaphor doesn't really extend to them. Would they be the wall of flaming arrows coming at you? Even Wraith remind me of Catapults, punting their loads of plasma in a parabolic arch, like a trebuchet. The use of Banshee's in-atmosphere has always reminded me more of World War I or II propellor-driven planes than the sleek, fast fighters we use today.
The Elites work with what they have, and they've done well with the mindset they're stuck with. They have to face a "modern" military, though, which presents different challenges - better unit cohesiveness, inter-branch cooperation, and use of communication to align the tactical with the strategic. Old tactics and strategies that were once good enough are now rendered obsolete, and the Covenant's primary advantages, as said before, are numbers and firepower. The Elites have to adapt to these new tactics. It isn't hierarchical at all, except for the Covenant - the tactics used by the Elites are just as valid as those used by the humans. In Halo: The Flood we see the Elites perform a literal cavalry charge on Ghosts - the ODSTs respond by adopting a medieval tactic of a box formation, except instead of a wall of pikes and spears, they create a wall of flying lead. In Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, they sacrifice dozens of Grunts in a diversionary tactic for the real assault force to reach a more defensible attack position. Archaic? Yes. Intelligent? Very much yes. We know that the Elites are tactically intelligent enough to create the highly successful Special Operations units, which have a devastating effect, and are intelligent enough to turn human weapons and personnel against them. They're starting off from a different mindset, though, which needs to be offset or compensated for. The result is a hybridised mix of traditional "medieval" elements, combined with elements borrowed from or adapted for the humans - Seraph fighters/bombers, special operations troops, Drone air cover, orbital fire support, etc. My point is, it is this adaptation that proves the Elite's certainly aren't the "throw cannon fodder until they fall back" strategists you think we think they are.
If the wall of text is a bit intimidating, it boils down to this - there is no "hierarchy" of better-vs-worse. The Elites have a different battle doctrine than the UNSC. That's all. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 05:19, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
I love you...r explanations. ;) — subtank 08:57, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

(sorry for continuing this already decided debate) Wait, r as in "are" or "our"?Vegerot (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2011 (EDT)!

My explanations love you too, Subs! -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 18:06, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Dont you think that ought to straighten up then, because if you take the Elites into account to say the Covenant as ground warriors, are much less capable than the UNSC is a sweeping statement. Even the Jiralhanae (for as thick as they are sometimes) have had their moments of tactical cunningness, not to mention they dont even have a code of honour restricting them (unlike the other-wise smarter Sangheili). So the Covenant ARE good tacticians (like some of the UNSC such as Cole and Keyes in particular)...

Needless to say Covies have the advantage of having as you said a "hybridised mixture" of other races (drones, grunts, jackals, hunters, engineers etc), cause they can use all of those races for their unique skills (drones = flying, brutes = ferocity, elites = intelligence, grunts = numbers, hunters = strength etc). The humans dont have that....

Signed: CookieMonstersayshello

On that note, doesnt mean the Covies are perfect tho --CookieMonstersayshello 09:12, 8 April 2011 (EDT)CookieMonstersayshello--CookieMonstersayshello 09:12, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes they do... Jump-jets=flying, pissed of solder=ferocity, humans in general=intelligence, (as much as I hate to say it, in a last resort situation) humans=numbers, BFGs=strength. Vegerot (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (EDT)!!!!

As in natural abilities or strengths the races are born with and i'm still not convinced the Sapiens are smarter than Sangheili yet, I mean in battle because most Elite weapons are suited to short-range fighting, the elite has to work twice as hard to outmanouver their well-armoured human foes to even get one kill in. Also when the Elites helped the humans, the Covenant only lost the human-covenant war because the Elites helped them combined with 117 So in ground operations the Covenant as a whole are superior to the UNSC, just admit it. It's the Elites HellJump04 who are the true warriors, not their physically and mentally weaker human counterparts I hate to say it. But we are learning....

Also, the Covenant forces dont often "retreat" to glass the planet they do it WHEN THE UNSC GROUND FORCES ARE CLEARED OF BY SUPERIOR COVIE FORCES (not anger, just trying to get my just point across). Not to mention whilst Covenant glassing habits are frowned upon, then how come its perfectly ok for the UNSC to use nukes I mean come on with glassing you only get turned into glass (hence the name) but nukes, they cause radiation, mutuations and deformity which are all FAR worse than glassing. How come that is called tactical skill....

Just tell me in what way is nuking tactical skill........

--CookieMonstersayshello 16:07, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

1. Because we're typically nuking their ships. 2. They have declared total war. 3. We're nuking our own land, not total war on them. 4. Nukes require tactical skill, because while stronger than MACs, they are slower and easier to shoot down. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

But thats all we rely on, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes if not spartans rarely do we rely on "tactical manouver"'s to outwit the covies (unlike your talking Installation 04 and Siggy) and you cant say Admiral COle was exactly a genius because his tactics involves outnumbering the enemy three-to-one half the blinkin' time. I though it was the Covies who were notorious for such... ways... not the humans but no, we outnumber em too, and considering they wiped out two thirds of coles fleet anyway (YES im on about second battle of harvest). The point is, Covenant are at least equals with UNSC if not slightly better (or more powerful if not more skilled) at ground combat especially in CQB... their tactics (employed by Elites) combined with tenacity and numbers (on the grunts part as the covies cleverly take advantage of how well unggoy breed) and superior marksmanship (kig-yar), strength (hunters in general), engineering ability (GUESS which species), flying (yamnes), ferocity and pack mentality (brutes) and the gear (prophets taking care of science and technology) are what ALL contribute to thir ground victories.

The UNSC win through relentlessly blowing things up (killing themselves often), overly used spartans (in combat and as a propaganda coup) and luck which can be a very valuable tool sometimes.... luck ("cough" MC "cough) and please dont reply with something as daft such as "mimmicks" well the covies only win cause of their superior tech they got from the forerunners, no smartness at all. That is wrong because the elites in particular had the intelligence even before they bumped into the San Shyuum and the forerunners, to come up with the superior tech IN THE FIRST PLACE. Its only because due to the war the humans had with the forerunners, the humans regressed as a race (technologically) and were essentially "stripped of their capacity to come up with good tech in such a hurry" (bit like how the brutes technologically and economically regress due to their nuclear wars.

--CookieMonstersayshello 18:17, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Once again, you're using very limited examples to base the entire war on. It's like saying America won World War II with one hand tied behind its back, because all you watch is the History Channel - ignoring Britain's struggle to resist Nazi invasion, the vastly more devastating conflict between Germany and Russia, and the efforts of resistance groups. You see Spartans making an impact because that's the story that is being told. The games are about the Spartans - the trilogy is about the messianic journey of the Master Chief, Reach is about the tragic fall of the Spartans. We don't get shown the Marine stories because they aren't the heroes, except in ODST, which did it very well, and in Halo Wars, where the gameplay doesn't show it in as much detail. We've seen in the novels and, yes, some of the anime shorts, that humans do pretty well against ground forces. Our dependence on nuclear weapons doesn't really seem like a dependence - how many times have we seen nuclear weapons used? The HAVOK in Fall of Reach. The attack of the cruiser in First Strike. The NOVA in Ghosts of Onyx. None of these are "conventional" battles - two out of the three have Spartans who, as I've proven, are not typical. The last is also exceptional, in that it was a prototype. We are even told in Ghosts of Onyx that by the 2530's that the UNSC are running out of nukes. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 20:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Exactly, my point is that its the SPARTANS who make the impact, which is exactly why when I didnt have a halo account I tried to change add in brackets (though it may be to do with spartans' capability as ground combatants) but it kept getting reverted. Personally, I would change it from "It may be noted that despite that their technology is far more superior to the humans and their numbers are much larger as well, the covenant as ground warriors are much less capable and are often defeated and are often forced to retreat to glass the planet from space" to something more like this "The Covenant ground forces are mainly composed by Grunts, whom are used as cannon fodder and usually weaker than the UNSC ground forces along with the Jackals. However the other species, though less in number, fare much better than the UNSC in combat situations. The presence of a SPARTAN, however, may drastically improve the odds for the UNSC." something along those lines, but definetly not the first one. I mean, just the one sentence just makes the Covies look completely bad and unprofessional, it DOESNT do any justice to the Covenant Empire at all. They're the bad guys all right, but I wouldnt call them "bad" at it.

That thing with nukes and spartans also, thats like the UNSC version of "covies only win because of numbers and tech, no skill at all waaa waaah" (not taking the mick out of you Specops306, im just doing an impression of a generic halo fan saying that). As its the Spartans who swing the battle tides, why should the marines and troopers get all the credit then why is such a sweeping statement made such as "It may be noted that despite that their technology is far more superior to the humans and their numbers are much larger as well, the covenant as ground warriors are much less capable and are often defeated and are often forced to retreat to glass the planet from space" made? Tell me...

This debate is very interesting, I like it it gets me to think outside the box and try and make replies that counter yours and you make replies that counter mine. Not being sarkie when I say that ok, but Id just thought id voice my opinion on the matter and Im completely aware of Halopedia's not-soapbox NPOV policy...

--CookieMonstersayshello 01:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree with you completely on debate. As long as it remains civil and doesn't degenerate into a shouting match, debates here, using facts and opinions, can be awesome! I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed countering your points with my own, and it's solidified some of my own ideas about the Covenant in my mind. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 08:58, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree, you certainly have a mind inside that head of yours and its a pleasure to discuss with you and what you've said has also made things clearer for me in my mind regarding UNSC and Covenant an all that yeah, thanks. I dont think its regressed into a shouting match at the moment, thankfully lol.

--CookieMonstersayshello 09:09, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

Still, I do think we should investigate the matter further because I'm still not convinved the UNSC are superior to the Covenant at ground combat, tactics etc. I dont think the UNSC are "shit" (no idea what halopedia policy is on swearing) even the Marines because whilst the UNSC Marines are not very good compared to the ODSTS, Spartans, Elites, Brutes it doesnt mean the effort isnt there, doesnt mean they lack tenacity just need to work on their tactics and skill and the ODSTS are quite good against the Covenant (not as good but better than the Marines and UNSC Army). Btw heres the link to the other conversation I was on about http://halopedian.com/Talk:Covenant_Empire/Archive_1#Covenant_Military.

Oh and yes I know, Halo Nation and Halopedia are two different sites but they are sites working towards the same goal, information about the Halo Universe.

--CookieMonstersayshello 12:33, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Now its a very long conversation but it does challenge mainstream views on the Covies vs UNSC and i found it very insightful. --CookieMonstersayshello 12:36, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

And... I DO see what you mean with Elite tactics meaning more medieval and traditional than humans, code of honour, swords and that. --CookieMonstersayshello 11:10, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Empire?

What source(s) actually refer to the The Covenant as 'The Covenant Empire'. Every other place I look call it The Covenant and I cant find any indication that it is actually an Empire.

CoalitionofIndependantRepublics 13:39, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. "The Covenant" wasn't allowed and "Covenant (Faction)" was just stupid.-- Forerunner 14:21, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Ask CommanderTony.
(cur) (prev) 18:02, July 2, 2009 CommanderTony (Talk | contribs | block) m (40,526 bytes) (moved The Covenant to Covenant Empire: "The Covenant" just doesn't fly.)

-- Forerunner 14:22, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

So if I understood that right, it was changed because one of the mods didn't like the name Bungie had given the the series' main antagonist?

CoalitionofIndependantRepublics 20:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

No - he didn't like the word 'the' disambiguating the article from the level.-- Forerunner 21:20, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a pretty inane claim you made right there CoalitionofIndependantRepublics. Bungie gave them the name of "Covenant". "The" is not part of their official title. Your claim of "because one of the mods didn't like the name" would hold truth if CommanderTony rename the article to something like "Forerunner Alliance", but "Covenant Empire" is meant to give the article a better sounding name. Having the article be called either just "Covenant" or "The Covenant" would sound stupid. And the Covenant is logically an empire. 173.66.218.243 03:02, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Move - July 2010

Archive:Requests for Move/Covenant Empire - July 2010

Uh...What?

I was reading through the article earlier. I read the Weapons Section, when I noticed this statement in it:


" The plasma that is used in Covenant weapons is mined from deep inside the Unggoy planet Balaho. When it was depleted, their technology had already become so advanced they were capable of synthesizing millions of tons of plasma in a single day."


This is pure crap right here.Missing Mandible 04:42, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

C in C

I don't think Truth woud be the commander in chief. I propose that it is changed to Xytan (pre great schism) and an unknown brute (post great schism. Grupa 'Zamamee 22:24, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

The hierarchs are the absolute heads of the Covenant, and Truth is the head of the hierarchs. Truth was able to control Tartarus and make Xytan work in the fringes. Commander in Chief is not for the hightest ranked general. Its for the highest military power, which is Truth. Tgor365 22:42, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well technically Truth was the same rank as the other Hierarchs. But only a fool would believe that. Vegerot (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2011 (EST)!!!!

First Pic?

I am pretty sure that the first picture is not relevant to this page. --Spartan-08686 01:28, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Well, according to the description the symbol is from "Halo: Combat Evolved" and is the symbol of the Covenant. Whether this is true or speculation remains to be seen.... User talk:Eaite Randjam 11:33, 11 November 2010 (EST)

The unknown Covenant emblem seen in Halo Wars.
What about the emblem of the Covenant seen in Halo Wars? Is this an alternate national emblem, or just the emblem of a particular Covenant fleet or something? I was going to post it in the article, maybe in an added Gallery section, but I'm not sure I should do that until I figure out what this curious emblem means. Until then, I think I'm gonna need a little help in identifying this. Definitely cannot just mean "Species" in general, as the Halopedia Main Page might suggest, though. Xamikaze330 16:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
Most likely a symbol to identify the faction and not the dominant symbol that represents the Covenant like the one on the article page. Durandal-217 17:44, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Okay, that certainly makes sense. And I wouldn't think of replacing the already-present introductory image in the article, but what I'd like to know now that since we've settled on this being the identifying symbol/emblem of the Covenant faction in Halo Wars, would it be okay if I added this image in an added Gallery section? Xamikaze330 18:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
For the most part yeah, I don't see the problem, the only thing though is we don't know what the image represents or if it is solidly part of the canon, or just an image to as I said represent the faction, might want to make a note of that in the gallery. Durandal-217 18:11, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Okay, will do most definitely. That is, when I get around to it maybe sometime today/tonight, or maybe tomorrow. But there is a pretty good chance it'll occur sometime today/tonight (I have no idea what exact time zone you're in), but it will happen and it will be noted. Xamikaze330 18:17, 26 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Skirmishers?

Where are the Skirmishers? I believe that they were part of the Covenant, too. --Spartan-08686 00:08, 6 December 2010 (EST)

they're included in the kig-yar section--Ender the Xenocide 11:17, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Suggestion for Species Section

While the dual-column organization system is interesting, might I suggest we develop maybe a table of sorts? It just seems lopsided since the headers don't exactly line up. Not a big deal, just a thought. Cheers, --RozhTitle.png 20:23, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Yeah, maybe, but with some edits to your idea? Vegerot (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2011 (EST)!!!!

Covenant Hierarchy

Hey, anybody think an article should be created about the covenant hierarchy, the caste system and which species is ranked higher than the others. Or is there not much point, I think it would be good if we did though it be quite insightful.

Any thoughts, write them down?

--CookieMonstersayshello 13:12, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

From what we know, the system was for most of its existence its system:
  San 'Shyuum
  Sangheili
  Client races - all slaves; equally-few rights

That was pretty much it until the indoctrination of the Jiralhanae, who managed to move up the ladder to (at first) just under the Sangheili... then equal to the Sangheili... then as the San 'Shyuums' right-hand men.-- Forerunner 13:20, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Though, there was that thing about how Hunters may have had more rights than Jackals and Grunts (shooting them indiscriminately for "getting in the way"). --CookieMonstersayshello 15:47, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

And Jackals eating Grunts (Halo: Contact Harvest, maybe?)?Vegerot (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)!!

Nah, Kig-yar are naturally carniverous and are used as death sentences. If it occured in any other manner, it would be because Kig-yat just like to assert supposed dominance over the Unggoy - I believe The Flood said that although the two are low-class citizens, the Kig-yar like to think that they are higher up.-- Forerunner 18:48, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Decapitalisation

I suggest we move the page from Covenant Empire to Covenant empire. The Covenant has never been referred to officially as an Empire with a capital E, and the current form makes it sound like that is the Covenant's official name.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:31, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

I actually have seen it referred to as "Covenant Empire" in First Strike. -- SFH 17:43, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
I stand corrected.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 08:50, 1 May 2011 (EDT)


Should we remove the proportion scale picture?

It doesn't make sence. If Grunts are 5.5 feet, then why do they appear only half the size of a 12 foot Hunter? The picture also doesn't include Engineers and it is outdated, most likely made from Halo 2 Covenant.

Proposal: Rename to "Covenant" (poll) (closed)

I've doubted for some time whether we should use the name "Covenant Empire" as the main title as opposed to simply "Covenant", and I feel this issue's been ignored for far too long. There was a proposal about this a little over a year ago, and there were several people who supported the move for reasons I feel were better explained than the opposing votes. The vote went nowhere, likely in part due to lack of visibility, because there was another large-scale move discussion overshadowing it, and also because there weren't really any proper reasons outlined. I'm going to correct that here, and see if we could finally do something about this.

To elaborate, it seems contradictory that we treat the name "Covenant Empire" as the primary name of the faction and commonly use it in our articles, despite the title's extremely limited - and context-sensitive - use in the fiction itself. As everyone most likely knows, the faction is simply called "Covenant" or "The Covenant" virtually everywhere in the Halo canon. The only exceptions, as far as I've gathered, are three mentions, two of which are found in First Strike and one in Ghosts of Onyx. Every game, manual, guidebook, reference document, piece of supplementary material, as well as most novels never refer to the faction as "Covenant Empire", even in a context where it would seem proper for the title to be used if it were the actual full name of the faction.

As for in-universe examples, Covenant characters, with the one-time exception of Voro Nar 'Mantakree, always refer to the faction simply as "the Covenant". As one of numerous examples, Contact Harvest, which gives us the deepest insight into Covenant politics so far, never mentions the name "Covenant Empire". If this was truly the entity's proper name, it would've made sense that Truth or Regret would've mentioned it at least once. In addition, if the Covenant called themselves an Empire, I'm sure they'd use the term "Imperial" in their organizations such as fleets or governmental bodies, or they might occasionally shorten the faction's title to "the Empire", which is never done in canon. One notable exception is the Sangheili rank of Imperial Admiral, but I wouldn't take it as proof the Covenant identify themselves as an empire; the rank most likely predates the Covenant, as the Covenant military is directly based on the original Sangheilian armed forces. Even if we ignore that fact, it's still the only instance of "imperial" found in anything Covenant-related and as such I wouldn't read too much into it.

Furthermore, if Bungie or 343i wanted to get across that the faction's formal title is "Covenant Empire", then I'm sure it would've been identified as such in major reference materials such as the Encyclopedia or The Essential Visual Guide. Funnily, the "Empire" part is among the few things that wasn't borrowed from Halopedia into the Encyclopedia, so I'd take that as an obvious sign it's really not the faction's full title.

In light of this overwhelming evidence, it seems odd we're holding this nonstandard title to such an importance. The term "Covenant Empire" is not entirely invalid, however, but its usage is limited to a certain, very narrow context, as seen when examining every instance it's been mentioned:

From First Strike, page 198, when Cortana is analyzing Covenant communiques:

  • "It was an automated mail system that could carry messages from the center of the Covenant Empire to the outer reaches of the galaxy."

Here, it obviously refers to the Covenant's territory, or "empire", not the name of the faction.

Again in First Strike, page 269, Kelly humorously remarks:

  • "Don't plan the overthrow of the Covenant Empire without me."

Again, it's used in a similar sense as the first time, and is obviously intended as a humourous remark and thus is not to be taken seriously. It should also be noted that this line, as well as the previous one, are spoken by a human and a human construct, whose comments about the supposed name of an alien faction can't be taken for a fact. The only time, I think, the Covenant have publicly announced their name to humanity was their famous "your destruction is the will of the gods" broadcast, and back then, they simply identified themselves as "the Covenant".

We get the only really credible mention of the title (that is, used by a Covenant character) on page 239 of Ghosts of Onyx, when Voro 'Mantakree assesses Xytan 'Jar Wattinree:

  • "For the sin he had been exiled to the fringe worlds of the vast Covenant Empire."

Again, here we see it being used clearly only to describe the empire controlled by the Covenant. It sounds more appropriate than simply saying "...of the vast Covenant". However, you can't use this in most contexts we tend to - for example, a battle isn't fought between the UNSC and the "Covenant Empire", because the faction is simply called the Covenant and the "Covenant Empire" is a term for the Covenant as a whole. It's also clearly more of a descriptor than a proper name, despite the capitalization of "empire". I'm almost inclined to think the capitals on "Empire" slipped into the books by accident, given the fact we've seen the title being used so rarely, though there's no way to be sure. Nevertheless, the capitals don't automatically mean we should assume it's the entity's full name.

And those are not the only reasons; titling this article "Covenant" would also make linking less complicated. Basically every time it's liked in another article, the title "Covenant" is used as opposed to "Covenant Empire", which means the link is nearly always rendered as [[Covenant Empire|Covenant]]. If the title of this article was simply "Covenant", it would remove a needless complication from linking. This is also why I propose we move this to "Covenant" as opposed to "The Covenant" - the "The" is not always applicable when the title is linked (for example, "Covenant forces", "Covenant ship", etc). We could always use the Title template to render this article's title as "The Covenant", while the actual title would be "Covenant" for the sake of simpler linking.

As said in the original proposal, the article was likely moved to its current title from "Covenant" as a result of our old disambiguation policy which discouraged the use of disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title. As a result, we had multiple articles titled "Covenant", so using an alternate title was a better way of differentiating the faction than titling it "Covenant (Faction)". I can only assume it stuck after that and people didn't bother to start questioning it. Since the policy was changed well over a year ago, there's no real need for this anymore.

TL;DR: As per the context of every instance the title has appeared in canon, "Covenant Empire" is an exceedingly rare name referring to the dominion of the Covenant in its entirety and is not the proper name of the faction, which is simply "the Covenant". This, coupled with the obvious prominence of the name "Covenant" in virtually all official material pertaining to it, should make it obvious we should ditch the "Empire" part from the title.

And what of "Covenant hegemony"; that's been used a lot, too.-- Forerunner 14:34, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Support

  • Support.svg Support - As per above.
  • Support.svg Support - Aye.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 14:05, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - Yup. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - I've always thought that "The Covenant" was too generic. The new name is more descriptive and used more by official sources.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 23:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - The Covenant frequently have multiple names for the same thing, and "Covenant" is the one they use the most, so I think that should be the main title with a note of "sometimes referred to as the Covenant Empire" in the intro like with Halo Array. --Dragonclaws(talk) 23:30, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Funnily, the introductory paragraph of the article has been that way for some time already, and the infobox says "The Covenant" - it's just the article title that hasn't been changed. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - We really should use the primary in-universe title: "(The) Covenant". "Empire" is a descriptor rather than an actual name. Even if we do keep the current title, it should be rendered as "Covenant empire", not "Covenant Empire", as the former is used on Glasslands' back-cover blurb. --Courage never dies. 10:55, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - This has been coming for several years now. - Halo-343 (Talk) 02:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Support.svg Support - I suggest using the format which the Fall of Reach uses (see discussion here), that is to rename to the most used title and include other derivatives in the introduction paragraph. — subtank

Neutral

  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - I'd generally be inclined to call it Covenant Empire, as while it's mostly called "the Covenant," adding "Empire" doesn't make the article much more 'blocky' (as opposed to say, renaming the UNSC Marine Corps article to United Nations Space Command Marine Corps). However, considering the post-Halo 3 situation-is it really an empire anymore, considering how the races have fragmented, and not just between Loyalists and Seperatists? In light of that "Covenant" might simply be a better title.--Hawki 03:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Making the article more "blocky" isn't really the main issue; as long as canon is followed, the title can be as long as need be (though brevity helps). The question is whether the Covenant really identify themselves as "Covenant Empire" in a formal sense, or if the name is simply an alternate name or a nickname. Based on the evidence above, I'm debating it's the latter. Your second point is an apt observation though. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Oppose

  • Oppose.svg Oppose - I can't make any real strong claim or crippling blow here, as this is a vague area in the canon, but I can't help but think that those few times it was mentioned, especially by the Covenant, with capitalization, is an indication that the name "Covenant Empire" is being used deliberately, as a proper name. Perhaps this is more like the difference between "UNSC" and "United Nations Space Command", or "ODST" and "Helljumper", or "Human-Covenant War" versus "the Great War". One gets used because it sounds more impressive and is shorter and easier to recognize, and the other, more formal name is used in an official sense. The canon's given just a few examples of "Covenant Empire", but they seem like more than just accidents. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
That is a possibility I considered, but if that were the franchise developers' intent, I'm almost certain a reference book such as The Essential Visual Guide or the Encyclopedia would have used "Covenant Empire" as a formal name in sections where the faction is specifically described. As I said earlier, while a lot of content was lifted into the Encyclopedia from here, the name "Covenant Empire" was not, something I would take as a strong hint against using it as the main title. It's probably not in the novels by accident, but to me the context it's used in is vague enough to call into question whether it's really more formal or simply an alternate name. That, and I'm not sure your other examples really compare to this, given the fact every one of those names is heard in canon more than just three times and in a less vague context; to me, this is more akin to calling the UNSC "United Earth Space Corps" based on the fact Hood passingly mentions that name on Cairo Station. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually, the rename was made by CommanderTony back in 2009, simply because the previous title "doesn't fly". I think the Encyclopaedia did not change this because it was using the revision before the rename (that is when the article was known simply as the The Covenant). :P — subtank 04:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, the reason is a little vague - I assumed it "doesn't fly" because of the disambiguation policy of that time, since it definitely does fly in terms of canon as detailed above. What also strikes me as odd is the fact there was apparently no discussion over it. By now, it seems we've come to the point where the title has taken a life of its own - because Halopedia and the fans have used it for some time now, people begin to see it as an unquestionable truth (for another example, see here).
You're probably right about the Encyclopedia issue though; I didn't notice the title change was as recent as 2009. The canonicity of the Encyclopedia is questionable anyways, but it doesn't change the fact "Covenant Empire" has never been specified to be the faction's main title anywhere - we know for a fact that "UNSC" is an acronym of "United Nations Space Command" or that "Helljumpers" is a nickname for ODSTs because there are a number of reference documents that specify that. "Covenant Empire", however, has only been mentioned a handful of times in a nebulous context, and twice by characters unreliable from a fictional standpoint. For example, it's never called "Covenant Empire" by the narrator. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Just because a name has been used in a nebulous context, though, doesn't mean it can't be legitimate. There was a similar case in the argument over whether the artifact on Earth was called The Portal or "The Artifact". Whenever the name "the Portal" was used by the characters in the canon, it was re-interpreted as a name for the actual generated portal, not the artifact itself. Here we get a slight more of a nudge, capitalization and the use of that name by both Humans, AI, and the Covenant. It's not much of a nudge, but better safe than sorry, and just as much leeway would have to be given to ignore these examples than it would be to keep them. With the "United Nations Space Corps" issue, it's more clear-cut than here, as "United Nations Space Command" can be clearly seen to be a formal name in addition used more. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 11:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually, someone moved the portal article to "the Artifact" when Joe Staten called it "the Artifact" in an interview. Before that, it was simply titled "Portal", so it wasn't really a question of interpreting in-game dialogue as much as using the only official name it's ever been given. I definitely agree that the context doesn't mean the name can't be legitimate, but what I'm saying here is that we lack any proof whatsoever that "Covenant Empire" is more valid or more formal than simply "The Covenant". A couple of other examples of context-sensitive names; we don't call Unyielding Hierophant the "Uneven Elephant" even though Johnson used the name more than once, or Jacob Keyes "Keezz" despite the fact Isna 'Nosolee rendered his name as such a couple of times. Also note that I'm also questioning whether the Covenant as an organization is the same thing as the "Covenant Empire" or if the empire is simply a name for the entity along with the territory it controls (see my historical empire comparison below). Above all, I'm not saying we should remove all mentions of "Covenant Empire", simply retitle the page and maybe leave a note in the introductory paragraph saying "also known as the Covenant Empire". --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
True, the example's a little less black-and-white than I depicted it to be. From the looks of it, if the above examples aren't enough to sway the vote, then there's not much from the direct canon to prove it any further any way. Still, if the page does get changed, the name of "Covenant Empire" should still get noted to some degree, just like how the "Human-Covenant War" can also be called "the Great War". Tuckerscreator(stalk) 01:44, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - Similar reasons as Tuckerscreator gave above. When one references, say, the Persian or Roman Empires one simply names them "Persians" and "Romans." Their proper titles are "The Persian Empire" and "The Roman Empire." I assume that something similar is being done for the Covenant as it would follow the linguistic pattern of recalling the names or titles of nations. For your consideration---Bruce2401 05:56, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
There is a notable difference between those two historical empires and the Covenant: they identified themselves as empires or have been identified as empires by historians. I imagine the name "Covenant Empire" is applicable much in the vein of "British Empire" or "Dutch Empire"; the political entity itself is called "the Covenant", while the numerous races, systems, and worlds under its authority make up what is sometimes called the Covenant Empire. As seen in the excerpts above, the title always seems to refer to the Covenant's hegemony as a whole and is admittedly appropriate in that context. However, the name is distinct from the actual name of the faction, which this article is supposed to be describing. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 06:18, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
The article seems to describe the whole of the Covenant; it describes the different client species, homeworlds, etc. I do wish that if the title of the article changes we leave mention that the group can also be known as the Covenant Empire. Hah, that's about all I've got for this topic. For your consideration---Bruce2401 06:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
You're right in the the article does describe everything that makes up the Covenant empire. However, in itself it's ultimately about the political entity, just like every other faction article, and I believe it should be titled as such. To better explain the above comparison to historical colonial empires, it's similar to how the term "British Empire" is not synonymous with "United Kingdom", since the former is defined as the territories controlled by the latter as a whole. As for mentioning the name "Covenant Empire" in the article, I have nothing against it as long as it's in the right context. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 08:23, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

So, what would be the outcome of this? — subtank 23:34, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

I would say this year-old proposal is a "pass".--Spartacus, Halopedia Administrator Talk 23:38, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

If it got forgotten like such, then in a sense it got conceded. Then again, all it'll take for that to be disproven is the opposing side saying "no we didn't". Tuckerscreator(stalk) 02:39, 19 September 2012 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Covenant/Archive_2&oldid=1344820"