| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| I think it should be noted that the frigates around that time are almost certainly not the same as the frigates from the time of the games. The frigates (and other UNSC ships) during the games have grav plating... the frigates from the time of FoR do not, their gravity is simulated through rotating hull sections. [[User:68.199.6.138|68.199.6.138]] 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | | I think it should be noted that the frigates around that time are almost certainly not the same as the frigates from the time of the games. The frigates (and other UNSC ships) during the games have grav plating... the frigates from the time of FoR do not, their gravity is simulated through rotating hull sections. [[User:68.199.6.138|68.199.6.138]] 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
| |
| :That may have been retconned by now, the subject is a little hazy. UNSC ships in contact harvest seemed to have some non-rotational gravity, and the Commonwealth as shown here doesn't look like it has any rotating sections.--[[Special:Contributions/205.122.22.23|205.122.22.23]] 17:16, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::It may not be a retcon. Contact Harvest states that artificial gravity was being used in space stations. Based on that, it can be presumed that was being developed for ships as well. Furthermore, the lack of rotating sections when viewed externally doesn't mean that there are none at all. In fact, corridors would no doubt rotate independent of sections on other floors, as it would make having more than two levels useless (you'd be unable to reach the middle deck). Besides, we don't even know how long it remained in service before being decommissioned - 27 years is a long time for taking ships apart. Heck, it looks recent given that it wasn't even half-way scrapped.-- [[User talk:Forerunner|Forerunner]] 17:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Class==
| |
| Anyone else think that it looks like a [[Stalwart-class light frigate|''Stalwart''-class]] in the comic? -[[User talk:Karl-591|Karl-591]] 12:25, 9 January 2012 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| *I do, as does my brother. It is, quite evidently, not a [[Paris-class heavy frigate|Paris-class]] frigate. I compared it to a side view of the [[UNSC Aegis Fate|''Aegis Fate'']] and the silhouetted data file of the [[UNSC In Amber Clad|''Amber'']]. Comparing the side view of the ''Commonwealth'' from the [[Halo: Fall of Reach|Fall of Reach comic]] given in the article to the two other images showed that it is almost undoubtedly a [[Stalwart-class light frigate|''Stalwart''-class]] frigate.-[[User talk:WTRiker|WTRiker]] 02:10, 4 February 2012 (EST)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I've made it my business over the years to identify the differences in these things. The depiction of it in the comic shows all the tell-tale signs of a ''Charon''-class. Often the Marvel artists would have some reference material, but they'd mix up the various frigates so some panels depict one type and another panel a different frigate. The main 'hero' shot in the comic with the name and registry visible is definitely ''Charon''-class. I still would keep it as ''Paris''-class officially though since the in-game use trumps the sloppy Marvel art. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Decommissioning==
| |
| Hhm, getting rid of a warship in the middle of a war against aliens who are winning and wish to exterminate humanity. Best plan ever. Of all time. {{Unsigned|70.241.26.166}}
| |
|
| |
| :Perhaps she was too damaged to feasibly repair or seriously out-dated and yet easily replaced with newer model frigates coming out of the shipyards daily. So send her to the shipbreaker, salvage anything useful, and sell the rest for scrap. -[[User talk:Karl-591|Karl-591]] 21:39, 5 November 2012 (EST)
| |
| :Yeah, real question is why did they take so long? 27 years is enough to get the ship back to Reach and scrap it. {{Unsigned|66.87.120.217}}
| |
| ::The ''Commonweath'' was likely patched up after the engagement at Chi Ceti, sent back to the front lines and eventually suffered enough combat damage to warrant decommissioning a frigate that was originally commissioned before the war and salvage anything that could be put to use in newer frigates being built with fighting the Covenant in mind rather than Innies. -[[User talk:Karl-591|Karl-591]] 22:41, 21 November 2012 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Registry Number==
| |
| Does anyone else agree the hull number of the ''Commonwealth'' is FFG-88 based on the image in the Marvel comic? [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 17:20, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
| |
| :I feel I must disagree. While "88" is displayed prominently on the hull of the UNSC ''Commonwealth'', it is in the same location as the "7" used to identify both the [[UNSC Aegis Fate|''Aegis Fate'']] and [[UNSC Forward Unto Dawn|''Forward Unto Dawn'']] as part of the [[Seventh Fleet]]. It is also missing the FFG prefix entirely. [[User:Auguststorm1945|Auguststorm1945]] ([[User talk:Auguststorm1945|talk]]) 06:24, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Very true. However, it's a conspicuous number that was included in that art. No, it's not where it is on, say the ''Forward Unto Dawn'' or the ''In Amber Clad'', but then instead of just the word "COMMONWEALTH", the artist placed "UNSC COMMONWEALTH" on the hull (itself a first), and in not the same place as it is on other ''Paris''-class frigates...it's on the forward part of the prow, not the mid section length of it. If all that can change for this ship, then why not its registry location? I wonder if that was the artist's intent? It was just a thought. If I can get it made official, I will. FFG-88 hasn't been used yet. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 06:38, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :I cannot account for the artist's intent, though I will say that the series of events as described in the comic are inconsistent with the novel it is supposedly based on. That said, the irregularities in the comic's illustrations of the frigate ''Commonwealth'' could be used to explain the odd placement of the "88" and the lack of prefix. I certainly do not believe it signifies the existence of an "eighty-eighth fleet". [[User:Auguststorm1945|Auguststorm1945]] ([[User talk:Auguststorm1945|talk]]) 06:52, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
| |