Talk:Doisac: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
m (→2.1G) |
(→What?) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Where is it in Halo 2 and 3? No mention of it. {{Gruntijackal Sig}} | Where is it in Halo 2 and 3? No mention of it. {{Gruntijackal Sig}} | ||
Well, all the planet is probley being used for is breeding brutes, unless it has been glassed and they are breeding brutes elsewhere. In either case It has no real relavance to the story and will probley be taken care of by the elites.[[User talk:Jedizora|Jedizora]] 01:19, 23 January 2011 (EST) | |||
== 2.1G == | == 2.1G == | ||
Revision as of 01:19, January 23, 2011
The Page says it's the fourth Planet, yet the Infobox says it's the third.
I think it's likely has been glassed by the Covenant Sepertists. Sith Venator
- Nobody's mentioned it, and we have no other information on its status, so we really can't say. I doubt it will escape the fury of the Sangheili, but whether it'll be glassed, and even if the Sangheili still have the resources to glass the planet, remain to be seen. -- Councillor Specops306 - Kora 'Morhek 06:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
They have a Carrier,thats alot of firepower.Sith Venator 03:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget Sanghelios... The Elites probably have more than enough ships there to glass Doisac. Kougermasters 15:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
What?
Where is it in Halo 2 and 3? No mention of it. Template:Gruntijackal Sig Well, all the planet is probley being used for is breeding brutes, unless it has been glassed and they are breeding brutes elsewhere. In either case It has no real relavance to the story and will probley be taken care of by the elites.Jedizora 01:19, 23 January 2011 (EST)
2.1G
What is the "G" in 2.1G describing the gravity of Doisac? Just asking.--Death will follow you...but you can survive 21:35, 16 December 2010 (EST)
- it's a measurement of surface gravity using Earth's as a standard. Our gravity is 1 g. This would proportionally make that of Doisac a little over double Earth's gravity. Really, it should be "g" rather than "G", which probably means something entirely different scientifically. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 16:11, 17 December 2010 (EST)