Mass Effect vs Halo

[Guest ricrery]

1. As JP said, cool it.

2. When did this become a battle above Earth?

 

1) Capitalization is not anger with me, but emphasizing.

 

2) No, an earth-like atmosphere would create an explosion if a very fast projectile impacts inside it, which is why the Halo 3 and Reach go against kiloton MACs.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

1) Capitalization is not anger with me, but emphasizing.

 

2) No, an earth-like atmosphere would create an explosion if a very fast projectile impacts inside it, which is why the Halo 3 and Reach go against kiloton MACs.

1. For future reference, most people interpret caps-locking an entire phrase as emphasizing via shouting. Try italicizing, comes off as a more polite way of emphasizing than an all caps message.

 

2. What? You just said "in the Earth's atmosphere", so what do you mean "no"? I wasn't refuting anything there. I was just confused and asking for clarification, just as I am now. What does an earth-like atmosphere have to do with explosions and what does the last part, starting with "which", mean (rephrase it)?

[Guest ricrery]

2. What? You just said "in the Earth's atmosphere", so what do you mean "no"? I wasn't refuting anything there. I was just confused and asking for clarification, just as I am now. What does an earth-like atmosphere have to do with explosions and what does the last part, starting with "which", mean (rephrase it)?

 

2) By "Earth's atmosphere", I mean the atmosphere of an Earthlike planet. It's not going to be exclusive to Earth, obviously.

 

Let me explain what I mean--at a sufficient velocity, kinetic energy will convert into heat. Heat functions like a nuke when if there is enough of it, so it will produce

. Halo 3 and Halo Reach lack this.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Let me explain what I mean--at a sufficient velocity, kinetic energy will convert into heat. Heat functions like a nuke when if there is enough of it, so it will produce

. Halo 3 and Halo Reach lack this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that heat alone will trigger a nuclear reaction.

[Guest ricrery]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that heat alone will trigger a nuclear reaction.

 

A high yield of heat energy will spark a nuclear fireball

[Guest TheJ0ke]

A high yield of heat energy will spark a nuclear fireball

From fusion or fission?

[Guest force_echo]

Jesus Christ, can you just stay calm without losing it?

 

The same goes for Skir in advance of any of his next posts...

Seriously.

[Guest Ruinus]

From fusion or fission?

 

He's not saying that enough heat will suddenly make a nuclear reaction, he's saying that enough heat/energy being disperesed at once will heat up the air around it and create a fireball.

 

Example:

30 kiloton nuclear device initiates, it will make a fireball and then a mushroom cloud 10km high.

 

30 kiloton energy bomb detonates, it will make a fireball and then a mushroom cloud 10km high.

 

A metal rod with enough mass and moving at a high enough speed to have 30 kilotons of energy will hit the ground with enough energy to send shockwaves that willl vaporize the ground beneath it, sending up a fireball and then a mushroom cloud 10km high.

 

The energies are the same, the results will be more or less the same (a nuke will also give off radiation, an energy bomb and a metal rod might not, their fireballs might look a bit different).

[Guest TheJ0ke]

He's not saying that enough heat will suddenly make a nuclear reaction, he's saying that enough heat/energy being disperesed at once will heat up the air around it and create a fireball.

Is that what he was saying? Well that definitely makes much more sense. I don't know why he didn't correct me earlier when I specifically said "nuclear reaction" though...

[Guest ricrery]

Also, as of now, The UNSC use 15 kiloton nukes.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Out of curiosity, why has so much of this become about battles under atmospheric conditions? I'd think that most of the battles would happen in space...

[Guest ricrery]

Out of curiosity, why has so much of this become about battles under atmospheric conditions? I'd think that most of the battles would happen in space...

 

Because Halo Reach has spoken

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Because Halo Reach has spoken

Buh, buh...

Hey wait a minute! That several month old trailer had no dialogue!

[Guest ricrery]

Buh, buh...

Hey wait a minute! That several month old trailer had no dialogue!

 

Halo Reach has spoken!

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Halo Reach has spoken!

No it hasn't!

Gah! *Runs to panic room to hide from the scary face*

[Guest Ruinus]

Out of curiosity, why has so much of this become about battles under atmospheric conditions? I'd think that most of the battles would happen in space...

 

EDIT: Silly me, most of what I said was already said on page 1. Heh, that's what I get for not reading the thread entirely.

 

Though I do remember someone pointing out that there is a scene in Halo: Reach were some covenant bombs are blasting off. People scaled them and said they must be a megaton or gigaton in yield, until someone pointed out that the explosions don't even disturb the nearby clouds.

[Guest ricrery]

There is another impact scene excluding the Reach one with the Corvette getting knocked out of the sky by a MAC.

 

 

That's a 100 meter rock traveling at 3.5 km/s. If the Flood stuff really is bone density, then the KE is 1.15 megatons. However, the rock wasn't slowed down by the SoI, which means very little Work actually occurred, and very little kinetic energy transferred to the SoI. This is assuming its a flood pod, and not a piece of Covenant hull armor, which has lighter-than-air density. Regardless of the density, the rock mission killed the SoI, which had a 50/50 chance of having its shields up.

[Skirmisher]

Wow, you are using a Non-Canon Game Trailer to attempt to demonstrate that the UNSC doesn't use high yield nuclear weapons... when they were using a highly infantry portable nuclear device with a 15 kiloton yield...

 

Think... if they could use That small of a Nuke with Infantry... why then not use it with Ships and their Archer Missiles. It's small enough to be missile delivered by any conventional missile today. And Archer Missiles are much bigger apparently, perhaps the size of the Harpoon Missile.

 

With the fact that it would be small enough to fit on such a missile, and the fact that it's Fusion and not Nuclear, thus using common fuels, and being much cheaper than Fissile materials, it would be easy to assume that the Archer missile is of similar Yield. Actually there would probably be Much, Much more room on an anti-ship missile like the Archer, and thus a Much more substantial Warhead could be used. Perhaps even one into the Megatons. In fact this seems evident in the light that the 15kt Infantry Portable Bomb was only a MEDIUM Yield warhead, and that there are Much Larger Yields used by other Infantry Operations.

 

Of course in space during a battle, such a Cruiser would have it's shields up and have it's "Much Denser than Air" and "Substantially More resilient than any known material" Armour to absorb the blast rather than have it detonate INSIDE it.... And that would actually make sense that it takes Hundreds of these Multi-Megaton Missiles to down a Covenant Ships shields.

 

This means that Not only does the UNSC have Much Better Bombs than anything in Mass Effect, they have enough of them to allow Infantry to chuck them around like Footballs. And as we see in Mass Effect 1, it takes a Nuke to kill a Major Character... then all the UNSC has to do is keep deploying this abundance of Fusion and Fission bombs on their battlefields to eventually wipe out anyone that might pose a slightly greater risk to them then the already Minor Threat that the Mass Effect forces already pose.

 

 

Not only that but stop beating a Dead Horse with that Shadow of Intent "Feat" you are professing... I already disproved argument and your lack of logic for that long, long ago in a topic far away.

[Guest Dark Ranger X]

Just to get this back on topic and steer away from what effect atmospheric conditions have on high or low yield nuclear weapons...

 

Reapers can indoctrinate people too, so I'd like to see what'd happen if a few Reapers joined this fight, and started indoctrinating the Halo fleet personnel. Would be interesting.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Reapers can indoctrinate people too, so I'd like to see what'd happen if a few Reapers joined this fight, and started indoctrinating the Halo fleet personnel. Would be interesting.

Nonsense! They'd never be able to indoctrinate Sarge. NEVER!

 

?

 

Huh, what? No, not that Sarge. This Sarge:

What's that you say? "If he's indoctrinable, then why was he running around Blood Gulch preparing for a nonexistent war?"

...

Shut up.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

Ignore this...

[Skirmisher]

Just to get this back on topic and steer away from what effect atmospheric conditions have on high or low yield nuclear weapons...

 

Reapers can indoctrinate people too, so I'd like to see what'd happen if a few Reapers joined this fight, and started indoctrinating the Halo fleet personnel. Would be interesting.

The only problem with that is threefold...

 

Even Lieutenants stationed to Backwater places on mundane duties that keep them far from anything important have to under go Constant Screening just to access their computers for the day. Voice Print, Retinal Scan, Pass Word, and finally reading the Cole Protocol... all the while an AI watches this process for aberrations that may raise any flags. Those same AI's would also be completely Immune to Indoctrination.

 

The second part of the plan to indoctrinating UNSC personnel that would make it fail is that it takes "days, perhaps a week of exposure to [a Reapers] signal" to fully indoctrinate them. With engagements in space battles taking minutes to a couple hours at most, the timeframe leads me to think that Ship Captains and Admirals or even Ratings and Marines, wouldn't have the time to be indoctrinated.

 

Even then the amount of Control the Reaper has is inverse to the Mental Faculty of the victim. As such, it would be fairly obvious to non-indoctrinated crew members who the Indoctrinated Crew members are (Especially with AI watchdogs) unless control is weak enough to not overpower the victims mind... Which would then mean that the Victim could perhaps fight it.

 

It would be interesting to throw a couple Reapers into the fight, especially with this powerful weapon. But in light of how Paranoid Halo Forces are and how they use AI's that would be Immune to it... such a weapon would be rather Blunted compared to how devastating it was in Mass Effect.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

The second part of the plan to indoctrinating UNSC personnel that would make it fail is that it takes "days, perhaps a week of exposure to [a Reapers] signal" to fully indoctrinate them. With engagements in space battles taking minutes to a couple hours at most, the timeframe leads me to think that Ship Captains and Admirals or even Ratings and Marines, wouldn't have the time to be indoctrinated.

I was under the impression that DRX meant pre-indoctrinated personnel...

 

Even then the amount of Control the Reaper has is inverse to the Mental Faculty of the victim. As such, it would be fairly obvious to non-indoctrinated crew members who the Indoctrinated Crew members are (Especially with AI watchdogs) unless control is weak enough to not overpower the victims mind... Which would then mean that the Victim could perhaps fight it.

Not necessarily. Some certainly are obvious, but others like Saren and Benezia remained relatively normal.

[Guest ricrery]

Wow, you are using a Non-Canon Game Trailer to attempt to demonstrate that the UNSC doesn't use high yield nuclear weapons... when they were using a highly infantry portable nuclear device with a 15 kiloton yield...

 

And since when was Deliver Hope noncanon?

 

Think... if they could use That small of a Nuke with Infantry... why then not use it with Ships and their Archer Missiles. It's small enough to be missile delivered by any conventional missile today. And Archer Missiles are much bigger apparently, perhaps the size of the Harpoon Missile.

 

We do see Archer Missiles, and they show rather pathetic side effects from hitting a Corvette.

 

Of course in space during a battle, such a Cruiser would have it's shields up and have it's "Much Denser than Air" and "Substantially More resilient than any known material" Armour to absorb the blast rather than have it detonate INSIDE it.... And that would actually make sense that it takes Hundreds of these Multi-Megaton Missiles to down a Covenant Ships shields.

 

And when we saw a space battle with nukes, a 30 megaton minefield destroyed 14 ships.

 

Not only that but stop beating a Dead Horse with that Shadow of Intent "Feat" you are professing... I already disproved argument and your lack of logic for that long, long ago in a topic far away.

 

You claimed that Covenant starship hulls were tungsten dense. Here's actual evidence of low density Covenant armor.

 

Beta probe cycled back. The mass was still there and as

solid as before. It was the largest reading Ensign Lovell had

ever seen: twenty thousand tons. That couldn't be a Covenant

ship-they didn't didn't get that big. And the silhouette was a

bumpy spherical shape; it didn't match any of the Covenant

ships in the database. It had to be a rogue asteroid.

 

The Fall of Reach pg 137

 

Tungsten density? I think not.

[Guest Paschendale5]

I know that this topic is old and I am a new member but let me give this a shot.

 

Halo ships would obviously win for several reasons of which most have been stated. For starters Halo ships, to the best of my knowledge, do not generate enourmous amounts of heat as those of Mass Effect ships. This would mean that the Halo ships can keep firing and destroying everything while the Mass Effect ships would have to discharge their heat and then round up to fire. The only other type of shields that can be used with Mass Effect ships are cyclonic shield systems, from ME 2, that are close to covenant shield technology but do not have the same damage protection that covenant shield offer.

 

I am pretty sure that a MAC round coming from a Halo frigate would desimate an Alliance cruiser/battlecruiser but I have noticed something that gives ME an adavantage. ME frigates, being the workhorse of most fleets, out manuver all Halo ships. If you look at how slow the Halo ships acclerate and turn they cannot do what ME ships can with their mass effect fields. Their is another heat problem with this and that would be the drive core. TO my knowledge this has to be done every now and then to prevent core destruction. This means that the ME ships would need awesome tactics and commanders to have a chance agasinst the Halo ships.

 

Skirm what you did fail to mention was that the fleets do not only consist of dreads. I am not sure that the combined Alliance, Salarian, Turian, Geth, Reaper (if they are included in this,) and single collector vessel would be totally outnumbered by Covenant forces. I AM SAYING HALO WILL WIN, but it will not be as easy.

 

With the agility of the mass effect frigates and the amount of fighters/bombers.interceptors/gunships that both sides could field I have a feeling this would be a good fight to watch.

 

Im think that with the right admiral for the ME forces and the right admiral for the coventant/UNSC fleet that it would be a pretty close fight. I am aware that MAC rounds would *insensitivity* mass effect ships but the frigates can avoid those shots!

 

IDK prolly going to be torn apart by skirm.... =/