Protoss versus Covenant

[TithonusSyndrome]

Seems to me that this would be a fairly obvious matchup to posit seeing as how both are races (or collections of races) of religiously motivated aliens following in the footsteps of a progenitor race, with tech that shames the particular incarnation of humanity that they share their respective franchises with, yet every search I've attempted has yielded no results. All the better for me to make this thread then, I s'pose. I'm not particularly inclined towards any specific circumstances for their initial confrontation, although if my understanding of the Haloverse is adequate, the Covenant don't occupy enough territory to make the possibilty of the two races both sharing the Milky Way without having ever encountered one another impossible, making one possible scenario simply that they wander into one another the old fashioned way. It would probably be better to avoid that tact and stick with the usual wormhole approach, however, and for a good matchup, pit them against one another at the peak of their power. The Protoss suffer the serious liability of having the Zerg snarling at their borders, and while the Flood may balance that out on the Covenant side, I'd prefer to restrict the discussion to a "mano-a-mano" scenario where non-Covenant and non-Protoss interference is completely marginalized.

My untrained eye hasn't noted any vast discrepancy in technology, industrial capacity or military acumen between the two, but I could be wrong. Who takes this one, and with how much difficulty?

[Covenant]

For a second I thought you were talking about me, and then I realized that some jackass game company decided to use my 1980's era callsign for their religious bigot menace.

I think the Protoss take this one, based on what we've seen of the Covenant's technology and their unwillingness to commit much in terms of combined forces warfare. The real issue is the space warfare more than anything else, as the Haloverse's literature includes space combat that seems remarkably different in demonstrable power levels than their ground combat technology.

The Protoss' main problem is the fact that they are immensely divided, not all that tactically bright, and relatively few in number. The biggest advantage in this situation that the Protoss regularly use their large spacecraft as ground support vehicles, and that their construction capabilities are fairly ridiculous. That and they have good battlefield morale.

I'm not sure if anyone has quantified the actual output of their weaponry, but we've seen that the Covenant aren't all that hard to kill. Advanced but mundane weapons such as fancy sci-fi shotguns can mahandle them pretty well, and that they're generally incompetant and undisiplined soldiers to begin with. Compared to the kind of weaponry we see the space marines in Starcraft using, I would think that the Covenant would be on the sore side of any encounter, if it's any indication of relative effectiveness. Added to the fact that Covenant strategies seem to involve herding lots of undisciplined and terrified combatants into valleys and corridors to be massacred, I don't think their forces are much above the level of Zerglings--if even.

Conversely, Zealots are raving braindead lunatics, but at least they fight to the last man and have no need for honorable combat or such nonsense like most Klingon-inspired melee warriors. We also know the Protoss do employ ranged weapons on their infantry, but this was only seen in Ghost, so it's an outlier and probably not much of a common battlefield phenomenon. Given that large energy blades seem to ruin the Covenant's day, a horde of jihadist psychics would probably tear up their ground forces considerably in the sorts of situations they like to put themselves into.

But I have about zero faith in the quantifiable nature of a Protoss' energy shields versus the kinds of firepower some of the Halo novels mention in space battles. I'm not a reader of their fiction, but we've had similar debates before about the human spacefleet's weaponry, and the biggest guns the Protoss employ in any viewable manner are the hordes of AI fighters and the occasional planet-sterilizing blue beam attack. Starcraft 2 will give us an expanded Protoss arsenal to consider, but right now all we have is ingame footage, and that's mostly useless for anything.

The main issue is that the game mechanics are so immensely detached from reality in this circumstance, but several of the elements lead you to believe that they're pretty pathetic. EMPs knocking out their shields, having the ability to take only a handful of shaped-charge nuke equivalents from the Yamato cannon, and so on. I can't say anything definitive about that, but I think the Protoss have it in the bag for the ground warfare (where the Covenant, like most of Halo's combatants, are really laughably pathetic) but it would be interesting to see some comparisons for their spaceforces.

[Noble Ire]

I think the Protoss take this one, based on what we've seen of the Covenant's technology and their unwillingness to commit much in terms of combined forces warfare. The real issue is the space warfare more than anything else, as the Haloverse's literature includes space combat that seems remarkably different in demonstrable power levels than their ground combat technology.

What do you mean, unwillingness to commit much to combined forces warfare? I don't think I can recall a single major engagement in which the Covenant didn't employ combined forces. And I'm also not sure what you mean in regards to space combat; just because Covenant warships have roughly single-digit gigaton firepower (judging by their glassing and asteroid-destruction activities in the novels) doesn't mean that their side arms should be any more powerful than they are shown to be.

The Protoss' main problem is the fact that they are immensely divided, not all that tactically bright, and relatively few in number. The biggest advantage in this situation that the Protoss regularly use their large spacecraft as ground support vehicles, and that their construction capabilities are fairly ridiculous. That and they have good battlefield morale.

The Covenant place assault carriers and cruisers above battlefields in virtually every part of the canon. And most of their infantry corps are just as fanatical as the Protoss.

I'm not sure if anyone has quantified the actual output of their weaponry, but we've seen that the Covenant aren't all that hard to kill. Advanced but mundane weapons such as fancy sci-fi shotguns can mahandle them pretty well, and that they're generally incompetant and undisiplined soldiers to begin with.

The weaponry employed by the Terrans and that used by the UNSC don't really seem to be all that different from one another, and the Terrans are able to tear through Protoss soldiers effectively, if not easily.

Added to the fact that Covenant strategies seem to involve herding lots of undisciplined and terrified combatants into valleys and corridors to be massacred, I don't think their forces are much above the level of Zerglings--if even.

Covenant infantry are fully capable of at least basic field tactics, even if they do sometimes expend large numbers of Grunts in suicidal charges. More powerful and well-trained soldiers like Elites, Brutes, and Hunters only charge in the same manner if their enemies are at extremely close range, or if they have been disarmed or badly wounded.

Conversely, Zealots are raving braindead lunatics, but at least they fight to the last man and have no need for honorable combat or such nonsense like most Klingon-inspired melee warriors. We also know the Protoss do employ ranged weapons on their infantry, but this was only seen in Ghost, so it's an outlier and probably not much of a common battlefield phenomenon. Given that large energy blades seem to ruin the Covenant's day, a horde of jihadist psychics would probably tear up their ground forces considerably in the sorts of situations they like to put themselves into.

If Zealots lack ranged weaponry, as they very well may, the fight comes down to soldiers with guns against soldiers with swords; I don't think you have to consider that one for very long to decide on the more likely victor. Zealots don't even have shields, IIRC.


But, of course, the question does come down to the issue of space forces, and the Protoss are more or less unquantifiable in that regard. Still, I'm fairly confident that in most ground contests, the Covenant would be victorious, although I would be interested in seeing the usefulness of Archons and Templars against Covenant armor.

[Sidewinder]

Covenant ships can bombard a planetary surface into glass. Protoss ships CANNOT, at least not when you play as them in the game. I say the Covenant wins.

[Darksider]

Covenant ships can bombard a planetary surface into glass. Protoss ships CANNOT, at least not when you play as them in the game. I say the Covenant wins.

Not in the game mechanics.

The novels and the game itself make several references to the Protoss glassing Chau Sara and Mar Sara.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Covenant ships can bombard a planetary surface into glass. Protoss ships CANNOT, at least not when you play as them in the game. I say the Covenant wins.

Not in the game mechanics.

The novels and the game itself make several references to the Protoss glassing Chau Sara and Mar Sara.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Nintendo 64 port of StarCraft, at the end of the secret mission Ressurection IV I got the impression that one Protoss carrier was all that was needed to sterilize Braxis from the ending cinematic sequence.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

If Zealots lack ranged weaponry, as they very well may, the fight comes down to soldiers with guns against soldiers with swords; I don't think you have to consider that one for very long to decide on the more likely victor. Zealots don't even have shields, IIRC.


But, of course, the question does come down to the issue of space forces, and the Protoss are more or less unquantifiable in that regard. Still, I'm fairly confident that in most ground contests, the Covenant would be victorious, although I would be interested in seeing the usefulness of Archons and Templars against Covenant armor.

Zealots do have shields as do every single other protoss unit (this is a game mechanic POV). Zealots shields/hp/armor combination actually exceeds that of the siege tank, though a one on one match generally goes to the tank in that regard.

[Darth Ruinus]

The ability to warp in bases onto the battlefield with one drone could really fuck up the Covenant.

Is there any mention in any books or anywhere as to how long this takes? It would be funny to see Covenant and Protoss forces engaged in a battle, only to see Pylons and Photon Cannons suddenly spring up everywhere.

[brianeyci]

Zealots don't even have shields, IIRC.

Yeah Zealots have shields. In the game they do, and it really wouldn't make any sense otherwise: we see Fenix and his arms, head, legs and most of his lower body is completely exposed.

I think they're easily overcome though, probably by heat since Terran's counter to Zealots is Firebats, or by heavy weapons like a Vulture's grenade launcher.

The Terrans also don't use shotguns. If they did, Zealots would probably be mincemeat (I say probably because there's so little information to go on.) I'm pretty sure you can turn the "high tech shotguns kill Covenant" all the way around on the Protoss. Zealots can walk into a backwater town defended by police officers, but they're terrible against high explosives, heavy weapons, and probably armor piercing weapons given Hydralisk spines penetrate. Zealot shields probably cannot take weapons with tons of stopping power, like a shotgun. It pains me to say that, but seems to be true. I do not think the Protoss rush in Zealots into machine gun nests to take them out, but rather use their Dragoons and Reaver artillery like we saw in that cinematic.

The Terminator a Zealot is not. Protoss ground forces would do terribly against modern day military (provided they were equipped with heavy weapons and not light infantry) so I don't see where the idea they can stand up to Covenant comes from.

[Noble Ire]

Yeah Zealots have shields. In the game they do, and it really wouldn't make any sense otherwise: we see Fenix and his arms, head, legs and most of his lower body is completely exposed.

I'll concede that; I haven't played the games in a while, and I had forgotten that universal shielding was one of the Protoss race benefits.

Nevertheless, the shields they bear are still vulnerable to Terran side arms, and would likely be easily overwhelmed by Covenant plasma fire and fuel rod weaponry, especially in the numbers that they are normally employed. Dragoons and Reavers are obviously more of a threat, but the Covenant has its own set of armor to combat them, along with a great deal of close-air support (although I will admit, stationary plasma turrets would seem to be an ideal defense against Banshees).

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Bear in mind, according to the last I'd seen out of Bungie, Legendary is the cannon strength of Covenant forces in combat.

Elites love melee combat... even on normal it's real easy to convince them into pulling out their blades. It might be an even match between them and an Zealot in melee, coming down to differences in martial style. (Neither have any real in depth martial art in the fluff, even though they supposedly train a lot... Zealots go up and basically use those force blades as punching daggers in game, and the Plasma Swords are used in pretty amaturish attacks in game.)

Grunts breed like rabbits, and aren't terribly more sentient... Which is why they're generally attached to Elites in groups of a half dozen or so. They also have acess to the Cov.s primary anti-vehicle weapon.

Jackals are where the Covenant start to take infantry combat from the Protoss.

The Ghost doesn't really have a mirror in the Protoss forces, but by that token, the Reaver, Arbiter, and Scout don't have particularly good mirrors either.

Banshee's are probably close to the Carrier's fighters, though I think the fighters would take it in maneuverability, as they're unmaned IIRC.

Cov takes in in air transport, it's heavier armor, at least as fast, and to top it off, is armed well enough to clean an LZ and provide close support. (Though they only rarely stay on site.)

'MBT'... I think the Protoss have it. Although they seem to use similar munitions (a big ball of assumedly plasma.) the Dragoon seems more mobile and has a better and more accurate refire rate.

As far as space battles... I'd be surprised if anyone could find real numbers. We know they're both capable of rendering a wolrd uninhabited, how much of an actual glassing or BDZ'ing this entails is pretty much anyones guess.

It could come down to a tie really. It depends on how much their anti-ship weaponry can do, and how much their respective shields can absorb. We know the Cov have several hundred ships and the unknown capabilities of High Charity... And have demonstrated boarding tactics which could end a stalemate.

[Covenant]

Zealots have pretty heavy shields, but nearly all Protoss Infantry do in one manner or another. However, remember, their armor is really mostly ornamental so it's just a fancy psi-tech solution to wearing some kevlar. I'm not a big fan of Protoss Shielding, since it's not invincible enough to justify the complete lack of armor, but it does indeed exist.

They also do have ranged energy weapons, but as I said, these are rarely used due to the fact they have such an extreme reliance on air mobility and crawly artillery. This thing is the most well known example, which is the Vindicator/Purifier from GHOST:



Admittedly, it looks impressive, but the guy carrying it is really not all that mobile. Also, even though he's shielded, we've never seen him shoot AND move at the same time. Since it fires some kind of giant lightning beam that you can sweep around, I doubt it has much in terms of recoil, so I don't know why you couldn't move. But Protoss never seemed all that bright to begin with anyway.

Still, I do take exception to the claim that the M90 has massive 'stopping power.' Compared to what? A small calibur pistol? An assault rifle? Outside of Hollywood, a shotgun isn't going to blow a man through a window, even if this kind of 8-gauge 00 buckshot spewing monster is going to certainly make a good job of blasting waterfowl, or the occasional vietcong. Not that you need something advanced to stop a Protoss, but I wanted to make clear what kind of gun we're talking about, so I'll compare this Trump Card of the Haloverse to the much-maligned Terran Marine's crudrifle.

The Terrans use some variety of electromag gun that fires 8mm DU rounds at what seems to be pretty standard rifle velocity and also at just above conventional rifle effective ranges. Despite the claims of their actual maximum range, most of the material they write has the effective range for C-14 variants no more than 2-3 times that of an M16A2. It also makes it up to five times the range of the Halo MA5C assault rifle, which has to say something about the velocity these rounds are travelling at. Which makes this weapon seem more similar to the Halo sniper rifle (in terms of ammunition type and range of engagement). These numbers, on both sides, are taken from the published materials chatting about them, though I haven't read the novels to know if this offical information is superceded by fiction (or if that's a higher level of canon).

Still, I'd say that this weapon would be better in combat and for taking down large game than even a large shotgun. Given that high-velocity armor-piercing munitions can pop an Elite's shield and burrow through his skull in a single hit. Those are one of the 'better' Covenant units, and since we're not comparing Dragoons to Hunters yet, I think it would be fair to say that it seems like Zealots can withstand vastly more punishment than an Elite, and would have no trouble handily defeating a majority of the Covenant forces.

That's not even including the possible effect of Dark Templar, normal Templar and Avatars when it comes to the infantry battle. Protoss lacked a presence of Heavy Armor in SC1, which is what we seem to be using as reference, but it seems that Zealots are employs as armor-defeating weapons by their troops... no matter how stupidly counter-intutitive that may be. I think the Protoss just have more firepower on the ground than the Covenant do from what I've seen of both sides in action, and the Covenant forces just seem too disorganized to handle such a demoralizing enemy.

[Covenant]

I just wanted to double-post as I forgot to mention that even though Protoss ships can 'sterilize' a world of Zerg, we don't know what that really means, while we do know that the weapons used by the Covenant can and are used in ship-to-ship combat and are not to be taken lightly. I do not believe largescale protoss shielding can withstand gigaton-level blasts, which is why I think that the Protoss spaceforce is just outmatched. I'm just defending my idea of their army being superior.

[Connor MacLeod]

Covenant ships can bombard a planetary surface into glass. Protoss ships CANNOT, at least not when you play as them in the game. I say the Covenant wins.

Not in the game mechanics.

The novels and the game itself make several references to the Protoss glassing Chau Sara and Mar Sara.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Nintendo 64 port of StarCraft, at the end of the secret mission Ressurection IV I got the impression that one Protoss carrier was all that was needed to sterilize Braxis from the ending cinematic sequence.

Not unless you can peg a timeframe to it. The glassings of Chau and Mar Sara in the SC novels are hampered by the lack of precise timeframes (or even vaguely precise ones. About all you can do is guess at it.)

And for future referencee can we be a bit precise here? "sterilize" can carry very precise connotations insofar as planetary bombardments do (as can BDZ).. if you're referring to merely "wiping out all the troops/life on the planet" we can refer to it simply as "extinction level" firepower.

[Connor MacLeod]

The Terrans use some variety of electromag gun that fires 8mm DU rounds at what seems to be pretty standard rifle velocity and also at just above conventional rifle effective ranges. Despite the claims of their actual maximum range, most of the material they write has the effective range for C-14 variants no more than 2-3 times that of an M16A2.

Based on what exactly? The only stats I've seen for starcraft rifles outside of a novel are for "ghost" and they were less than 800 meters. An M-16 has an effective range of around 500-800 meters, depending on the precise range you are talking about. (as is mentioned here)

In the novels, the Gauss rifles the Marines used were never shown to have a range much greater than a kilometer or so Starcraft: Speed of Darkness)

It also makes it up to five times the range of the Halo MA5C assault rifle, which has to say something about the velocity these rounds are travelling at.

Don't make me laugh. I do love it when people make claims without backing them up, though.

Which makes this weapon seem more similar to the Halo sniper rifle (in terms of ammunition type and range of engagement).

As I recall, the Starcraft sniper rifle (again drawing from Ghost) didn't have much range above a mile or so or so, which seems to rather neatly contradict what you claim.

These numbers, on both sides, are taken from the published materials chatting about them, though I haven't read the novels to know if this offical information is superceded by fiction (or if that's a higher level of canon).

Yet, you cite nothing.

[Covenant]

I was citing from the Wiki entries on both of their associated wikis, but since those are such weak sources, I was still asking for someone who read some fiction to chime in. The Starcraft one puts the cut-down GHOST-era smaller C-14 variant at a range of 750 meters using the AP slugs. The C-14 is stated as firing longer range, but that soldiers prefer the DU slugs, which increase range another 25 percent.

Your statement of a 800 meter m16a2 is for an area target, not a point target. Effective ranges have been stated for the weapon as low as 400 meters for a point target, and those are generally what people refer to as the 'effective range' on a given target... though, if I'm wrong, then the same would apply to the Haloverse stated range.

If we give the C-14 the same range as it's lesser brethern and then tack on the stated 25 percent range bump we get a nearly effective range of 1000m. That'd be twice the 400 or 500 meter effective range of the m16a2, or at least moderately superior to it, as my post said.

Possibly Noncanonical Starcraft Citation

However, I rechecked the Halo wiki, and it puts the Haloverse MA5C (the one from Halo 3) at 300 meters, which is pretty ass poor. I have to hope that this is an error, but the person was so specific in writing that it has a range of 984 ft or so feet that he was probably pulling it from somewhere, or just being needlessly creative with his intellectual ass-spelunking. I don't dismiss either. It's also possible that it was supposed to be 984 meters, but some jackhole didn't read it right.

Hopefully Noncanonical Starcraft Citation

So, I'm just reading what the things say. These might be garbage citations, but the books and the games for Halo are so wildly different that I don't know which is Canonical. In-game, the weapons and enemies are excessively lackluster, but if I'm wrong and these weapons are all highly-powerful deathmachines then I'll be happy to concede when I see someone with numbrs to let me make that assumption.

It's not like I'm being willfully deceitful about this, I just went to their wiki pages and did a search. Besides torturing myself with the fanfiction novels on both sides, I figured that was the best I could offer. Given that these are the numbers I was presented with, I think my reasoning is pretty sound?

[Covenant]

I typo'd. The second link should read "Hopefully noncanonical Halo citation"

[Connor MacLeod]

I was citing from the Wiki entries on both of their associated wikis, but since those are such weak sources, I was still asking for someone who read some fiction to chime in. The Starcraft one puts the cut-down GHOST-era smaller C-14 variant at a range of 750 meters using the AP slugs. The C-14 is stated as firing longer range, but that soldiers prefer the DU slugs, which increase range another 25 percent.

Your statement of a 800 meter m16a2 is for an area target, not a point target. Effective ranges have been stated for the weapon as low as 400 meters for a point target, and those are generally what people refer to as the 'effective range' on a given target... though, if I'm wrong, then the same would apply to the Haloverse stated range.

If we give the C-14 the same range as it's lesser brethern and then tack on the stated 25 percent range bump we get a nearly effective range of 1000m. That'd be twice the 400 or 500 meter effective range of the m16a2, or at least moderately superior to it, as my post said.

Possibly Noncanonical Starcraft Citation

However, I rechecked the Halo wiki, and it puts the Haloverse MA5C (the one from Halo 3) at 300 meters, which is pretty ass poor. I have to hope that this is an error, but the person was so specific in writing that it has a range of 984 ft or so feet that he was probably pulling it from somewhere, or just being needlessly creative with his intellectual ass-spelunking. I don't dismiss either. It's also possible that it was supposed to be 984 meters, but some jackhole didn't read it right.

Hopefully Noncanonical Starcraft Citation

So, I'm just reading what the things say. These might be garbage citations, but the books and the games for Halo are so wildly different that I don't know which is Canonical. In-game, the weapons and enemies are excessively lackluster, but if I'm wrong and these weapons are all highly-powerful deathmachines then I'll be happy to concede when I see someone with numbrs to let me make that assumption.

It's not like I'm being willfully deceitful about this, I just went to their wiki pages and did a search. Besides torturing myself with the fanfiction novels on both sides, I figured that was the best I could offer. Given that these are the numbers I was presented with, I think my reasoning is pretty sound?

And pray tell, what are the ranges you are claiming the Halo/Starcraft rifles as having for? Point targets or area targets? You seem to be assuming the Starcraft one is for a "point target".

[Connor MacLeod]

By the way, from what I can piece together the standard ammunition calibrre for the Halo assault rifles are 7.62x51mm. You do realize that those are VERY powerful and very fast rifle cartridges, right? You could get quite a bit of range frfom those weapons, based on comparison with other similar kinds (like the M-14, which can reach up to 800+ meters with a scope.)

[Nephtys]

By the way, from what I can piece together the standard ammunition calibrre for the Halo assault rifles are 7.62x51mm. You do realize that those are VERY powerful and very fast rifle cartridges, right? You could get quite a bit of range frfom those weapons, based on comparison with other similar kinds (like the M-14, which can reach up to 800+ meters with a scope.)

And since when did real ammunition have ANYTHING to do with Halo? We've got a Cyborg Supersoldier who can wield crew-served machine guns from the hip, yet has issues controlling a 9mm SMG.

[Covenant]

I am, since it seems that when you state the 'range' of a weapon without a quantification that you're referring to the maximum effective range on a point target.

If that's wrong, then I'd be happy to learn what the real assumption would be, so as to not make a blunder in a future debate.

However, as I said, it's either 2x (if it's point) or just above (if it's area) range. 1000m is about twice 400m, and it's 'just above' 800m. So it's superior by no great margin to an m16a2 either way you slice it. The gun certainly isn't firing rocket-propelled superbullets anyway, and these aren't hypersonic projectiles.

So, if we say that the general 'range' refers to 'effective area range' and not 'point range' then the m16a2 and the Starcraft gun are roughly comperable in range.

But it would mean the Haloverse rifle, with a stated general 'range', would have a maximum effective area range of 300 meters? That's awful. So I gave them both the benefit of the doubt by saying that they're BOTH referring to the point range, which makes the MA5C lower in range than the m16, but at least not childishly short in range.

Given that you have a novel reference that gives us an upper limit for the majority of Starcraft rifle ranges (a kilometer or so) that closely matches the number I came up with by just multiplying the stuff I saw on that site, I'd say that's not a terribly unfair assumption to make.

[Connor MacLeod]

And while we're on the "planetary bombardment" thing I should point out a few exceptions where it pertains to "ship to ship" firepower:

Covvies can (based on the Jericho "glassing" - the one with the oceans vaporizing) potentially toss out low TT firepower. This does not mean they can neccesarily do it under all circumstnaces in ship to ship battles. In ship to ship they seem to have GT range salvos at best. Given how the torpedoes supposedly work, I'd guess that there's an inverse relationship between range and power (the "magiwank envelope" containing and guiding the plasma probably has trouble effectively containing TT range torps, so it will break apart more quickly, and thus reduce range.)

In any event, the fact they are plasma tends to make them behave more like bombs in ship to ship combat (Again Cortana's modifications to Covvie weapons in the novels makes them more focused) so even then, only a fraction of the energy (like a nuke) will actually hit the target - half at best.


Which is nto to say the Protoss aren't facing qualifications on their supposed firepower too (whatever it is.) Every knonw example of ranged weapon they possess seems to be based on antimatter/antiparticles sheathed in their psychic wank, so their firepower is limited in some fashions as well. They might gain the firepower they display against planet against an unshielded target, but that firepower won't neccesarily be there against a shielded one. (question then becomes how much KE/momentum the antimatter round has.)

[Guardsman Bass]

Not in the game mechanics.

The novels and the game itself make several references to the Protoss glassing Chau Sara and Mar Sara.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Nintendo 64 port of StarCraft, at the end of the secret mission Ressurection IV I got the impression that one Protoss carrier was all that was needed to sterilize Braxis from the ending cinematic sequence.

Not unless you can peg a timeframe to it. The glassings of Chau and Mar Sara in the SC novels are hampered by the lack of precise timeframes (or even vaguely precise ones. About all you can do is guess at it.)

And for future referencee can we be a bit precise here? "sterilize" can carry very precise connotations insofar as planetary bombardments do (as can BDZ).. if you're referring to merely "wiping out all the troops/life on the planet" we can refer to it simply as "extinction level" firepower.

I'm trying to find the guide booklet for an exact quote, but it was something along the lines of the Protoss reducing Chau Sara to a lifeless ball of rock and ash. One of the novels (Liberty's Crusade) expands on this to describe the planet's surface as molten rock/slaggy, but its canonicity is in question (thanks to Kevin J. Anderson, naturally, and his idiotic use of game mechanics in a series.).

[Connor MacLeod]

And since when did real ammunition have ANYTHING to do with Halo? We've got a Cyborg Supersoldier who can wield crew-served machine guns from the hip, yet has issues controlling a 9mm SMG.

I like how this particular rebuttall manages to so thoroughly back itself up with concerete evidence and numbers and whatnot, since this being STardestroyer.net, we follow something called Burdeen of proof, rather than pulling shit out of our asses.

[Connor MacLeod]

I am, since it seems that when you state the 'range' of a weapon without a quantification that you're referring to the maximum effective range on a point target.

If that's wrong, then I'd be happy to learn what the real assumption would be, so as to not make a blunder in a future debate.

Where did you hear this from? I've never heard this before, and since you're the one arguing the range, its rather relevant to your argument and behooves you to actually make sure you can make that justification.

Of course, since we're not talking about the Halo side REALLY using M-16s or the equivalent (which was just an off-the-cuff example on my part) but rather something more powerful (see above), the range issue becomes rather different.

However, as I said, it's either 2x (if it's point) or just above (if it's area) range. 1000m is about twice 400m, and it's 'just above' 800m. So it's superior by no great margin to an m16a2 either way you slice it. The gun certainly isn't firing rocket-propelled superbullets anyway, and these aren't hypersonic projectiles.

There's more to "range" than just the velocity, you know. The shape/dimensions of the round and its weight also play roles (thats why a .50 BMG round can hit a target out to a mile, ,even though its not a hypersonic projectile. In fact, no AMR is really "hypersonic". Hell, neither are the M-14 rounds.

Lethality is also a consideration, since you can have a very high velocity bullet lose energy quickly to the atmosphere if it isn't very heavy (especially with recoil being a huge limiting factor. The higher the velocity, the lwoer the mass. And in this case the 8mm cross section will also work against it.)

So, if we say that the general 'range' refers to 'effective area range' and not 'point range' then the m16a2 and the Starcraft gun are roughly comperable in range.

Fine, but The Haloverse doesn't seem to use M-16 ammo in their guns as standard, so youre analogy is still off.

But it would mean the Haloverse rifle, with a stated general 'range', would have a maximum effective area range of 300 meters? That's awful. So I gave them both the benefit of the doubt by saying that they're BOTH referring to the point range, which makes the MA5C lower in range than the m16, but at least not childishly short in range.

But as "stateD" they use 7.62x51mm ammo, which is quite a bit better performance-wise than 300 meters. Unless the value can be corroborated in another source I'm calling bullshit.

Given that you have a novel reference that gives us an upper limit for the majority of Starcraft rifle ranges (a kilometer or so) that closely matches the number I came up with by just multiplying the stuff I saw on that site, I'd say that's not a terribly unfair assumption to make.

The "speed of Darkness" reference was against a horde of Zerg, so it doesn't tell us if it was a "point target" or "area target". Besides, ,as I recall the 7.62x51mm round can, under the right circumstances reach out to nearly a kilometer as well, so one can just as well conjecture a Halo rifle having that range.

(OF course, its worth noting that these "near or at kilometer-plus" ranges are pretty useless without some sort of integrated sight/scope and a fixed position, so its a conditional/optimal range at best no matter what.)