FANDOM


A little feedback

Danish guy
Revan180193 - It's dangerous to go alone so take a Carlsberg and drink with me instead:
TALK - Sunday, August 9 2020
Hey there. I just thought that I would give some feedback since you like that and all, if you don't mind of course. The passenger capability seems a little big for such a small vessel to my. If we compare the size of the Final Offer to the Infinity, the Infinity is almost 8 to 10 times bigger in all dimensions and its crew is only little over 17,000. Now the Final Offer can carry up to 6.300 people in total and that's even excluding the extra space requirement for the Heavy MAC that replaced the standard light MAC and all the other modifications that were made on the vessel. Personally I would limit the amount of passengers to around 800-1000, a battalion strong if you will. This still gives you room for a sizeable force of marines and ODSTs for the ship to command.



I would actually say the total number of people on board a fully equipped Stalwart-class frigate (crew, ODST platoon, marine contingent of two companies, no passengers) would probably be about 1,000. You would be hard pressed to fit much else in.
Scootaloo_Sig.png Scootaloo (Talk) (Contribs)   12:35, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Re: a little feedback

but the passenger complement was added after the Insurrection stripped her and converted her into a mobile safe haven and black market bazaar

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:13, January 22, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
Your article has been tagged with the Unrealistic template for the following reasons:
  • First, after the Insurrectionists steal the frigate (which would be a pretty big event for them, considering the frigate Iliad was used as the flagship of the Eridanus rebellion), they decide to turn it into a casino ship as opposed to using it as a military weapon after they performed a dangerous raid on a UNSC drydock. While Jacob Jiles did turn the Beatrice into his own private yacht, it was a tiny, fifty meter ship that was no use to the rebels in combat because of its obsolescence and tendency to break down. This is a warship that could easily be used for a far more effective purpose in the war against the UNSC than being turned into a cruise ship for Insurrectionist commanders, most of whom are probably also dead or in isolation by the end of the 2530's.
  • The Final Offer is described as being made up of parts from multiple ships, including a Halberd-Class Destroyer, a troop bay from a Charon-Class Light Frigate, engines from an unspecified destroyer class, and engine plates from a Paris-Class Heavy Frigate. Where do they obtain these parts, and secondly, where do they make these modifications? The rebels don't have shipyards where they can make such extensive repairs/modifications on ships.
  • The ship is also described as having stealth capabilities stolen from an Office of Naval Intelligence Prowler. Prowlers are able to have their stealth due to the fact that they are very tiny in comparison to other warships, about one fourth to one half the length of a Charon-class light frigate. It is evidently difficult for the UNSC to make a larger ship stealthy, evidenced by the fact that there are few ships besides prowlers that have stealth capabilities in the UNSC, with its abundance of resources and shipyards, let alone the Insurrectionists, who, as I have stated, have no such capabilities.
  • The frigate is also described as having two Magnetic Accelerator Cannons, despite the rebels apparently having disregarded its potential combat uses to turn it into a hotel.
  • When the ship is retaken by the UNSC, its "...water treatment systems were all but gone, the air scrubbers were completely useless, garbage was piled everywhere, graffiti was everywhere in sight, and the ship's reactor was leaking radiation all over the place.". This seems like it would be very dangerous, and not a place people, let alone rebel leaders, would want to be around, especially with the fact that the reactor is spewing radiation and the water treatment systems, which I presume recycle the crew's urine into drinkable water, is inoperative.
  • It is also stated that the frigate has "...sports arenas". A regulation soccer field is about 100-110 meters, and a football field is a little bit under that. A Stalwart-class is about 478 meters long, with a majority of that length being taken up by the MAC gun and engines, meaning it would be impossible, to create sports arenas on the ship. The only ship in the Halo universe we know that has such amenities is the UNSC Infinity, which over ten times the size of a Stalwart-class.
  • Lastly, once the UNSC takes the ship back, they decide to keep it, despite it being useless without a massive overhaul, and it is kept by a Lieutenant Commander. If you mean it was placed under the officer's command, that's okay, but the UNSC would not just allow an officer to own a warship that they have just recaptured from the rebels and overhauled.

With regards to the article, if you still want this be a frigate, I recommend overhauling its backstory completely. However, if you want the ship to continue to be a display of vanity on the part of the Insurrectionists, I would recommend downsizing it, and its capabilities, to a ship that would be of no real use to the rebels in combat, something akin to the Beatrice, which I mentioned earlier, or a civilian yacht.



Sig Logo
S-D379 - "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.":
TALK - 04:48, January 26, 2016 (UTC). Today is Sunday, August 9, 2020
Agreed. Just a few modifications can't allow a frigate to carry as many people as the Infinity can.


Allow me to explain

the ship was originally just a Stalwart-class that was turned into a casino, a black market bazaar, and later refit as the Insurrection's flagship. I got the idea from the Final Offer, which is a Cargo/cruise ship hybrid that the Penguin bought from a band of Somali Pirates in Arkham Origins.

the Insurrection stripped the ship of most of her armaments (including the mac gun and archer pods) and installed fighting arenas, the kind you'd see in underground fights. They added other parts of other ships to give her more room for the various "accommodations", while also increasing her defensive capabilities along with her speed, as the ship was rarely used in fights because all of the gambling money went to fund the insurrection.

When the UNSC captured her, the crew was dead, along with the passengers. The ship's current armament was added after her recapture, including a heavier MAC gun, not two. The Ship's refitting by the Insurrection was paid for by Ace Manufacturing Inc. They are an umbrella corporation that builds/refits ships in secret for the Insurrection, while also providing ships for the UNSC.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:17, January 26, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Another reason

Also, the rebels didn't use her as a flagship because they already had a Halberd-class Destroyer as their flagship, the URF Each To Their Own, but the later combined the two ships together when the destroyer was nearly destroyed

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:46, January 26, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Re: Explanation

79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
Allow me to address your explanations point by point:
  • The Insurrectionists would not let another warship's combat capabilities go to waste, even if they already had a Halberd-class destroyer as their flagship. Most of the Insurrection's ships are likely armed freighters, with UNSC Navy vessels few and far between, so I highly doubt that they would let a purpose-built warship go to waste by turning it into a casino/hotel.
  • On the note of it being turned into a casino, for a casino to be profitable, it has to have a lot of people visiting and gambling, which means its existence and whereabouts have to be public. As you can probably guess, publicity for a group fighting a guerrilla war is detrimental to its effectiveness. The rebels would more likely use it for raids on UNSC transport convoys to obtain arms, vehicles, or various other contraband items that they can sell on the black market to obtain needed funds.
  • Point taken on the fact the ship's crew would be dead from the various system failures by the time the UNSC recaptured it.
  • Regarding the refitting of the ship for the Insurrection, the company you mention, Ace Manufacturing Inc., you also state to be selling/repairing ships for both the UNSC and the Insurrection. The main issue with this is the fact it'd be near impossible for the company to play both sides of the war in such a major way. The UNSC Navy would become suspicious as to how all these warships are being acquired or repaired by the rebels, the Office of Naval Intelligence would likely quickly find out that this company's doing this, and shut it down.
  • Lastly, with regards to the inspiration, the Penguin in Arkham Knight is a crimelord with far different goals from the rebels. The Penguin's goal is running an undeground criminal syndicate in plain sight. The ship there is dilapidated and is really worthless to him except in the way he is using it. The rebels' goal is to free the Outer Colonies from Earth's rule, and the best use of a warship like one of the Stalwart-class in pursuit of this goal is in raids on the UNSC, be they on supply convoys so they can sell stolen items on the black market to fund the rebellion, or in hit and run attacks on the UNSC military proper. As I stated, them using it as a casino would mean people would need to know about it, and that kind of public knowledge is not conducive to the effective fighting of the type of war the Insurrectionists are involved in.


so how do i find the middle ground? I also drew inspiration from the Errant Venture, a privately owned Star Destroyer in the Star Wars universe.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 18:22, January 26, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
If you want it to be a rebel display of vanity, I would say drop it being a warship entirely, and make it into something like the Beatrice or a private yacht owned by a Jacob Jiles type character. As I stated earlier, it's pretty much unworkable for the rebels to turn any ship they capture into a roving casino and black market bazaar, as it simply is not going to give them anything meaningful in aid of their cause.

Even if you were to make this roving casino operation on a privately owned ship, the issue with that is once the Human-Covenant War breaks out, the UNSC Navy would forbid any operations of that type to prevent navigation data from falling into the hands of the Covenant. Even if it was a criminal syndicate owned ship that was operating illegally during the war, people would not want to take the risk of going aboard and possibly running into a Covenant patrol in an unarmed ship with no escort when they can go to a colony like Gilgamesh and indulge in their vices there. As I said, unfortunately, there are almost no ways to make the idea of a captured warship converted into a casino/luxury liner work.


The ship was captured after the Covenant War and re-purposed during the crisis on Requiem. She operated for around 10-20 years as the casino before the Insurrection refit her into their new flagship. She was then found by the UNSC with all hands lost and heavily damaged following an attack by the Far Wanderers in 2601. ONI Section 3 then repurposed her for Special Operations missions where official orders were never given adn the ship was placed under the command of Church.

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
Okay, so I'm presuming the ship is captured during the 2553-2558 timeframe. Once again, the main problem with this is the the Insurrection has no use for fitting a warship into a casino, and they just would not do it. The other problem that has now come to light is that, if you're following 343i canon, which I assume you are due to the events on Requiem being a thing, you're now also dealing with the advent of the new threat to the galaxy in Halo 5, which I won't post here so that people don't get it spoiled, but suffice it to say it makes the need for a warship-turned-casino even less from the little amount where it was. Finally, you say it gets repurposed by ONI in 2601 for a secret mission. Considering the ship's age, the UNSC would more than likely scrap it and use a Prowler for the mission, which would be far more suited to stealth.



Look, Benjamin, you keep trying to find middle ground, but the simple fact is that there isn't any. The rebels wouldn't make a decision as stupid as this, so you should just scrap the casino thing.--IndyRevolution (talk) 23:22, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Halo 3 - Shipmaster Rtas Vadum

Andromeda Vadum -- Who dares wins!!! (Talk) (Contribs) Smiley in training

Sunday, August 9 2020 (Pacific Standard Time)


Couldn't he turn it into a Casino ran freighter instead of a huge warship, owned by a third party working for the insurrectionists covertly. Plus the freighter can roam from planet to planet making contact with the public and attract funds, supplies and necessities: fuel and resources. It can also benefit from the public and attract huge crowds through advertisements as well as making a profit for the insurrectionists. Plus there should be no harm intended so it should be safe under the watchful eyes of ONI and UNSC. Just an opinion, may or may not work. FEEDBACK APPRECIATED :D



79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
The main issue with it being a casino operated freighter is that even post-war, the threat of Covenant remnants is still there, as well as various pirate groups, and the memories of the war are still fresh in people's minds. As a result, I doubt most people would want to go aboard a ship to gamble when they can just as easily go to some backwater colony world like Gilgamesh and indulge in their vices there. Second, if gambling in UEG-controlled space is regulated like it is in the United States, ONI would make sure that none of the funds are going to fund rebels, especially if the ship is being protected by the UNSC Navy.


okay, so the ship is actually stolen in the 2580-2590 range. i am going to drop the casino deal and still keep it as a contraband dealing ship. i am considering changing her class to a Halberd-class Destroyer, would anyone object to this? Any more feedback or ideas you can give i will greatly appreciate!

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:12, January 27, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
There are still several problems with the article. One, why would the UNSC be refitting a Halberd-class into a stealth ship, a class that is about 63-73 years old when it is ostensibly stolen from dry dock when it is being worked on. Two, why are the UNSC refitting a destroyer into a stealth ship? The only ship that is about the size of a Halberd-class that is stealthy is UNSC Point of No Return, one of the most advanced and secret ships ever built by the UNSC, and the Office of Naval Intelligence's mobile headquarters. Three, how are the rebels even able to steal it from drydock. The UNSC would likely have it under extremely heavy guard, including other warships in the immediate area that could board it or, if necessary, destroy it even if the rebels managed to get control of it. Third, the rebels get a hold of this extremely advanced, well-armed, nearly invisible ship, and use it to deal contraband? Once again, if they had a capability like this, they would use it for far more effective purposes than going around hawking stolen wares, which would also put the ship on the UNSC's radar to be taken back. The Insurrection would likely try and keep its whereabouts a secret until it popped up somewhere in the Inner Colonies to hit some target and then disappear. Again, the main problem is still there. The Insurrectionists would not use a warship to go around dealing black market contraband. They'd use a ship that they would not really care if they lost, like a small civilian yacht or possibly a freighter, not a warship that they can use to inflict casualties on the UNSC. Their main objective is not to deal in criminal activities, that's just something they do in pursuit of their goal, which is to force the UNSC out of the Outer Colonies and force them to give the worlds autonomy. Again, they would not use a warship to go off dealing contraband, especially something as valuable as a stealth destroyer.


what if i abandon the dealing role and just have the interior redone into a luxury interior?

Also, the ship also draws inspiraton from the Pillar of Autumn, which was 44 years old by the time of its refit.

Respectfully,


Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:44, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

I agree with everyone saying that this ship should be used as a warship rather than a dealer. A ship that I'm working on, the UNSC Ultimatum (By the way, extremely similar names), also gets stolen by the rebels. The Ultimatum was going to be used as a warship, but before repairs could be completed, it was destroyed. I didn't mention anything about refitting, because honestly, the rebel front would not need any modifications made to warships they steal. I recommend that you stay away from making it luxurious, and also from any unnecessary uses the rebels would use it for. It's a warship. It blows stuff up. KingOfYou115 (talk) 16:40, January 28, 2016 (UTC)


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
As KingOfYou115 has stated, the rebels would not go to the trouble of making the interior of one of their warships luxurious, when it's unnecessary and would give them no advantage in combat whatsoever. While yes, Colonel Watts and Jacob Jiles did have private residences on Eridanus Secundus that were pretty well-to-do, that's a small apartment, not a massive warship that would require huge amounts of expenditures that would considerably weaken the group's ability to obtain weapons or vehicles that could be used in the fight against the UNSC.

The issue with the Pillar of Autumn comparison is that, one, UNSC technology would have advanced dramatically in the aftermath of the Human-Covenant War, especially almost two decades after it, and the Halberd-class would be woefully obsolete. Secondly, the Halcyon-class, while it was outgunned and generally considered laughable in the UNSC fleet, did have the redeeming factor of its incredible ability to sustain battle damage, something that, so far as we've seen, cannot be matched by any other UNSC class, hence why, despite its age, it was refitted and selected for Operation: RED FLAG.

In this case, a stealth refit of a obsolete destroyer that doesn't have the ability to sustain huge damage like a Halcyon class would be extremely costly, possibly even more than the Autumn's refit for RED FLAG, as well as unnecessary, when a ship class like a Prowler could just as easily get whatever job stealth is needed for done at less cost and less risk.


well then can i keep the black market modifications and have just the captains quarters be luxurious?


Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:02, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
What do you mean by black market modifications? On the note of the captain's quarters being luxurious, they would likely be pretty nice to live in before the rebels take control of the ship, if the UNSC Navy's captain's cabins are about the same as the U.S. Navy's. However, there would likely not be enough space or need for a chandelier, considering there's the chance the ship makes a sharp turn or some other quick and erratic movement, and that thing comes off and kills or injures the commanding officer. Same thing goes for the pool. Water's at a premium onboard spaceships, and I doubt that they would want to waste it on a swimming pool. In general, it'd be closer to a very nice apartment than a mansion.


Good point. By black market i mean illegal upgrades to every system, but more to the engines, weapons, the stolen stealth systems, and the structural support.


Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:31, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Welp, i'll take now to throw in my two cents after so long. While I really think that a stealth destroyer is out of the question, its not impossible for a stealth frigate. UNSC Midsummer Night was a light frigate equipped with stealth abilities by ONI. Otherwise, most of what needed to be said has been said. Heck i've had plans myself for a Insurrectionist-controlled stealth frigate for a while now.

Regards -DirgeOfCerberus111 (talk) 21:45, January 28, 2016 (UTC)


S013-Banner
Ajax 013 - <Death to Heroes>[The Damned] [The Lost][The Forgotten] ObscurumVictoria :
TALK - Greenwich Mean Time
Ya'all know better than to dog pile a NCF discussion. Unless you have something constructive to add about the canon status of the page, leave it. This is for lancer and church to sort out



I haven't read too far into this due to it being constantly changed, but is there such a thing as a Spirit of Fire-Class? I'm pretty sure it's a modified Phoenix-Class Colony Vessel. I just wanted to point that out. And as for the Broadsword-Class, isn't that a form of fighter or interceptor or something already? Why would the UNSC name two completely different crafts the same? Then again, they did that with the Pillar of Autumn. KingOfYou115 (talk) 13:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Explanation

Explanation: both classess that you have never heard of are classes that i myself came up with. the Spirit of Fire class is based upon the original Spirit of Fire.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:36, February 3, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


I know what I'm talking about. The Broadsword-class is a strike fighter, and the Spirit of Fire was a Phoenix-Class. If there was a class called the Spirit Of Fire-Class, that would mean that the Spirit Of Fire was the Flagship of that class. The Spirit Of Fire can't be the flagship because it is already a Phoenix-Class. I never mentioned that I never heard of them, because it's obviously made by you. Rename the Broadsword-Class to something else, and make the UNSC Bunker Hill a Phoenix-Class if you want it to be based off the Spirit Of Fire. KingOfYou115 (talk) 19:58, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

the Spirit class was inspired by the Spirit of Fire

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:38, February 4, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


But the image is of the Spirit of Fire, which was a Phoenix-Class. Creating a class based of another ship that the ship is not a part of creates confusion, and it doesn't help that it has an image of a Phoenix-Class while it is a Spirit of Fire-Class. If the two ships are identical upon initial construction, then they are the same class. Maybe use some concept art of the Spirit of Fire if you want it based of off it, and change the name of the class. KingOfYou115 (talk) 22:59, February 4, 2016 (UTC)


CaWLogo
Sev40 - Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign? Anyone can make an error. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it:
TALK - 11:31, February 5, 2016 (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
While its unlikely that such ships would be named after an existing ship of another class, there has been one example where a heavily modified ship inspired a completely new subclass (the Autumn-class in this case). Given the Spirit of Fire's modifications, I see no reason why it shouldn't be a subclass of the Phoenix-class (enhanced engines, better armour and the addition of weaponry, to name but a few).



thanks for proving my point!

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:30, February 8, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


To be completely fair, that wasn't your point. At no point in this have you mentioned anything about sub-classes, and even if you did, Sev's post doesn't prove anything. It's just an opinion that just happens to be on your side. And this still doesn't explain the Broadsword-Class strike fighter/heavy cruiser. That should seriously be changed. You haven't made a page specifically for either of the classes, so I'm suggesting to make a change to the names of them now so that you don't have to do a lot of work later if you change your mind. KingOfYou115 (talk) 22:55, February 8, 2016 (UTC)


Deep Winter... I like it. (It shares the name with the AI at Onyx, but I'm not going to nitpick here. AIs and Cruisers are completely different, so I don't care that they share the same name.) Church, I'm glad you listened to my suggestions. I hope that, one day, this page will no longer be unrealistic. See you around Church!

PS: If you haven't already, check out the IRC. It's a great way to communicate here on the site.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 16:29, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks King!! i cant get on the IRC on this computer, id have to do that at home.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 18:16, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Alright, I have to say that this is becoming really overpowered. I'll list why,

  • Wayyy too many nuclear missiles. Nuclear weapons are not cheap or a small matter. Why does one ship need enough nukes to raze a continent?
  • 22 meters of Titanium-A3? Even the UNSC Infinity, the largest warship ever constructed by humanity, only had 4.9 meters. To give you some perspective, 22 meters is how tall a AT-AT from Star Wars is.
  • And followed by 10 more meters of something else?
  • As for its complement, I don’t think you understand how big an Expeditionary Force is. Just one contains at least one division soldiers, not counting supporting or logistical units. Which is 12,000-25,000 soldiers. And according to Halopedia the UNSC Infinity can hold a complement of just over 17,000. And you’re saying this has NINE expeditionary units. Supplying and feeding such a force for any amount of time requires massive amounts of logistics, more than one ships can ever hold. It would require a fleet!
  • How does something this big handle Special Operations Deployment? Special Ops implies unconventional, and a giant ship is not suited to that.
  • Four MAC cannons? Again just overpowered, even carriers which are bigger only have one or two. Only the Infinity has that many and that's because its more than twice the size of this and has a Forerunner engine to power them.
  • Shielding? Where did it get that?
  • Mind you I keep referencing the Infinity as it is the biggest ship humanity has and outdoing it shows how OP something is. This ship is smaller than a normal carrier and yet as more firepower, armor, and crew space than the Infinity can ever hold.

I really hate harping criticism on something, I really do. And you've been pretty receptive and patient with feedback which goes a long way in my book. So let me round this out by telling you that your detail for its various systems is refreshing!

Now, your biggest problem here is being unrealistic. There's just too much for one ship to have, even a modified one. For some people it'll just look like your building a special super one-of-a-kind awesome-ship for your characters. Tone down the weapons and armor a few notches so that it doesn't eclipse the UNSC's flagship and you'll be much better off.

Regards ---DirgeOfCerberus111 (talk) 03:13, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, i see your point Dirge, but my ship has two LIGHT and two HEAVY MAC guns. the two light ones are the same as the Pillar of Autumn's, meaning it fires three rounds on one charge, but these rounds are weaker than normal.

the nuclear missiles are the same number that the UNSC Everest had, which is 105, but i will change that.

i am going to change the armor as well.

Any other problems that catch your eye?


Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:21, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Honestly, Dirge has a point. Even though there are two light and two heavy MACs, it's still OP. Let's say a light MAC has half the power of a heavy MAC (which it doesn't, but for the sake of simplicity). The two light MACs would still be as powerful as one heavy, so the ship still has the power of three heavy MACs. And also, the ship is at least half the size of the Infinity. Where would FOUR MAC tubes (tubes?) fit? Those things are huge. The Pillar of Autumn's MAC was almost as long as the ship itself. On a ship the size of the Spirit of Fire, four MACs would fill the whole inside, and there wouldn't be enough space for the crew, let alone the troops! And before you say that MACs aren't that big because you fire one in Halo: Reach, that wasn't a MAC. That was a Mass Driver used to launch cargo into orbit.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 15:28, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

actually, the light macs were a third to a half the size of a frigate, which, last time i looked, wasn't very big. Also, the heavy macs on the ship are the same ones the Strident-class frigate mounts. So, my mac setup isn't really that overpowered and doesn't take up much space.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 15:37, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


You specifically mentioned the Pillar Of Autumn. The Pillar of Autumn's MAC is large. And even if they are from frigates, the amount of power necessary to run four MACs is incomprehensible. The Infinity, which fires four MACs, gets its power from a forerunner power source. And just because we mentioned that, don't be adding forerunner stuff to make this thing work. The Spirit Of Fire, the same size as the Bunker Hill, has one MAC due to the necessary space and power required for it. I'm sorry, but it looks like you are trying to godmod right now with the overpowered-ness of the Bunker Hill. The only thing that should be that powerful is the Infinity. KingOfYou115 (talk) 15:51, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

okay, lets say that the Autumn's mac is 1000 meters long, mine has two of those. it has two heavy ones that are 300-400 meters long. my ship is 3,500 meters long. the Punic-class Supercarrier has TWO Super MACS while mine, while close in length to the Punic, has two light and two heavy macs, the heavy ones are a third to a half the length of the Strident-class Heavy Frigate, which is 575 meters long. My MACs would easily fit inside of a ship this big.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 15:58, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

MACs

It looks like you are purposely ignoring the issue on power. Running the four MACs, the lights, the kitchen appliances, the slipspace drive, the thrusters, the turrets, the drop pods, the hanger doors, the heaters, the cryotubes, the navigation equipment, the targeting equipment, etc. requires a lot of power! That stuff requires a massive power source, such as a forerunner power source. And like I said before, the only ship that should be like that is the Infinity.

PS: The new topic is just to make discussion easier.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 17:25, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

look in the power section. i added a separate reactor just for the MACs

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 19:09, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Still looks like your trying to godmod right now. 4 MACs = Infinity. Also, the ship is designed after the Spirit of Fire, right? The Spirit went missing after it went after the covenant ship at Arcadia. Why would the UNSC build a ship based off of a ship that disappeared, and if the UNSC could have put this tech on a ship, why did they create a second ship to add it to rather than just refit the Spirit and other Phoenix-class ships? And why is the year that it was built classified? Honestly, how would knowing what year it was built give out valuable information?

KingOfYou115 (talk) 21:39, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

and yet there are some Ships on the fanon that have four MACS. mine doesnt have two aft and to fore MACs, it doesnt even have four heavy MACS, it has two LIGHT MACs and two HEAVY MACs

I really dont see the problem. this is nothing compared to my first NCF:

http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Admiral_Benjamin_Church/Bunker_Hill-class_Heavy_Battlecarrier

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 21:46, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

There as some ships in fanon that have four MACs, sure. Those are dedicated combat warships, such as the Leonidas-class Heavy Battleship. But the Bunker Hill is a retrofitted Phoenix-class colony ship. It is not designed from the kneel up for combat or to support four MACs - irregardlessly of the 'heavy' and 'light' designations. Though, that's another point: it is a waste of space and weight to mix effective and minimally effective weapon systems [heavy and light MAC systems, respectively] with drastically different capabilities. Not unlike having two 21 inch torpedo tubes and another two 18 inch torpedo tubes. Its a bad idea all around. Additionally, more MACs equal more power requirements, resulting in greater mass to generate power for them, equalling less performance in terms of acceleration and maneuverability. Its a vicious compounding increase in mass, leading to a clear point of diminishing return [where you have now have what is basically a battlestation with nil maneuverability]. Basic, refer to this image here with warships characterized in three demensions: propulsion, weapons and defense, part of Project Rho's excellent work of science fiction space craft. I highly recommend a read, especially given the problems you have had with realism/canon friendliness on this site.
I understand this is an improvement on previous works, but until the items identified here and above are rectified, it remains not canon friendly.
Kind regards,
Sabre_Dance_Transparent.png Sabre Dance (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

okay, first off, its an entirely separate class that the spirit of fire was. Second, the two light and two heavy macs are light and heavy for a reason, which is, the light macs fire three lighter-than-average shells on one charge, this will effectively break the opposing ships shields or cripple it. Then the heavy rounds come in, their job is to destroy the opposing vessel, the shells fired break open into a shotgun-like effect that can easily wound a few ships or destroy/cripple one big one.

Also, you say my ship is Overpowered, First, explain how and why, Second, just because something like this hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it cant be done.

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:12, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


The issue with the two types of MACs is that they take different rounds. Carrying enough of both types is a massive waste of storage. And also, what the hell? A space shotgun? Physics! And you mentioned hitting multiple ships easily. A MAC isn't on some sort of swivel. You have to maneuver the whole ship to get the shot. And with a ship dedicated to weapon systems, maneuvering is an issue. The Bunker Hill has a lot of mass, most of which is just to get the MACs to work. That mass weighs down the ship and makes it so the ship can't make the same shots a frigate could make. And if you read our posts and have any basic knowledge of spacecraft design, you would know how this ship is overpowered.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 14:27, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

my MACs are mounted on a limited traversing gimbal, meaning it can swivel to a certain degree, usually a very small degree, without turning the whole ship.

Also, i will have you know that do know what im talking about when it comes to ships, because every single one of the armaments are in proportion to their size.

Yes a shotgun effect, the 800-ton heavy shell breaks into 80 little balls that weigh ten tons each, the balls explode outward into a cone like effect, which produces a shot gun effect.

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:41, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Let's say the MAC is on a 5 degree gimbal, 2.5 degrees in every direction. You still need to angle the whole ship to get an angle any higher than that. Also, assume that there are three ships in a column headed toward you. If you want to hit all three ships, you need to turn to the left, accererate, and then turn back to the right to get the angle needed for the shotgun to hit. And can you please go into more detail about how this grapeshot would work in a vacuum? For example, how it is accelerated through the MAC tube, and how it knows when to decouple the shell casing that holds the balls, and how it decouples. Also explain how the decoupling process does not affect accuracy and speed. And again, if two MACs on the same ship fire different rounds, it is necessary to have double the storage to ensure you have a proper amount of both rounds. If the MACs both fired the same thing, then the need for space and the cost of manufacturing the rounds decreases.

(I think I used the word decouple in the wrong context above, but you get the point.)

KingOfYou115 (talk) 15:19, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

well, the decoupling process uses exploding bolts to break the outer shell, the a series of shaped charges ignites, which launches the "shot" into a cone like pattern. the process is controlled by detonator so the fire controller on board (or an AI) can detonate the charges and bolts at a certain point so as to get maximum combat effectiveness out of every round fired from the heavy MACs. for example, lets say i was facing the three ships, i would calculate the range to targets and speed of my rounds then have the AI break the rounds at the exact moment needed to catch all three ships in the spread from both Heavy rounds (that would be 320 5-ton balls flying through space). i would then use two rounds of the light MAC on each ship to cripple them along with my ship's deck guns and missiles.

Respectfully,

Church


Honestly, that concept is brilliant. You attempted to address the three ships, but the point I was trying to get across was that the ship could easily eliminate multiple ships, which could only be done with an agile ship IMO. I know that you couldn't be agile and powerful at the same time. But anyway, you could get the same effect cheaper if you had one heavy and one light MAC instead of two each. This would also reduce power consumption, which could in turn make the ship faster or more defensive. And also, the warship is based off of a colony ship manufactured almost a century in the past. I'm not saying that it's bad, but it's interesting to note.

(PS: You forgot to sign the last post. I guess it's okay because you always end with "Respectfully, Church", but be sure to sign in the future.)

KingOfYou115 (talk) 15:55, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

what if i were to have two Heavy MACs and just 1 Light MAC?

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:09, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

to note the look of the ship, I've always enjoyed the look of the Spirit of Fire, So i basically combined it with a Charon-class Frigate and gave it the firepower of a Valiant-class Super-Heavy Cruiser (a lot of missiles and MACs, very little anti-air guns) with the carrying capabilities of a carrier (minimal fighters with a lot of ground forces).

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:15, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Okay, I see you added mining to the list of things the ship can do. The ship can literally do anything except blow balloons now. That's a mistake. Ships are built for one purpose. You don't see a destroyer out in the ocean launching planes and scuba divers. If a ship is built to do anything, it's overpowered. Even the Infinity has it's flaws, such as being a large, slow moving target that actually ran from Cortana at the end of H5G. And the Death Star's flaw is obvious.

If you look at this image, you can see that everything is balanced. Even the cruisers that are in the middle only have some capabilities of each system. If a ship could do everything, it would be the primary target, would be massive, and would require a lot of power and crew, as well as run into some more scientific issues.

Maybe have it as part of a fleet that had smaller ships dedicated to restocking the supplies. This way the Bunker Hill would be less powerful as the defenseless mining ships could be hit by fighters while the Bunker is focused on hitting the large capital ships. Everything has flaws, so don't try to make a ship that can do everything.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 22:17, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

okay, the Bunker Hill is a cruiser-carrier, meaning it has the aspects of both a cruiser and a carrier, but not to the fullest extent, i added a very small mining deck where it holds raw materials that it can process for the manufacturing plant.

I'm going to drop the MAC amount from 4 to 3, and drop the complement of Nuclear Weapons.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:14, February 12, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


I still think that the ship is too powerful on it's own. Have it as part of a fleet in which the different ships of the fleet have some of the capabilities, such as an almost defenseless vessel used to store the raw materials and manufacture them. Think of the ship as a boss fight in a video game. If you want it to be powerful, make it like the fight on a hard difficulty. Have weakpoints, such as the ships I mentioned before, but not to the extent that the ship is no longer a useful ship. If the ship would be too difficult to fight, it's overpowered. The Infinity launches Frigates to do the things it can't do, and when they are blown up, the Infinity is significantly less powerful. It's weakpoint doesn't have to be tangible either. Speed or maneuvering could be it's flaw, or it could be easy to board. Try designing the ship like a boss fight in a video game from the enemy's point of view. If it would be too hard to beat for an average player, you've created something OP.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 15:58, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Speed and maneuvering are its flaw, like the Spirit of Fire, also, it isn't built for close combat, its designed to punch through the enemy's lines and deliver its complement of troops and then support that complement from orbit or atmosphere, like the Spirit of Fire does.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:09, February 12, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Hey there, I just wanted to say that you’ve made a lot of improvements with this. I know its really frustrating to have something you enjoyed writing come under scrutiny, believe me I know. So it says a lot that you’ve been this cooperative and patient.

That being said, why not just have the Bunker Hill be a Phoenix-class? A modified up-armed variant perhaps, since the UNSC needed every combat-capable ship it could get instead of a troop transport. It already fulfills the roles you intend, being combat-worthy and carrying an entire Expeditionary Force at the same time. I think it solves a lot of the problems people are having with the Bunker Hill right now.

Give it two MAC cannons, tons of missiles that you already have, Titanium-A armor (post-war can be upgraded to A3) and you have a formidable ship that’s not overpowered. 6 meters of armor is still far far too much. Nothing more than 2 Meters in some places I can accept considering how much resources that it requires to add and propel.

Hope this helps

Regards ---DirgeOfCerberus111 (talk) 19:23, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Dirge, in reply to your comment, by the time this ship was built, in would be over or close to 100 years old. That being said, i do see your point, and will lower the amount of armor plating. I invented this new class to combine aspects of the Charon and Pheonix classes, as they are my favorite ships in halo. Im going to merge the two MAC systems together and give it just two Heavy MACS.

i will take any other suggestions you can give.

Respectfully,

Church


--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 19:59, February 12, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

But i want to figure out some way to keep the 4 MAC system i had going.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:03, February 12, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


S013-Banner
Ajax 013 - <Death to Heroes>[The Damned] [The Lost][The Forgotten] ObscurumVictoria :
TALK - Greenwich Mean Time
Okay, analysis of this article
  • Weapons

Now, the biggest flaw of this article (Aside from something, which I'll mention at the end, is the weaponry. This criticism goes hand in hand with the criticism on the role as well.

Now, the main armament of the MAC guns, is reasonable. A ship of that tonnage could reasonably fit two heavy MAC guns. However, I would complain about the ammunition (That comes later)

However, what follows up is the gross amount of secondary guns.

There is simply no need for this many. Lets put this into perspective.

  • 1 Mark II, Light Coil - 56A2D4/Magnetic Accelerator Cannon: No point, it already has two much heavier guns as it's main weapon. Having a third mac, of smaller calibre, makes no sense
  • 1 W/AS M1/PROTOTYPE RAIJIN Nonlinear Particle Accelerator Cannon: Okay, reasonable for perhaps a small energy weapon, but this comes with the next part
  • 4 PROTOTYPE/Mark I Bofors "Maelstrom" Light MAC Turrets: You have to rationalise having this many guns, of this calibre, mounted on the ship. You're massively increasing the weight, required power, etc. I'd recommend knocking this down to 1, 2 at most.
  • 40 M965 Fortress 70mm Point Defense Guns (20 per side): A very reasonable set up. These point defence guns are pretty common on UNSC ships, and its not unusual.
  • 40 M1264 Bastion Quad 152mm Railguns (20 per side): Yeah, heavier guns for anti-ship, sure.
  • 80 Mk. XVIII 355mm MAC Deck Guns (40 per side): And then even more macs strapped to the side. You're saddling the ship with more power hungry guns, reducing room, etc. I'd recommend dropping.
  • 400 Quad-linked THUNDERSTORM Extended Range 35x380mm Gun Systems: And then this. So you added point defence guns, on top of point defence guns, that seem identical to the previous guns in calibre and armament. I'd recommend entirely dropping these.
  • The bombardment guns are pointless as well. MACs are much more efficient, accurate and require less room, smaller ammunition, etc.

I'd also massively decrease the number of missiles.

  • 12 ZEUS Nuclear Warheads: Cool, nuclear weapons. not unusual
  • 12 SHIVA Nuclear Warheads: Your zeus missiles replaced these, right? So what's the point in going to the effort of equipping it with redundant missiles?
  • 12 M4093 Hyperion Nuclear Delivery Systems: And then more nuclear missiles. Its already got a few. Why does it need more?
  • 1 NOVA Bomb: Fairly pointless
  • 12 HAVOK Tactical Nuclear Weapons: And more nuclear missiles, for no reason? Especially since these are much smaller, and usually launched from aircraft.
  • 12 FENRIS Nuclear Warheads: FENRIS are outdated and phased out of service, before this ship even existed.
  • 12 Medium Fusion Destructive Devices: This is actually a category of nuclear weapon. This refers to several different missiles already included in this list.
  • 80 Fury Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Fury isn't even a missile. Its a handcarried nuclear bomb, that is deployed to a combat area by soldiers, not launched in a missile.
  • 160 M441 Hornet Remote Explosive Systems: While mines aren't unusal, there's a reason these mines are only equipped on Prowlers. They're small and agile enoguh to plant these. Being a huge and slow ship, it'll be incredibly difficult to position these in a strategic location.

When it comes to nukes, I'd reduce it to carrying just one type. Two at most.

Oh, and ammunition. Now, I can assume you've just read a bunch of wikipedia articles on ammunition and mashed together all the ammunition terms you can in one. Its actually made your ammunition hugely contradictory.

High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer Squash Head, Self Destruct: Tracers are pointless on point defence ammunition. It reveals positions and its only use, illuminating the enemy, is pointless on sensor guided point defence guns. Squash head is actually contradictory to everything you mentioned in the description, as squash head actually means it forms a 'cow pat' against the target, then detonates, using the vibrations caused by the large explosive surface to sending shockwaves throguh the armour. So ditch tracer, ditch squash head.

Depleted Uranium Armor-Piercing Tungsten Penetrator, Discarding Sabot: sabots are totally and utterly pointless on magnetically accelerated ammunition. a sabot allows you to fire a sub-calibre round, giving you a light, accurate dart. It does this by filling the rest of the barrel with blocks, the sabots, so it gets the full force of the gunpowder detonation. Railguns don't use gunpowder, its not needed.

Depleted Uranium Armor Piercing Composite Rigid Capped Ballistic Capped: Ballistic capped rounds haven't been used since world war 2, and with good reason. THey're not deadly to armour any more. You've also ruined all the strongest points of magnetic weapons. Explosive payloads is also largely useless to MACs. Because of the velocities they're fired at, an armour piercing nose, like a common AP bullet, is useless. It'll punch right through the ship, and transfer to force to it. INstead, they used flat head munitions that transfer their force to the enemy ship by the large surface area, causing damage.

  • Armour: Most heavy UNSC ships had 2 metres. The INfinity had 4.9, but the Infinity was also the culmination of decades of super-weapon building.
  • Design: First off, ships are not like mega bloks. You can't yank parts off one ship, and slap 'em on another. Most have differing super structures, different electronics, different layouts, etc, etc. It'd be like fitting the front end of a sports car on your pickup. That's not going to fit, it won't work, things are then broken.

The giant hangar is also ludicrously dangerous. ITs a big, empty space. Its got not internal reinforcement (Like floors, walls) so its going to be crushed by pressure. One penetration, and the netire thing is going to vent as well. Its hella unsafe, and doesn't make a lot of sense. It'd be easier to partition it into multiple floors, and corridors and rooms.

The Complement is also insane. Fitting 75,000+ people onto one ship? I'd significantly drop that, to only a small portion of that. Considering how much weapons and armour its got, its complement is going to suffer. I'd recommend 8-12,000, at the most.

  • Role: This is something you repeatedly fail on. You make the ship out for every conceivable role. Fleet Command, Carrier, Orbital Bombardment, resupply, mining, etc, etc. I would narrow it down to two roles (Fleet command, planetary assault) and stick to it.

Now, the summary. This ship is indicative of your main flaw as a writer. Everything you write must be the biggest, the best, the most amazing, the most incredible, the most powerful, etc. This ship, for instance? Carries more guns, more soldiers, more everything, than any other ship combined. This ship is commanded by Priest-X071/A, the son of two of the most famous spartans, who by all accounts is a raving lunatic who bites people, and is the biggest, tallest, most powerful, most intelligent human ever. He in turn is equipped in a suit of power armour that is one of a kind, and more powerful than everything that ever came before. This, is what is called a Mary Sue (Or her brother, Gary Stu). Its a fan fiction trope that has been around as long as fan-fiction. Mary Sues are the best at everything, who did everything first, at the youngest age, for everything.

The fact is, its boring to read. Nobody enjoys reading a character like that. Look at some of our greatest wiki articles. They aren't the best or the greatest. They're real, tangible characters, with human flaws, failings, and interests.

The key here is that you generally write uninteresting, super over powered articles nobody really wants to read. What I'd strongly suggest is taking a long look at your articles, and figure out ways to make them more realistic, more interesting, more down to earth.



Fine ill take it

Well, after taking all that in, i have a question for you, my ship's complement is 2 marine expeditionary force (27,000 men each) and 2 of each units (2,300 each). this complement is comparable to your Hera-class Attack Carrier. Now the question, why are you being so nit-picky with mine when your own ships have secondary MACs and can carry around 400 fighters and two expeditionary forces? Also, just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it cant be done.

Don't Worry, I am going to adjust accordingly.

Respectfully,

Ben

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:22, February 18, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Also, my Bofors MAC turrets function as the ship's secondary armament as they can keep the enemy from firing back while the main guns recharge. Really not that different fr0m your own MAC Turrets.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:51, February 18, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

I think we should take a step back here and consiuder what the Hera-class is: an assualt carrier that operates primarily in a supporting role. It literally reads that in the article; that it is "significantly smaller and less well armed in the belief [they] should save their space solely for on board cargo." The fact that it is a carrier would probably be a fairly good reason for the large number of single ships, and the fact that its built from the frame of a battleship provides the key reason it possesses turreted MAC guns. Its not an overhauled warship, it was designed from the kneel up for that task. Additionally, your article is the one in question on this talkpage: if there are sincere issues with the canon friendliness of his page, please take it to that talk page.
May I also politely note that while the statement "just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it cant [sic] be done" can be true, logical justification as for why is key to make a successful argument - especially to combat claims of unrealism. Sort of how the entire premise of such a heavy overhaul has far exceeded the cost–benefit analysis of building a whole new ship with new and state-of-the-art technology and components and is exceedingly poorly justified.
Kindly take our words onboard,
With regards,
Sabre_Dance_Transparent.png Sabre Dance (Talk) (Contribs) 02:05, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to explain what exactly i am trying to do here, i am trying to get the Infinity's firepower and the factories of the Orion-class Assault carrier (a new ship) into a role like that of the Punic-class Supercarrier (another new UNSC ship from Halo: Fleet Battles) into one ship. But, that being said, i am reducing a bit of the Infinity's weapons as well.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:52, February 19, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


We know what you WANT to do, but a ship should not be that powerful. And you are combining specialties. The Infinity's offensive capabilities with the Orion-class's support capabilities. If you want a ship that is both of those, then you need to reduce the amount of both. Have at most half of an offensive ship's weapons and half of the factories, or double the size, reducing the defensive capabilities and it's speed drastically. Nothing can be the best at everything, so make the ship half great in both ways.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 19:50, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

i pretty much did that, her armament is made up of pretty much missiles, and her MACs. she can carry more troops than the Infinity, but less ships than the Infinity.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 19:56, February 19, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Move To Namespace

S013-Banner
Ajax 013 - <Death to Heroes>[The Damned] [The Lost][The Forgotten] ObscurumVictoria :
TALK - Greenwich Mean Time
The issues with the article have not been resolved. In fact, most haven't been addressed. The article has been tagged for over 2 weeks. Now we'll take a vote to see if it goes to the user page.



Yes

No

What exactly needs fixed??

specifically what do you need me to fix, tell me strait up so i actually can instead of simply telling me useless mumbo jumbo people!!! Would it really kill ya to sympathize with the way i write? So what if i like super ships, thats how i am, they're not boring, they're smart simply because they can fulfill roles other ships cannot!!

Thanks for making me even more pissed off,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 21:45, February 19, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


The super ship is the problem! It's boring to see a ship that does everything with no issues. It's overpowered and lazy (like 343's Infinity). An underdog ship (a frigate for instance) with little strength that has accomplished a task that seemed only possible for a super ship is much more amazing than an OP ship. I know that this takes place thirty years or so after the Infinity, but it's still too OP. Instead of constantly changing the name of the ship, listen to our constructive criticism and fix the article. I honestly would have voted No, thinking that you may recover if you had more time, but at this point it doesn't even look like you took some of our suggestions into consideration. You make it less OP, and then add something else that makes it too OP again. I apologize if this sounds anything like flaming, I just wanted to put this out there in the endless cosmos of the Internet. And I'm not actually going to vote. I'm staying neutral on this one.

KingOfYou115 (talk) 22:53, February 19, 2016 (UTC)


79619aacd9879f17
Minuteman 2492 - Baptized in fire, forty to one!:
TALK - Sunday, August 9, 2020
Church, you have been told what needs to be fixed. The so-called 'useless mumbo jumbo' you are referring to are the technologies and established constraints within the Halo universe. If you find super ships interesting, great, unfortunately writing on this site means that you must adhere to the rules regarding canon and realism. Ajax has given you a list of issues that need to be addressed, and ways to address them. It would be in your best interest if you followed his suggestion, and thereby improve your fanon greatly.


I fixed it and took Ajax's Advice!!! YAY!!!

She aint no super ship no more, i compared mine to Ajax's Hera-class Attack Carrier and figured out what was wrong. Mine is built for support not attack. So i toned her down to her minimal amount of guns. I am still wanting feedback.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 14:38, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Danish guy
Revan180193 - It's dangerous to go alone so take a Carlsberg and drink with me instead:
TALK - Sunday, August 9 2020
I would strongly suggest dropping those two super MACs entirely, the sheer energy to power them require entire power plants down on the planets they orbited to keep them powered, and also that particle cannon. I don't think the UNSC would be able to develop a particle cannon in just 32 years after cannon established events. And as you claim its role is troop deployment so it wouldn't need such weapons in the first place. I would recommend simply going with two heavy MACs or use the class that the UNSC Infinity uses instead of two continent shaking super MACs (For your information on just how powerful a single super MAC round is, it's 2,500,000 times more powerful than the Tzar Bomba and they fire every 5 second)



Alright ill go to heavy macs then. The particle beam is an up-scaled SPARTAN Laser.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 15:56, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church


Danish guy
Revan180193 - It's dangerous to go alone so take a Carlsberg and drink with me instead:
TALK - Sunday, August 9 2020
Also i would seriously cut down on the crew and troops it can carry around. Your ship is ONLY a little over 5 km and it can carry over 70,000 people (where over 11,000 is part of the medical staff... Is this a floating super hospital or a massive troop transport?) plus 136 fighters and attack crafts, 2 Sahara-class heavy prowlers and 4 Strident-class Heavy Frigates. Again, why does this ship need all that when it's role is to simply deploy troops and provid them with supplies.



She can provide some medical support as well, but only 4,000 wounded on-board the ship.

Respectfully,

Church

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 16:24, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Still Wanting Feedback

Feel free to offer feedback!!!!

--Admiral Benjamin Church (talk) 20:14, February 24, 2016 (UTC) Admiral_Benjamin_Church

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.