Starcraft VS Halo

This is probably posted here, it`s posted everywhere. I just wanted one where i could get involved from the beginning. Anyways, I have got a few scenarios for you guys and girls. (This is using halo 1 weps (any weapons added after Halo 1 eg BR SMG are using their earliest variant) and the earliest variant of starcraft weps.

Scenario 1: UNSC vs Terrans. So basically We`re Fighting for earth, Terrans have the western hemisphere the UNSC have the eastern hemisphere. (There is no space battle OKAY GUYS! This is all inside the atmosphere)

I personally feel that the Terrans have a giant advantage.

Infantry: The UNSC while having Spartans, would be out powered. A marines CMC 300/400 armor is quite a bit like Mjolnir (excuse my spelling if it`s wrong) just a **** load cooler, it also does not have the shields although i`d think marine armor would give better protection as it can withstand a frigging ultralisk attack while Mark 6 can`t withstand a plasma sword. Also as stated with Marines UNSC guys are like little gay suit with a 7.62 mm assault rifle firing 10 rps with a 50 round clip. The Terrans are using 8mm AP Spine rounds firing 30 rps (rounds per second) with a clip of 500, plus they have attached RPG launchers (these are stabilized rpgs not ****ty go everywhere hit 30 feet beside your target RPGs) We are using variant one C-14s which can also be modified to fire grenades instead of 8mm spines.

Vehicular: The Halo vehicles (while looking awesome) are abso-friggin-lutely no match for Starcraft vehicles. Example: A group 40 scorps vs a group of 40 Siege tanks. The siege tanks could have 20 go into siege mode and bombard the scorps taking out most of their numbers. Once the scorps get close the first 20 engage allowing the back 20 to change to tank mode then the back 20 engage as well. Armament wise the Halo guys are out gunned, scorps fire 1 90mm he round every let`s say aprox 5 seconds. Siegeers fire 2 80mm high explosive high heat plasma rounds aprox every 3 seconds. Also vultures fire i believe 80mm grenades? (Someone find this out quickly!and have the ability to plant spider mines (game limits not included in this conversation only the limits of the whole race during the games time period eg not the 200 you`re allowed but the 10 or so billion there was and this included ALL forces even if they were fighting so yes the elites are with the covy) While the warthog has a 50 cal.? a passenger (with rockets for anti vehicle). LAAV hogs have a triple rocket launcher (Halo PC) and LAAV 2 has the gauss cannon (halo 2 vers). The grenades mixed with vulture maneuverability and speed means the warthogs have little chance.

Air to Air: (This is inner atmosphere only) Wraiths are much faster then hornets a lot more maneuverable and can cloak, so i`d say they win that fight. If you threw a fleet of 20 halcyon class ships (eg the pillar of autumn), 100 hornets, and 100 pelicans vs 20 Battle Cruisers 100 wraiths and 100 Valkyrie. I`d have to say the hornets would go down really fast as would the pelicans. The wraiths may drop to 50 or 60 and the valkyrie may drop to the same number. The BCs vs the Halcyons would be tougher, the BCs i`d sya have better basic armaments the whole lasers of death everywhere thing. The specials are the problem, the yamoto cannon looks like it`d be more powerful but there`s the firing speed issue. The mac fires a round a sec approximately while the yamoto takes 2 or 3 to charge and fire.

I`ll release scenario 2 after the great debate to be had over Scen 1. Please guys keep it clean no fanboying one side or the other (it may look like i did but this is my true opinion i look bothb game equaly) and please HAVE FUN!

 

While I applaud the debate (we have had one of Covenant versus Protoss here before) This belongs in Space Junk.

 

Thanks although for the space junk i don`t know if i should be angry or happy? Meh hopefully i<ll get some debate out of this.

 

You shouldn't be either, if I had the time atm I would go into a long analysis of your post, but to put my opinion simply the Terran would do better than even you are suggesting.

As for others who may or may not post in this thread, while this is Space Junk that isn't a free pass to spam any thread you want.

 

Analysis would be good if you have the time at some point please post it. I was being modest if i wanted i could have gone into a huge thing examining every piece of evidence. Even if it was just UNSC marines vs SCVs the Terran have the numbers, i mean during Halo the humans are down to what a few billion maybe not even that many? While through out all of SC the Terrans stick to 10 or so billion?

Edit: Can someone explain the money and units in the corner? (I am new here)

 

you get minerals for posting, and having people look at your threads and posting in them, you can spend the minerals on shiny pets. They have no use.

I dont know much about Halo, so can't really join in the rest of the discussion.

 

First off, I don't know much about Halo.

My analysis:

Halo has the numbers advantage. They're not just a bunch of colonies in space.

1:1 the terrans have the advantage. A marine wears powered armor, superior to the armor the majority of UNSC soldiers and marines wear. However, marine armor is cheap and not that awesome. Sure Mjolnir armor might not be able to withstand an energy sword, but zealot energy blades cut through marine armor pretty well too. UNSC bullets bounce off of terran marine armor, but heavy weapons will cut through. Marine armor should not be considered equivalent to the expensive and extremely high-performance Mjolnir armor.

Terran marines have better guns, and they're designed to penetrate powered armor. The attached rocket/grenade launcher is rare. They're not standard equipment. Using either game, novel or manga sources, they're never mentioned outside of one or two cinematics. In real life, one marine per fireteam (that's four people) has a grenade launcher, and in Halo (a universe that frankly pays more attention to weapon lore) marines do on occasion tote grenade launchers. So IMO we should just call that a wash. Indeed, Halo marines might have an advantage because they occasionally carry machine guns (not just rifles) and use other heavy weapons. (Not surprising; in games like Halo Wars, there are many kinds of marines.)

Spartans rock terran marines hardcore, but there are very few Spartans.

It's too bad we're not using StarCraft II units; I'd love to discuss the marauders. I think firebats wouldn't do too badly; they have even heavier armor than marines, letting them get close enough to kill. However, realistically, UNSC troops would spread out and try to use their greater maneuverability to cut off the firebats' advantage.

Not fair. A scorpion probably costs less than a siege tank, and Halo probably has the numbers advantage too. Also, siege tanks are basically artillery with some crappy tank characteristics. In real-life (if this could happen) that kind of battle would never happen. No one ever sends out tanks or artillery unsupported. (And no, leaving half the siege tanks in tank mode is not adequate support.) Depending on who is the better commander, maybe the Scorpions could get close enough to the siege tanks (eg using hills for cover and concealment) and then rush 'em. Sure, some Scorpions will get blown up, but there'll be more of them and siege tanks have a low rate of fire and suck up close.

(Please note, we should not use actual game stats. The RoF of a siege tank should be used for comparison purposes only, eg it has a lower RoF than a goliath. Given the gigantic differences between the two game systems, direct comparisons like that are meaningless.)

We're not given a number. Unfortunately, the game effect doesn't match lore here. Sure, they're concussive, so anti-personnel, but they really should be doing splash damage, and therefore should be really good at killing infantry.

Yup. Vultures can plant spider mines. In real life soldiers can plant mines. The only advantage of using vultures is they can move faster than soldiers, so you can get mines into the ground earlier than your opponents expect. Well, also, they won't blow up your own troops (except accidentally) due to their absurdly good IFF systems.

The grenade launcher would work well against the warthog, since the crew is exposed. However, LAAVs would have the advantage against vultures. Anti-personnel grenades would bounce off and the vultures have to slow down/stop in order to fire, leaving them vulnerable. The vulture's advantage is they could frustrate the LAAV crew into wasting shots or going crazy, but there's no way a recon bike beats an armored vehicle in pitched combat.

How do you know this?

This is a massive advantage.

This analysis needs more tactics. Should we assume each side is familiar with the other?

Halcyons suck. The UNSC started using more advanced cruisers (the Marathon-class) as a result of the Halcyon's poor performance. I believe the Pillar of Autumn is a Halcyon, but it was designed to look weak. (They super-charged it, although it got wrecked too fast to see how cool it could have been.)

Wraiths would eat the Halcyons or other cruisers for breakfast with their powerful Gemini missiles, which (in the Brood War air balance model) are designed to take on heavy ships. Cloaking lets them dodge the missiles and frankly anything else, and who wastes MAC shots on Wraiths?

Valkyries would eat the Hornets. I mean, that's what they're there for. However, Hornets are designed to attack ground targets I believe, so they shouldn't be included in the analysis. So we'll use Longswords instead. (Executive decision.) Longswords have guns and little missiles, which would work well against Wraiths but would bounce off battlecruiser hulls. As a result, Longswords would still have little point in the battle, since they'd have a really hard time fighting cloaked Wraiths and would be eaten alive by Valkyries anyway. Valkyrie missiles would suck against Marathons.

Battlecruisers vs Halcyon/Marathon cruisers. This part is fun. Unfortunately, because the StarCraft universe authors aren't as technically proficient as those of Halo, battlecruisers come off looking weak. For their size (which varies from telling to telling), they're undergunned and can't even defend their sides. "Realistically" a battlecruiser would be more powerful (and more expensive) than a Marathon cruiser. After all, a battlecruiser is basically a battleship with lighter armor.

Marathon cruisers (I'm using that, making an executive decision on this) are armed with point defense guns, two MAC cannons and many Archer missile pods (anyone have range figures for those?). The MAC cannons are frankly overpowered, especially if you can recharge them in a second. (I don't recall figures that good in the books.) Even so, I doubt the UNSC has the technology to blast giant masses at half of light speed that can fit on a cruiser. Please note, MAC blasts (assuming they're as ridiculously powerful as shown in the novels) would work great against both battlecruisers and Valkyries.

Battlecruisers have lasers and Yamato (or sometimes other things). The lasers are powerful and fire pretty quickly, although apparently Wraiths can easily dodge them (in lore). Odd that. So they kind of suck. Yamato Cannon blasts are basically more powerful MAC blasts.

Why are you including Pelicans in this analysis? They aren't warships! You might as well include dropships there too.

Conclusions:

A battle might consist of 10 Marathon cruisers + X Longswords, vs 5 battlecruisers, X Wraiths and maybe a few Valkyries. (While the Dominion did use Valkyries, they don't seem to have ever built any of them, just stealing them from the UED.)

At the start, the Marathon cruisers immediately unload their MACs, blowing up some or even most of the battlecruisers. (How many blasts would it take? Even one would do severe damage, but if you don't hit the bridge, presumably the damaged battlecruiser can still keep firing.) Wraiths fly out, cloak, and take out the cruisers before they can recharge their MACs. The battlecruisers basically end up doing little; those that survive would try to engage the Marathons with their lasers and Yamato (the latter basically instant death for a Marathon cruiser) while suffering moderate damage from Archer missiles.

The Longswords would fly around, doing nothing and not even drawing fire, they're that useless. The Valkyries (if there are any) would shoot at Longswords, but really that's just giving their weapons officers something to do.

Conclusion: StarCraft universe wins, due to the Wraith, which can both cloak and blow up capital ships, giving a great combination of power and defense. However, the overpowered MAC guns of the Marathon-class cruisers leave battlecruisers as little more than expensive targets.

 

on a lighter tone:

Terran's will unleash the Zerg and go "LOLOLOLOLOLOL" as everything in the Halo universe is destroyed.

 

Sorry i don't know much about halo ships I picked Halcyon as i knew what it was and the 1 sec recharge on MACS was from Halo 2 when you see the one firing. Anyways the whole longsword uselessness was funny.

I was comparing the Marines to spartans because of the fact that they both have power armor doing almost the same thing but the marines withstands blade blows alot better. Also i think one SC marine could take a squad of halo marines gl or not and i said the C-14 had the gl cause 90% of the pics show it. And about the SC2 units you can involve them as i said i just has to be the earliest variant of one, unless the one you said is the new FB.

I think we basically covered scenario 1 so here's number 2

Scenario 2: Covenant VS Protoss. Covy meet the Awesome in space basically a fleet of Carriers with 2 motherships (mother ships being the cruisers like tasadars, the big strong awesome ones) meets a fleet of Covy cruisers with 2 flag ships (EG prophet cruisers). This leads to a giant interplanetary battle of awesome proportions.

Infantry: I think if a squad of covy basics so 2 or 3 elites and 7 or 8 grunts met a squad of Zealots (5 zealots) that no matter what the covy were packing they'd be screwed. Reason being the zealots can sense what the covy are going to do before said event happens, this advantage alone could win the zealot any battle even if the elites cloaked.
Templars (Like Tasadar with an attack) would be a great match against grunts and drones since they could just zap them to death. Templars even without an attack they could pwn almost anything. They could clone the enemy till there's like 60 of em then zap them for a few hours.

Vehicular: Dragoons would be a good match for wraiths but the dragoon has the advantage. Dragoons fire much faster with a higher velocity while the Wraiths have to arc slower shots, the Dragoon could easily side step the wraiths fire then blast it.
Archons would be a good match against scarabs they're both big badass and cool looking. But i think again the protoss would win the scarab has to turn slowly to beam things while the archon can run around it till it blows it up.
Most of the other vehicles don't work together too well.

Air/space: Scouts would tear up banshees as scouts are small battle ships (if you have a better match please post it) Scouts are equipped with highly accurate aa missiles they also have high velocity auto cannons not slow moving plasma rounds and arcing plasma bombs. Hands down the scout wins.
Carrier vs well carrier?: I'd have to say it'd be a close match but the protoss have the advantage of a seemingly endless supply of little bastard ships that are fast hard to hit and know your weaknesses, while a good fight it's a win for the Protoss.

Hero duel: Arbiter vs Zeratul Everyone knows this would be good. (Yes arbiter dual swords and plasma guns) It'd be cool to see but i don't think it would matter too much i think Zeratuls got the win. First off Zeratuls permanently cloaked, also the way the protoss cloaking works it bends light so it wouldn't matter about enhanced vision, motion detector would help a little though. Even if arby raged and knew where Zeratul was i do believe that DTs have the same ability as Zealots to see what the enemy wants to do, this gives Zeratul a huge advantage. Also DTs are agile. They're assassins that can fight in open combat aswell.

 

The protoss win pretty handily, this was the debate we had here awhile ago, and it was a thread that when on for something like 100+ posts. If I have time and it seems nessecary I may make a post that is a combination of my old posts on the topic.

 

I could only find our Flood vs Zerg thread.

My take is that the Terrans would beat the Halo people pretty handily.

It came up in another thread, can't recall which, but basically the gun that a Terran marine charries is a rapid fire version of the gun mounted on a Warthog. It just goes up from there.

 

It came up in the Covy versus Protoss deabte in one of my posts. Essentially the Marine weapon uses a version of the gauss cannon that's mounted on the Warthog in the Halor universe. And your right it only gets worse from there. The Terrans just way outclass the UNSC technologically.

 

By seems necessary you mean when you've got nothing better to do lol

This is one of the topics not something i meant to copy. My thirds a bit of an overkill lol. I already know the one side that would win.

 

note that SPARTANs are still pretty expensive, have to be raised as children, given genetic and surgical enhancements, etc... and in the end they seem to be as powerful as a terran marine. as far as armor plating, exoskeletal enhancements, assault rifle vs gauss rifle, etc...

so, the elite of the UNSC = cannon fodder of the terrans. don't think the haloverse is going to do very well there...

or, consider it this way: covenant elite + energy sword = dark templar without cloaking. marine might seem a bit weaker than a spartan in this case, but it still doesn't solve the issue of spartan = UNSC elite, while marine = terran 1st tier unit.

 

True. It shows that it's better to have strong basics then strong elites

 

No, they do not do the same thing. Mjolnir armor > StarCraft marine armor. By a lot.

Even without the armor, a Spartan is three times stronger than a human, and they're a lot faster too, both in terms of reaction speed and just raw speed (35 miles per hour). Donovan Bailey, once the world's fastest human, could run 27-30 miles per hour while just wearing shorts. And then the Spartans put on the armor, which enhances speed and strength by a lot. An armored Spartan can lift 4000 pounds! A regular human putting on the suit would actually kill themselves just by moving, due to the combination of increased sensitivity (beyond human norms) and 4000 pounds of essentially uncontrolled force on their bones. And then there's the gel-armor and the shields... They are not in the least bit equivalent. Spartan armor is better than marauder armor.

For more info, read Halo: Fall of Reach or Halopedia.

Motherships are not super carriers. Those are different things. Also, you should only have one flagship, and you're only supposed to have one mothership at a time. Since the super carrier's "stats" are unknown, I'm going to assume one mothership, which causes problems since they're not available until after Brood War. Similarly, the Covenant should only have one mothership.

Also, protoss fleets would have a few carriers and lots of scouts. Scouts, like Wraiths, will slaughter the Covenant large ships. Seraphs (the Covenant equivalent) seem better at killing smaller ships, like Scouts. Since Scouts cannot cloak, the Seraphs might wipe out the Scouts before they can destroy the Covenant cruisers and carriers.

There's no good way of comparing shield strength. This whole battle looks about even, maybe a slight edge to the protoss since the mothership has some awesome special abilities. However, Covenant cruisers look almost unstoppable, given that Seraphs don't suck vs Scouts.

I don't know enough about Covenant fleets to set up a good scenario, but the unit mix here isn't varied enough.

Zealot precognition gives a slight, seemingly unreliable bonus vs cloaking. Dark Templar still pwn zealots in regular combat.

The grunts have ranged weapons, including plasma, which is great vs shields. (Unless said otherwise, I will assume shields work the same.) Yes, a grunt is no match for a zealot unless they use tactics, such as crouching behind rocks, making it hard for zealots to charge them. Of course, zealots have super charge, which could let them avoid most shots and then cut up the grunts.

An elite is basically a zealot as-is. They're probably a little weaker due to not being psychic, but both are indoctrinated and both are strong. Elites tend to carry plasma rifles, which work great against shields, but zealots can charge. Energy swords are probably just as good as psionic blades, since they're both really good at cutting stuff. Both have decent armor, strength and speed.

The Covenant has the advantage of plasma ranged weapons, the zealots can charge. I say this goes to the Covenant, as they have two advantages here.

Of course, maybe the scenario isn't fair. Shouldn't the protoss use at least some dragoons or stalkers and some high templar? I don't see the Covenant having any chance against psionic storm.

Clone? What? Also, high templar can't fight without support, even if they do have an attack.

No, that's not how artillery works. The arced shot is slow in-game, but real-life artillery moves really fast. An arcing shot is actually an advantage, since it's harder to take cover from it. Also, dragoons aren't that agile, these aren't stalkers. The mortar shot does heavy damage; only the Covenant scarab does more damage. The Wraith also has a secondary fire plasma gun, which is great vs shields and I don't know how good against dragoon armor.

Dragoon shots, meanwhile, are great vs Wraiths or anything that's armored. To win, they have to rush the Wraith and try to get within the minimum mortar range. Without more info, it's hard to tell if dragoons can pull this off. The Covenant actually has the advantage here, because if they can pick good terrain, their mortars gives them an advantage.

I'm detecting a heavy pro-protoss bias here. Archons aren't that fast. An archon isn't a good match for a scarab; an archon would be better off "tanking" infantry, like grunts or elites. (I don't see an elite beating an archon.)

Like the terran banshee (irony?) the Covenant banshee is designed to destroy ground targets. That's not an equivalent fight.

I agree. Robotic interceptors are really hard to kill and easily replaceable. Also, they're armed with energy weapons which (according to Halo lore) means they should tear up Covenant shields really fast.

Zeratul would win, but I'd like to point out Elites are agile too.

As mentioned earlier, there's a heavy pro-StarCraft bias in your analyses. You also have a habit of not matching units up properly, and of not using unit mixes properly.

Please respond to that; it's quite important. For instance, I noticed you didn't respond to my criticism of using Pelicans (UNSC dropships) as combat aircraft. As for where I'm getting all this Halo unit info from, I've been checking the Halo wiki. A lot of Halo units, like the Covenant Wraith, I'd never even heard of before I saw this thread.

That's like comparing a grunt's plasma pistol to a heavy plasma cannon or the Enterprise's phasers with a hand phaser. Sure, it's the same type of weapon, but they really shouldn't be compared...

 

Actually Kimera, I would argue your the one leaning on fanboyism here. Since I don't have time to refuit your entire post atm the moment let's just talk about the Marine weapon. I want you to go rewatch the Sc2 trailer, I want you to take notice of how much the armor adds to the overall size of the Marine. Then I want you to look at the size of weapon the Marine is holding relative to his overall size. Next go replay a halo game with a Gauss warthog then look at the size of the weapon relative to a normal marine. Once you have done all of this you will notice that while the Warthog Gauss is a longer, the Terran weapon is about the same overall volume. Considering the're both similar sizes and they are based on similar technology it's not much of s strech to assume they have very similar destructive capabilities.

Next, now that we have proven the firepower of a single Terran, we know about how much damage he would do to a spartan in one shot, so we can compare them. Last time I played the Gauss Cannon one shotted pretty much everything including spartans, but even if it took two shots, in still means it would only take 2 maybe 3 at most Terran marines, to kill a spartan. Finally, since you already have the cinematic trailer open, take a look at the thickness of the marine armor. I would wager most UNSC infantry weapons aren't going to have the penetration power to puncture it, which means the UNSC is essentially screwed at the infantry level in a fight between the Terrans and UNSC and it only gets worse for the UNSC as more technology is examined.

Oh, and the Protoss kick the **** out of the Covenant in anything other than extremely lopsided battles.

 

Any sensed bias isn't true it's just it seems more likely that the Protoss would win

 

I think a ghost could kill a spartan with ease. I mean it can read its mind before it makes a move, and to top that off I've never seen a spartan launch a nuke. In Air to Air i have to give it to the terrans because valks would obliterate the UNSC fighters in seconds. The splash damage is something they don't currently have available to them, and they have never encountered before. So its safe to assume that they don't have their defenses built around defending against attacks like that. Also, the UNSC does not have robotic style units and the terrans do. The goliath represents a huge advantage as it has a lot of mobility then vehicles using wheels and tracks. As for saying the spartans are superior to the marines I would argue that it would depend on the marine. The suits they wear increase their strength, speed, and their accuracy.

 

I haven't even played a Halo game.

It adds one foot in height, generally and weighs ... well, quite a lot. That's still not matching up to Mjolnir armor.

Maybe it's just me, but I have hard time picturing a vehicle-mounted weapon being as powerful as a man-mounted weapon. I don't think the size of the weapon is important, but the technology behind it and characteristics such as spike/bullet diameter. Also, neither of us have figures behind the destructive capability of the weapons. I do know that C-14 rifle spikes don't always insta-kill targets. For instance, in I, Mengsk, Valerian Mengsk had to spray an enemy marines with his rifle and only killed her because one of the spikes hit a weak point in her armor.

To put it another way, siege tanks take multiple hits to kill marines (assuming neither side has upgrades), which is just plain ridiculous, and two scourges are required to kill a Wraith, which is probably also ridiculous. And as we've seen, an artillery piece (used in the cinematic "The Ambush"), which was probably weaker than a siege tank, can one shot a dragoon, while a siege tank takes two hits to remove hit points (not even taking shields into account)... I'd rather use lore, rather than something based on game balance.

And I must say, if a vehicle mounted weapon can take out a Spartan in only two shots, the problem isn't the Spartan, but the weapon said warthog is carrying. Seriously, that's ridiculous!

I should point out that most of my Halo info is from the books and halopedia, not the video game itself. (That's why I complain about MACs, which you don't see in the games.)

On that I agree. As mentioned previously, I don't think marine armor is that good, but UNSC infantry weapons don't look better than the StarCraft variants. A C-14 rifle can fire hypersonic projectiles, that's going to penetrate a hell of a lot better than what the non-powered armor wearing UNSC troops are carrying.

But this does raise an interesting point. Spartans have really good armor, but they carry the exact same standard rifle as UNSC marines.

My knowledge of Halo fleet stuff is lesser, but I agree. Between the powerful carriers and support vessels like arbiters, the protoss should have the advantage. Also, scouts kick ***, Seraphs don't, and both are relatively cheap.

But I have to say, you're giving cogent points. Do you want to set the unit mixes? I think it's more fun if we have more valid comparisons.

That's what you get for using a confusing term. You should say "flagship".

You meant hallucination, I wish you had mentioned that. Still, high templar shouldn't operate without support. This doesn't just apply to high templar, nothing except real badasses like archons or Spartans should ever operate without support. (Also, the most basic units.)

You still haven't addressed my other points.