Site Poll 91: Could the Covenant have been defeated without the Great Schism?

[Ranger Intel]

 

 

Hi everyone, Spartan here with Site Poll 91.

 

 

Last week we talked about which Elite you like most. Thel 'Vadam topped the poll, with some other interesting individuals also mentioned. Was great to see the community's thoughts on the topic. Click here to view the last poll, 90.

 

 

 

 

Could the Covenant have been defeated without the Great Schism?

 

 

The Covenant Civil War, also known as the Great Schism, was a climactic and disastrous event for the Covenant. The Elites weren't easily stomped out, unfortunately for the Prophets. Despite being the Covenant's primary warriors for thousands of years, the Prophets had to try replacing them, as many Elites were beginning to realise the truth and chose not to support the Prophets any longer. As the Brutes took their place, and Elites began getting slaughtered, a massive civil war erupted within the Covenant.

 

This event, many believe, caused the Covenant to fall apart. Would the Covenant have been defeated without it though? Many will say that there's no way the Covenant would have lost if the Great Schism didn't happen. Do you think humanity could have defeated the Covenant without it, or would we have lost for certain if there never was a Covenant Civil War?

 

On a side note: I'd like us to remember Miguel Ferrer, the man who voiced Sesa 'Refumee in Halo 2, as he passed away last year. Sesa (pictured above) was one of the first known Elites to realise the Prophets' words were a fallacy, unfortunately the man who represented his voice in English is no longer with us. Rest in peace Miguel.

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,

Spartan out.  

[Drizzy_Dan]

The simple answer is no. Granted there were many other factors that would eventually come to pass that would make it seem like it would be possible, they weren't happening at the same time. We wouldn't see the UNSC Infinity for another 4 years and some months meaning all of our ships would still pale in comparison. Not to mention, The Covenant were fighting with the Banished during the war. Master Chief is the best but he wouldn't have met the Arbiter had he never defected 

[Ranger Intel]

The simple answer is no. Granted there were many other factors that would eventually come to pass that would make it seem like it would be possible, they weren't happening at the same time. We wouldn't see the UNSC Infinity for another 4 years and some months meaning all of our ships would still pale in comparison. Not to mention, The Covenant were fighting with the Banished during the war. Master Chief is the best but he wouldn't have met the Arbiter had he never defected 

 

Why another 4 years for the Infinity? It was launched very shortly after the end of the war.

[Drizzy_Dan]

Why another 4 years for the Infinity? It was launched very shortly after the end of the war.

 

It wasn't ready to be commissioned until 2557. The war with the Covenant wouldn't have ended in 2552 had it not been for the Great Schism. I just don't know if Humanity would've been able to stop Delta Halo from firing or, if they did, survive long enough to see the date in which Blue Team and Dr. Halsey were released from the Dyson Sphere. 

[Ranger Intel]

It wasn't ready to be commissioned until 2557. The war with the Covenant wouldn't have ended in 2552 had it not been for the Great Schism. I just don't know if Humanity would've been able to stop Delta Halo from firing or, if they did, survive long enough to see the date in which Blue Team and Dr. Halsey were released from the Dyson Sphere. 

 

It wasn't commissioned until 2557 because humanity wasn't fighting an active war, and new Forerunner technology acquired from ONIRF Trevelyan was being installed and tested. If the war was still going on during the beginning of 2553, Infinity would certainly have been deployed earlier, as we know it was could have been ready for combat (and would be needed badly). Without an active war, there's essentially no pressure to commission Infinity early. The UNSC weren't developing Infinity to release it many years later when they'd have little chance of still existing, they were planning to have it commissioned before getting destroyed, makes sense. It was designed to be a colony ship, and there's no point having one if the Covenant's killed us all. What you could say though, is that Infinity wouldn't have as much advanced weaponry and technology if commissioned earlier (due to not having the Trevelyan tech), but they'd certainly role it out before losing.

[RedStarRocket91]

Of course they could have. Just fire a Halo ring

More seriously, no. It's stated somewhere that the UNSC needed to outnumber Covenant ships three to one in order to have even odds of victory, and after the fall of Reach, humanity didn't even come close to that. I'm going to be working off game canon here, since I'm not an expert on book lore, but here's my breakdown.

 

Reach itself is perhaps the best example: it was the single most heavily fortified planet in the UNSC. By August 16th, it was being defended by at least 60% of the UNSC's fleet, assuming Dot's comments at the start of 'Long Night of Solace' were accurate, most of the surviving Spartan-IIs and Noble Team. From first contact at Visegrad Relay to the whole world being glassed after the Pillar of Autumn's escape took a little over a month. Now admittedly, Reach is supposed to have really taken a toll on the Covenant, but they still won it, and even if we work on the assumption that '60% of the UNSC fleet' represented the absolute total percentage of the UNSC's fleets ever present over Reach (rather than in addition to its own forces, which were probably worth at least a few percentage points by themselves), that still means humanity had a whole third less available to defend Earth than they had when they had failed to defend Reach.

 

As for Earth? The defence that we saw throughout Halo 2 went okay, thanks to home turf, an ambush counterattack, and an extreme numerical advantage, but even then losses were bad, as within a few minutes of the opening battle two of the major orbital defence stations had been wiped out. But even with these advantages, two of the defence platforms are still destroyed, and this by a Covenant fleet which is one-fiftieth the size of the fleet which destroyed Reach. In ODST we see a much bigger fleet appear, and absolutely no signs of effective counter attack: by Halo 3, the UNSC has seemingly been reduced to operating out of abandoned surface bases, one of which falls to a single Covenant capital ship. Even the combined UNSC and Elite forces simply don't have enough strength to prevent the Covenant from opening the portal to the Ark.

 

Now, let's crunch some numbers. At the start of 'The Ark', it's mentioned that the Covenant outnumber the Elites three to one. Now, if we assume that everything in that battle represents the absolute total number of remaining Covenant ships, and that a Brute-led ship is only one-third as effective as an Elite ship (i.e. about as effective as a human ship), then using our initial statement that the UNSC needed to outnumber Elite-led ships three-to-one in order to have a chance of victory, at the time of the battle above the Ark, the UNSC would have needed a ship for every Brute ship and three for each Elite vessel (a total of six to four) to have a chance of winning that fight. And that's not even considering that the Covenant fleet would have been vastly larger, since it wouldn't have had a sizeable chunk of its fleet destroyed during the schism.

 

Next, consider that the Elite ships (i.e. a quarter of the potential Covenant hulls) were able to glass 'half a continent' within, at most, a few days, at the end of 'Floodgate'. Now even if we assume that Hood was exaggerating the scale of destruction, and that it indeed took a few days, the fact remains that the Covenant could have glassed Earth very quickly - from the first beam being fired in New Alexandria, it only took about a week to destroy Reach. The only reason they didn't do the same to Earth was because they were too busy digging out the portal to the Ark to bother.

 

Lastly, it's mentioned that the fleet which destroyed Reach was 50 times the size of the one which initially attacked Earth, and I seem to remember that fleet lost about a third of its strength in the battle. So on top of everything else - even on Reach, the best defended human world in the galaxy, the UNSC lost 60% of its forces to the Covenant's (at worst) 40%. Assuming that Earth could do as well as Reach with a similar rate of attrition, and even assuming that the 'largest Covenant fleet anyone's ever seen' over Delta Halo both represented all of the Covenant's and was only one ship larger than the fleet which had attacked Reach, the UNSC's navy would be completely wiped out with more than half of the Covenant's own fleet remaining. Even if we assume that High Charity only accounted for just over the mass lost at Reach (which it clearly doesn't) and the rest of the fleet was only the 2/3 which had remained after that campaign, the rate of attrition would still comfortably tip into the Covenant's favour, since even allowing for High Charity being destroyed an an unfavourable engagement on Earth they'd still end the battle of Earth with about 30% of their initial forces intact.

 

So to sum up: in order to defeat a unified Covenant, by the time of the battle over the portal to the Ark, humanity would have needed to outnumber the Covenant three to two in order to have a chance of winning, despite having already lost at least 60% of their forces, would have had to muster those forces about a third faster thank to the Covenant glassing a third faster, and that's on the assumption that the Covenant didn't bring the ships that would have otherwise been destroyed in the Great Schism anyway.

Edited September 7, 2018 by RedStarRocket91

[Ranger Intel]

Reach itself is perhaps the best example: it was the single most heavily fortified planet in the UNSC.

 

Earth was certainly more fortified than Reach. Sure Reach was our largest shipyard, but Earth has a lot more defence.

[Drizzy_Dan]

@@UNSC Spartan-II The underlying point I was trying to make was that infinity would've been a strong weapon for Humanity but even so, finished before 2557 or not, it would not have been enough for the Covenant. it was almost destroyed by a single Covenant space station's glassing cannon. 

 

Also Reach was the most heavily fortified colony under the UEG despite Earth being our homeworld. Reach was our military stronghold. 

 

@@RedStarRocket91 Game canon is all canon

[Ranger Intel]

Also Reach was the most heavily fortified colony under the UEG despite Earth being our homeworld. Reach was our military stronghold. 

 

Red said planet, not colony. If we're talking about any planet here, I'm sure Earth's more fortified (link a source if I'm wrong). As for colonies, Reach is probably the most fortified one, I'm not sure though.

[Drizzy_Dan]

Red said planet, not colony. If we're talking about any planet here, I'm sure Earth's more fortified (link a source if I'm wrong). As for colonies, Reach is probably the most fortified one, I'm not sure though.

 

I meant colony in reference to the entire planet. I believe that as Humanity and the UEG's biggest military stronghold, that qualifies it as the most fortified in terms of defenses. There seem to be more orbital space stations around Earth than orbital MAC cannons.

[RedStarRocket91]

Red said planet, not colony. If we're talking about any planet here, I'm sure Earth's more fortified (link a source if I'm wrong). As for colonies, Reach is probably the most fortified one, I'm not sure though.

 

Well, are there any sources which actually say that Earth was more fortified?

 

Again, working from what we know within the games: at least 60% of the total UNSC navy was present on Reach, according to Dot at the start of 'Long Night of Solace'. From the Arbiter's speech at the start of Halo 2, we also know that the Pillar of Autumn was the only ship to escape, meaning that humanity had, at most, 40% of their previous fleet present for the Battle of Earth. In other words, if the accounts from Reach and Halo 2 are accurate, then at least in terms of naval vessels there's no way Earth could have actually been more fortified than Reach.

 

As for the orbital stations, I don't know what they're actually worth in terms of 'ships', but we can suppose two main things. The first, that a single station int sufficient to stop one of the Covenant's carriers, given that the Prophet of Regret's flagship is able to simply bypass Cairo Station during the mission of the same name. The second, that the orbital stations appear to be extremely vulnerable to boarding actions - of the three that we see boarded during the mission, two are successfully destroyed. The last one only barely repels its boarders in time, and that because there was a Spartan-II present - and there obviously aren't enough Spartan-IIs to defend the whole defence grid.

 

It's never mentioned again after that as far as I remember, so I don't know whether the grid was destroyed or simply rendered ineffective once the Covenant had punched a hole in over East Africa, but in any case, it's difficult to rate its overall effectiveness as a substitute for the missing ships. All we know is that, in order for Earth to have been more fortified than Reach, the battlestations in its defence grid needed to be worth at least half as much as all of the ships which participated in the battle, plus whatever Reach had in terms of static defences.

 

But wait! That presupposes that the entire defence grid can actually participate. The reality is, once the Covenant are beneath the defence grid, they can't actually do anything and Earth is reliant on its fleet, who as we've already established, cannot be larger than the number which defended Reach. Johnson mentions that Cairo Station co-ordinates fire with Athens and Malta stations while on the monorail ride at the start of Halo 2: assuming that the battlestations are arranged so that they work in clusters of three, that means just three battlestations together need to be as effective as half of the entire remaining human fleet in order to ensure the same level of fortification as Reach.

 

While you could make the argument that the UNSC ships might fall back from cluster to cluster after each set's destruction, this hits another snag when you consider the Covenant concentrated their forces over East Africa, meaning that once the first cluster (or the first few clusters) had been cleared, they didn't need to bother attacking the rest, since the battlestations can't move to counterattack. But even assuming that the Covenant are incredibly bloody-minded and destroy the entire defence grid before settling in to excavate, they're still capable of destroying them very quickly via boarding actions, and can still fight them in small clusters rather than having to deal with the whole lot at once.

 

So ultimately? Even if we assume that the 300 orbital platforms are collectively worth more than half of Earth's fleet, the UNSC is still less fortified than Reach by simple virtue of having fewer vessels with which to counter-attack and form any kind of strategy, and unless just one cluster is worth more than half the surviving UNSC fleet, then even if both fleets and the cluster all fought at once in practical terms the UNSC would be facing a fleet at least as large as the one which attacked Reach, with a smaller effective strength.

[Ranger Intel]

I meant colony in reference to the entire planet. I believe that as Humanity and the UEG's biggest military stronghold, that qualifies it as the most fortified in terms of defenses. There seem to be more orbital space stations around Earth than orbital MAC cannons.

 

 

Well, are there any sources which actually say that Earth was more fortified?

 

Again, working from what we know within the games: at least 60% of the total UNSC navy was present on Reach, according to Dot at the start of 'Long Night of Solace'. From the Arbiter's speech at the start of Halo 2, we also know that the Pillar of Autumn was the only ship to escape, meaning that humanity had, at most, 40% of their previous fleet present for the Battle of Earth. In other words, if the accounts from Reach and Halo 2 are accurate, then at least in terms of naval vessels there's no way Earth could have actually been more fortified than Reach.

 

As for the orbital stations, I don't know what they're actually worth in terms of 'ships', but we can suppose two main things. The first, that a single station int sufficient to stop one of the Covenant's carriers, given that the Prophet of Regret's flagship is able to simply bypass Cairo Station during the mission of the same name. The second, that the orbital stations appear to be extremely vulnerable to boarding actions - of the three that we see boarded during the mission, two are successfully destroyed. The last one only barely repels its boarders in time, and that because there was a Spartan-II present - and there obviously aren't enough Spartan-IIs to defend the whole defence grid.

 

It's never mentioned again after that as far as I remember, so I don't know whether the grid was destroyed or simply rendered ineffective once the Covenant had punched a hole in over East Africa, but in any case, it's difficult to rate its overall effectiveness as a substitute for the missing ships. All we know is that, in order for Earth to have been more fortified than Reach, the battlestations in its defence grid needed to be worth at least half as much as all of the ships which participated in the battle, plus whatever Reach had in terms of static defences.

 

But wait! That presupposes that the entire defence grid can actually participate. The reality is, once the Covenant are beneath the defence grid, they can't actually do anything and Earth is reliant on its fleet, who as we've already established, cannot be larger than the number which defended Reach. Johnson mentions that Cairo Station co-ordinates fire with Athens and Malta stations while on the monorail ride at the start of Halo 2: assuming that the battlestations are arranged so that they work in clusters of three, that means just three battlestations together need to be as effective as half of the entire remaining human fleet in order to ensure the same level of fortification as Reach.

 

While you could make the argument that the UNSC ships might fall back from cluster to cluster after each set's destruction, this hits another snag when you consider the Covenant concentrated their forces over East Africa, meaning that once the first cluster (or the first few clusters) had been cleared, they didn't need to bother attacking the rest, since the battlestations can't move to counterattack. But even assuming that the Covenant are incredibly bloody-minded and destroy the entire defence grid before settling in to excavate, they're still capable of destroying them very quickly via boarding actions, and can still fight them in small clusters rather than having to deal with the whole lot at once.

 

So ultimately? Even if we assume that the 300 orbital platforms are collectively worth more than half of Earth's fleet, the UNSC is still less fortified than Reach by simple virtue of having fewer vessels with which to counter-attack and form any kind of strategy, and unless just one cluster is worth more than half the surviving UNSC fleet, then even if both fleets and the cluster all fought at once in practical terms the UNSC would be facing a fleet at least as large as the one which attacked Reach, with a smaller effective strength.

 

Here you're both talking about which battle had more vessels involved. Obviously Reach, because as you said Red, most vessels were gone after that Battle of Reach. The fact that Earth had 300 ODPs and Reach had 20 is enough to say that it's more fortified. Just because more vessels were sent to Reach during its battle, it doesn't mean the planet was more fortified. It was better defended because more naval vessels were dedicated to defending it, but if both planets were attacked at the same time, more vessels would be sent to Earth and you'd be saying Earth was better fortified. It's impossible to say any other planet was fortified better than Reach considering how most of the UNSC Navy was destroyed after the battle, according to you. You should be looking at the permanent defenses put in place to make a fair comparison. The ODPs have MAC cannons and more.

[RedStarRocket91]

It was better defended because more naval vessels were dedicated to defending it, but if both planets were attacked at the same time, more vessels would be sent to Earth and you'd be saying Earth was better fortified. It's impossible to say any other planet was fortified better than Reach considering how most of the UNSC Navy was destroyed after the battle, according to you.

 

Absolutely, if they were attacked simultaneously and the UNSC had sent the majority of their ships back to Earth, I'd agree that Earth was better fortified.

 

But, they weren't, and it didn't, so that's not the discussion we've been having. I'm comparing what was actually present to participate in each of those battles.

 

If I can give you an analogy here: imagine two cities. One of them has bigger walls and more towers, so in that respect yes, it's more fortified. What I'm saying is, you need to account for the number of men who can actually defend those walls, too.

 

You should be looking at the permanent defenses put in place to make a fair comparison. The ODPs have MAC cannons and more.

...I did, though? Almost the entirety of my second response is dedicated to looking at exactly that, and I came to the conclusion that the static defences aren't sufficient to make up for the reduced size of the fleet. To go back to the city analogy, once there's a hole in the walls and all the towers overlooking it have crumbled, what matters more in determining the outcome - the size of the walls and number of towers elsewhere, or the number of men who can actually defend that breach? It's the same with the orbital defence grid: in Halo 2 the UNSC has the advantage of massively outnumbering the Prophet of Regret's fleet, and effectively ambushing them, and yet within the first hour of the battle the local cluster has had two of its three stations destroyed and the Covenant have their breach in the walls, after which point all the other battlestations contribute nothing to the fight since the only thing which can actually respond to the Covenant's attacks in that area are the fleet, which is at least a third smaller than the one which was defeated at Reach.

[Ranger Intel]

 

Absolutely, if they were attacked simultaneously and the UNSC had sent the majority of their ships back to Earth, I'd agree that Earth was better fortified.

 

But, they weren't, and it didn't, so that's not the discussion we've been having. I'm comparing what was actually present to participate in each of those battles.

 

If I can give you an analogy here: imagine two cities. One of them has bigger walls and more towers, so in that respect yes, it's more fortified. What I'm saying is, you need to account for the number of men who can actually defend those walls, too.

 

...I did, though? Almost the entirety of my second response is dedicated to looking at exactly that, and I came to the conclusion that the static defences aren't sufficient to make up for the reduced size of the fleet. To go back to the city analogy, once there's a hole in the walls and all the towers overlooking it have crumbled, what matters more in determining the outcome - the size of the walls and number of towers elsewhere, or the number of men who can actually defend that breach? It's the same with the orbital defence grid: in Halo 2 the UNSC has the advantage of massively outnumbering the Prophet of Regret's fleet, and effectively ambushing them, and yet within the first hour of the battle the local cluster has had two of its three stations destroyed and the Covenant have their breach in the walls, after which point all the other battlestations contribute nothing to the fight since the only thing which can actually respond to the Covenant's attacks in that area are the fleet, which is at least a third smaller than the one which was defeated at Reach.

 

I thought it was clear I meant static defences alone.

 

Back on-topic, nice work comparing the UNSC's resources between battles, it really shows how much we needed the Great Schism.

 

 

 

 

Open-question: To what extent do you think we would have lost the war without the Great Schism? Would we go extinct at all? Would we be driven to becoming a resistance? How long would it take? Would the official humanity resistance be seen dealing with Insurrectionists/Jackals or other species? Honestly, if the Great Schism didn't happen, I don't think our pride as a species would at all be intact after the war, whether we won or not.

[Drizzy_Dan]

Oh boy to what extent... I think we'd be looking at worst case scenario here. Without the Great Schism I think they would've fired Delta Halo thus wiping Humanity and themselves out. I imagine some survivors would be written in

[RedStarRocket91]

I thought it was clear I meant static defences alone.

 

Back on-topic, nice work comparing the UNSC's resources between battles, it really shows how much we needed the Great Schism.

 

Yeah, I'm just re-reading my earlier reply now, and I think 'fortified' was probably a bad word to use there. Maybe 'defended' would have been better.

 

Also, just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the question this week - it's been a while since I've had an excuse to go digging through the games for answers, and it's been a ton of fun trying to put all the pieces together!

[Ranger Intel]

Yeah, I'm just re-reading my earlier reply now, and I think 'fortified' was probably a bad word to use there. Maybe 'defended' would have been better.

 

Also, just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the question this week - it's been a while since I've had an excuse to go digging through the games for answers, and it's been a ton of fun trying to put all the pieces together!

 

Yeah, it's definitely clear that Reach was better defended with the larger fleet presence.

 

That's great to hear. That's the whole point of these polls, I'm happy to see how well you're engaging with them. Poll 92 was posted last night, looking forward to hearing your thoughts there.