Recent content by Alyeska

(mutters) Must remember to read entire post before responding.:o

Actually the Battleship did not rule the seas in WW2. The carriers ruled the seas.

The Bengal class was still in use? And they had a lot of them? That doesn't entirely make sense. The Bengal strike carriers were relatively heavili armed and had a good sized fighter compliment. From what I hear the Concordia class was almost completely unarmed except for anti-fighter...

IMO the old Confederation class would have given the Kilrathi Dreadnaught a serious headache. Yes, its impressive that a 1km ship could hurt a 22km ship. But seriously, what could a 1km ship with fewer fighters, less armor, and less firepower do that could seriously threaten a 22km ship? Had...

Ok, I think I have it figured out as to why the Antimater guns were phased out. Newer armor was powerful enough and the old AMG guns just couldn't penetrate the new shields or armor fast enough of deadly enough. That said, makes me wonder who would win in this fight. Waterloo vs Hades. I...

Point. But do we ever really get to see them in action in WC2? Hmm, I wonder how much differently WC3 would have gone had it been a Waterlook rather then a Victory. Just update the turrets to laser turrets, and you got a deadly ship there to hunt down the Kilrathi.

Question. Do you ever get to see a Waterloo in action durring WC2? I would have liked to see the thing in action and escorting the Concordia durring WC2.

Ok... So the Bengal was a fleet carrier. It seems likely to me that the Confeds built newer ones over time as well. So when the Confeds decomed their fleet carriers, it wouldn't surprise me if they still had some Bengal's in there. How else do you explain the Confeds having to rely on much...

Wait a second... Didn't WC2 happen 10 years after WC? That would mean the cruisers and destroyers in WC2 were just coming off the production lines in WC1... Ok, that brings up ANOTHER question. Just how old is the Ranger class? The Bengal strike cruisers were the main carriers (or so it...

Ok, since it appears we have established that older ships can be fitted with newer armor, that means that WC2 ships should be able to take said armor. Now, since we know the Confed fleet took some heavy losses, can we assume that the Capital ships used in WC3 are infact older less capable...

You sure? Because the Confederation class Dreadnaughts had 500cm of armor, and then the WC3 era frigates had 600cm of armor with the cruisers and destroyers having 1000cm of armor.

Ok, I am under the impression from what I have heard that the WC3 era ships are actually somewhat old because of fleet losses taken durring one of the Kilrathi offensives (sp?). However looking through the database I saw that WC3 capships have MUCH more armor then the WC2 capships. Was a new...

Well, it seems we already got the talent... Ok, what people NEED to do is try and hash this out on whats being done. WC:U looks terrific, its much of what I was hoping to see in a game. Hell, some of it is MORE then what I had envissioned, and thats incredible. But... People need to...

IIRC most if not every WC game had a stated date at the begining.

That would explain why a great deal of the modern hardware from WC2 was almost gone. Makes me wonder about the Ranger though. Did bringing it back into service (or something like that) show just how good it was and thats why they developed the Concordia class carriers? Anyway, that does...