HammerHead
Rear Admiral
There is a reason for that,
But I'm willing to see if he'll answer....
But I'm willing to see if he'll answer....
Edfilho said:The reason being he has nothing to support his claims?
Viper61 said:A slight difference (I know nothing about the StarFire universe) might be that WC resources are spread out all over the universe. At any one time you have high teens of carriers protecting/launching offensive strikes in maybe 3 or 4dozen 'border' systems (the line seperating the Terran Confederation and the Kilrathi at any one time). These systems (if you'll look at LOAF's representation/augmentation of the Prophecy Map online) seem to have maybe on average 2 jump point entries from enemy territory in each. The usual problem is, you don't know where the attack will be coming from. That coupled with the fact that you don't have enough carriers/task groups to cover every entry into the Confed space, make the comparison problematic at best (Every confrontation we've seen when one force 'knows' what jump point an enemy is coming through is disasterous for the jumping enemy, ala - I'm guessing - StarFire). So you have the WC system of jump point engagement . .. station picket ships at jump points so that they can get word to the main task forces either in-system or in an adjacent system (centralizing your defensive forces so they can respond to any incursion) where the enemy has come through so they can engage said enemy. If a force knows which jump point the enemy is using (off the top of my head - WC3, WCM, a few instances about jump point tactics scattered through out the books, False Colors [Kilrathi didn't know, it just so happened they were sitting at the jump point when a Landreich force began to jump in]), StarFire and Wing Commander seem to be rather similar .
C-ya
Dragonslayer said:I am kinda stunned at how long this inane argument has gone on for. People have been argueing the military logic of a fictional universe based on a video game series. The arguments from LOAF and Frosty and several others have been coherent and logical in their thinking. sea_monkey on the other hand has been obviously looking for a fight and got what he wanted. This makes me wonder about why LOAF and the others even deigned to continue argueing with this poster? It would'nt be looked upon as a defeat of their arguments if they simply ignored him and his rude attitude and inability to argue persuasively or correctly. We are argueing about the minute details of a video game and its tie-ins?
vindicator said:4)Truth be told, I agree with some things sea_monkey said about the community as a whole being somewhat nerdy in their pertection of the "truth".
If you just started this debate to bash at us, and insult us, and simply cry "I'm right and you all are jerks!" then ok, you are right, and let us part as friends, every one with his own opinion.
Within the context of Wing Commander, which everyone acknowledges (hopefully) to be entirely fictional, there can exist certain truths, based on the contextual realities (i.e. The Empire and the Confederation were at war for a great long time.)
jedi2187 said:Honestly, let's end this topic and rant about something else, like why, every time I play WC 3 or 4, they always have to show at least one cut scene of Maniac sniffing his 'pits? He never does that in 1 or 2, does he?
sea_monkey said:It would be one thing if the WC universe had been particularly well planned out from the beginning and made perfect sense on it it's own, but it really doesn't.
sea_monkey said:WC only exists in the imaginations of individual people -- a subjective experience.
Dragonslayer said:Too much effort is being expended on debating the realities of a fictional universe. . . .Now argueing about the continuity, reality, logic, or whatever else is kind of ridiculous.
Nemesis said:In all seriousness though, I think it’s very much to the community’s credit to take the time, even at the risk of taking more than enough time, to try to explain the ideas and goals that underlie much of this site to someone new who’s obviously “concerned” about them. But of course that’s always the moderators’ call to make.
And somehow throwing out games and manuals that you personally don't consider 'canon', assuming that what doesn't agree with your assumptions from a game is a 'glitch' (and apparently being around for WC2 game development meetings in 1991), and reading open-ended blurbs for technology in only the way that agrees with your personal view of WC is somehow more substantial or more solid ground for a logical debate?sea_monkey said:. . .Not a big deal since no one of them by itself wasn't the logical equivalent of a piece of Swiss cheese, but it makes it impossible to respond to all of them at once . . .
Alright Champion of All Non-Book Reading, WCATV shunning, single WC game playing Wing Commander Fans Everywhere, then why the hell are you here? By posting to this thread, you were sharing your view of WC to the world, trying to find like minded individuals. When you don't, you begin in on a crusade with the banner "this is why the authors, designers and creators of the of WCU are wrong". What the hell happened to "one version of make-believe isn't more true than another"? (And I'm actually not even going to touch the "you can't have guidelines/rules/structure to a fictional universe!" dribble)sea_monkey said:The context of Wing Commander only occurs in separate, individual imaginations. You're arguing that the hundreds of thousands of people who played a WC game but didn't read the books have "untrue" views of WC. As if one version of make-believe can be more "true" than another.
You can certainly argue that yours is the "official" view according to the author, but this presupposes that the hundreds of thousands of people you're talking about really give a crap about the "official" line. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they don't.