vindicator
Rear Admiral
wow that is the most fueled post yet, I hope sea_monkey responds soon. Let's see him weasel his way out of this one.
-Rance-
-Rance-
vindicator said:wow that is the most fueled post yet, I hope sea_monkey responds soon. Let's see him weasel his way out of this one.
-Rance-
I am simply astounded by the onslaught of immaturity you have thrown at me, a person who has never even said a word to you, for the sole purpose of trying to make yourself look cool among people you keep saying you despise. I strongly suggest that you keep debating with the people in this thread instead of begging us to ban you.
Though it's generally considered gauche to criticize spelling, grammar, and word-usage in a forum, I just can't resist with you. It's been so long since I last harassed a CZer about their English; we'll see if I still got it. Also included: substantive argument...
In addition, I really wouldn't use "delve" that way, if I were you. It's really stretching the limits of the word's definition. I believe the word you were groping for is "derive."
Even disregarding all that, carriers still remain the only way to transport large numbers of heavy bombers and the resources (both men and material) needed to keep them operating effectively for any appreciable amount of time. Carriers are the sole bearer of the premiere strike craft in Wing Commander, and are, as a result, vastly more important to the war than gun cruisers and destroyers.
More like any rectum-licking cockgobbler, such as yourself, who shows up nearly a decade late to the scene, should probably avoid making the assumption that he's saying anything new at all, and should definitely avoid acting haughty, self-righteous, and indignant when confronted.
Rather than ask why he "had" to, let's ask, "Why not?" He'd already sounded battle stations, so many crewmen who were busy moments ago watching TV or reading a book or whatever the hell starbase crews do when they're not being shot at would have already been on their way to their posts, including some actual comms officers to take his place. ... Moreover, what would be the point to scrambling tens of fighters to intercept a handful of Sartha?
He was the best combat pilot on the station, so there would have been no purpose to calling hundreds of fighters back from their necessary guard duty, with a real Kilrathi presence finally in the system.
Though any of those definitions could be used to argue the validity of my use of "truth" when referring to the contents of the Wing Commander canon, I will draw your attention simply to 4-1, which clearly proves that within the context of Wing Commander, which all parties understand to be wholly fictional, "truth" can be used to describe anything which is considered to be an actuality.
As for the on-going 'hundreds of fighters' argument flying back and forth, I'd like to add something. Theres a difference between number of fighters and number of pilots. Number of pilots is the major bottleneck, as someone in this thread has already said a while back. Fighters can be made by the thousands, pilots can't.
As for the Sartha attack Shadow and Blair go to stop in Gwynedd, who says no other ISS defense units responded to Blairs emergency signal? "The best pilot for the job" gets on the scene and there are 5 Sartha left .. .whos to say there weren't more and the Concordia fighters and ISS got them before being blown out of the sky before our heroes arrived on the scene?
Oh, and I guess since you dropped this line of debate . . .
So all the ads and articles I see written about "the latest" in RAM advancements/MP3 capacity/fighter/WLAN/printing or scanning definition technology means it is the very first RAM chip/MP3 player/fighter jet/wireless system/printer/scanner ever? That dog don't hunt.
Funny, you don't address the Privateer quote. Care to do so now?
I'm pretty sure that Blair explicitly explains to Angel why he was the one who came to the rescue.
But yeah, we should have seen hundreds of fighters give up their normal missions to rush to engage those five Drakhri.
Just like all the other base defense missions in Wing Commander, like when the Tiger's Claw launches a hundred fighters to defend itself when it's attacked. Oh, I mean two Scimitars. Or when the Victory orders a 'magnum launch' of all forty fighte... I mean two Arrows. Clearly Caernervon is the exception here.
I'm pretty sure I didn't deny calling you unenlighted (though I do doubt that I used the word 'unenlightened'). That's certainly how I feel.
SM: Actually all I said was that I suspect I'd like the book the least, based on what I'd heard. Which you called unenlightened, while admitting you do the same thing.
L: Don't mince words, if I had called it anything I'd have called it stupid.
I'm also pretty sure you don't know what the word plagiarized means.
Or how to spell it.
My scenario is 14 pilots (+an unknown number of fighters, +an unknown number of other waves of an attack) to destroy/disable/disuade roughly 48 (actually 24, doubled solely for your protection) attacking bombers in a defensive capacity.... and the fighter cover, and the capital ships.
"And what of the human pilot who has caused us so much trouble?"
Distress beacons don't say who ejected -- that's clear from the fact that the Concordia always has to ask you about the beacon when your wingman ejects. So there's no way they can tell who specifically ejected.
There's really no defense for this point, it's so obviously a glitch I can't even understand how you could think it isn't. And it doesn't even make your point, since the first two Fralthra in Ghorah Khar 2 aren't necessarily part of the "five carrier groups."
Out of time. Maybe I'll get to some of the rest later.
Says who? An average of 200,000 people are born a *day* on Earth -- one planet. By comparison, it takes years to build a nuclear reactor, which is what powers a starfighter.
Why do you get chewed out when you eject if fighters aren't a big deal. The Captain or whoever should be happy you came back.
I never said that COULDN'T have happened. It could also be like Loaf said, the other 398 fighters were busy ... doing stuff. Like guarding the garbage scow. Or maybe the other 398 pilots were sitting on the toilet at the time. You never know.
The manual didn't refer to phase shields as the "latest" phase shields -- it said phase shields themselves were the "latest" technology. So were torpedoes ... so new in fact a spy had to LEAK the technology of torpedoes to the Kilrathi. The Kilrathi couldn't figure out torpedoes in 25 years?
I didn't, because I addressed it a long time ago. I think it's one quote that indirectly references said fighter force in a spinoff game. Not conclusive.
His explanation only makes sense if there was a limit on the number of pilots who could have been assigned to the job. If there was 350 fighters available, why were only 2 assigned to defend the most important ship in sector?
Well, *I* can pretend that there are other fighters in the air, because the only reason they're not there was the limitation of the game engine at the time .. but that's because I recognize WC is a fictional universe that's open to interpretation. *You* have to assume for the sake of your argument that they're simply not there.
Distress beacons don't say who ejected -- that's clear from the fact that the Concordia always has to ask you about the beacon when your wingman ejects. So there's no way they can tell who specifically ejected.
There's really no defense for this point, it's so obviously a glitch I can't even understand how you could think it isn't. And it doesn't even make your point, since the first two Fralthra in Ghorah Khar 2 aren't necessarily part of the "five carrier groups."
Not really. Cruisers do not have the ability to carry the heavy fighters nor bombers - your example of the Gettysburg with Crossbows is faulty, because the Crossbows were specifically mentioned as a test squadron, while the normal fighter complement of the ship consisted of 40 Ferrets and Epees. Ferrets and Epees aren't going to cut it in a situation that would require Sabres or Broadswords. I'm not turning your argument into "Cruisers > Carriers", but it would be difficult for a cruiser to make a carrier less important, when it can't do a job as well as a carrier. A ship that can dump 100 fighters and bombers into a battle is not going to be made less important than a ship that can put 40 light/patrol fighters into a battle.sea_monkey said:Awesome. Unfortunately "cruisers > carriers" wasn't my argument ... I simply said that cruisers and destroyers being able to carry fighters would reduce the carrier's relative importance in comparison to WWII, where only the carrier could do so. A pretty impossible point to argue, if you approach it logically.
Something I just thought of, that I don't believe has been mentioned. WC2 gave me the impression that the ISS (which is what mans the Gwynned starbase) is made of reservists. During the chewing out Tolwyn gives Blair in the opening cutscene, he mentions that the ISS requested a veteran pilot. After the first mission, Shadow says that she's scared, because she's just a reservist...she's not supposed to fly combat missions. Between these two, it seems that Blair is the only veteren pilot with significant combat experience. Now, do you send a guy who obviously knows what he's doing, or 3 or 4 rookies who'd probably get themselves killed?Well, about a billion reasons -- how about because he could have single handedly lost the war for the Confederation by allowing the Concordia to be blown up because he wanted to be the sole pilot to save the day ... when he could have ensured victory by sending a sizeable number of fighters to help that probably would have arrived much sooner, being already in space or at least in their flight gear or reasonably close to the flight deck. The Concordia never said how many fighters were attacking it, so there was no reason to assume it was going to be a cakewalk.
And leave the rest of Gwynned undefended? Remember, by the time the Concordia shows up, Blair and Shadow have already encountered Kilrathi fighters. The other pilots are likely patroling in force, now that we've seen several Drakhri and Sartha in system.Yes, what other purpose than (1) they could get there much faster than some guy who's not even in his flight gear yet and (2) probably would be just as effective if not more if only due to sheer numbers.
And out of those 200,000 people, just how many do you think have the necessary skills to become a pilot. Never mind the fact that you're looking at years of schooling, plus the years at the Academy. It's not as if the person is born with a joystick in their hands. And today it takes that long to build a nuclear reactor. Show me the evidence that says it takes that long in the 2600s.Says who? An average of 200,000 people are born a *day* on Earth -- one planet. By comparison, it takes years to build a nuclear reactor, which is what powers a starfighter.
So because there are plenty of fighters, it's no big deal that one was lost? Ok...your friend has a hundred cars. He lets you borrow one, and you total it. Because he has 99 other cars, he won't be angry that you totaled one? That car still cost money. Likewise, there might be plenty of replacement fighters throughout Confed, but each one still costs money.Why do you get chewed out when you eject if fighters aren't a big deal. The Captain or whoever should be happy you came back
As SabreAce stated, non of these babies are born ready to fly. Then you have the few hundred that are granted entrance to the Academy and other pilot training schools. 200,000 people a year don't become pilots right now, on one planet. Hell, multiply that by 200 planets, that many people don't become pilots.sea_monkey said:Says who? An average of 200,000 people are born a *day* on Earth -- one planet. By comparison, it takes years to build a nuclear reactor, which is what powers a starfighter.
Thats the problem. They are referred to, LOAF has pointed out countless instances. You have evidence that these huge batches of fighters/pilots exist on the stations. Be it circumstancial, its still more evidence than "I personally don't see them, so they can't exist". If the circumstantial evidence is there that they do exist, its more probable that they are doing something else and we just don't see them, rather than not there at all.sea_monkey said:I never said that COULDN'T have happened. It could also be like Loaf said, the other 398 fighters were busy ... doing stuff. Like guarding the garbage scow. Or maybe the other 398 pilots were sitting on the toilet at the time. You never know.
Point being, you don't see these hundreds of fighters, nor are they ever referred to. So ... the only reason you'd ever pretend they're there, is to plug a continuity hole.
Then don't get into a debate.sea_monkey said:don't have the time to respond to every single line of argument.
Lowest common denominator argument. The old "it says phase shields in Action Stations therefore they must be the same phase shields in WC2" stance I've heard too many times in my short stint here. Both are not specifically said to be developed in WC2. Easier to do both than to pick and choose the arguments and get called on it later and try to explain the differences. In other words, I'm lazy and I'm trying to save myself the typing .BanditLOAF said:Both parties in this debate should sit down and read Action Stations. The continuity issue is the origin of torpedoes, *not* the existence of phase shields. Action Stations has ships that cannot be *reasonably* damaged by fighters (a coordinated fighter attack can destroy a capital ship using guns - this is stated in the book) - they're not the same as WC2s fast-recharging phase shields.
Lets see, WC2 manual: "Torpedoes - Both Terran and Kilrathi capital ships now have phase shielding technology that renders missiles and fighter-scale guns useless. Terran Sceientists developed powerful torpedoes capable of penetrating the new shields; soon thereafter, spies leaked the new technology to the Kilrathi."sea_monkey said:The manual didn't refer to phase shields as the "latest" phase shields -- it said phase shields themselves were the "latest" technology. So were torpedoes ... so new in fact a spy had to LEAK the technology of torpedoes to the Kilrathi. The Kilrathi couldn't figure out torpedoes in 25 years?
All you're doing is inventing rationalizations for making the canon "fit". I'm not arguing that they aren't valid, simply that I disagree with them because they don't make sense to me.
sea_monkey said:Awesome. Unfortunately "cruisers > carriers" wasn't my argument ... I simply said that cruisers and destroyers being able to carry fighters would reduce the carrier's relative importance in comparison to WWII, where only the carrier could do so. A pretty impossible point to argue, if you approach it logically.
No one who has attacked this point has tried to do so logically however. Every single person has simply tried to change my argument to something easier to attack, like "carriers aren't important", or "cruisers > carriers."
I never claimed that was your argument. If that was the case, I'd never have had to include that carriers are "vastly" more important than cruisers and destroyers; I'd have said they simply are.sea_monkey said:Awesome. Unfortunately "cruisers > carriers" wasn't my argument ... I simply said that cruisers and destroyers being able to carry fighters would reduce the carrier's relative importance in comparison to WWII, where only the carrier could do so. A pretty impossible point to argue, if you approach it logically.
As I have logically proven, cruisers lack the ability to have an affect on the strategic importance of carriers. They derive their striking power from the bombers they field. Not "carry," but "field," because these are more than barges in which to park magically self-sustaining, totally autonomous toys that have no need of the infrastructural capabilities that only carriers possess.No one who has attacked this point has tried to do so logically however. Every single person has simply tried to change my argument to something easier to attack, like "carriers aren't important", or "cruisers > carriers."
Yeah, that was a pretty hilarious exception, too.with one exception that I already apologized for.
This argument directly contradicts others you've made, though, by proposing that a single carrier could have an impact on the war effort. Why? There are thousands of cruisers available to jump in and take her place, right?Well, about a billion reasons -- how about because he could have single handedly lost the war for the Confederation by allowing the Concordia to be blown up because he wanted to be the sole pilot to save the day
"Already in space" != "Closer to the Concordia."... when he could have ensured victory by sending a sizeable number of fighters to help that probably would have arrived much sooner, being already in space or at least in their flight gear or reasonably close to the flight deck.
The comms officer never verbalized it, but that doesn't prove that the situation was unknown. The fact that Blair only sent himself and his wingmate proves the opposite, actually. Clearly, he knew the status of the Concordia and the specifics of the attack on her, leading him to determine that he was the best pilot for the task and preventing him from wasting station resources unnecessarily by bringing too many fighters as wingmen.The Concordia never said how many fighters were attacking it, so there was no reason to assume it was going to be a cakewalk.
Who says putting on a jumpsuit and buckling a helmet takes any time at all? Who says the CAP fighters were closer to the Concordia than the station itself? If they were, they'd have already taken out the Kilrathi attacking her.Yes, what other purpose than (1) they could get there much faster than some guy who's not even in his flight gear yet
Because they were already busy doing their job of defending the base from possible attack, the likelihood of which just increased now that there's an aggressive Kilrathi presence in the system.and (2) probably would be just as effective if not more if only due to sheer numbers.
Your entire argument on this subject is completely reliant on a total ignorance of the concept of context. Everyone participating in and reading this thread understands what I mean - It's not a difficult idea. The reason you're being obtuse is because you think this is some sort of performance piece, where the goal isn't to convince me, but to convince the lurkers who're simply reading, but that's stupid. You're not convincing anyone by feigning incomprehension.Funny how you chose definition 4-1, as that is the one I think makes my point the best. Insofar as WC is a fictional universe, it has NOTHING to do with "reality, or actuality."
WC only exists in the imaginations of individual people -- a subjective experience. It's a fictional universe, dude. There is no spoon.