Anyone not like the books?

[vindicator]

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-

 

[Bandit LOAF]

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-

You're not helping.

 

[Edfilho]

I don't know If I'm helping either, but I was tired of reading very well crafted arguments from Viper, LOAF and even Nemesis answered to what amounts to babbling. It is like the monkey suffers from some inability to corelate logical arguments, he kept forgetting all people told him moments before, like the guy in Memento. Well, what could we expect from a marine monkey?

 

[LeHah]

You're almost trolling - LOAF is just trying to prove a point and in a way, so is Frosty.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I think Ed's criticism is valid - we need to take into account, though, that in all likelyhood sea_monkey doesn't know any of us and thinks we're some sort of exclusive club. He's never seen an agwc knife fight... (G)

 

[HammerHead]

He look like a man with a very solid oipinion to me.
It just that he base him opinion on a much smaller base of knowledge.

The problem with see_monkey is that whe confranted with the bigger picture, he decides which pieces of the information he'll accept as canon and which pieces he won't - and that is the reason NONE of us will EVER convice him other wise.

 

[Bob McDob]

This was originally a reply to Mekt's post, but I moved it to prevent threadjacking. See here.

 

[Edfilho]

I'm not trolling, really. I'm just annoyed with these accusations of us being a Church of Wing Commander who sticks to senseless dogmas even in the face of logic. If that was the truth, we wouldn't spend so much time debating stuff. There is no consensus here on most issues, but one: WHATEVER Origin/EA says happened, happened.

If I wanna debate SW in SW boards, I must acknowledge the Movie Canon/EU separation. I won't go there and start fighting people to prove that this division is stupid/untrue/illogical. Lucas said so, and so it is.

If Origin/EA told us that all official material (including game guides) is true, then let's argue other points. Instead, Monkey keeps insisting on saying that Priv is not really canon, that the books don't conform to HIS vision of WC and so on. It is not like LOAF is just pulling stuff off his head.

 

[sea_monkey]

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.

ace, I apologize. After reading a bunch of posts full of insults directed at me, yours looked like yet another insult, albeit indirectly.

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...

Awesome, I always wanted a secretary. Thanks!

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."

Thanks. Hey, while you're up, why don't you grab me a Coke?

... oh and Miss? Diet.

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.

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."

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.

LOL, quit being a baby. Don't act like an asshole and be surprised when people return the favor. If you read the thread carefully, which you obviously didn't, you'll see that I didn't call anyone names unless I was returning the favor, with one exception that I already apologized for.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[sea_monkey]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Oh, and I guess since you dropped this line of debate . . .

don't have the time to respond to every single line of argument.

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.

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]

Funny, you don't address the Privateer quote. Care to do so now?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Short memory over here.

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.

Two secretaries. I love 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.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

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.

It takes years to build a nuclear plant - you can build a small reactor fairly quickly (... like those designed for future space missions). (Ignoring, of course, the effects of mass production on build times and the fact that Wing Commander's fighters use futuristic hydrogen fueld fusion reactors unlike anything we're familiar with.)

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.

... do you seriously believe that because dying is the *worst* thing someone can do that they therefore cannot do anything else wrong? ("Oh, you wrecked my car... but you didn't kill yourself, so can't logically complain!")

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 system was being attacked by the Kilrathi.

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?

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.

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.

That's not addressing it, that's ignoring it. When faced with the fact that the "spinoff" game (as if it mattered...) was produced by the same person as the regular games (whose presence *you* deemed necessary to consider the game 'real') you decided to ignore that portion of the argument.

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?

In no manner does 'I was the best man for the job' create any sort of limit on the number of men available for the job.

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.

Why is that, exactly? I'm not a crazy person who can't distinguish Wing Commander from reality. I certainly understand that you can't have more than twenty-something ships in any individual original engine game mission.

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.

The Kilrathi manage to identify Blair's fighter in many different scenarios throughout the series.

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."

I can't think it isn't because I understand how WC2 missions are written. To have a 'won' mission link to the losing scenario if you eject is a conscious choice the designer has to make, not something that randomly happens. The fact that putting SO1 and SO2 in the same folder in the deluxe version breaks a pilot animation is *not* such a choice.

(I'm off to the great white Northeast for the wedding. If you people haven't killed youselves yet I'll be back for the debate on Sunday or MOnday.)

 

[SabreAce]

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.

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.

Even moving out of the WC2 setting, and moving forward to Secret Ops: In the missions where fighters from a local destroyer or cruiser assist Casey, the fighters are Excaliburs and Thunderbolts. Hardly front-line combat craft, when compared with the Vampires and Devastators a ship such as the Midway or Eisen could bring to the fray.

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.

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?

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 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.

We do see a few Ferrets patroling around the starbase before autopiloting to the Concordia. Do you pull them off their route, and send them to the Concordia, leaving the starbase undefended against whatever other Kilrathi may arrive? "Yay, we saved the Concordia! Crap, we lost our base!"

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.

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.

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

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.

EDIT: Heh, LOAF already got a couple of my points...oh well.

 

[Viper61]

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.

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.

Actually, this does bring up a good question that I have meant to ask LOAF (and I'm suprised sea_monkey didn't latch onto like a fat kid to a box of cookies). How does the Academy only put out 200 cadets a year, but confed is losing hundreds of fighters a day? Even though we know from WC2/3/P that it seems pilots fly with one hand on the ejection button, it seems that well more than 200 are going to die a year. Does ISS or home defense have their own academys that pump out pilots?

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.

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.
I've been told that there is a new Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. I've never seen it, read an article about it or seen pictures of it. Its more likely that its there and I haven't seen it (even though I only have circumstantial evidence that its there - heresay) rather than it doesn't exist because I personally haven't seen it.

don't have the time to respond to every single line of argument.

Then don't get into a debate.

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.

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 .

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.

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."
"Phase shields - The latest in defense technology, these capital ship shields are impervious to damage from all fighter-mounted missiles and guns"
The definitions are relatively the same in the Kilrathi Saga Manual. Where in those definitions is it stated that the phase shields and the torpedoes are first developed at this time? I'll use an new anti virus software as a parallel in the following arguments, but just about any technology that progresses can be used.
" . . . now have phase shielding technology that renders missiles . .. "? - So I now have antivirus technology that renders new worms useless. Is it the first anti-virus program ever?
" .. . developed powerful torpedoes capable of penetrating the new shields . . . leaked the new technology . .. " - A company can develop a powerful anti-virus capable of defending against new viruses. This new technology could be leaked to a rival company so they can now defend against these new viruses. Does this mean that it is the first anti-virus or virus ever?
" The latest in defense technology . . ." - new anti-virus is advertised and labeled as 'latest in virus defense technology'. Is this the first anti-virus software ever?

This comparison works with anything you stick in there . . . missile defense systems, fighter aircraft, WLAN systems, your can opener, etc etc. Just because something is the latest in whaterever doesn't nessesarily mean its the first.

C-ya

 

[HammerHead]

For the last time

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."

uhhh...
Repeatedly claimed, and... Repeatedly answered:

Cruiser and Destroyers that carry fighters cannot lower the importance of carriers. Not absolutely and not relatively. This is for a very simple tactical reason -

- Carriers are designed to use fighters as their main weapon of choice, giving then a long and powerful strike arm, but very low capabilities on short range combat (since they have no, or very few ship-to-ship weapons)
- Cruisers and Destroyers are exactly the opposite - they have a powerful array of weapons for short range combat, but are limited in fighter carrying capabilities.

Using Cruisers/Destroyers instead of dedicated carriers, in any situation, gives you 2 options:
1) Get the cruiser close to the target - hence loosing the tactical advantages of a fighter's long strike range, and risk loosing the cruiser.
2) Keep the cruiser at long range, in order to take advantage of the fighters long range abilities, hence not using the cruiser's abilities at short range combat.

(The big dilemma I have REPEATEDLY mentioned, to which I didn't see you respond by the way)

Taking option 1 is basically how things work in WCU - the cruiser is using her small number of light fighters as fighter cover while she attacks on close range. This choice also means you have absolutely no reason for carrying bombers/heavy fighters. (They are a carrier's way of attacking capships, but since the cruiser is doing it herself, she'd better have more fighter cover instead)

The 2nd option, which is basically what you claim, would make carriers less important, is actually saying you'll use the cruisers/destroyers as smaller carriers.
Once you do that, let us consider a few points:
a) If your cruiser is only using fighters as her main attack capability, why not strip her from all the useless anti-ship weapons she carries? - she doesn't use them any way, and doing so will make her much cheaper and easier to produce and maintain.
b) Accepting point 'a', just turned your cruiser into a small carrier - so what you are basically saying is that a few smaller carriers are better the one big carrier (the 7 Fralthra - 1 Hakaga debate). And just as you kept asking "why?" - I must ask now : Why are 7 small carriers better then one big carrier? It is a tactically wrong concept - for various tactical, and other, reasons mentioned before (with a few more not mentioned).
c) As you have seen, WCU does have small carriers and big carriers (and cruisers and destroyers) - each of them has their own tactical use. You cannot go and say that one ship can make other ships less important - the whole point about light carriers and escort carriers is to free fleet carriers to be used were the main action is, while still keeping a capable force in the less important areas of the front. (This is also something I wrote on my previous posts).

Now - a + b + c = Each ship has it's own job in the fleet:
- Fleet carriers are for concentrating a large group of fighters into the focal point of given situation.
- Light carriers are for providing support or establishing a presence on the less important areas of the front, OR to be used as expandable units (the Tarawa's raid to Kilrah) for tactical reasons, or when you have no other choice (the Ranger class becoming CV's).
- Cruisers and Destroyers are for anti capship work - either as escorts or where carriers are not needed, or cannot be deployed for tactical reasons, OR (again) be used as supplemental carriers when you have no other choice (battle of Vukar Tag)

Saying that one class of ships can make another less important is not logical within the WC universe (simply because it is based on WWII).

I think that almost every one here will agree I made a logically sound claim in answer of your question.

Aside from that, you, as a person, may hold any opinion you want. But if you start a debate you should at least listen to the answers you get, and respond with respect.
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.

 

[Tyvar]

I think what some of the confusion is that Wing Commander has a certain "flavor" which shapes combat versus real events, so you dont have an easily studied linear evolution of the forms that tactics and strategy take.

One of my gripes about the wing commander universe is that there are static warp points which are natural choke points, and should be treated as such. If anybody is familiar with the StarFire universe would notice the parallel between warp points and Jump points. In the Starfire verse breaching a system is a MAJOR undertaking almost like WWI in space, where you HUGE losses trying to breach into a system then the slug fests start. The standard recomended military advantage for attacks is a 3 to 1 majority, in starfire you aim for 6 to one knowing that half your attack force is going to be blunted in the warp point assault
(actually the game has tech levels and at a certain tech level you get tools that make warp point offense much easier but still that just requires a retooling of the defense) In the normal Wing Commander games (the novels are slightly better in my opinion) warp point defense is lighter then I think it would be given the structure of the universe.

Ignore the poor writing it was posted fairly late for me so it rambles on a bit, Id fix it, but Im too lazy to at the moment.

 

[Viper61]

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

 

[LeHah]

I agree with Viper. While Starfire and WC have much in common, I think the tactics described are just basic military technique - not anything particularly different or new in space travel. (Though Fleet Action did describe an "Anvil" technique which had bombers hitting a target on all three of its axis)

 

[Frosty]

Stop stacking posts like that.

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.

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.

The importance of carriers in Wing Commander is based on their ability to carry and support heavy strike craft (i.e. bombers - Broadswords, Longbows, etc.) to any battlefield and deploy them. Because cruisers do not also possess this ability, they can have no impact at all on the importance of carriers.

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."

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.

Rather than being illogical, anyone who equated your argument with "carriers aren't important" or "cruisers > carriers" was actually being very logical, and taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion. For if a cruiser could represent even a fraction of the strike capability of a carrier, there'd be no need for carriers at all, which are heavily outnumbered by their cruiser cousins.

with one exception that I already apologized for.

Yeah, that was a pretty hilarious exception, too.

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

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?

Also, he took Shadow with him, so there was no way he could have been 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.

"Already in space" != "Closer to the Concordia."

What if the attack on the Concordia was a diversion? What if you drew away a number of patrol craft to smite a handful of light fighters really thoroughly, and then a whole Kilrathi battlegroup jumped the starbase because there was a hole in the CAP and nobody saw it coming? Obviously you could launch more fighters from the base to accompany you, but why send more ships than necessary? That same ambush could occur that way as well, only to find fewer defenders at the base because you took several with you to help the Concordia fend off a few small fighters.

The Concordia never said how many fighters were attacking it, so there was no reason to assume it was going to be a cakewalk.

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.

This is called making inferences. All good works of fiction require this of us.

Yes, what other purpose than (1) they could get there much faster than some guy who's not even in his flight gear yet

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.

and (2) probably would be just as effective if not more if only due to sheer numbers.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

 

[Edfilho]

And yet another round of Space_Monkey dodging solid points without offering anything in return.