Concordia Appeal

Do you think the Confed. Class prod. was halted solely on the PTC's unreliability

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • No

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Sylvester

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
Concodia Appeal

Basically I want to know everything you know about the Concordia, her sisterships and the ships overall design.
 
the answer is yes, because the PTC forms the keel of the Confed Class Dreadnoughts, and it's kinda stupid to keep building a ship that was designed around a gun that doesn't work to good
 
Actually I doubt it was the ONLY reason. Wouldn't you rather try to fix that one single problem? There probably had been other aspects as well (price?)
 
I highly doubt *price* was the factor that lead them to stop producing their most modern carrier. :) Given the difficulty in getting carrier production online and the fact that most other fleet carriers were 30-50 year old designs at the time...
 
Why doesn't the PTC work well, I mean after a decade do you think they would of worked out the kinks? I mean the Confederation Class was Confeds most modern carrier until the Vesuvius Class came online in 2672 so If i were Confleet CIC I would try to iron out the problems in the deign so confed can have a modern fleet.
 
You're forgetting the Lexington-class heavy carriers, which entered service towards the end of the war... and the Jutland-class CVAs, which entered service in 2657.

The Confed-class was a rush job, plain and simple -- to counter the threat from the Kilrathi Proton Accelerator Gun... since that thread never actually materialized, the ships weren't as absolutely necessary.
 
Do the math, The Confederation Class was commisioned in 2661 making it more modern than the Jutland Class. Also, if the TCS Lexington, which was in sevice before the Concordia, was Concordia Class and still in commission, how could their be another TCS Lexington, presumably the Namesake of the Lexington Class built if their was already one in service. I have never heard of the Lexington Class until now.
 
The Confederation-class was commissioned in 2660, which makes the Jutland class three years older -- which is absolutely nothing in terms of carrier design (furthermore, it doesn't tend to randomly explode, which is generally considered a plus in ship design).

The Lexington-class is the type of carrier from Armada -- they were first comissioned in 2668. At least eleven were built in a two-year span.
 
Still, it would be logical to fix the problems with the PTC, instead of scrapping a whole new line of carriers. What was wrong with the PTC anyway?

Also, why is the TCS Lexington not Lexington Class?
 
There have been two TCS Lexingtons. The first was a Concordia-class ship, which was destroyed at the Battle of Earth. It was followed by the Lexington-class TCS Lexington, which was outfitted for a failed attack on Kilrah. The hull of the original Lexington was salvaged and put back into service at the very end of the war -- that's what we served off of in WC4.

I'm sure Confed would be happy if the PTC could be 'fixed' -- but there's no indication that it was (and it certainly wasn't during the war). The technology was killed from a 'real' perspective for a practical reason -- a game isn't fun when the good guys have super-guns that will win every fight :)
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The Lexington-class is the type of carrier from Armada -- they were first comissioned in 2668. At least eleven were built in a two-year span.
Click to expand...

Isn't it somewhere stated that this ship is a singular design? And if there have been built more of them, are there any canon names?
 
No names have been given for any others.

The "self sustaining" modifications to the Lexington herself were a one-shot... but it was a normal heavy carrier class. (If you play through the Kilrathi campaign, you'll have to blow up at least eleven of them while invading human space. :))
 
Bandit LOAF said:
. . .furthermore, it doesn't tend to randomly explode, which is generally considered a plus in ship design . . .
Click to expand...
I've been having this conversation for a few days, even if the PTC was rushed into service, it would have been test fired dozens of times, both seperately and while included in the keel of the Confederation class. Its hard to justify that this random explosion thing was a factor yet. The Confederation Dreadnaught is a mean machine, even sans the PTC, so why incorporate the extra cost and and sacrifice the space the PTC takes up for something that could randomly blow away a multi-billion credit carrier? Now, if the PTC problem was something that showed up during a combat situation that hadn't been tested due to the rushed introduction, now that is a little easier to swallow. The only references I can find to the PTC's problems are the conversation Tolwyn and Angel have before firing the PTC in WC2:SO and the entry in the KS manual. The latter source just says "Continuing problems with the phase-transit cannon led to its retirement in late 2665". As for the former source, the converstion on the TCS Concordia bridge reads as follows:

Angel: The Fralthra is making its attack approach now.
Tolwyn: Prepare to fire the main gun.
Angel: But Admiral, we're only at 60 percent power. Our power plant could blow.
Tolwyn: You heard the order, Colonel. Fire the main gun!

If there are more sources that I just haven't seen, please send them my way, but if this is all the information we have to base the PTC's 'volatility' on, Angels statement leads me to believe that the PTC would only cause an overload if the dreadnaughts reactor was below a certain level, either through battle damage or through prolonged use. This is a contingency Confed engineers may have not had the time to test before incorporating the PTC and also a problem that could possibly result in its decomissioning (as you can't expect not to be in a prolonged fight/take battle damage during an engagement). It may just be me, but I have a real hard time getting past the idea that Confed would make a supergun carrying ship knowing the design flaws and then decide 5 years later during the height of Kilrathi War, when a ship of its abilities would be needed the most (even if we had begun to turn the tide of the war by this time) to decommision it for the very same flaw.

C-ya
 
I don't think it had anything to do with that WC2 scene... it was simply necessary from a writing standpoint to get all powerful weapons out of the hands of the good guys (G)

Since the KS manual is pretty clear about the retirement (and the WC2 manual is pretty clear about the PTC making up the keel of the Confed-class), I don't think we'll see either again. :)
 
Thank You Viper

Your'e quite right in saying that their is no real proof about the PTC's volability. Angels statement could simply mean also that the ship needed to power up to fire and firing when the Reactor wasn't charged yet could result in a overload, not an explosion. I actually can't find a reference to ANY Confederation class ships being destroyed or even damaged by the PTC . I mean the engineers may have rushed the deign but they aren't stupid. Besides, like Viper said, the Confederation class is still an effective battle carrier even without the PTC.
 
Even so, the USS Thresher, a nuclear submarine, sunk because it had a design flaw but the class was still built with upgrades, why woudn't confed do this for the Confederation Class?
 
I'm honestly not supporting the Confederation Sylvester, I always thought the dreadnaught was a hybrid design that was probably way too expensive and labor intensive for the niche it was trying to fill. I just don;t like the fact that everyone seems to hold onto the idea that the PTC just randomly explodes :(.

C-ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top