Confederation at War

Earlier this thread, there was a mention of significant modification to the Hades-class hulls (by LOAF, if memory serves). Could you bring these to mind?

"Strike" carriers/carriers with heavy weapons tend to not be irrational. During WW2, the 5-inch deck guns on the Essex ships were used to bombard shore installations during the end of the Pacific campaign, and were probably intended to provide protection in the case of a destroyer squadron ambushing the fleet and getting into gunnery range (destroyers also carried 5-inch mounts, so the fight would likely involve the carriers giving almost as good as they got). The reasoning for the Midway/Vesuvius having them is likely similar, as well as the "bombard the planet into fine powdered slag" use that the Tiger's Claw put hers to. Getting hit by anti-capship weaponry tends to be rather unpleasant, as well - I skirted a Fralthi2 in an Arrow and dodged into an AMG shot to see what would happen. Dropped my shields and turned a chunk of my armor to jelly. Didn't do it again. Remind me though - did WC2 AMGs burn through or simply ignore shields?

Length v. Density
Armor. Lots and lots of armor, or internal stores, or any number of things. Also keep in mind that the Confederation class had a big flippin hole in the middle.

Origins of the term "battlewagon" - probably some combination of distaste for the sluggish nature of heavier combat ships, and the use of wagons with reinforced sides as mobile strong points during campaigns lacking heavy weaponry (think a primitive APC), potentially having connotations inovolving the settling of the Midwest and West Coast?
 
You do realize that you're agreeing with me and not Bandit LOAF? LOAF is claiming that the Concordia class is 30+ years old, and I'm saying that is pure nonsense.

It's been well established throughout the canon that the Concordia-class Fleet Carrier was around at the beginnings if not before the beginning of the war. The TCS Concordia you see in Wing Commander II is not a Concordia-class ship. It is, instead, a Confederation-class Dreadnaught. As has already been stated, the class ship of the Concordia-class was destroyed at the Battle of Macauliffe.

Careful when you say someone who's been around a long time is spouting nonsense, especially if you're not 100% sure. You'll wind up with a goofy avatar. Trust me. ;)
 
IIRC, WC2 AMGs did not ignore the shields. This was a moot point, as one hit would rip away the shields and severely damage the hull.

I did get a laugh out of picturing the US Cavalry rolling up to an Apache encampment in what would essentially be an uparmored Conestoga wagon. Unfortunately, nothing like this ever happened in the Old West, unless you consider Wells-Fargo stagecoaches to be APCs.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
...The zaniness of the "Concordia-class" name is a result of errors on both sides. The original intent was to have the Confederation-class appear in Wing Commander IV... the FMV was shot with the intention of referring to this (which would have been another continuity error, of course). For whatever reason (probably ease), going with the 'TCS Victory writ large' design worked better and that became the "Concordia-class carrier"...
Interesting. Is it correct to assume that OSI would have re-used the 3D model they made for the Wing Commander 3 intro? Assuming that OSI actually needed to create a complete model of the Concordia for WC3 and not just a portion, it's a pity that we only get to see it on screen for about 10 seconds -- the model looks fairly detailed and would have bridged the gap between the WC2-era "look" and the more angular WC3-era "look."

wc3concordia0th.jpg


IMO, it would have pretty nifty to have seen, perhaps at the beginning of the WC3 intro, before the dreadnought jumps into Kilrah, a one to two minute sequence detailing the TCS Concordia's last action and subsequent crash on Vespus -- it would have really set the scene regarding Confed's losses at the time and the sense that the Kilrathi were winning the war. OSI would also have gotten their money's worth from the model :D

Loaf, do you know whether any of the WC4 video sequences for which the Confederation-class was due to appear were actually completed/rendered, or was the decision to switch models taken at a much earlier stage?

Cheers,


BrynS
 
This brings into the discussion of how we define canon. Is something in the book canon? If the answer is always yes, then the Princeton is a Confederation class dreadnought now apparently referred to as the "Concordia Class". So do we make something up to fill the holes and call that canon? Well, apparantly yes. But what if what was made up doesn't make sense? And how can we argue it as fact when our own canon sources don't agree with us?

While the book does make several references to the deck plans being identical, it does properly repeat the game's use of the name "Concordia-class" when dealing with the Princeton's classification in dialogue.

Earlier this thread, there was a mention of significant modification to the Hades-class hulls (by LOAF, if memory serves). Could you bring these to mind?

The TCS Cerberus was one Hellcat longer than the TCS Hades (777m vs. 750m).

Remind me though - did WC2 AMGs burn through or simply ignore shields?

This is something that changes (in the fiction and in the engine) between Wing Commander II and Wing Commander III, indicating that there was certainly a change in shielding technology.

JFS 2664 Update: "Like torpedoes, they ignore shields, directly attacking armor."
Victory Streak: "This weapon can punch through the heaviest shields, and it delivers four times as much damage as the most powerful gun on any fighter."

Careful when you say someone who's been around a long time is spouting nonsense, especially if you're not 100% sure. You'll wind up with a goofy avatar. Trust me.

I don't think that's likely -- this is a very intelligent, polite debate (on both sides, I'd like to think). Goofy avatars are a friendly way of punishing people who do something stupid... they're not something I'd ever had out just because someone *disagrees* with me.

(I do really like this thread. It's doing exactly what a Wing Commander argument should, bringing up important topics and helping to figure them out.)
 
Except for one problem. *There's no canon that says what the Concordia class is!*

No, no exception. The question arises out of the canon and therefore any proposed answer must have some foundation within the canon. Saying that use of a 30-year-old design makes no sense within the context of WWII–while certainly not an invalid question to pose for WC–still says nothing about whether use of a 30-year-old design makes sense within the context of WC.

The concept that the Concordia class is 30 years old is itself a fan creation based on events in the Action Station novel.

I think the word “creation” carries the wrong connotation. It’s an interpretation of the canon, meaning that the aim is to take the canon seriously.

This brings into the discussion of how we define canon. Is something in the book canon?

Yes, and in general, whatever EA says or authorizes with respect to WC constitutes the canon. (It’s important to note too that this is not an arbitrary definition, but a practical one in that it fosters a single authoritative canon.)

If the answer is always yes, then the Princeton is a Confederation class dreadnought now apparently referred to as the "Concordia Class".

That’s one interpretation, but (as LOAF and you yourself have pointed out) not the only one.

So do we make something up to fill the holes and call that canon? Well, apparantly yes.

No, obviously not, because the goal is to try to interpret the canon as consistently as possible (which is also a real constraint on the imagination). And the interpretations are not canon per se, but “candidates” for canon, though they do serve to “fill the holes” until someone comes along with a more convincing or “better” interpretation.

But what if what was made up doesn't make sense? And how can we argue it as fact when our own canon sources don't agree with us?

If we take the idea of canon seriously, then we must take the canon itself seriously. And that means even at the expense of your, my, or someone else’s “common sense”.

I suppose a fair analogy would be law. Most of us are committed to the idea of, and so very much want there to be, a civil order. But there will then be times when the laws created “from on high” to constitute that civil order fail to do justice in some case. What happens then? In general, if the “nettlesome” laws can be interpreted in a way that preserves their overall effect yet still brings “justice” to the situation, then they will be so interpreted (even if the interpretation is “awkward"). But if the laws can’t be interpreted in that way, then both they and the perceived injustice will stand. (That is, at least until a “revised and improved” set of laws is created “from on high”.)

In sum, if we want to have a canon, then perforce we must value the “reality” it engenders over the most common-sensical “reality” we can otherwise think of. (But I also think WC often affords us both, which is saying something.)
 
Damn I just wish we had an offfical proper encyclopeadia for everything we have and know in the WC universe, it would be make my fan fiction easuer to complete....
 
This brings into the discussion of how we define canon. Is something in the book canon?

The way I've always dealt with the canon is to seperate it in levels. If you're familiar with how LucasArts treats the Star Wars franchise and the Official Expanded Universe, that's what I'm talking about.

Going off the LucasArts model, I would think that Level One canon would be the games themselves. Level Two canon would be the game novelizations. Level three canon would be the other novels while level four canon would be the movie and the cartoon. The higher the level, the 'truer' the information contained within the source. Should a level one canon source contradict something in a level two or level three canon source, then whatever was said in the level one source is considered what really happened and the contradiction is explained as an error on the part of the "historian" or whoever is retelling the story.

I would almost consider the movie and the cartoon apocryphal due to the extent of contradictions with other canon. However, I don't wish to turn this into a movie debate thread, so please don't reply to this part of the post.
 
My solution for the Princeton being described as a Confederation Class, was the fact that the book had a case of Pearl Harbor Syndrome i.e. (in Pearl Harbor the USS Hornet CV-8 is shown as USS Hornet CVA-12, the shown Hornet is also fully modernized with an angled flight deck.) Therefore it was a simple mistake.
 
We all know the Lucas system... it's just that it doesn't work that way in WCU. Every official product is canon... The only compromise is that "whenever a book or something conflicts with a game, the game is right".

The problem is that there are few or no clear conflicts... a clear conflict would be if the game stated "Blair was in torgo in 156.2669" and a book stated "blair was in NEw Detroit in 156.2669". the usual "mistakes" are more flixble... and loaf always finds a way of making them fit.

Another issue is that the game-novels necessarily must pick one of the possible paths... and they also must let blair screw up sometimes. It is fun for a player to win all missions, but it would make a crappy book.
 
Edfilho said:
We all know the Lucas system... it's just that it doesn't work that way in WCU. Every official product is canon... The only compromise is that "whenever a book or something conflicts with a game, the game is right".

Thats clearly what Madcow has already stated.
 
LeHah said:
Thats clearly what Madcow has already stated.

I got the opposite impression, he says that he feels that there are levels of canonity (is that a word?) in the WCU, when it is not the case. The books, the tv cartoon, the movie and the official guides are just as worthy of canon status as the games, with the caveat that the games take precedence IF there is some clear and direct conflict.

The star wars thing is different. NOTHING is really canon outside the movies. GL only considers the movies when making new movies... he can and will ignore all events in the EU when making the movies...
 
I got the opposite impression, he says that he feels that there are levels of canonity (is that a word?) in the WCU, when it is not the case. The books, the tv cartoon, the movie and the official guides are just as worthy of canon status as the games, with the caveat that the games take precedence IF there is some clear and direct conflict.

The star wars thing is different. NOTHING is really canon outside the movies. GL only considers the movies when making new movies... he can and will ignore all events in the EU when making the movies...

You're absolutely right in regards to Lucas and the WCU. There was never any official leveling of canon. The system I described is simply what I use in justifying inconsistencies to myself.

One of these days, you'd think that the creators of a sci fi franchise (obsentsibly being sci fi fans themselves) now how anal we get about things like these and would employ one person full time to act as the 'lore' person to ensure these canonical errors don't happen.
 
. . . Level One canon would be the games themselves. Level Two canon would be the game novelizations. Level three canon would be the other novels while level four canon would be the movie and the cartoon. The higher the level, the 'truer' the information contained within the source. Should a level one canon source contradict something in a level two or level three canon source, then whatever was said in the level one source is considered what really happened . . .

There are three main problems here though.

First, the history of these Forums demonstrates that the various WC storylines and facts can be interpreted pretty consistently, so the question arises why there is any need for a more complex system of canon to resolve alleged contradictions.

Second, as a practical matter, I suspect the debates would quickly devolve from ostensibly objective arguments over whether contradictions exist, to more subjective arguments over whether a given inconsistency, despite being able to be harmonized with other facts, is nonetheless “intolerable”, and finally to purely individual opinions over how “I” would have conceived of WC had “I” been EA. And at that point, so much for “canon”. That’s the thing about hierarchical “belief systems”–you really need a parallel hierarchy of decision-makers to avoid a collapse into chaos. (The law is another good example in this way, with both “supreme” laws and “supreme” courts.)

Third, the bottom line would be that instead of looking to preserve the canon we have, we’d be looking to pare it down for the sake of a more ideal consistency. But the canon as it currently exists is still sparse by comparison to the “fabric” (considered as canon or not) of other “universes” (Star Wars or Star Trek). Looking to dilute, rather than enrich, the WC universe does not strike me as in our best interests.

I would almost consider the movie and the cartoon apocryphal due to the extent of contradictions with other canon.

This is a technical problem I have with your suggestion. What distinguishes the levels? (Your reference to “contradictions” of the “other canon” by the movie, if true, would be as true of the movie by the “other canon”, so that begs the question.) My initial guess would be “creative distance” from EA and Chris Roberts, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?

However, I don't wish to turn this into a movie debate thread, so please don't reply to this part of the post.

Well, sorry, but wouldn’t your system, as you seem to envision it, require us to spend a fair amount of time talking about what can and can’t be preserved in the movie and TV series as canon?:)

The system I described is simply what I use in justifying inconsistencies to myself.

Ah! Well, even if you didn’t mean it as a prescription for the community, I remain curious about the points I raised (though I guess my second objection is no longer relevant).
 
Edfilho said:
I got the opposite impression, he says that he feels that there are levels of canonity (is that a word?) in the WCU, when it is not the case. The books, the tv cartoon, the movie and the official guides are just as worthy of canon status as the games, with the caveat that the games take precedence IF there is some clear and direct conflict.

The only difference between the SW canon and WC's canon is that Wing Commander doesn't have the luxury of being a major Hollywood and media product for going-on thirty years - which allows it countless amounts of various types of media.

Basicly, everything is the same except the complexity of said canon.

Edfilho said:
The star wars thing is different. NOTHING is really canon outside the movies.

(Movie) Radio Dramas and Movie Novelizations, actually.

Edfilho said:
GL only considers the movies when making new movies... he can and will ignore all events in the EU when making the movies.

And so he should! It is his toy after all - too bad he just doesn't make something worth our time.
 
First, the history of these Forums demonstrates that the various WC storylines and facts can be interpreted pretty consistently, so the question arises why there is any need for a more complex system of canon to resolve alleged contradictions.

There really isn't. The only people I can think of in the fan community who would really have a need to determine what is and is not canon would be people who are creating new facets of the Wing Commander story. (i.e. people making games, mods, writing fan fictions, RPGs, and so forth) It would be helpful to have a method of deciding what parts of the Wing Commander universe to include in one's creation and which parts to leave out should an inconsistancy exist in the material they're working with.

This is a technical problem I have with your suggestion. What distinguishes the levels? (Your reference to “contradictions” of the “other canon” by the movie, if true, would be as true of the movie by the “other canon”, so that begs the question.) My initial guess would be “creative distance” from EA and Chris Roberts, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?

You've actually got a point. Seeing that Chris Roberts wrote and directed the WC movie, then it would have to be level one canon. I'm not completely familiar with the movie and cartoons, but doesn't one contradict the other as the 'prequel' to WC1? I could be absolutely wrong on this because like I said...I'm not that familiar with eiter.
 
Ack! So many replies! Ok, I'll just reiterate and sign off this thread:

1. LOAF admitted that the Concordia in Action Stations was never referred to by class. That makes the class type an inference. While the theory is nice, it just doesn't make sense in war to expend resources on building less capable capital ships. Unless someone can find a good reason why they would continue to build them (e.g. they made excellent Jeep carriers in comparison to the other carriers), then I personally cannot accept that explanation.

2. In my opinion, Action Stations is a trainwreck of continuity errors that no one has managed to smooth out. The fact that we *know* that the author made two rather significant errors (The Concordia was supposed to be the same Concordia from WCII, and Max Kruger became Hans Kruger), I have a hard time believing that the other strange points (e.g. phase shields) aren't also done in error.

3. The Concordia vs. Confederation class has to be one of the biggest screwups in WC history. It's made fans have to look for all kinds of wacky explanations, and in the end there's no way to get away without any sort of damage to the continuity.

4. The movie was watchable and the cartoons were quite good. Neither one can be (or was intended to be) harmonized with the game. Howeve, that doesn't seem to deter people.Ce la vi.

Overall, I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, and I hope others have as well. That being said, time for me to exit, stage left even. :)

Edit: P.S. LOAF, I found a rather informative link that I thought you might enjoy. I thought it was quite interesting, as I can finally stop having to poke all around the internet to figure out what ships were built at Norfolk and which weren't:

http://www.nnsy1.navy.mil/history/BUILT.HTM

Just an FYI, the Newport News yards didn't start into government work until the turn of the century. :)
 
Sorry that I haven't read this entire thread...

Though I loved the WC Movie there are too many inconsistencies for it to be considered "true canon." When I first saw it, I felt like Chris basically abandoned the actual WC canon to make something he thought would suck in the average, non-WC fan. This would explain additions like the Skipper missile (which in the canon was first tested in 2669, WC3), the very idea of Maniac and Blair being close friends, the whole marine/fuel extraction scene, and the Pilgrim subplot. Just because it was directed by Roberts himself doesn't mean we automatically are forced to try to merge this with everything else. Besides, the movie came out three years after Chris left ORIGIN...
 
Maybe the movie was never intended to be part of the continuity, I personally don't know what Chris Roberts and co.'s intentions were. However, the movie adds tons of richness to the WC universe, and I can't stomach just throwing it out because it has a few contradictions. The contradictions can be ignored; we shouldn't take the movie (or the cartoon or novels or whatever) too literally, otherwise we get all sorts of wacky theories like two Iasons and Bossman being thought killed, then recovered, then killed again. I employ the method of "take what works, chuck what doesn't." Because AS mentions "phase shields," that doesn't, in my eyes, make it any less valid a piece of WC canon.

I won't mention much more about the Concordia situation (I think everything that can be said has been said), but Confed sure does have a jones for the name "Concordia." 2 carriers, a supercruiser, and a ship-class. Wow.
 
Back
Top