Did I blink?

Originally posted by Soma
My point being wouldn't the Captain use the military classification of his ship and not a catch phrase?
Click to expand...
Why not? Eisen called the Victory "Tin Can Sally" which isn't exactly the military classification either.
 
Good point, but does he call that in an official publication? (don't have my Victory Streak lying around)
 
Originally posted by Unforgiven
Why not? Eisen called the Victory "Tin Can Sally" which isn't exactly the military classification either.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between nicknames and buzz-terms.
 
Eisen's being friendly and informal with Blair at that point, it's not anything important, just letting Blair know where he stands. He might as well call the ship his "old girl" or other such silly names. He's not giving out any specs there or anything.
 
Heavy Carrier and Heavy Fleet Carrier are the same thing -- the 'fleet' means it's a normal, plain, average carrier... as opposed to a dreadnought or a strike carrier or an escort carrier. The Victory is a Light Fleet Carrier, although you never hear anybody bother to say the 'fleet'. (Ditto the Concordia class is a Medium Fleet Carrier, but nobody ever says the medium...).
 
Stupid question:

Would the Confed class be considered a fleet carrier, since it carries the same number of fighters as most dedicated heavies?
 
Re: Stupid question:

Originally posted by Bob McDob
Would the Confed class be considered a fleet carrier, since it carries the same number of fighters as most dedicated heavies?
Click to expand...

I think the Conderation's class' weapons loadout (eight AMGs and the PTC) would qualify it as a dreadnaught.

Best, Raptor
 
The Confederation-class is specifically called a dreadnought by “Joan’s” in WC 2 and “Borger’s” in KS.

When it comes to ships especially, the general rule should be that text (in the manuals or novels) trumps graphics. So absent some compelling counter-argument, it is eight AMGs, not seven.
 
I would say eight -- the game doesn't simulate the eigth one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
 
Agreed on that. I think in such cases you always have to take the one which makes more sense or what sounds better and doesn't stand in harsh contrast to what you see. Thus, I'd never say the Hellcat V in WC3 has Lasers and Ions because VS says so (although VS might be describing a different variant) since it is clear from the game that she Neutrons and Ions. Same applies to the ARmada ships.
On the other hand in WC1 I don't take the shield strength from the manual but the one which is indicated in the ships (4 cm for the Hornet, 6/5 cm for the Scimitar, 7 cm for the Raptor and 8/7.5cm for the Rapier) since it makes more sense I think (the Rapier is supposed to have the toughest shields e.g.) and they are the actual values used by the game IIRC.
 
Agreed on that. I think in such cases you always have to take the one which makes more sense or what sounds better and doesn't stand in harsh contrast to what you see.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Not to turn on an ally, but I’m curious to know how “eight” wins out over “seven” under those standards.:) It sounds like you’d normally give graphics the benefit of any doubt.

Thus, I'd never say the Hellcat V in WC3 has Lasers and Ions because VS says so (although VS might be describing a different variant) since it is clear from the game that she [has] Neutrons and Ions. . . . I don't take the shield strength from the [WC 1] manual but the one which is indicated in the ships (4 cm for the Hornet, 6/5 cm for the Scimitar, 7 cm for the Raptor and 8/7.5cm for the Rapier) since it makes more sense I think (the Rapier is supposed to have the toughest shields e.g.) . . .
Click to expand...

So because of what you see in the cockpits of the few particular fighters you fly during the games, you’re prepared to conclude that that is “the rule” for Hellcat Vs, Hornets, Scimitars, Rapiers, and Raptors in the WC universe?

More importantly, how can you so easily dismiss VS given that it exists in the WC universe as much as do those neutron guns? Do you also dismiss the “in-universe” statement in the KS manual that the neutron gun was retired in 2668? And what about the cockpit graphics in the WC1 manual (in the game section) for the Hornet and Rapier that are consistent with their printed shield specs? (And I note that the one for the Raptor doesn’t appear to be consistent with either the specs or the game.) What about the same shield specs for the Rapier set forth in the Confederation Handbook?

It seems you’re proposing to do a lot of damage to the credibility of the various manuals and books just for the sake of a few select graphics in the games that may well have, like your comment about variants, less drastic explanations. I don’t think we need or should approach canon as some sort of zero-sum exercise.

. . .and they are the actual values used by the game IIRC.
Click to expand...

If by this you mean the game code, then that would entail, for example, that the scales and the details depicted for various ships should be accepted without question. Code written to render the graphics practical or to make the playing of the game more challenging, less difficult, or simply “enjoyable” should not dictate canon.
 
The Rapier in the Confed Handbook is a completely different animal -- the ship in WC1/2 is the Rapier II.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top