Least Favorite Carrier

frostytheplebe

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
I figured there are so many "favorite" threads going around, I thought I'd be a little anti climactic and come up with this one...

Least favorite carrier... lets see... I'd have to say the Tiger's Claw. She always seemed to be THE most under armed carrier in the Universe. 4 Turreted lasers... plus it never seemed like that ship could defend itself in the game... and I wasn't a big fan of the design.

Concordia: Pretty much the only time you don't fly off a carrier. I love it, flying off a freaken Dreadnought!

Victory: Somewhat weak... still Jason Bernard as the CO, a pornstar as your chief greese monkey (sweEeEeEeEeT!!!)

Lexington: Honestly it felt the same as the Vic... kinda boring, but w/e works.

Intrepid: LOVED this ship! Though severely beaten, and a mess in every meaning of the word, I loved it.

Midway: For such a large ship... the damn thing seemed way too easy to destroy.

Cereberus: eh... I don't know.
 
Least favorite carrier... lets see... I'd have to say the Tiger's Claw. She always seemed to be THE most under armed carrier in the Universe. 4 Turreted lasers... plus it never seemed like that ship could defend itself in the game... and I wasn't a big fan of the design.
Click to expand...

I think you've been misniformed about the Tiger's Claw - it carries a grand total of forty-two laser turrets and batteries (varying in setup from single to triple-mount) and forty torpedo tubes.
 
In my experience, Tiger's Claw was built tough, I almost had to try and let the kats blow it up to fail a defend the claw mission.

Its a tossup between Concordia, Lexington and Cerberus. Concordia was a great ship, but had a strong WE DONT WANT YOU HERE AND ARE BARELY TOLERATING YOUR PRESENCE vibe, being aboard Lexington gave me a very creepy feeling that something was very wrong, and Cerberus was chillingly empty. Cerberus probably has to be the worst, as it seemed to be actively trying to kill me with its plasma gun.
 
Victory/Lexington- the flying shoeboxes were just such a letdown after flying off of a PTC wielding, mean, green, 1960's tailfin inspired machine- the Concordia was inspired, but still had some consistencies with the original Tiger's Claw. A close second for least favorite carrier was the Midway- it reminded me of the Concordia- if you stripped it of all it's heavy weaponry and felt wayyy less armored.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I think you've been misniformed about the Tiger's Claw - it carries a grand total of forty-two laser turrets and batteries (varying in setup from single to triple-mount) and forty torpedo tubes.
Click to expand...

That may be it's "official" armament in all the fiction, but in the WC1 game engine it was useless at defending itself...did the game only give it the equivalent of 4 laser turrets? Of course, ALL the WC1 capital ships were pretty useless at defending themselves from fighters (what was the point of an Exeter, anyway? A wing of cats could take it out almost as easily as a Drayman, and the Exeter was probably a LOT pricier to replace, with less cargo capacity and the same fighter complement). I'm sure I'm not the only one that managed to take out the THREE Fralthis in SM2? in my lone little Hornet (well, Hunter was there too, I think...).

If the game engine is actually representative of how vulnerable the capships were to fighters in the WC1 era, it's a wonder that both sides didn't immediately pull every capship they had that couldn't carry fighters back to home space and keep them out of harm's way until they could be re-fit with a hanger once the power of fighters became apparent...
 
Farbourne said:
That may be it's "official" armament in all the fiction, but in the WC1 game engine it was useless at defending itself...did the game only give it the equivalent of 4 laser turrets? Of course, ALL the WC1 capital ships were pretty useless at defending themselves from fighters (what was the point of an Exeter, anyway? A wing of cats could take it out almost as easily as a Drayman, and the Exeter was probably a LOT pricier to replace, with less cargo capacity and the same fighter complement). I'm sure I'm not the only one that managed to take out the THREE Fralthis in SM2? in my lone little Hornet (well, Hunter was there too, I think...).

If the game engine is actually representative of how vulnerable the capships were to fighters in the WC1 era, it's a wonder that both sides didn't immediately pull every capship they had that couldn't carry fighters back to home space and keep them out of harm's way until they could be re-fit with a hanger once the power of fighters became apparent...
Click to expand...

Seems like thats exactly what they did. Exeters were either converted into Gettysburgs, or just equipped with hangers, they did it with a couple of Kilrathi models as well as several others.
 
That may be it's "official" armament in all the fiction, but in the WC1 game engine it was useless at defending itself...did the game only give it the equivalent of 4 laser turrets? Of course, ALL the WC1 capital ships were pretty useless at defending themselves from fighters (what was the point of an Exeter, anyway? A wing of cats could take it out almost as easily as a Drayman, and the Exeter was probably a LOT pricier to replace, with less cargo capacity and the same fighter complement). I'm sure I'm not the only one that managed to take out the THREE Fralthis in SM2? in my lone little Hornet (well, Hunter was there too, I think...).
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever lost the Tiger's Claw to Kilrathi attack - it has the strongest armor and shields in the game. Scramble missions were always a matter of time rather than a threat to your ship.

I don't have the WC1 ship editor here, but I think it had more than four lasers simulated in WC1... probably something like seven.

Destroyers have several roles, not the last of which is fighting other destroyers. The two sides have thousands of tin cans and only a couple space carriers... so the majority of space combat is going to ultimately be between destroyer, cruiser, etc. squadrons. They're also for planetary bombardment - you're constantly escorting Exeters in to assist in sieges and such in the original game (but they're *not*, as you implied, transports - Exeters are ships of the line).

Seems like thats exactly what they did. Exeters were either converted into Gettysburgs, or just equipped with hangers, they did it with a couple of Kilrathi models as well as several others.
Click to expand...

I think this is coming from some fan fiction. All we know about the "Gettysburg" is that it's a type of large cruiser that carries a fighter squadron. They reuse the Exeter graphics for the Gettysburg-class' seconds-long appearance in Secret Missions 2.

Some Exeters (like the Formidable and the Gwenhyvar) can launch fighters, carrying as many as eighteen.
 
The Victory is my least favourite carrier: boring design, unlikeable crew and no feel of old. I think, I even liked the Armade Lexington better. :p

(The WC4 Lexington of course is not very different but you were not supposed to like it I think)


Bandit LOAF said:
Some Exeters (like the Formidable and the Gwenhyvar) can launch fighters, carrying as many as eighteen.
Click to expand...

Only some? Can't we assume that all Exeters carry fighters? Or is it mentioned somewhere that those were special Exeters?

And yeah, I never ever lost the Tiger's Claw from enemy fire if I didn't force it.
 
Only some? Can't we assume that all Exeters carry fighters? Or is it mentioned somewhere that those were special Exeters?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say... I'm assuming that if every Exeter carried fighters then they wouldn't need our help all the time!
 
Incidentally, I wanted to make a thread about exactly this: why do we have to escort Exeters and Gilgameshes when they have their own fighter complement? :)
 
Midway. Nothing against her, i just prefer the worn, this ship is patched up, look of ships like the Tiger's Claw and Victory. These ships seem to have more character, where the Midway is just a shiny new ship.
 
ck9791 said:
Midway. Nothing against her, i just prefer the worn, this ship is patched up, look of ships like the Tiger's Claw and Victory. These ships seem to have more character, where the Midway is just a shiny new ship.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I didn't like in the Victory: everyone just talked about how an old lady she was but she did look as if she just rolled off the assembly line. And her paper stats from the manual put her on top of most cap ships.
Kind of like everybody in WCP talked about how a horrible enemy the Nephilim are and yet you never get a sense of danger from them.

The Midway was supposed to be a new ship and looked shiny new, the Tiger's Claw was battle-hardened and felt that way. That bucket in the barracks worked wonder. :)
 
I could think of a bunch of reasons you're escorting destroyers all the time- destroyed fighter complements on the destroyers themselves; fleet command ordering the destroyers' fighter complements to some distant objective, and using carrier based fighters to fill in for CAP purposes; damage to destroyer hanger bays, etc.

This does kind of highlight one of my biggest gripes about WC capships though- they are basically a liability or giant target in 99% of the fights they are engaged in. (The Connie was an exception to that, as occasionally was the Intrepid and Victory (3D0 WC3))
 
Tiger's Claw was my favorite cause of the landing.

I'd say Cerebus is my least favorite just cause I really didn't care if anyone blew it up.
 
I thought the Cerberus was kinda cool- secret ops didn't give it much personality, but the plasma gun + cap ship missile launchers in the bow were neat- I felt like it was one of the most interesting designs of the post-wc2 era (it wasn't a flying shoe box!)
 
IMHO, the Cerberus is definitely the best looking ship players fly off from since the Concordia.

The Midway, SWC Claw/Armada Lexington, and Intrepid aren't too bad, but nowhere near the likes of the WC1 Claw or the Concordia... and the WC4 Lexington and the Victory are just horrible. The fact that they merely re-decorated the horrible shoebox design for a whole different class of ship makes me like these two even less.
 
I'll say. Although I enjoyed playing WC3 very much, the first time I saw the Victory and her battle group, I thought I'd been shunted into an alternate universe or something. Neither the Victory nor her escorts looked at all like anything I'd recognize as a Confed design.
 
Toast said:
I'll say. Although I enjoyed playing WC3 very much, the first time I saw the Victory and her battle group, I thought I'd been shunted into an alternate universe or something. Neither the Victory nor her escorts looked at all like anything I'd recognize as a Confed design.
Click to expand...

While the Shoebox is crappy, I actually liked the Tallahasse and Southhampton classes. It showcased a different design style that existed in Confed and while looking a little lacking when compared to other models they can still kick the crap out of any Kat equivalent that dares come into AMG range.

While talking about what about the Kilrathi carriers in game? The Snakier was really kick ass and the Bhantkara makes the Shoebox design look pretty good to me. The Shi'raak (been a while since I've spelt that one) is an interesting design as well, far better looking than the Armada Lexington's 2x4 look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top