My attempt at a Bengal

[Quarto]

Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
I'm not referrign to troubles. IIRC, there are mentions in the documentation as well as in the game about systems not being completed yet. And there are more systems than just ICIS that are entirely new, the arterial launch system being one important one. Rachel makes a statement fairly early on in the game about some of the new systems not being completely fleshed out yet.

IIRC, Rachel makes a statement about some systems not quite working right - that's different to not being completely fleshed out. The Midway is, for all intents and purposes, completed and indeed has been completed for much longer than had the Vesuvius when we first ran into it in combat. And the arterial launch system is hardly very new at all - it's clearly an improvement upon the launch tubes used in earlier vessels such as the Bengals, but not really much of an improvement.

Does not NECESSARILY mean. However, with or without the aforementioned facts, there is no compelling evidence to NOT support the X as being 'experimental'.

Yet you do not comment about my point about the Vesuvius and Cerberus being just as experimental as the Midway...

 

[OriginalPhoenix]

Originally posted by Quarto
Yet you do not comment about my point about the Vesuvius and Cerberus being just as experimental as the Midway...

Yes, I did...earlier in the thread.

I'm through arguing this point of contention. I have not seen any compelling evidence to sway my way of thinking. I recognize that some others may not share my opinion, and that's fine. Last I checked, that's what these boards are all about.

 

[Quarto]

Well fine then, Phoenix, ignore me!

Just kidding - agreeing to disagree is probably the best option .

 

[Wedge009]

Heh, this reminds me of the arguments over what type of carrier the Eisen could be. Maybe someday we'll get a confirmation of what the 'X' designator really means.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Wedge009
Heh, this reminds me of the arguments over what type of carrier the Eisen could be. Maybe someday we'll get a confirmation of what the 'X' designator really means.

..."Someday"
:igs fly, hell freezes over, Bin Laden & Company turn themselves in to authorities::

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Nice lookin' Bengal.

Anyway, if you must take historical usage of naval warship designators into account for usage in example WC registries, then look no further than current day Navy's.

The "X" in for example "CVNX-78"(next generation CVN for the USN), does mean experimental, but so far this is the only new class ship which has ever used this designation.(For example, neither CV(A)N-65(Enterprise), or CV(A)N-68(Nimitz) used this letter designation)

The newer CVNX-78 is given the "X" simply because it's a new approach to carrier doctorine as originating with strategical air wing deployments compared to earlier vessels which were straight on expansions of old concepts.(More or less carriers have been the same, except larger since the "Super Essex" class of the 1950's.)

To compare ships in WC terms to RL ones.

Midway class- Concordia class.(Mainstay, and lasting up past larger newer ships.)

Forrestal class- Bengal class(TC varient) I'm tempted to lump her together with the KH as neither is really all that different.

Kitty Hawk class- I'm unsure what would be this equivilant. An improved Concordia class which is similar in build to the Confed class would most likely go here.

Enterprise class- Confederation class dreadnought. First ship to mount a specific weapon, large, mainstay, and symbolic.

JFK class(KH sub-class)- Confed class without PTC.

Nimitz class(expanded)- Vesuivius class. Very large ship, built upon principles of the previous classes.

CVNX- Midway class. New build carrier created in background of a changing political climate.(All previous classes were created during the cold war)