Progression of ships

[Farbourne]

I had a question, or perhaps just a comment, regarding something that often rubbed me the wrong way about Wing Commander, and I thought people here might like to answer, or at least discuss it. I have never had the opportunity to play Armada, Academy, or read any of the novels, so maybe this issue is addressed there; if so, please enlighten me. Sorry for the length...

In Wing Commander I, there's some collection of fighters and capital ships in service--some old (Scimitar, Tiger's Claw, Dralthi I?), and some relatively new (Rapier, Hriss, Snakier). Fast forward 10 years to WC2, and we see the respective arsenals have almost completely changed. The newest WC1 fighter (Rapier) is still in service in a modified form, but is now one of the oldest fighters, and the cap ships especially have all been completely replaced. This makes sense--there were 10 years, after all, and two completely new technologies developed in that time (phase shields and torpedoes) that probably completely changed the nature of warfare. Plus flak guns and transport-mounted turrets got a lot deadlier, stealth technology was implemented (though Confed didn't acknowledge it), AM guns became common on capships in response to phase shields, the old WC1 designs surley couldn't compete. Furthermore, a number of the new ship designs kind of resemble the old designs (Dralthi I --> Drakrhi, Jalthi --> Grikhath, Exeter --> Gilgamesh, Dorkir --> Dorkathi, etc). So we see in a 10 year span with several dramatic new technologies almost a complete change in the respective arsenals, but the new one kind of resembles the old one in some ways.

Now fast forward to WC3. I believe the time span between the end of SO2 and WC3 is only about 2~3 years. There are no major new technological revolutions except for missile decoys, "phase-penetrating" technologies (which probably forced capships to re-adopt conventional shields) and jump-capable fighters, which, while significant, seem to be the sort of technologies that could be retrofitted on existing ships rather than requiring completely new ship designs. Yet none of the WC2 ship designs show up in WC3--even the relative new ones (Gothri, Sabre, Morningstar, Crossbow) or the very deadly capship designs that presumably would have some longevity (Fralthra, Ralatha, Waterloo). And none of them even resemble the WC2 designs in the slightest (except for the Grikhath --> Vaktoth and the Dralthi, of course). The only crossover is the crashed Concordia. And to cap it all off, we're expected to believe that the Victory has been in service for years, despite the fact that no ship remotely resembling the Victory has appeared in any previous games.

I know the practical reasons for this--every game had a new engine and wanted to introduce new ships. But what are the "in game" reasons why it takes 10 years and some amazing technology changes to almost completely change both fleets, but then takes less than 3 and no new design-changing technologies to completely change the fleets, to the point where the new ships bear no resemblence to the old? Maybe the battle of Earth accounts for the Terran side--they lost all their "newer" WC2 type ships, and had to revert to "older" WC3 designs that had been in mothballs, but what about the Kilrathi?

Thoughts?

 

[6and7eighths]

The most obvious answer would be that there was very little continuity of effort. The teams responsible changed dramatically between Wing Commander II and III, much moreso than between Wing Commander and Wing Commander II.

Story-wise, we're expected to believe that most of the ships in Wing Commander II weren't actually new, but simply unseen, and had really been kicking around the periphery of the Wing Commander universe even in the first game. All those times you had to eject? It was a Broadsword that showed up off-screen to retrieve you.

Depending on which set of service dates you're going by, the fighter lineup in Wing Commander III seems meant to represent the final phase-out of those twenty-year-old designs from Wing Commander I. This always seemed disengenuous to me, however, because they also threw out new designs like the Crossbow and Morningstar, and to a much lesser extent the Stiletto from Privateer (which shares enough design elements to suggest that it was contemporary to these prototype designs).

I won't say that it's necessarily wrong to assume that there were certain practical limitations that kept older designs out of Wing Commander III, but if that was the case, I'd imagine it was largely a case of expedience. As many designs as there were that had been recycled between games already, it doesn't seem such a stretch to say that the designers simply wanted to wipe the slate clean and do something new.

 

[Edfilho]

Another "real life" answer fot the shfit between WC2 and 3 (the only one which is stranger...) is that the new true 3D engine couldn't handle very complex designs, so the curvaceous complex WC2 craft was traded for the boxier, angular and simpler ones in WC3.

An "in game" widely accepted theory is that we only see a part of the fleet in each game. A flight sim set in the 1940 Battle of Britan will have a REALLY different roster from a 1945 Pacific Theater one...

EDIT: A third reason: Fans want new ships. Space sims always advertised how many NEW and/or flyable craft the had. It is a selling point.

 

[Howard Day]

Another "real life" answer fot the shfit between WC2 and 3 (the only one which is stranger...) is that the new true 3D engine couldn't handle very complex designs, so the curvaceous complex WC2 craft was traded for the boxier, angular and simpler ones in WC3.

Well, that's not true. BradMick went to a great deal of trouble to prove that one incorrect.
https://www.wcnews.com/news/2224

 

[Speradon]

Yeah, it was mentioned above, but based upon several different sources (I'm sure LOAF can make direct references to some of them), we know that while WC-II/WC-III fighters/ships were "new" to us players when the game released, a great many of them were "old" in the WC universe. For instance, just because us players didn't see or fly Broadswords in WC-1 doesn't mean they weren't around in some other sector or on some other capship.

 

[Farbourne]

Well, the idea of Broadsword in WC1 doesn't quite sit right with me. There really was no reason for a ship like the Broadsword then. That was before phase shields and torpedoes. Capships had paper thin shields and armor and lousy defenses (the flak guns in WC1 couldn't shoot down a stationary Salthi at point blank range). Even a light patrol fighter like a Hornet was a threat to heavy cruisers and carriers (remember the SM2 mission where you can take down three furball Fralthis in a Hornet if you can outfly their escorts?) The Broadsword's slow speed would have been a huge impediment, and since there were no torpedoes, there would be no reason for a fighter type ship of the Broadsword's size. But that isn't what bothers me. 10 years is plenty of time to completely change a fleet arsenal. 3 years is not. The lack of Hellcats and Arrows in WC2 and of Sabres and Crossbows in WC3 bothers me far more than whether there were Broadswords on the Claw.

There are some nice progressions from WC2 to WC3. The Vaktoth to me has always looked like a beefed up version of the Grikhath, and the name (if not the shape) perhaps implies that the Longbow replaced the Crossbows.

 

[Death]

Whether it sits with you or not is irrelevant. Academy and the WC movie both establish the Broadsword as existing in the WC1 timeframe.

Shielding that's inpenetrable by fighter-mounted weaponry gets countered by upgraded weapons that can penetrate or otherwise defeat that shielding, at which point the shielding is upgraded, and so on and so forth. The shielding of capital warships has been both penetrable (WC1, 3, and most of 4[1]) and impenetrable (WCM, WC2, some of WC4[1], Prophecy/SO[2]) by fighter-mounted guns/missiles.

[1] The Vesuvius had shielding that, without torpedoes, was effectively immune to fighter guns/missiles, baring an unusual attack like popping it from the inside with a Flashpack.

[2] This was changing, though, with the introduction of the plasma cannon on the Devastator, which could penetrate phase shielding to damage the target ship itself.

As for new/old ships in WC3, the Thunderbolt and Excaliber are the only new designs, timeline-wise, as of WC3, introduced in 2669 (IIRC on the Thud, definitely on the Excal). That we didn't see the other fighters in earlier games doesn't necessarily mean anything, as we only get to see one small part of a conflict that ultimately spanned hundreds to thousands of light years of space, and involved billions of humans and Kilrathi (and assorted other species, like WC:SM1's Firekkans). The player is an important person because the game wouldn't likely be as fun (I suppose that, theoretically, the player being a minor participant could be made enjoyable, but I'm skeptical, at present), not because the rest of the war didn't happen beyond the player's immediate sphere of knowledge.

 

[Speradon]

The Broadsword's slow speed would have been a huge impediment, and since there were no torpedoes, there would be no reason for a fighter type ship of the Broadsword's size.

Remember, the Broadsword's a bomber, not a fighter. The lack of speed sucks for sure, but that's why (though not always in the WC-II game itself) they had fighter escorts. From the info on Wikipedia (which I know isn't the most accurate at times; if anything in there's incorrect, please someone right the ship):

A-17A/B/C - In service starting in 2632, the first three models combine a heavy forward punch and powerful missiles. The pre-war A-model lacked the ability to carry torpedoes, though two and then two more were added in successive variants.

A-17D - In service from 2660 to 2668. The A-17D is the definitive model of the type.

A-17E - A patrol model of the Broadsword, used mainly in the Gemini Sector. Patrol fighters stripped rear turrets and some armor protection, but made up somewhat with the addition of two particle cannons to the side emplacements.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadsword_bomber"

But that isn't what bothers me. 10 years is plenty of time to completely change a fleet arsenal. 3 years is not. The lack of Hellcats and Arrows in WC2 and of Sabres and Crossbows in WC3 bothers me far more than whether there were Broadswords on the Claw.

Eh, 10 years to re-design, test, get funds for, manufacture, and deploy an entire fleet arsenal? Even if we argue that it's plenty of time, I don't think it ranks too high on the practicality-meter. But that aside, remember that WC-II begins (first mission) on 2665.112. The Arrow originally entered service, I believe, in 2654, nine years earlier, though it went through variants by the time we players encounter it in WC-III. Sabres were in service during the time of WC-Academy (the TV show) and lasted until the 2670's.

In short, the "lack" of Sabre and Crossbow encounters in WC-III is explainable (the squadrons on the Victory and nearby Confed ships didn't fly them; they were in service in other sectors, etc.).

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah, it was mentioned above, but based upon several different sources (I'm sure LOAF can make direct references to some of them), we know that while WC-II/WC-III fighters/ships were "new" to us players when the game released, a great many of them were "old" in the WC universe. For instance, just because us players didn't see or fly Broadswords in WC-1 doesn't mean they weren't around in some other sector or on some other capship.

That's correct. The Broadsword entered service just as the war started -- in the early 2630s (per the Terran Confederation Handbook).

The fact that all fighters are constantly new is a silly bit of fanon... it doesn't make sense on its face. Wing Commander very frequently goes through great pains to make explicitly known which fighters are *new*: the Rapier II, the Morningstar, the Crossbow, the Excalibur. The fact that these fighters being 'new' is such a big deal is really proof enough that the other fighters are *not* new. Note that Origin was always very good about not contradicting itself in this regard -- we never see Excaliburs in the 50s or Crossbows in the 40s... given that track record, it seems we have no choice but to accept that it was always part of the plan for ship classes to phase in and out through the timeline (versus the long assumed 'if I don't see it, it doesn't exist!' standard).

Well, the idea of Broadsword in WC1 doesn't quite sit right with me. There really was no reason for a ship like the Broadsword then. That was before phase shields and torpedoes. Capships had paper thin shields and armor and lousy defenses (the flak guns in WC1 couldn't shoot down a stationary Salthi at point blank range). Even a light patrol fighter like a Hornet was a threat to heavy cruisers and carriers (remember the SM2 mission where you can take down three furball Fralthis in a Hornet if you can outfly their escorts?) The Broadsword's slow speed would have been a huge impediment, and since there were no torpedoes, there would be no reason for a fighter type ship of the Broadsword's size.

As someone has no doubt already informed you, torpedoes existed for the whole of the war. Impenetrable shields are not a prerequisite for having torpedoes... Wing Commander III is proof enough of this. You can shoot through a Fralthi II or a Bhantkara... but you still fly bombers and heavy fighters that are armed with shield piercing torpedoes (though, of course, Action Stations will tell you there was a period where capital ships did have such shields and that that's what lead to the original torpedo, too)

There's also plenty of reasons for Broadswords to exist outside of torpedoes - heck, we see them being used as patrol craft in Privateer, a game that does not even simulate anti-matter torpedoes. They're necessary for SAR, for planetary strikes, for anti-shipping and so forth (the original role of the space carrier was to deploy fighters for reconaissance and bombers against such targets -- well before the torpedo entered the arsenal!).

They existed in Wing Commander I, though, torpedoes and all to strike at enemy capital ships.

But that isn't what bothers me. 10 years is plenty of time to completely change a fleet arsenal. 3 years is not. The lack of Hellcats and Arrows in WC2 and of Sabres and Crossbows in WC3 bothers me far more than whether there were Broadswords on the Claw.

I don't think you have a valid complaint. Does the fact that some Air Force bases now have F-22 squadrons mean that none of them have F-15 squadrons? Of course not, that's a crazy thing to suggest. Heck, look at Wing Commander's analogue instead of the modern world: the aircraft used by the United States in the Pacific theater differed significantly from those used in Europe. Radically, noticably, romantically so -- Hellcats versus Mustangs, Superfortresses versus Flying Fortresses and so forth... and just like Wing Commander, you can find B-17s serving in the Pacific and Corsairs in Europe... but there's a clear well known and easily divisible 'canon' of aircraft classes! The fact that the light fighters assigned to the Tiger's Claw were Hornets doesn't mean there aren't Arrow V squadrons serving on the thousands of other ships or the hundreds of thousands of installations throughout the galaxy.

I don't understand the reticence people have here - everyone is automatically willing to accept the retcon inherent to the Victory herself... that she's an older ship which was around during the original game. Why not her fighter complement? Shouldn't we have an equal number of these threads bitching that Victory-type light carriers don't show up in the original game and so therefore Wing Commander III must be lying to them? (And of course, what's the outcome? Do we say 'yes, various Wing Commander sources are lying to you about the backstory of these ships' and pat you on the head? I don't get it.) What is inherent about the many sources that come together to give a clear picture of these fighters history that leads people to want to attack them? It's clearly not the concept itself!

Depending on which set of service dates you're going by, the fighter lineup in Wing Commander III seems meant to represent the final phase-out of those twenty-year-old designs from Wing Commander I. This always seemed disengenuous to me, however, because they also threw out new designs like the Crossbow and Morningstar, and to a much lesser extent the Stiletto from Privateer (which shares enough design elements to suggest that it was contemporary to these prototype designs).

I don't believe there's any sort of conflict over service dates other than people not wanting to accept the single set they're provided.

Actually, the only ship we have a service entry date for is the Excalibur (2669). We know that the Hellcat, Longbow and Arrow were around in 2654... but we don't know when they were actually put into service. The Thunderbolt was "old" in 2669 and was certainly in service 18 months before WC3 in 2668 (per Col. Hart's book)... but we don't have an explicit service entry date there, either.

Your last part is very confusing, though -- because we're told that some fighters are the ones that we're specifically not told about must be new as well? That doesn't make sense. The Longbow can't be old because the Crossbow, which we never ever see again is new?

Also: the Stiletto is never said to be new... and it being "like" the Morningstar has been graphically disprovan in similar discussions. They're both clearly Strike Commander era models (that is, modern aircraft) melted into Wing Commander fighters... but they don't actually share hulls, wings, cockpits, engine layouts or anything of the sort. And, of course, there's some irony in saying that the proof that all spacecraft are new is that some which look like *current* aircraft are newer than some that don't (again, not even provably true in the case of the Stiletto)...

Remember, the Broadsword's a bomber, not a fighter. The lack of speed sucks for sure, but that's why (though not always in the WC-II game itself) they had fighter escorts. From the info on Wikipedia (which I know isn't the most accurate at times; if anything in there's incorrect, please someone right the ship):

It's fairly accurate... but at the same time uses a lot of made up information (such as designations, placement of the variant seen in Privateer and so forth).

Eh, 10 years to re-design, test, get funds for, manufacture, and deploy an entire fleet arsenal? Even if we argue that it's plenty of time, I don't think it ranks too high on the practicality-meter. But that aside, remember that WC-II begins (first mission) on 2665.112. The Arrow originally entered service, I believe, in 2654, nine years earlier, though it went through variants by the time we players encounter it in WC-III. Sabre's were in service during the time of WC-Academy (the TV show) and lasted until the 2670's.

Good. We don't actually know when the Arrow entered service, though - just that they were around in 2654.

The idea that someone pulls a lever (or even fights a single battle) and suddenly the entire fleet is rebuilt differently is bizarre -- there's less than two years between the end of Wing Commander II and the start of Wing Commander III... the now false fanon that the fleet is different between WC1 and WC2 because of the eight year gap shouldn't have ever been jammed in here in the first place.

The ships change because you can't sell a game with the same ships over and over... it is *exactly* what the provenance of novels, card games and TV shows should be... explaining away in-universe the fact that some game designers *had* to bring in an entirely new fleet of ships with each new story.

We should be thanking our lucky stars that Academy cuts down to size the original apparent weirdness that Hellcats are suddenly everywhere in the late 60s... not damning it for being some improper source that ruins our preconceived notion of how a Hellcat should exist.

In short, the "lack" of Sabre and Crossbow encounters in WC-III is explainable (the squadrons on the Victory and nearby Confed ships didn't fly them; they were in service in other sectors, etc.).

Yeah, it's so much easier. I sincerely wish this had been the developed fanon in 1994... it makes so much more sense even without later stories establishing these facts.

 

[Spertallica]

I dunno, I don't mind old ships in WC3, I just don't like how they've seemingly replaced "new" ships in every game thereafter (look at the all the fleet massing cut scenes in WC3 and 4 where all we see are WC3 era ships) or that Origin was too lazy to bother trying to include *any* pre WC3 era ships in WC3 and beyond. Oh, and while I understand why newer classes like the Vesuvius needed a weakspot for plot purposes, but it would have been nice if it was something besides the same known fly through hanger weak spot in old Ranger-Class carriers that had been supposedly around for decades (that the "newer" Bengal and Confederation classes didn't seem to have). Too bad they didn't equip the Vesuvius with a "fixed" (read- doesn't blow up the firing ship when used) Phase Transit Cannon where you blow the PTC's power supply or something with the flash pak- that would have been pretty cool, and made a bit more sense.

I just don't like the in-game lack of continuity in appearance. I mean honestly, if you've only played WC1 and 2, if the name of WC3 was something else like "Starfighter" or something replaced the Kilrathi comms and writing on capships, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell it's Wing Commander while in-game.

 

[SabreAce]

I dunno, I don't mind old ships in WC3, I just don't like how they've seemingly replaced "new" ships in every game thereafter (look at the all the fleet massing cut scenes in WC3 and 4 where all we see are WC3 era ships) or that Origin was too lazy to bother trying to include *any* pre WC3 era ships in WC3 and beyond.

I'm not sure how that could be referred to as "lazy". Real world and in-universe explanations exist to cover each of those points. When you make a new game, you don't just slap a new story on top of everything that pre-exists. You build from it, create new material. In-universe, there is, of course, the infamous small-universe syndrome that has been mentioned several times in this thread. Further, we do see the pre-WC3 ships in the WC3 era. Privateer takes in 2669, and has both the Broadsword and Gladius (seen in WC2/WCATV and Armada, respectively).

Oh, and while I understand why newer classes like the Vesuvius needed a weakspot for plot purposes, but it would have been nice if it was something besides the same known fly through hanger weak spot in old Ranger-Class carriers that had been supposedly around for decades (that the "newer" Bengal and Confederation classes didn't seem to have). Too bad they didn't equip the Vesuvius with a "fixed" (read- doesn't blow up the firing ship when used) Phase Transit Cannon where you blow the PTC's power supply or something with the flash pak- that would have been pretty cool, and made a bit more sense.

The Bengal and Confederation classes were not light or fleet carriers (which all share a rather similar design philosophy) - the Bengal was a Strike Carrier, and the Confederation was a Dreadnought. The terms themselves imply that they'll be different in design from other ships. The Cerberus in SO was a "Quick Strike Assault Cruiser", and ends up looking quite different from the Plunkett cruiser.

I just don't like the in-game lack of continuity in appearance. I mean honestly, if you've only played WC1 and 2, if the name of WC3 was something else like "Starfighter" or something replaced the Kilrathi comms and writing on capships, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell it's Wing Commander while in-game.

Must have really thrown you for a loop when you started flying never-before-seen ships against bugs instead of kats.

 

[Wulf]

Must have really thrown you for a loop when you started flying never-before-seen ships against bugs instead of kats.

Nice burn!

 

[Spertallica]

The ships in WCP are aesthetically similar to ships from WC3/4, not WC 1 and 2. The Midway and fighters have similar paint schemes and design conventions to WC3-4 ships. But if you compare WC3-P Confed ships with WC 1 and 2, you could never tell that they were built by the same faction. So if it is a burn, it's a lousy one.

 

[Spertallica]

Oh, and didn't Privateer come out before WC3? I hear timelinewise it's *supposed* to occur in the same year- However, it doesn't necessarily conflict with my statement that you don't see any previous craft from WC3 on, provided WC3 occurs later in the same year then Privateer.

And I know this subject has been done to death, but if WCA "fits" into the WC game universe instead of being a retelling of WC, a bunch of the dialog in WC 1 makes no sense- ditto for the movie. That's my honest opinion, and you're free to disagree with it (and arguing with me about it isn't goint to change my opinion, so don't bother)- though it would be fantastic if someone from Origin popped in and definitively stated "WCA and WCM are/are not retellings of the WC franchise."

Finally, as for design philosophy- regardless of designation, Bengals, Confederations, Rangers, and Vesuvius class ships all functioned primarily as carriers first, and battleships or strike cruisers or whatever second. They carried rougly the same number of fighters. The point is that "designated light or fleet carrier" classes had a glaring weakspot that had been existent for decades, and that non "light or fleet" carrier designs lacked this weakspot. However, despite knowing of that weakspot, the Vesuvius (a brand new design) incorporated the same known weakspot, despite Confed having produced previous carrier designs that lacked that weakspot. That's silly. Oh, and Confed kept building the same lousy Concordia class design (weakspot included), even after the war was over (WC4) despite less vulnerable designs existing (Bengal, Confederation). Also silly.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

And I know this subject has been done to death, but if WCA "fits" into the WC game universe instead of being a retelling of WC, a bunch of the dialog in WC 1 makes no sense- ditto for the movie. That's my honest opinion, and you're free to disagree with it (and arguing with me about it isn't goint to change my opinion, so don't bother)- though it would be fantastic if someone from Origin popped in and definitively stated "WCA and WCM are/are not retellings of the WC franchise."

Oh, good. Boys and girls of the future, we have here the dumbest thing anyone at the Chat Zone has ever said. That's right: prefacing your bizarre, unsuported claim with the warning that "arguing with me about it isn't goint [sic] to change my opinion" wins the million dollar prize package -- rest assured that McGruff, Fatcat and half a dozen jerks who stole Privateer to get rich quick are green with envy right about now. If you don't subscribe to the same method of rhetoric as the rest of the universe then the door's to your left and I'll be happy to push you.

Now, amateur theatrics aside, Origin *did* 'pop in' and they did 'definitively state' these things: when it was news... long about 1996 at Origin's Official Wing Commander Chat Zone, our spiritual predecessor.

Claiming that the only way for you to be wrong (because somehow we're supposed to think you ever so clever slash adorable for going ahead and stating that you won't be accepting *facts* in this argument!) is for a company that no longer exists to come and settle an issue it already weighed in on ten years ago is idiotic.

You aren't allowed to decide something entirely fictional (where the hell did WCA being a 'retelling' of Wing Commander come from? No one has ever said this before.) and then act all high and mighty because no one will disprove it ten years after anything relating to the issue was settled.

You're a dumb boy, Billy.

Finally, as for design philosophy- regardless of designation, Bengals, Confederations, Rangers, and Vesuvius class ships all functioned primarily as carriers first, and battleships or strike cruisers or whatever second. They carried rougly the same number of fighters.

In order: 104, 120, 40 and 400. These numbers are not similar.

The point is that "designated light or fleet carrier" classes had a glaring weakspot that had been existent for decades, and that non "light or fleet" carrier designs lacked this weakspot. However, despite knowing of that weakspot, the Vesuvius (a brand new design) incorporated the same known weakspot, despite Confed having produced previous carrier designs that lacked that weakspot. That's silly.

No, this is something you decided, not an issue that has ever been raised in the series. The fact that you can 'fly through' the Victory-type and the Concordia-class is a function of the game engine, not any sort of claim that the bays in the tiny 2D sprite games had some sort of magic power that made them immune to being shot at.

If we rendered a Bengal-class Strike Carrier in 2005 you would be able to "fly through" the 'landing deck' in exactly the same manner. You couldn't do it in 1990 because you were looking at a 15 pixel by 30 pixel 2D image, not because one special kind of ship was magic in 2654.

Oh, and Confed kept building the same lousy Concordia class design (weakspot included), even after the war was over (WC4) despite less vulnerable designs existing (Bengal, Confederation). Also silly.

That's news to me. The TCS Lexington was a war-era ship... and the TCS Princeton was "undergoing ad-hoc repairs". You're assuming something we don't know here and you're doing it because, surprise surprise, you decided to make up a new fact without analyzing the existing evidence.

I dunno, I don't mind old ships in WC3, I just don't like how they've seemingly replaced "new" ships in every game thereafter (look at the all the fleet massing cut scenes in WC3 and 4 where all we see are WC3 era ships) or that Origin was too lazy to bother trying to include *any* pre WC3 era ships in WC3 and beyond.

Here's a new one from Professor Science -- they were *lazy* because they didn't *reuse existing ships*. Tell me while you still can, sir, under what circumstances in your amazing personal universe could Origin *not* be considered 'lazy'?

(It may surprise you to learn that they did eventually do exactly what you're asking here -- produce an entire damned animated series that mixes the different eras of designs together... and you know what? Nobodies heads exploded from confusion.)

Oh, and while I understand why newer classes like the Vesuvius needed a weakspot for plot purposes, but it would have been nice if it was something besides the same known fly through hanger weak spot in old Ranger-Class carriers that had been supposedly around for decades (that the "newer" Bengal and Confederation classes didn't seem to have). Too bad they didn't equip the Vesuvius with a "fixed" (read- doesn't blow up the firing ship when used) Phase Transit Cannon where you blow the PTC's power supply or something with the flash pak- that would have been pretty cool, and made a bit more sense.

The Bengal-class is older than the Victory-type.

The Phase Transit Cannon remark is dumb, too. The entire reason for 'writing out' the weapon was because it wasn't fun... having a giant gun that can automatically destroy any large enemy ship kills play -- as sad as it might make the Aces Club tech weirdos, denying the Confederation a super-weapon is exactly what they meant to do... bringing it back ten months later would be pointless. Absolutely nothing is improved with "a 'fixed' Phase Transit Cannon".

Oh, and didn't Privateer come out before WC3? I hear timelinewise it's *supposed* to occur in the same year- However, it doesn't necessarily conflict with my statement that you don't see any previous craft from WC3 on, provided WC3 occurs later in the same year then Privateer.

Privateer came out a year before Wing Commander III. It happens at the same time as Wing Commander III... and its addon, Righteous Fire, takes place *after* WC3.

Armada was the practical 'mixing' game you're looking for -- featuring both the Arrow V and the Wraith.

 

[SabreAce]

The ships in WCP are aesthetically similar to ships from WC3/4, not WC 1 and 2. The Midway and fighters have similar paint schemes and design conventions to WC3-4 ships. But if you compare WC3-P Confed ships with WC 1 and 2, you could never tell that they were built by the same faction. So if it is a burn, it's a lousy one.

Not built by the same faction? There are several design characteristics that are shared straight through the series. We'll stick with WC1-4 for now. Many fighters share the basic look of fuselage/wing/vertical surface (Hornet, Sabre, Hellcat, and Bearcat). Then we have ships that are essentially a long fuselage and 4 fins at the rear (Raptor, Ferret, Epee, Longbow).

Paint schemes have little to do with a design lineage. Does a P-51D Mustang in it's natural metal have no relation to a P-51B that's flying around in olive drab camo? In fact, the Broadswords in Privateer throw the paint idea out the window, as they are gray with blue trim, as WC3 ships are.

And I know this subject has been done to death, but if WCA "fits" into the WC game universe instead of being a retelling of WC, a bunch of the dialog in WC 1 makes no sense- ditto for the movie. That's my honest opinion, and you're free to disagree with it (and arguing with me about it isn't goint to change my opinion, so don't bother)- though it would be fantastic if someone from Origin popped in and definitively stated "WCA and WCM are/are not retellings of the WC franchise."

They *have* been stated to be parts of the WC universe, and are not retellings of any part. In fact, they fit in with what the games and novels established. The people who made Academy went to great lengths to make what they did fit with previously established facts.

Finally, as for design philosophy- regardless of designation, Bengals, Confederations, Rangers, and Vesuvius class ships all functioned primarily as carriers first, and battleships or strike cruisers or whatever second. They carried rougly the same number of fighters. The point is that "designated light or fleet carrier" classes had a glaring weakspot that had been existent for decades, and that non "light or fleet" carrier designs lacked this weakspot

Designations actually tell a lot about a ship. "Strike Carrier" suggests a different set of requirements than "Fleet Carrier". We have B-52 and B-2 bombers. Both are listed as bombers, yet the B-2 is an entirely different design, simply because of different design and mission requirements. The same can easily be applied to ships.

However, despite knowing of that weakspot, the Vesuvius (a brand new design) incorporated the same known weakspot, despite Confed having produced previous carrier designs that lacked that weakspot. That's silly. Oh, and Confed kept building the same lousy Concordia class design (weakspot included), even after the war was over (WC4) despite less vulnerable designs existing (Bengal, Confederation). Also silly

Which is easier and quicker to build? A big box designed to carry a lot of fighters, or a big ship built around a giant cannon, with a lot of guns, which also carries a lot of fighters? The Confederation class dreadnought was built specifically to house the Phase Transit Cannon. When the PTC proved to be a failure in the grand scheme of things (nearly destroying the ship that's firing one tends to leave a bad impression), there was no longer a need or desire to create new Confederation class ships.

And as for that vulnerability, consider this - the Concordia in WC2 had its flight deck shut down not once, but twice, by a single bomb. Put a bomb on the Vesuvius, and what happens? At the most, you lose one end of your flight deck, and can continue operations out the other end. And frankly, if a fighter gets inside your carrier's flight deck, your fighter protection isn't doing its job.

 

[Haesslich]

The ships in WCP are aesthetically similar to ships from WC3/4, not WC 1 and 2. The Midway and fighters have similar paint schemes and design conventions to WC3-4 ships. But if you compare WC3-P Confed ships with WC 1 and 2, you could never tell that they were built by the same faction. So if it is a burn, it's a lousy one.

WC1 and 2 ships were, for the most part, either early War or pre-War vintage ships; it's like saying that a modern F-22 fighter should be painted the same green color and look similar to a WW2 Mustang - a similar timeframe has passed between WW2 and now as has gone by for the early Kilrathi War to the 2680 period of WCP.

Modern ships don't look all that similar to their WW2 counterparts either, and even the paint schemes have changed SOMEWHAT - and the time period involved from WC3-WCP is about 11 years, which means there's a lot more continuity of design and decoration. In other words, F-22's have paint schemes and a superficial appearance similar to that of an F-15 or F-16 fighter designed 20 years before the F-22 was deployed, but they look nothing like the old prop and turbofan planes from 50-60 years ago. Expecting a 2680-era Tigershark to look like a 2630-era Scimitar makes about as much sense, in this context.

Oh, and while other people have beat this to death... I'm breaking out the bat anyways.

Oh, and didn't Privateer come out before WC3? I hear timelinewise it's *supposed* to occur in the same year- However, it doesn't necessarily conflict with my statement that you don't see any previous craft from WC3 on, provided WC3 occurs later in the same year then Privateer.

We -do- see previous craft from the pre-WC3 period in games like Armada, as LOAF has pointed out, which was released in 1994 (the same year as WC3) - and a game which took place, timeline-wise, just before the end of the war; about six months after the Battle of Earth, to be precise. And they deploy Arrow fighters, just as the WC Academy TV series did, right beside other 'classic' WC designs.

The novels, which are canon according to Origin, show that Rapiers, Ferrets, and Raptors are still in use post-WC3, as the type of second line and obsolete craft available to the Border Worlds, The Guild, and the Landreich. Privateer takes place in 2669, as did WC3. The novels take place sometime after that, including False Colors.

And I know this subject has been done to death, but if WCA "fits" into the WC game universe instead of being a retelling of WC, a bunch of the dialog in WC 1 makes no sense- ditto for the movie. That's my honest opinion, and you're free to disagree with it (and arguing with me about it isn't goint to change my opinion, so don't bother)- though it would be fantastic if someone from Origin popped in and definitively stated "WCA and WCM are/are not retellings of the WC franchise."

Origin said that ages ago, and if you'd do a search on the forums you'd know that already. The topic's been debated to death, and we've already been told by various folk at Origin that these were not just licensed... but canon series information.

Finally, as for design philosophy- regardless of designation, Bengals, Confederations, Rangers, and Vesuvius class ships all functioned primarily as carriers first, and battleships or strike cruisers or whatever second. They carried rougly the same number of fighters. The point is that "designated light or fleet carrier" classes had a glaring weakspot that had been existent for decades, and that non "light or fleet" carrier designs lacked this weakspot. However, despite knowing of that weakspot, the Vesuvius (a brand new design) incorporated the same known weakspot, despite Confed having produced previous carrier designs that lacked that weakspot. That's silly. Oh, and Confed kept building the same lousy Concordia class design (weakspot included), even after the war was over (WC4) despite less vulnerable designs existing (Bengal, Confederation). Also silly.

Um, the Confederation was a DREADNOUGHT first of all - it used its main gun several times over the course of the games, closing into range of enemy ships when other carriers (the Tiger's Claw or the Victory) would've retreated to let their fighters deal with things. The Vesuvius, from WC3, didn't appear designed to be a battleship even with its heavy gun complement, although Eisen took the Mount St. Helens in close because neither ship was completed, allowing them to deal some damage to one another while the Vesuvius wasn't expecting a close-in fight - and the fact that the Mt. St. Helens charged in with all her guns focused on the Vesuvius' side seems to indicate this was more taking advantage of the target's side-on profile rather than a normal maneuver. Also, if you believe that '40 fighters' is the same as 120 fighters, then I've got a bridge that I'd like to sell you for cheap - only a few billion dollars, which is probably the same as $400 to you.

Again, how was the Concordia less vulnerable? She got disabled a few times as LOAF noted, and the Bengal's single visible flight deck kept Hunter from landing once because of a crash that closed it off. And while you may hate the movie, it too showed the problem with a single deck opening - remember Rosie's crashed fighter?

Besides, if you've gotten close enough to shoot a torpedo into an open flight bay, then it doesn't matter whether the other end's open or not - you may as well fly up to the bridge and ram a few missiles into that too.

 

[HammerHead]

Oh, and Confed kept building the same lousy Concordia class design (weakspot included), even after the war was over (WC4) despite less vulnerable designs existing (Bengal, Confederation). Also silly.

I'll give another two "in-universe" reasons why confed kept building the "lousy Concordia class design"as you so elegantly put it-
One reason would be somthing called "Money" and the second reason would be some other fullish thing called "Public Opinion".

IIRC, you said you didn't read the WC novels. I would encourge you to read them, becuase they are really good, but staying on my point, I would refer you to the novel Fleet Action.
You need to remember that the Terran Confederation is still a democracy - somthing that Fleet Action expresses very well - there is the public, that must be conviced that the cuase is right, and that building a billion credits (or dollars, or euro's or want ever) is a necessity.
And there is the defence budget, that you cannot surpase...

and I can go on and on, about building times, and tactical capabilities, and the public desire to sign a peace treaty with the cats and to let them be, and about the people's inability to grasp that the cats just want to kill us all...
(Hell, I'm leaving in israel and I still can't understand why Al-Qaida are so keen on destroying America, or why the Iranians want to kill me?)

And so on, and so forth...
Point is - it's Sci-Fi, its fun, and thats what important.

 

[Sylvester]

I'd actually have to say that the Bengal class was a heavy hitter. It was designed to operate alone so it needed weaponry to damage other capital ships. She is armed with according to what LOAF told me, 40 torpedo tubes and eight heavy calibur energy weapons on the 'wings' for destroying other capships.

 

[GreyViper]

The Phase Transit Cannon remark is dumb, too. The entire reason for 'writing out' the weapon was because it wasn't fun... having a giant gun that can automatically destroy any large enemy ship kills play -- as sad as it might make the Aces Club tech weirdos, denying the Confederation a super-weapon is exactly what they meant to do... bringing it back ten months later would be pointless. Absolutely nothing is improved with "a 'fixed' Phase Transit Cannon".

Well dosent WCP use the same old PTC idea again with the big bug plasma cannon that can automatically destroy any large enemy ship(not that we see it action that offten due engine limitations)? IMHO they were running out of ideas at that time maybe thats the reason they started using old ideas from past games.