Raptors to the Rescue (February 2, 2010)

[ChrisReid]

You might know February 2 as Groundhog's Day, but it's also the anniversary of the famous engagement that helped Confed draw a defensive line through the Vega Sector. On this day in 2639, the Kilrathi swept into the Enyo and McAuliffe Systems and captured a quarter of a million human colonists. Through the heroic efforts of Confed pilots, including Captain Geoffrey Tolwyn, the Terran fleet was able to succesfully rescue the hostages and drive back the Kilrathi!

2639.033 - Kilrathi forces occupy McAuliffe and take a quarter of a million humans hostage under orbital guns. The Confederation attempts an attack, made difficult by the presence of hostages. The Confederation deploys an attack force consisting mainly of Raptor class fighters equipped with Porcupine mines. The Raptors drop their mines in a region of space near a main jump point. This forces the Kilrathi to avoid the area. While the Kilrathi concentrate on destroying the Raptors, a radio signal detonates all of the mines allowing the Terran fleet to jump in-system. The Terran fleet smashes the orbital guns and enemy ships with minimal loss of life to the colonists. The Kilrathi are forced to retreat, however losses on both sides are about equal.

--
Original update published on February 2, 2010

 

[Farbourne]

You might know February 2 as Groundhog's Day, but it's also the anniversary of the famous engagement that helped Confed draw a defensive line through the Vega Sector. On this day in 2639, the Kilrathi swept into the Enyo and McAuliffe Systems and captured a quarter of a million human colonists. Through the heroic efforts of Confed pilots, including Captain Geoffrey Tolwyn, the Terran fleet was able to succesfully rescue the hostages and drive back the Kilrathi!




--
Original update published on February 2, 2010

This has actually bugged me in the past. I'm about 95% sure that the original Claw Marks (the WC1 manual) makes a clear distinction between the McAuliffe Ambush (when Confed tried to ambush an invading Kilarthi force, but an incomplete translation of the Kilrathi code led to the ambushers being outnumbered 2:1 and completely obliterated, but still managed to blunt the Kilrathi spearhead) and the Enyo engagement, where the Kilrathi put the colonists hostage under orbital guns, and Tolwyn's brilliant mine-equipped Raptor strategy saved the day (although I still wonder how the Kilrathi could be so stupid as to not notice that the Raptros were mining the Enyo jump point). Yet the passage above (which comes from the WC3 manual, I think, or Star Soldier?) confuses the two.

Which is considered the canon stroy? Were the McAuliffe Ambush and the Enyo Engagements separate encounters? If so, was there also fighting at McAuliffe during the Enyo engagement? Vice versa?

 

[Wedge009]

I can't remember the details, but I think there was indeed a mistake made in the transcription of the histories from earlier games. I think the in-universe resolution is to make the two attacks - McAuliffe and Enyo - similar, but separate events. At least, that's how it's been set up in the WCPedia at present.

 

[Quarto]

Yes, they were separate events in Claw Marks. The change in the WC3 manual was clearly a conscious decision, though - it's not as if someone was copying & pasting text from the WC1 manual and accidentally changed the names in the process. Still hard to understand why the change was made, though.

 

[JasonRocZ]

Sometimes the creative process includes a certain "Cuz I feel/felt like it" type of lay it down mood.....Maybe it was one of those

 

[Farbourne]

Yes, they were separate events in Claw Marks. The change in the WC3 manual was clearly a conscious decision, though - it's not as if someone was copying & pasting text from the WC1 manual and accidentally changed the names in the process. Still hard to understand why the change was made, though.

I'm not so sure it was a conscious decision. It always struck me that some editor who was helping to compile the WC3 manual wasn't as careful as perhaps he/she should have been, and confused McAuliffe and Enyo...and then, once printed, the change propagated. Kind of similar to the confusion that was spawned by the original idea that the WC4 Lexington was originally supposed to be the same class as the WC2 Concordia...which led to the creation of the concept of "Concordia Class Fleet Carriers", now part of the canon, but originally due to an editorial mistake.

 

[Farbourne]

On a totally different subject...

Just looking at the Raptor blueprint. Am I the only one that sees a lot of similarity in form (if not size) between a Confederation Raptor and a Rylan Gun Star?

 

[Quarto]

I'm not so sure it was a conscious decision. It always struck me that some editor who was helping to compile the WC3 manual wasn't as careful as perhaps he/she should have been, and confused McAuliffe and Enyo...and then, once printed, the change propagated.

I don't see any way to confuse McAuliffe and Enyo. They're two separate entries, under two separate dates, with two separate descriptions. I just can't imagine why somebody editing the WC3 manual would, upon reaching the Enyo Engagement, suddenly go, "hang on! Where did Enyo come from, this was McAuliffe!". They had to do this consciously - notice that in the final paragraph, they even changed "The Enyo Engagement" to "the McAuliffe Ambush". If they were just changing Enyo to McAuliffe, wouldn't this have ended up as the McAuliffe Engagment? Naw, this had to be a conscious change.