Corvette
Yes, the corvette has been upgraded beyond that of the WC1 corvette. No, the upgrade in shields or armor is not a reasonable ratio to the original
Venture, but who says it has to be? From the write-up, the
Venture is pretty much a totally different ship, the overall frame just remained the same. Why does a ship that is stated to have changed significantly from its previous incarnation have to match some ratio of its former self? If we just said "here's a Venture!" and presented a ship with no outward changes to its design or function then yeah, I'd have to agree that its probably more likely to have a perfect ratio to what came before. This is not the case.
As for the armament, see above comments and the picture of the corvette on the page. It no longer retains the fixed forward laser cannons and (though you can't see it in that pic, I think you can in other shots of the corvette that have been released) the missile turret is on the bottom (it doesn't launch missiles in a fighter fashion anymore). Upgraded inside and out, a ghost of its former self, ie we didn't feel it had to correspond to a preset ratio of upgrading. On a functional note, we wanted its defensive stats to be roughly equivalent to a Kilrathi Corvette of WC3, as the upgraded
Venture is no match offensively.
Destroyer
Spacecraft complement should be the half squadron listed in the write-up. It should also include a CSM reference, but a more generic "tech sheet" reference than what is going into the tech database went onto the webpage. The CSM ref is really not needed to know its a ship of the line and its function in the game/universe (though technically, none of the stats are, but oh well).
Frigate
Since we have a member who loves the WC4N reference that speaks of the Caernaven as a dinky little ship (where its described as "no warship that small had enough cargo space to make a pirate raid profitable") before Blair takes into account the fighter maintenance issues, we figured the "configurable up to 620m" seemed a good way to encompass this reference (mentioned later in the write-up) instead of ignoring it. I even have to admit that a 600+meter ship, almost 4 times as long and much more "bulky" than a transport that is used for the purpose of transporting goods (though, granted a majority of the Frigate is "structure", but your still left with an appoximately 2-300m forward "hold section", which completely discounts the "bridge section" and "Engine section") is inconsistent with the previous reference.
You are correct, the CSM reference is missing.
Heavy Cruiser
Again you are correct, the CSM reference is not there.
I'm pretty sure we are never told the Juneau and the Dover do not carry fighters, its just never mentioned that they do/did (aren't you a "just because we don't see it doesn't mean its not there" kindof guy?
). I for one also find it hard to wrap my brain around two old cruisers standing up to a new carrier full of fighters (granted, only a portion of them were launched before the flight deck damage) and its four escorts without some fighter support. Anyway, thats neither here nor there.
The WC3N never calls
Ajax a cruiser, but a cruiser apparently joins the 3 destroyer novel group (
Sheffield, Ajax, Coventry) for the
Behemoth protection mission in Loki from Melek's description of the task force (or another destroyer joined up and he's refering to the
Coventry as a cruiser). Anyway, as you know, it fouls up on whether
Coventry (the only
Victory escort carrying a half squadron a fighters) is a destroyer or a cruiser multiple times. In another "here nor there"/personal observation, I don't think the way the destroyer fighter complement is worded in the WC3N locks in stone that the other escorts cannot carry fighters at all (in game, I believe the
Sheffield,
Coventry and
Ajax all have rear "hanger-spaces" but these could just as easily have been for solely shuttles).
Anyway, the main sources for the Tallahassee's half squadron is Colonel Dunlevy's wartime assignment on the cruiser
Bainbridge and the cruiser
Dominion in the WC4N. Eisen tells us Dunlevy ended the war in cruisers "commanding a half-squadron on the
Bainbridge as a major" at the end of the war. While still with Confed, Blair and company are sent to protect the cruiser
Dominion, whos half-squadron is then referenced many times. With the Waterloo carrying as many fighters as a light carrier and used as a carrier in ER, it seems that seperating them out into half-squadrons is counterintuitive. Since we have Tallahassee's and not the Manassas-type, Gettysburg class, Concordia-class (the later two again a little strange to seperate their fighter complements into half-squadrons) or any other random type cruiser in Saga, and with the Tallahassee's "uniqueness" in WC3 and especially WC4, the Tally seemed a pretty good candidate to carry the half squadron from the references. Also, it seems that someone agreed in some way that this must be the case as the ships and stations list at the CIC labels the
Bainbridge and
Dominion as Tallahassee-class.
In retrospect, I probably should have seperated this reference from the main body. I attempted to compose the write-ups in a way that, if Saga was changing the canon stats/abilities for one reason or another, everything "saga-specific" would be in a seperate paragraph. I figured, with enough of them, fans would figure out the scheme sooner or later without having to spell it out. I guess I didn't do a very good job with that entry but I was hoping the other assumption would hold.
Heavy Carrier
Length was supposed to be 725, it changed since the last time I saw it on the page.
Again, in the writeup I forwarded up, I believe I gave the speed as 50kps. It must have fallen through the cracks.
We do not rely very heavily on flak cannons in Saga (they weren't simulated in WC3), so we replaced the flak cannons with laser turrets. Psych always envisioned this as a refit, such as the one
Victory apparently received at Torgo before WC3. This change should have been under a "Saga-specific modifier" that never made it to the webpage, but is in the games tech database.
In reference to the armor/shielding, we needed an outward reason that #1 it was called a heavy carrier (the other reasons Sphynx gave to answer Dragon1's question directly could also be true and have been discussed, its just not immediately representative of something "heavy") and #2 it was so damned slow. If the shields where upgraded according to the ratios, it wouldn't even match a light carrier. Upgrade the shields beyond the ratios and do nothing with the armor and you don't get a very interesting tradeoff. Anyway, I believe the armor, shield, and weapons reference in the write-up is in a seperate paragraph, but the "Saga-specific" modifier for the "tech sheet" stats, again, didn't make it to the webpage.
Light Carrier
Again, CSM reference is not there (detect a pattern?).
Light Destroyer
Again, CSM reference is not there.
"Awkward in this type of document"? How so? Seems were telling potential players "what is in relation to what" in Saga/WC universe without pouring over the numbers. Qualitative versus quantitative.
I also don't see how "war chest" is esoteric. I'm willing to bet most people will know exactly what is implied by it even though it is usually a financial term. I didn't mean to use it too often (I guess twice is the limit of annoyance), but trying to find comparable/interesting ways to not write "fleet" or "resources" over and over again is a little boring. I apologize if I have offended anyone's highly developed linguistical pallette
.
C-ya