Service entry dates for Confed fighters

Ilanin

Captain
Given that the last sentence of the section you quoted there refers to a joke easter egg in Ultima 7, it is probably best not to take that page too seriously as a source.
 

starfox1701

Petty Officer
Well I quoted that to let you all know were I'd seen the info. Credable or not a bodygaurd squadron does make a certain amount of since for someone of Thrakhath's position. If such a unit exists it follows that they would also have Bloodfangs. Again this is just conjecture, but I think is reasonable conjecture. :)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I don't know: we see Thrakhath fly around quite a bit without ever having a Bloodfang escort... and we have chances to shoot him down three times and never see the elite bodyguard... which means that if they exist they are very, very bad at their job. :)
 

starfox1701

Petty Officer
Well there are 2 possibilities. 1 Thrakhath lets his ego get in the way of good since and they don't have the ability to over rule him. 2 Thrakhath prefers to use them as personal agents and sends them off to do things like watch commanders he doen't actualy trust in which case they could be spread all over the front. Like I said before I thought it out. Guess I should have posted this stuff in the last post. My bad :8
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Because the guys that made the game where Americans and fans of the US military. It makes sence that the knowledge they already had would influnce the creation of these new systems.
Except in this specific case, they very clearly did not. Given that the game started off as WWII in space, and the Kilrathi are Japanese, it would have made perfect sense to carry on the analogy and apply name-based codenames to the Kilrathi. They did not. The Dralthi is not John, nor Zeke, nor Harry. Nor did they use a NATO-style codename - the Dralthi is not a Flogger or Foxbat, either.

They could easily have done this. TheWC1 manual would have included a lengthy explanation as to why Confed applies codenames - while probably also including the original Kilrathi names for some of the ships, just for extra flavour (a WWII American pilot would, after all, know that Zeke refers to a Mitsubishi A6M Type Zero fighter - the fact that he always calls it a Zeke makes no difference). It would have been great, everyone would have loved it.

But they did not do this - instead, they went with obviously Kilrathi names. They were, therefore, not following American military thinking.

Ok can you translate any of thoughs names into english? I can't and without knowing what they actually mean you can't actually make that deduction because you have no evidence to support it and therfore linguistic argument. Dralthi could mean frisbee for all we know. I can't imagine the Kilrathi naming one of their fighters after a human childs toy. I'm not tring to be rude here but that one hell of a leap assuming that just because the word is Kilrathi that the Kilrathi gave it that name..
It does not matter what these words mean. You are suggesting that these names are all codenames because Confed is like the US military. I am telling you that the US military has never used Japanese or Russian words as codenames, because the very idea of the codename was to provide something easy to memorise and easy to pronounce.

There is one, just one case in which the US military intentionally used a Japanese name for a Japanese plane, and it is a very telling case indeed: the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, which the Americans codenamed Baka. This was a suicide aircraft, a manned flying bomb. It did not really fit within the current naming scheme (it was neither a fighter nor a bomber) - so giving it a different name posed no problems. Rather than coming up with some third naming scheme (dog's names?), the Americans decided to use the name to boost pilot morale. And so, the Ohka became the Baka, which means "fool" in Japanese. However, rest assured that, had the word for "fool" been something like "Mistubishi" or "Matsushita" or whatever, they would have just gone with an English name that everyone could pronounce.

Now, clearly, the basic idea you are suggesting, that Confed has named all Kilrathi ships using Kilrathi words, is not impossible (though it is disproven by the fact that the Kilrathi do occasionally refer to their own ships by these same names). But if this were the case, that would actually prove that Confed does not act like the US military. And your argument in favour of codenames is that Confed acts like the US military. Therefore, the idea you are proposing actually disproves the argument you use to support it.

I stand by my conclusion because I have years of experiance making, converting and polyreduing models for older video games.
You would do well to stop highlighting that. I could have started this conversation by pointing out that I have more than a decade of experience with WC modding and games development - I did not, because my experience is irrelevant. The facts are relevant. And the facts say you are wrong. If you choose to keep highlighting your expertise while being clearly, provably wrong, you will not stregthen your argument, but you will lower our opinion of yourself.

Perhapse the biggest evidence in support is WC Armada. Dispite the fact that WC3 had improved graphics over Armada they went back and used lower poly meshes and with the excption of the Dralthi and Arrow none of the Armada ships are used even though they had the meshes and it would have saved time and improved contiutity.
The biggest evidence in support is simply the fact that somebody went and did it, somebody recreated a WC2 fighter within the limitations of WC3's engine, and it looked just as good. You could not possibly ask for a more convincing argument.

As for Armada - the very fact that you yourself pointed out, that none of the other Armada ships were used in WC3, is crucial. Why did they not do it? Was it because it wasn't technically possible to import these ships? Obviously not. No, it was because Chris Roberts wanted a total break in the visuals. The fact that they had the Wraith and Jrathek from WC2 in Armada, and the fact that they actually did use the Arrow and Dralthi from Armada in WC3 (though, IIRC, it may have been the other way round, with these ships coming from WC3 into Armada) proves that it wasn't a case of technical limitations, but creative decisions.

You are correct in saying 3 is different because Chris Roberts wanted it that way. My explanation provides a logical reason why Chris Roberts wanted it that way. WC has always boasted great graphics for its time and being on the cutting edge of PC gaming tech. I know first hand that know matter how good you are at modeling making low poly means making compromises that textures can't always cover up. Going with the ships from WC 1 and 2 in 94 would have ment making those visual compromises and the fans might not have understood and been forgiving of that. Would you take that kind of chance with your million doller nest egg? The other games; Strike Commander, Pacific Strike, Wings of Glory; didn't have the same "established look" problem to contened with. WC had a very established fan base and they had very high expectation for a game that carried the WC name. That; in my profesional oppinion; is the reason for the change in the look. Tring to find a fictitious technological reason to justify may not be entierly possible. This is an instance where the visual evidence is in direct conflict with all earlier evidence and so the "cannon" is the contiuity problem. That is ultamately the problem. WC2 and WC3 don't fit together seamlessly from a visual stand point and Origin never provied a compelling in-universe reason why. It's WC's Klingon forhead problem.
You say here that it would have been too risky to use WC1/2 ships in WC3, because you would risk alienating the fans with visual compromises (never mind the fact that Armada proves more than convincingly that there were no compromises - to this day, Armada's ships look more high-detail than WC3's), and this was too much of a chance to make. Then you say that those other games could afford to do this, because they didn't have an "established look". The implication here is that WC3 had to take the huge, enormous risk of totally departing from the "established look" of the series, in order to avoid the risk alienating the fans, which apparently they would have done had they not departed from the "established look". This is entirely self-contradictory and illogical. And, as I have already pointed out, even if it were logical, we have clear evidence that it is simply not true. Armada's ships generally look more detailed than WC3's. Where they fall flat is stylistic unity and just plain visual design - you can see a lot of thought went into WC3's ship lineup, while Armada is a mish-mash of ships recycled from any number of sources.

Without asking Chris Roberts directly, it's impossible to determine exactly what reasons he had to go in that specific visual direction in WC3 - but we do not need to ask Chris Roberts to understand that, had he chosen to do so, he could have stuck to WC2's style, creating some new ships and reusing some directly.

(as for the continuity problem - it is ultimately not a problem at all! Can you imagine someone discussing the "continuity problems" within the US military? I mean, it's obvious that the F-18 looks nothing like the F-117, not to mention the AH-1 Cobra; we do not need anyone to spell out the obvious, that these aircraft have different designers and different roles to fulfil)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
(though, IIRC, it may have been the other way round, with these ships coming from WC3 into Armada)

You recall correctly. While Wing Commander Armada was released several months before Wing Commander III, development began much later. The (Wing Commander III) Dralthi was the first ship finished for that game and the Armada team borrowed it as a placeholder until their own lower resolution ship models were available. If you look at Armada's pre-release screenshots you'll see the 'wrong' Dralthi pops up quite a bit. For instance: https://cdn.wcnews.com/newestshots/full/ARM4.GIF In fact, it's even in one of the shots used on the back of the box! (This wasn't the case with the Arrow; it was intentionally added as a nod to Wing Commander III.)

Note that the issue with Armada wasn't that it's engine could/couldn't display more vertices than Wing Commander III (they're both TruSpace, with Armada forking from Wing Commander III in mid-development.) The issue was that Armada was designed to play at half the resolution of WC3 and so models had to be designed in a way that reduced the complexity of the *textures*.

(As for why Wing Commander III didn't use Armada ships... Wing Commander III's design was set and the models were in the pipeline before development of Armada started.)

Without asking Chris Roberts directly, it's impossible to determine exactly what reasons he had to go in that specific visual direction in WC3 - but we do not need to ask Chris Roberts to understand that, had he chosen to do so, he could have stuck to WC2's style, creating some new ships and reusing some directly.

I've had this conversation with Chris Roberts. He considers the original games' ship designs to be too "anime" inspired (and does not like the bright colors.) This was the reason for the change between Wing Commander II and III and also the change between the original games and the movies. He wanted more 'realistic' space fighters. (I know he always SAYS 'anime,' but I believe it's a little more than just that. He was somewhat notorious for saying 'I saw this in some movie and I want it in the game' in the early days... which is why the fighters in Wing Commander I clearly include the Firefox from Firefox and the Gunstar from The Last Starfighter.)

Well there are 2 possibilities. 1 Thrakhath lets his ego get in the way of good since and they don't have the ability to over rule him. 2 Thrakhath prefers to use them as personal agents and sends them off to do things like watch commanders he doen't actualy trust in which case they could be spread all over the front. Like I said before I thought it out. Guess I should have posted this stuff in the last post. My bad :8

Yeah, but now we're just coming up with excuses to explain why something we don't hear of anywhere could exist. :) If anything, Thrakhath's elite bodyguards fly those Dralthi that escort him in the Wing Commander II demo or the Vaktoth that fly with him at the end of Wing Commander III...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

starfox1701

Petty Officer
Except in this specific case, they very clearly did not. Given that the game started off as WWII in space, and the Kilrathi are Japanese, it would have made perfect sense to carry on the analogy and apply name-based codenames to the Kilrathi. They did not. The Dralthi is not John, nor Zeke, nor Harry. Nor did they use a NATO-style codename - the Dralthi is not a Flogger or Foxbat, either.

They could easily have done this. TheWC1 manual would have included a lengthy explanation as to why Confed applies codenames - while probably also including the original Kilrathi names for some of the ships, just for extra flavour (a WWII American pilot would, after all, know that Zeke refers to a Mitsubishi A6M Type Zero fighter - the fact that he always calls it a Zeke makes no difference). It would have been great, everyone would have loved it.

But they did not do this - instead, they went with obviously Kilrathi names. They were, therefore, not following American military thinking.

It does not matter what these words mean. You are suggesting that these names are all codenames because Confed is like the US military. I am telling you that the US military has never used Japanese or Russian words as codenames, because the very idea of the codename was to provide something easy to memorise and easy to pronounce.

There is one, just one case in which the US military intentionally used a Japanese name for a Japanese plane, and it is a very telling case indeed: the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, which the Americans codenamed Baka. This was a suicide aircraft, a manned flying bomb. It did not really fit within the current naming scheme (it was neither a fighter nor a bomber) - so giving it a different name posed no problems. Rather than coming up with some third naming scheme (dog's names?), the Americans decided to use the name to boost pilot morale. And so, the Ohka became the Baka, which means "fool" in Japanese. However, rest assured that, had the word for "fool" been something like "Mistubishi" or "Matsushita" or whatever, they would have just gone with an English name that everyone could pronounce.

Now, clearly, the basic idea you are suggesting, that Confed has named all Kilrathi ships using Kilrathi words, is not impossible (though it is disproven by the fact that the Kilrathi do occasionally refer to their own ships by these same names). But if this were the case, that would actually prove that Confed does not act like the US military. And your argument in favour of codenames is that Confed acts like the US military. Therefore, the idea you are proposing actually disproves the argument you use to support it.

Actualy that point of all of it was that without acuate translations of the Kilrathi names it is impossible to definativly prove ether side right or wrong. Your idea is well thought out and my idea is well thought out but the the key evidence which is the names is uninterpretable at this time. There should be room for both theories here as we can't prove either at this time.

You would do well to stop highlighting that. I could have started this conversation by pointing out that I have more than a decade of experience with WC modding and games development - I did not, because my experience is irrelevant. The facts are relevant. And the facts say you are wrong. If you choose to keep highlighting your expertise while being clearly, provably wrong, you will not stregthen your argument, but you will lower our opinion of yourself.

My experience led me to these conclusions and you have not yet provided me with hard data that conflicts with them. The fact that you have simalar background experience means you should be able to provide that data if you have it. Other wise I'm left to conclude that your position is based on just as much deduction and suposition as mine.


You say here that it would have been too risky to use WC1/2 ships in WC3, because you would risk alienating the fans with visual compromises (never mind the fact that Armada proves more than convincingly that there were no compromises - to this day, Armada's ships look more high-detail than WC3's), and this was too much of a chance to make. Then you say that those other games could afford to do this, because they didn't have an "established look". The implication here is that WC3 had to take the huge, enormous risk of totally departing from the "established look" of the series, in order to avoid the risk alienating the fans, which apparently they would have done had they not departed from the "established look". This is entirely self-contradictory and illogical. And, as I have already pointed out, even if it were logical, we have clear evidence that it is simply not true. Armada's ships generally look more detailed than WC3's. Where they fall flat is stylistic unity and just plain visual design - you can see a lot of thought went into WC3's ship lineup, while Armada is a mish-mash of ships recycled from any number of sources.

I have found that when real money is on the line people tend to be far less willing to take some risks. Rebuilding the WC1/2 ships and fighter for 3 was one of thoughs risks. Now while a completly new art design was also a massive risk as you pointed out it had 2 equaly massive advantages. The first is the new art design cold play to the strengths of the new engine and seek ways to make the visual limitation a strength. The second was the bigest in that the player would have no emotional attachment to
to the new stuff so there wouldn't be any "they redid this and now it sucks". That is not self contradictory. Alot of thought did go into the new look and I never ment to imply otherwise. I might personaly dislike some of the new stylistic elements, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise the tremendous amount of work that went into this. A risk was taken and they secceded. That has never been in dispute. My statments are ment to consider why that risk was taken.

You recall correctly. While Wing Commander Armada was released several months before Wing Commander III, development began much later. The (Wing Commander III) Dralthi was the first ship finished for that game and the Armada team borrowed it as a placeholder until their own lower resolution ship models were available. If you look at Armada's pre-release screenshots you'll see the 'wrong' Dralthi pops up quite a bit. For instance: https://cdn.wcnews.com/newestshots/full/ARM4.GIF In fact, it's even in one of the shots used on the back of the box! (This wasn't the case with the Arrow; it was intentionally added as a nod to Wing Commander III.)

Note that the issue with Armada wasn't that it's engine could/couldn't display more vertices than Wing Commander III (they're both TruSpace, with Armada forking from Wing Commander III in mid-development.) The issue was that Armada was designed to play at half the resolution of WC3 and so models had to be designed in a way that reduced the complexity of the *textures*.

(As for why Wing Commander III didn't use Armada ships... Wing Commander III's design was set and the models were in the pipeline before development of Armada started.)

Actualy I did not konw that but it make perfect since. It also means that using Armada in an evidentiary capacity is a mistake on both of our parts; dully noted

I've had this conversation with Chris Roberts. He considers the original games' ship designs to be too "anime" inspired (and does not like the bright colors.) This was the reason for the change between Wing Commander II and III and also the change between the original games and the movies. He wanted more 'realistic' space fighters. (I know he always SAYS 'anime,' but I believe it's a little more than just that. He was somewhat notorious for saying 'I saw this in some movie and I want it in the game' in the early days... which is why the fighters in Wing Commander I clearly include the Firefox from Firefox and the Gunstar from The Last Starfighter.)

Good to know. :) Again it would seam that we are both wrong Quarto. I personally never made the conections of Firefox and the Last Starfighter till you said somthing. Now it seams so obivous:D.

Yeah, but now we're just coming up with excuses to explain why something we don't hear of anywhere could exist. :) If anything, Thrakhath's elite bodyguards fly those Dralthi that escort him in the Wing Commander II demo or the Vaktoth that fly with him at the end of Wing Commander III...

Not excuses, they are supositions, theories. However you are correct in that there is no hard date to support them. Trouble is you can't disprove a negative. Its sad that we will likle never get anymore date on this time period other then what we make up for ourselves. I guess I just find it hard to beleive that Thrakhath; no matter how big his ego, would try and use every tool at his disposal to win. A random Bloodfang here or there would make a great terror weapon, but like you said no proof. Just the tinest glint of possibility;)


as for the continuity problem - it is ultimately not a problem at all!

That is opvously a matter of oppinion. I respect yours but I do not aggree. After all this whole thread started because the change in visual look and corisponding lack of in universe explanation made it difficault or impossible to readily divine the linage of the fighters and ships in WC3. That is, in my experiance, the very definition of a continuity problem. There are no real world military corilaries that I can think of because the core of the problem is not in the changed look, but in the lack of back stop; the lack of in universe explanation. Without that information all you are left with is guess work like our discution. I brought up a possible real world explanation for context. My supposition proved to be incorrect as Chris Roberts' stated reasoning indicates he would have likly undertaken this redesign even if technology hade been pushing for one. I supose the next question on that front is if he would have had the PC power then that we do now would the Comfed and Kilrathi ships still look the same?

In the end we are still left with the 2 questions of "when did these ships and fighters enter sevice and why in Universe do they look so radicaly different then ships and fighters from earlier games?" Bandit LOAF di you get any answers for this from Chris Roberts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Actualy that point of all of it was that without acuate translations of the Kilrathi names it is impossible to definativly prove ether side right or wrong. Your idea is well thought out and my idea is well thought out but the the key evidence which is the names is uninterpretable at this time. There should be room for both theories here as we can't prove either at this time.

I guess the strong argument in favor of their not being human codenames is that we see the Kilrathi use many of them at some time or another. It happens in the novels, on Academy, in Armada (and the assosciated material written from a Kilrathi perspective) and so on.

(But as I noted earlier, we can't forget that 'Sivar' *was* a codename in The Secret Missions. And that's decidedly a Kilrathi word...)


Not excuses, they are supositions, theories. However you are correct in that there is no hard date to support them. Trouble is you can't disprove a negative. Its sad that we will likle never get anymore date on this time period other then what we make up for ourselves. I guess I just find it hard to beleive that Thrakhath; no matter how big his ego, would try and use every tool at his disposal to win. A random Bloodfang here or there would make a great terror weapon, but like you said no proof. Just the tinest glint of possibility

My reaction to the Bloodfang in wC3 is that it's a top-of-the-line brand new thing; the Confederation expects them to start showing up in force... Thrakhath just has the first one. (And I suppose certainly a squadron of them exists... we see it in the CCG... we just don't have any reason to think they're Thrakhath's bodyguards instead of an ordinary elite Kilrathi squadron.)


In the end we are still left with the 2 questions of "when did these ships and fighters enter sevice and why in Universe do they look so radicaly different then ships and fighters from earlier games?" Bandit LOAF di you get any answers for this from Chris Roberts?

No, it's probably hard to believe but that sort of "in universe" detail isn't really what Chris ever worried about. It's... stuff for Wing Commander nerds like us. :) His role was more in broad concepts, how to make something that would best appeal to players and that sort of thing.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Actualy that point of all of it was that without acuate translations of the Kilrathi names it is impossible to definativly prove ether side right or wrong. Your idea is well thought out and my idea is well thought out but the the key evidence which is the names is uninterpretable at this time. There should be room for both theories here as we can't prove either at this time.
Well, sure, there is room for both theories... but as to whether these theories are indeed both well thought-out... I'll leave that judgement to our readers :).

My experience led me to these conclusions and you have not yet provided me with hard data that conflicts with them. The fact that you have simalar background experience means you should be able to provide that data if you have it. Other wise I'm left to conclude that your position is based on just as much deduction and suposition as mine.
I have provided you with the hardest possible facts - I have told you that this exact thing that you claim impossible has been done. I have pointed you to several games that demonstrate this. I have also explained that a fan has actually conducted that exact experiment of taking a WC2 ship and reducing its polycount to WC3 standards.

I have found that when real money is on the line people tend to be far less willing to take some risks. Rebuilding the WC1/2 ships and fighter for 3 was one of thoughs risks. Now while a completly new art design was also a massive risk as you pointed out it had 2 equaly massive advantages. The first is the new art design cold play to the strengths of the new engine and seek ways to make the visual limitation a strength. The second was the bigest in that the player would have no emotional attachment to to the new stuff so there wouldn't be any "they redid this and now it sucks". That is not self contradictory.
That "first" big advantage is not an advantage at all - the engine was not visually limited in the ways you suggest, we've been over that.
The "second" big advantage is, as I said before, entirely self-contradictory to the "lower risk" argument. It is far easier to offend fans by taking the art in a shocking new direction than by changing the depiction of existing designs to fit new technology - it's just common sense (and WC3 retroactively proved that - to this day, people are polarised over WC3's new design direction). You are claiming that taking a higher risk is in fact an advantage because it lowers risk - this is clearly self-contradictory.

Actualy I did not konw that but it make perfect since. It also means that using Armada in an evidentiary capacity is a mistake on both of our parts; dully noted
No, I can still use Armada as evidence, because even if WC3 was already in development when Armada's development started, the very fact that Armada was released with all those WC2-like models is enough to prove that WC3's change of direction had nothing to do with technical limitations.

Good to know. Again it would seam that we are both wrong Quarto. I personally never made the conections of Firefox and the Last Starfighter till you said somthing. Now it seams so obivous.
Actually, I specifically claimed that the visuals in WC3 changed not because of technological limitations, but because Chris Roberts wanted to "reset" the look of the game. Therefore, only one of us is wrong.

There are no real world military corilaries that I can think of because the core of the problem is not in the changed look, but in the lack of back stop; the lack of in universe explanation.
Well, I certainly agree that there is no in-universe explanation. What I object to is the idea that this is a "continuity problem". A problem, in general, is something that needs to be resolved (if it doesn't need to be resolved, then clearly it's not a problem). A continuity problem specifically is when you have two sources establishing possibly-contradictory facts. As far as I can see, when it comes to WC3 fighters, we do not have a continuity problem - all we have is the introduction of new, different ships. That makes us curious, certainly, but it's not a problem as such.

If you absolutely must have an explanation as to why they look different, here's a simple one for you - we know that all the WC1 ships were built (in-universe) by a company called Origin Systems. We do not know who built the WC2 ships, with the exception of the Rapier (which must obviously be Origin Systems still). Well, in WC3, most of the ships are built by Douglas Aerospace, one is built by McCall Industries. So, why do these ships look different, in-universe? Probably for the same reason why Porsches and Ferraris look different...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ilanin

Captain
The similarities between the US Navy and the TCN of the games (as opposed to the novels, where Forstchen in particular draws heavily on his historical knowledge of the USN) are, I think, frequently somewhat overstated. In terms of capital ship names which show up first in games or manuals, the TCN actually shares more ships with the Royal Navy (Victory, Sheffield, Coventry, Ajax, Exeter, Formidable) than it does with the United States Navy (Austin, Gettysburg, Lexington) - both navies have used Intrepid, for what that's worth. There are substantial structural differences too. In the USN, the commanding officer of a carrier is required to be an aviator; this is definitely not the case for Bernard Eisen (who was a communications officer); and both the CO and the CAG report to the commander of the carrier task group - whereas in WC3 it's fairly clear than Blair, the Victory's CAG, reports to Eisen, the ship's CO. The USN operates its own carrier air wings whereas all of the air wings we see in the games are run by the TCSF (at least, they all seem to be commanded by Colonels, which isn't a rank that normally exists in a Navy). However, personnel seem to transfer between services much more readily than in the US military - at various points in his career, Christopher Blair is in the TCSF, the TCN, and Insystem Security (though that might be a branch of the TCSF, since it seems to have the same rank structure). Jason Bondarevsky similarly transfers from the Space Force to the Navy; nobody ever remarks on this, which suggests it is not particularly unusual. The TCN also appears to be a hell of a lot more relaxed about serving alcohol on board its ships (something else it has in common with the British).
 

starfox1701

Petty Officer
I guess the strong argument in favor of their not being human codenames is that we see the Kilrathi use many of them at some time or another. It happens in the novels, on Academy, in Armada (and the assosciated material written from a Kilrathi perspective) and so on.

(But as I noted earlier, we can't forget that 'Sivar' *was* a codename in The Secret Missions. And that's decidedly a Kilrathi word...)




My reaction to the Bloodfang in wC3 is that it's a top-of-the-line brand new thing; the Confederation expects them to start showing up in force... Thrakhath just has the first one. (And I suppose certainly a squadron of them exists... we see it in the CCG... we just don't have any reason to think they're Thrakhath's bodyguards instead of an ordinary elite Kilrathi squadron.)




No, it's probably hard to believe but that sort of "in universe" detail isn't really what Chris ever worried about. It's... stuff for Wing Commander nerds like us. :) His role was more in broad concepts, how to make something that would best appeal to players and that sort of thing.

Yea the way they switch back and forth is what make nailing down a system dificault.

On the Bloodfang the only problem I see is that by name the fighter is over 10 years old. For a wartime fighter thats a really long development process. Thats probaly the main reason I would lean in the direction of a special limited deployment.

No thats not hard to beleive especially when your talking about a 20 year old game. it is obvious that They where under considerable time pressures and even today the game or entertainment industries rarly take that kind of time to back stop a fictional universe and as the head of the project he probably didn't have time.

I have provided you with the hardest possible facts - I have told you that this exact thing that you claim impossible has been done. I have pointed you to several games that demonstrate this. I have also explained that a fan has actually conducted that exact experiment of taking a WC2 ship and reducing its polycount to WC3 standards.

That "first" big advantage is not an advantage at all - the engine was not visually limited in the ways you suggest, we've been over that.
The "second" big advantage is, as I said before, entirely self-contradictory to the "lower risk" argument. It is far easier to offend fans by taking the art in a shocking new direction than by changing the depiction of existing designs to fit new technology - it's just common sense (and WC3 retroactively proved that - to this day, people are polarised over WC3's new design direction). You are claiming that taking a higher risk is in fact an advantage because it lowers risk - this is clearly self-contradictory.
Ok first off there may be some miscomunication here. I know that since the realease that low poly WC 1/2 models have been done. Nore am I saing that that engine is no capable of handaling higher poly models. What I'm saying is that at the time the game was being made the average home PC, which was the target market, was incapable of handling higher quality models. Knowing this they let the hardware driven need to limit polys drive the new designs and in do so turned that restriction to there advantage especially with the new Kilrathi models.

Secondly I think you are underestimating the sentamentality of SciFi fans. Its one thing to sell a new look with a new ship like the Victory. It's another thing entierly to straight up redesign a well known and loved ship like Concordia and represent it. and that is really the core of each choice.
Just look at the reactions to the WC movie, or Transformers, and espcially the latest Star Trek film. When you think about how fast and heavily fans get attached to things and how emotionally the react to the established stuff is messed with that definetly makes the path they took the less risky one. Either path was going to anger someone, but I truly beleive; and I think history backs me up, that if they would have tried WC3 with WC1/2 ships it wouldn't have been as succesfull.

No, I can still use Armada as evidence, because even if WC3 was already in development when Armada's development started, the very fact that Armada was released with all those WC2-like models is enough to prove that WC3's change of direction had nothing to do with technical limitations.

And I have the opposite reaction. Compared to WC3 Armada stuff just seams to look so bad to me; especially the Kilrathy fighters. It makes me think that both were POC for differnt low poly modeling styles and WC3's style won the fly off.

Actually, I specifically claimed that the visuals in WC3 changed not because of technological limitations, but because Chris Roberts wanted to "reset" the look of the game. Therefore, only one of us is wrong.

So you did

Well, I certainly agree that there is no in-universe explanation. What I object to is the idea that this is a "continuity problem". A problem, in general, is something that needs to be resolved (if it doesn't need to be resolved, then clearly it's not a problem). A continuity problem specifically is when you have two sources establishing possibly-contradictory facts. As far as I can see, when it comes to WC3 fighters, we do not have a continuity problem - all we have is the introduction of new, different ships. That makes us curious, certainly, but it's not a problem as such.

If you absolutely must have an explanation as to why they look different, here's a simple one for you - we know that all the WC1 ships were built (in-universe) by a company called Origin Systems. We do not know who built the WC2 ships, with the exception of the Rapier (which must obviously be Origin Systems still). Well, in WC3, most of the ships are built by Douglas Aerospace, one is built by McCall Industries. So, why do these ships look different, in-universe? Probably for the same reason why Porsches and Ferraris look different...

Its the fact that the change is massive and happens in practically the blink of an eye that causes me to see a continuity problem. I guess that my mind refuses to accept that so much would change so fast without a notable reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Secondly I think you are underestimating the sentamentality of SciFi fans. Its one thing to sell a new look with a new ship like the Victory. It's another thing entierly to straight up redesign a well known and loved ship like Concordia and represent it. and that is really the core of each choice.
Just look at the reactions to the WC movie, or Transformers, and espcially the latest Star Trek film. When you think about how fast and heavily fans get attached to things and how emotionally the react to the established stuff is messed with that definetly makes the path they took the less risky one. Either path was going to anger someone, but I truly beleive; and I think history backs me up, that if they would have tried WC3 with WC1/2 ships it wouldn't have been as succesfull.
Historically, there was also a huge reaction to WC3 - many of the fans initially hated it, specifically because it looked so different (and also... because Paladin was fat!). Just like the WC Movie. The lesson seems to be that any time someone sets out to completely redesign the visuals, the fans get upset. Smaller changes upset less people. I have no doubt whatsoever that, had WC3 incorporated more designs from WC2, it would have been more positively received by the fans.

It's difficult to use Armada as an indication of fan reactions, because Armada was such a low-profile game. However, as near as I can figure out, the reaction to Armada's visual designs amongst the fans was more positive than to WC3's. Key phrase: amongst the fans.

You are right, however, that WC3 could potentially have been less successful with WC1/2 ships (though this is not to be taken for granted) - not because of the fan reactions, but because the vast, vast majority of WC3 players were non-fans. The difference between WC2's success and WC3's success is enormous - one sold hundreds of thousands of copies, the next sold millions. For most WC3 players, therefore, references to WC1/2 were irrelevant - what was relevant was overall visual design.

Its the fact that the change is massive and happens in practically the blink of an eye that causes me to see a continuity problem. I guess that my mind refuses to accept that so much would change so fast without a notable reason.
The good news for you is that subsequent products added a lot of information to change the circumstances of these ships' introduction. Instead of a whole set of new ships being introduced all at once, we now see that these ships appeared piecemeal over time, and were not all new. With the exception of the Excalibur (and possibly the Hellcat, for which we have no information), all the WC3 Confed fighters are older than WC2's Morningstar and Academy's Wraith. The Arrow, indeed, predates not only WC2 ships, but even WC1 ships - it's one of the oldest fighters we know of (sidenote: the same applies for WC2's Ferret, which apparently was around even before the war started).

On the note of "continuity problems" - there is actually one such problem with the Longbow. We see what appears to be a Longbow in 2654, in the Academy cartoon. But the Longbow's numeric designation (F/A-76) indicates that it is a newer design than any of the WC1 and WC2 ships.
 

starfox1701

Petty Officer
I read somewhere the the Longbow was based on an older shuttle spaceframe to speed development time. As I recall though it the history took the thought process the Longbow was competting head to head with the Crossbow to replace the Broadsword. I think it was fanon but can't recall where I read it.

I personally tend to lean on both the Hellcat and Thunderbolt being old because both have the look of fighters that could more effectivly make atmospheric reentry repetedly. That said they look to have all the arrowdynamics of a brick so. I wonder if earlier models might have had wings and other control surfaces that have been deleted in later models? Would make for an interestion model project.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Yeah, the Longbow competing with the Crossbow is pure fanfic. There is no reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, given that we see the Crossbow introduced just weeks before the Morningstar, it seems reasonable to believe the Longbow, in its WC3 form, was already around at that point - the Morningstar is F-95, while the Longbow is F/A-76. I can certainly imagine the Longbow and Crossbow (or Broadsword) co-existing, in the same way that 2-engine light bombers co-existed with 4-engined heavy bombers during WWII. This doesn't explain what the Longbow was doing in Academy, of course. The idea that it was a different ship - like the fan suggestion that it was a shuttle, which later got turned into a fighter - would explain it, but there may be other explanations.

The Thunderbolt we actually can assume to be newer than all the WC2 fighters (again, except the Morningstar and Wraith). We don't know about the Hellcat, so it could be old or new - but we do know that we see something that looks like the Hellcat in the Academy cartoon - so the Hellcat could also have existed in 2654.
 

NinjaLA

Alex Von T.
the cartoon brings up the point (at least with the scimitar) that when the engines blow out.. it flies about as well as a brick.
 

starfox1701

Petty Officer
Yeah, the Longbow competing with the Crossbow is pure fanfic. There is no reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, given that we see the Crossbow introduced just weeks before the Morningstar, it seems reasonable to believe the Longbow, in its WC3 form, was already around at that point - the Morningstar is F-95, while the Longbow is F/A-76. I can certainly imagine the Longbow and Crossbow (or Broadsword) co-existing, in the same way that 2-engine light bombers co-existed with 4-engined heavy bombers during WWII. This doesn't explain what the Longbow was doing in Academy, of course. The idea that it was a different ship - like the fan suggestion that it was a shuttle, which later got turned into a fighter - would explain it, but there may be other explanations.

The Thunderbolt we actually can assume to be newer than all the WC2 fighters (again, except the Morningstar and Wraith). We don't know about the Hellcat, so it could be old or new - but we do know that we see something that looks like the Hellcat in the Academy cartoon - so the Hellcat could also have existed in 2654.

Maybe the Thunderbolt and Hellcat where designed with ground attack inmind instead of being pure space fighters. I seam to remember somthing from WC1 or 2 warning pilots not get drawn into atmo fighting as there fighters wheren't design to survive atmopheric overpressure from weapson fire. The one problem I recall about the Broadsword was that she was so large that they wouldn't fit in the hangers of smaller carriers. Hence the need for smaller bombers. If there is also a seperate specifacation for ground attack bomber requiering a different style of hull renforcment then perhaps that is the Longbow's intended role from the start hence the differnt letter designator.
 

Ijuin

Admiral
The Longbow being meant for a ground attack role (like the United States' A-10) would explain also why it is slow and has so many missiles compared to the Crossbow--the Crossbow's greater speed, turn rate, and gun power is superior at fighting off enemy fighters (excellent if you can't spare an escort for it), but it has less ordnance. The Longbow meanwhile is poor against enemy fighters but carries more missiles than any other pre-Prophecy craft that we get to see.
 

Deathsnake

Rear Admiral
I think that the Longbow, Hellcat and Thunderbolt are not so old. Why? Because the fighters are still in Service in 2673. The Arrow is old - yes. In WC4 these fighters are not longer used by the Confederation. But the Thunderbolt, Hellcat and Longbow are still in use.
 

Kyle Maverick

Rear Admiral
IIRC, in the novel of Price of Freedom, it was an Arrow fighter that crashed during launch after Blair detonated his torpedo early that helped disable the Lexington, so Confed was still using the Arrow, we just don't see them flying with Confed colours during the game
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
Maybe the Thunderbolt and Hellcat where designed with ground attack inmind instead of being pure space fighters. I seam to remember somthing from WC1 or 2 warning pilots not get drawn into atmo fighting as there fighters wheren't design to survive atmopheric overpressure from weapson fire. The one problem I recall about the Broadsword was that she was so large that they wouldn't fit in the hangers of smaller carriers. Hence the need for smaller bombers. If there is also a seperate specifacation for ground attack bomber requiering a different style of hull renforcment then perhaps that is the Longbow's intended role from the start hence the differnt letter designator.


That makes no sense. The Thunderbolt and Longbow designs don't lean themselves to atmospheric centric flying. (That's not to say it's impossible to see flying bricks cruising around, in ER we see Ferrets flying inside Vukar Tag's atmosphere) A fighter designed primarily for atmospherics is something like the Ekapshi (which is an atmospheric fighter only)

The Waterloo was testing the Crossbow because it was smaller than the Broadsword and could be stored on smaller carriers. ER also mentions that the Broadsword cannot fit onto the Wake-class CVEs without taking up far too much space. That is why they mount Sabre fighter/bombers instead.

The Longbow as ground attack doesn't make a lot of sense. It's got a glass nose piece that is overexposed to ground fire. The F/A in the Longbow is more than likely talking about strictly space-based missions where the Longbow can be a fighter (look at all those missiles!) and an attack aircraft (Four torpedoes!)
 
Top