TCS Victory

Dragon1

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
The Victory has been established to be of the Ranger-class that just started to come into service in 2580. According to Captain Eisen, he states in WC3 that he served on the Victory on her maiden voyage as the communications officer. Does anyone know when the Victory herself entered service?

Also the hull number of the light carrier Victory had always bothered me in comparison to that of the Concordia-class Lexington and Princeton. The Victory, CV40 being supposedly much older than the CV44 and CV48 carriers. Unless the makers of WC3 and WC4 purposely were suggesting that CV40, CV44, and CV48 were built around the same time and possibly were the same class of Light Carrier. All much older than the TCS Concordia CVS-65 lost in the beginning of WC3.

I don't mean to shake things up, these are just questions that have been in my head for a while now. I really like some of the fan sites that have been created, but there is nothing in any of the games that would suggest that the Lexington, Princeton and Victory are not of the same class (the Concordia-class, a light carrier of 720 meters of length mentioned in the Victory Streak manual).
 
It's all explained in the novels. The Lexington and the Princeton have been confirmed in the WC4 novel to be Concordia-class carriers, a mainstay large fleet carrier. They carried around 96-100 fighters, compared to the 40 for the Victory.

There's a discussion about this that's in the archives. Basically, the original plan was to modernize the TCS Concordia (Confederation-class) model into the WC4 engine to use as the Lexington, you can read about this intention in the WC4 novel: which states that the Lexington was the same class as the Concordia.

But they ran into technical difficulties with the model, and in the end rehashed the old Victory model.

Search button is your best friend, use it.
 
That makes sense, but I actually was more interested in the Eisen-maiden voyage comment. I should have re-phrased my post. If the Rangers were from the late 26th century, either Eisen was really old or the Victory wasn't completed until the 2630s or 40s.

Does anyone know what the intended Confederation-class Dreadnought would have been named in WC4 or what its hull number would be? Would it still have been Lexington CV44 (or was this created after the guys at Origin decided to rehash the Victory)?

Thanks for your help Psych
 
the in-universe explaination is that the concordia-class had its hangar covered to prevent the hangar from being disabled from a kamikaze attack or a bomb (like in WC2).
 
The WC3 novel said that the Victory was designed half a century before the Kilrathi War. Note that it says "designed", not "built".

As for it being commissioned, this is open to speculation. But considering how the script says Eisen was in his 50s and going back to his early 20's (roughly the age he would have been when the Victory entered service), you'll get a rough estimate of the time; not precise, but it's better then nothing.

As for the TCS Concordia and her ship class. . . the game manual calls them dreadnought, but the novels always seem to refer to them as carriers rather then dreadnoughts. One part is in the WC4 novel, which says the Concordia was one of the largest CVs in the Fleet before she was destroyed. Or in Fleet Action, when Tolwyn says "Lexington and Ark Royal are ready to go, this will give us five fleet carriers for this action" (note that the Concordia herself was on the carrier list).

As for your plans about the Lexington hull #, no clue.
 
I am kinda glad that the WC4 engine couldn't support the Confederation-class model. Captain Paulsen commanding a semi-delapidated Concordia-class Carrier was scarry enough. Imagine if he had the firepower of a Confederation-class warship. The Intrepid wouldn't have standed a chance in the Silenos nebula. Also its the equivalent of putting Walter Mondale in command of a Nimitz-class Carrier or Iowa-class Battleship.
 
semi-delapidated?

I would say the Lexington was in top running order, everything looked pretty shiny on it to me...
 
i thought the Lex was in as good shape as ever. i dont think the refitted Confed-class had the same firepower after they took out the PTC since it was dangerous to use.
 
The Lexington may have been refit and in good shape, but it lacked the 120 ship fighter wing, 8 dual anti-matter guns, and torpedo tubes. The Confederation-class even without the PTC had teeth.
 
Dragon1 said:
The Lexington may have been refit and in good shape, but it lacked the 120 ship fighter wing, 8 dual anti-matter guns, and torpedo tubes. The Confederation-class even without the PTC had teeth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because you are comparing a dreadnaught and a CV....carriers have always been lightly armed, they use their flight wings for offense/defense.
 
According to Captain Eisen, he states in WC3 that he served on the Victory on her maiden voyage as the communications officer. Does anyone know when the Victory herself entered service?
Click to expand...

The Victory herself entered service in 2634 (though we don't know if it was before or after the war started).

The Victory, CV40 being supposedly much older than the CV44 and CV48 carriers. Unless the makers of WC3 and WC4 purposely were suggesting that CV40, CV44, and CV48 were built around the same time and possibly were the same class of Light Carrier.
Click to expand...

The TPoF novel claims that "the 40-series CVs" were retired after the war - so it may be that the Lexington and Princeton *just* recieved those designations, following the retirement of a bunch of surviving Rangers.

Does anyone know what the intended Confederation-class Dreadnought would have been named in WC4 or what its hull number would be? Would it still have been Lexington CV44 (or was this created after the guys at Origin decided to rehash the Victory)?
Click to expand...

I doubt the process got far enough along to decide something like this.

I would say the Lexington was in top running order, everything looked pretty shiny on it to me...
Click to expand...

Yup, Lexington had just been comissioned, rebuilt from a crippled hull. Saw a little bit of service in the last days of the war.

The "refitted Confed-class" thing is fanfic, though - as far as we know, the existing Confed-class ships continued to use their PTCs after production had ceased (since we see the Concordia do just that in SO2).
 
Dundradal said:
Yeah, because you are comparing a dreadnaught and a CV....carriers have always been lightly armed, they use their flight wings for offense/defense.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to compare the two, I know they were different ships for different roles, I'm just saying that if WC4 used the Confederation-class Dreadnought instead of the Concordia-class Carrier for your base ship before you defect, the Intrepid would have had a much more challenging time dealing it in Silenos.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The Victory herself entered service in 2634 (though we don't know if it was before or after the war started).
The TPoF novel claims that "the 40-series CVs" were retired after the war - so it may be that the Lexington and Princeton *just* recieved those designations, following the retirement of a bunch of surviving Rangers.

We also don't know that the Victory has always been the Victory. Judging from what characters in the game and book say, the Victory seems to have spent a fair amount of time inactive. It could have received a new name and designation upon its recommissioning. The Victory might also have *just* received its designation.
Click to expand...
 
Nappydman said:
Bandit LOAF said:
The Victory herself entered service in 2634 (though we don't know if it was before or after the war started).
The TPoF novel claims that "the 40-series CVs" were retired after the war - so it may be that the Lexington and Princeton *just* recieved those designations, following the retirement of a bunch of surviving Rangers.

We also don't know that the Victory has always been the Victory. Judging from what characters in the game and book say, the Victory seems to have spent a fair amount of time inactive. It could have received a new name and designation upon its recommissioning. The Victory might also have *just* received its designation.
Click to expand...

Considering that Eisen had served on it for most of his career, as per the script and the comments in game, we know that the Victory's been active and in service for much of the War, if not all of it. That means that she's had the same commission the whole time, or at least that's likely to have been the case, since there's no sign she was decomissioned - in fact, they go out of their way to make it clear that, if not for the poor situation on the front lines, Victory WOULD have been put out to pasture and decomissioned some years back.

The comments in novel and game state that the ship class is ancient, and the ship SHOULD have been put away by now. The state of the war and the aftermath of the Battle of Earth has meant, instead, that these old ships are going onto the front lines to face the newest Kilrathi ships... since many of Confed's newest ships are guarding the homeworld.
Click to expand...
 
My take was that Victory was active, but not on the front lilnes. The fact that obsolete light carriers were fighting the Kilrathi fleet instead of patroling safe sectors was what shocked Blair.
 
It's normally bad juju to rename a service ship that's already been commissioned by same service.

Also, the WC3 novel said that the Victory was refitted at Torgo. So she was definately modernized to be up to par with contemporary technology, as old as she was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top