Search results

He's a fruitcake.

That would make my *decade.*

LOAF is, of course, right. Most of the time.

Well, those in the navy probably call them what their superiors call them. :) And just because Joan's calls them a certain class is no guarantee that other civilian reporting agencies call them the same thing. As I said, different civilian reporting agencies have different criteria to...

*grin* I imagine all the variants of the Bengal class wreak havoc on civilian reporting - in my ships list (unpublished), I commented that some civilian reporting agencies reported the Bengals as follows (in that list, I placed Beacontree prior to Tiger's Claw): Bengal and Beacontree...

I somehow think that Chris Roberts wasn't particularly well-versed in naval tradition when he wrote the WC1 manual. What I think is this: TCS Bengal: Built to the original 625 meter plans TCS Tiger's Claw: Built to 700-meter plans TCS Kipling and subsequent Bengals: Built to 690 meter...

1: Abandoned and scuttled, presumably by the surviving battleship. 2: Destroyed around 2654-56 3: Built in 2656, NOT the ship from Fleet Action. Destroyed in 2669. 4: My theory: The Concordia destroyed in Fleet Action was the nameship of the Concordia-class CVs. It was designed and...

I based my destruction date for the Trafalgar on the assumption that WCA takes place a year or two before WC1. The date on Blair's copy of "Claw Marks" in the WC1 package is 2654.094 (4 April). The WC movie begins on 15 March and ends on 17 March, and Blair and Maniac graduated from flight...

I found a bit of a problem in your story: You're using the Trafalgar as a place-holder for your carrier name. The Bengal-class TCS Trafalgar was destroyed in 2652 (Wing Commander Academy episode 6: Chain of Command). Here, just for fun, are the names of all the Bengals I've seen...

One question - where is it stated that the Victory is a Ranger-class carrier?

According to WC1, the Tiger's Claw was the first Bengal-class carrier and commissioned in 2644...

However, in order to do that, the mass has to be equally distributed across the X and Y axes. And the easiest way to do that is to make the ship symmetrical. However, I did oversimplify. I should have said "The ship's mass must be symmetrically distributed about the primary thrust vector...

I don't get why the Kilrathi ships are asymmetrical, though... because spacecraft have to be symmetric about their axis of thrust in order to fly in a straight line (yet another reason why I *HATE* Star Trek).

Well, compared to the lasers on the Hornet, the Scimm's mass-drivers rip, both in terms of damage and rate-of-fire.

From the list, I came away with the impression that the staff at "PC Gameplay" were little more than a bunch of FPSers.

This makes me sob with horror... The idea that military weapons with many times more firepower than their civilian counterparts can POSSIBLY draw nanojoules of energy... A nanojoule, even if released in only a femtosecond, is still a nanojoule, even though it has become a gigawatt of power, it's...

It's worth mentioning that WC tungsten armor doesn't behave nearly like tungsten in real life - real-life tungsten would be vaporized quite handily by energy yields like the ones WC fighters toss about (a few hundred gigawatts for high-end civilian guns to several terawatts for most military...

That's because it was purchased by another nation. There's precedence for this in the real world. What LOAF speaks of is a goverment renaming one of its OWN ships.

Damn, Bandit, you're on top of this stuff. How about stats and ship roster for the Murphy-class destroyers? :)