Agincourt II class

dacis2

Spaceman
I've been bashed about this for assuming that the Cruiser in WC3 and 4 are the Tallahassee class but are instead the Agincourt II class. Is there any direct evidence to this? I've like to roll it across a rather intransigent person who still firmly believes otherwise.
 

powell99

Aviation Junkie
It's just the Talahasse class. The class is named at some point, I think in WC4 or the WC4 Novel. If we didn't precisly know the name it would be called the WC3 Cruiser, in the same way we do with the WC3 Destroyer.

Also in can't be the Agincourt II Class as the First Agincourt we see is a Waterloo class, which is A) a different Class and B) a newer ship. (The Talahasse is an older design)

However, I'm curious as to how you came about this theory.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
LOAF's list distinguishes between classes and types. "Class" means that all similar ships are officially referred to as belonging to that class. "Type", on the other hand, means that we don't know the name of a given ship's class, but we know that it's the same class as another ship. In that case, LOAF uses the first ship in alphabetical order to refer to all the other ships of this unknown class.

In the case of those cruisers... well, I don't recall what LOAF wrote in his list, but if he refers to them as Agincourt II, he doesn't say Agincourt II class, just that they're Agincourt II type. This doesn't mean that they're not Tallahassee class - it just means that we don't know for sure, so it's best not to assume anything.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
dacis2 said:
Hrmph. He was mighty swift to chastise me on calling the class "Tallahassee"

What does that have to do with this thread? Quarto already explained everything. The Agincourt (II) (not Agincourt II) type refers to the CCG TCS Agincourt and lack of definitive link to the Tallahassee class in False Colors.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
dacis2 said:
Hrmph. He was mighty swift to chastise me on calling the class "Tallahassee"

Since you apparently couldn't even figure out what I was telling you, I have some reservations as to your right to be bitter here. Go back to Spacebattles.
 

dacis2

Spaceman
I'm not being bitter.

And all you said in that other thread was
"First of all, the suggestion in recent years is of course that 'Ranger-class' and 'Tallahassee-class' may be the wrong labels for the two ships you're describing.
"
So that means I'm calling them by their wrong names, right?
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Being told that something "may be the wrong labels" is what you consider being "swiftly chastised"?
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
You should wait until after the period in which one can edit their posts before being a spelling jerk. :)
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
That's why we have dictionarys.

Besides that this is one of those topics that really is people not willing to look at what's in front of them and understand it. Some things we know, some things we can infer and some things we really have no definative answer.

And yes, you're using labels a lot of us aren't comfortable with. LOAF's put a lot of time into his lists that do the best they can to put a name to a face, but a lot of times we simply have some parts of the name and not the whole thing. This is like when WC3 came out and we didn't get class names for the Ajax and Conventry/Sheffield, until FC came out everyone called them a "Ajax Class Cruiser" and "Conventry Class Destroyer." Post-FC there was the Tallahassee reclassing frenzy and now we've settled down to not classing them, simply because we don't know.

I don't think you were chastized, you were corrected and took that as an insult on your honor. I recommend to atone for your sins you commit Zu'kara.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
dacis2 said:
I'm not being bitter.

And all you said in that other thread was
"First of all, the suggestion in recent years is of course that 'Ranger-class' and 'Tallahassee-class' may be the wrong labels for the two ships you're describing.
"

Wow, yeah, you would have had to actually have been chastised in the first place to be bitter about it. This is purely a case of generic authority-figure poking. What do you think you're doing with this thread?
 

dacis2

Spaceman
ChrisReid said:
Wow, yeah, you would have had to actually have been chastised in the first place to be bitter about it. This is purely a case of generic authority-figure poking. What do you think you're doing with this thread?
That is not my intention, why would I do that? What do I stand to gain to do that?

*sigh*

I apologise for inadvertently offending you, LOAF, that was not my intention, and I had incorrectly interpeted your tone in your earlier correction of me.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I apologise for inadvertently offending you, LOAF, that was not my intention, and I had incorrectly interpeted your tone in your earlier correction of me.

I'm not really sure how this could be both -- you inadvertently offended me *and* you were posting because you had incorrectly interpreted my tone? You're just saying what we want to hear.

... and the '*sigh*' thing is a horribly obnoxious internetism.
 
Top