Anyone not like the books?

Discussion in 'General Wing Commander Chat' started by sea_monkey, May 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HammerHead

    HammerHead Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24,635
    Location:
    NYC, NY
    My point is that they are not made less important by other fighter-carrying-starships. You point is correct in that the availability of other fighter-carrying-ships (i.e. cruisers an d destroyers) make fleet carriers available for use on more important areas of the front line.

    The importance of any class of ships (be that cruiser or carrier) is not deminished or increased by the availability or absence of any other class of ship. Their might became easier to fulfill.

    Also you keep mentioning the fact that in WWII only carriers carried fighters while in WC all (big) ships can carry them.
    I'll give you an opposite exsample: during the 1960s the Missile-boat was developed- suddenly the Russians had a small 40-50 feet boat that could, by itself, cripple and even practicaly destroy Cruiser and Destroyer size vessels from 50 miles away - well beyoned any ship's guns range. Later, Cruisers and and Destroyers began to carry missiles of their own - and did the missile boat became less important? NO - it was (and is being) used in a diffrent roll - the roll that was previously own by the torpedo boat - a ship class that was removed from service because of the missile boat.

    ???
    :rolleyes:
    o...k... next time we'll call EA and ask them to have Gen. Chuck Yeager or Col. Giyora Epshtein (World top ace in downing fighter-jets : 17) to make the basic AI design... you want to fly against a Kilrathi Chuck Yeager? (Ralgha nar Epshtein...hmm... nice ring to it ;) )

    you might simply try the game on "nightare" level, or whatever it's called.


    this is also why you need a small force of large carriers, that can be deployed quickly and decisivly at key points, while delivering a stong complement of fighters, and not a large cubersome force in which each ship has a small complement of fighters (all for various tactical reasons, most of which I detailed in my previous posts, and can give you more).

    Yeah, but this decistion ... is not yours to make ;) - this is why The Kilrathi have an emperor and the Confederation has a President - to make the stupiedest mistake possiable and then blame it on the little people for years ahead! :D

    PS: leaving any insults aside - I also agree with everything said by frosty in his last post - his claim simply have certain logic I accept.
    The point is - once again two diffrent people gave you two diffrent, completely logical, opinions, both of them to the same effect.
    Yes, you can say we are both wrong, and LOAF, and Nemesis, and... well it's basically saying everybody's wrong while you are right....
    Just think about it...
     
  2. Edfilho

    Edfilho Cry some more!

    Messages:
    3,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Curitiba
    Sea_monkey is always telling us what he is NOT saying. But everytime he claims NOT saying something, he comes closer and closer to our point-of-view...
     
  3. Bandit LOAF

    Bandit LOAF Long Live the Confederation!

    Messages:
    28,424
    Likes Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ashton, MD, USA
    Oh, wow, I just assumed you'd given up or that ace had banned you. Okay, lets do this thing.

    Ah, like how Kilrathi Saga fixed that glitch WC2 had where the game actually allowed you to see the enemy shield levels on your VDU? Or how it fixed that damn bug in WC2 where they game actually allowed you to fly with the keyboard? Or how KS fixes that nasty bug where original pieces of music are actually played in the addon disks? I don't think you'll find anyone here who'll agree with you that Kilrathi Saga WC2 is a well done port (the Special Ops package was actually released unsupported!).

    (This is all just a fun chance to rag on you, of course, since your problem seems to have been that you picked the wrong mission. Ghorah Khar 2E is the final losing mission. 2D is the Fralthra strike.)

    So... your claim is that I'm wrong because I only proved that I was right a little bit? Well, you've sure outdone me here. "But we don't have any proof, except for the instances where you provided explicit proof!" is just too rich for my blood.

    The three claims that weren't jokes all support my original claim - if Confed is losing hundreds of fighters a day, it must have hundreds of fighters a day to lose.

    The space station was busy fighting the Kilrathi, if that's what you're trying to sidestep around.

    So... peace with honor, eh? Your argument is now, in fact, that carriers in Wing Commander are not exactly the same as carriers in World War II? And you seriously believe that (a) the novels claim this and that (b) we all believe it? Neither of these things is true. The novels clearly tout the importance of lighter ships (Fleet Action talks about your specific cruiser issue... and how many times do escort carriers (converted from transports) save the day?) - and ultimately liken Wing Commander's carriers to the modern supercarrier rather than its pre-nuclear anscestors. Modern escorts can do a lot more than the destroyers and cruisers (and battleships) of World War II... but the aircraft carrier is now even more important than it ever was (despite the fact that it "does less").

    (Also: inarguable means that something cannot be argued. Since we have been arguing for five pages, none of this is "inarguable".)

    Well... at least you finally understand at last part.

    Sure you do, the tactic is as old as war itself. Want to weaken the enemy front line? Throw units behind it to try and knock out their commerce and industry. The Atlantic Ocean was full of U-Boats, the Gemini Sector was full of Kilrathi raiders - and so forth.

    You generally encounter a ship or two wherever you go in Privateer. We're constantly called upon to escort civilian transports and such in other games.

    How many tanks could you build with the material used to produce a Nimitz-class carrier? They're both vital weapons of war, and you can build thousands of one for the cost of the other... so why don't we just only build tanks?
     
  4. Moonsword

    Moonsword Spaceman

    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    If we really have to have an answer to that last couple of points, someone's flushed their sense of reality down the toilet.
     
  5. Grimloc

    Grimloc Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    It's amazing this post has gone on for so long.
     
  6. Frosty

    Frosty a full fledged GF

    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36,885
    Location:
    Cooter, MO
    Feel free to chime in with one-line commentary at any time...

    Thank you for that, you guys.

    One wonders if every one of your combined several-hundred posts have all been such models of meaningful contribution.

    Don't ever let the discussion get in the way of your not saying anything.
     
  7. Edfilho

    Edfilho Cry some more!

    Messages:
    3,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Curitiba
    Boy, I hate postcount whores. I mean the other guys, not you, frosty.
     
  8. sea_monkey

    sea_monkey Spaceman

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL ... ok, it is pretty clear at this point that you're not going to admit you were wrong -- even when it's painfully obvious. Keep in mind just a couple posts above you were mocking me for linking the Thrakhath bug together with Ghorah Khar 2D ("anything you don't like in the game is glitch blah blah blah" ... "mission design is different than file placement blah blah blah") Now, two posts later, you are doing the exact same thing.

    That's precisely it. You made a claim, and provided jack and shit respectively to support it. Pointing out Earth and McAuliffe have 300 fighters does not come close to proving there is a fighter force of 100,000, or about 300 per colony. You've got to prove just about every colony has that many or it averages out to that much. In fact you actually provided examples of colonies with only a handful of fighters.

    Last, your only real "evidence" is a quote from a frickin' bartender. As if all bartenders everywhere in the galaxy have access to classified Confed casualty information and are incapable of bullshitting. Ridiculous.

    No, sadly, their arguments really aren't logical at all. Loaf can't seem to remember what he said a couple of posts back: suggesting I'm unenlightened for not reading a book, then denying saying it, then denying denying it -- suggesting I'm paranoid about being banned and then just now saying that he thought I'd been banned -- and before, my suggesting that going to the losing path after ejecting in Ghorah Khar 2D was glitch was laughable (despite the fact that it made no sense as it was), now he's arguing that the fact that it's fixed in the Kilrathi Saga is a glitch. Frosty keeps knocking down a strawman, and then when I point out that I never made the arguments he's attacking, replies "I never said it was."

    Loaf also spent a great deal of time arguing that you could prove negatives, which no one else called him on -- Type-into-Google level philosophy knowledge. This suggests both a lack of knowledge of basic rules of logic and debate, and also a willingness to totally make shit up to support one's argument. Which he confirms every time he contradicts himself in sequential posts.

    Last, the fact that several people disagree with me means nothing. As I pointed out above, the majority of the population can and often wrong about things, so saying that "everybody thinks X, so X is true" is a logical fallacy. And at any rate, that the majority of this site seems to disagree with me means nothing because it would seem (according to some quotes by Frosty) that most of the people with similar views as me were chased off in the past. So the site is naturally going to be composed of people who are like-minded over these issues.

    LOL @ proving "it's logically impossible." Actually I understand your argument completely and have addressed it several times -- even in the quote you provided. I can tell you really believe it is I who am doing the avoiding of confrontation, though, but I think it has more to do with your unwillingness to concede *any* argument, no matter how simple, as opposed to your "proving [something] logically impossible" -- which is impossible by the way.

    But to cross the same river yet again:

    #1, if roles that only the carrier was capable of doing in the past can be done by other ships, then it is less (not un)important. A Waterloo MAY not be able to launch strike missions, but it can help defend against them -- you know, what you're doing the other 50% (or more) of the time.

    #2, I already pointed out that the Waterloo CAN carry bombers as evidenced by SO1, and there's really no reason to believe the Gettysburg is somehow special in this regard. Also you are quick to point out that the dialogue suggests that the Waterloo typically only carries Ferrets and Epees ... however the dialogue in WC2 also makes absolutely clear that an Epee is capable of carrying a torpedo. So a Waterloo can definitely carry strike craft, end of story.

    Uh, oh. I think I heard a toilet flush.

    Maybe somebody lost a debate.
     
  9. sea_monkey

    sea_monkey Spaceman

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what you're saying is the missile boat went from being an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers to just another ship in the navy with a specific, important role? And where exactly would you see this contradict my argument? And just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the carrier is "just another ship in the navy", although I shouldn't have to say that 500 times in a thread.

    Apples to oranges ... give the AI turret gunners some decent strategy and it's a fair fight. *Since this will never happen*, I think it's fair to compare AI vs. AI.
     
  10. Viper61

    Viper61 Spaceman

    Messages:
    1,909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    What a sad, sad little man. I think its pretty clear to everyone who read that post but you he was making fun of your 'glitch' tangent, as he plainly tells you you ejected in the wrong mission trying to prove your point. :(
    Why? Why is the burden of proof that high? You expect to know the exact number of a certain item at every point in existance before you'll believe a statement? Before you believe a military fact about fighters in the WC universe, you have to know that all 200 (whatever the number is) Confed bases in the known galaxy coorespond to this fact before you'll believe it? If someones got to prove every instance of a fact to you, is there anything at all you actually believe in?
    pretty logical assumption considering you didn't show back up for a while and insulted a moderator who did absolutely nothing to you. Also the fact that to prove your point about the "church of WC" here you think you need to be banned to become some sort of martyr to the thousands of WC fans that agree with you (who aren't here rallying with you for some reason), I'd actually thought you'd been banned too.
    So throwing out sources that don't coincide with your opinion and only answering those arguments you have 'time' for (ie - you have an answer to) is a basic rule of logical debate? Also, making up numbers of bombers that 'seem to fit' but can't logically if you knew the fighter structure of carriers and cruisers in WC isn't a willingness to totally make up shit to support your argument?
    The whole point of a debate is to change the viewpoint of another or sway that of an audience/jury/moderator into your favor. You have done neither. Plus, if those last two statements is your stance, why are you still here apparently wasting your time picking and chossing your arguments that aren't going to influence anyone. One definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over expecting the same results.
    You can't replace carriers with cruisers in the WC universe because they have no heavy strike capability (a carriers primary reason for being). Get over it. If cruisers could do the same thing a carrier can, either the Kilrathi or Confed would have stumbled upon that brilliant solution after 35 years of war.

    The Gettysburg in WC2 is a special case. We are told its usual complement is Epees and Ferrets. Then we are told its testing the Crossbow prototypes (which you'd take all of them on a strike if you could, and they take a total of 4 or 5, can't remember off the top of my head), which are half the size and half the mass of the usual Broadsword bomber (Broadswords barely fit inside hanger entrances of most carriers, so fitting into a cruiser half the size of a small carrier is more of a problem). So a cruiser can carry 5 prototype bombers that are as big as a medium/heavy fighter. Then, after WC2, we don't see Crossbows ever again, so by your definition, they can't exist :rolleyes:. So your one instance that a cruiser has ever carried a bomber, even by your definition, is a fluke (or maybe a 'glitch', I've lost track).

    An Epee can carry a torpedo, so can a Hellcat if its cobbled on. Doesn't make it an effective strike aircraft. The epee is a flying death trap. Plus, the strike you mention is against a small Kat listening post. If you can equate killing a Kilrathi carrier/escort to killing a lightly armed/armored small listening post, I'll be all ears.

    C-ya
     
  11. HammerHead

    HammerHead Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24,635
    Location:
    NYC, NY

    Well, an hour after I wrote it, I knew I was wrong to phrase myself that way, but couldn't edit it, so I guess I deserve your answer on this one... ;)


    I won't argue what you think of other people but I noticed you didn't revoked the logic out of my posts, so may I assume you agree with my logic ?


    I wouldn't jump so high just yet - what you are basicly saying in these two point is that
    (A) cruisers can serve as escorts - with a defensive fighter wing composed mainly of light fighters.
    and
    (B) Waterloo cruisers can carry a small amount of heavy strike craft and serve as pocket carriers.

    Both these roll are already a part of a cruiser's roll in the WCU - Waterloo cruisers serve as escort ships for battle groups and convoys, and serve as pocket carriers (in the battle of Vukar Tag the Gettysburg was used as a pocket carrier).

    So I'm a little confused :confused:
    Your points fit in the WCU perfectly, as is.
     
  12. HammerHead

    HammerHead Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24,635
    Location:
    NYC, NY
    Missile boat was never "an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers". it was always "another ship in the navy". The cruisers is also "another ship in the navy". The navy, like any other military, or non-military, organization, is about the whole picture. The picture of the navy is composed of cruisers, destroyers, missile boats, carriers, submarines - it is all about diversity, none of these parts of the picture can dimish the importance of the other - and this is where I contridict you, my friend.

    you claim that by building more cruisers I can relay much less on carriers - "cruisers with fighters make carriers less important" was you phrase.
    And I claim it is wrong: carriers have their roll and cruisers have their roll, and if cruisers can carry fighters and lower the workload of carriers - that's excellent! but it doe's not, and will not, diminish the importance of a carrier as a striking tool.

    That was what I said - the guy who programed th AI subroutines wrote the gunnery ones in a crapy way. So, give some one proffetional to design them, just remmember that we, none proffetional little people, need to fly aginst these things.

    Also, I never played on "top ace". Have you checked cap-ship gunnery on "top ace"?

    P.S. you never really answered me : what is you logic for saying that "cruisers with fighters make carriers less important"?
     
  13. jedi2187

    jedi2187 Spaceman

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Never thought this thing would go the distance"

    -Lex Luthor, Superman II
     
  14. Fenris Ulven

    Fenris Ulven Spaceman

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    The only logical reason for cruisers to have fighters is to use them at recon mission to unsure that the cruiser not is moving into a ambush...
     
  15. Death

    Death gh0d (Administrator)

    Messages:
    2,331
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Taylors, SC, USA
    It's a logical reason, but not the only one. Other reasons for cruisers carrying the lighter fighter-type ships, off the top of my head:

    * Escort, either of the cruiser or of what the cruiser is escorting (cruisers as convoy escorts may not be common, but it isn't impossible, either). While capships of the WC2 era can't really be harmed by anything other than torpedos or other capships with anti-capship weapons (AMGs, PTC, etc), what a cruiser may be assigned to escort isn't necessarily guaranteed to have capship-level phase shielding, and could be vulnerable to non-torp fighters should an OpFor decide to come out and play.

    * Area coverage. A cruiser may be powerful, but it can only be in one place in any given system at any given time. Up to 20 independent groups (2 or more elements in a wing) plus the cruiser can cover a lot more territory. Against capships with phase shielding those fighters might not be of much use, but not all threats are capships.

    * Plot device. ;) (e.g., Crossbows in the Rigel series, SO1)
     
  16. dacis2

    dacis2 Spaceman

    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore, Earth
    Nice work guys! I've been following this thread and it seems to resemble one we had at Spacebattles
    it was about the US vs the UK, and the UK supporter stubbornly dodged everything the US could launch at the UK.

    oh well... looks like you've won. we won too.
    Congratulations!
     
  17. Grimloc

    Grimloc Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    There has been no victory.

    There will be no victory.
     
  18. Edfilho

    Edfilho Cry some more!

    Messages:
    3,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Curitiba
    this shit can't be serious!

    BTW, sea_monkey lost all semblance of even being up to the fight. The glitch joke flew way over his head, for instance.
     
  19. Grimloc

    Grimloc Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    How old are you, sea_monkey?

    How old is your mind, that is?
     
  20. Mekt-Hakkikt

    Mekt-Hakkikt Mpanty's bane

    Messages:
    5,454
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    51,885
    Location:
    Wiesbaden, Germany
    Come on, we don't want to get to this level, do we? :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page