Anyone not like the books?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the manuals, which detail the game's workings and the stats for the fighters or carriers in the game are even more 'wrong' than the books... I guess even the games aren't accurate representations of the 'real life' fighters which don't exist in anything outside of those manuals, the writers' bible for the game, those novels you've stated as being not 'canon'... oh, and the games, which are based on the stats in those manuals.

I consider the WC3, WC2, WC1 & SMs1&2, and *lightly* S01&2 canon in that order because to me they make the most sense like that. After that, stuff like the books, Privateer, Academy, Armada, the manuals, as far as they don't contradict each other and the "main" games. From what I saw of the movie it seemed like that is best considered a parallel universe.

The manuals have all sorts of mistakes in them, from the ones I mentioned and lots of others including fighter statistics. I notice no one is trying to rationalize Blair being 17 in 2654. You can either go to extreme lengths to rationalize every inconsistency, however ridiculous -- or you can say, "okay, the manual creators made a mistake. I'll pretend they didn't say that."

I think that's the big difference here between me and some of you guys. I would rather pick and choose elements of all the materials that make the most consistent and enjoyable universe rather than try to force contradictory elements (written by different people with entirely different ideas about the games) together in the same universe.

Also, regarding the supercarriers - the main threat was that those ships not only packed more fighters than many carrier battle groups, but that they were nearly invulnerable to current weapons . While two torpedoes would take out the Fralthra or Fralthi configured as a carrier (which robs it of most of the weapons you mentioned, in favor of fighter space and support equipment, plus fighter supplies), those two torpedoes didn't even make a dent in those supercarriers. That, and the fact that they could launch and service 300 fighters at any given time made them a true threat - the seven Fralthi you mentioned above MIGHT be able to launch seven fighters... but they're also harder to defend, and they were far more vulnerable to being destroyed than the single Hakaga-class ship.

7 Fralthra could take 14 torpedoes. They could take 8 torpedoes and still have have their firepower and fighter capacity left. Can a Hakaga eat 14 torpedoes and still be kicking? If so I'll agree they are an unstoppable superweapon. However I think from the novel it was pretty clear that 4 torpedoes would mess it up pretty bad, let alone 10 more.

And you're still talking about corvettes. Who cares, that is a trifling point. I wasn't arguing corvettes > carriers. I was saying having hangar bays in destroyers and cruisers (which was impossible in WW2), make carriers (NOT fighters) less important in both fleets.

To effectively project these 300 craft, you need a base of operations that is just that, geared specifically for the service, rearming, and storage of all types of ships. Cruisers and Destroyers must also carry the capability onboard to effectively fight a ship-to-ship engagement, which takes up much needed space for fighters and their associated amenities.

Ok, but we're starting to go from "Hakagas are super-weapons" to "Hakagas would be really nice to have if you wanted to carry 300 fighters." I'm not saying Hakagas suck. I'm saying they're not that big a deal and basically a somewhat IMHO lame plot device.
 
So... you realize the math didn't make sense... and you didn't address the historical reference... but you still stand by your point?

Well, sure. I mean, in my initial example, I picked "100 kills" because that seemed like a ridiculous enough number. Pointing out that this isn't such a ridiculous amount of kills doesn't really make your point, because in Wing Commander we're talking about guys with 1000+ kills serving on carriers full of people with 100+ kills. I just took a look at my WC1 save game and at the end of the Crusade, the Tiger's Claw scoreboard has 1300+ kills on it, not counting Bossman who is dead. Any carriers or Luftwaffe squadrons that racked up 1300+ kills in WW2? Remember this was in a pretty short period of time for the Claw as well, only a few years if that.

So to me, you're faced with two contradictory elements: 1) In WC1, the Claw singlehandedly eliminated 13 fleet carriers worth of fighters in a few years, and the Kilrathi were still kicking and even managed to turn the tide of the war back sometime in the next 10 years. 2) In Forstchen's books, the Kilrathi's edge over Confed in terms of numbers is roughly 1.5 to 1. With Confed having about 10-15 carriers at any given time. Meaning losing 13 carriers in 2 years. would mean basically the total destruction of either fleet.

How you can pretend both are true at the same time is beyond me. My take: it's somewhere in the middle. The games stats are inflated due to crappy AI, and the Kilrathi outnumber Confed by about 5 to 1.

Nope, go back and watch it - it's an entirely different ship (it's roughly the same shape as a Ralatha, but it has a large launch tube in the 'nose').

Still looks an awful lot like a Fralthra to me. Has those six wings, the "nose" looks different ... but I don't see a flight deck anywhere.

This is two issues.

* Why do we need carriers at Earth? Why did we need carriers at the Battle of Midway? Why didn't the US fleet just land all their strike craft on Midway and then sail off to greener pastures? Because an aircraft/spacecraft carrier is a more valuable platform than a stationary base, no matter what century you're in.

* Why target the Kilrathi carriers over the cruisers? Ignoring the fact that the cruisers were targetted (by destroyer squadrons), it's because the carriers are the more important target. If Earth was lost, the Hakagas would have brought the war forward to the rest of the Confederation... so destroying them is the better strategic choice.

Midway (an island in the middle of the Pacific) isn't a good analogy for Earth (the center of the Confederation). I'll say having carriers present at the Battle of Earth helped their cause somewhat, but the # of number would be totally irrelevant compared to the # of fighters -- which, fighting a battle right by your construction yards, I would think would not be limited by the # of carriers present.

The second point we'll have to agree to disagree. If I'm commanding the Fleet in defending Earth I'm not making plans for "what if we lose."

Again, you're complaining about issues explained in the novel itself. Until Fleet Action no one was fighting the war purely to destroy the other side... using weapons that destroy entire biospheres means you aren't taking slaves/resources/territory/etc. It's just like today: technically, we could destroy MiddleEastCountryOfTheWeek with atomic weapons... but there's a million reasons why we probably never will.

I read it, I just didn't find it convincing.

I don't think Angel is *ever* Dutch *or* French.

(... she's from Belgium in 'Claw Marks', and that's never questioned to the best of my knowledge.)

Fair enough, I just assumed everyone in Belgium spoke Dutch and not French like Angel does all the time, but apparently a lot of them do speak French.
 
sea_monkey said:
I consider the WC3, WC2, WC1 & SMs1&2, and *lightly* S01&2 canon in that order because to me they make the most sense like that. After that, stuff like the books, Privateer, Academy, Armada, the manuals, as far as they don't contradict each other and the "main" games. From what I saw of the movie it seemed like that is best considered a parallel universe.

The manuals have all sorts of mistakes in them, from the ones I mentioned and lots of others including fighter statistics. I notice no one is trying to rationalize Blair being 17 in 2654. You can either go to extreme lengths to rationalize every inconsistency, however ridiculous -- or you can say, "okay, the manual creators made a mistake. I'll pretend they didn't say that."

I think that's the big difference here between me and some of you guys. I would rather pick and choose elements of all the materials that make the most consistent and enjoyable universe rather than try to force contradictory elements (written by different people with entirely different ideas about the games) together in the same universe.

Yes, there are mistakes in manuals. However, they are official material which is either based on the same materials that define the events and stats in the games, or become the materials from which future games' in-game stats are drawn.

It's like saying that Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: DS9 took place in different universes, especially given all the inconsistencies which showed up within even the runs of each series, much less comparing both. Paramount says both series are canon, and Origin said that the manuals and books were canon (as per the note on the back of each novel, stating that the novels were based in the WC Universe).

If the people who created it say it's official, then it's official. If it comes from the materials they used to create the games which you consider 'canon', then those materials are also official. Otherwise, it's an opinion. That's what everyone else has been trying to tell you.

sea_monkey said:
7 Fralthra could take 14 torpedoes. They could take 8 torpedoes and still have have their firepower and fighter capacity left. Can a Hakaga eat 14 torpedoes and still be kicking? If so I'll agree they are an unstoppable superweapon. However I think from the novel it was pretty clear that 4 torpedoes would mess it up pretty bad, let alone 10 more.

If you actually read the novel, you'll note on p. 253 that the barrage of four torpedoes on the first carrier knocked out one or two hangar bays - but that was all the damage it did, due to the armor. Similar hits on the Concordia, the Confederation's most heavily-armored ship class would have destroyed it. That's why Kevin Tolwyn was shocked when he flew by one of those ships at the Battle of Sirius Prime; it literally ate those torpedoes up and was still fighting. Yes, more targets means more torpedoes are needed to destroy them - but even one torpedo would've crippled the Fralthra, making it incapable of acting as a mobile fighter support platform, and possibly even removing its ability to service fighters. She was still flying and fighting, with only one launch bay written off because of a strike that would've flayed any other ship in space.

Between the sorry state of the Confederation fleet at that point, and the apparent invulnerability of the Hakaga-class ships, they were in a tight spot. A fleet with fighters spread out in small numbers among various destroyers and cruisers would only have made things worse. Yes, you'd have the ability to deploy fighters in a lot more places than you had carriers, but you'd also lose a lot of striking power and coordination in the process.

It took the deployment of nuclear mines inside several Hakaga-class supercarriers, using the own ship's armor to contain the effects of the blast and to direct all that force into the ship's own reactors, to stop them. Otherwise, they were just about impossible to hurt - something that could not be said about the far more lightly armored cruisers and destroyers. I don't doubt that they may have been able to take sixteen torps without being destroyed - though it would've resulted in some serious damage to the carrier in question. A similar number of torpedoes, or even half that, would've stopped the Fralthra force, however - and also made it easier to take out the fighter-launching ships, since you've got seven targets to worry about.

And don't forget the money factor - even in war, Confed wasn't made out of it.

sea_monkey said:
And you're still talking about corvettes. Who cares, that is a trifling point. I wasn't arguing corvettes > carriers. I was saying having hangar bays in destroyers and cruisers (which was impossible in WW2), make carriers (NOT fighters) less important in both fleets.

I'm arguing that because I wanted to point out that not every ship had a hangar, or needed one, and that not every ship had the space to house fighters or the need to do so. Your initial statements were that 'every ship had a hangar', which is patently false. You also ignore the fact that supporting fighters means that you end up dedicating a lot of space to them... which is one reason that the full-fledged carriers of the United States Navy are so important to America's power-projection capabilities. Yes, you can make smaller carriers or retrofit cruisers to carry fighters, but then you've stuck with far fewer fighters because the smaller ship just doesn't have the volume to support all the associated equipment and crew.


sea_monkey said:
Ok, but we're starting to go from "Hakagas are super-weapons" to "Hakagas would be really nice to have if you wanted to carry 300 fighters." I'm not saying Hakagas suck. I'm saying they're not that big a deal and basically a somewhat IMHO lame plot device.

The 'Hakaga-class carriers are super weapons' part is perfectly true - they had shielding and armor designed to repel the Confederation's heaviest Mark IV and V torpedoes. It took four of them firing at once to even do damage to one hangar bay... but that's all they did. Even one torpedo would've done serious damage to most carriers, and probably trashed or destroyed most cruisers or destroyers outright. That means those fighters, formerly based on that ship, no longer have a place to refuel or a means to get home... and you've robbed the enemy of those few fighters.

The 'Hakaga-class carriers are good because they carry a lot of fighters' is also true. This is because you've got a LOT of striking power handy, which means you can do more than one thing at a time fairly well, or you could overwhelm enemy defenses without having to pull a lot of ships off a battlefront to deploy that amount of force. A cruiser just doesn't carry enough fighters by itself to prosecute more than a raid or an escort mission - and if you have a fleet of six or seven of them all going for the same mission, that's six or seven targets that are easily taken cheaper destroyers or bomber squadrons. A carrier, on the other hand, is easier to defend and would be able to deploy all those fighters at once, applying the same amount of force. It's also cheaper.

If you've read the novels, and actually read beyond skimming for words like 'Hakaga', 'Blair' and 'torpedo', you'd probably have understood that a long time ago.
 
Of course aside from the armor and sheilding, it had massive anti-starfighter and torpedo batteries. They probably fired dozens of torpedoes at that ship (can't remember I think it was alot) and only four hit, you could proabably take out several Fralthras with that amount of firepower since they have less point defense weapons.
 
Wow, I can see I've missed out on a lot by not having read any of the books- to say the least. Would anyone here be kind enough to provide me with a list of all the WC novels and when they were published? I'd really appreciate it!
 
BigsWickDagger said:
Wow, I can see I've missed out on a lot by not having read any of the books- to say the least. Would anyone here be kind enough to provide me with a list of all the WC novels and when they were published? I'd really appreciate it!

There's the books list on the main site if you're interested in looking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edfilho said:
The novels are REALLY important in WCU. Half or more of the action we've seen is in there.

I'm sure you are right. They are very important and, much to my chagrin, I've missed out on a lot by not having read them. I don't read a lot of Sci-Fi, but some: I really like Arthur C. Clarke's stuff and I've read most of the X-Wing Rogue Squadron series. My first choice is Military History. But, I think the time has come for me to collect the novels and give them a thorough perusing.
 
Wc Novels are kinda easy to follow, there are few of them, compared to the endless books on SW. thankfully, Lucasfilms already stated that ONLY the movies are 100% canon. There are some really weird things in thos books. But WC stuff is really tight with the games. Sure, lots of little pieces of info are different here and there, but the main WC concept is thoroghly preserved.
 
Well, sure. I mean, in my initial example, I picked "100 kills" because that seemed like a ridiculous enough number. Pointing out that this isn't such a ridiculous amount of kills doesn't really make your point, because in Wing Commander we're talking about guys with 1000+ kills serving on carriers full of people with 100+ kills. I just took a look at my WC1 save game and at the end of the Crusade, the Tiger's Claw scoreboard has 1300+ kills on it, not counting Bossman who is dead. Any carriers or Luftwaffe squadrons that racked up 1300+ kills in WW2? Remember this was in a pretty short period of time for the Claw as well, only a few years if that.

So to me, you're faced with two contradictory elements: 1) In WC1, the Claw singlehandedly eliminated 13 fleet carriers worth of fighters in a few years, and the Kilrathi were still kicking and even managed to turn the tide of the war back sometime in the next 10 years. 2) In Forstchen's books, the Kilrathi's edge over Confed in terms of numbers is roughly 1.5 to 1. With Confed having about 10-15 carriers at any given time. Meaning losing 13 carriers in 2 years. would mean basically the total destruction of either fleet.

How you can pretend both are true at the same time is beyond me. My take: it's somewhere in the middle. The games stats are inflated due to crappy AI, and the Kilrathi outnumber Confed by about 5 to 1.

I don't think you're looking at both sides of the issue... yes, the eight pilots in the original Wing Commander score a lot of kills. So do, however, the Kilrathi aces in the same game - there's a Krant pilot with 99 kills, a Salthi pilot with 64 kills, a Jalthi pilot with 75... and Secret Missions II is full of Drakhai pilots who've each scored at least eight kills to get where they are.

You're taking eight out of a hundred and four pilots (/crews) on Confed's most acclaimed ship and trying to say that they're the rule rather than the exception... but everything we've ever seen indicates that they're special. Maniac and Blair are specifically singled out in Prophecy as having kill scores that are far and away above even the normal 'ace' level... Iceman, who fictionally ends up with 347 kills, is considered one of Confed's best pilots. It's not a case of "these eight guys represent everyone in the fleet" by any stretch of the imagination.

There's plenty of situations where the Kilrathi outgun the Confeds. Heck, there's two in the WC3 manual alone - a Sorthak that takes out eighteen Confed ships and a Strakha that destroys five fighters at once. And for every hugely victorious Tiger's Claw there's one (or two or three) TCS Exeter's blown out of space.

To return to World War II, superior technology frequently generates a superior kill ratio without saying anything for the total number of aircraft in service. Consider the famous 19-to-1 ratio of the F6F Hellcat. By the same logic you are applying to Wing Commander Japanese aircraft must have outnumbered American fighters by some vast amount... when in reality, just the opposite ended up being true.

(This is, of course, all treating 1,300 as a serious number instead of as what it is - a randomly generated number influenced by your success or failure in the game).

(Speaking of inflating, you've gone from claiming that the Kilrathi outnumber Confed by 3 to 1 at the beginning of the debate to 5 to 1 now... what changed?)

In reference to your second point, I don't see how 1,300 fighters equates to 13 fleet carriers... the vast majority of the things we shoot down in the original Wing Commander are probably ground-based or cruiser-based spacecraft... and the Kilrathi do the same to us when we're on the offensive (heck, we never even *see* a carrier).

Still looks an awful lot like a Fralthra to me. Has those six wings, the "nose" looks different ... but I don't see a flight deck anywhere.

The Fralthra is a large singular 'cone' of a ship with wings at the very end. Its engine nacelles attach directly to its body rather than at the end of the wings:

wc2fralthra.jpg


Thrakhath's dreadnought is more like the Ralatha. It's an oval at the front, a strut and then a rear hull... and the engine nacelles are at the end of each wing. It differs from the Ralatha in that it has a flight deck in the front. Here's some pictures of the two:

Thrakhath's Dreadnought:

thrakship1.jpg


Ralatha Destroyer:

thrakship3.jpg


Midway (an island in the middle of the Pacific) isn't a good analogy for Earth (the center of the Confederation). I'll say having carriers present at the Battle of Earth helped their cause somewhat, but the # of number would be totally irrelevant compared to the # of fighters -- which, fighting a battle right by your construction yards, I would think would not be limited by the # of carriers present.

Well, it's a good analogy in that it's literally what Fleet Action is about. :) Like most of the WC novels (and most military sci fi), it's "take real battle, put sci fi over it". End Run is the Doolittle Raid, Action Stations is Pearl Harbor... and Fleet Action is Coral Sea and Midway.

I don't really see the issue here, though... the novel specifically states that the amount of fighters isn't limited by the carriers at the Battle of Earth (like it is at Sirius) - there's plenty of talk about how pilots will be flying from the bases on the inner worlds and from the training schools and what-not.

Fair enough, I just assumed everyone in Belgium spoke Dutch and not French like Angel does all the time, but apparently a lot of them do speak French.

Roughly half the population speaks French - it's one of three official languages. Brussels, where Angel is from, is the capital of the French-speaking portion of Belgium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If anyone is interested in locating any of the novels I found all of them on Amazon.com yesterday. I had to buy only one of them used. Some cost as little as .80 cents new, the rest were around $3.00-$5.00. Heck, shipping cost almost as much as the books. :rolleyes:
 
I don't think you're looking at both sides of the issue... yes, the eight pilots in the original Wing Commander score a lot of kills. So do, however, the Kilrathi aces in the same game - there's a Krant pilot with 99 kills, a Salthi pilot with 64 kills, a Jalthi pilot with 75... and Secret Missions II is full of Drakhai pilots who've each scored at least eight kills to get where they are.

I don't think that is incompatible with my scenario. SOMEONE has to be killing Confed pilots. My take is this: in the Confed fleet, 20% of the pilots do 80% of the killing. In the Kilrathi, it is something like 5% do 95%. They have a core of highly skilled, highly talented pilots who are the core of the Kilrathi fleet. Due to their sheer amount of overpopulation, and a culture demanding that warriors prove themselves in battle, much of the rest of their fighter force is made up of young, inexperienced rookies flying cheap, hastily constructed fighters. This results in a high rate of attrition with a handful of extremely successful Kilrathi pilots.

To return to World War II, superior technology frequently generates a superior kill ratio without saying anything for the total number of aircraft in service. Consider the famous 19-to-1 ratio of the F6F Hellcat. By the same logic you are applying to Wing Commander Japanese aircraft must have outnumbered American fighters by some vast amount... when in reality, just the opposite ended up being true.

Yeah, but Japan lost the war in a few years. By comparison the Kilrathi war was a stalemate for decades. If Confed was maintaining a kill-ratio much greater than the relative numbers advantage the Kilrathi held, they would have won the war fairly quickly.

I actually kind of wrote a little timeline for WC based on my own interpretation. The way I figured it is that, the Vega Campaign and the survey of the data obtained from the wreckage of the Venice starbase revealed to Confed Tactical what they had expected all along -- that the Kilrathi outnumbered Confed greatly and that this would only get worse due to the size of the Empire and the sheer amount of population pressure (they're cats after all, they have like 8 kids in a go).

An controversial intelligence report at the highest level of classification, read only by the very top military officers, reveals that military simulation and wargaming based on the data obtained reveals that Confed has less than a 10% chance of winning a war of attrition with the Kilrathi, even taking into account the relative technological advantages held by Confed (which the intelligence report also saw declining as the war progressed). This spawned a series of secret research projects designed to find an alternative method of victory, which eventually led to the beginning of the Behemoth project in 2659.

This explains why we always seemed outnumbered in the WC games and why the Behemoth was being constructed almost a decade before the Battle of Earth.

(This is, of course, all treating 1,300 as a serious number instead of as what it is - a randomly generated number influenced by your success or failure in the game).

(Speaking of inflating, you've gone from claiming that the Kilrathi outnumber Confed by 3 to 1 at the beginning of the debate to 5 to 1 now... what changed?)

In reference to your second point, I don't see how 1,300 fighters equates to 13 fleet carriers... the vast majority of the things we shoot down in the original Wing Commander are probably ground-based or cruiser-based spacecraft... and the Kilrathi do the same to us when we're on the offensive (heck, we never even *see* a carrier).

I'm just sort of equating 100 fighters = 1 fleet carrier or equivalent. I'm not saying those 13 carriers are *destroyed*, but without fighters they are empty floating boxes. The implication behind Confed having 10-15 fleet carriers is that they have about 1000-1500 fighters aboard these carriers. So with a 1.5 ratio, the Kilrathi would have about 1500-2250 fighters aboard their heavy carriers. So a loss of 1300 fighters would represent the annihilation of half their fighter force aboard these carriers -- a catastrophic loss regardless whether they were ground based, cruiser-based or carrier-based -- inflicted by 7 pilots in less than 3 years. And it doesn't really matter whether the number is 900, 1000, or 1300 either.

I just think it's easier to assume the Kilrathi hold a large numerical advantage such that losing 1000 fighters, the Sivar, and the Vega Sector is bad, real bad. But FAR from beating them. As far as the number, I said *at least* 4 to 1. I waffle on the actual number since there's no way of knowing. In SM2, it feels like it has to be 5 to 1 or greater. In WC2, more like 3 to 1. In WC3, 5 to 1 again.

Thrakhath's dreadnought is more like the Ralatha. It's an oval at the front, a strut and then a rear hull... and the engine nacelles are at the end of each wing. It differs from the Ralatha in that it has a flight deck in the front. Here's some pictures of the two:

Fair enough. From what I could see from watching it fly by real quick it seemed like they were close enough to be considered the same ship.

Well, it's a good analogy in that it's literally what Fleet Action is about. Like most of the WC novels (and most military sci fi), it's "take real battle, put sci fi over it". End Run is the Doolittle Raid, Action Stations is Pearl Harbor... and Fleet Action is Coral Sea and Midway.

I don't really see the issue here, though... the novel specifically states that the amount of fighters isn't limited by the carriers at the Battle of Earth (like it is at Sirius) - there's plenty of talk about how pilots will be flying from the bases on the inner worlds and from the training schools and what-not.

This was just an off-shoot of my argument that Forstchen places too much importance on carriers (because cruisers and destroyers can carry them too unlike in WW2). I just got the picture when I read Fleet Action that they were real concerned about how many carriers they had where as I saw it, it wouldn't really make a difference.

I have no idea regarding the similarities behind Midway and the Battle of Earth. I was just arguing the base at Midway isn't equivalent to Earth. I would think the various orbital and planetary bases in the Sol System would make fine staging points for a defense. I have no idea what Midway's was like.
 
If you actually read the novel, you'll note on p. 253 that the barrage of four torpedoes on the first carrier knocked out one or two hangar bays - but that was all the damage it did, due to the armor ... A similar number of torpedoes, or even half that, would've stopped the Fralthra force, however - and also made it easier to take out the fighter-launching ships, since you've got seven targets to worry about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that carrier did not continue on to the Battle of Earth due to the damage it took. Four torpedoes messed it up pretty bad, I don't think it's fair to say it could have taken 10 more based on what was in the book. But four torpedoes will mess up a Hakaga but only take down two Fralthra, leaving five more perfectly functional ships.

A carrier, on the other hand, is easier to defend and would be able to deploy all those fighters at once, applying the same amount of force. It's also cheaper.

Easier to defend? A few lucky hits and the ship is crippled. 7-8 ships are much, MUCH easier to defend do to the nature of their being 7-8 of them. All other things being equal any sane commander would rather have multiple small ships as a means of reducing the risk involved. Cheaper? How the heck would you know? Judging by the fact it took so much effort just to build five of them, I'm guessing they're not very cheap at all.

I'm arguing that because I wanted to point out that not every ship had a hangar, or needed one, and that not every ship had the space to house fighters or the need to do so. Your initial statements were that 'every ship had a hangar', which is patently false. You also ignore the fact that supporting fighters means that you end up dedicating a lot of space to them... which is one reason that the full-fledged carriers of the United States Navy are so important to America's power-projection capabilities. Yes, you can make smaller carriers or retrofit cruisers to carry fighters, but then you've stuck with far fewer fighters because the smaller ship just doesn't have the volume to support all the associated equipment and crew.

Yeah, and it makes no difference whatsoever to my argument that corvettes don't have hangar bays. You bring up the US Navy, but that is my whole point. On Earth -- with gravity -- you NEED a massive metal floating runway to carry fighters through the ocean. You CANNOT do it on cruiser or destroyer. In SPACE, you can, hence the Fralthra carrying 40 fighters. Yes, there are tradeoffs involved, but the fact that ships that are not dedicated carriers can carry a lot of fighters, does in fact DIMINISH, NOT ELIMINATE the importance of carriers in space. IMHO, the games seem to indicate the Kilrathi generally prefer to use heavy cruisers/light carriers on the front lines as a means of deploying fighters, using carriers more as mobile headquarters and resupply. This is something I think Forstchen missed, hence the obsession with the # of carriers on both sides at every engagement.
 
If you carefully read AS, Jukaga's father (his name has slipped my mind) talks with others about how much bigger confed is than the empire. He views the empire as an empty shell, while he sees confed as a solid mass, as confed assimilates the races it comes into contact with into the confed. Sometimes I think its better to relate the kilrathi to the russians in WW2, as they tend to throw (in certain situations) huge masses at their objective with the hope of finally breaking through. This isn't always the case, but as it is mentioned in AS, "The terrans seem to value individual lives"

In talking aobut number of hits a hakaga can take, it all depends on when their commander decides enough is enough and pulls his ship out. It seems realistic that a hakaga could take 14 hits and still be remotely functional, no where near 100% but it could still do something I'm sure.

Midway is a small atoll with I think 2 large islands, one has a runway and a base on it.
 
sea_monkey said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that carrier did not continue on to the Battle of Earth due to the damage it took. Four torpedoes messed it up pretty bad, I don't think it's fair to say it could have taken 10 more based on what was in the book. But four torpedoes will mess up a Hakaga but only take down two Fralthra, leaving five more perfectly functional ships.

Actually, those four torpedoes would have completely destroyed two Fralthra, or would have disabled four Fralthra. Assuming 40 craft per cruiser, you've damaged the bases for about 160 fighters, which is about 60 more than the average fleet carrier
carries. That battle at Sirius disabled one ship, the Tarvakh, due to internal fires and having three launch bays shut down. We're not sure if the ship that Tolwyn's strike force hit was the Tarvakh, or if it was the Yu'ba'tuk which had the shield generator issue. However, it's reported that one launch bay on the latter ship was closed, which seems consistent with the gun-camera footage that Lone Wolf had.

And in that one assault, against those heavily armed and armored carriers, the Confederation lost about 260 craft out of 480. Even with the heavy Kilrathi fighter losses, 464 or so fighters, that wasn't a cheap engagement.

The most remarkable thing about those carriers was the fact that they not only carried a lot of craft, but were able to function with damage that would've crippled the flight operations of almost any other ship in space. One torpedo hit, enough to seriously cripple a vessel like a Fraltha, would end its usefulness as a carrier at least until some repairs were made.

sea_monkey said:
Easier to defend? A few lucky hits and the ship is crippled. 7-8 ships are much, MUCH easier to defend do to the nature of their being 7-8 of them. All other things being equal any sane commander would rather have multiple small ships as a means of reducing the risk involved. Cheaper? How the heck would you know? Judging by the fact it took so much effort just to build five of them, I'm guessing they're not very cheap at all.

The reason those carriers were expensive was because of the extra bays and the state of the art technology they employed, especially when it came to shielding and armor. It took at least four hits to do serious damage to one of them, and that one we did see kept fighting. In comparison, one shot was enough to disable the Lexington's ability to launch fighters in WC4, and a relatively small amount of explosives kept Concordia from launching craft in WC2.

And seven targets IS a problem - if you have to worry about the health of each ship, knowing that the loss of one means that three or so squadrons won't have a home to return to, it's an issue. There's a reason that the Midway was constructed in WCP; it was cheaper than building the equivalent number of carriers, and was easier to defend - and its extra size could be put to use powering generators that would feed starbase-sized shields. If you spread out your forces too much, then you don't have effective striking power; at the most, you'll be up to the task of detecting incursions, but not stopping them.

Remember that much of the reason for all the space in the carriers, at the expense of armor and weapons, is because they need that space to service fighters and carry spares. You need room for all that, which means that you're giving up torpedo tubes, larger engines, or generators for extra guns.

sea_monkey said:
Yeah, and it makes no difference whatsoever to my argument that corvettes don't have hangar bays. You bring up the US Navy, but that is my whole point. On Earth -- with gravity -- you NEED a massive metal floating runway to carry fighters through the ocean. You CANNOT do it on cruiser or destroyer. In SPACE, you can, hence the Fralthra carrying 40 fighters. Yes, there are tradeoffs involved, but the fact that ships that are not dedicated carriers can carry a lot of fighters, does in fact DIMINISH, NOT ELIMINATE the importance of carriers in space. IMHO, the games seem to indicate the Kilrathi generally prefer to use heavy cruisers/light carriers on the front lines as a means of deploying fighters, using carriers more as mobile headquarters and resupply. This is something I think Forstchen missed, hence the obsession with the # of carriers on both sides at every engagement.

It does make a difference - you stated that ALL ships needed hangars; but the smaller ones don't necessarily need them, especially as there are other methods of getting to ships that have been detailed in game and novel. It's not the runway that's the issue specifically, though having room to accelerate or decelerate the fighter to zero velocity relative to the carrier is good; it's the space you need for the support equipment, the fighter itself, the parts to keep it running, the fuel to keep it going, the missiles to keep it armed, and the crew that keeps it flying plus a little extra space to keep a few more in case one fighter gets dinged up too much to be easily repaired or is lost in action without killing its pilot.

Cruisers can carry fighters; but at the same time, cruisers are still expensive, heavy units which are needed on the front lines. Carriers can carry more fighters than cruisers can, which makes them useful in battle groups as you can keep a bunch of fighters flying - more than can be launched and served on a cruiser, which means some more flexibility in assigning missions.

Cruisers and destroyers can carry torpedoes, which are the most reliable method by which to kill a ship in the WC universe. However, fighters can also carry them, and these can be built more quickly and cheaply than cruisers or destroyers can be. However, fighters are short-ranged craft; this is why you have carriers which can carry a hundred or more of them, and thus increase the striking power of a fleet without the expense involved in building a lot of cruisers and destroyers. Fighters are less of a loss when they go down - it's one to three people and a fighter/bomber that cost a few million in contrast to a hundred or more people on a destroyer that cost the equivalent of thirty or forty fighters, at least in relative terms.

Yes, you can station fighters on cruisers and destroyers - but at the same time, this means refitting the cruiser or destroyer to carry fighters and their support equipment, which means giving up some of the capabilities that a cruiser or fighter has... and increasing its expense should the craft be lost. When you've got dedicated fighter-support ships, then why should you build more carriers which carry fighters? Yes, we've seen them in game - the Austin and the Gettysburg were cruisers, and they did well in fighter support. However, the Tiger's Claw and the Concordia were the ships that were used for the serious assaults, given that they were a) capable of carry bombers, and b) had the ability to better support fighters.

That's one thing that most cruisers or destroyers just don't have the space to do - and I think that the only cruiser-class ship that ever carried bombers in game was the Cerberus from WC:SO, using the Black Devastators.

Light carriers were built before the war began, and apparently abandoned until the 'disposable' Escort Carrier concept made its return in the 2660's - it's probably due to the size of bombers and the torpedoes they had that made them less desirable than Concordia-class ships. The relatively low price of escort carrier construction due to the missing extras typically found on fleet carriers - lots of gun turrets and armor - were what made Confed begin construction of this class of ship again. By WC3, the class seems to have made a comeback if the Eagle's title of 'one of the newest and most modern escort carriers' is any indication.

Note it's also in Fleet Action that Thrakath notes that it's the Confederation's use of light and escort carriers in raids that began to make a difference on the front lines - carriers had to go back to base, and transports needed cruiser escorts, which meant fewer cruisers could go on raids of their own.
 
And seven targets IS a problem - if you have to worry about the health of each ship, knowing that the loss of one means that three or so squadrons won't have a home to return to, it's an issue.

You know what's better than having 3 layers of armor protecting your 300 fighter super-carrier? Having 1 layer of armor, seperated by 10km of vacuum from the next. The seperate ships reduces risk, if something goes wrong with 1 or 2 the rest keep fighting. A few lucky hits on the Hakaga and you just lost 300 ships. Also I don't really understand why you think the Hakaga could take so many more hits ... not to mix science with WC but I would think once the layers of armor have been breached the next hit is goodbye. But whatever, I'm only willing to debate about a fictional object vs fictional object matchup to a point.

You point out some marginal advantages a Hakaga would have but it still doesn't look like a super-weapon to me.

It does make a difference - you stated that ALL ships needed hangars; but the smaller ones don't necessarily need them, especially as there are other methods of getting to ships that have been detailed in game and novel. It's not the runway that's the issue specifically, though having room to accelerate or decelerate the fighter to zero velocity relative to the carrier is good; it's the space you need for the support equipment, the fighter itself, the parts to keep it running, the fuel to keep it going, the missiles to keep it armed, and the crew that keeps it flying plus a little extra space to keep a few more in case one fighter gets dinged up too much to be easily repaired or is lost in action without killing its pilot.

Cruisers can carry fighters; but at the same time, cruisers are still expensive, heavy units which are needed on the front lines. Carriers can carry more fighters than cruisers can, which makes them useful in battle groups as you can keep a bunch of fighters flying - more than can be launched and served on a cruiser, which means some more flexibility in assigning missions.

Cruisers and destroyers can carry torpedoes, which are the most reliable method by which to kill a ship in the WC universe. However, fighters can also carry them, and these can be built more quickly and cheaply than cruisers or destroyers can be. However, fighters are short-ranged craft; this is why you have carriers which can carry a hundred or more of them, and thus increase the striking power of a fleet without the expense involved in building a lot of cruisers and destroyers. Fighters are less of a loss when they go down - it's one to three people and a fighter/bomber that cost a few million in contrast to a hundred or more people on a destroyer that cost the equivalent of thirty or forty fighters, at least in relative terms.

Yes, you can station fighters on cruisers and destroyers - but at the same time, this means refitting the cruiser or destroyer to carry fighters and their support equipment, which means giving up some of the capabilities that a cruiser or fighter has... and increasing its expense should the craft be lost. When you've got dedicated fighter-support ships, then why should you build more carriers which carry fighters? Yes, we've seen them in game - the Austin and the Gettysburg were cruisers, and they did well in fighter support. However, the Tiger's Claw and the Concordia were the ships that were used for the serious assaults, given that they were a) capable of carry bombers, and b) had the ability to better support fighters.

That's one thing that most cruisers or destroyers just don't have the space to do - and I think that the only cruiser-class ship that ever carried bombers in game was the Cerberus from WC:SO, using the Black Devastators.

Light carriers were built before the war began, and apparently abandoned until the 'disposable' Escort Carrier concept made its return in the 2660's - it's probably due to the size of bombers and the torpedoes they had that made them less desirable than Concordia-class ships. The relatively low price of escort carrier construction due to the missing extras typically found on fleet carriers - lots of gun turrets and armor - were what made Confed begin construction of this class of ship again. By WC3, the class seems to have made a comeback if the Eagle's title of 'one of the newest and most modern escort carriers' is any indication.

Note it's also in Fleet Action that Thrakath notes that it's the Confederation's use of light and escort carriers in raids that began to make a difference on the front lines - carriers had to go back to base, and transports needed cruiser escorts, which meant fewer cruisers could go on raids of their own.

So ... what you're saying is that the presence of destroyers and cruisers which can carry fighters, diminishes but not eliminates the importance of carriers in WC? Gee that sound's familiar, I wonder who said that? :)
 
What he's trying to say is that fighter carrying cruisers and destroyers diminishes their capacity to act like destroyers and cruisers, whose job it is to guard more important vessels and also to destroy enemy vessels. By carrying fighters it diminishes their ability to do this because of the amount of space a fighter wing takes up, and to point out again most of the wings on cruisers and destroyers are fighter wings, not strike wings, so they are only good for protection or scouting ahead for ships that the heavier ship can engage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top