Anyone not like the books?

[Bandit LOAF]

LOL, what?

Basic logic... like they'd teach in a basic logic class. Here's a good interweb tutorial about it. Logical reasoning is the basis for any sort of debate, boiled down into semi-mathematical equations. For proving that something doesn't exist:

Modus Tollens (MT) says that if p=>q is true and q is false (not true), then p must be false. MT is essentially equivalent to the Law of indirect Reasoning (below) and is the basis for proof by contradiction.

To roughly apply to your earlier 'example', if Santa Clause Exists (p) Reindeer must be able to fly (q). Since reindeer are not able to fly (~q), then Santa Clause does not exist (~p).

(I apologize in advance for disappointing LeHah with this news.)

No there really isn't. The fact that no one has ever seen a unicorn doesn't mean there isn't one hiding behind a tree somewhere. Point is if you want to say there's a unicorn, it's your job to prove there is one.

Given the original claim is your own (the facts in the books are not valid), it would seem to be ultimately up to you to provide any evidence - rather than to simply claim that since there's no evidence against you other than that which you disregard that you must be right.

You didn't understand what I said. The Tiger's Claw scoreboard goes from 200 to 1300 in one year, so that's 1100 kills in one year. The 800 kills by Kilrathi aces, however, have been accumulated since the beginning of the war, or about 40/year on average. Nothing spectacular there.

Sure, that makes sense - the ace killscores don't factor in any of the recent action in the Vega Sector. They can really only be compared to the available data which covers the same 'pre-WC1' period... the "pre game" Tiger's Claw killboard (which, unlike the '1300' number is not randomly generated). So, what's the damage? Every Kilrathi ace has a killscore 1.5 to 2 times as high as those of the Tiger's Claw aces. Apply your math.

Intro Killboard:
Iceman 28 43
Bossman 25 37
Paladin 42 34
Hunter 25 32
Knight 18 23
Angel 22 20
Spirit 11 14
Maniac 5 6

Assuming the quote from Privateer is correct, that Confed is in fact losing *hundreds* of ships a day, then that's a *minimum* of 36,425 a year. Which would imply that *at least* 36,425 ships/fighters are being produced a year. I guess I'm wondering then how come in the books Confed could only scramble a few hundred for Sirius and Earth then? (And these were mostly carrier-based as well.) I mean if fighters number on the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, I would hope SOME of this vast armada would be stationed in these systems.

Sure, we see home defense squadrons from Earth and various space stations (as well as training schools and civilian airfields) fighting in the Battle of Terra. We also see the carriers replenishing their supply of lost fighters from these sources.

That said, having 100,000 fighters spread over 400 systems isn't the same thing as being able to have 100,000 at any place whenever you want.

Why not?

LACK OF CARRIERS.

Second, since the books are quite explicit on the number of carriers (we're talking around 10-25 on both sides), that implies that the total carrier fighter force of around 1000-2500 fighters turns over completely (gets eradicated) AT LEAST every 26 days. Or that the total carrier fighter force is less than 7% of total fighters.

Sure, that makes sense. As I've stated all along, the vast majority of fighters will be serving with HD units, ISS units, destroyer half-squadrons, etc.

Last, you are not addressing the fact that it makes no sense to building tens (hundreds?) of thousands of fighters which will never see action until they're obsolete, while you have a shortage of capital ships and/or pilots to carry/fly them. It's a waste of energy, resources, labor, and time. They would divert resources from making fighters to making capital ships.

If you have ten carriers to defend 300 colonies and to conduct any offensive operations, it makes absolute sense to station fighters at bases on these colonies. Hell, we see this even in the few games you consider 'real' - Blair is part of an ISS outfit at the start of WC2. When your planet is a huge asset (shipyards, mines, civilians, etc.) that can be wiped out by an enemy destroyer squadron it absolutely stands to reason that units will be stationed to defend it.

World War II example: the Germans never bombed the United States - but the East Coast was criss-crossed with reserve fighter squadrons ready should such an attack ever be launched. Sure, these fighters were "wasted" in that they weren't on the front lines... but the fact that they were there to prevent any possible attack was equally important.

Wing Commander example: in Armada (yay) you have a single carrier... when it moves somewhere other colonies are left defenseless. So you build a fortress, which keeps a sqsuadron of fighters local to defend the base. It's just common sense.

So, what you're saying is that destroyers/cruisers can take on some of the roles a carrier played in WW2, just generally not strike missions? Gee that sounds familiar again.

By the way, in addition to the fact that we see Fralthra being guarded by Gothri in SO1 (which strongly implies the Fralthra carried them), and that we see Grikaths all over the place with no carrier in sight, the Gettysburg in SO1 also is testing out the Crossbow bomber. So they can carry bombers just fine.

The Gothri part doesn't hold water. Not only are we told that Gothri are jump capable, but we're told that there are carriers in the system in SO1. And we're told that the Fralthra are preparing to strike Olympus Station. To assume that because they're together in such a situation would be like assuming that any ship we've ever escorted to do anything in any WC game is our home base.

The Crossbow bomber part is a half truth - we're specifically told that the normal complement of the Gettysburg is Ferrets and Epees in the same dialogue. They just have a pair (or a single, in the losing endgame) of Crossbows that are being tested. (Presumably this is the *purpose* of the Crossbow - a bomber smaller than the Broadsword to be carried on escort carriers... but I digress.)

The numbers came out that way because I was extremely generous with the probabilities. If 10% of 20 bombers are needed to down a cruiser (with an equivalent amount of fighter coverage), but only 7% of 60 bombers are needed to down a heavy carrier, you would think the probability of destroying a carrier would be higher than a cruiser.

When has this ever been true, though? 10% of 20 bombers to destroy a cruiser is a hugely inflated number compared to anything we've ever seen or heard in Wing Commander.

Maybe not, but there does seem to be a correlation between the number of "carriers" we hear about and Fralthra we see (SO1). Whereas we never see a Snakeir. Maybe the strike failed against the Fralthra in Tesla?

Eh, not really - there's a clear distinction made between references to carriers and references to cruisers (which both show up in the SO1 dialogue). "A Rigakh cruiser made it past the defensive forces on the Ghorah Khar-Rarkath border..." versus "A huge Kilrathi fleet is moving insystem...five carrier groups...".

Snakeir are from SM2, not WC2 - there's no in-game WC2 carrier model.

The first three games I consider canon, minus SO1&2 which I take very lightly (a little too cartoonish for my taste). The next two games are pretty typical sequels -- more of everything except making sense. I pretty much ignore them, so I really don't care what happens in those games.

Surprisingly, I agree with you with regards to the importance of the later games... but not really with regards to what is and isn't 'canon'. It's a) not a fans place to determine this and b) not something that it makes sense to self determine. If you decide that everything you don't like isn't real, then you're going to just be further disappointed by future quality products.

(Seriously, though, weren't you just chastizing the novels for not taking SO1 seriously? And now it's too cartoonish? That seems like a bit of a contradiction.)

I feel like I'm watching Ping Pong.

You're certainly welcome to join the debate... failing that, internet disaffection isn't particularly interesting.

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the greater offensive potential of 7 Fralthra vs 1 Hakaga.

Sure - that's what Fralthra were designed to do... and it's the thing they're good at. You don't fight a carrier like a ship of the line. (Defensively, the Hakaga is better armed than seven Fralthra - that's worth noting.)

There is a theoretically equal amount of striking power between the two forces

No, there isn't - because cruisers don't carry bombers.

I think everyone is getting lost in dogma at the moment. sea_monkey is making some valid points, mainly that the Hakaga is not a doomsday superweapon that cannot be countered. And indeed, he has been proven right BY THE BOOKS WHICH HE HIMSELF ESCHEWS. After all, Earth was saved (bar just a few weapons of mass destruction) and the Hakagas were defeated and Confed won the war.

That's not his claim, though - he says that the books should be ignored because they do things like make carriers look 'too important'. His claim is that the Kilrathi would never have built the Hakagas in the first place, which is weird and wrong.

But, by pointing out this basic flaw in the books, everyone seems to feel the need to rip him apart for making the supposition that carriers aren't the be-all end-all of space warfare. Just because something is canon doesn't mean you have to assume he's wrong for having ideas that are as yet unproveable. Indeed, to follow canon and logic, all he's suggesting is that Confed won and the Kilrathi lost because Confed concentrated on small, fast, expendable vessels (escort carriers), and the Kilrathi built gigantic monstrosities that were too large to use. (Leaving out a certain Colonel Blair and a T-bomb, of course) The Kilrathi simply put too many of their eggs into one basket. The folly of this was also seen with the Behemoth.

Again, that would be a sensible claim to make - it's not what he's saying at all. The debate isn't "it's wrong that the Kilrathi did this" it's "it's impossible for the Kilrathi to have done this, the books can't have happened".

 

[Ijuin]

Issues of power vs. cost aside, a major part of the supercarrier approach is psychological. Seeing a massive vessel that is individually much more powerful than any other type in the fleet is very good for the owning sides morale, and equally bad for the opposing side's morale. It's like sending in a single tank with a company of infantry--sure, the one big vehicle has less total power than the many lesser units combined, but it strikes fear in the hearts of opponents, especially if they do not have something equally imposing on their own side.

One might equally ask why, instead of building the Behemoth, Confed did not build a whole fleet of smaller such ships which when firing together would be capable of destroying a planet. Certainly such an approach would have made it possible to keep the planet-killing ability even if a portion of the fleet was killed en route to its target, but there is a psychological difference between having a planet destroyed by a massive fleet, and having it annihilated in a single shot by one vessel.

As such, the power of the Hakaga does not come from it having more firepower than an equal financial/labor investment in lesser vessels would produce, but rather from the psychological value. Enemy forces will look at it and say "Damn, that's one big Motherf***er" and stare at it in fear and awe as a number of their own forces that would annihilate a regular carrier hardly affect it at all, despite the fact that a larger force still could have killed it as dead as any run-of-the-mill ship.

 

[LeHah]

(I apologize in advance for disappointing LeHah with this news.)

Just means I can stop sitting on my roof with a shotgun.

 

[Ijuin]

Sure, we see home defense squadrons from Earth and various space stations (as well as training schools and civilian airfields) fighting in the Battle of Terra. We also see the carriers replenishing their supply of lost fighters from these sources.

That said, having 100,000 fighters spread over 400 systems isn't the same thing as being able to have 100,000 at any place whenever you want.

Why not?

LACK OF CARRIERS.



Sure, that makes sense. As I've stated all along, the vast majority of fighters will be serving with HD units, ISS units, destroyer half-squadrons, etc.

Think about this: The United States of America has only a few hundred fighters aboard its ten Nimitz class carriers, yet has over ten thousand fighters located at stationary bases across the globe. The idea that only a small fraction of Confed's total fighters are aboard carriers is quite sensible in that context. Now, how long would it take for the United States to concentrate a large number of fighters in one place? Note that the USA has an advantage compared to Confed in this context--on Earth, the farthest reachable location is only two days' flight away, whereas it can take weeks to cross Confed space from one end to the other.

In sum, there are plenty of fighters to garrison each individual system--enough that any valuable system would normally be able to hold off at least one attacking carrier group without needing to call for Fleet support, but even jump-capable fighters can only go one or two systems away from their bases. It does you no good to have all your fighters in Perry system when the Kilrathi are hitting Blocade Point Charlie.

The Crossbow bomber part is a half truth - we're specifically told that the normal complement of the Gettysburg is Ferrets and Epees in the same dialogue. They just have a pair (or a single, in the losing endgame) of Crossbows that are being tested. (Presumably this is the *purpose* of the Crossbow - a bomber smaller than the Broadsword to be carried on escort carriers... but I digress.)

Four, I thought, since you also had two wingmen flying Crossbows when you go to take out the supply depot.

When has this ever been true, though? 10% of 20 bombers to destroy a cruiser is a hugely inflated number compared to anything we've ever seen or heard in Wing Commander.

10% of 20 bombers is two bombers, and I can believe that the ordnance from at least two bombers would be necessary to kill a cruiser. The "real" inflation here is the assumption that up to 90% of the bombers would be killed without scoring a torpedo hit--this would imply that the defenders have an unusually good anti-bomber defense.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Four, I thought, since you also had two wingmen flying Crossbows when you go to take out the supply depot.

Err... I guess it should be *three* total (one for you, two for your wingmen).

10% of 20 bombers is two bombers, and I can believe that the ordnance from at least two bombers would be necessary to kill a cruiser. The "real" inflation here is the assumption that up to 90% of the bombers would be killed without scoring a torpedo hit--this would imply that the defenders have an unusually good anti-bomber defense.

Which is true in the case of a Hakaga - but not for a Fralthra. We routinely attack and destroy them with four fighter wings in Wing Commander II.

 

[SabreAce]

Err... I guess it should be *three* total (one for you, two for your wingmen).

I believe it would be four, though, as Commodore Cain was sent to Olympus Station in a Crossbow (per the briefing Angel gives Blair, the first time Blair hears of the Crossbow's existence).

Angel: Yes. Confed High Command is already planning the court-martial for the Commander, who was released with his officers in a Crossbow bomber, and returned to Olympus Station two weeks ago.
Maverick: A Crossbow? I’ve never heard of that bomber.
Angel: It’s very new, an improvement on the Broadsword technology. The Gettysburg was testing the prototypes.

EDIT: Also, in the losing track of the Rigel system, Tolwyn mentions that a wing of Crossbows arrives at the Concordia with the survivors of the Gettysburg's destruction. Then, in the mission, there are 6 Crossbows (according to the CIC's guide). If there were only a couple Crossbows on the Gettysburg, where'd the rest of them come from?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Zounds, you're right - I didn't think that through.

 

[Haesslich]

Which is true in the case of a Hakaga - but not for a Fralthra. We routinely attack and destroy them with four fighter wings in Wing Commander II.

Shouldn't that be 'four fighters'? Though the last mission of SO1, which sea_monkey talked about here, had just you and your wingman take out the Fralthra and nine Gothri with just Sabres.

Killing carriers, on the other hand, seemed to require full wing-sized strikes and capship support, IIRC, unless you've stripped them of their fighter defenses.

Again, the main reason you have carriers is because they are effectively 'floating bases' and thus can provide support and transport for more fighters than cruisers can typically carry. They're never meant to go right into battle with the enemy capships - that's what cruisers and destroyers are for. They're also relatively easier to defend, given that it's a) one target to keep track of for the defending pilots, and b) unlike the cruisers that have been mentioned as possible staging points for fighters tend to have more anti-fighter defenses. They're awful against capships in direct combat, but they're never meant to fight like that - they're floating docks and transports for their strike craft. The Concordia and the Kilrathi Dreadnoughts are probably the main exceptions to this rule - they're equipped with heavy capship weapons or planetary-siege weapons on top of their fighter complements, and have enough armor to survive close combat.

There are cruisers which carry fighters - but they're useful only in a limited set of circumstances, and are too expensive to risk in the way you'd normally risk a normal cruiser or destroyer. They carry enough fighters to cover themselves and a few transports, but they don't usually pack the same sort of heavy firepower or staying power that a carrier is expected to; remember that, throughout the games, it's not the cruisers which are expected to do the deep strike missions. Most cruisers can't carry enough bombers to make it worth the effort, due to volume and storage limitations - you might be able to fit a bomber squadron onto the decks, but forget about carrying any escorts for the bombers.

As a practical matter, you'd better served using even a light carrier for the job - at the very least, it's already designed to carry fighters, so you've got space available for the bombers and their munitions. Remember that cruisers are supposed to be fast and well-armored and armed; that'll take up a lot of internal volume, which means that you're going to have fewer fighters or smaller ones on-ship.

 

[sea_monkey]

I think everyone is getting lost in dogma at the moment. sea_monkey is making some valid points, mainly that the Hakaga is not a doomsday superweapon that cannot be countered.

How dare you question the Church of Wing Commander?!?

Blair died for our sins you ungrateful asshole.

Per my understanding, the Tiger's Claw is something of a special case, since it operates semi-independently and behind enemy lines.

That's the thing though. It doesn't really matter. Unless Kilrah tens of thousands of fighters sitting around, losing 1000+ in a year by only seven pilots would be a devastating loss.

No there really isn't. The fact that no one has ever seen a unicorn doesn't mean there isn't one hiding behind a tree somewhere. Point is if you want to say there's a unicorn, it's your job to prove there is one.

Given the original claim is your own (the facts in the books are not valid), it would seem to be ultimately up to you to provide any evidence - rather than to simply claim that since there's no evidence against you other than that which you disregard that you must be right.

First of all, the original claim on this mini-thread actually came from you when you asked me to prove that there WASN'T a massive number of excess fighters sitting around in both fleets (prove a negative), which is impossible and I pointed it out. That said now that I think about it, I would argue that the fact that you get chewed out when you eject -- even if it's a lot less than once a month -- would indicate fighters are a big deal.

Second, I'm not claiming the books are not "valid." I said I don't like parts of them, explained why, and was wondering if anyone had the same thoughts. I personally don't consider them "strictly cannon" but I could really give a shit if anyone else does or not. I actually like the basic idea behind escort carriers, Vukar Tag, the Hakaga, and the Battle of Earth. I just don't like a lot of the details (and the characters, for that matter.)

Last, no, you cannot prove a negative, and that's basic logic.

To roughly apply to your earlier 'example', if Santa Clause Exists (p) Reindeer must be able to fly (q). Since reindeer are not able to fly (~q), then Santa Clause does not exist (~p).

PROVE no reindeer can fly!

Surprisingly, I agree with you with regards to the importance of the later games... but not really with regards to what is and isn't 'canon'.

It's a) not a fans place to determine this and b) not something that it makes sense to self determine. If you decide that everything you don't like isn't real,

I couldn't disagree more. The outcome of the games are different depending on how you played it -- what missions you did, who survived/died, what you said and ultimately what the endings were. The fan's place IS to determine all of this. And in the games/books, the universe isn't really fleshed out that well (and is often contradictory). So it's up to the imagination of the player to make sense of everything. So I would say the fan plays a very important role. I guess there are some people who really care about the "official" explanation for how Klingons grew mountain ranges on their heads right before Star Trek III, but I'm not one of them.

then you're going to just be further disappointed by future quality products.

Doesn't look there's going to be too many more quality products. But I agree with this to a point -- but this is more a result of the direction Origin took than anything else. Had, after the Kilrathi War, Origin decided to take the Wing Commander series in a more "spinoff" direction like in Privateer -- sort of like Grand Theft Auto where the different plots of games don't affect each other -- it wouldn't be necessary to construct an "official" timeline to tell a story.

Sure, that makes sense - the ace killscores don't factor in any of the recent action in the Vega Sector. They can really only be compared to the available data which covers the same 'pre-WC1' period... the "pre game" Tiger's Claw killboard (which, unlike the '1300' number is not randomly generated). So, what's the damage? Every Kilrathi ace has a killscore 1.5 to 2 times as high as those of the Tiger's Claw aces. Apply your math.

Actually I believe the crewmembers on the Claw rattle off these guys' kill scores right before they die so I think it's safe to assume those are their current scores. Angel has a nose for detail, I trust her Regardless, they all die while the TC pilots go on to keep killing.

(Seriously, though, weren't you just chastizing the novels for not taking SO1 seriously? And now it's too cartoonish? That seems like a bit of a contradiction.)

I just thought it was funny that Forstchen has Kilrah down for 20 Fralthra when 7 of them were destroyed in SO1 alone, let alone WC2 and SO2.

That said, having 100,000 fighters spread over 400 systems isn't the same thing as being able to have 100,000 at any place whenever you want.

Why not?

LACK OF CARRIERS.

Ok, so your *theory* is that Confed and Kilrah are too stupid to divert resources (energy/metal/labor) from their fighter building facilities to capital ship building facilities, because they'd rather build up massive stockpiles of fighters that will never be used and never be there when you need them (Earth). Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

The Gothri part doesn't hold water. Not only are we told that Gothri are jump capable, but we're told that there are carriers in the system in SO1. And we're told that the Fralthra are preparing to strike Olympus Station. To assume that because they're together in such a situation would be like assuming that any ship we've ever escorted to do anything in any WC game is our home base.

Those "carriers" are probably the Fralthra. Edmunds says three carrier groups attacked yesterday and two are attacking now. Then Hobbes says, "two fighters against Fralthra and their fighters?" The only way that makes sense if they were referring to a Fralthra as a carrier.

That's not his claim, though - he says that the books should be ignored because they do things like make carriers look 'too important'. His claim is that the Kilrathi would never have built the Hakagas in the first place, which is weird and wrong.

That's not my claim either though -- I never said any of that. I said I don't like the books because of X,Y,Z, of which what you're saying is at best a gross exaggeration. I do like the idea of Hakagas, and they WERE in WC3 to an extent, so I would never say Kilrah wouldn't have built them. But because they were huge, ego-swelling ships, not because they were some sort of super-weapon that would be so much more effective than an equivalent number of smaller ships. Confed should NOT have been preoccupied with knocking these out at the Battle of Earth because that would be like, if some guys were breaking into your house, sneaking outside and blowing up their car while they were messing up your house. Pointless.

10% of 20 bombers is two bombers, and I can believe that the ordnance from at least two bombers would be necessary to kill a cruiser. The "real" inflation here is the assumption that up to 90% of the bombers would be killed without scoring a torpedo hit--this would imply that the defenders have an unusually good anti-bomber defense.

We're giving each cruiser it's 40 fighter complement to defend against a strike of 20 fighters and 20 bombers though. With one fighter free for each bomber and a 30 second lock time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Regardless the %s are just arbitrary numbers which I used to show that the odds of blowing up 3 ships is much less than 1 ship.

 

[Dundradal]

One thing I think you have not mentioned in all your arguments is the actual population of each side. Talking about a 1000 fighters when you have a population in the trillions is not the same thing as thinking about it in current terms, which I think you might be in without knowing.

Each side occupies probably thousands of planets and bases in hundreds of systems. The inner worlds of the confederation are most likely very overpopulated (just curious if we know the population of Earth LOAF?).

Kilrah is also the center of kilrathi culture, as such billions of kats are on that one rock alone, although they do not colonize as in depth as the confederation, they nonetheless still have a vast population.

Frathla are in the time of wc1 light carriers. It is probably safe to assume that the kilrathi have specifically designed heavy carriers, as has been mentioned before, just because we don't see them in all our encounters does not mean they don't exist. I would suggest evidence in AS as an example, but since your lack of faith in the books is the subject of the thread, I doubt such examples would help. The kats have other heavy carriers. There are many examples in the novels and the games...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

How dare you question the Church of Wing Commander?!?

Blair died for our sins you ungrateful asshole.

Help, help, I'm being oppressed.

Please. No one's treated you with anything but respect in this thread - even when you've started ranting about how in your amazing fanfic universe (consisting of WC1, WC2 and part of whichever manual supports your claim at the time) Confed discovered that you were right because they found space station debris. We've even treated it like a serious debate after you've completely ignored everyones responses over and over. Freaking ugh.

You know at the start of the thread how everyone was all "you should be mean to the kook" and I shot them down because I thought you were somehow serious? I even yelled at Chris, for crids sake. Okay, I'll admit it: I was wrong. I was really, really wrong.

First of all, the original claim on this mini-thread actually came from you when you asked me to prove that there WASN'T a massive number of excess fighters sitting around in both fleets (prove a negative), which is impossible and I pointed it out. That said now that I think about it, I would argue that the fact that you get chewed out when you eject -- even if it's a lot less than once a month -- would indicate fighters are a big deal.

The initial claim will always be the post of WHOEVER STARTED THE THREAD. This was *YOU*. In this particular case, your claim was a list of three points numbered one through... two. The burden of proof is *ON YOU* at *ALL TIMES*.

Second, I'm not claiming the books are not "valid." (...) I personally don't consider them "strictly cannon"

ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING

Last, no, you cannot prove a negative, and that's basic logic.

PROVE no reindeer can fly!

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have been asleep when you REWROTE THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC.

I couldn't disagree more. The outcome of the games are different depending on how you played it -- what missions you did, who survived/died, what you said and ultimately what the endings were. The fan's place IS to determine all of this. And in the games/books, the universe isn't really fleshed out that well (and is often contradictory). So it's up to the imagination of the player to make sense of everything. So I would say the fan plays a very important role. I guess there are some people who really care about the "official" explanation for how Klingons grew mountain ranges on their heads right before Star Trek III, but I'm not one of them.

There is no official explanation for how Klingons grew ridges. There are, however, idiots out there who'll rant and rave about how they didn't grow ridges and everything after the original series never happened. They're you.

Actually I believe the crewmembers on the Claw rattle off these guys' kill scores right before they die so I think it's safe to assume those are their current scores. Angel has a nose for detail, I trust her Regardless, they all die while the TC pilots go on to keep killing.

We could compare them to the official killboard circa SM1 if you like, which is provided by WC SM1 SNES. The Kilrathi Aces still outscore the Tiger's Claw.

I just thought it was funny that Forstchen has Kilrah down for 20 Fralthra when 7 of them were destroyed in SO1 alone, let alone WC2 and SO2.

Right, because I'd forgotten that the novels take place before the games and that the number seven is larger than the number twenty. YOU, SIR, *WIN*.

(The novels all take place after those games. Fleet Action also specifically mentions the Concordia's history: In the seven years I've been in command of Concordia we've taken out eight carriers, a score of capital ships, countless fighters and bombers, and fought in nine major fleet actions. Of course, in your universe every ship destroys one other ship and is then destroyed itself.

[{QUOTE]Ok, so your *theory* is that Confed and Kilrah are too stupid to divert resources (energy/metal/labor) from their fighter building facilities to capital ship building facilities, because they'd rather build up massive stockpiles of fighters that will never be used and never be there when you need them (Earth). Sorry, that doesn't work for me.[/QUOTE]

My 'theory' is that having resources spread across 300 star systems isn't the same thing as having them all in one place. And that without building fighters to defend your system in the first place you won't last long enough to build a carrier yard (10 years). It's almost like they established rules for an entire universe and then built their storylines off of those.

Those "carriers" are probably the Fralthra. Edmunds says three carrier groups attacked yesterday and two are attacking now. Then Hobbes says, "two fighters against Fralthra and their fighters?" The only way that makes sense if they were referring to a Fralthra as a carrier.

The carriers aren't the Fralthra. I'm pretty sure we went through this two threads ago. Distinct differencce between cruisers and carriers stated in the SO1 dialogue. The Fralthra are line ships that are directly launching the assault on the station - as in literally flying up next to the station to fire anti-matter guns.

We're giving each cruiser it's 40 fighter complement to defend against a strike of 20 fighters and 20 bombers though. With one fighter free for each bomber and a 30 second lock time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Regardless the %s are just arbitrary numbers which I used to show that the odds of blowing up 3 ships is much less than 1 ship.

Oh, I'm sorry for accusing you of making up numbers specifically to support your claim. I hadn't thought that those numbers might be arbitrary! (ZING!)

 

[LeHah]

This is turning ugly right quick.

To coin the old quote, "I smell an era of blood and prominent banning."

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I'm not going to ban someone for having a dumb opinion, but I'm not going to treat them with respect once they start whining about how oppressed they've been.

 

[LeHah]

I'm sure theres a mathmatical equasion of some type that could show the statistics in which a CZ Member (a) starts to whine (x) and then gets banned (n) because of an overwhelming amount of stupidity/whining/flaming/etc (y).

I can't do jack shit with math, so someone else take a stab at it.

 

[Haesslich]

You know, I had an intelligent post in response to all this, but then I saw the 'Church of Wing Commander' bit and decided to /dev/null it so I could respond in kind.

10% of 20 bombers is two bombers, and I can believe that the ordnance from at least two bombers would be necessary to kill a cruiser. The "real" inflation here is the assumption that up to 90% of the bombers would be killed without scoring a torpedo hit--this would imply that the defenders have an unusually good anti-bomber defense.

We're giving each cruiser it's 40 fighter complement to defend against a strike of 20 fighters and 20 bombers though. With one fighter free for each bomber and a 30 second lock time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Regardless the %s are just arbitrary numbers which I used to show that the odds of blowing up 3 ships is much less than 1 ship.

You know, in the scenario which I'd originally set up, that one carrier COULD concentrate more forces than '20 fighters and 20 bombers' per cruiser - and indeed, it should do that, outside of what forces it has for its own defense screen. This way, you overwhelm the defenders with your numerically superior forces, take fewer losses in the process, and then move onto the next target. This is what the Kilrathi were doing at the Battle of Sirius Prime and the Battle of Earth.

As far as going after the carriers first - if they hadn't gone after them, the fighter and bomber wings off those ships, once they'd had a chance to land and rearm (which they were doing when the Craxtha got hit by Commodore Polowski's suicide mission using a whole destroyer squadron), then they'd have been able to pulverize the remaining fighter forces and then nuke Earth at leisure. Those ships are dangerous because of the reasons others have mentioned before, being floating bases which allow rearming and refueling of strike craft.

The death of Destroyer Squadron Three in battle against the Craxtha and her fighter defenses also illustrates one reason you don't want to put too many fighters on a destroyer or cruiser; they're designed for the mission of escort and direct capship combat, and such battles are often lethal. You lose that ship, and your short-ranged fighters aren't going to have a home to go to, should they survive.

On the other hand, your carrier was designed to NOT mix it up at close ranges, but instead to stay on the fringes and act as a support ship and transport for strike craft. Putting a cruiser out at that range is a waste of resources, given that you've either sacrificed weapons and armor to put fighters on that ship, or else you've got a piddling amount of fighter craft on it... and then you have to keep it out of the way anyhow, so that your fighters have a place to go home to once the battle's over.

 

[Edfilho]

I don't know why you people bother, the guy made up his mind and no amount of logic will sway him.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah... that's generally the case in a debate. I guess there's a few reasons to do it anyway:

* The people *reading* the debate might not have made up their mind. Look how this thread started - the guy ranting about the novels actually introduced a bunch of people to the fact that there *are* novels. And there are a lot more lurkers than there are crazy argument people like you and I... I've come across my own stupid WC Movie debates repeated by other people simply because they watched me make a good case at some point -- and that feels good.

* Argument is like a sword; it's a skill that needs to be sharpened with practice. Silly as the subject may be, debate is an intellectual pursuit that will be useful in more serious arguments. Plus... it's an enjoyable passtime. There's a rush behind making a good point, up until someone makes it personal. And sadly that sort of happened here.

You didn't think I argued with you for all those years at agwc to change your mind, did you ?

 

[sea_monkey]

Help, help, I'm being oppressed.

...

You know at the start of the thread how everyone was all "you should be mean to the kook" and I shot them down because I thought you were somehow serious? I even yelled at Chris, for crids sake. Okay, I'll admit it: I was wrong. I was really, really wrong.

Relax, it was a JOKE. A "funny", if you will.

Where you get the "oppressed" or "whining" bit from is beyond me.

The initial claim will always be the post of WHOEVER STARTED THE THREAD. This was *YOU*. In this particular case, your claim was a list of three points numbered one through... two. The burden of proof is *ON YOU* at *ALL TIMES*.

Um, no. When you see the exchange in it's entirety, it's clear that this line of discussion started when you asked me to prove a negative:

SM: Losing 1300 fighters can only not be catastrophic if you have a surplus of fighters (well over 5000+), whether they are carrier or ground-based.

LOAF: ... and where's the indication that there's *not* a large base of fighters?

SM: I don't know. Where's the indication there's *not* a Santa Claus? It's not possible to prove something doesn't exist.

LOAF: Of course you can prove something doesn't exist - it's basic Freshman logic... the Law of Indirect Reasoning.

Hesselich: There's a difference between proving a negative (impossible to do) and proving that something doesn't exist when either no evidence to support the claim - or there's contrary data which argues against its existence.

SM: No there really isn't. The fact that no one has ever seen a unicorn doesn't mean there isn't one hiding behind a tree somewhere. Point is if you want to say there's a unicorn, it's your job to prove there is one.

LOAF: Given the original claim is your own (the facts in the books are not valid), it would seem to be ultimately up to you to provide any evidence - rather than to simply claim that since there's no evidence against you other than that which you disregard that you must be right.

At the end there you just tried to pawn the whole "proving a negative" on me where in fact you were the one who did it.

SM: Last, no, you cannot prove a negative, and that's basic logic.

LOAF: Oh, I'm sorry, I must have been asleep when you REWROTE THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC.

LOL. Ok. Well if you insist:

Logic: A Rough Guide -- http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/logicguide.htm

(Under Logical Fallacies):

"Appeal to Ignorance (Proving a Negative): an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong; this shifts the burden of proof to the audience or opponent rather than the claimant"

Note the Appeal to Ignorance part.

The carriers aren't the Fralthra. I'm pretty sure we went through this two threads ago. Distinct differencce between cruisers and carriers stated in the SO1 dialogue. The Fralthra are line ships that are directly launching the assault on the station - as in literally flying up next to the station to fire anti-matter guns.

So how does that dialogue with Hobbes make ANY sense at all? There's two carrier groups attacking ... and Hobbes says "two sabres against fralthra?" That makes no sense unless they are referring to the Fralthra when they say carrier. If indeed it WERE two heavy carriers, with a group of support ships (Fralthra, Ralatha, Kamekhs), why would the target just be *assumed* to be the Fralthra right from the get go? And why would destroying 2 Fralthra stop the attack -- there is still at least 2 carriers left, with over 100 fighters, plus all the other support ships. And how come it works out perfectly that there is supposed to be 2 carriers and we see 2 Fralthra?

I got an idea -- when they say carrier they are referring to a Fralthra, since it is really a light carrier when get right down to it. Hmmm, that works.

Of course, in your universe every ship destroys one other ship and is then destroyed itself.

I didn't say that. Although if two classes of ships are roughly evenly matched that's what will happen about 50% of the time.

Right, because I'd forgotten that the novels take place before the games and that the number seven is larger than the number twenty. YOU, SIR, *WIN*.

Well I didn't say that either -- I just think it's amusing that the implication is that the Kilrathi lost over a third of their heavy cruisers in a year in the Enigma Sector.

There is no official explanation for how Klingons grew ridges. There are, however, idiots out there who'll rant and rave about how they didn't grow ridges and everything after the original series never happened. They're you.

Well, I didn't say that either ... but who's keeping track at this point.

I find it amusing that you didn't address the rest of my quote, because I really think that was the heart of our disagreement:

"I couldn't disagree more. The outcome of the games are different depending on how you played it -- what missions you did, who survived/died, what you said and ultimately what the endings were. The fan's place IS to determine all of this. And in the games/books, the universe isn't really fleshed out that well (and is often contradictory). So it's up to the imagination of the player to make sense of everything. So I would say the fan plays a very important role. I guess there are some people who really care about the "official" explanation for how Klingons grew mountain ranges on their heads right before Star Trek III, but I'm not one of them."

Oh, I'm sorry for accusing you of making up numbers specifically to support your claim. I hadn't thought that those numbers might be arbitrary! (ZING!)

Not that I'd expect you to actually read what I said at this point, but to repeat -- *whatever* the actual probabilities are, if the probability of destroying a cruiser with 20 bombers is P, then the odds of destroying 3 cruisers with 3 waves of 20 bombers is P*P*P. So if P is 1/2, then the odds of destroying 3 cruisers is 1/8. So, unless the odds of destroying a carrier with 60 bombers is, for some reason, incredibly lower than the odds of destroying a cruiser (with an equivalent attacking/defense force), there is much less risk in having 3 targets.

My 'theory' is that having resources spread across 300 star systems isn't the same thing as having them all in one place. And that without building fighters to defend your system in the first place you won't last long enough to build a carrier yard (10 years). It's almost like they established rules for an entire universe and then built their storylines off of those.

Well, just up the thread you were talking about the importance of power projection, and how carrier-based fighters were so critical. Now, it's all about maintaining a massive garrison everywhere. Well which is it? You can't have it both ways. There are tradeoffs and if you have 100,000 fighters, it doesn't make sense to have only 1000-2500 be mobile. #1, it's a sucky strategy, and #2, it's a waste of resources to spend that much energy/metal/labor on fighters that will never used, instead of on capital ships.

Please. No one's treated you with anything but respect in this thread - even when you've started ranting about how in your amazing fanfic universe (consisting of WC1, WC2 and part of whichever manual supports your claim at the time) Confed discovered that you were right because they found space station debris. We've even treated it like a serious debate after you've completely ignored everyones responses over and over. Freaking ugh.

It doesn't really surprise me that I have to explain this again as you don't seem all the interested in discussing what I actually said; but I consider the first three games canon, although I take SO1&2 fairly lightly. After that, the books and other games to the extent they don't contradict each other and the main games. Pretty fair I think. Fanfic universe? Haha, well I will enjoy my little "unofficial" universe where I actually get to make decisions in the game while you obsess over making sure you kill the third Dralthi in Delius B with a dumbfire in order to stay consistent with the Gospel of Forstchen.

There's too much to respond to "everyone", and most of it is redundant anyway.

This is turning ugly right quick.

To coin the old quote, "I smell an era of blood and prominent banning."

LOL @ banning me. How cultish. Honestly if things are "getting ugly", it would appear to be more on LOAF's end than mine. Somewhere around the 40th post he started telling me what my own arguments REALLY were and asking me to prove negatives. Now he's saying I'm a whiner and my opinions are dumb. Looks like he is a sore loser.

 

[sea_monkey]

You know, in the scenario which I'd originally set up, that one carrier COULD concentrate more forces than '20 fighters and 20 bombers' per cruiser - and indeed, it should do that, outside of what forces it has for its own defense screen. This way, you overwhelm the defenders with your numerically superior forces, take fewer losses in the process, and then move onto the next target. This is what the Kilrathi were doing at the Battle of Sirius Prime and the Battle of Earth.

So, in your scenario ... the cruisers couldn't be fairly close together and thus capable of pooling defenders ... the carrier knows exactly where all the cruisers are ... the cruisers don't know where the attack is coming from ... and have no patrols out so they don't know what the target is. Well I'll concede in THAT case, the cruisers will probably lose.

Ok, what about THIS scenario: you have a carrier, I have 3 cruisers. Your fighters are all rubber-cemented to the flight deck ... the launch bays are all damaged ... the turret gunners got blasted the night before and are still drunk ... your carrier has a backup diesel engine that's leaking and now there is diesel everywhere ... and the cook served beans the night before and everyone in the engine room has been farting for days. I think I win that one.

 

[LeHah]

LOL @ banning me. How cultish. Honestly if things are "getting ugly", it would appear to be more on LOAF's end than mine. Somewhere around the 40th post he started telling me what my own arguments REALLY were and asking me to prove negatives. Now he's saying I'm a whiner and my opinions are dumb. Looks like he is a sore loser.

I said all that - not LOAF - so don't bring him into it. I take credit for making an asshole comment - but thats only because I expect people to do the same.