Anyone not like the books?

[sea_monkey]

I care because it doesn’t strike me as a particularly “healthy’ discussion given your premises about canon. And to say you like the game is, at best, a half-truth, since there’s obviously so much about it that you don’t like or respect. In any event, to carry on a discussion in which you refuse to credit certain sources of canon can hardly amount to much more than an exercise in incommensurability.

Care to comment? Or do you concede the point?

Sure, I'll comment. I have no idea what your point is. Incommensurability? Because I don't like the books, I hate Wing Commander? What?

I really don't care what other people consider "canon". My question was did anyone else not like the books because of certain issues. Personally I ignore the bits in books that make no sense but that is my decision.

Because dismissing the novels and discounting the games to varying degrees clearly chops away at what WC is, making it progressively less than it was and can be. At the very least, that’s stagnation, and at most, atrophy.

Sorry, I don't agree. Star Trek and Star Wars both have about a billion books, games, and other supplements to the series, many of which contradict each other. Obviously in some people's imagination, these things "happened" while in others they don't. Doesn't seem to cause any real problems or the "death" of either. So I don't see your point, at all.

It would, however, probably cause problems if someone tried to reconcile all the inconsistencies caused by years of bad writing in all these books.

Pretending? Please explain.

Are Blair and Maniac 17 in 2654, yes or no? Is Hobbes a decorated Fralthi captain and presumably an experienced fighter pilot at 13, yes or no? Did Hobbes meet Thrakhath in SO1, or have they never met per the deleted explanation scene?

These don't cause problems for me, because I chalk them up to bad writing.

 

[sea_monkey]

Why wouldn't you fight everyday? The TC was in the Vega sector for a large portion of WC1, a highly contested frontline of the war for years. Then in SM1, the TC is sent behind enemy lines. In SM2, we are thrown into a situation where we are basically the only carrier around when a whole Kilrathi Fleet shows up.

Those totaled about 60-80 combat missions, some of which happened back-to-back in the same day. So that leaves 260-280 days in a year where you didn't see action. And the Claw is a special case. Even on the front lines, you're not going to be bumping into random enemies every day. You only fight when 1) both sides think they can win and choose to engage, or 2) one side gets surprised.

Whether the casualties are happening to the Claw or some other ship, point being if the two forces are equal and you expect your carrier to inflict 2-3 casualties a day on the other side, then some other enemy carrier is doing that to you too (the equivalent of turning over all your pilots in 1 month).

Out of the 9 pilots we see out of WC1, I think only 7 of them survive (6 if you count Spirits death) . . . Maverick because he was relegated to backwoods duty, Maniac because he became a test pilot, Paladin because he retired. That means only 4 may have been combat pilots throughout the entire 10 years. Plus, we already seemed to establish that these pilots are the cream of the crop . . .

Blair, Maniac, Jazz, Doomsday, Spirit, Angel, Hunter (according to the books, although this contradicts a line from WC2). According to SO2, Maniac didn't become a test pilot until after he made those two destroyers collide in WC2, so he survived 10 years as a combat pilot. And Jazz and Spirit weren't downed by the enemy. If the average pilot survives 1 month, then 120+ months is going to be several standard deviations away.

Now I have no problem if that's the way you choose to see it, it just makes a lot more sense to me if the Kilrathi outnumber Confed and so it's common for Confed pilots to rack up higher kill scores and generally live longer.

 

[Bob McDob]

Sorry, I don't agree. Star Trek and Star Wars both have about a billion books, games, and other supplements to the series, many of which contradict each other. Obviously in some people's imagination, these things "happened" while in others they don't. Doesn't seem to cause any real problems or the "death" of either. So I don't see your point, at all.

That's because Star Trek and Star Wars both have "canonity hierarchies" (i.e, novels in ST are apocryphal except for a select few, movies in SW are considered the highest canon, etc.) WC doesn't.

 

[Viper61]

Those totaled about 60-80 combat missions, some of which happened back-to-back in the same day. So that leaves 260-280 days in a year where you didn't see action. And the Claw is a special case. Even on the front lines, you're not going to be bumping into random enemies every day. You only fight when 1) both sides think they can win and choose to engage, or 2) one side gets surprised.

I personally don't think we see every mission we fly in WC games. Like in WC2, we go through a 3 year period were we fly 40 missions or so. I can't imagine from the books and other sources that this is normal operating procedure for a combat pilot. I'd go ahead and make this assumption for WC1 also (that we don't see every mission we fly). I know I wouldn't enjoy playing a game that on half of the missions we saw absolutely nothing. The flying missions back to back seems to be the status quo. Though I guess it doesn't matter, heavy fighting for 75 days and nothing for 280 days still averages out to our 2-3 per day.

Whether the casualties are happening to the Claw or some other ship, point being if the two forces are equal and you expect your carrier to inflict 2-3 casualties a day on the other side, then some other enemy carrier is doing that to you too (the equivalent of turning over all your pilots in 1 month).

The Tigers Claw pilots killing 2-3 Kilrathi a day from multiple fleets along the frontlines, behind enemy lines, etc translates to 2-3 killed on the Claw itself? Yes, some Kat carrier is inflicting 2-3 casualties on Confed fleet a day, but not on the TC itself.

Blair, Maniac, Jazz, Doomsday, Spirit, Angel, Hunter (according to the books, although this contradicts a line from WC2). According to SO2, Maniac didn't become a test pilot until after he made those two destroyers collide in WC2, so he survived 10 years as a combat pilot. And Jazz and Spirit weren't downed by the enemy. If the average pilot survives 1 month, then 120+ months is going to be several standard deviations away.

Where do we find out that the average pilot lasts a month? I think I do remember reading a time period for the average combat pilot in a novel somewhere.
It was not uncommon for the good pilots to survive during WWII (which WC runs many parallels with) while others plummeted to their firey deaths. If all pilots died at the rate you quote or the average pilot death rate of WWII, there would be no Captains, Majors, or Colonels in WC or in WWII.

C-ya

 

[Dundradal]

Are Blair and Maniac 17 in 2654, yes or no? Is Hobbes a decorated Fralthi captain and presumably an experienced fighter pilot at 13, yes or no? Did Hobbes meet Thrakhath in SO1, or have they never met per the deleted explanation scene?

These don't cause problems for me, because I chalk them up to bad writing.

Hobbes meets Thrakhath on Ghorah Khor (I think) in 2654. He is under suspicion for aiding the rebels. Thrakhath is present during the questioning, but Hobbes does not learn of his pressence. They met again in so1.

 

[sea_monkey]

The Tigers Claw pilots killing 2-3 Kilrathi a day from multiple fleets along the frontlines, behind enemy lines, etc translates to 2-3 killed on the Claw itself? Yes, some Kat carrier is inflicting 2-3 casualties on Confed fleet a day, but not on the TC itself.

No, but if the Tiger's Claw isn't receiving those casualties, then some other carrier is getting 4-6 casualties a day. I'm just talking in general to put the numbers in perspective.

I personally don't think we see every mission we fly in WC games. Like in WC2, we go through a 3 year period were we fly 40 missions or so.

This is another thing from Victory Streak I thought was questionable. Of all the games, it seemed like WC2 took place over the shortest period of time. WC1 involved the reversal of a major Kilrathi offensive, followed by a massive Confed offensive which completely removed the Kilrathi from the sector. In WC3 you fight a defensive campaign for a while, then go into Kilrathi territory and back, then to Kilrah and back, then sit around for a bit while a guy designs the Templor Bomb, and then back to Kilrah. Seems like both of those would have taken around 6 months to a year.

In contrast, in WC2, the dialogue directly indicates that the Gwynedd-Niven-Ghorah Khar sequence happens bang-bang-bang, as does Tesla-Enigma-K'thithrak Mang. I'm pretty sure it says only a few weeks passed between Heaven's Gate and Tesla as well. So unless 2.5 years passed between Ghorah Khar and Heaven's Gate, it couldn't possibly have been 3 years. Also pretty silly if the whole "traitor" thing took 3 years to resolve.

I can't imagine from the books and other sources that this is normal operating procedure for a combat pilot. I'd go ahead and make this assumption for WC1 also (that we don't see every mission we fly). I know I wouldn't enjoy playing a game that on half of the missions we saw absolutely nothing. The flying missions back to back seems to be the status quo. Though I guess it doesn't matter, heavy fighting for 75 days and nothing for 280 days still averages out to our 2-3 per day.

I'm sure they fly every day, but they don't run into random enemy patrols all the time where they can expect to get 2-3 kills between the 7 of them. It would be something like every 5 days those 7 pilots downing 10-15 enemies in patrols. Not unreasonable.

It's just when you go by the books and assume the forces are symmetrical between the Kilrathi and the Terrans, when you have to face the fact that a Confed carrier would be losing 10-15 pilots every 5 days or so.

Where do we find out that the average pilot lasts a month? I think I do remember reading a time period for the average combat pilot in a novel somewhere.

2.5 a day * 365 days / 12 months = 76 dead a month, with about 100 pilots on board a heavy carrier, so it's about a month.

 

[Viper61]

No, but if the Tiger's Claw isn't receiving those casualties, then some other carrier is getting 4-6 casualties a day. I'm just talking in general to put the numbers in perspective.

We're talking about an average over the entire Confederation fleet (or at least a portion of it) that one carrier inflicts, including ISS flights, cruiser detachments etc. these 2-3 kills a day are spread out over the thousands of pilots on both sides, not just one carrier. Its the number a single carrier is inflicting on a force, not a single carrier on a single carrier.

2.5 a day * 365 days / 12 months = 76 dead a month, with about 100 pilots on board a heavy carrier, so it's about a month.

Okay, I agree with that . . .each side loses about 3/4 a carrier full a month from our 7 heroes (and vice versa), not one carrier loses all of its compliment. Again the loses are spread over carriers, ISS, cruisers, destroyers, etc.

C-ya

 

[Nemesis]

I have no idea what your point is. Incommensurability?

Thanks, that’s precisely my point. (That’s what incommensurability is.) You don’t have a clue because your “take” on WC is so different from (or indifferent to) ours that either you can’t understand or (what is more likely) you really don’t care to understand.

Because I don't like the books, I hate Wing Commander? What?

I didn’t say that you hate WC. (But of course you know that.) What I said was that you didn’t like or respect certain aspects of WC, in particular the books, which you have again confirmed, especially in your claim of “bad writing”. (Thanks again, though, for making my point for me.)

I really don't care what other people consider "canon". My question was did anyone else not like the books because of certain issues.

But unless people agree on the canon, there are few if any factual issues that can be practically discussed. (Of course, the issue of “what is canon” can be discussed, but you’ve been pretty clear that you’re set in your views on that.)

Personally I ignore the bits in books that make no sense but that is my decision.

Certainly you’re entitled to “envision” WC however you want. But then you shouldn’t claim that you’re really interested in what other people think, since it’s clear you neither share nor care for their view of canon.

Star Trek and Star Wars both have about a billion books, games, and other supplements to the series, many of which contradict each other. Obviously in some people's imagination, these things "happened" while in others they don't. Doesn't seem to cause any real problems or the "death" of either. So I don't see your point, at all.

But we, unlike fans of Star Trek or Star Wars (taking you at your word for the sake of the argument), do take the facts of all the sources seriously, and define WC accordingly.

It would, however, probably cause problems if someone tried to reconcile all the inconsistencies caused by years of bad writing in all these books.

Oh, we embrace the inconsistencies! We enjoy trying to reconcile them with the most plausible explanations we can muster. It’s fun. It’s creative. Like solving puzzles.

These don't cause problems for me, because I chalk them up to bad writing.

I’m sorry to hear that. (I only hope you don’t approach subjects like law or religion the same way.)

 

[psych]

This thread still makes me sad

 

[Dundradal]

yeah it's just going down hill...

 

[sea_monkey]

Thanks, that’s precisely my point. (That’s what incommensurability is.) You don’t have a clue because your “take” on WC is so different from (or indifferent to) ours that either you can’t understand or (what is more likely) you really don’t care to understand.

Awesome. So you had no point then.

What you originally typed implied that I was arguing over "what is canon", which I'm not. I just pointed out contradictions I saw in "the canon" and how I chose to resolve them. And I was interested in what others thought.

I didn’t say that you hate WC. (But of course you know that.) What I said was that you didn’t like or respect certain aspects of WC, in particular the books, which you have again confirmed, especially in your claim of “bad writing”. (Thanks again, though, for making my point for me.)

Actually you said that my claim that I like Wing Commander was "at best a half-truth". Which implies that I don't like the games, which is ridiculous. And begs the question, how could you possibly know? Just because I don't like *something* about a thing doesn't mean I don't *like* it on a whole.

But we, unlike fans of Star Trek or Star Wars (taking you at your word for the sake of the argument), do take the facts of all the sources seriously, and define WC accordingly.

Star Wars fans and Trekkies get pretty serious. Regardless, you said that disagreements over the timeline would result in the "death" of WC, which is obviously not true when you look at other communities.

Oh, we embrace the inconsistencies! We enjoy trying to reconcile them with the most plausible explanations we can muster. It’s fun. It’s creative. Like solving puzzles.

That would be great, but the one part of my post you skipped over was where I pointed out blatant inconsistencies. Is Blair 17 in 2654 and did Hobbes meet Thrakhath in SO1, yes or no? According to you, if there is any disagreement over these issues, it's the "death" of WC.

I’m sorry to hear that. (I only hope you don’t approach subjects like law or religion the same way.)

Keep in mind we're talking about *fiction* here. So, yes, I chalk up most religion to bad writing, being fiction itself. Law is a different story.

 

[Death]

To go "down hill", wouldn't it have had to have been higher to start with?

While I personally wouldn't be too saddened to see this thread go away, it is well within the boundaries of the permissible on this forum, IMO. Pig-headed stubornness leading to willful ignorance isn't, in and of itself, a close-worthy condition.

 

[Nemesis]

What you originally typed implied that I was arguing over "what is canon", which I'm not.

On the contrary, that is all you have been arguing. (But feel free to have the last word if you want. Your thread.)

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yoaf all, sorry for the delay - been busy with a project that hasn't left me any time for serious (although at this point, heh) CZ posts.

A fighter force is referenced, but nothing like the 100,000 fighter force (300 per colony) that you are talking about. We see some fighters scramble at Earth, the heart of the Confederation, but nowhere else -- not Gwynedd, Pembroke, Ghorah Khar, or Blackmane. You can suggest that they did but nothing in games mentions hundreds of fighters rallying to protect the Concordia in the beginning of WC2.

Of the four situations you mention, we explicitly see local defense forces at three of them. Blair is *part* of the ISS unit assigned to Gwynedd, the unit assigned to Olympus plays a large part in SO1 (in the finale as already discussed, but also in the leadup series - you train their new pilots, you fly with others as generic wingmen in other missions...). The Victory picks up enough replacement fighters from the squadron being abandoned at Blackmane to bring her back up to her full complement of fighters.

Let me guess: the fact that we don't see locally assigned fighters at one of the seven bases we encounter in Wing Commander II is proof that they don't exist and that the manual is trying to trick us by claiming otherwise. ?

I never read Action Stations but from what I hear I'd probably like that book the least.

That's certainly an enlightened attitude. (Seriously, though, I can't really imagine forming my opinion of something based only on how another Wing Commander fan describes it...)

If they didn't kill the carriers, then there were still five carriers left in Ghorah Khar vs. the depleted Olympus and the Concordia. Makes no sense whatsoever for them to retreat, feint or no feint. With those odds they could take Deneb AND Ghorah Khar AND kill the Concordia in one battle. And if they DID kill the 3 carriers, then Olympus traded 14 pilots for three carriers and their escorts -- pretty ridiculous.

I mean you can argue that they were, in fact, referring to heavy carriers the whole time. It's just that everything makes a ton more sense if they were referring to Fralthra the whole time.

A carrier without fighters is a liability rather than an asset. If the three carriers lost their offensive fighters (and their cruiser escorts) in the first wave of the attack then the only thing the Kilrathi could possibly do with them is cover their retreat. A carrier is too valuable to be a floating decoy. (Of course, they could have been destroyed in subsequent attacks - they certainly *wouldn't* have been killed in the first defense of Olympus, since they wouldn't be there, which is when we're told fourteen pilots were lost.)

(Aside: The Concordia wasn't at Ghorah Khar. You may be confusing Special Operations 1 with a different game.)

From what I can tell, the main guy in charge of WC2, Stephen Beeman, had nothing to do with WC3, which explains the sudden shift in the nature of the cutscenes. In WC2 the cutscenes frequently involved 3-4 characters if not more, allowing their personalities to bounce off each other, which was great. In WC3 that rarely happened. Talking about tactics started dying in SM1, which was fine with me because they always gave bad advice ("save your missiles for the big ships!").

The live action in WC3 just made everything more believeable for me. While I loved WC2's cutscenes, the Kilrathi were a joke in that game. In 3, they were actually kind of scary.

I think the person you're looking to credit for the 'feel' of WC2 is probably Ellen Guon and not Stephen Beeman. WC3 and 4 were written by 'professional' screenwriters, which in my mind gave us a lot of pointless cheap movie filler scenes. (And I have to say that I thought the Kilrathi were done best in the original game - where your only interaction with them was on the VDU. WC2s talking lions and WC3s supermuppets didn't do it for me the way the occasional green comm message and rare shadowy cutscene drawing did.)

The entire debate is ridiculous because we're discussing fictional object vs. fictional object. But aside from that, I can't think of any other way to compare two things then to pit them directly against each other, or each against the same force (60 bombers for instance).

I don't think you understood my issue at all. I'm not saying it's pointless because Wing Commander 'doesn't exist' - I'm saying its pointless because the forces we're using to debate do not exist within the context of Wing Commander's fictional rules. Any carrier will always have cruiser escorts and no cruiser squadron will carry bombers... and never shall the two meet.

It's not that simple. Here, look at like Napster. One big file sharing thing. Easy to take down. Now look at the various peer-to-peer file sharing networks out there. Very difficult to stop because they are distributed. My argument is that the Fralthra/Waterloos need less defense because you can afford to lose a few of them without losing the battle, and the risk of losing all of them is less. You can't afford to lose the Hakaga.

Not part of my debate, but Napster was a peer-to-peer file sharing network.

 

[sea_monkey]

Let me guess: the fact that we don't see locally assigned fighters at one of the seven bases we encounter in Wing Commander II is proof that they don't exist and that the manual is trying to trick us by claiming otherwise. ?

Not at all. But keep in mind you're asserting there is a fighter force of around 100,000, or about 300 per colony. Where's the evidence of that, beyond the quote in Privateer?

You don't see hundreds of fighters scramble to protect the Concordia at Gwynedd. You see two. We can assume there was more, but hundreds is really stretching it. Likewise, we never see any indication that hundreds of fighters scramble at any of those other bases (Olympus, Blackmane, Pembroke, etc.).

I'm sure they can hold a lot of fighters and that some bases are particularly well stocked, but you tried to use these stations to support your argument that there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fighters just lying around.

That's certainly an enlightened attitude. (Seriously, though, I can't really imagine forming my opinion of something based only on how another Wing Commander fan describes it...)

I read that Forstchen decided that they had phase shields back in 2634, contradicting WC1, and basically plaguerized the history of Pearl Harbor and Midway to make his book. Haven't formed an opinion on it, but I suspect it's not going to be worth my time.

A carrier without fighters is a liability rather than an asset. If the three carriers lost their offensive fighters (and their cruiser escorts) in the first wave of the attack then the only thing the Kilrathi could possibly do with them is cover their retreat. A carrier is too valuable to be a floating decoy. (Of course, they could have been destroyed in subsequent attacks - they certainly *wouldn't* have been killed in the first defense of Olympus, since they wouldn't be there, which is when we're told fourteen pilots were lost.)

If those 3 carriers' fighters were lost, then Confed traded 14 pilots for 300 Kilrathi planes (plus any aboard the Fralthra), and their escorts. Not too shabby! Doesn't really make sense though.

Now, 14 pilots traded for 3 Fralthra and their fighters and maybe a few escorts ... especially if we're assuming Kilrah outnumbers Confed and Confed usually has a higher kill ratio ... now we're making sense.

(Aside: The Concordia wasn't at Ghorah Khar. You may be confusing Special Operations 1 with a different game.)

Sure it was. Bear arrives to help you with the second wave from the Concordia, and you return to it after the mission is over.

WC3 and 4 were written by 'professional' screenwriters, which in my mind gave us a lot of pointless cheap movie filler scenes.

I'll agree with that. But it wasn't a whole lot different that WC2 except that WC2's cutscenes were generally done better.

Not part of my debate, but Napster was a peer-to-peer file sharing network.

Right, I used the wrong word. It was a centralized thing however where one place kept track of what everyone had.

I don't think you understood my issue at all. I'm not saying it's pointless because Wing Commander 'doesn't exist' - I'm saying its pointless because the forces we're using to debate do not exist within the context of Wing Commander's fictional rules. Any carrier will always have cruiser escorts and no cruiser squadron will carry bombers... and never shall the two meet.

I get what you're saying, I was just pointing out there's only so far you can really take an argument like this. But I don't really agree with your argument here. Besides cruisers having proven to carry bombers (the Gettysburg), I don't see how the escorts play a significant role at all. If you give both sides an equal escort force, they'll basically just cancel each other out.

Also, this argument is sort of a cop out because now "we can never know" who would win. *Somewhat* true I suppose but I think the point of that argument is more to take away from the reality that three cruisers would do just fine vs. a heavy carrier.

Nemesis,

On the contrary, that is all you have been arguing. (But feel free to have the last word if you want. Your thread.)

Actually I stated clearly several times that this was NOT my argument.

 

[Viper61]

I read that Forstchen decided that they had phase shields back in 2634, contradicting WC1, and basically plaguerized the history of Pearl Harbor and Midway to make his book. Haven't formed an opinion on it, but I suspect it's not going to be worth my time.

Well, since WC is WWII . . . in space!, using a Pearl Harbor-esque situation as a starting point seems like a pretty good place to me.
About the phase shields, all WC seems to be a seesaw of shield/fighter weapons strength: WC1 - fighter weapons penetrate shields, WC2 (ten years later) - phase shields impervious to fighter based energy weapons, WC3 (a few years later) - fighter weapons again can penetrate phase shields, WC4 (a few years later) - fighter weapons can penetrate most shields still, but the new top-of-the-line carrier (the Vesuvius) has shields strong enough it can withstand fighter weapon assaults [seesaw beginning to tip], Prophecy (7 years later) - all capships again impervious to fighter based weapons, with the exception of the plasma cannon [again seesaw beginning to tip]. So, why would it be contradictory to the WC universe that 20 years prior to WC1, shields were impervious to fighter weapons? Seems to fit right in to me. And, on a side note, Action Stations is actually my favorite WC novel. The other arguments I haven't been following close enough to comment on.

C-ya

 

[Ijuin]

If those 3 carriers' fighters were lost, then Confed traded 14 pilots for 300 Kilrathi planes (plus any aboard the Fralthra), and their escorts. Not too shabby! Doesn't really make sense though.

Now, 14 pilots traded for 3 Fralthra and their fighters and maybe a few escorts ... especially if we're assuming Kilrah outnumbers Confed and Confed usually has a higher kill ratio ... now we're making sense.

Note also that this is fourteen Confed pilots dead, not shot down. It's likely that thirty or more pilots were also shot down yet ejected and were recovered, so the "kill" ratio is not quite as heavily skewed as all that.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Not at all. But keep in mind you're asserting there is a fighter force of around 100,000, or about 300 per colony. Where's the evidence of that, beyond the quote in Privateer?

I don't think arguments can possibly work when they becin with "So, aside from the evidence that clearly proves your claim, what do you have for me?"

You don't see hundreds of fighters scramble to protect the Concordia at Gwynedd. You see two. We can assume there was more, but hundreds is really stretching it. Likewise, we never see any indication that hundreds of fighters scramble at any of those other bases (Olympus, Blackmane, Pembroke, etc.).

I'm sure they can hold a lot of fighters and that some bases are particularly well stocked, but you tried to use these stations to support your argument that there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fighters just lying around.

The number of fighters on the stations comes from the Kilrathi Saga manual.

I read that Forstchen decided that they had phase shields back in 2634, contradicting WC1, and basically plaguerized the history of Pearl Harbor and Midway to make his book.

All military fiction is putting spaceships and hover-tanks in place of real ships and non-hover tanks (that said, Action Stations simply follows the pre-written 'Pearl Harbor in Space' McAuliffe Ambush from Claw Marks...). The Wing Commander novels, at the very least, do this in a reletively respectable manner... as opposed to the 'hey, what if our final battle was like Star Wars... but in space!' of Wing Commander III.

Haven't formed an opinion on it,

Oh, good.

but I suspect it's not going to be worth my time.

.... waaaaait.

If those 3 carriers' fighters were lost, then Confed traded 14 pilots for 300 Kilrathi planes (plus any aboard the Fralthra), and their escorts. Not too shabby! Doesn't really make sense though.

Now, 14 pilots traded for 3 Fralthra and their fighters and maybe a few escorts ... especially if we're assuming Kilrah outnumbers Confed and Confed usually has a higher kill ratio ... now we're making sense.

That's a lot of assumptions, though. Someone else already pointed out the lack of information behing the '14 pilots lost' quote... but in a situation like this the carrier is out of action when her *offensive* fighters are lost - which is to say her bomber complement, not all ~one hundred fighters. The carrier will keep fighters onboard for the same reason a cruiser has its entire complement - to defend itself from attack. Presumably the Kilrathi lost their bombers in the first attack and pulled out (or lost in a counterattack) their carriers.

Incidentally, you can nail Fralthra #7 of your five Fralthra fleet if you go to the 'losing' Ghorah Khar 2 mission

Sure it was. Bear arrives to help you with the second wave from the Concordia, and you return to it after the mission is over.

You're told earlier on that the Concordia is heading for Ghorah Khar but can't arrive in time for the battle - which is why Bear and company are a surprise. Bear explains that "The Admiral sent us ahead, after we lost communications with Olympus.". (Of course, even more surprising is the ensuing revelation that Bear and Buell like shooting torpedos at your fighter...)

I get what you're saying, I was just pointing out there's only so far you can really take an argument like this. But I don't really agree with your argument here. Besides cruisers having proven to carry bombers (the Gettysburg), I don't see how the escorts play a significant role at all. If you give both sides an equal escort force, they'll basically just cancel each other out.

Also, this argument is sort of a cop out because now "we can never know" who would win. *Somewhat* true I suppose but I think the point of that argument is more to take away from the reality that three cruisers would do just fine vs. a heavy carrier.

I'm not saying we *can't* know who'd win - but we know that from the fictional setting of Wing Commander that three cruisers would never exchange blows with an ordinary fleet carrier... because the carriers CAP exists specifically to prevent this from ever happening.

(If we want to go a level out from the debate, it wouldn't be silly because Wing Commander is 'fake'... it'd be silly because you're complaining that books based on games about the exploits of space aircraft carriers spend too much time dealing with the exploits of space aircraft carriers... ).

 

[sea_monkey]

About the phase shields, all WC seems to be a seesaw of shield/fighter weapons strength:

That's a good explanation if you're willing to go out of your way to make sense of everything Forstchen writes, I'm just not up to it. The WC2 manual specifically refers to phase shields and torpedoes as "the latest" in technology. Since WC2 is the only game with impenetrable capship shields, I think it makes the most sense that the technology was brand new at the time and had no counter, or else the game just emphasizes the shield strength a little too much and it's more like WC3.

I don't think arguments can possibly work when they becin with "So, aside from the evidence that clearly proves your claim, what do you have for me?"

No, they really can't. Good thing that quote from Privateer doesn't even come close to clearly proving your claim

.... waaaaait.

So, you've never not decided to see a movie because it got bad reviews? Same thing.

That's a lot of assumptions, though. Someone else already pointed out the lack of information behing the '14 pilots lost' quote... but in a situation like this the carrier is out of action when her *offensive* fighters are lost - which is to say her bomber complement, not all ~one hundred fighters. The carrier will keep fighters onboard for the same reason a cruiser has its entire complement - to defend itself from attack. Presumably the Kilrathi lost their bombers in the first attack and pulled out (or lost in a counterattack) their carriers.

Even if you assume that about 1/3 of the carriers' complement was bombers/heavy fighters, and twice as many Confed fighters were lost as pilots were lost, that's still trading 100 bombers for 30 Confed pilots. Not even counting their fighter cover. Not that it couldn't be done but definitely unlikely.

Incidentally, you can nail Fralthra #7 of your five Fralthra fleet if you go to the 'losing' Ghorah Khar 2 mission

Just going off your game guides here, even if you're counting the first two Fralthra as part of the 5, the Fralthra in Ghorah Khar 2E would be #4 or #5. If you lost 2D, that means you didn't kill a Fralthra in 2D.

I'm not saying we *can't* know who'd win - but we know that from the fictional setting of Wing Commander that three cruisers would never exchange blows with an ordinary fleet carrier... because the carriers CAP exists specifically to prevent this from ever happening.

Not sure what you mean by CAP, but escort ships wouldn't prevent the scenario where each cruiser faces 20 bombers and the carrier 60 bombers.

 

[Viper61]

That's a good explanation if you're willing to go out of your way to make sense of everything Forstchen writes, I'm just not up to it. The WC2 manual specifically refers to phase shields and torpedoes as "the latest" in technology. Since WC2 is the only game with impenetrable capship shields, I think it makes the most sense that the technology was brand new at the time and had no counter, or else the game just emphasizes the shield strength a little too much and it's more like WC3.

I didn't even bring Forstchen into it until the very end. If you just had the games to go from, you could draw the same conclusions. Action Stations phase shields just happen to fit into the game cycle of shield/weapon strength. You don't go out of your way to make the explanation, it fits without any novels at all.
So all the ads and articles I see written about "the latest" in RAM advancements/MP3 capacity/fighter/WLAN/printing or scanning definition technology means it is the very first RAM chip/MP3 player/fighter jet/wireless system/printer/scanner ever? That dog don't hunt.

C-ya