Capships should never be destroyed...

Blair was derived from "BLue hAIR", your character from WC1-2.

The Fralthra pair did do a fair amount of damage before being gunned down by the PTC. That gun, though could well have easily blown the Concordia, herself.
 
Yes Deathshead, but I was talking about how origin programmed the game. There was no way the concordia could have been destroyed because origin programmed the concordia to be invincible for that mission. If that was "real life" the concordia would have had slim chances.
 
In real life, a battleship could engage two cruisers and expect victory. When you throw torpedoes and missiles into the fight, things get tougher for the battleship, but in WW2, the big battleship with its armor had the edge.
 
Actually, I remember the Concordia being destroyed by a Fralthra one time I was playing. I think for some reason it missed with PTC and Fralthra closed in and destroyed it before it could refire. When I replyed the mission though the Fralthra got destroyed with the first hit and it was mission acomplished.

And I'm pretty sure the Concordia has 8 guns...

Know how the Ralatha has two cannons, but when it fires the shots are right next to each other so it looks like one? The only way you can tell there're two shots coming at you is if you're going head on with it, otherwise it doesn't show.

It's the same thing for the Concordia, the centre turret is doubled, I think.
 
Maybe the game engine had reached its maximum with all the weapons the concordia carried. After all, it had flak cannons, amg's, and a phase transit cannon. And amg's actually have 2 barrels per turret, you can see it in the funeral scenes. The game didn't simulate that either.
Click to expand...
What exactly do we know about flak cannons? How do we know that they don't fire both shells at the same moment, and they sorta blend into one explosion? Come to think of it, you don't even see shells until WCA the game(where there's no Concordia) so you've got no argument. Furthermore, the neutron turrets fire two shots, yet in the engine they still count as a single weapon.

Regarding the gun limit, this isn't WC1 :). There is a gun limit, but it's nowhere near as restrictive as the limit in WC1. The Connie could have several more guns... I mean, the Broadsword, for example, has three MDs, three turrets, four FFs, four torps, and one chaff pod - a grand total of fifteen. So why would the Concordia have trouble handling 12 (instead of 11) weapons?

How could the game engine be the final word in what weapons cap ships have? If you went by that then you could say the tigers claw has no weapons at all, when it actually has more than even the manual says.
Click to expand...
What? The Tiger's Claw, according to the manual, has eight turreted lasers... which is exactly what it has in the game, too.

As for the Concordia being invincible, I think it was in some cases, (certainly there's a mission where the Bonnie Heather is invincible) but that's irrelevant - the reason the Concordia can defeat a Fralthra or two, or three, is because it has a PTC, plenty of AMGs (as opposed to the Fralthra's paltry 2 AMGs), and shields five times as powerful as a Fralthra's. That is to say, unlike most WC2 capships, the Concordia has better shields than a WC3 fighter :D.
 
If the ol classic design wasn't invulnerable, I sure would have lost the ship more times than I'd care for.

T:"If you went by that then you could say the tigers claw has no weapons at all, when it actually has more than even the manual says."
DH:Untrue. It is equipped with missiles.

Q:"What? The Tiger's Claw, according to the manual, has eight turreted lasers... which is exactly what it has in the game, too."
DH:Is he counting the number of turrets on the manual's diagram of the 'Claw as laser turrets?
 
My reasoning:
Concordia = dreadnought.
Fralthra = cruiser.
If Concordia isn't tough enough to take 2 Fralthras in a straight fight then what is the point in building dreadnoughts?
 
On a side note, isn't it annoying how these sort of discussions always crop up just when you're least prepared? All I've got with me right now is the KSaga manual and some text files :(.
 
I think the main reason why can only take on a few ships at once is because whenever it fires with the regular guns, only two or three of the shots actually hit the target. The PTC's the only way it can take out ships quickly.
 
Indeed. That's the problem with having so many AMGs - they're all set at different angles, but they fire all at once, so by the time they reach that Fralthra 10,000 away...
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Indeed. That's the problem with having so many AMGs - they're all set at different angles, but they fire all at once, so by the time they reach that Fralthra 10,000 away...
Click to expand...

That's the main reason I don't use the game engine as a source. The game engine doesn't handle the placement of the amg's. There's no way that the concordia has the amg placement to fire 5 shots aft as it does in the game. The concordia can't fire most of the cannons it has in all directions. It just doesn't have that ability *officially*. I know the placement of 6, possibly 8 of the amg's on the concordia. 2 in the front, and 2 on each side of the middle(runway) area. Even if the other 2 were on the back that wouldn't account for 5 shots. So I'm not using the unrealistic game engine, where shots seem to come out of nowhere on the hull of the concordia, as a legitamate source for how many amg's it has.

[Edited by Terrorizer on 01-03-2001 at 17:26]
 
Surely the Concordia is capable of broadside type actions. And they don't have to fire all the guns at the same time.
 
Yes, but the game engine doesn't go by this rule. That's why I don't use it as a source to see how many amg's the concordia has. If you don't know, we're arguing about how the concordia officially has 8 amg's even though the game engine has it with 7. We are not arguing about wheather it is a good ship or not.
 
That's the main reason I don't use the game engine as a source. The game engine doesn't handle the placement of the amg's. There's no way that the concordia has the amg placement to fire 5 shots aft as it does in the game. The concordia can't fire most of the cannons it has in all directions. It just doesn't have that ability *officially*. I know the placement of 6, possibly 8 of the amg's on the concordia. 2 in the front, and 2 on each side of the middle(runway) area. Even if the other 2 were on the back that wouldn't account for 5 shots. So I'm not using the unrealistic game engine, where shots seem to come out of nowhere on the hull of the concordia, as a legitamate source for how many amg's it has.
Click to expand...
If that's the way you feel, fine... but you seem to be implying that things which take place aren't, as you put it, official. What, then, may I ask, is official? Because without the games, the manuals and books never existed.

The games are not, of course, a perfect reflection of the 'WC reality'. They have many flaws, and there are many, many things which obviously can't be simulated, or couldn't back when each game was being made. But <Eisen> this here is the brain case </Eisen>. It must be used :). If the manual diagrams and such tell you that the Concordia only has four AMGs fore and the rest are aft, fine - because the game doesn't simulate AMG placement, and because it wouldn't actually change anything (while the Concordia's fore armament would be halved, so would that of its enemies). This does not, however, invalidate everything else that the manuals fail to take into account. When there is an inconsistency, you must ask yourself why it's there. Would that extra AMG have been impossible to implement? No. Therefore, it was not there because it never existed, regardless of the manual which couldn't be updated in time.

More importantly, have you ever heard of a light fighter that could be outmanoeuvred by an enemy bomber? Because according to the manual, the Sartha can indeed be outmanoeuvred by a Broadsword.
 
Quarto: "the Sartha can indeed be outmanoeuvred by a Broadsword."
Heh heh. This reminds me of one time when I was flying the Broadsword. Some Kilrathi fighter was bothering me, forget which one, but he was trying to fly circles around me. So what I did was turn in a flat horizontal circle, always keeping my starboard turret pointing at him. No matter how fast he turned or flew he couldn't outrun the turret and after maybe 6 revolutions the gunner got him. Ahhhh :cool: It was one of the few times I enjoyed flying the Broadsword. No offense to the Broadword but the Broadsword missions are often the hardest IMHO, since they often meant going up against capship AMGs :eek:

As for game engine limitations - I'm no expert but the engine didn't seem to have any problems simulating the Broadsword's turrets (where they could shoot or how many shots they fired in whichever direction).
 
Aye, that's what the manual says. Gamewise, the Sartha is twice as maneuverable, so neither manual number jives with the game. It goes without saying that manuals aren't to be totally discounted, either.
 
Broadsword missions hard? eh, that was the only ship (besides the Morningstar) that could take the punishment from AMGs
 
Penguin: Aye, but - as always in WC - capships are handled differently. They are designed to be as annoying as they possibly can, y'know :). And for that purpose, they need to be able to fire their guns in at least two directions (note that they cannot fire their AMGs sideways, though of course flak cannons have no such limitations).
 
Quarto: "note that they cannot fire their AMGs sideways"
Are you saying that I can approach a Fralthra from the side and it can't shoot its AMG at me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top