carriers

Don't forget the Expack missions from WC2... A... Dorkalthi, was it? A large transport you're based off of for one of the two expansions... :)
 
Originally posted by TC
The intrepid was *still* a destroyer. And how is a destroyer any more a carrier than a strike cruiser?


TC

The Cerberus was a strike cruiser, not a carrier (at least that's the definition I've read.


In WCIV, you spend time aboard the Lexington, which is definately a carrier, while the Concordia, as a dreadnaught, is probably MORE than a carrier, so Preacher is probably correct in saying that SO is the only game where you are always on something LESS than a carrier.
 
I agree with those who think that the Midway can launch its fighter complement faster than the Vesuvius, not only because the Vesuvius' complement is significantly larger but for the reasons already mentioned here.
Though, IIRC we see 3 fighters start at once from a Vesuvius-class in SOPS (1 Shrike and 2 TBolts) in a cutscene. Still, I think Midway is quicker to launch.
 
The way I see it a carrier conversion or some other type with fighters on it is if it has more than one half squadron it can be considered a carrier, after all WW2 CVE's or some of the other converion's had small wing's but had more than a half squad and were considered carriers so that's good enough for me.Otherwise it's just a ship with fighters on it like some cruiser's.Besides when I said I loved catapults I meant the Midway, Although to my knowledge the Concordia in AS did'nt have a catapult
 
Since the Lexington in WC4 had a catapult, it's logical to assume that the Concordia in AS had one too (since they're the same class).
 
Originally posted by TC
The intrepid was *still* a destroyer. And how is a destroyer any more a carrier than a strike cruiser?

TC

Well, quoting from page 167 of the TPOF novel:

"A pair of fast transports with flared ore shuttle decks hovered protectively over a single *carrier*. The CV looked to have begun life as as one of the old destroyers that the Confederation had discarded and sold off. The Border Worlds had slung a single launch bay beneath its belly, reconfiguring it as a light carrier."

Also from page 323 of the TPOF novel:

"This ship *was* a destroyer abd she's still got her torps."

The Intrepid is refered to as a destroyer in the past sense, and as a carrier in the present sense. And since these obsevations and comments were made by Blair and Wilford respectively, one a carrier pilot and one a senior naval officer, I think its safe to assume they know what they're talking about.

While no-one disputes that the Intrepid began her life as a destroyer, that doesn't mean that she stays one throughout her life, anymore than the Tarawa is a transport because she was converted from a transport hull, or Britain's through-deck V/STOL carrriers are anti-submarine cruisers.

Best, Raptor
 
I think his points are valid. Unless of course, there are references in the novel that the Intrepid is still considered a destroyer.
 
Of course I'm greedy, Frosty. I sell people medicines they need to stay alive, and charge them top dollar. What can I say, it's a living. :p

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by TC
The intrepid was *still* a destroyer. And how is a destroyer any more a carrier than a strike cruiser?

For a Destroyer, albiet converted, the Intrepid seemed to lack in offensive and defensive batteries. Or is that me?
 
Originally posted by LeHah
Intrepid seemed to lack in offensive and defensive batteries. Or is that me?

Yeah, it's you, the Intrepid could up for itself quite well against bombers and the like. Most of the time anyway.
 
Plus it survived a fight with two Confed destroyers, even if it did lose its bridge and most of the crew.
 
Was the Achilles a Tallahasee or one of those crappy Agammemons? :D And why is the frigate larger than a cruiser yet carrying less armament than a destroyer?
 
Well, the Achilles was the sister ship of the Agamemnon, but there's no mention of an Agamemnon class. It's simply classified as a heavy cruiser.
 
Back
Top