Concordia (Confederation Dreadnought) sister ships?

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Dragon1 said:
I am not sure that I subscribe so much to the theory that Concordia-class Carriers (the 2633/34 models) were massed produced throughout the war. The Lexington in WC4 was supposed to be a Confederation-class ship, but due to moddeling problems, that didn't come to fruition.
So... your argument is based on the fact that something did not happen?

It doesn't matter what could have been. It didn't happen - the Lexington ended up a Concordia-class, and thus it was established that the Concordia-class was the ship type most produced during the war.

Note also that the Confederation-class-in-WC4 mishap had a very positive result that helps us to better understand the Confederation-class: namely, the WC4 novel mentions that the Princeton and the Lexington have the same deck layout as the Concordia. Now, let's forget for a moment that the two classes look completely different (;)), and let's consider what this may mean - that the Confederation-class is derived from the the Concordia-class. Of course, it's significantly different because it's built around the PTC, but the similar deck layout still implies that the two classes have a lot in common.

This would, of course, also help explain why there wouldn't be any sense of having a special PTC-less Confederation-class: the Confederation-class, in some sense, is a PTC-ified Concordia-class, so making a PTC-less Confederation would leave you with a modified Concordia-class.

There is a listing for Light Carrier (which may include both of the Ranger and Concordia classes. Both ships utilize the CV designation and not CVL or CVA).
It's been established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Concordia class are fleet carriers.

The new fleet carriers from the WC4 novel, like the 800-meter TCS Princeton were most likely intended to be Lexington-class. Only in the WC4 game do we hear of the "Concordia-class" reference for the CV48 in the Speradon missions. The CV48 is never identified in the game as the new carrier Princeton, it is just assumed.
Uh, so now it turns out that the Border Worlds captured not one, but two fleet carriers in WC4, simply because you want to see more Lexington-type ships? :)

Note that even if a 'two separate carriers' was feasible, it wouldn't help your argument at all - we know that the CV-48 we capture in-game is a Concordia-class because we see it (and it is identified as such), and we know that the Princeton in the novel is Concordia-class because it's got the same layout as the Lexington (which is undeniably Concordia-class) and the Concordia. So, best case, you'd end up with Blair capturing two Concordia-class carriers... but no sign of the Lexington-type ships.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
So... your argument is based on the fact that something did not happen?

It doesn't matter what could have been. It didn't happen - the Lexington ended up a Concordia-class, and thus it was established that the Concordia-class was the ship type most produced during the war.
Firstly, it is not an argument, but an observation. You are right. That fact that it didn't happen means that we have to then create something around what did happen. But I was looking at the spirit of what Chris Roberts and Forstchen may have intended as opposed to what we got. Again, just an observation.

Princeton and the Lexington have the same deck layout as the Concordia. Now, let's forget for a moment that the two classes look completely different (), and let's consider what this may mean - that the Confederation-class is derived from the the Concordia-class
I never stated that the Confederation and was derived from the Concordia-class. Also, two separate carrier-classes could easily share the same deck plan and have different hull lines, engine components, weapons systems, and internal layouts. A deck plan is a deck plan, American carriers of different classes today have very similar deck plans going back to the Lexington CV2 and Saratoga CV3.

This would, of course, also help explain why there wouldn't be any sense of having a special PTC-less Confederation-class: the Confederation-class, in some sense, is a PTC-ified Concordia-class, so making a PTC-less Confederation would leave you with a modified Concordia-class.
There is very little similar between a Concordia-class and a Confederation-class. There length is totally different and the hull frame has nothing in comparison. Again, the Concordia is an uprated Ranger, probably built on the same 720 meter hull with between 28,000-30,000 tons of mass. The Confederation is a totally different design.

It's been established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Concordia class are fleet carriers.
As established in "Action Stations". I agree, the Ranger (also bearing the CV is a fleet carrier, just a light fleet carrier). The Concordia-class was a standard fleet carrier near the beginning of the war, as time progressed, more powerful ships entered service into Confed and its status compared to its Kilrathi and Confed counterparts was looked upon as a lighter fleet carrier, but like the Ranger-class, it was still a fleet carrier CV.

Uh, so now it turns out that the Border Worlds captured not one, but two fleet carriers in WC4, simply because you want to see more Lexington-type ships?
No, not at all. I am just trying to piece together the differences in statements and concepts between what Forstchen thought was developing in the books, what Chris Roberts wanted to possible see in WC4, and what we got as a final product.

Relax, I am not trying to break the tightly knit doctrine that is your open and shut no room for opinion WC universe.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
This may explain why in 2666-2669 the TCS Concordia had the hull number CVS-65 and not DN-15 or BDN-15 or even BB-15 (with the assumption that 14 was the TCS Confederation).
Now, now, lets be fair here -- you're playing loose with the facts to support your point. We know that the TCS Concordia was CVS-65 in {early} 2665.

I agree. I believe the Lexington-class of 2668 was exactly that. Unfortunately, to design, build, test, and deploy a new carrier would take years (not to mention getting funding from the government for the project). In the interim, Confed would still need new carriers. So even if Confederation-class ships were launched as essentially floating hulls with a fighter wing, it would mean something was being built.
I don't see that any connection is ever made between these two ships. It is extremely (weird) wishful thinking to create one. The fact that Confed might have two classes of carriers isn't an open invitation to figure out why Confed secretly only has *one* class of carriers. Creating a story about how a 983-meter long dreadnaught was upgraded into a 725 meter heavy carrier that looks completely different is a useless exercise.

I am not sure that I subscribe so much to the theory that Concordia-class Carriers (the 2633/34 models) were massed produced throughout the war. The Lexington in WC4 was supposed to be a Confederation-class ship, but due to moddeling problems, that didn't come to fruition.
As already discussed in this very thread, the extent to which this is true is very limited. It is something that was discussed very early on - in much the same way that they discussed bringing the Kilrathi back as the enemy in Prophecy. Does that mean that Prophecy was *secretly* about another war with the Kilrathi? They talked about doing Wing Commander IV as a prequel - does that mean it secretly is? Fans need to stop latching onto very early design considerations as evidence that they should reform the universe. It's cool that we understand this little nugget of history - it is absolutely unimportant to the continuity.

There is a listing for Light Carrier (which may include both of the Ranger and Concordia classes. Both ships utilize the CV designation and not CVL or CVA).
Length: 720 meters, 11 turreted weapons
The specifications which appear in Victory Streak are in reference to the Ranger-class (like the TCS Victory). The Concordia-class ship is a creation of Wing Commander IV, which was developed *after* Wing Commander III's manual was written.

I'm not sure why everyone is so insistant that we directly import all naval practices. You'd think the Fleet Tactics and Saga guys would have learned about the danger of over-navyfying their fiction from the Aces Club's TCS Fenris (literally a Nimitz-class ship in space). The CVL designation just doesn't exist in Wing Commander to the best of our knowledge.

But, there is no listing for a heavy carrier or CVS (perhaps this denotes Strike Carrier, or perhaps it doesn't. Either way it is definately separate from the CVs)
Since the Tiger's Claw (CV-7) was a Strike Carrier, it seems unlikely that that's what the designation means. On the other hand, the Conccordia (CVS-65) is a dreadnaught... and it's the only ship we ever see using this designation. It seems reasonable to assign 'CVS' to 'dreadnaught' in the Wing Commander universe.

The Kilrathi Heavy Carrier was 920 meters, and had 8 turreted weapons.

The Kilrathi Heavy Carrier may have been a competitor to the Confederation-class which in this case was slightly larger and had more weapons points, but had far less mass (survivability) and protection. Again, common trade off features in an arms race.
It's odd that you refer to it as a heavy carrier (which comes from False Colors, not Victory Streak) but do not acknowledge the established backstory for the Bhantkara-class.

The new fleet carriers from the WC4 novel, like the 800-meter TCS Princeton were most likely intended to be Lexington-class. Only in the WC4 game do we hear of the "Concordia-class" reference for the CV48 in the Speradon missions. The CV48 is never identified in the game as the new carrier Princeton, it is just assumed. The CV44 and CV48 penant numbers are very close to the TCS Victory CV40 which entered service sometime during the first year of the war (as established by some of Capt. Eisen's dialogue in WC3). Also, the TCS Concordia entered service in the year of the McAuliffe ambush in 2634 and would probably aslo have a similar penant number (perhaps CV38 or CV39).
I'm pretty sure the CV-48 and the Lexington are "intended" to be the same ship -- so arguing anything else based on intent is pretty pointless. We *know* that the Lexington was comissioned at the very end of the war... and based on the carrier production chart posted earlier, the Princeton wouldn't have been comissioned until *after* the war. It seems far more likely that these are new numbers, assigned after (as the novel confirms) the 40-series CVs were retired.

Separating the Confederation-class CVS, and the Jutland-class CVA (in my opinion, the Jutland was a reconfigured Waterloo-class Cruiser) we are left with the Concordia-class Carriers dominating the CV40-50 range and the Lexington dominating the CV60 range. Then would eventually come the Vesuvius CV70.
This could be what Forstchen meant when he said that all 40-series carriers (Ranger and Concordia-classes built in the 30s) were decommissioned after the war.
You're getting your conspiracies mixed up. The name "Jutland-class" is a non canon term for whatever class of ship the "CVA Trafalgar" is. Since the Trafalgar was distinct from the Waterloo-class TCS Gettysburg, they're probably not both "Jutland class".
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Thank you for the clarification of some of the facts BANDIT Loaf. I was under the impression that the Tiger's Claw was CVS-07 and not CV-07. I will say that I stand corrected on many of the points you have listed. I guess it is wishful thinking to have Confederation and Lexington-class ships in service after the war, and less Concordia class.

My point on the whole CV/CVL thing was that regardless if the Ranger-class was a Light Carrier or Fleet Carrier, it still was designated CV. Thus would it be illogical to think that the Concordia-class might be considered a light carrier?

Just trying to shake things up a bit. Sorry.
 

TC

SubCrid
Dragon1 said:
The CV44 and CV48 penant numbers are very close to the TCS Victory CV40 which entered service sometime during the first year of the war (as established by some of Capt. Eisen's dialogue in WC3). Also, the TCS Concordia entered service in the year of the McAuliffe ambush in 2634 and would probably aslo have a similar penant number (perhaps CV38 or CV39).
When LOAF and I were making that list of active carriers, I spent some time trying to rationalize the Confederation carrier numbering scheme. Realistically, though, the Confederation must have either reset their numbering a few times, or just assigns numbers based upon what isn't currently in use. Ships in a production run definitely increase in numbering and are, in most cases, sequential. There are indications that certain ranges *may* be reserved for certain classes. Beyond that, there's no much that can be nailed down.

Dragon1 said:
My point on the whole CV/CVL thing was that regardless if the Ranger-class was a Light Carrier or Fleet Carrier, it still was designated CV. Thus would it be illogical to think that the Concordia-class might be considered a light carrier?
Yes, as they're refered to as fleet carriers in various places and never refered to as light carriers or light fleet carriers. Also, if they're light carriers, how many fighters do you expect a standard fleet carrier to hold?
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
TC said:
Realistically, though, the Confederation must have either reset their numbering a few times, or just assigns numbers based upon what isn't currently in use.
It's also possible that some numbers in a block were assigned to another class of ships.

For example, Los Angeles class SSN hull numbers have a rather huge chunk missing from their block, as 726 to 743 are applied to the Ohio class sub SSBNs (what would've been 744-749 were canceled in 1991, but the rest of the 726-749 block wasn't reallocated).
 

criticalmass

Vice Admiral
Oops. Maybe I should have phrased my question differently - although this is a very enlightening and interesting discussion. I've learned a lot and extracted some really useful information, especially the list is very good.

The problem I actually tried to solve was to find a good place for starting a fanfic/game storyline. Since quite a bit of work already went into defining the CDN's interiors, I'd really like to go on from there - but squeezing the action into the Concordia too seemed a bit awkward to me. I'd run into continuity trouble all the time, so I was looking for an alternative.

I'm thinking about two possible scenarios right now:

- A functional CDN that is not the Concordia, operating somewhere between 2662-2665. If I read the thread right, there are 4 options.

- A still functional CDN after 2669, preferably in a "quiet" period between 2673-2681. As I understand, this is highly unlikely - although writing something about an incomplete ship (or maybe a "museum" ship, using one of the possibly existing incomplete hulls) would be interesting, too.

Just give me your opinion which option would be more fitting into the timeline, and which will be more interesting for you personally...
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Bandit LOAF said:
. . . the picture is not specifically of a Terran Confederation-class ship...
I’ll give into that one. Psych can pick up the argument if he chooses, its his reasoning. The "exerpt" is hilarious.
Bandit LOAF said:
. .. there's something fundamentally different about "late 2665". . .
I also can’t argue too much with that. There is something important about the “late 2665” reference. The problem is we can surmise its implications but, in universe, we admittedly don’t know what this important something is. It could be the last year a CDN rolled off the assembly line, but it could also be (albeit not as neat) that the date is the last time a warship was began to use a PTC. This might mean the other ones nearing completion (because I can’t see Confed stopping production on carriers because of a flaw they may or may not have known about from the beginning that doesn’t revolve around it being a carrier) roll off the assembly line with their PTC’s in place/deactivated/what have you. Filling in the gaps is fun, but we just don’t know.
Bandit LOAF said:
. . .the Kilrathi Saga manual's addition of a reference exists specifically to remove the "super" technology from Wing Commander II from service. . .
I wasn’t aware that the KS entry was intended to answer the “where are the superships?” question. I always thought it was further explanation of “Why is Angel afraid that the new-to-WC2 supergun will destroy the Concordia?”.
Bandit LOAF said:
. . . it seems to me that it would have been a rush job to counter the percieved threat of future Sivar-class ships, which is what resulted in the ships being retired in the first place.)
We are given a hard and fast time to build a carrier. We are given, in the same breath, a hard and fast time to build a yard and train personnel to build a carrier. Why would we stick to the 5 year reference and not the 10 year one? I’m pretty sure we don’t know that a yard can start building another class of carrier as soon as the last one of the previous class is shipped out (it’s a pretty cool observation – speaking of which, how do we know the Bengal was produced till 2657? – but I don’t think we are given that information in a WC source, unless it’s a movie-derivative reference, which I’m very lacking on). If this is not the case, the Confederation DN would have to have a yard built and its design laid out years before the PAG was confiscated. The PTC write-up (I really should wait till I get home and get some reference materials for all this, but I’m not going to have time) mentions that every other confederation ship is too short to “mount” the PTC. Why would you need to mention this unless if any other ship was long enough, the PTC would have been strapped to the first one they could bring into drydock. Low and behold though, a ship that is long enough is coming down the pipes and is about to begin construction. Quickly replacing the pre-designed “never intended for the purpose” ships’ keel with a PTC seems like about as good of a story to back the problems encountered by the PTC as the whole ‘quickly designed entire ship’ theory.
I can’t see doing away with the novel’s 10 years statement just because we want a reason why an assumed hastily designed ship is constructed so fast. Again, another point that we don’t know and can just make educated guesses at.
Bandit LOAF said:
To say that because it is theoretically possible that a new carrier class can be added to the mix simply from a technical point of view is absolutely not a reason to do so, particularly at the one point in the continuity when the specific number of carriers is most strictly scrutinized.
Bandit LOAF said:
The novels and manuals provide a series of specific numbers for carriers and for losses around this time.
I agree with these points.
Bandit LOAF said:
Because we can follow the chart and tell that of the ships in service in 2665, only two were still around in 2669 - the TCS Concordia and the TCS Liberty.
Well, after a quick look at your carrier list and with the information off the top of my head, unless I missed a source, there is an opportunity for a Confederation to make it to 2669. It hinges on why the Austerlitz is counted as a killed carrier in the BoT. You have 16 carriers in the BoT, a number I agree with given what needs to be available in 2669 thanks to the Victory Streak, Armada, etc. The Verdun and the Moskva buy it in I believe Sirius. The Lexington and two other ships are done in at Earth (speaking of which, again, why is it the Saratoga is listed as a survivor and the Leyte Gulf and Ark Royal take the fall when I don’t think we are ever give a later source with the Saratoga? It may be in the WC3N, but I can’t recall). Three more carriers are killed in their berths, along with some other still under construction. Why does the Austerlitz, the Viking and a previous unknown get the boot when there is still one previous unknown? I think the only reference we have on the Viking is it’s the carrier the Kilrathi Scientist defects to (or maybe that’s the Viper, anyway . .. ) and the Austerlitz gets a throw away mention in End Run. Between 4 carriers, the Austerlitz, the Viking, and 2 unknowns, three have to be destroyed. This is even before we throw the wildcard of the Bengal class Wolfhound in the mix, which isn’t represented in this fleet carrier list, but is listed as at least a carrier in End Run (we’ll leave the Gettysburg “carrier” out of it).

So we have at best 5 carriers (or 4 if the Wolfhound could be one of the unknowns) for 3 carrier kills, and I’m pretty sure we have no idea which ones take the fall. Now following that train of though, if the Austerlitz is the one that survives, it can be traced back to 2666, where it could be one of the Confederation DN’s released in the previous years. It’s like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, but actually fun. I probably missed something, but I’ll sure as hell get corrected if I have :).


C-ya
 

psych

Destroyer of assclowns
The stuff on the page is old, and hasn't been updated with the new revamps made from reading the fan feedback. It'll take a while to update it though; my free time is virtually nonexistent. Expect a minimum of a few months for Fleet Tactics to get a major update again.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I wasn’t aware that the KS entry was intended to answer the “where are the superships?” question. I always thought it was further explanation of “Why is Angel afraid that the new-to-WC2 supergun will destroy the Concordia?”.
I think this is a common misconception. Note two things:

* In actuality, the scene is self-explanitory. Angel says "But Admiral, we're only at 60 per cent power. Our power plant could blow." in response to Tolwyn's request that the gun be fired. (Now let us tread softly, not asking ourselves why the captain of the ship is ordering the Wing Commander to order the gun crew to fire the gun...). We assosciate the scene with the gun problem in retrospect - but no one was asking what the deal was beforehand because Angel specifically explains that it's because of limited power.

* Special Operations 2 was not included with The Kilrathi Saga, nor was it *intended* to be included with Kilrathi Saga. Unlike the Secret Missions, the Special Operations disks were completely dropped from the plans before the project shipped - it was only through fan complaint that the developeds opted to go back and convert them later on (and this is why some things from them are missing - there's no reorchestrated versions of any of the Special Ops music, for instance). (Nor was Special Operations 2 considered during the development of Wing Commander III - WC3 follows none of its plot threads... it's somewhat of a redheaded stepchild in terms of gross Wing Commander continuity.)

We are given a hard and fast time to build a carrier. We are given, in the same breath, a hard and fast time to build a yard and train personnel to build a carrier. Why would we stick to the 5 year reference and not the 10 year one? I’m pretty sure we don’t know that a yard can start building another class of carrier as soon as the last one of the previous class is shipped out
I think the "ten years to build a yard" is disregarded because that just isn't how it works in real life - once you have a yard capable of building ships of a certain size you don't need to build a new one. The issue in Wing Commander is that the war started out without yards capable of producing carriers existing widely existing and that with ongoing war losses the Confederation has never managed to catch up in this area. Also, it just plain doesn't make sense - consider that if it were truly so limited as 'one yard, one carrier class' then

* The idea that said super-specialized yard could support a ship with an entirely new keel (the first part layed down) seems unlikely. It then becomes impossible to have new dreadnaughts based on the PAG at all, taking fifteen years (2670) to put them into service.
* Classes of ships would never be retired during the war - Bengals would continue to be produced throughout the conflict because *stopping* would only mean you were losing precious carriers instead of gaining slots for something better.


(it’s a pretty cool observation – speaking of which, how do we know the Bengal was produced till 2657? – but I don’t think we are given that information in a WC source, unless it’s a movie-derivative reference, which I’m very lacking on).
The Bengal reference comes from the Confederation Handbook, which says in relation to the Bengal that "Development on a replacement carrier is ongo-ing, with a scheduled rollout no later tha 2657...". Note that the Trojan IV yards are also said to be where the Midway-class ships are built much later in the timeline, too.

If this is not the case, the Confederation DN would have to have a yard built and its design laid out years before the PAG was confiscated. The PTC write-up (I really should wait till I get home and get some reference materials for all this, but I’m not going to have time) mentions that every other confederation ship is too short to “mount” the PTC. Why would you need to mention this unless if any other ship was long enough, the PTC would have been strapped to the first one they could bring into drydock. Low and behold though, a ship that is long enough is coming down the pipes and is about to begin construction. Quickly replacing the pre-designed “never intended for the purpose” ships’ keel with a PTC seems like about as good of a story to back the problems encountered by the PTC as the whole ‘quickly designed entire ship’ theory.
I can’t see doing away with the novel’s 10 years statement just because we want a reason why an assumed hastily designed ship is constructed so fast. Again, another point that we don’t know and can just make educated guesses at.
I think you're reading the word wrong; "mount" has a specific usage in terms of defining the weaponry that a warship carries. When you say that a battleship "mounts three ten inch guns", you're referring to what the armament is -- not implying that ten inch guns can be strapped onto any ship for any reason. (It's definition 10b in dictionary.com's listing for 'mount', for the curious).

Well, after a quick look at your carrier list and with the information off the top of my head, unless I missed a source, there is an opportunity for a Confederation to make it to 2669. It hinges on why the Austerlitz is counted as a killed carrier in the BoT. You have 16 carriers in the BoT, a number I agree with given what needs to be available in 2669 thanks to the Victory Streak, Armada, etc. The Verdun and the Moskva buy it in I believe Sirius. The Lexington and two other ships are done in at Earth (speaking of which, again, why is it the Saratoga is listed as a survivor and the Leyte Gulf and Ark Royal take the fall when I don’t think we are ever give a later source with the Saratoga? It may be in the WC3N, but I can’t recall). Three more carriers are killed in their berths, along with some other still under construction. Why does the Austerlitz, the Viking and a previous unknown get the boot when there is still one previous unknown? I think the only reference we have on the Viking is it’s the carrier the Kilrathi Scientist defects to (or maybe that’s the Viper, anyway . .. ) and the Austerlitz gets a throw away mention in End Run. Between 4 carriers, the Austerlitz, the Viking, and 2 unknowns, three have to be destroyed. This is even before we throw the wildcard of the Bengal class Wolfhound in the mix, which isn’t represented in this fleet carrier list, but is listed as at least a carrier in End Run (we’ll leave the Gettysburg “carrier” out of it).

So we have at best 5 carriers (or 4 if the Wolfhound could be one of the unknowns) for 3 carrier kills, and I’m pretty sure we have no idea which ones take the fall. Now following that train of though, if the Austerlitz is the one that survives, it can be traced back to 2666, where it could be one of the Confederation DN’s released in the previous years. It’s like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, but actually fun. I probably missed something, but I’ll sure as hell get corrected if I have .
I don't have my notes on the list here, so this may be kind of rough. TC and I made a conscious decision to leave the Bengals and the Gettysurg off the list, and we looked at all the language to find a way to do this properly.

The "unknown" carriers that exist after the Battle of Earth are all, per the list, either Lexington-class, Concordia-class or Jutland-class carriers which were introduced in 2668 (so as to reach the 16 carriers necessary for the Battle of Terra from the eight minus three post End Run ships, per Voices of War).

That means that at this point the only carrier which *could* be a Terran Confederation dreadnaught is the TCS Austerlitz, which is of an unknown class and entered service in 2666 or sooner. The Austerlitz was specifically supposed to be one of the carriers in drydock (for the period extending through the Battle of Terra), per its reference in End Run... which, I believe, is why I listed it as one of the ships killed in that capacity.

I already cited the Saratoga in a post above - it's listed as a survivor because it's one of the ships which participate in the fighter competition in Victory Streak.
 

criticalmass

Vice Admiral
While all these theories about production times, yard usage, design strategies and possible losses and survivals are really fun, it doesn't quite answer my question...


Hey guys, all I need is two answers:

  • Was there another functional CDN between 2662-2665? If there was one, but there is no historical data for a name, I'll just leave it out. If there was one, or several, a brief summary of operations would be more than enough.
    For instance: The TCS Austerlitz sounds interesting. Are there some more details available?
  • And: Is there the possibility for an unfinished CDN hull (or even a *gasp* surviving ship) still hanging about in 2673-2681?


Thanks.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
IIRC Austerlitz is first mentioned in ER as being in for repairs (a year of them I think) it had been raiding in the Enigma sector..
 

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
Wouldn't the original TCS Concordia carry a registry of CV-1? I would think they would reset the numbering system for their new carrier.
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Sylvester said:
Wouldn't the original TCS Concordia carry a registry of CV-1? I would think they would reset the numbering system for their new carrier.
Were there only one carrier class ever in existence at any one time, possibly. Since that's demonstrably not the case in either WC or the real world, however, the notion of resetting the hull number count is kinda silly.
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Bandit LOAF said:
. . ."But Admiral, we're only at 60 per cent power. Our power plant could blow." . . .
Yeah, I always thought that this statement and the retconning of Bear's statement of irreparable damage caused by each firing of the PTC in End Run did a good job of killing it as a "usable weapon" (though I'd like to go back to the mission with the Fralthra and get an idea of how many times the PTC could have been fired in that one mission :) ). I always was under the impression that the Janes entry was just the conclusion of the story, a way to wrap up the whole thing.

Bandit LOAF said:
I think the "ten years to build a yard" is disregarded because that just isn't how it works in real life . . . .
True, this is how it works in real life, but there one remark you made touches on a portion of the problem. The CDN is over 40% longer than the Bengal, and if I remember some appropriately sized silhoettes I've seen, quite a bit "bulkier". Granted, Confed is building a 800meter long carrier at the time and might have a "generic" sized yards that are big enough to house any vessel, but, thanks in large to the PTC entry, we know the Confederation has never built a ship as large as the CDN. Can we assume that they've built all their yards "berths" to take on any size ship?
Though it is a good reason why the Midways started rolling off the lines in 8 years or so (depending on when Blair threw his chips on the felt), but if you absolutely, positively need a carrier overnight, it seems it can be done in a Confed not straining to build a ton of carriers at a time to fight the Kilrathi (and 'confiscating' much needed foundry ships from civilians) by the introduction of the Vesuvius in about 3 years.

Another problem I see with reusing "berths" in the yards is that changing carriers becomes way too easy. It means that at any time the Confederation could have changed the "single through flight deck" (I think the concensus is that the "two bays" from WC4N refers to the space "below" the flight deck, correct me if I'm wrong) design of the Concordia-class that was apparently something they learned early in the Kilrathi War was not a good feature into a different, more robust design without too much effort. Eggheads dream it up and you start building it the next time a Concordia leaves a yard "slot". Why would you keep building a 30 year old design if you could easily slide a better "Kilrathi War geared" one in there? Same for the Bengal class, I think its been built since 2619 IIRC. I guess, playing devils advocate, a sortof "if it isn't broke . . ." mentality can be applied to this situation, but having to build or augment (something that takes time and resources) a yard to accomadate a new ship makes the decision to change over to a new class of carrier alot tougher of a decision. It also seems to be a another point for the yards keeping the same carrier production schedule throughout the War.
Bandit LOAF said:
I think you're reading the word wrong; "mount" has a specific usage in terms of defining the weaponry that a warship carries.
You could definitely be right, but that line still seems to take away the "uniqueness" of the Confederation DN design. It seems that if another design had been present that had been long enough, that the PTC would have been encorporated onto that ship in a "quick redesign". I still see a "redesign of the load bearing structure" of an existing Confederation carrier about to go into production is about as viable as an "entire design of a carrier whipped out in a few months" situation considering the PTC problems and the times involved.
Bandit LOAF said:
The Austerlitz was specifically supposed to be one of the carriers in drydock (for the period extending through the Battle of Terra), per its reference in End Run... which, I believe, is why I listed it as one of the ships killed in that capacity.
It is one of the carriers in some kindof repair yard, but so are the Hermes, Liberty, Invincible, and Winterowd, all immobilized in one way or another (jump drives undergoing overhaul, reactor cores removed, whatever else Fleet Action sites as to why the other carriers can't make it to the Battle of Terra). Where they are all immobilized is not something we know. Maybe they are all in the same dock area and only three were destroyed. Maybe they were scattered throughout the Confederation and thats why they weren't hit, again we don't know. We don't know what immobilized carrier was in what place, but we know three of them were killed and its not the Hermes, Liberty, invincible, or Winterowd. Maybe the Austerlitz was in the same place as the ones that survive, or maybe one of the unknowns, or the Wolfhound, or the Viking. All seem to have a pretty equal shot of surviving based on our information.

C-ya
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Yeah, I always thought that this statement and the retconning of Bear's statement of irreparable damage caused by each firing of the PTC in End Run did a good job of killing it as a "usable weapon" (though I'd like to go back to the mission with the Fralthra and get an idea of how many times the PTC could have been fired in that one mission ). I always was under the impression that the Janes entry was just the conclusion of the story, a way to wrap up the whole thing.
I'm not sure I've ever heard this reference before -- I don't remember the Phase Transit Cannon ever being mentioned in the novels. (Feel free to point it out -- but it would certainly be odd for a novel to generate a reference like this.)

True, this is how it works in real life, but there one remark you made touches on a portion of the problem. The CDN is over 40% longer than the Bengal, and if I remember some appropriately sized silhoettes I've seen, quite a bit "bulkier". Granted, Confed is building a 800meter long carrier at the time and might have a "generic" sized yards that are big enough to house any vessel, but, thanks in large to the PTC entry, we know the Confederation has never built a ship as large as the CDN. Can we assume that they've built all their yards "berths" to take on any size ship?
Though it is a good reason why the Midways started rolling off the lines in 8 years or so (depending on when Blair threw his chips on the felt), but if you absolutely, positively need a carrier overnight, it seems it can be done in a Confed not straining to build a ton of carriers at a time to fight the Kilrathi (and 'confiscating' much needed foundry ships from civilians) by the introduction of the Vesuvius in about 3 years.
My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that for all practical purposes ships are generally measured by mass rather than by length... in which case a yard which can produce the 80,000 tonne Bengal-class Tiger's Claw can probably also produce a 73,000 tonne Terran Confederation-class ship.

Another problem I see with reusing "berths" in the yards is that changing carriers becomes way too easy. It means that at any time the Confederation could have changed the "single through flight deck" (I think the concensus is that the "two bays" from WC4N refers to the space "below" the flight deck, correct me if I'm wrong) design of the Concordia-class that was apparently something they learned early in the Kilrathi War was not a good feature into a different, more robust design without too much effort. Eggheads dream it up and you start building it the next time a Concordia leaves a yard "slot". Why would you keep building a 30 year old design if you could easily slide a better "Kilrathi War geared" one in there? Same for the Bengal class, I think its been built since 2619 IIRC. I guess, playing devils advocate, a sortof "if it isn't broke . . ." mentality can be applied to this situation, but having to build or augment (something that takes time and resources) a yard to accomadate a new ship makes the decision to change over to a new class of carrier alot tougher of a decision. It also seems to be a another point for the yards keeping the same carrier production schedule throughout the War.
No, I think the consensus about the Concordia-class is that it has two catapults (and then two separate repair bays, one on each side). We certainly hear about port and starboard catapults in the Price of Freedom novel, and the fact that they're "single deck" carriers is never an issue ever (rather, the Lexington is considered an impressive modern carrier by Blair and company). I don't think this point is a relevant issue at all.

You could definitely be right, but that line still seems to take away the "uniqueness" of the Confederation DN design. It seems that if another design had been present that had been long enough, that the PTC would have been encorporated onto that ship in a "quick redesign". I still see a "redesign of the load bearing structure" of an existing Confederation carrier about to go into production is about as viable as an "entire design of a carrier whipped out in a few months" situation considering the PTC problems and the times involved.
I see this in the exact opposite manner in terms of implications. By specifying that the weapon "forms the keel" of the ship, the manual is telling us that it makes up the absolute core of the ship. It then goes on to say that it's too large to be used on any other ship -- it's entirely unique.

It is one of the carriers in some kindof repair yard, but so are the Hermes, Liberty, Invincible, and Winterowd, all immobilized in one way or another (jump drives undergoing overhaul, reactor cores removed, whatever else Fleet Action sites as to why the other carriers can't make it to the Battle of Terra). Where they are all immobilized is not something we know. Maybe they are all in the same dock area and only three were destroyed. Maybe they were scattered throughout the Confederation and thats why they weren't hit, again we don't know. We don't know what immobilized carrier was in what place, but we know three of them were killed and its not the Hermes, Liberty, invincible, or Winterowd. Maybe the Austerlitz was in the same place as the ones that survive, or maybe one of the unknowns, or the Wolfhound, or the Viking. All seem to have a pretty equal shot of surviving based on our information.
Based on your own low guess for number of Terran Confederation-class dreadnaughts, there's a 1 in 55 chance (1 in 15 by my estimate) that the TCS Austerlitz could be one at all -- ignoring that it's the one that we *know* is in drydock and that it doesn't fit the name scheme of the two known ships. Then there's only another 1 in 4 chance that it survives the battle at all. Basing fanfic around incredibly remote possibilities like this is one of the things that's wrong with fanfic.

* Was there another functional CDN between 2662-2665? If there was one, but there is no historical data for a name, I'll just leave it out. If there was one, or several, a brief summary of operations would be more than enough.
For instance: The TCS Austerlitz sounds interesting. Are there some more details available?
Yes, that period is largely unspecified. We know that the TCS Terran Confederation (possibly CVS-14) would be in service, along with as many as four other ships (unnamed).

* And: Is there the possibility for an unfinished CDN hull (or even a *gasp* surviving ship) still hanging about in 2673-2681?
No.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Here is a thought. Confed takes the Nephilip plasma weapon off of the TCS Midway, then scales the down the firepower moderately.

Confed then designs a heavy carrier that can mount the new gun. This heavy carrier is then armed with cruiser grade weaponry (probably tachyon guns as opposed to AMGs).

We now have a new dreadnought. Something like a Terran Confederation II-class.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Bandit LOAF said:
No, I think the consensus about the Concordia-class is that it has two catapults (and then two separate repair bays, one on each side). We certainly hear about port and starboard catapults in the Price of Freedom novel, and the fact that they're "single deck" carriers is never an issue ever (rather, the Lexington is considered an impressive modern carrier by Blair and company). I don't think this point is a relevant issue at all.
That would seem correct in the game screens and inflight. The orange and yellow lines seem to indicate the location of the catapult and the white line divides the flight deck in half. On missions that you fly with a wingman in wc4 you always take off next to your wingman (presumably he's on the other catapult).
 

Attachments

Top