Bandit LOAF said:
Then that would be a singular instance of ship specifications having some sort of effect on a novel -- Action Stations' use of the term 'phase shields' to mean what we previously assumed to simply be 'shields' almost certainly comes more from the fact that later novels use the term with complete abandon... with the term showing up over and over again in the Wing Commander III adaptation to describe fighter shielding.
Another one of Forstchen's mistakes? The WCIII adaption is the only source I am aware of that refers to fighter's shields as "phase". The Kilrathi Saga manual OTOH, says the following:
The latest in defense technology, capital ship shields are impervious to damage from all fighter mounted missiles and guns. Torpedos are the only fighter-mounted weapons capable of getting through.
I just don't see where you're coming from. The analogy breaks down very easily -- the Vesuvius, for instance, is the more capable carrier in terms of fighter operations...
Eh? How is the Vesuvius's single massive deck more capable than the two good sized Midway decks? Not to mention that the Midway is capable of carrying, refitting, and launching far more planes, Its design obviously reflects a different strategic thinking, but I don't see how it is any less capable than the Vesuvius.
and what about the fleet of modern escort carriers spoken of in the Wing Commander Prophecy literature? There's no direct parallel.
I thought about this too. The Cerberus kind of bothered me, because Jeep Carriers were all decommisioned after the war. After a bit of thinking, I realized two things:
1. The US operates amphibious assault ships, which are a form of mini-carrier. These ships operate helicopters and harrier jump jets off their decks, and are capable of independent operations and supporting fire. Very similar to the Cerberus's role.
2. After WWII, Britian switched to using nothing but light carriers. While these were later found to have problems projecting power, they were full blown carriers with complete flight ops capabilities. e.g. The Centaur class and later the Invincible class. If we assume that Confed encompasses a parallel of both Britian and the US, then things still make sense.
And consider what you're suggesting - in order to prove your point that Concordia-class carriers can't exist (?)
No, I'm attempting to suggest that either:
1. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. This would have made the Concordia class a later arrival. Given its precense at the Battle of Earth, it makes sense that the namesake may have been destroyed and thus replaced with the newer Confederation carrier. This would make the Concordia class easily only 10 years old or less by the time of WCIV.
2. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. Jane's manual "mistakenly" printed the class type as Confederation class, when the Concordia was in fact the first of her kind. Thus later references to the Concordia class carrier actually refer to a ship similar to the WCII Concordia. (Note that this explanation harmonizes with the books the best.)
you would have us believe that the Confederation went without *any* carriers for a period simply because the end of the war is an absolute date for you.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that drawing from the WWII parallel, the Confederation would immediately decommision and mothball its early war/pre-war carrier assets, thus allowing the newer models to remain in service while the latest in carriers finished construction.
Did the US Navy immediately decomission all its ships the day after World War II because it knew that, eh, later on they'd build some better ones?
They DID immediately decommission all of their early war/pre-war carrier assets. I named several classes in both the USN and RN as examples! It's EXPENSIVE to keep wartime readiness! So the fleets were immediately scaled back.
The Confederation Navy is clearly creating a modern carrier force - at the outset of Wing Commander IV in 2673, they are getting ready to fight another war without having comissioned a new class of ships yet.
But the Vesuvius *was* commisioned. Earlier than originally planned, but she was commisioned. And Tolwyn was certain that the existing carriers in service should be more than a match for the BW tech. (Which he would be correct.) It's possible they pulled a carrier from mothballs, but I sincerely doubt it. Remember, the whole situation was smoke and mirrors designed to place the blame for genocide on the Border World's sholders.
They've clearly done the World War II analogy by decomissioning the light carriers and the earlier CVEs... heck, they may well have decomissioned the older Bengal-class ships and any surviving pre-war era carriers (which would be the Enterprise CV-6 equivalent - not a carrier built during the war).
Close, but the Bengal class is a good comparison for the real life Ranger class. The Yorktown class carrier was built just prior to and during WWII.
In terms of antimatter technology - in fact, the fighters in Wing Commander Prophecy are all smaller than their war era counterparts... theoretically a result of the new doctrine of focusing on specialized roles rather than jack-of-all-trades designs. None of them have the "unlimited afterburner" effect that distinguished the Lance's propulsion system in terms of gameplay... and none of them make use of more gun energy than a Thunderbolt or a Banshee.
What are you basing the smaller size on? I have the manual up at the moment, and I don't see any sizes given. An "off the cuff" measurement based on cockpit and missile loadout, shows the Prophecy ships to be substantially bigger than their WCIII & IV counterparts. Also, the weapons appear far more powerful than the WCIII-IV era weapons, in that they penetrate shields and armor at a tremendous rate. These ships are also FAST. Using those assumptions as a baseline, we can figure that they built new fighters with the antimatter technology, but they uped the shields, weapons, and speed to a point where the outstripped the new power capabilities given by the antimatter tech. That would explain why the "no fuel afterburner" no longer exists.
These arguments have little basis in fact. There has never, ever been a case where upgrading shielding or armor or weapons has resulted in renaming a class of ships in the Wing Commander universe. On the contrary, we've seen ships undergo major structural changes without any sort of acknowledgement -- the Bengal-class, the Hades-class, the WC3 Destroyers, etc.
If I may, I'd like to cite a lack of information here. While the Bengal class may have differed significantly between ships, we don't have a whole lot of info on any other than the Tiger's Claw. The Yorktown and Essex classes were in a very similar situation. The Hornet and Wasp were technically in their own classes, yet the Hornet is usually listed as Yorktown class, and Wasp is considered to be part of the Yorktown family. In the Essex class, it has long been stated that no two ships were alike, and the only definition of the Ticonderoga class was the longer hull. Some have even argued that the Ticonderoga wasn't a true class, but rather a way of indetifying some of the more advanced Essex ships.
With so little information, we may be identifying Bengal class carriers that are actually of another subclass or in a class of their own.
The fact that a Concordia-class carrier built in 2668 would have shielding modern for 2668 should be an automatic assumption and not an amazing impossibility (... just like the improvements to modern Nimitz-class carriers you reference in another point).
Yes, but when new technology changes the very face of how a ship functions, it also allows for overall design changes that shipbuilder will take advantage of. For example, the introduction of torpedos would have suggested the addition of torpedo tubes. While a carrier could be refitted with these, they would probably have several issues that make them less effective than a ship which was designed with the tubes in mind. That's what happened between the major WWII classes. For example, the Essex class added the side elevator after the Yorktown class showed how the deck elevators made the carrier vulnerable. That, combined with other major structural changes, resulted in a new class of carrier.
The name Princeton comes from the Wing Commander IV novel, and originally from Wing IV design documents. The designation, CV-48, comes from the game itself.
I'm well aware of the novel. In the game it was unnamed, so I try to refer to it as nameless when speaking about it being an old carrier as opposed to a new carrier.
Other way around. At nearly a kilometer in length, the Confederation-class ships were the largest war-era Confederation warships (excluding the Behemoth weapons platform).
You're right. I had it backwards. The Tiger's Claw was heavier than the Concordia, and the Concordia was longer. (Seems somewhat odd, but whatever.)
They're not at all the same source: they were written by different people and there were six years between the publication of the two manuals.
I said "effectively" the same source. Most of the KS manual is a reorg and reprint of the WC1-WCIII manuals. Speaking of which, can you tell me what page it refers to the problems with the Concordia's cannon? I keep hearing about the issue, but I'd like to read the reference.
I guess I still don't understand what you're talking about: why, in your opinion, is Action Stations using the term battleship or battlewagon to refer to anything but analogues for whatever sort of ship you think the Iowa-class is?
Huh? You said the *game* used the term battleship interchangably, and that you are forgiving of it. I said that I'm even more forgiving, because the term battleship is actually quite generic. I think we both agreed that "battlewagon" was a stupid name, but it's now psudo-canon.
I think it depends on the situation -- Lieutenant Tolwyn who's seen combat and has an Academy education is a more likely candidate the lightest of warships than some new recruit. It's the same reason we have the 'small universe' discussed above -- the pre-war-footing fleet just doesn't have trained officers that can be expanded to fit ten times as many roles. Tolwyn knows Richards knows Turner knows Banbridge etc. specifically because the officer corps in 2634 is so limited.
*sigh* I think it's a rather stupid promotion. That, however, is a subjective opinion. Now dropping the topic.
That's not what I was referring to by quoting Eisen. The phrase "a new type of cloaked missile" indicates that there is an *old* type of cloaked missile.
No, it does not. One could read that into it, but that's playing with words. I could say that the Enterprise CVN-65 was a "new type of nuclear carrier" without suggesting that nuclear carriers existed before that.
Even assuming that you're right (which you're not, you just made that up), how does the "new type" differ from the "old type"? And if he really meant that, why didn't he say "a new type of skipper missile", and then follow up with it's full specs (including cloak)?
... and a special thanks to KrisV for upping the character limit as a result of my complaining about having to split replies to this thread! (Although the movie half seems to have disappeared, so maybe it doesn't matter now.)