Fast Destroyer Concept

[Concordia]

Fast-Destroyer: I was thinking of like how the Exeter did like 160 kps, then the Gilgameshes did like 250, I was thinking of making a destroyer that can do 340. Since the Hades can do 350, I think it would be fair to give this destroyer the extra 10.

So I was thinking of a very-fast destroyer that can do 350 kps fuelscoops open full and a 305 cruise. Acceleration should be on par with the Hades.

Now, as for shape, I was thinking of basing it on a scaled up bearcat-design, and the problem is that I cannot find a TS3 bearcat model. I don't have the desire to spend 1,500 for LW6 or whatever version they have currently, or 3,000 dollars for 3DSMax... in fact I don't even know where you could get them (anyone???)

I have therefore been forced to improvise the design, which looks okay I might add, but not as good had it been had I been able to use a bearcat model.

The armament would be 4 AMG's, 4 reaper turrets, 2 to 4 missile launchers (either gatling type or WCP type, which ever is faster firing), and 12 torpedo tubes like the Gilgamesh (Fleet Action mentioned that the destroyers could fire a dozen torpedoes each... since Gilgamesh's were the destroyers of the era it would be logical to conclude that these were the ships involved).

I don't think the ship needs a fighter compliment, maybe a shuttle or two but that's it.

Anyone like my idea?

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Erm, there were lots of types of destroyers around during Fleet Action...

... in fact, *every* type of destroyer we know of, save *possibly* the Murphy, was around during Fleet Action.

 

[Erkle]

In End Run we saw that the Tarawa ran up to aound 1000kps with scoops closed. Shouldn't the destroyer be able to keep up? Yeah so the Tarawa was a light carrier therefore light in mass, but it did have the gilgamesh power plant which means that the destroyers should be able to do at least an equivilent speed.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Erkle
In End Run we saw that the Tarawa ran up to aound 1000kps with scoops closed. Shouldn't the destroyer be able to keep up? Yeah so the Tarawa was a light carrier therefore light in mass, but it did have the gilgamesh power plant which means that the destroyers should be able to do at least an equivilent speed.

Yes, but I'm talking about speed scoops OPEN. The tarawa BTW did 10,000 scoops closed. Since practically *all* combat is done scoops open, it would be a good idea to have a decent speed with them open.

Erm, there were lots of types of destroyers around during Fleet Action...

Yes, but considering that Commodore Polowski was a DESRON commander BEFORE the armistice began, it would be logical to conclude that he was commanding the Gilgamesh's. The Sheffield-Types were very old, Durango's too, the Exeters were older. Gilgamesh's were the only new destroyer. The Sheffield-types, Durango's and Exeters were only called back up in an emergency and remaied on because most of the fleet got destroyed at Earth.

... in fact, *every* type of destroyer we know of, save *possibly* the Murphy, was around during Fleet Action.

See above.

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yes, but considering that Commodore Polowski was a DESRON commander BEFORE the armistice began, it would be logical to conclude that he was commanding the Gilgamesh's. The Sheffield-Types were very old, Durango's too, the Exeters were older. Gilgamesh's were the only new destroyer. The Sheffield-types, Durango's and Exeters were only called back up in an emergency and remaied on because most of the fleet got destroyed at Earth.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Ignoring that Gilgamesh class ships are potentially just as old as any of the others listed (almost certainly the same age as the Exeters), how exactly did you come up with the idea that only squadrons of *new* ships get commanders?

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Ignoring that Gilgamesh class ships are potentially just as old as any of the others listed (almost certainly the same age as the Exeters), how exactly did you come up with the idea that only squadrons of *new* ships get commanders?

Actually, the WCA-series is not particularly reliable.

1.) Jumps take a long time; all the other games except Armada (which is questionable in it's own right) have nearly instantaneous jumps.

2.) The Dreadnought in WCA was gigantic, almost certainly larger than the Hakaga in WCFA which was 14 years later. It looked sort of like a huge Fralthi II class.

3.) The Gilgamesh's were around in the 2650's granted, but the Exeters could have been around years before. Also the Exeters were very slow and the Gilgamesh's were much faster suggesting an increase in propulsion technology. This conclusion was made predominantly on the fact that the Gilgamesh is 90 kps faster and is 2,000 tonnes *more* than the Exeter class.


I never said that squadrons of new ships get commanders, you made that conclusion. I simply said that the Gilgamesh-class ships were more popular in that era than either Sheffield-types or Exeter-Class ships, concluding that most likely Commodore Polowski was commanding these ships, since Polowski's destroyers fired a dozen torpedoes each, I therefore assumed that the Gilgamesh had a dozen torpedo tubes.

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Actually, the WCA-series is not particularly reliable.

That's fantastically amazing... and it has *what* to do with what we're talking about? *I* didn't mention WCA... I didn't even *reference* WCA. The only sort of destroyer we see on WCA are the generic blocky ones like the Ajax.

I will, of course, fight WCA-bashing to the death.

1.) Jumps take a long time; all the other games except Armada (which is questionable in it's own right) have nearly instantaneous jumps.

The only 'long' jump in WCA is the special quasar jump. We see jumps that take some amount of time throughout the series, though (in WCIV, for instance).

2.) The Dreadnought in WCA was gigantic, almost certainly larger than the Hakaga in WCFA which was 14 years later. It looked sort of like a huge Fralthi II class.

It was slightly longer than the Tiger's Claw...

3.) The Gilgamesh's were around in the 2650's granted, but the Exeters could have been around years before. Also the Exeters were very slow and the Gilgamesh's were much faster suggesting an increase in propulsion technology. This conclusion was made predominantly on the fact that the Gilgamesh is 90 kps faster and is 2,000 tonnes *more* than the Exeter class.

*Could* being the operative word. You're basing a rediculous theory on something that is *possible*. You have no evidence.

I never said that squadrons of new ships get commanders, you made that conclusion. I simply said that the Gilgamesh-class ships were more popular in that era than either Sheffield-types or Exeter-Class ships, concluding that most likely Commodore Polowski was commanding these ships, since Polowski's destroyers fired a dozen torpedoes each, I therefore assumed that the Gilgamesh had a dozen torpedo tubes.

But we don't know that at all.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
That's fantastically amazing... and it has *what* to do with what we're talking about? *I* didn't mention WCA... I didn't even *reference* WCA. The only sort of destroyer we see on WCA are the generic blocky ones like the Ajax.

I will, of course, fight WCA-bashing to the death.

I won't fight on that one then.

The only 'long' jump in WCA is the special quasar jump. We see jumps that take some amount of time throughout the series, though (in WCIV, for instance).

Yeah but the WC4 jumps are a few seconds.

And in WCA the jumps took long enough for a message to be composed.

It was slightly longer than the Tiger's Claw...

I remember about them making it out to be huge. I stand corrected.

*Could* being the operative word. You're basing a rediculous theory on something that is *possible*. You have no evidence.

Yes, but Gilgamesh's were there in WC2, the Sheffield-Types and Exeter's were not, therefore by using Occam's razor, which dictates that entities should not be multiplied needlessly, the Exeter's and Sheffield-types are not needed in the storyline; the Gilgamesh's were there however and were a common destroyer so they should be assumed to be the type of destroyer in Commodore Polowski's DESRON.

But we don't know that at all.

Oh yes we do, LOAF, have you seen an Exeter in WC2, in SO1 and SO2? Nope. Just Gilgamesh classes.

-Concordia

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Concordia
Oh yes we do, LOAF, have you seen an Exeter in WC2, in SO1 and SO2? Nope. Just Gilgamesh classes.

And have you seen Gilgameshes in WC3? Nope. Since FA takes place right between the two of them (or even slightly closer to the WC3 period), you're making a baseless assumption.

 

[Concordia]

Yes, but...

They were probably all destroyed in WC:FA

-Concordia

 

[TC]

I doubt it... The sure had a shitload of destroyers... spread out all over the place... and why would they retool factories when they were building perfectly good ships? There's no reason to think they wouldn't still be in production... It's a huge Confederation, we only see small pieces of it at a time.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah but the WC4 jumps are a few seconds.

And in WCA the jumps took long enough for a message to be composed.

... and a quick check using Media Player tells us that it took about thirty seconds "for a message to be composed".

I remember about them making it out to be huge. I stand corrected.

You're thinking about its shields: Tolwyn says that they're three times as tough as those on a carrier. The ship itself is about the same size as the Tiger's Claw -- you can get a good view of this when they collide in 'Chain of Command'.

Yes, but Gilgamesh's were there in WC2, the Sheffield-Types and Exeter's were not, therefore by using Occam's razor, which dictates that entities should not be multiplied needlessly, the Exeter's and Sheffield-types are not needed in the storyline; the Gilgamesh's were there however and were a common destroyer so they should be assumed to be the type of destroyer in Commodore Polowski's DESRON.

Except that doesn't make a lick of sense.

We know that there are half a dozen classes of destroyers which appear earlier in the timeline: Sheffield-type, Exeter-class, Ajax-type, Durango-class, Valiant-class, etc. Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is probably the correct one -- not 'you can ignore whatever you don't like by invoking me!'

Besides, even if your 'the destroyers in FA have to be the newest kind' argument made sense (and it doesn't!), it's still horribly crippled: the newest type of destroyer circa Fleet Action is Confed's Paradigm class, not the Gilgamesh class (Paradigms entered service in 2663 and were considered 'state of the art' in 2669... Gilgamesh class ships first appear in the timeline in 2654).

Oh yes we do, LOAF, have you seen an Exeter in WC2, in SO1 and SO2? Nope. Just Gilgamesh classes.

This makes sense *how*? How is Fleet Action Wing Commander 2? Did we see Ranger class ships or Hellcats? But they *existed* -- there's absolutely no corrolation between products and timeline. We're dealing with the Wing Commander universe as a timeline, not a set of independent events (were you to claim the latter, then WC2 would have no impact on Fleet Action anyway, non?)

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

Em......Why is this Thread to the Fan Fiction Chat and not the General Wc ???

I nearly missed it cause it was here

 

[TC]

I assume he wanted this ship for some fan fiction related reason. Since that's well within the purposes of this forum, it stayed here.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
... and a quick check using Media Player tells us that it took about thirty seconds "for a message to be composed".

I never actually saw it. I was just told that an entire message was composed while in jump-transit. Even then, that seemed to be an exception to the rule, and most jumps took far less time. A few seconds often, and sometimes even less.

You're thinking about its shields: Tolwyn says that they're three times as tough as those on a carrier. The ship itself is about the same size as the Tiger's Claw -- you can get a good view of this when they collide in 'Chain of Command'.

Yeah, you're right, I was thinking of the WC3 Dreadnought, and it DID have roughly 3 times the amount of shields as a carrier (the Ranger as a comparison)

Except that doesn't make a lick of sense.

We know that there are half a dozen classes of destroyers which appear earlier in the timeline: Sheffield-type, Exeter-class, Ajax-type, Durango-class, Valiant-class, etc. Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is probably the correct one -- not 'you can ignore whatever you don't like by invoking me!'

But how come skeptics can do this and get away with it? They do the same thing... sorry, I figured I could pull a little "sock 'em with Occam" and force the argument hehe. Sorry.

Besides, even if your 'the destroyers in FA have to be the newest kind' argument made sense (and it doesn't!), it's still horribly crippled: the newest type of destroyer circa Fleet Action is Confed's Paradigm class, not the Gilgamesh class (Paradigms entered service in 2663 and were considered 'state of the art' in 2669... Gilgamesh class ships first appear in the timeline in 2654).

Yes, but the Paradigm's were very rare, or at least they weren't very common in Privateer. They did not in battlegroups at least. They never showed up in WC3 or WC4 at least. Plus they weren't as cool as the Gilgamesh or as fast. Don't you have William Forstchen's e-mail? Why not ask him?

This makes sense *how*? How is Fleet Action Wing Commander 2? Did we see Ranger class ships or Hellcats? But they *existed* -- there's absolutely no corrolation between products and timeline. We're dealing with the Wing Commander universe as a timeline, not a set of independent events (were you to claim the latter, then WC2 would have no impact on Fleet Action anyway, non?)

It's actually a gap between WC2 and WC3. The old argument was that the WC2 ships were replaced with WC3 ships because the WC2 ones were destroyed forcing the older ships to come out of the dry-docks. It does seem to make sense because

-All the ships mentioned in WC:FA were WC2 era ships.

1.) The Concordia: 2661-69. WC2 starts on 2665.112
2.) The Ferrets were around from 2638 to 2668 at least.
3.) The Sabres were around in '65 at least. And were the ONLY heavy fighter to be mentioned in WC:FA. No mention of Thunderbolt VII's.
4.) The Broadswords were from, 2648 to 2668 at least (could have been phased out later).
5.) Epee's were around in WC2.

Practically, if NO evidence of WC3 ships and fighters
1.) No mention of an Arrow
2.) No mention of a Hellcat V
3.) No mention of a Thunderbolt VII
4.) No mention of a Longbow
5.) Absolutely no mention of a Sheffield-Type Destroyer
6.) Absolutely no mention of a Talahassee-Class Cruiser

Very little evidence to suggest the Exeter Class
1.) Exeters carried fighters. As much as 18 fighters (WCM size ones), and as little as 6-9 WC1 sized craft (F-44 Rapiers).
2.) NO mention of fighters from the destroyers, and when they were planning on combatting the enemy fleet, they mentioned one of the cruisers had 30 fighters (Suggestive of a Waterloo that's lost some of her fighter compliment), but they don't count the destroyers as having fighter compliment.
3.) Gilgamesh-Class Destroyers have no fighter compliment, which appear consistant with the WC:FA destroyers.

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I never actually saw it. I was just told that an entire message was composed while in jump-transit. Even then, that seemed to be an exception to the rule, and most jumps took far less time. A few seconds often, and sometimes even less.

Maybe you should take the time to download and watch the episodes while they're still available (and further, maybe you should avoid making claims when you aren't actually familiar with the source material...).

Yes, but the Paradigm's were very rare, or at least they weren't very common in Privateer. They did not in battlegroups at least. They never showed up in WC3 or WC4 at least. Plus they weren't as cool as the Gilgamesh or as fast. Don't you have William Forstchen's e-mail? Why not ask him?

Actually, we encounter far more Paradigms (you can find thirty-plus in Privateer) than any other class of ship. And those are just ones being used for quiet patrols... and we *know* that they entered service after the Gilgamesh class... and we know that Confed considers them 'state of the art' in 2669.

It's actually a gap between WC2 and WC3. The old argument was that the WC2 ships were replaced with WC3 ships because the WC2 ones were destroyed forcing the older ships to come out of the dry-docks. It does seem to make sense because

That's always been a dumb argument, though -- it's not supported by facts. The Battle of Terra was devastating in that it crippled both sides main battle fleets... hundreds of fighters were lost and dozens of capital ships. But that's out of an entire force that has thousands of capital ships and tens of thousands of fighters spread out across the Confederation...

-All the ships mentioned in WC:FA were WC2 era ships.

1.) The Concordia: 2661-69. WC2 starts on 2665.112
2.) The Ferrets were around from 2638 to 2668 at least.
3.) The Sabres were around in '65 at least. And were the ONLY heavy fighter to be mentioned in WC:FA. No mention of Thunderbolt VII's.
4.) The Broadswords were from, 2648 to 2668 at least (could have been phased out later).
5.) Epee's were around in WC2.

So... it comes as some kind of surprise to you that the classes of fighters we see flying off the Concordia in WC2 are flying off the Concordia in Fleet Action? We *know* in WC2 that other classes of fighters exist... but that they're not assigned to the Concordia. And the same wing is *still* assigned to the Concordia in Fleet Action.

Anyway, this proof makes no sense. The 'facts' are unrelated and make no sense and the initial statement is wrong... and you make no conclusion. You're just trying to sound like you have a point... but you didn't draw it together.

Besides, it's mostly wrong. All the ships mentioned in FA *aren't* from WC2... older ships like Hornets and Krant show up -- as do a number of entirely new ships created by Mr. Forstchen. The dates are wrong, too... Sabres showed up before 2654 and Broadswords were still around in the early 70s. And the last bit is the most confusing: Epee's aren't even *mentioned* in Fleet Action!

Practically, if NO evidence of WC3 ships and fighters
1.) No mention of an Arrow
2.) No mention of a Hellcat V
3.) No mention of a Thunderbolt VII
4.) No mention of a Longbow
5.) Absolutely no mention of a Sheffield-Type Destroyer
6.) Absolutely no mention of a Talahassee-Class Cruiser

But this is silly. Can you honestly expect to hear these names when they haven't been 'created' yet? In the Wing Commander universe all of these ships were around... but the actual ships didn't enter into the canon until WC3 was released. But every single one of those ships has been established as being in service *before* the Battle of Terra...

Very little evidence to suggest the Exeter Class
1.) Exeters carried fighters. As much as 18 fighters (WCM size ones), and as little as 6-9 WC1 sized craft (F-44 Rapiers).
2.) NO mention of fighters from the destroyers, and when they were planning on combatting the enemy fleet, they mentioned one of the cruisers had 30 fighters (Suggestive of a Waterloo that's lost some of her fighter compliment), but they don't count the destroyers as having fighter compliment.
3.) Gilgamesh-Class Destroyers have no fighter compliment, which appear consistant with the WC:FA destroyers.

Ah, of course, because something *isn't mentioned* it's *not there*! Because *that* makes sense!

But just for fun, lets go with that. Now, if fighters aren't mentioned, they must not have them... now following this logic, it's *also* not mentioned that they're Gilgamesh class ships! So not only is it, in your opinion, questionable... it's downright *impossible* for them to be Gilgamesh class ships!

(Incidentally, this is another case of Paradigms *still* fitting through non-logic... they don't carry fighters, either).

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

Concordia....dont mess up with LOAF