Favorite Capship

Favorite Capship from WC1-3 era

  • Total voters
    24
Sylvester

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
What is your Favorite Capship from WC1-3 and why. If you have and answer different from what is in the poll, you may post it if you like with an explination of why you like it.
 
Bengal.

Because the Tiger's Claw actually looked like a warship and not like a car from the sixties like the Concordia or like a shoebox like the carrier designs from WC 3/4.

The Midway isn't too bad either.
 
Bengal. It has to be the Bengal-class. Partially beacause of its sentimental value and also it's distinctive styling. (The movie version looked too much like a cut up steel tube.)
 
Tarquinn said:
. . . or like a shoebox like the carrier designs from WC 3/4. . .
Click to expand...
One of WC greatest little ironies (to me anyway) is that those "shoebox" designs as it was so eloquently put were probably the most practical capships. I'm guessing one of the reasons for making the designs for the Ranger, Concordia, Tallahassee, and Destroyer-class vessels were the low polycount models they had to use. To me these ships are by far the most 'realistic' looking in all the WCU. A few reasons for my statements:

Modular- The capships from WC3/4 looked like they were put together with legos, maybe because in a larger sense they might have been. One damaged portion of a capship could be replaced quickly and easily.

No frills- The carriers were just large hangers, the cruisers and destroyers were just enough to power their arsenals and house the crew.

Field of Fire- (my personal favorite reason) ever notice the Kilrathi warships and their huge blindspots? Or how many guns the Bengal has? Or why you just can;t protect a Hades class cruiser from taking hits? Because of each of these capships non-linear designs, either each had large blindspots or had to have specialized turrets assigned to cover certain areas of space unreachable by others. The Ranger, Concordia, Talahassee, and Destroyers linear designs allowed the most turrets to be on target at one time. This also allowed a capship to do more with less, focusing their limited batteries onto targets without having to move into position.

C-ya
 
Nice reasoning there. Of course, fields of fire don't really matter too much, when turrets on ships like the Tiamat can shoot through themselves! :)
 
In Armada, the carriers (Lexington/Shiraak) had some extraordinarily powerful flak, more powerful than any other WC capship IMO. As long as you had quick combat off and opted to fly yourself, you could cruise around your carrier and it'd kill ALL of the enemy ships, period. (Of course it helped that there could only be two ships of each side on the battlefield at a time)

Conversely, ever tried manually torpedoing an enemy carrier? Gimme a Leviathan or Tiamat in my sights any day over THAT bloodbath...
 
NapoleanAce said:
Conversely, ever tried manually torpedoing an enemy carrier?
Click to expand...
In Armada? I have. It's easy. Just use a heavily armoured ship like the Banshee. You'll only be down to armour as soon as the torpedo locks.
 
Wedge009 said:
In Armada? I have. It's easy. Just use a heavily armoured ship like the Banshee. You'll only be down to armour as soon as the torpedo locks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but compare attacking those carriers to any other in WC--they inflict the most damage during bombing runs.
 
Perhaps WC2 is worse in that you usually need to make at least two torpedo runs. Armada assumes you win as soon as your torpedo is launched. It doesn't consider the possibilty that you could be killed by the flak in the time between torpedo launch and the carrier's destruction.
 
I liked the Confederation class. From some angles it's goofy looking but it's nice in others. I'd like to see a cooler more modern refit version of it.

The shoebox designs came from an era where 3D was just beginning to get going so that's why they're so polygon challenged and rectangular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top