hey all

Edfilho said:
Those drawings do not look like ANY ship the kilrathi ever design, they do not fit the descriptions in any of the books, and it's not written ANYWHERE that they should be the Hakagas. Some editor just slapped a crappy drawing with big spaceships on it on the cover.
Wow, there's so many things wrong with those statements. When I first saw the cover, I thought they were the artists conception of the Ralari sent to bomb Earth (as destroyers were sent to bomb every other planet and also what Baron Jukaga was on in the end), but there are too many differences in the superstructure and too many of them for this to be the case. So that takes care of your first "point" (same "tuning fork prongs" on the front, same "wing" configuration, and those "lances" coming out of the wings just scream of a Ralari influence). Second "point", the descriptions of the Hakaga's in the book are pretty vague but the main points are the armored engine nacelles and the 6 launch bays (3 fore and 3 aft). The engines on the closest ship on the cover each have "sheaths" around them (this can clearly be seen from the smaller engine on the extreme left with what looks like multiple layers of armor encasing it and the engine on the right -next to the edge of the picture - that is encased on the top with an extremely thick section) that could easily be the armor protection talked about in the novel. As for the launch bays, it doesn't take alot of imagination to see 3 openings in the structure that would do. In the up close ship, I see one large one off center aft (next to the large left engine). The next one I see is a smaller one directly above the glowing dot about halfway up the superstructure that could very easily be another well-armored engine. The third I see is at the extreme right of the picture, just behind the superstructure and engine. You can see the beginnings of the rightmost edge of another large hanger. If those aren't enough for you, look at the next closest ship. I count 4 dark, rectangular or semi-circle areas that could be the 3 launch bays.

Edit: I really didn't want to bring this up since I'm pretty sure its still hotly debated, but to be complete I guess I should. 2 launch bays can also share the same "opening". This can be seen in the designs of the Concordia-class and Bhantkara-class coupled with their novel descriptions. Each are said to have 2 launch bays in the novels but are designed with only 1 "opening". Each has 2 "runways" down each half of the flight deck and at least the Concordia-class has launch bays on each side where the fighters are prepped for launch. This could take place in one of the large launch bays on the Hakaga-class and craft could be ferried between the large flight deck and a smaller one. This doesn't have to be the case though since I've identified at least a few openings in the structure that could be seperate flight decks/launch bays. :)

So with these statements I'd say the artists did his homework, maybe a little too much since the design is just really the first few decks of a Ralari as a base with the aforementioned additions, some pod looking attachements on the front, and a large superstructure tacked on :). Anymore complaints I can help you with? :rolleyes:

LeHah said:
If it is or isn't the Concordia isn't the problem here. You stated that if it is, it's poorly drawn. So, because you're too lazy to look up if it is or is not the Concordia, you're basing your opinion on a lack of information. The subject here is the art - and the unidentified subject of the work shouldn't have any affect on the appreciation of it's style or detail.

Some points:

1) I never said it was poorly drawn. I was simply reusing someone else's terminology, just to avoid confusion about what the heck we're talking about. As it is, I think the words "poorly drawn" were poorly chosen; I'd have used something more along the lines of "inaccurately" or "incorrectly" drawn.

2) It'd be pretty hard to look up if it were or weren't the Concordia, since there's no authoritative reference (such as a note from the artist, or author, or publisher, or Chris Roberts) that says it is or isn't. Since it's not material to the question of what was actually meant by "poorly drawn" and which you seem so determined to deliberately misconstrue as an assault on the honor of whoever drew the thing, I simply chose not to address the question of what was actually being depicted on the cover. For the record, my own opinion is that it's a well-drawn Tarawa, and not a poorly-drawn Concordia, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the parsing of the particular sentence that we're arguing over.

3) I'd like to think that as fans who are simply discussing and speculating about a subject we both enjoy, we can maintain a civil tone and refrain from descending into calling each other [post=197118]"asshats"[/post] or telling each other to [post=197137]"shutup"[/post] or talking about what [post=197118]"dark, dank hole you could shove your idiotic, uneducated art opinions"[/post] (which were in fact not my art opinions, and I will happily admit are not educated--exactly why do I need to have an degree in art appreciation to have an opinion?) or whatever. Really, the only reason I got involved was because I thought you misunderstood what [post=196922]Eder had posted[/post]; I guess it's obvious now that you understood perfectly, and just felt like [post=196929]taking issue[/post] with his particular choice in terminology.

In any case, here's the images we're all debating over:


Personally, I'm not really sure what to make of it. If we assume the artist made no mistakes, then clearly the ship on the cover can't be Confederation class; if we assume the artist made a few mistakes, then it's quite possible--they are remarkably similar. And no, I don't own a copy of End Run, so yes, this is all I've ever had to go on, which is why I've refrained from making any statements about whether or not it is definitely this or that; I don't presume to be as omniscient as God. However, from what I can see, it looks like there are probably Confederation-style runways on it. And no, I don't know why a carrier in space would need runways; they're clearly used in various animations in WC1/WC2, and I personally always thought they were silly. The Midway-style catapults made a lot more sense to me. However, since they're clearly in the games, I'm not presuming to say what they're good for. As for all that gibberish about covered/uncovered, I was just regurgitating something I had heard before, as a possible explanation for why a transport-conversion would look like the Concordia; if it doesn't make sense in the final analysis because of the relative ages of the various designs, fine.

As for the cover of Fleet Action in the Hakaga question, here it is:

I think there are some remote similarities with these two: http://www.baen.com/covers/0671720856.jpg, http://www.baen.com/covers/0671318489.jpg (URLs because I ran into the image limit, and they're really not that interesting). Perhaps done by the same staff artist(s) (?). I freely admit that I remember the Hakaga cover art being extremely similar to some other cover I had seen, but apparently my memory was faulty; it happens. Isn't discussing about WC supposed to be a fun, stress-free activity?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to go on with this GeeBot, I suggest we take it to PM or let it drop. Otherwise, Death^ or someone will come along because you'll be crying and I'll be in trouble for not knowing when to stop verbally abusing you as if you were a suburban housewife.
What a zany thread that didn't even involve me.

To re-confirm-without-reading-any-of-it, the direction to the artist for End Run was to do the Tarawa... and the direction for Fleet Action was to do the supercarriers attacking Earth.
Addendum to LOAF's post

Also, the direction to LeHah is to get over himself, and the direction for overmortal is to be quiet.

Is a vacation from the CZ needed for time to carry out those directions?
You may feel o r think that those are the hakagas... but if the artist was directed do draw a hakaga, someone forgot to show him what a Kat ship looks like. Anyway, the guy came up with something that does not look like one. You can imagine that those ugly badly drawn oldfashioned and dated designs are indeed the Kilrathi SuperCarriers, but I see no reason why it should be considered the "true" or "official" version of the capital ship.
You may feel o r think that those are the hakagas...

The verb you're looking for is know.

The ships on the cover of Fleet Action look like big Ralari - and, to the best of my limited knowledge, the Ralari is a Kilrathi ship.

(Another note - the artwork on Fleet Action has the proper fighter bay placement, as described in the novel.)
Well, I beg to differ. You are free to believe whatever you want, but no matter how hard you wish, it won't become more of a truth. Not even Santa Claus can help in this matter.
No, I'm pretty sure that we can be *absolutely* definite with regards to what something is a picture of. :)
Edfilho said:
Well, I beg to differ. You are free to believe whatever you want, but no matter how hard you wish, it won't become more of a truth. Not even Santa Claus can help in this matter.

Tip: Aside from the staff and people who made it themselves, LOAF is the MOST knowledgeable person concerning WC. If he says IT IS than treat it as the words of God, not the idea of a newbie such as yourself. If LOAF says those are the Hakagas, then they are. Just a little FYI.
Tip: Aside from the staff and people who made it themselves, LOAF is the MOST knowledgeable person concerning WC. If he says IT IS than treat it as the words of God, not the idea of a newbie such as yourself. If LOAF says those are the Hakagas, then they are. Just a little FYI.

Eh, Ed and I are old friends, he just wants to go through the motions. :)
Bandit LOAF said:
Eh, Ed and I are old friends, he just wants to go through the motions. :)

Then I'll go through the motion of shutting up and staying out of it then... :p
I was debating WC with LOAF in the agwc when WCSO was about to come. I was playing WC1 when WC2 was yet unborn... I believe we have an unspoken pact of agreeing to disagree. I remember trading blows with KrisV too. Hey, where is Ed Tang, nowadays? And what was the name of that guy that no one ever agreed with?

Well, LOAF, regarding the damn carriers, the picture may be CERTAINLY an attempt to render the Hakagas, but that doesn't mean that it accuratelly displays the Carrier's actual appearance. =)
I'd rather trust my own imagination... Try to picture, a world without PCs or even TVs!!! People had to rely on their own imagination. I'm sure you can develop one if you try.

And just to clear the record, I'm not stating that the picture cannot be the Hakaga ever. I'm just saying that it is not the definitive depiction of the carrier. You might consider it the Hakaga's likeness, but in this particular case, I believe people are free to imagine it to be however they want it to be. Unlike ships that appear INGAME, those are pretty accounted and spoken for.
No PCs, no TVs... oh my god, a world with only Xboxes! *screams*

Err, anyway. Just for the record, I wanted to state that my idea that the Fleet Action cover art was somehow just some stock art slapped together is clearly wrong. I had the impression that I had seen the exact same ships somewhere else (and thus ruling out that they were specially created for the Fleet Action cover), but I've come to realize that it wasn't the actual art which seemed identical, but the cover concept (which isn't too surprising... how many different "planet being attacked by masses of space ships" scenes can you really make?).

I'll stick to one opinion about the Hakagas, though: they're ugly as sin. :) I'll agree with Edfilho here that I prefer to imagine that the Hakagas look totally different. Not that it changes anything, but it enhances my enjoyment of the book not to ponder too much about what they look like.

Incidentally, why does this long-running thread have such a pathetic title like "hey all"?