Hey Bandit (LOAF)
- Thread starter Concordia
- Start date
I think Bob may have a point here, the classification could refer to what role the ship plays when the battle is joined.
For instance:
Carrier- scrambles fighters, sits back behind the defenses and lets the little guys do the work. Fires capship missiles at extreme long range.
Cruiser- scrambles it's semi-limited array of fighters, and pushes up to engage larger targets. Uses it's main flak batteries to stave off fighters while attacking the larger craft with whatever it has at hand.
With this in mind, the Concordia was both.
Keep in mind, this is just a theory... and it could obviously be wrong. After all, the roles of most capships never were strictly defined in the WC universe, and we can't always garauntee that the current naval standards apply.
For instance:
Carrier- scrambles fighters, sits back behind the defenses and lets the little guys do the work. Fires capship missiles at extreme long range.
Cruiser- scrambles it's semi-limited array of fighters, and pushes up to engage larger targets. Uses it's main flak batteries to stave off fighters while attacking the larger craft with whatever it has at hand.
With this in mind, the Concordia was both.
Keep in mind, this is just a theory... and it could obviously be wrong. After all, the roles of most capships never were strictly defined in the WC universe, and we can't always garauntee that the current naval standards apply.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Wait, we're just going in circles now -- we already talked about how Blair probably didn't know it was configured as a carrier because the fact that it was being used to test fighter prototypes was a secret...
Yay, US Navy and Confed equivalencies again.Concordia said:
The WC military doesn't tell the public everything, in a few cases that we know of, it outright lies to them. So whats the difference in saying "oh, a craft can do Mach 2" when it really can clip along at Mach 2.6 and saying "oh, this capship can carry 40 smaller fighters (cruiser)" when it can carry closer to 80 of any type (fleet carrier)? Enigma wrapped in a . . . nevermind. I'm pretty sure the Waterloo cruiser was never designed to carry a full-size bomber (I may be wrong since this is off the top of a slightly 'influenced' brain), so it would never be suspected as a testing ground for a new bomber. Anyhow, I was just making a comment that the military minds of the time, highly involved in their counter-counter-intelligence ploys, could have thought it necessary to pull something like this to throw the Kilrathi off. A valuable fleet carrier off on a assignment would raise suspicions enough to warrant more investigation from the Kilrathi intelligence network. A cruiser off on an assignment could be written off as normal Confed operations. Basically long story short (too late I know) if its not out of the ordinary, it won't get special scrutiny. That would be the reasoning, far-fetched. . . sure, logically flawed . . . you decide.Concordia said:
C-ya
Bandit LOAF said:
If it was configured as a carrier, there would be no point in classifying that.
Gettysburgs being reconfigured as carriers is also common knowledge in WC.
Even though secrecy was a concern. You just wouldn't admit the Crossbows being tested on it, whether it's a cruiser or not is not a big deal. A Cruiser could probably fit a couple of Crossbows on it also.
If it wasn't a cruiser, since Tolwyn was giving Blair the details, he probably would have told him it has, for some time, been re-configured as a light-carrier. (Conversation would have been no longer than that).
No such conversation transpired, indicating that the Gettysburg *is* indeed a Terran Confederation Cruiser. I don't doubt that it appeared to carry more fighters than a traditional cruiser... but who knows... the stats are off sometimes.
Think about it... the armor ratings on the Broadsword are higher in the game than listed in the specs.
Who know's. Perhaps the Waterloo's fighter stats are simply exaggerated and can actually carry 60 (all waterloos)?
All the fleet-carriers I can recall
Concordia-Class: 96 fighters
Bengal-Class: 104 fighters
Confederation Class: 120 fighters
They all had fighter complements in excess of 80.
Not 60, or 72...
I'm just saying that it doesn't fit the profile.
-Concordia
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
So... your entire argument boils down to "I guess the stats are wrong so that I can be right"? THINK.
Haesslich
Spaceman
Actually, it goes back to 'my interpretation of the WC universe through my incomplete and rather inaccurate understanding of the way ONE real navy works' problem.
WC has a) 700 years in advance of our time, b) a new culture to draw on, composed of thousands of worlds, and c) apparently incorporates ranks and traditions from more than just the United States Navy (which, contrary to Concordia's apparent belief, is not the only one out there - there's a reason Reagan built up the submarine force).
It's like saying Star Wars should have nuclear warheads on its capital ships because USN cruisers can launch cruise missiles which carry nukes.
WC has a) 700 years in advance of our time, b) a new culture to draw on, composed of thousands of worlds, and c) apparently incorporates ranks and traditions from more than just the United States Navy (which, contrary to Concordia's apparent belief, is not the only one out there - there's a reason Reagan built up the submarine force).
It's like saying Star Wars should have nuclear warheads on its capital ships because USN cruisers can launch cruise missiles which carry nukes.
Bandit LOAF said:
That's not it at all.
1.) Blair refers to the Gettysburg as a cruiser. While it may have been refitted to fleet-carrier status by End Run, it was still a cruiser then (WC2:SO1). Whether it carried 40, 60, or 80 fighters, it was still listed as a *cruiser*. Tolwyn did not correct him, although during this conversation, Tolwyn seemed in somewhat of a hurry so he might not have corrected Blair. But, don't you think Devereaux would have mentioned it? She, to my knowledge, made no mention of this thing being reconfigured as a carrier. And Devereaux was fully briefed on this matter. Don't you think she would tell Blair that he's flying against a Carrier instead of a Cruiser... that rather than facing 40 fighters being thrown at him, he's facing 80? That's kind of an important detail.
2.) I don't know if the Waterloo is the same as the Fralthi, but the Fralthi was listed as being able to be convertable into a Cruiser or a LIGHT Carrier. It seems as if the Waterloo's come in two variants, the 40 fighter variant, and the 60+ fighter variant. While the 60+ fighter-variant does seem to be like a light-carrier, they both seem to be called cruisers. Light Carriers are generally not the same as Fleet Carriers. Fleet Carriers are either Medium or Heavy Carriers. Every single Fleet Carrier in WC I can think of, carries more than 40 or 60 fighters. The Concordia-Class carries 96, the Bengal-Class carries 104, the Confederation-Class (while also a dreadnought) carries 120.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
This is ridiculous. There is a war going on. Nothing is public knowledge, because public knowledge is enemy knowledge. Above all, at a point in time when Confed is down to five or six carriers, they sure as hell are not going to let the enemy know that they have an ace in the hole.Concordia said:
As for Blair, we don't watch him 24 hours a day. Do you really think he was sent out on that mission with only the name of the capship he was looking for? He probably had an additional, detailed briefing while we weren't watching.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The problem is that you are taking at face value dialogue from someone who, the game later explicitly reveals, is *NOT* privy to the details of the Gettysburg's mission.
You are *assuming* that for some reason the dialogue will issue an imaginary 'correction'. This is NOT HOW DIALOGUE IS WRITTEN.
Get ready for a shocker: the Waterloo is *not* a Fralthi!
Furthermore, we have absolutely no idea how many fighters the carrier version of the Waterloo has. We know it has *more than* sixty - Blair alone encounters sixty of them. Blair is one of 120 pilots flying sorties in the Rigel System.
Furthermore, 'Light Carrier' is short for 'Light Fleet Carrier' - just like 'Heavy Carrier' is short for 'Heavy Fleet Carrier'.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Also, thinking about your reference to the Fralthi - how many times is the Ras Nik'hra called a *cruiser*? 99.9% of the time? It's *clearly* been outfitted as a light carrier -- we fly fighters off of it!
(Another aside -- the 'C' in 'CV' *means* Cruiser...)
(Another aside -- the 'C' in 'CV' *means* Cruiser...)
.Bandit LOAF said:
Uh, but whether it's a Cruiser or Light Carrier is an important detail. One that Col Blair would need to know. It would be important for him to know that 60-fighters could be thrown at him instead of 40...
No, I'm saying the fact that Tolwyn DIDN'T correct him, indicates that it was *supposed* to be written as a cruiser. Indicating that Waterloo's come in two variants, of which BOTH are called cruisers, regardless of their 40, or 60(+) fighters.
I know this. Some Fralthi can be configured as Carriers.
The point is that they both have some things in common. They can come in two versions. The Fralthi can be configured as a cruiser, or a light carrier.
The Waterloo seems to be configured in two ways as well. But, neither seem to be listed as a carrier.
I just said they never specifically listed the TCS-Gettysburg in WC2 as a fleet-carrier. The only one mention of it's class I ever heard was Col. Christopher Blair's mention of it being a Cruiser.
Quarto said:
That is not a good argument Quarto. The ability of the Gettysburg to carry an additional 20 fighters, which they can not only throw at Blair during a mission, but at the ENTIRE Concordia and her battlegroup, is not a small detail. And 20 extra fighters could mean a huge difference in a battle with or without Crossbows.
And not showing a detailed-mission in the game is stupid. That's what you're *supposed* to see. Not the stupid little stuff. For example, you don't see Blair urinating, even though we obviously know all healthy humans can, why? Because it doesn't have anything to do with the story. However, a Cruiser with a mutineeing airwing (and probably some crew) which normally carries 40-fighters, now carrying 60 is a big detail.
-Concordia
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
... the next logical flaw is, of course, that the conversation you're wetting yourself over is the *DEBRIEFING*. Blair, whom you have so-wisely 'deduced' will be privy to all the knowledge in the universe before being sent off to engage the Gettysburg, was NOT TOLD OF THE SITUATION AT ALL, DESPITE BEING SENT AS A FORWARD SCOUT. Tolwyn has Blair jump to Rigel, Blair engages Ferrets and Epees and *THEN* Tolwyn goes 'Oh, heh, yeah, we knew that'd happen.".
You'd also think that Blair, having attended Concordia's Magic Briefing, would know about the fact that the Gettysburg is carrying a squadron of Confed's new, most advanced bomber craft... but, again, no, it's an "after the fact" revelation.
What about the Mandarins? They could have been bringing in more stolen fighters to protect the newly captured carrier... Considering that a mutiny is seldom unaminous, things could have gotten bloody, and they'd need crew from somewhere... and there's no sensible way it could have held enough fighters to stave off Blair AND 119 of his closest friends... Seeing as Blair kills around 60 on his own, and there are a total of 120 pilots flying sorties, the total number of fighters is likely gargantuan. After all, Chris can't be the only fella out there in the sector these mutineers came across... which means that several fighters must have been available to the Gettysburg's disposal... or to it's escorts. Sure. we never hear about them, but it is a distinct possibility that the Mandarins were lending support. In fact, the majority of the fighters Blair encountered might not have been brought along by the Gettysburg after all.
Bandit LOAF said:
Under your logic, he would have been told of it being "actually" a carrier around the time that he found out about the Broadsword... after he got all those fighters thrown at him.
To be honest. I'm guessing they just wrote enough fighters to make it difficult, planned for the Gettysburg to be a cruiser, and forgot about the Gettysburg 40 fighter compliment.
Manic said:
I mean after all a modified Caernaven can carry like what 4-6 fighters? And they were as common as dirt...
Not to mention wasn't there a space-station somewhere involved there?
Some of those fighters could have come off that station.
-Concordia
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, it isn't, because this would run exactly contrary to the point of SO1. The Gettysburg crew were still loyal to the Confederation - they mutinied because they were issued an illegal order. It wasn't a case of "Lets go fight Confed for some reason!" -- this isn't TIE Fighter.
Remember? That's the moral dilemma of SO1 - you have no choice but to fight Confed pilots who are loyal to Confed. That's why you don't just go in and blow the Gettysburg up - the 'objective' of SO1 is to reason with them. Tolwyn calls them heroes - they weren't siding with the Mandarins.Do you understand that *LOGIC* isn't just a pretty word you throw into a statement to make it sound smart? My 'logic' is (as supported by the game) that Blair is *never* told anything about the situation until after he discovers it for himself. I would very, very, very (very) much enjoy seeing the logical proof of your completely inane statement.