Hey Bandit (LOAF)

[Concordia]

Okay... well, obviously, the Gettysburg even if fitted as a carrier, which it obviously isn't as it's called a cruiser, would probably not have a fighter compliment of a standard fleet carrier such as a Concordia-Class (96), it probably wouldn't even have the 88 which a current carrier is capable of carrying at minimum.

For this reason, for writing a story about Operation Backlash, I'd prefer to substitute the Gettysburg with another Carrier. The Gettysburg as a fleet-carrier is irrelevant, I just think point of the Gettysburg in End Run was for purposes of showing how Bondarevsky served on the front lines and O'Brien didn't. I have no problem with the Gettysburg staying. I just would prefer to write it in as a cruiser. It can carry more fighters as it did in SO1, but it would still retain it's designator as a Cruiser. Another Carrier would instead be the 5th Fleet-Carrier. A Bengal-Class, a Jutland-Class or a Confederation-Class, hell, even a Concordia Class will do.

(Now, if only I could find a Bengal-Class listing)

LOAF, You got the listings right?

In addition to this silly issue, I still need assistance with such a story in terms of technical issues and such. I can use your help (No, I won't ignore it). Contrary to what you think, I actually think very highly of you. You are a nearly unparalleled source of WC-Knowledge, and you are very intelligent. Plus I kind of admire your ability to debate tirelessly

-Concordia

 

[Concordia]

Psych,
Was that necessary? Why must you insult anybody who doesn't measure up to your pre-determined standards?

-Concordia

 

[Frosty]

Why must you insult anybody who doesn't measure up to your pre-determined standards?

Hehehe yeah psych, insult them based on random standards you determine on the fly.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Okay... well, obviously, the Gettysburg even if fitted as a carrier, which it obviously isn't as it's called a cruiser, would probably not have a fighter compliment of a standard fleet carrier such as a Concordia-Class (96), it probably wouldn't even have the 88 which a current carrier is capable of carrying at minimum.

None of this is logic because it is ENTIRELY BASED ON YOUR OWN, ALREADY DISPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS.

Lets break it down (I know, I should just give up on anything this pointless - but I have a pretty boring day ahead of me regardless).

Point One:

which it obviously isn't as it's called a cruiser

We have already pointed out four things which you must take into account here.

#1 - We encounter more than sixty Gettysburg fighters over the course of Special Operations 1. It is therefore impossible that it is configured as a normal cruiser which carries only forty fighters. Note that I say *we encounter* not *it has*. "60+" is, and please follow me hear, NOT THE SHIPS COMPLIMENT. IT IS THE NUMBER OF FIGHTERS BLAIR PERSONALLY ENCOUNTERS.

#2 - The assertation that Tolwyn would "correct" Blair is wrong as Tolwyn *repeatedly* (both before and after this occurs) misleads Blair regarding the nature of the Gettysburgs situation and even the makeup of its fighter complement.

#3 - Carriers, are by their very nature, a type of cruiser. The 'C' in 'CV' stands for Cruiser.

#4 - We have *REPEATEDLY* seen 'switchable' ships referred to as their original class rather than what they are clearly configured as. The Ras Nik'hra is *almost always* called a cruiser, despite the fact that it is the fighter-launching light carrier variant of the Fralthi.

Part Two:

would probably not have a fighter compliment

This is inane because WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE GETTYSBURGS FIGHTER COMPLEMENT MIGHT BE. The only thing we know is that it is *GREATER THAN SIXTY*. >60 is NOT A LICENSE TO DECIDE YOUR OWN FIGHTER COUNT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. There's no possible way you can say "Greater than sixty, eh? It must have 61 fighters, therefore I'm right!". It could, for all we know, carry 150 fighters.

Part Three:

standard fleet carrier such as a Concordia-Class (96), it probably wouldn't even have the 88 which a current carrier is capable of carrying at minimum.

Again, we have a situation where you are arguing the situation BASED ON SOMETHING YOU MADE UP. Even ignoring the fact that we do not know the upper bound for the Gettysburgs fighter complement, there is also no indication ANYWHERE IN THE WING COMMANDER CANON that there is a 'set' number of fighters onboard a fleet carrier. You can't make up a fighter complement and then make up a *requirement* for a fighter complement and call it anything but a crazy delusion.

Now, for my commentary, we know that the Gettysburg has *more* than sixty fighters... and we know that sixty is higher than the complement of *any* plain cruiser, light or escort carrier. Now do the math using real facts...

For this reason, for writing a story about Operation Backlash, I'd prefer to substitute the Gettysburg with another Carrier.

Then you should travel back in time to 1991 and have a chat with the woman who wrote SO1. Failing the ability to do that, this is simply a silly, pointless idea. What's the *point*? No one will have any respect at all for such a 'correction' - it'll only serve to piss off anyone who's read End Run (the people who, presumably, are the audience for such a fanfic...).

(Now, if only I could find a Bengal-Class listing)

LOAF, You got the listings right?

I believe the named Bengals are: Beacontree, Bengal, Eagle's Talon, Exeter, Kipling, Kyoto, Trafalgar and Wolfhound. I'm sure you can double-check this with the ships list, readily available in the CIC's articles checklist.

 

[Concordia]

None of this is logic because it is ENTIRELY BASED ON YOUR OWN, ALREADY DISPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS.

Actually, in your ships listing, you actually listed the TCS-Gettysburg as a Waterloo-Class cruiser yourself.

Lets break it down (I know, I should just give up on anything this pointless - but I have a pretty boring day ahead of me regardless).

Here here, I have the same problem on my hands.

Point One:



We have already pointed out four things which you must take into account here.

#1 - We encounter more than sixty Gettysburg fighters over the course of Special Operations 1. It is therefore impossible that it is configured as a normal cruiser which carries only forty fighters. Note that I say *we encounter* not *it has*. "60+" is, and please follow me hear, NOT THE SHIPS COMPLIMENT. IT IS THE NUMBER OF FIGHTERS BLAIR PERSONALLY ENCOUNTERS.

That's why I said 80... it would be very odd for it to carry more... remember, the Confed-Class which is a dreadnought carries 120... that seems to be the most. Since the Waterloo-Class is significantly smaller, it would be highly unlikely that it would carry more.

So, I guess we could put an upper limit on 120

#2 - The assertation that Tolwyn would "correct" Blair is wrong as Tolwyn *repeatedly* (both before and after this occurs) misleads Blair regarding the nature of the Gettysburgs situation and even the makeup of its fighter complement.

Doesn't Blair actually land *ON* the Gettysburg?

#3 - Carriers, are by their very nature, a type of cruiser. The 'C' in 'CV' stands for Cruiser.

Yes, but the modern, and the Wing Commander definition of Cruiser is far different from a Carrier...

1.) Cruisers are far more offensive in their armament than Carriers, which are more defensive

2.) Cruisers often carry torpedoes. At least numerous referrences point to this. Carriers rarely do. The only exception I've seen so far is 1.) the Bengal-Class (Actually the Ranger carries Capship Missiles... I don't know if that counts also)

3.) Many WC Carriers do not have AMG's like their Cruiser Counterparts do.

#4 - We have *REPEATEDLY* seen 'switchable' ships referred to as their original class rather than what they are clearly configured as. The Ras Nik'hra is *almost always* called a cruiser, despite the fact that it is the fighter-launching light carrier variant of the Fralthi.

I just thought you mentioned that it was almost always referred to as a Carrier? And there was only like one case where it was referred to otherwise...

Part Two:



This is inane because WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE GETTYSBURGS FIGHTER COMPLEMENT MIGHT BE. The only thing we know is that it is *GREATER THAN SIXTY*. >60 is NOT A LICENSE TO DECIDE YOUR OWN FIGHTER COUNT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. There's no possible way you can say "Greater than sixty, eh? It must have 61 fighters, therefore I'm right!". It could, for all we know, carry 150 fighters.

Unlikely... the Confederation was to my knowledge, considered to have the highest fighter-compliment of any Confed Carrier (even though it was considered to be a Dreadnought)

I basically assumed 40 is normal for most Waterloo's, 120 is Concordia, and Blair encountered 60, meaning there were a couple more left... I just made a guess.

For the purposes of a fanfic, I would need to make an exact number. I could use your advice on this part. While it's not canon, we don't *HAVE* an exact number, so estimates must be made.

Part Three:

Again, we have a situation where you are arguing the situation BASED ON SOMETHING YOU MADE UP. Even ignoring the fact that we do not know the upper bound for the Gettysburgs fighter complement, there is also no indication ANYWHERE IN THE WING COMMANDER CANON that there is a 'set' number of fighters onboard a fleet carrier. You can't make up a fighter complement and then make up a *requirement* for a fighter complement and call it anything but a crazy delusion.

I'm just saying that most of the larger carriers in WC carried more than 60 or even 80-carriers... that's all.

Now, for my commentary, we know that the Gettysburg has *more* than sixty fighters... and we know that sixty is higher than the complement of *any* plain cruiser, light or escort carrier. Now do the math using real facts...

The Waterloo to *begin* with has more fighters than most cruisers or even one carrier-class to begin with (Ranger).

Then you should travel back in time to 1991 and have a chat with the woman who wrote SO1. Failing the ability to do that, this is simply a silly, pointless idea. What's the *point*? No one will have any respect at all for such a 'correction' - it'll only serve to piss off anyone who's read End Run (the people who, presumably, are the audience for such a fanfic...).

I don't have that ability. If I did, I'd have better things to do that tell a person to make their game different. I'd be doing things like telling the version of me in the past to not spread rumors about this girl to ruin her reputation, which backfired on me and repulsed a guy that liked me, which delayed by de-virginification by 3 years.

I believe the named Bengals are: Beacontree, Bengal, Eagle's Talon, Exeter, Kipling, Kyoto, Trafalgar and Wolfhound. I'm sure you can double-check this with the ships list, readily available in the CIC's articles checklist.

*Checks the list*

TCS-Bengal
TCS-Tigers Claw (DESTROYED)
TCS-Rudyard Kipling
TCS-Beacontree
TCS-Eagle's Talon
TCS-Exeter
TCS-Kyoto
TCS-Trafalgar (DESTROYED)
TCS-Wolfhound

Okay, I know two were destroyed... were any others destroyed (just out of curiousity?

-Concordia

 

[Sylvester]

But we have to remember, this operation was CLASSIFIED so only Blair, Hobbes, Angel and Tolwyn knew what was going on so its more like 2 or 3 pilots versus the Gettysburg, not 120.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Actually, in your ships listing, you actually listed the TCS-Gettysburg as a Waterloo-Class cruiser yourself.

Actually, I believe I called it something like "Cruiser/Prison Ship" - which should probably be a good tipoff that I'm not being fantastically accurate about ship classes. I also listed the Ras Nik'hra as a cruiser. (There is an updated ships list at the Aces Board - I'm not sure if I fixed the class is

Here here, I have the same problem on my hands.

Five hours of work left today, lets see how much we can argue in that time (G)

Doesn't Blair actually land *ON* the Gettysburg?

Yes - at the end of the series - but it takes three missions of fighting Gettysburg pilots for him to even get a briefing which admits that "these mutineers have the hottest new Confederation ship technology..." (the Crossbow).

Yes, but the modern, and the Wing Commander definition of Cruiser is far different from a Carrier...

1.) Cruisers are far more offensive in their armament than Carriers, which are more defensive

2.) Cruisers often carry torpedoes. At least numerous referrences point to this. Carriers rarely do. The only exception I've seen so far is 1.) the Bengal-Class (Actually the Ranger carries Capship Missiles... I don't know if that counts also)

3.) Many WC Carriers do not have AMG's like their Cruiser Counterparts do.

Nah, consider that in this time period there are four 'main' classes of carriers: Concordia-class, Confederation-class, Bengal-class and Jutland-class. This means that a whole 75% of the 'modern' carrier navy in 2665 mounts heavy, cruiser-style offensive weaponry - the plain Concordia-class is the exception rather than the rule at this point in the war.

I just thought you mentioned that it was almost always referred to as a Carrier? And there was only like one case where it was referred to otherwise...

No, I was saying just the opposite - there's only one reference (that I can think of off hand) where it's *properly* called a carrier. It's almost always "Ralgha nar Hhallas defected, bringing with him a Kilrathi cruiser". The ship *is* a light carrier, but it's always called a cruiser.

Unlikely... the Confederation was to my knowledge, considered to have the highest fighter-compliment of any Confed Carrier (even though it was considered to be a Dreadnought)

I basically assumed 40 is normal for most Waterloo's, 120 is Concordia, and Blair encountered 60, meaning there were a couple more left... I just made a guess.

For the purposes of a fanfic, I would need to make an exact number. I could use your advice on this part. While it's not canon, we don't *HAVE* an exact number, so estimates must be made.

Well, the fighter complement of the Confederation-class is certainly the highest we know of in the era (aside from the barely-mobile starbases, which can carry a whopping 400 fighters). I personally don't believe that the complement of the Waterloo's carrier conversion is anywhere near 120 - I would think, based on the information available, that the Waterloo-class probably carries around 75 fighters.

That makes it nearly twice as capable, fighter-wise, as a Ranger or a CVE... but also more heavily armed and armored. A Waterloo carrier-variant would certainly be a valuable asset (as was the Agincourt in WC2). Instead of 'making up' a new carrier (which would conflict with the end of End Run), why not use an Operation Backlash fanfic as an opportunity to *explain* the Gettysburg issue? It's certainly more creative than "Also, there was a Bengal that no one mentioned before or after when counting carriers."

The Waterloo to *begin* with has more fighters than most cruisers or even one carrier-class to begin with (Ranger).

Nah, 40 fighters is equal to the Ranger-class.

I don't have that ability. If I did, I'd have better things to do that tell a person to make their game different. I'd be doing things like telling the version of me in the past to not spread rumors about this girl to ruin her reputation, which backfired on me and repulsed a guy that liked me, which delayed by de-virginification by 3 years.

I'd buy more Wing Commander hats.

Okay, I know two were destroyed... were any others destroyed (just out of curiousity?

Nope. The Exeter *can* be destroyed, based on your performance in the 'Gateway' series of WC1.

But we have to remember, this operation was CLASSIFIED so only Blair, Hobbes, Angel and Tolwyn knew what was going on so its more like 2 or 3 pilots versus the Gettysburg, not 120.

You're thinking of SO2, not SO1. The Gettysburg situation was the source of much speculation among the lower ranks on the Concordia... there's a scene where Blair walks in on Stingray and Major Edmonds rumor-mongering.

 

[Viper61]

Okay, my question is why do you have to go into that much detail anyway? This fanfic seems to be reading more like a technical manual for carriers than an interpretation of the events in Operation Backlash. I've always thought it pretty helpful to stay away from exact numbers (especially capital ship turret numbers pre-WC3 and fighter/capital ship top speed) where they are not explicitly needed. "Increased to top speed, slammed the throttle wide open, scoops closed/half open/wide open, halved his/her speed" are all ways to keep from quoting exact speed numbers that your audience really doesn't need to know to enjoy your story. I honestly can't give an example of anywhere in a WC novel where knowing the exact fighter compliment, the top speed of a capital ship, or exactly how many PD turrets a capital ship has would have allowed me to enjoy the story more.

C-ya

 

[psych]

Psych,
Was that necessary? Why must you insult anybody who doesn't measure up to your pre-determined standards?

-Concordia

I would hardly call it pre-determined. Please remember that not only have you done what you are doing now (as in going off in tangents) to the CIC, but also to the WC Aces Board (when you used to post there) and on the WC Saga developers forum (back when they were foolish enough to make you the Technical Advisor).

When left unattended, trash and garbage tends to stink up the environment it is in. Someone has to take it out.

 

[wankski]

oooooookay... u people are WAY too into this...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

oooooookay... u people are WAY too into this...

 

[Manic]

Sorry about that BL, brainfart on my part... Anyway. They may have been getting outside help, albeit my memory totally bombed out on the Mandarin thing, they could have been getting protection from the Landreich, or some other group... more idle speculation, I know. It just seems fishy that so many pilots would be out there, and only ol' Bluehair would come across them.

 

[Concordia]

Hey LOAF, could the Carrier Waterloo be a little bit longer or something? Or does it also have to be 503.9m.

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I believe it's just a drydock conversion (like the Fralthi). It probably doesn't affect the size of the ship.

 

[Concordia]

I believe it's just a drydock conversion (like the Fralthi). It probably doesn't affect the size of the ship.

Are you sure the Fralthi can be done as a drydock conversion?

I doubt it... doubling the fighter capacity of a ship would probably require a ship-yard, or just short of that.

You'd have to make internal room for storing fighters were there previously was none. You'd probably have to cut into bulkheads and such to make the room. Some internal things would be different too. You'd practically have to gut the ship from the inside out.

-Concordia

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Are you sure the Fralthi can be done as a drydock conversion?

I doubt it... doubling the fighter capacity of a ship would probably require a ship-yard, or just short of that.

A drydock is the part of the shipyard where ships are built and repaired.

 

[Haesslich]

Are you sure the Fralthi can be done as a drydock conversion?

I doubt it... doubling the fighter capacity of a ship would probably require a ship-yard, or just short of that.

You'd have to make internal room for storing fighters were there previously was none. You'd probably have to cut into bulkheads and such to make the room. Some internal things would be different too. You'd practically have to gut the ship from the inside out.

-Concordia

Newsflash - a drydock is where you put ships in a shipyard during construction or refitting, so that the crew you've got working it over can do so without having to go underwater or EVA.

We've never seen the insides of a Kilrathi ship, anyways, so we don't know how modular their design is, or how difficult it is to reconfigure the inside. My guess is they've either been designed to work either way, with just some cutting needing to be done in order to handle most of the internal reworkings, or else they're modular enough inside that you just pull out the sections you don't need, replacing them with the components required for fighter support.

So much for your vaunted Naval expertise, with which you compare WC's navy to the USN. I'm not sure I'd trust your definition of a cruiser after that flub.

 

[Concordia]

Newsflash - a drydock is where you put ships in a shipyard during construction or refitting, so that the crew you've got working it over can do so without having to go underwater or EVA.

We've never seen the insides of a Kilrathi ship, anyways, so we don't know how modular their design is, or how difficult it is to reconfigure the inside. My guess is they've either been designed to work either way, with just some cutting needing to be done in order to handle most of the internal reworkings, or else they're modular enough inside that you just pull out the sections you don't need, replacing them with the components required for fighter support.

So much for your vaunted Naval expertise, with which you compare WC's navy to the USN. I'm not sure I'd trust your definition of a cruiser after that flub.

I'm not a Naval expert... and just because I made an error about a dry-dock does not necessarily make me wrong in the other respect (it looks like I am though)

-Concordia