Jutland Class?

T

Terrorizer

Spaceman
Forgive me if this has already been addressed; I couldn’t find any mention of it when searching the forums.

To me, the only obvious interpretation of the Jutland class is the Waterloo class configured as a carrier. Look at the WC universe bible. After the entry for the Waterloo class it says “Waterloo-class cruisers are configurable as carriers, with these modifications:” then the description of the Jutland class follows underneath. The stats listed on the Jutland include slightly more mass(bigger hangar?),half the number of AMG’s(less offensive weapons needed on a carrier) and more fighters than the Waterloo. The rest of the stats are left blank, which I understood as they are the same stats as the cruiser.

I was surprised to see the Jutland class being interpreted as a completely different class by the fan projects. Surely somebody else noticed this?
 
Hmm, that's certainly interesting... Can't believe nobody ever suggested that before.
 
Well, the easy answer is that it's because no one reads or writes bottom to top in the English language... :)

No, it's that those are two different things meant to explain two different ships which appear in End Run. The 'carrier Waterloo' is to cover for why the novel calls the TCS Gettysburg a carrier (and treats it as such in discussions of fleet strengths), and the Jutland is the "CVA Trafalgar" attack carrier.

(People have also since reasoned that the Jutland is a reasonable carrier to be the one which replaces the Bengal-class on the production lines, as referenced in the Confederation Handbook.)
 
But LOAF, reading from top to bottom as everyone does in the English language, what would the full-carrier-Waterloo's modifications be?

Would the fact that the Jutland's stats come right under the "with these modifications:" bit from the Waterloo's description, and that it only has three stats listed (and those seem to have no logic on their own - there's mass, but not length, for instance) be a mere coincidence?

And why couldn't full-carrier Waterloos be a reasonable replacement to the Bengal?
 
The reason there's no stats for either is because the whole thing is unfinished -- they just never did stats for the novel ships.

Waterloos wouldn't be a good replacement for the Bengal because a) they're around before 2657 and b) they carry less than half as many fighters.

You can argue that the Waterloo and the Jutland are the same -- but it was not the intention of the document's author, and doing so only creates *more* undefined carrier classes (and in so doing contradicts the intend of the reference in the first place).
 
While I've never noticed that before, it does make a lot of sense. Not only are the Jutland stats exactly under the "these modifications:" bit, but they would also go a long way towards explaining why the Jutland-class ships weigh only marginally more than a Waterloo-class cruiser, while most other carriers weigh three times as much. And finally, it would explain the weird choice of stats. This is the only place where Jutland stats appear, so it would be understandable that they didn't make up a full set of stats even if it was a completely new ship... but if it is a completely new ship, why list only its armaments and mass, of all things?

(also, my understanding has always been that the Jutland appeared in End Run because it was mentioned in the bible, not vice-versa)
 
Bandit LOAF said:
b) they carry less than half as many fighters.
Click to expand...
You just said there's no stats for the carrier-Waterloo's modifications, though. Those could include (as since it's described as a "carrier" variant, I suspect they would) the fighter compliment. :)

Bandit LOAF said:
You can argue that the Waterloo and the Jutland are the same -- but it was not the intention of the document's author, and doing so only creates *more* undefined carrier classes (and in so doing contradicts the intend of the reference in the first place).
Click to expand...
How does arguing two carrier classes are the same create one more undefined carrier class? It's quite the contrary, I think.

If they are the same, you have the full stats for the Jutland-class listed in the Bible, and you could argue that while Gettysburg is not a sea battle, the TCS Gettysburg might have been commisioned as a cruiser and later converted to a carrier (the word modifications seems to imply some degree of versatility).

If the Jutland and Waterloo are not related, however, you are left with no answers as far as the Gettysburg is concerned. If it's a Waterloo-class ship, how can it be a carrier? They only carry 40 ships... If it's a carrier, how can it be Waterloo-shaped? :)

As for it being unfinished or the author having another intent, I wouldn't know, but the entire spacecraft section looks otherwise complete to me. I just don't see any reason to create a entirely new design out of 3 lines. Sure, it's good for fan projects' creative liberties, but it might be unnecessary.
 
It could be like the Independece Class CVL. They were laid down as a Clevland Class CL but due to recent Carrier losses they were given flight decks and Island towers and renamed Independence Class. Of cours they screwed up and they listed 5 degrees towards the tower.

Anyhow to get back on topic it *could* be possible for the Jutland to be an Allusion to (In my guess) the Independence class. I mean Is it just me or are there alot of WW2 references in WC (B-17 Flying Fortress/A-17 Broadsword)
 
(also, my understanding has always been that the Jutland appeared in End Run because it was mentioned in the bible, not vice-versa)
Click to expand...

Nope. The version of the bible you have is that one which has been updated through Wing Commander III. The bible Forstchen had for the early novels was only about twelve pages long.

How does arguing two carrier classes are the same create one more undefined carrier class? It's quite the contrary, I think.
Click to expand...

Because if the Waterloo-class is really secretly a different ship with a different name (something that's never happened before, and we've seen several cruiser-carrier conversions) then you're left with the Trafalgar-type CVA and the Bengal-class 2657 followup undefined.

As for it being unfinished or the author having another intent, I wouldn't know, but the entire spacecraft section looks otherwise complete to me. I just don't see any reason to create a entirely new design out of 3 lines. Sure, it's good for fan projects' creative liberties, but it might be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It's clearly a living document -- as time went on, the author(s) added new things, often added wholesale from other sources (the WC3 ships, for instance, are all pasted from Origin's Official Guide to Wing Commander III). (Regardless of that, it's still very unfinished -- the Armada fighters, for instance, don't have the lengths.)

The need for the design was created by End Run, by its reference to an Attack Carrier (the TCS Trafalgar). The Bible just happened to give that carrier a name... (although I'll admit, the amount of excitement over the ship in fan project cycles has surprised me).

The chain of events went something like this:

* Gettysburg appears as a 'carrier' role (though it's still referred to as a cruiser).
* Forstchen writes End Run, references the Gettysburg as a carrier based on his synopsis of SO2.
* Bible is revised in early 1994 (post ER and Privateer, pre Fleet Action and WC3), with an eye towards fixing some continuity errors from the novels. There are several instances of this relating specifically to End Run -- another good one is the explanation that later Bengals are named after dogs instead of cats because of the war. The Jutland part is to explain what the CVA Trafalgar was -- it's not the same was the Waterloo (which, as you've pointed out, wouldn't make sense in the context of the reference being to explain the TCS Gettysburg in the first place).
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The need for the design was created by End Run, by its reference to an Attack Carrier (the TCS Trafalgar). The Bible just happened to give that carrier a name...
Click to expand...
Hmm...
<Origin guy 1> Well, I just read End Run.
<Origin guy 2> Oh, that book that keeps talking about a new type of escort carrier, and provides lots of details about it?
<Origin guy 1> Yep. We need to update the bible.
<Origin guy 2> ...With all that stuff about the CVEs, right?
<Origin guy 1> No, of course not. Halfway through the book, there's a one-line mention of a ship called the Trafalgar. That's all we need to add.

In other words - the Jutlands were almost certainly not added because of End Run. As far as I can see, nothing at all was added from End Run, so why would the Jutland be the one and only thing they do add?In fact, the only mention of the post-WC2 novels is in the characters section, where Bear's and Sparks' profiles have been expanded to include Fleet Action (but not End Run!) info.

(you'll point to the timeline stuff about End Run and Fleet Action - but this timeline stuff was almost certainly given to Forstchen to serve as the basis for his books, as I doubt that Origin just let Forstchen make up a completely new storyline at a time when they were working on WC3)

All this leads me to believe that the Jutland was in the bible (however long that first bible was, it must've included ship information) when Forstchen first received it - in which case, it would be hard to believe that, after so many revisions and opportunities to fill in missing info a line of text clearly pointing to the Jutland profile is not in fact pointing to the Jutland profile :).

(although I'll admit, the amount of excitement over the ship in fan project cycles has surprised me).
Click to expand...
Hehe, it shouldn't - most of us working on fan projects would love to introduce something that hasn't appeared in any of the games, but most of the time this is impossible (because we don't want to make up completely non-canon stuff). The Jutland provides an opportunity for this, so of course we take a lot more interest in it than we might in ships that appear regularly in games.
 
Of course it was added after End Run -- they're not in the original version.

But all of the things I've already pointed out have clear links to End Run (and are 'cover ups' of sorts). Regardless of what you've decided about the Jutland, the bible didn't invent the TCS Wolfhound or the TCS Trafalgar... the names were taken from End Run and then 'accounted for' by the document. No one said "Okay, lets invent the TCS Wolfhound and then make a reletively nonsensical explanation as to why it exists...".
 
One thing, though. Do you have this original version? If you do, and the Jutland is indeed not mentioned in it, then obviously I'm wrong. But I'm sure you can understand why I find it difficult to believe (without being able to see specific evidence) that, of all things introduced in End Run, they decided to only add the Trafalgar and the Wolfhound - especially since neither of them appeared in any previous or subsequent WC product. Believe it or not, the "let's invent the Wolfhound and add a nonsensical explanation" theory is actually more convincing :).

(though, of course, even if it was added from End Run, there's no reason to believe that the Jutland description appears purely by accident right where the modified Waterloo stats should be; the authors' intent is fairly clear, IMO)

Note that this is not a request for you to scan the original version of the bible if you do have it - I'll take your word for it ;). I know it takes time to scan all this stuff and I'm much more interested in the P3 script than in an outdated version of the already-available bible.
 
Oh, no, I agree that the Wolfhound reference is probably the most obvious evidence. It's a variation of one of those things fans of 'Star Trek' novels have learned to recognize immediately and grit their teeth over: when the author of a novel decides to 'fix' some sort of continuity error about the series by interrupting his prose to go off on a not-quite-logical explanation about something from the show. (The places are reversed here, of course.)

But yeah, I now have several variations on this document -- the one that's scanned is the most complete/recent edition, and to the best of my knowledge little has been *removed* from it over the years. Earlier (pre-WC3 and pre-spinoffs) versions are certainly in the queue to be added to the archive someday.

(As for the decision to add only a few minor references from End Run -- it's beyond me, but it's certainly the sort of thing that shows up in other documents. Look at the WCU Map -- it added a few 'novel' systems, including some very very obscure ones (Gmarktu?)... but it left off really important things like the Landreich.)

My guess would be that the additions are based on 1993/4 online discussion picking out continuity errors rather than on a close read of the novel -- which is why things like the Tarawa or the updated fighters or the brief references to new Kilrathi ships are nowhere to be found.
 
Really weird... so they care about all sorts of small things and completelly ignore the BIG ones, ehehehe, that's funny.
 
Oh, I don't mean continuity issues, I'm agreeing with the "They included jutlands but forgot about the CVEs" thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top