Least Favorite Carrier

Dundradal said:
While the Shoebox is crappy, I actually liked the Tallahasse and Southhampton classes. It showcased a different design style that existed in Confed and while looking a little lacking when compared to other models they can still kick the crap out of any Kat equivalent that dares come into AMG range.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as far as boxes go, the Tallahasse isn't bad - but put it up against a Plunkett and you'll see the pretty SO capship kick the box's ass. :p
 
floundericiousMI said:
Ironic statement there, given that (in game) the Plunkett is singularly unable to kick ANYTHING's ass :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, sometimes you just have to love the WCP/SO capship damage setup. It turns the biggest ass kicker into just a ship unloading onto components it can't damage.
 
It's the other way around - the problem with WCP capships is not that they can't damage one another... it's that they don't aim at specific components, they aim at the center of the other ships. If you had the Cerberus fire its plasma gun at a capship whose only component was at its center, the Cerberus would kill it.
 
I agree! Sorta what I meant (since hull shots can't hurt cap ships)...I'd have loved it if the big cap ships could pound each other!

edit: I did love the sound of a Plunkett opening up! *clink-CHOOM-CHOOM-CHOOM-clink-CHOOM*
 
Eder said:
Yeah, as far as boxes go, the Tallahasse isn't bad - but put it up against a Plunkett and you'll see the pretty SO capship kick the box's ass. :p
Click to expand...

I dunno... I would like to see that fight, something tells me that the Tallahassee class has superior movement, which is a powerful ally in any situation. Though Im still sure the Plunkett would eventually win, i don't think it would be as big a slaughter as you think.
 
Drizzt Do Urden said:
yeah there needed to be more missions like the one in WC3 where the escort ships went out and pounded the crap out of enemy capships.
Click to expand...

That is one of my favorite WC3 missions. You get to watch the Victory BG kick the shit out of a bunch of Kat heavies. The Ajax - Fralthi II fight is awesome.
 
mach81 said:
I didnt like the concordia class
( Lexington )
Click to expand...

Also didn't like the Concordia class/Victory-types. (I know they're different ship classes, but they look almost identical to me) Looks like a tinderbox just begging for but a single torp to put it out of its misery. Too exposed, too flimsy, and about as aesthetically interesting as a cardboard box.

I liked the look of the Tiger's Claw, even if it looked just a little too anime-inspired. (SDF-1 anybody? I'm sure there are other resemblances).
 
The Yorktown (Victory) and Concordia classes feel to me like they were rush jobs--after the war began, Confed needed a class of carrier that could be built quickly and cheaply compared to already-existing classes. Thus was born a light carrier design (Yorktown) and a fleet carrier design (Concordia). The boxy shape then is a result of this "cheaper, faster" doctrine. After all, according to Action Stations, the pre-war fleet was centered around battleships and there was thus a sudden need for many more carriers when the Kilrathi showed that small bombers could easily destroy battleships. Thus, Confed had to rush a few dozen quick-and-cheap carriers to deployment during the first few years of the war as a stopgap until more powerful carriers such as the Bengal class could be ready.
 
I liked the design of the Tiger's Claw in both SWC and WC1 but am preferable to the SWC design it seemed that the claw was actually capable of defending itself effectively in that game.
 
Ijuin said:
The Yorktown (Victory) and Concordia classes feel to me like they were rush jobs--after the war began, Confed needed a class of carrier that could be built quickly and cheaply compared to already-existing classes. Thus was born a light carrier design (Yorktown) and a fleet carrier design (Concordia). The boxy shape then is a result of this "cheaper, faster" doctrine. After all, according to Action Stations, the pre-war fleet was centered around battleships and there was thus a sudden need for many more carriers when the Kilrathi showed that small bombers could easily destroy battleships. Thus, Confed had to rush a few dozen quick-and-cheap carriers to deployment during the first few years of the war as a stopgap until more powerful carriers such as the Bengal class could be ready.
Click to expand...

I thought Victory was from the pre-war period.
 
The Yorktown class was designed before the war (and likely pulled up as the cheapest model for carriers-in-a-hurry when the war broke out), but Eisen implies in WC3 that the Victory herself is thirty-odd years old--he says that he served on her "maiden cruise" as a junior officer. Given the estimated age of Eisen (in his 50s as of WC3), this would put the Victory's beginning of service somewhere around the beginning of the war, so if it wasn't one of the carriers being rushed to completion at the start of the war, then it was still brand new when the war started.
 
The Victory (her class, that is) could have been somewhat analagous to the Langley http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/01.htm

As an early carrier, capable of carrying a few squadrons, she would have been totally outclassed on the front lines, but could still have been dangerous (like the Victory) with her air wing. (well, that and if she hadn't been sunk! :p)
 
floundericiousMI said:
The Victory (her class, that is) could have been somewhat analagous to the Langley http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/01.htm

As an early carrier, capable of carrying a few squadrons, she would have been totally outclassed on the front lines, but could still have been dangerous (like the Victory) with her air wing. (well, that and if she hadn't been sunk! :p)
Click to expand...

I fail to see the comparison... the Langley was too slow, under-armed, and unstable to engage in fleet action. I would compare the victory more so to the Lexington... also, when she sank, the Langley had long since been converted to a seaplane carrier.

Also... where did this Yorktown class come from? I was on here... maybe last year poking around, i thought the Vic was Ranger class.
 
:rolleyes:

frostytheplebe said:
I fail to see the comparison... the Langley was too slow, under-armed, and unstable to engage in fleet action. I would compare the victory more so to the Lexington...
Click to expand...


....I'm sorry... we're talking about TCS Victory, right?

Oh...my mistake...I forgot: the Victory blew up Kilrathi Fralthi II's with balls of fire from Eisen's eyes..and bolts of lightning from Rollins' arse...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top