No Paradigm in Standoff?

[Manic]

What about the Raltha? It's actually quite similar to the Concordia, stats-wise... big-ass main gun, and lots of flak... I think that's the name, anyway. I'm tired All I know is I lived about as long against the Raltha as I did against the Concordia.

 

[Quarto]

No data... but the model does seem to have a little fighter bay on the bottom.

Interesting. So, it's at least as big as the Gilgamesh (since that's the smallest ship Eder's put a fighter bay on). Might be bigger, actually, if those Priv Broadswords are based on it. All in all, if it wasn't for the term 'destroyer' that shows up in the Priv manual (but which could perhaps be dismissed as the in-universe writer's mistake), frigate would be the best class for it (its stats are somewhere between a corvette and a destroyer, and it's big enough to house fighters).

Hmm... don't we already know the names of all nine of the heavy transport conversions?

We know of ten, actually . This would indicate that a few more CVEs were built after the first nine (which would make sense, given their successes in End Run).
Crete, Enigma, Gallipoli, Iwo Jima, Khorsan, Normandy, Saipan, Sevastopol, Tarawa, Wake.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Two of them aren't necessarily 'Tarawa-type'... Enigma and Khorsan aren't explicitly 'original' escort carriers (and their names don't fit with the rest of the ships).

 

[Quarto]

So, in that case, there would be one CVE unaccounted for (and that would be the Firekka), but the class name we gave them would be wrong. Well, either way, there's room for the Firekka .

 

[Bob McDob]

What about the Raltha? It's actually quite similar to the Concordia, stats-wise... big-ass main gun, and lots of flak... I think that's the name, anyway. I'm tired All I know is I lived about as long against the Raltha as I did against the Concordia.

You mean the Sivar? Or the Hvar'kann?

Or the Fralthra? That really isn't comparable to the Concordia, even though it was the closest thing the Kilrathi had, not counting Thrakkath's flagship.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

So, in that case, there would be one CVE unaccounted for (and that would be the Firekka), but the class name we gave them would be wrong. Well, either way, there's room for the Firekka .

If you discount the Enigma and Khorsan based on name, though, you'd pretty much discount one called Firekka, too. (And, of course, it's kind of unlikley that a *new* Confed ship would be named Firekka anyway... what with the less-than-happy relationship between Confed and Firekka after the armistice.)

 

[Quarto]

Oh, with the Firekka, the name either came from the operation to disrupt the Sivar ceremony or from the full-scale landing that (presumably) would have followed after the ceremony was disrupted. Either way, a Marine landing, so it kinda fits in. And the ship was launched before the armistice, when Firekka was still a part of the Confederation.
...It's not a canon name, and it never will be, but we did try to ensure it would fit in .

 

[Eder]

If you discount the Enigma and Khorsan based on name, though, you'd pretty much discount one called Firekka, too.

We could rename the Firekka to one of the known CVEs.... Wake, or Saipan, or whatever - the one which we know less about, preferrably - and even keep the Guadalcanal's current name, and say it was the ninth converted transport. However, we'd have to rename the class, and wonder what the Enigma and Khorsan are (since IIRC, End Run mentions escort carriers as being kind of an innovation in the Fleet) - though that wouldn't really be Standoff's problem anymore... all we'd have to change in the project would be the Firekka's name and the Class name. Right now, that means changing a few textures, a few string files, and a lot of text on the site, so it's possible. After we start recording voiceovers for the main campaign and writing more fiction, it will be too much trouble to change any ship's name.

Alternatively, we could assume that after the initial nine CVEs proved to be successful, Confed decided to make new and improved versions - the Enigma, Firekka, and Khorsan - and named them Khorsan-class. In this case, I'd have to make the Guadalcanal be CVE-9 (or a lower number), I'd have to give both the Guadalcanal and the Tarawa a different class name, and some different (lowered) stats. This is a bit of a stretch, though, since there's little time between the deployment of the first batch of CVEs and the loss of the Enigma and Khorsan (mentioned in FA)... even though the new CVEs would also be converted heavy transports... only converted differently.

We can also say that more identical CVEs were produced after the first nine, and the fact that only 3 of them have WC-related names is merely a coincidence (since all names come from marine landings, there's still a theme here)...

The good thing about these last two theories is that we don't have to fit a whole different type of escort carrier in Confed history to justify the different names.

Anyway... which option do you guys think would be closer to WC canon? (I mean, I'm even including a ship from the movie here, so I don't want a major screw up in something as simple as a ship's name )

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I think those are all reasonable explanations.

My preference -- and please please please don't let that affect your mod without talking to people like Quarto who are more familiar with what you're trying to do -- is to keep the TCS Guadalcanal and name the class either Crete, Gallipoli, Saipan, Iwo Jima or Wake (it can't be Tarawa, Sevastopol or Normandy class since we know they're CVEs 8, 4 and 6 respectively).

The good thing about these last two theories is that we don't have to fit a whole different type of escort carrier in Confed history to justify the different names.

There already is a whole different type of escort carrier, though -- it shows up in the WC3 novel. Because the original escort carriers were so sucessful, Confed build a new class from the ground up instead of converting escort carriers... the TCS Eagle, which brings Excaliburs to the Victory, is one of these.

(Confed's fleet dynamic circa Prophecy also makes use of escort carriers... they're referenced several times in the ICIS manual. Presumably these are of the Eagle-type, since the surviving Tarawa-type were sold/scrapped after the war.)

 

[Eder]

There already is a whole different type of escort carrier, though -- it shows up in the WC3 novel. Because the original escort carriers were so sucessful, Confed build a new class from the ground up instead of converting escort carriers... the TCS Eagle, which brings Excaliburs to the Victory, is one of these.

Oh, yes, I didn't forget about the Eagle-type carriers. However, I don't think the Enigma and Khorsan could have belonged to this class... they were destroyed before 2669 (the Eagle was described as having "sleek and modern lines" in 2669, so it was probably a brand new design) and their names are closer to marine landings than to... well, birds, I guess

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Their names aren't marine landings, though -- there's no planets in the Enigma System and the battle at Khorsan was the defense of an existing human colony...

(Enigma and Khorsan were destroyed in 2668, though -- so not *long* before 2669... given the ages of the rest of the carrier classes in service, (30-100 years) one year wouldn't necessarily de-sleak a design (G))

 

[Eder]

One year isn't that much of a difference indeed... but didn't the original batch of CVEs enter service in 2667? If so, how can it be that one year after that, they've already built (and lost) at least two carriers from a class that was created due to the success of the first CVEs?

I think I should rename the class, so that Standoff doesn't mention Khorsan and Enigma anywhere. That already avoids some possible misinterpretations. Hmmm... Then I'll only need to change the carriers' numbers around a bit, and either rename the Firekka, or leave it as the tenth Tarawa-type CVE.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Hey, I really dont see what the big deal about the naming of the Khorsan, Enigma, and Firekka is. In the US navy, naming traditions are usually flaunted. This is primarily due to politics, such as naming a ship after a person in a class that is predominantly named after Cities or fish, etc. So it is entirely possible that Enigma and Firekka were Tarawa designs built after the initial success of that design. Also the issue of Marine landings being the names of the Tarawas. Crete, Enigma, Gallipoli, Iwo Jima, Khorsan, Normandy, Saipan, Sevastopol, Tarawa, Wake. Crete-a Nazi invasion of Crete. Sevastopol-no known opposed amphibious landings by Marines. Normandy-army not marines. Wake-defense of an outpost by Marines. Never reinvaded. Gallipoli was army as well, but british. the rest fit. Finally, the Eagle from WC3 is probably named after the famous English ships (including two aircraft carriers) named Eagle. Almost all ships in WC3 novel have Royal Navy names-Ajax, Sheffield, Coventry, Victory, Eagle, Hermes

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I think the issue isn't that the names *can't* exist -- it's just that we know ten names for nine carriers... so at least one of them has to go.

 

[Eder]

Yep. The issue here is that I have to decide wheter we assume that at least one of those carriers isn't Tarawa-type, or that there have been more carriers built after the first nine.

The whole name thing only came into play because we don't have any other info to use when guessing which carriers aren't Tarawa-type (if we go with the first option, that is).

 

[Dragonslayer]

Eh i say that you just say that more carriers were built of the Tarawa class after the first 9. it seems to make more sense.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I like the sound of Guadalcanal over Firekka, presonally.

 

[Quarto]

Yeah, I also think it would be best to rename the class. Personally, I'd really like to see the Firekka stay in, because all the other ships of this class are 19th or 20th century battles - it would be good to have something out of that period. However, if we want to keep the class within the limit of nine ships, it will be easiest to remove the Firekka (since the Guadalcanal probably already features in some voiceovers for the prologue).

I would also like to see the Eagle-type carrier visualised, but I do think that their existence at this time is a bit questionable, and there are plenty of other ships I'd rather see Eder work on .


Dragonslayer: Actually, pretty much all those names fit in, once you get over the psychological hurdle of accepting ships being named after non-Allied invasions in WWII (as for Sevastopol, it was indeed invaded from the sea, during the Crimean War). Also, although we keep talking about Marine landings, End Run just says they're named for amphibious operations, so not necessarily Marines.

 

[Dominator]

There were some small landings made by Red Army during recapture of Sevastopol in WW II (or maybe even russian equivalent of marines)

 

[Eder]

Yeah, I also think it would be best to rename the class. Personally, I'd really like to see the Firekka stay in, because all the other ships of this class are 19th or 20th century battles - it would be good to have something out of that period. However, if we want to keep the class within the limit of nine ships, it will be easiest to remove the Firekka (since the Guadalcanal probably already features in some voiceovers for the prologue).

Yeah, we'll rename the class, and re-number the Guadalcanal to some number lower than 9 (What does it look like, a 9? ), I think that's settled.

As for the Firekka, we still need to see what we'll do about it. I think we should either leave it as it is, or change the number (I think this one looks like a 5 ), change the name to either Wake or Saipan... and use the other name for the class.