Ranger and Concordia (oh, and fighter complements)

Ironduke

Spaceman
I probably missed something, but it struck me that in the CIC encyclopedia both the Ranger-class and Concordia-class look very much alike. Their specs are different, but judging from the screenshots, I'd say the Concordia-class is just a bigger version of the Ranger-class. Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

Also, I tried to figure out if the Gilgamesh-class destroyer has a fighter bay or not. I thought the Exeter-class didn't feature a hangar, but read something about an 18 fighters hangar. Since the Sheffield-type destroyer carries 6 fighters, it would make sense if the Gilgamesh had a hangar bay, too. The TCS Lionheart from Standoff sure has one...
 
I probably missed something, but it struck me that in the CIC encyclopedia both the Ranger-class and Concordia-class look very much alike. Their specs are different, but judging from the screenshots, I'd say the Concordia-class is just a bigger version of the Ranger-class. Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

Also, I tried to figure out if the Gilgamesh-class destroyer has a fighter bay or not. I thought the Exeter-class didn't feature a hangar, but read something about an 18 fighters hangar. Since the Sheffield-type destroyer carries 6 fighters, it would make sense if the Gilgamesh had a hangar bay, too. The TCS Lionheart from Standoff sure has one...
Yes, the Ranger and Concordia look similar, but the Ranger's bridge is on the left side of the ship, where the Concordia's is on the right. The Concordia also has a long strip of more exposed scaffolding running along the top. Both the stock Exeter and Gilgamesh have no fighter bays, but several of each class have been modified to carry fighters.
 
the Ranger's bridge is on the left side of the ship, where the Concordia's is on the right.

Looking at the online encyclopedia shows the conning tower for both carriers on the right (when looking at the front of the carriers). Although I thought I remember Loaf mentioning somewhere that one of the ships conning tower is on the wrong side. Don't quote me on that though. I'll have to see if I can find the post I am referring to.


edit - Well, I must of dreamed that last part up, I can't find it in the threads.
 
I probably missed something, but it struck me that in the CIC encyclopedia both the Ranger-class and Concordia-class look very much alike. Their specs are different, but judging from the screenshots, I'd say the Concordia-class is just a bigger version of the Ranger-class. Can anyone enlighten me?

Yes, Wing Commander IV re-used the same basic model for its Concordia-class ship that Wing Commander III did for the TCS Victory. I think the idea is that, basically, aircraft carriers look similar in real life.

The Victory (sometimes Ranger) is a Light Carrier, which is smaller and has a similarly reduced complement -- 40 fighters to the Concordia-class' 96.

Re: the name Ranger-class. There's no reason to think that the Victory is a "Ranger". This was a mistake I made years ago that I've been trying to fix to little success recently. The "Ranger class carrier" is something Action Stations mentions as existing in 2634... but it doesn't even say that it's a light carrier, much less that it's the same class as the Victory.

Also, I tried to figure out if the Gilgamesh-class destroyer has a fighter bay or not. I thought the Exeter-class didn't feature a hangar, but read something about an 18 fighters hangar. Since the Sheffield-type destroyer carries 6 fighters, it would make sense if the Gilgamesh had a hangar bay, too. The TCS Lionheart from Standoff sure has one...

We don't really know, in the case of the Gilgamesh. Blair served a very, very brief stint on the TCS Gilgamesh herself, which suggests that the ships do have some fighter complement... but it's not certain, and we don't really see the ships in many places.

The Exeter does carry fighters, though -- veterans of the original Wing Commander may remember escorting the TCS Formidable, the destroyer on which Blair did his OJT sessions at the Academy. Then in The Secret Missions, the TCS Gwenhyvar (the Exeter captured by the Kilrathi) carried a complement of Rapier IIs (which you fight in both SM and SM2). The 18 fighter number comes from the Wing Commander movie novelization, where Blair thinks back to bunking with 17 other pilots on the Formidable.

Yes, the Ranger and Concordia look similar, but the Ranger's bridge is on the left side of the ship, where the Concordia's is on the right. The Concordia also has a long strip of more exposed scaffolding running along the top. Both the stock Exeter and Gilgamesh have no fighter bays, but several of each class have been modified to carry fighters.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but all of it is wrong. The WC3 Light Carrier and the WC4 Concordia-class Carrier use the same 3D model with different textures -- the tower is on the same side of the ship in both instances. I don't think we've ever seen an Exeter or a Gilgamesh-class ship modified for anything... ever.
 
I'm not sure where you get your information, but all of it is wrong. The WC3 Light Carrier and the WC4 Concordia-class Carrier use the same 3D model with different textures -- the tower is on the same side of the ship in both instances. I don't think we've ever seen an Exeter or a Gilgamesh-class ship modified for anything... ever.
Edit: I see your point. That does seem like a strange mistake, though. I'm just suprised about the amount of conflicting information.
 
Re: the name Ranger-class. There's no reason to think that the Victory is a "Ranger". This was a mistake I made years ago that I've been trying to fix to little success recently. The "Ranger class carrier" is something Action Stations mentions as existing in 2634... but it doesn't even say that it's a light carrier, much less that it's the same class as the Victory.
So here we are with yet another nameless ship class...? Same goes for the TCS Sheffield - I couldn't find any information on what class of destroyer she is. (Besides finding that she's definitely no Coventry-class.)
The TCS Ajax should be a Tallahassee-class, if I'm not totally mistaken...?

Then in The Secret Missions, the TCS Gwenhyvar (the Exeter captured by the Kilrathi) carried a complement of Rapier IIs (which you fight in both SM and SM2). The 18 fighter number comes from the Wing Commander movie novelization, where Blair thinks back to bunking with 17 other pilots on the Formidable.
Ah, you're right, I remember the Gwenhyvar dimly... (I'm currently replaying the "Vega Campaign", but haven't advanced to the Secret Missions yet.)
Although, one could argue that bunking with 17 other pilots doesn't necessarily mean that there's a fighter ready for each pilot. Could as well be that there's only 6 (or 12) fighters, with 12 (or 6) pilots in reserve... Doesn't make it easier, though. ;)

Is there any information about the standard size of a Confed/Kilrathi squadron in WC? I used to think that a squadron is comprised of 12 fighters - I also read something about the Sheffield's "half-squadron" of 6 fighters. Then again, there's the Bengal-class with 104 fighters, which doesn't divide very well into 12. (Or are there shuttles and other utility craft included?) And there's the Fralthra and Waterloo with a complement of 40 fighters, which divides into 8 - as well as the Tallahassee's 8 light or medium fighters. Any definite numbers on that one?
 
Edit: I see your point. That does seem like a strange mistake, though. I'm just suprised about the amount of conflicting information.

I believe it came about because the ship models are 'flipped' inside the games -- so when you extract a 3D mesh and stick it in 3DS, you have to manually mirror it or else it'll appear wrong.

As of some months ago, the ever-pride-obsessed Saga mod still insisted on repeating this mistake. It's a stupid thing to do -- we don't randomly 'flip' real aircraft carrier designs.

So here we are with yet another nameless ship class...? Same goes for the TCS Sheffield - I couldn't find any information on what class of destroyer she is. (Besides finding that she's definitely no Coventry-class.)
The TCS Ajax should be a Tallahassee-class, if I'm not totally mistaken...?

None of the WC3 ships have known names -- they're just 'Cruiser', 'Destroyer', and 'Light Carrier'.

Tallahassee is another one that people took from a brief novel reference. It's much more likely that Tallahassee-class was supposed to refer to the WC3 cruiser... but there's no solid official link, either (and the man who wrote the reference is dead, so there we are...).

Although, one could argue that bunking with 17 other pilots doesn't necessarily mean that there's a fighter ready for each pilot. Could as well be that there's only 6 (or 12) fighters, with 12 (or 6) pilots in reserve... Doesn't make it easier, though.

In other references, the number of pilots where known has always matched the fighter complement (Tiger's Claw, Tarawa, etc.). You personally fight nine fighters from the Gwenhyvar, over the course of SM and SM2.

Is there any information about the standard size of a Confed/Kilrathi squadron in WC? I used to think that a squadron is comprised of 12 fighters - I also read something about the Sheffield's "half-squadron" of 6 fighters. Then again, there's the Bengal-class with 104 fighters, which doesn't divide very well into 12. (Or are there shuttles and other utility craft included?) And there's the Fralthra and Waterloo with a complement of 40 fighters, which divides into 8 - as well as the Tallahassee's 8 light or medium fighters. Any definite numbers on that one?

The size of a Confederate squadron changes throughout the war. The pre-war standard was 16 fighters, but by WC3 that is reduced to only ten. It returns to 16 after the surrender.

There's all sorts of exceptions, though. The squadron size on the escort carriers in End Run, for instance, is 15 fighters... and then there's all sorts of specific situations where smaller ships have smaller fighter wings dedicated to particular purposes.

The standard Kilrathi squadron size (per False Colors) is eight ships.

(Regarding the Coventry, we know that it carries a "half squadron" -- but not that this means it has six fighters... I'm not sure who translated this one, but the fact that all the references to the half-squadron come in a book where the standard squadron size is ten fighters suggests to me that the destroyer's complement is probably supposed to be five instead of six...)
 
In other references, the number of pilots where known has always matched the fighter complement (Tiger's Claw, Tarawa, etc.).
Point taken - it's 18 fighters on the Exeter, then. ;)

The size of a Confederate squadron changes throughout the war. The pre-war standard was 16 fighters, but by WC3 that is reduced to only ten. It returns to 16 after the surrender.

There's all sorts of exceptions, though. (...)
Okay, so the Confed squadron size is actually quite variable.

While we're at it: I remember the Broadsword had 3 jump capacitors onboard, and I think the Crossbow draws equal. Not sure about the Sabre and their Kilrathi counterparts, though... But is there any reference as to how many jumps a mid-sized transport or a capital ship can execute before having to refuel? E.g., would 10 jumps for a Clydesdale, 15 for a Concordia or Ralatha, and 30 for a Fralthra or dreadnought sound reasonable?

(And yes, I am aware that I'm asking a lot of widespread questions here - sorry. But I'm really interested in your opinion(s)!)
 
While we're at it: I remember the Broadsword had 3 jump capacitors onboard, and I think the Crossbow draws equal. Not sure about the Sabre and their Kilrathi counterparts, though... But is there any reference as to how many jumps a mid-sized transport or a capital ship can execute before having to refuel? E.g., would 10 jumps for a Clydesdale, 15 for a Concordia or Ralatha, and 30 for a Fralthra or dreadnought sound reasonable?

Larger ships have fusion drives and electromagnetic ramscoops -- under normal circumstances, they're constantly collecting spaceborne hydrogen and converting it into jump fuel. The Confed Handbook goes into a lot of detail on this process (I'd check it to be sure, but mine is boxed up for my move right now).

I believe the Broadsword has enough fuel to jump twice, and then there are missions in WC2 where it can refuel with a tanker.
 
Re: fighter complements; there's also the WCIV novel reference to consider:

[Price of Freedom, p. 154]

"A leg patrol from the cruiser Dominion blundered into a rebel squadron," the lieutenant replied.

[p. 157]

It appeared at first that the Dominion's half-squadron was heavily engaged against a slightly larger force of Border Worlds craft [...] "Approximately twelve bogies," Strike King said.

That would seem to indicate that the Dominion's half-squadron rates eight fighters, half of the standard peacetime complement. Of course, we don't know anything about what class the Dominion is, or whether her "half-squadron" constitutes her entire fighter complement.

Relevant excerpts on jump drive operation are as follows:\

[Official Authorized Wing Commander Confederation Handbook, pp. 56-57]

 A jump-ship has three essential components. The first is an Akwende drive itselfe. The drive is usually mounted in the center of the ship, securely braced. The second is a set of fusion engines, for maneuvering to and from jump points. The third is a containment vessel of antiprotons, fuel for the antigraviton generator. Most large ships also carry the equipment to create more antiprotons to recharge the tank, but this isn't strictly necessary.

 To begin a journey, the jump ship must first find the jump point. In settled systems, the jump points are carefully charted and tracked—a ship will know what section of space to search, but it must search nevertheless. To find a jump point, the drive is switched on at a very low level, producing a slow trickle of antigravitons. Sensing equipment around the edges of the drive determines where the antigravitons are leading. All jump ships are fitted with this equipment, but most civillian craft can only home in on jump points when they're already within a few hundred thousand kilometers (i.e., they have to know—very exactly by the scale of interstellar space—where the jump point is before they can head for it.) Military or exploration vessels can plot jump points across many millions of kilometers.

 Once the location of the point is determined the ship starts its fusion engines and heads towards it. As the ship gets closer to the jump point, the attraction of the antigravitons becomes stronger and stronger. When the ship is close enough to the point that the antigravitons can actually arrive at the point itself before decaying (a distance of about 500 meters), the jump drive starts to produce real thrust, though at this point that thrust is very small.

 The ship stops at the edge of the jump area to get a precise bearing on the jump point, including its drift rate. It then kicks in the engines, gets as close as possible to the jump point, and activates the jump drive at full power. The high thrust provided by the jump drive drags the ship to the exact jump point. Once the source of antigravitons coincides with the jump point, an antigraviton field is created with a roughly 500-meter radius. (The radius is a constant, based on the half-life of anti-gravitons.) If the intensity of this field is sufficient based on the mass contained within the field and the speed with which the mass is moving, then everything in the field vanishes at the point of departure and arrives at the point of arrival, keeping all its original momentum.

 All parts of the jump-ship must be subjected to roughly the same amount of antigravtion flux. Because of the short lifespan of these particles, this effectively translates into a maximum ship radius of about 500 meters. Since particles have a half-life, this radius is not fiec, and to a certain extent the power of the drive determines the radius of the sphere. Ships bigger in radius than 500 meterstake vastly more power than ones smaller than this threshhold. If a ship is too big for its antigraviton flux, then only the parts that are within the field complete the jump—meaning parts of the ship may be left behind, with possibly disasterous results.

 Since the speed of the ship affects the amount of antigravitons required to initiate the jump, a ship can reduce the jump's energy needs by carefully maneuvering to the exact location of the jump point, and matching vectors with the jump point's drift, before turning on the drive. This results in the maximum-energy jump for a given mass, but can take quite some time to achieve. However, for ships that are close to the maximum size, this is the safest way to make a jump.

 Each jump draws energy out of the jump line used. This energy is proportional to the energy required to initiate the jump. Thus, a minimum-energy jump takes less energy out of the jump line. Reducing the energy opf a jump line may make it connect to a new destination, or it may disconnect it entirely. When a ship attempts a jump that depletes the line's energy, it will either arrive at the wrong destination, or it will simply disappear. No one knows where ships that vanish this way go; they are presumed destroyed.

 When a ship generates more antigraviton energy than it needs for the jump, the excess is dissipated in a vurst of light and neutrinos at each end of the jump. This burst is easily detectable from long range. If the ship takes time to calculate the exact amount of energy required, and is equipped with a "variable-flux" engine," it can make a "stealth" jump, eliminating the flash at both ends. Under normal conditions, ships seldom bother with this; in fact, few civillian ships are even equipped with the gear necessary to calculate the antigraviton flux.

Make of that what you will. The (non-canonical) WC Bible contains an earlier and more complete version.
 
Back
Top