Size of the Confederation and Kilrathi territories.

[Bandit LOAF]

First point, it seems that some people here still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm going to try explaining this one last time. WC1 was set in 2654, WC2 was around 2664-2668, Privateer was in 2669, WC3 was in 2669, WC4 was in the 2670's, and Prophecy was in the 2680's. So each installment CONTINUED the original WC series. The later games ADDED more information by continuing the series, they didn't REPLACE the earlier games.

This theory ignores two things:

* A basis for this being true. "This is how it is" isn't the same thing as "if it isn't like this, it's wrong".

* Many, many things that disprove it. Wing Commander Academy (1996) - takes place in 2654. Freedom Flight, published in 1992... takes place in 2655-6. False Colors, published in 1999 takes place in 2672. There's no "order" of releases to the games other than that the ones that follow one persons story went in order for a while (except even when they didn't - Super Wing Commander, 1994).

Now, take the movie. It was set in 2654, the SAME YEAR as the WC1 game. Technically, you could claim it was "background" for the WC1 game since it occurred slightly earlier. But there is only a very short amount of time - less than a year - between the WC movie and WC1. You can try explaining certain inconsitencies, such as the Rapier, by saying it was an older fighter that was suddenly replaced later in 2654. This explanation doesn't actually work very well because the WC bible specifically refers to the F-44A from WC1 as the "Rapier" and the F-44G from WC2 as the "Rapier II". But even if you accept the convoluted Rapier story, that type of explanation gets ridiculous when you look at the number of changes you'd have to explain. Is anyone seriously trying to claim that the Tiger's Claw, Broadswords, Dralthi, Skipper missiles, Confed and Kilrathi capital ship designs, and the nature of jump travel all changed suddenly between the WC movie and WC1? There's simply no way all those ships and technology could be completely redesigned and replaced in less than a year. That's the main problem I have with the movie. It REPLACES the WC1 ships and technlogy with totally new designs and provides no concieveable explanation of how all of these changes could possibly fit in with the rest of the WC setting.

The Rapiers are certainly different fighters - they have entirely different histories (and the differences are explained as such in the novel). Trying to pretend their not is silly.

The Roman numeral designates an entirely different type of aircraft -- the B-17G isn't the Flying Fortress VII. If the F-44G is the Rapier II, so is the YF-44A.

No one is seriously trying to claim that all these ships have been replaced - as best I can tell, since you refuse to be specific about any of this, most of whatever you're raving about is your own imagination. There's no change in jump travel, the Tiger's Claw is the same ship, Dralthi, Broadswords, Skippers etc. are all the same.

Secondly, regarding the idea that has been mentioned repeatedly that I might get banned for criticising the WC movie. Are you fucking kidding me? If any of the mods want to ban me for disagreeing with people, go right ahead. I seriously don't care one way or another. If the general attitude on these boards is "if you don't agree with us, we're going to ban you" then why would I want to post here in the first place? At any rate, I really don't see the point in continuing the WC movie dicussion because it's going around in circles and it's clear that certain people will vehemently attack anything I post simply because I don't agree with them. But if anyone has anything to add to the original topic about the size of the Confederation/Kilrathi territories, please do so.

This is offensively idiotic. At no point in this thread have I threatened to ban you - you are absolutely not being oppressed. If you can't win an argument, concede it like an adult -- don't pretend people are conspiring against you... and sure as hell don't try and make a point and *then* rave about how this is the last we'll hear from you.

And yet in the space of a few short years a lone Border World mechanic called pliers manages to build his own....god I love logic (aren't Strakha mass produced also)

Nope, the basis for the fact that they're incredibly rare comes from the Wing Commander III novel.

 

[Devari]

This theory ignores two things:

* A basis for this being true. "This is how it is" isn't the same thing as "if it isn't like this, it's wrong".

* Many, many things that disprove it. Wing Commander Academy (1996) - takes place in 2654. Freedom Flight, published in 1992... takes place in 2655-6. False Colors, published in 1999 takes place in 2672. There's no "order" of releases to the games other than that the ones that follow one persons story went in order for a while (except even when they didn't - Super Wing Commander, 1994).

You clearly don't understand the concept I was trying to describe. I NEVER said that the order in which the games or novels were released correlated with the timeline in the WC universe. The order of publication is totally irrelevant. I was referring to the fact that subsequent games never REPLACED earlier games in the WC timeline. WC2 was not a "reinvented" version of WC1, it was a CONTINUATION of the storyline. The movie, on the other hand, REPLACED many things that were already established in WC1.

The Rapiers are certainly different fighters - they have entirely different histories (and the differences are explained as such in the novel). Trying to pretend their not is silly.

That's exactly my point. The movie Rapier clearly isn't the same craft as the WC1 Rapier based on appearance and capabilities. But the Tiger's Claw from the movie was also totally different than the WC1 Tiger's claw. Same with the Broadsword, Dralthi, and the capital ship designs. To explain the other differences in starship design you need to make the same type of argument for these ships and claim they were "older" fighters or ships that were suddenly replaced later in 2654.

The Roman numeral designates an entirely different type of aircraft -- the B-17G isn't the Flying Fortress VII. If the F-44G is the Rapier II, so is the YF-44A.

Except that "Rapier (Mark II)" is used in the WC bible to refer ONLY to the F-44G. Take a look yourself, you'll see that the "Rapier" is the name given to the F-44A and the "Rapier (Mark II)" is the name given to the F-44G. In the WC1 and WC2 setting, the first Rapier ever built was the F-44A. The movie tries to change this with a ridiculous backstory about an "older" Rapier that conflicts with the established naming of the Rapier variants we've flown in WC1 and WC2.

No one is seriously trying to claim that all these ships have been replaced - as best I can tell, since you refuse to be specific about any of this, most of whatever you're raving about is your own imagination. There's no change in jump travel, the Tiger's Claw is the same ship, Dralthi, Broadswords, Skippers etc. are all the same.

So the Tiger's Claw, Dralthi, Broadswords, Skippers, and so on that are shown in the movie are supposed to represent technology in use in 2654? Then why are they completely different from anything we see in WC1, which also takes place in 2654?

This is offensively idiotic. At no point in this thread have I threatened to ban you - you are absolutely not being oppressed. If you can't win an argument, concede it like an adult -- don't pretend people are conspiring against you... and sure as hell don't try and make a point and *then* rave about how this is the last we'll hear from you.

Read my posts more carefully. I NEVER said that you, or any other mod, has threatened to ban me. I was referring specifically to the numerous posts LeHah has made where he stated that "people get banned" for making the type of argument I'm making and that it's an "unwritten rule" that people on these boards don't criticise the WC movie, and so on. If he's full of shit, then say so. If what he said was correct and people have been banned for arguing about the WC movie then my earlier comments, which were a response to what LeHah had posted, still stand.

Nope, the basis for the fact that they're incredibly rare comes from the Wing Commander III novel.

By WC3 Strakhas are being mass-produced according to Victory Streak. And in False Colors, the Karga was originally deployed with two full squadrons of each Kilrathi fighter type, including two squadrons of Strakhas. Although Strakhas are still less common than fighters like the Dralthi, they are definately deployed by the Kilrathi in significant numbers by WC3.

 

[Devari]

So nobody thought that the presence of Skipper missles was just a bit wrong? From that one tiny part of the movie (which i still think is great) so many contradictions arose, and for your pleasure I shall list them

1.Its cloaking technology, when Blair was accused of treason over the loss of the Tigers Claw his defence was that it was attacked by stealth fighters, a defence that was guffawed at by Tolwyn.

2.In WC3 when Eisen briefs Blair about the skipper missle he explains its function as if Blair had never encountered it before, which in my belief he hadn't because Eisen refers to it as 'a new kind of missle' that the cats were testing (so none of that it was a new kind of skipper missle crap that some people have used thank you please!)

3.In the Wing Commander Movie Angel also describes the skipper and from her tone and dialogue she seems to be fairly well aquainted with them, so HOW in the name of god did nobody in confed think that the cats might maybe use the cloaking sytem on a fighter!!

I agree completely, the inclusion of skipper missiles in 2654 in the WC movie WAS wrong. As you've pointed out, the existence and deployment of Kilrathi cloaking technology that early in the war totally screws up the WC2 storyline. It would be like watching a movie set in 1940 during the Battle of Britan and having some German V1 flying bombs (which weren't deployed until 1944) suddenly show up over London.

In summation the Skipper Missle was simply an added feature to pimp up the storyline of an awesome movie that in my opinion can't be considered canon

I think that a lot of the elements in the movie (not just the skipper missiles) were added simply because Chris Roberts though it would "improve" his movie. That's why I've been treating the WC movie as a separate setting entirely instead of trying to fix all the problems with the movie storyline.

 

[Sarty]

So the Tiger's Claw, Dralthi, Broadswords, Skippers, and so on that are shown in the movie are supposed to represent technology in use in 2654? Then why are they completely different from anything we see in WC1, which also takes place in 2654?

Like we've said a dozen times, it is simply a change in visual style, nothing more.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

You clearly don't understand the concept I was trying to describe. I NEVER said that the order in which the games or novels were released correlated with the timeline in the WC universe. The order of publication is totally irrelevant. I was referring to the fact that subsequent games never REPLACED earlier games in the WC timeline. WC2 was not a "reinvented" version of WC1, it was a CONTINUATION of the storyline. The movie, on the other hand, REPLACED many things that were already established in WC1.

Drop the act, you don't have some amazingly clever concept that's just too complex for us commoners. I don't agree with what you're saying.

The movie is a CONTINUATION of the storyline in exactly the same way that Wing Commander Academy was - stories set earlier in the timeline. It does not replace the events of the original game and it doesn't ruin any established backstory.

That's exactly my point. The movie Rapier clearly isn't the same craft as the WC1 Rapier based on appearance and capabilities. But the Tiger's Claw from the movie was also totally different than the WC1 Tiger's claw. Same with the Broadsword, Dralthi, and the capital ship designs. To explain the other differences in starship design you need to make the same type of argument for these ships and claim they were "older" fighters or ships that were suddenly replaced later in 2654.

The Rapier is a different fighter alltogether - the other ships are the same ships with the same histories styled differently -- they're exactly like the half a dozen things we (and you!) 'alternate style' releases that have already been mentioned in this thread: the SNES port, Super Wing Commander, the Academy television show, different styles for the Tiger's Claw within the original game, etc.

No one is claiming that anyone redesigned anything (other than the Rapier, which is why it was pointed out as a special case ten posts ago) - the specifications and the histories are the same.

Except that "Rapier (Mark II)" is used in the WC bible to refer ONLY to the F-44G. Take a look yourself, you'll see that the "Rapier" is the name given to the F-44A and the "Rapier (Mark II)" is the name given to the F-44G. In the WC1 and WC2 setting, the first Rapier ever built was the F-44A. The movie tries to change this with a ridiculous backstory about an "older" Rapier that conflicts with the established naming of the Rapier variants we've flown in WC1 and WC2.

I'm not sure how this counters the explanation of what the Roman numerals in a fighter designation mean, which I've already posted. Please read closer.

(Also, kindly reference the Kilrathi Saga manual while making this argument, as the Bible is a historical curiosity rather than part of the continuity.)

I'm also unclear as to how two different fighters having the same name is "ridiculous" -- if this is so, you're also eliminating Wing Commander IV (Banshee and a host of actual aircraft developed since World War 2. Heck, your issue with the Dralthi must throw out everything but Wing Commander I (addons not inclusive!) and Wing Commander II.

So the Tiger's Claw, Dralthi, Broadswords, Skippers, and so on that are shown in the movie are supposed to represent technology in use in 2654? Then why are they completely different from anything we see in WC1, which also takes place in 2654?

Wait, are you claiming that the Tiger's Claw and the Dralthi don't exist in 2654? How'd you wind up with this one?

Read my posts more carefully. I NEVER said that you, or any other mod, has threatened to ban me. I was referring specifically to the numerous posts LeHah has made where he stated that "people get banned" for making the type of argument I'm making and that it's an "unwritten rule" that people on these boards don't criticise the WC movie, and so on. If he's full of shit, then say so. If what he said was correct and people have been banned for arguing about the WC movie then my earlier comments, which were a response to what LeHah had posted, still stand.

LeHah does not moderate this board; pretending he does to shirk an argument is assinine.

By WC3 Strakhas are being mass-produced according to Victory Streak. And in False Colors, the Karga was originally deployed with two full squadrons of each Kilrathi fighter type, including two squadrons of Strakhas. Although Strakhas are still less common than fighters like the Dralthi, they are definately deployed by the Kilrathi in significant numbers by WC3.

No, they're not. Here's your problem: you've assumed something based on what you think is evidence. This is a perfectly normal way to do things. We all do it all the time. It fails, however, when you are using this kind of assumption to reply to a post that EXPLICITLY CITES A SOURCES.

When a Wing Commander novel specifically says that the Strakha's have not appeared in large numbers yet, you can't reason out why they really must have to suit your argument. This does a disservice to the whole - the continuity doesn't exist to shape itself to make you right.

I agree completely, the inclusion of skipper missiles in 2654 in the WC movie WAS wrong. As you've pointed out, the existence and deployment of Kilrathi cloaking technology that early in the war totally screws up the WC2 storyline. It would be like watching a movie set in 1940 during the Battle of Britan and having some German V1 flying bombs (which weren't deployed until 1944) suddenly show up over London.

Here's a tip: if you don't know how analogies work, then don't use them.

Your comparison falls on its face in a million ways that add up to make it sound very stupid. Did you honestly think anyone was going to think "Oh, gee, he's right, Wing Commander isn't like fiction that you can add to in any order, it's just like *ACTUAL HISTORY*! He's so smart! How clever!". I mean, jeez.

(And if you're going to jerk off to some other guys post, at least have the common sense to reply to the posts that already disproved his claim. It just makes you look bad to go "I AGREE WITH YOU!" ten posts after we've already debated something away.)

I think that a lot of the elements in the movie (not just the skipper missiles) were added simply because Chris Roberts though it would "improve" his movie. That's why I've been treating the WC movie as a separate setting entirely instead of trying to fix all the problems with the movie storyline.

Kid, every single aspect of every single Wing Commander product was added because it would 'improve' the whole. There is no link between reasoning for doing something an an excuse for throwing something out.

 

[Devari]

Drop the act, you don't have some amazingly clever concept that's just too complex for us commoners. I don't agree with what you're saying.

And I don't agree with what you're saying. But you clearly didn't even understand what I was saying, since you seemed to think I was referring to publication dates.

The movie is a CONTINUATION of the storyline in exactly the same way that Wing Commander Academy was - stories set earlier in the timeline. It does not replace the events of the original game and it doesn't ruin any established backstory.

How many times do I have to explain this? The movie clearly REPLACES many established elements from WC1 (ship designs, main character backgrounds, and adding the pilgrim story). Those are CHANGES to the established storyline, not ADDITIONS to an earlier or later part of the WC timeline.

(Also, kindly reference the Kilrathi Saga manual while making this argument, as the Bible is a historical curiosity rather than part of the continuity.)

The WC bible was based directly on information presented in both the games and novels and was used by the authors as the basis for future WC novels. It's more than a "historical curiosity", it was produced by Origin and provided to authors as WC reference material. But if you want another source, you can simply look at the WC1 Claw Marks, which refer to the WC1 Rapier simply as the "Rapier", NOT the "Rapier II". The Kilrathi Saga manual does not include the full information from earlier manuals, so it's better to reference the original manuals such as Claw Marks, the WC2 manual, and Victory Streak unless you're talking about new material that appeared only in the Kilrathi Saga manual.

I'm also unclear as to how two different fighters having the same name is "ridiculous" -- if this is so, you're also eliminating Wing Commander IV (Banshee and a host of actual aircraft developed since World War 2. Heck, your issue with the Dralthi must throw out everything but Wing Commander I (addons not inclusive!) and Wing Commander II.

Wait, are you claiming that the Tiger's Claw and the Dralthi don't exist in 2654? How'd you wind up with this one?

Again, you don't understand what I was saying. I'm saying that to suddenly include an "earlier" rapier that immediately preceeded the F-44A is a very implausible explanation. It's not like the Dralthi, which was continually revised in future vairants. It's being explained as a completely different fighter entirely that just "happened" to be called the Rapier and was in service on the Tiger's claw in 2654.

LeHah does not moderate this board; pretending he does to shirk an argument is assinine.

I'm not shirking an argument at all, I'm pointing out that you didn't understand what I was responding to in my post. LeHah made specific claims about actions the moderators had taken in the past. Was he correct, or not?

No, they're not. Here's your problem: you've assumed something based on what you think is evidence. This is a perfectly normal way to do things. We all do it all the time. It fails, however, when you are using this kind of assumption to reply to a post that EXPLICITLY CITES A SOURCES.

When a Wing Commander novel specifically says that the Strakha's have not appeared in large numbers yet, you can't reason out why they really must have to suit your argument. This does a disservice to the whole - the continuity doesn't exist to shape itself to make you right.

Sorry, did you miss the TWO SOURCES THAT I EXPLICITLY REFERENCED? The reference to Strakhas being "mass-produced" in Victory Streak? Or the reference to the Karga having two full squadrons of Strakhas? Because those two sources were EXPLICITLY MENTIONED in my last post. You can check the references yourself, take a look at the Strakha entry under "GIF: Kilrathi Ship Statistics" in the electronic Victory Streak manual and take a look at the description of the Karga's original fighter compliment on p. 301 of False Colors. Please provide a page number reference for your own claim so I can check it myself.

Your comparison falls on its face in a million ways that add up to make it sound very stupid. Did you honestly think anyone was going to think "Oh, gee, he's right, Wing Commander isn't like fiction that you can add to in any order, it's just like *ACTUAL HISTORY*! He's so smart! How clever!". I mean, jeez.

Let me explain it again then, since my analogy clearly didn't help you at all. WC2 established that as far as the Confederation knew in 2664, stealth technology simply WAS NOT KNOWN TO EXIST until Strakhas were observed. The WC movie takes this information that was establsihed in WC2 and totally ignores it by using Skipper missiles in 2654. This direclty conflicts with the information in WC2. Was any explanation ever provided for this contradiction?

Kid, every single aspect of every single Wing Commander product was added because it would 'improve' the whole. There is no link between reasoning for doing something an an excuse for throwing something out.

Except that when too many aspects are changed and "reinvented", like in the WC movie, it distorts the original WC setting beyond recognition.

 

[Paddybhoy]

(And if you're going to jerk off to some other guys post, at least have the common sense to reply to the posts that already disproved his claim. It just makes you look bad to go "I AGREE WITH YOU!" ten posts after we've already debated something away.)

uhm loaf you didn't give me a satisfactory answer and you in no way disproved my post.

 

[Dyret]

WC1 Rapier simply as the "Rapier", NOT the "Rapier II".

A lot of ship classes has been named after older craft, without being related to them.

How many times do I have to explain this? The movie clearly REPLACES many established elements from WC1 (ship designs, main character backgrounds, and adding the pilgrim story).

You keep repeating yourself, but you havent been giving any sane examples. The ships have small cosmetic changes, but that doesnt contradict anything. The wraith and Jrathrek's (mispelled?) cockpits look different in Armada and Academy... So obviously, Armada is contradicting established elements from academy and is because of that pure evil...

As for characters backstories... where is the contradiction?

I'm not shirking an argument at all, I'm pointing out that you didn't understand what I was responding to in my post. LeHah made specific claims about actions the moderators had taken in the past. Was he correct, or not?

People are banned when they stop arguing and starts trolling. Like making up insane reasons for hating the WC movie...

WC2 established that as far as the Confederation knew in 2664, stealth technology simply WAS NOT KNOWN TO EXIST until Strakhas were observed.

Thats some other insane thing you have made up... Cloaking fighters didnt exist before 2664... cloaking missiles is something totally different.

Except that when too many aspects are changed and "reinvented", like in the WC movie, it distorts the original WC setting beyond recognition.

Thats just wrong.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

And I don't agree with what you're saying. But you clearly didn't even understand what I was saying, since you seemed to think I was referring to publication dates.

Your claim was that each game 'added' to the Wing Commander universe and you provided a list of examples (in order of release). I pointed out that the things you forgot to list *did* go back and 'change' the look of earlier titles. Wing Commander Academy had a new look for the Tiger's Claw, Super Wing Commander had a new look for everything, False Colors added an entire war between Wing Commanders III and IV!

Address these facts instead of whining about how people can't possibly understand you. It isn't cute.

How many times do I have to explain this? The movie clearly REPLACES many established elements from WC1 (ship designs, main character backgrounds, and adding the pilgrim story). Those are CHANGES to the established storyline, not ADDITIONS to an earlier or later part of the WC timeline.

Lets do this one more time. Giving Blair's mom a space religion is an *ADDITION* and not a *REPLACEMENT*, because there is nothing for it to *REPLACE*. Unless you're claiming that Blair had some sort of background which established that his mother was *not* a Pilgrim, then there is *NO CONTRADICTION*. Are you claiming that such a reference exists?

You've yet to provide anything satisfactory about "character backgrounds" -- or why your 'ship designs' matter in the light of the half a dozen perfectly acceptable products that redesign ships.

The WC bible was based directly on information presented in both the games and novels and was used by the authors as the basis for future WC novels. It's more than a "historical curiosity", it was produced by Origin and provided to authors as WC reference material. But if you want another source, you can simply look at the WC1 Claw Marks, which refer to the WC1 Rapier simply as the "Rapier", NOT the "Rapier II". The Kilrathi Saga manual does not include the full information from earlier manuals, so it's better to reference the original manuals such as Claw Marks, the WC2 manual, and Victory Streak unless you're talking about new material that appeared only in the Kilrathi Saga manual.

First of all, you're confusing the alpha and the omega -- the bible isn't a compendium of existing information, it's the source from which existing information sprang.

Dropping the Roman numeral in common parlance is certainly the norm. A google search for +"A-10 Thunderbolt" -"A-10 Thunderbolt II" nets 76,500 results.

And yes, lots of information was added to the Kilrathi Saga manual (such as the 'II' to the Joan's entry for the F-44... which is what we're referencing here.).

Sorry, did you miss the TWO SOURCES THAT I EXPLICITLY REFERENCED? The reference to Strakhas being "mass-produced" in Victory Streak? Or the reference to the Karga having two full squadrons of Strakhas? Because those two sources were EXPLICITLY MENTIONED in my last post. You can check the references yourself, take a look at the Strakha entry under "GIF: Kilrathi Ship Statistics" in the electronic Victory Streak manual and take a look at the description of the Karga's original fighter compliment on p. 301 of False Colors. Please provide a page number reference for your own claim so I can check it myself.

Again, neither of your references are relevant because neither one contradicts mine. You're taking two pieces of information and claiming something that they don't - that the Strakha is widely available because it's being mass produced. Since other sources say that, as of 2669, it isn't, it's not a leap you can reasonably make.

Let me explain it again then, since my analogy clearly didn't help you at all. WC2 established that as far as the Confederation knew in 2664, stealth technology simply WAS NOT KNOWN TO EXIST until Strakhas were observed. The WC movie takes this information that was establsihed in WC2 and totally ignores it by using Skipper missiles in 2654. This direclty conflicts with the information in WC2. Was any explanation ever provided for this contradiction?

uhm loaf you didn't give me a satisfactory answer and you in no way disproved my post.

Then perhaps you should have replied with a cogent argument instead of whimpering comments like this?

There has never been an issue with the Skipper missile. The "explanation" was published in The Confederation Handbook before the movie was even in theaters.

Before you little geniuses even had the ability to assume there was a problem, IMGS had already anticipated your complained and entered into the canon a two page explanation of why the "K459-C Ultra-Long-Range Phased Photon-Cloak Torpedo" could exist in the context of the later cloak-related Wing Commander storylines.

Quote:

"As currently envisioned, cloaking technology inhibits sensor operation from both directions. That is, just as it is impossible to see what's in a cloak, it is likewise difficult to see out from within the cloak." (p.100)

"Energy emission from within a cloaked area will be 'caught' in the cloak field and circulate in an increasing feedback loop, eventually leading to shield overload and possibly the destruction of the cloaked object." (p.100-101)

Why do these explanations exist? Because the movie is part of the same timeline as the games and the people behind it worked specifically to make it 'fit'. No one but people who want to know how the movie goes with the games could possibly be benefited by a two page document about the Skipper missile. Its very existence is proof that you're wrong, and the fact that it goes on specifically to address your own issue (years before you had it) is icing on a very delicious cake that didn't get left in a hotel drawer to melt.

 

[Edfilho]

Devari, the movie is officially part of the WC universe continuity because Chris Roberts and Origin said so. End of discussion.

And you are stretching your arguments beyond any hope. What do you mean that WC3 kept the visual style and art direction of the original games? IT DIDN'T. IT changed the look and feel of EVERYTHING in the previous games, just like the Movie.

 

[Devari]

A lot of ship classes has been named after older craft, without being related to them.

You keep repeating yourself, but you havent been giving any sane examples. The ships have small cosmetic changes, but that doesnt contradict anything. The wraith and Jrathrek's (mispelled?) cockpits look different in Armada and Academy... So obviously, Armada is contradicting established elements from academy and is because of that pure evil...

As for characters backstories... where is the contradiction?

For the last time, the WC movie ships look TOTALLY DIFFERENT. We're not talking about slight, stylistic changes here. If you take the movie Tiger's claw and the WC1 Tiger's claw, and put them side by side, do you think they both reasonably represent the same craft? Or any of the Kilrathi capital ships from the movie? Or the movie Broadsword? We aren't talking about minor changes, we're talking about a total redesign of the ships.

And as for the character changes, I'd say completely changing Angel's and Paladin's accents and giving both Blair and Paladin a new pilgrim background are pretty significant changes to those characters.

People are banned when they stop arguing and starts trolling. Like making up insane reasons for hating the WC movie...

Again, these ridiculous suggestions that I might be banned because people don't agree with my argument. Seriously, do you think I care?

Thats some other insane thing you have made up... Cloaking fighters didnt exist before 2664... cloaking missiles is something totally different.

Then why does the WC3 novel describe skippers as a new type of Kilrathi missile? If Skipper missiles were used in 2654, then why are they described as new technology in 2669?

 

[Devari]

Your claim was that each game 'added' to the Wing Commander universe and you provided a list of examples (in order of release). I pointed out that the things you forgot to list *did* go back and 'change' the look of earlier titles. Wing Commander Academy had a new look for the Tiger's Claw, Super Wing Commander had a new look for everything, False Colors added an entire war between Wing Commanders III and IV!

Lets do this one more time. Giving Blair's mom a space religion is an *ADDITION* and not a *REPLACEMENT*, because there is nothing for it to *REPLACE*. Unless you're claiming that Blair had some sort of background which established that his mother was *not* a Pilgrim, then there is *NO CONTRADICTION*. Are you claiming that such a reference exists?

You've yet to provide anything satisfactory about "character backgrounds" -- or why your 'ship designs' matter in the light of the half a dozen perfectly acceptable products that redesign ships.

I address this above in my previous post.

First of all, you're confusing the alpha and the omega -- the bible isn't a compendium of existing information, it's the source from which existing information sprang.

What are you talking about? The WC bible was compiled in 1995. It introduces some new information (specifically about how jump drives work), but most of the information is based on either the games or the novels. How could anything produced earlier than 1995 have possibly been influenced by the WC bible if it didn't exist before then?

And yes, lots of information was added to the Kilrathi Saga manual (such as the 'II' to the Joan's entry for the F-44... which is what we're referencing here.).

The WC1 Rapier is simply named "Rapier", not "Rapier II", in all the WC manuals, including Claw Marks and the Kilrathi Saga manual. The only Rapier to be named "Rapier II" in the game manuals is the F-44G from WC2. Take a look at the Kilrathi Saga manual, p. 91. The 2654 Rapier from WC1 is named "Rapier", while the 2668 Rapier from WC2 is named "Rapier II".

Again, neither of your references are relevant because neither one contradicts mine. You're taking two pieces of information and claiming something that they don't - that the Strakha is widely available because it's being mass produced. Since other sources say that, as of 2669, it isn't, it's not a leap you can reasonably make.

Did you miss the part in my last post where I asked you to PLEASE PROVIDE A PAGE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM? The references I cited showed that the Strakha was being mass-produced during WC3 and was deployed on Bhantkara-class carriers in similar numbers to other fighters. I never claimed it was "widely available", only that it was being produced and deployed in significant numbers during WC3. Please provide an ACTUAL REFERENCE if you want to claim otherwise.

There has never been an issue with the Skipper missile. The "explanation" was published in The Confederation Handbook before the movie was even in theaters.

Before you little geniuses even had the ability to assume there was a problem, IMGS had already anticipated your complained and entered into the canon a two page explanation of why the "K459-C Ultra-Long-Range Phased Photon-Cloak Torpedo" could exist in the context of the later cloak-related Wing Commander storylines.

Quote:

"As currently envisioned, cloaking technology inhibits sensor operation from both directions. That is, just as it is impossible to see what's in a cloak, it is likewise difficult to see out from within the cloak." (p.100)

"Energy emission from within a cloaked area will be 'caught' in the cloak field and circulate in an increasing feedback loop, eventually leading to shield overload and possibly the destruction of the cloaked object." (p.100-101)

That simply explains how cloaking devices work, which isn't relevant to this discussion. I already know how cloaking devices work. What I want to know is, if the Kilrathi deployed cloaked missiles in 2654 then why was the Confederation totally ignorant of cloaking technology in WC2 and why did they describe skipper missiles as a new type of weapon in WC3?

 

[Devari]

Devari, the movie is officially part of the WC universe continuity because Chris Roberts and Origin said so. End of discussion.

I agree completely that the WC movie is an "official" part of the WC universe. That's not what I'm arguing about at all. I'm saying that Chris Roberts made so many changes to the WC1 setting when he made the movie that it's essentially impossible to successfully combine the movie with the material provided in the WC games and novels.

And you are stretching your arguments beyond any hope. What do you mean that WC3 kept the visual style and art direction of the original games? IT DIDN'T. IT changed the look and feel of EVERYTHING in the previous games, just like the Movie.

WC3 did not "reinvent" the ships from WC1, it used entirely new ships that were in use later in the Kilrathi war. See the difference? We don't see a "redesigned" Tiger's Claw in WC2 or WC3 that conflicts with WC1, we see separate ships such as the Concordia or Victory.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

For the last time, the WC movie ships look TOTALLY DIFFERENT. We're not talking about slight, stylistic changes here. If you take the movie Tiger's claw and the WC1 Tiger's claw, and put them side by side, do you think they both reasonably represent the same craft? Or any of the Kilrathi capital ships from the movie? Or the movie Broadsword? We aren't talking about minor changes, we're talking about a total redesign of the ships.

Okay, now look at the things we've mentioned: Super Wing Commander (which literally has a completely different design for every single ship in the original game)... Wing Commander Academy (with a giant pointed Tiger's Claw that has a boat's hull and long flat Broadswords with bug-eyes...). The Wing Commander Movie is in no way unique in 'updating' or 'redesigning' the tiny blocky pixels seen in Wing Commander I. Love the idea or hate it, it's NOT something the movie started doing and not something you can call the movie out for. It's continuing a long, long practice which began in... I don't know, 1990 when they drew four different cockpit placemenets for the Scimitar, I guess.

You yourself went on about how the Green Salthi didn't matter. The 'look' of the ships doesn't matter -- their history does.

And as for the character changes, I'd say completely changing Angel's and Paladin's accents and giving both Blair and Paladin a new pilgrim background are pretty significant changes to those characters.

Those are both completely stylistic things, though - the characters have the same *BACKGROUND* (that's what we're talking about, right?) in both stories. Angel in the movie novel is from Brussles, Paladin is from Ares. These are the SAME BACKGROUNDS they had in the games. Anything else is you not liking the movie, taking a tiny little whispy trace of nothing and pretending it matters -- in direct contrast to the information provided in the movie material itself! Do us all a favor and drop it.

(Aside from the Pilgrim thing, which contradicts NOTHING. Blair HAD NO BACKGROUND before the movie. Creating one is NOT A CONTRADICTION. How do you not understand this?)

Again, these ridiculous suggestions that I might be banned because people don't agree with my argument. Seriously, do you think I care?

I told you to stop harping on this. I was serious - if you can't have an argument without playing poor wounded kitten, I'm not going to let you play with the other kids.

Then why does the WC3 novel describe skippers as a new type of Kilrathi missile? If Skipper missiles were used in 2654, then why are they described as new technology in 2669?

Actually, what Eisen says is "a new type of Skipper missile".

(... and all the English majors in the room prick up their ears.)

What are you talking about? The WC bible was compiled in 1995. It introduces some new information (specifically about how jump drives work), but most of the information is based on either the games or the novels. How could anything produced earlier than 1995 have possibly been influenced by the WC bible if it didn't exist before then?

No, it wasn't. The core of the bible was written in 1991 under Ellen Guon. As time went on, ship specifications and mechanics from later games were added to it (living document)... but you can see pretty clearly the pieces of the document document that went to Dr. Forstchen in 1993.

The WC1 Rapier is simply named "Rapier", not "Rapier II", in all the WC manuals I've read, including Claw Marks and the Kilrathi Saga manual. The only Rapier to be named "Rapier II" in the game manuals is the F-44G.

The problem with this is that it makes no sense even without the movie. They both have to be the F-44 Rapier II *anyway* -- because then what's the F-44C Rapier in End Run? The Rapier 1.67? 'G' would be the *seventh* major revision of the spaceframe -- the idea that 'A' is 'Rapier' and 'G' is 'Rapier II' only makes sense in a universe that's made up only of Blair's two happenstance interactions with the design. ("Chris got his hands on one! Give it a new name!")

This is why many people turn a typo in the Kilrathi Saga manual into the idea that the Arrow is actually the 'Arrow V' (myself included) -- because the roman numerals are such a big sticking point that it's hard to argue against them no matter what. We were going on about the ship int he first game being the 'Rapier II' years before the movie came out.

Did you miss the part in my last post where I asked you to PLEASE PROVIDE A PAGE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM? The references I cited showed that the Strakha was being mass-produced during WC3 and was deployed on Bhantkara-class carriers in similar numbers to other fighters. I never claimed it was "widely available", only that it was being produced and deployed in significant numbers during WC3. Please provide an ACTUAL REFERENCE if you want to claim otherwise.

The initial requirement was that Strakha be a common thing - 'widely available' -- in order for the cloaking device to be something so rare that it's slapped on all missiles (which clearly even outside the context of the movie it is not - because the Skipper missile in WC3 needs to decloak in order to lock whether you saw the movie nor not). You're beating an aside into the ground because you've forgotten what you were arguing about in the first place - you're foaming at the mouth over something that has nothing to do with the Wing Commander movie.

That simply explains how cloaking devices work, which isn't relevant to this discussion. I already know how cloaking devices work. What I want to know is, if the Kilrathi deployed cloaked missiles in 2654 then why was the Confederation totally ignorant of cloaking technology in WC2 and why did they describe skipper missiles as a new type of weapon in WC3?

STOP BEING STUPID.

The Confederation Handbook includes a document written specifically to address why the Confederation doesn't think there's a stealth fighter in 2654. How could anyone have created a better answer to the question 'why doesn't the Confederation think there's a stealth fighter in 2654?' than writing an in-universe document to go over the reasons? Oh, you don't *actually* care about continuity, you just dislike the movie? Well, then.

WC3 did not "reinvent" the ships from WC1, it used entirely new ships that were in use later in the Kilrathi war. See the difference? We don't see a "redesigned" Tiger's Claw in WC2 or WC3 that conflicts with WC1, we see separate ships such as the Concordia or Victory.

Actually, the Tiger's Claw in the Wing Commander II intro is structurally different from the one seen in Wing Commander I...

 

[TurboTim07]

funny... i was gonna reply to Devari and point out the difference between the original WC1 Tiger's Claw and SWC's Tiger's Claw but LOAF took care of that for me also... you don't seem to question how Paladin got his patched eye in SWC

 

[Devari]

Okay, now look at the things we've mentioned: Super Wing Commander (which literally has a completely different design for every single ship in the original game)... Wing Commander Academy (with a giant pointed Tiger's Claw that has a boat's hull and long flat Broadswords with bug-eyes...). The Wing Commander Movie is in no way unique in 'updating' or 'redesigning' the tiny blocky pixels seen in Wing Commander I. Love the idea or hate it, it's NOT something the movie started doing and not something you can call the movie out for. It's continuing a long, long practice which began in... I don't know, 1990 when they drew four different cockpit placemenets for the Scimitar, I guess.

You yourself went on about how the Green Salthi didn't matter. The 'look' of the ships doesn't matter -- their history does.

Those are both completely stylistic things, though - the characters have the same *BACKGROUND* (that's what we're talking about, right?) in both stories. Angel in the movie novel is from Brussles, Paladin is from Ares. These are the SAME BACKGROUNDS they had in the games. Anything else is you not liking the movie, taking a tiny little whispy trace of nothing and pretending it matters -- in direct contrast to the information provided in the movie material itself! Do us all a favor and drop it.

(Aside from the Pilgrim thing, which contradicts NOTHING. Blair HAD NO BACKGROUND before the movie. Creating one is NOT A CONTRADICTION. How do you not understand this?)

How do you not understand that a large amount of material preseneted in the movie - changes to the ships, technology, and main characters - conflicts with the material presented in the WC games and novels?

Actually, what Eisen says is "a new type of Skipper missile".

(... and all the English majors in the room prick up their ears.)

Read the WC3 novel. They describe the skipper missile as a new type of weapon entirely.

No, it wasn't. The core of the bible was written in 1991 under Ellen Guon. As time went on, ship specifications and mechanics from later games were added to it (living document)... but you can see pretty clearly the pieces of the document document that went to Dr. Forstchen in 1993.

Obviously I'm referring to the WC bible document I downloaded, which was written after WC3 was released. How could I possibly be referring to any of the earlier versions if I don't have access to them?

The problem with this is that it makes no sense even without the movie. They both have to be the F-44 Rapier II *anyway* -- because then what's the F-44C Rapier in End Run? The Rapier 1.67? 'G' would be the *seventh* major revision of the spaceframe -- the idea that 'A' is 'Rapier' and 'G' is 'Rapier II' only makes sense in a universe that's made up only of Blair's two happenstance interactions with the design. ("Chris got his hands on one! Give it a new name!")

This is why many people turn a typo in the Kilrathi Saga manual into the idea that the Arrow is actually the 'Arrow V' (myself included) -- because the roman numerals are such a big sticking point that it's hard to argue against them no matter what. We were going on about the ship int he first game being the 'Rapier II' years before the movie came out.

Before the WC movie the WC1 Rapier was NEVER described as the "Rapier II". If the movie wants to change that, then it's rewriting the original WC Rapier naming from WC1 and WC2.

The initial requirement was that Strakha be a common thing - 'widely available' -- in order for the cloaking device to be something so rare that it's slapped on all missiles (which clearly even outside the context of the movie it is not - because the Skipper missile in WC3 needs to decloak in order to lock whether you saw the movie nor not). You're beating an aside into the ground because you've forgotten what you were arguing about in the first place - you're foaming at the mouth over something that has nothing to do with the Wing Commander movie.

I still haven't gotten that page reference from you supporting your claim that the Strakha wasn't produced in significant nubmers in WC3. Oh wait, that's because you HAVEN'T PROVIDED IT.

The Confederation Handbook includes a document written specifically to address why the Confederation doesn't think there's a stealth fighter in 2654. How could anyone have created a better answer to the question 'why doesn't the Confederation think there's a stealth fighter in 2654?' than writing an in-universe document to go over the reasons? Oh, you don't *actually* care about continuity, you just dislike the movie? Well, then.

I don't have the Confederation Handbook, and the part you quoted doesn't address the issue of putting a cloaking device on a fighter, so how was it at all relevent to what was being discussed?

I told you to stop harping on this. I was serious - if you can't have an argument without playing poor wounded kitten, I'm not going to let you play with the other kids.

Seriously, are you retarded? I was never "harping" on it at all, I was responding to the claims by LeHah and Dyret that they think I should be banned because I'm criticising the WC movie. And now because I still don't agree with you, you're actually directly threatening to ban me? That's pathetically sad.

I'm finished posting here. It's clear that if someone disagrees with certain people on these boards, they will be blindly criticised by these people even when they don't understand the discussion in the first place. The same thing happened in the Behemoth thread when I pointed out inconsistencies in the novels. If this is represenative of the way these boards are run, then these discussion boards are the worst boards I've ever seen.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I'm finished posting here.

Yup, you are.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

(I'm replying to your thread anyway despite the 'retarded' comment putting you away for a nice long time. Maybe there are actual intelligent people who care about this debate.)

How do you not understand that a large amount of material preseneted in the movie - changes to the ships, technology, and main characters - conflicts with the material presented in the WC games and novels?

You keep repeating the same vauge trinity -- but you haven't managed to find any actual contradiction. This should be telling.

Obviously I'm referring to the WC bible document I downloaded, which was written after WC3 was released. How could I possibly be referring to any of the earlier versions if I don't have access to them?

As I said, it was a *living document*. You can look at the 'big' bible we have posted and pretty clearly distinguish which segments were written in 1991 (by type face alone, if you're too stupid for context.)

Before the WC movie the WC1 Rapier was NEVER described as the "Rapier II". If the movie wants to change that, then it's rewriting the original WC Rapier naming from WC1 and WC2.

Yes, it was. We argued this at alt.games.wing-commander in 1997 - long before the movie came out. The idea that the F-44 is the 'Rapier II' is older than the movie itself. The *movie* material never uses the term Rapier II - this comes from the earlier Kilrathi Saga manual (the movie distinguishes the two different fighters as being unrelated because of their designations, F-44 v. CF-117).

I still haven't gotten that page reference from you supporting your claim that the Strakha wasn't produced in significant nubmers in WC3. Oh wait, that's because you HAVEN'T PROVIDED IT.

I'm pretty sure I cited the Heart of the Tiger novel in my initial post. Now, why haven't I gotten an actual argument from you instead of inane nitpicking? Because you don't have one? Oh.

I don't have the Confederation Handbook, and the part you quoted doesn't address the issue of putting a cloaking device on a fighter, so how was it at all relevent to what was being discussed?

Well, first of all, the post was in reply to something someone who wasn't you posted... and second, what I quoted was a clear explanation of why the cloaking device on the Skipper isn't the same thing as a cloakign device on a fighter: you can't see out of it and it explodes.

Seriously, are you retarded? I was never "harping" on it at all, I was responding to the claims by LeHah and Dyret that they think I should be banned because I'm criticising the WC movie. And now because I still don't agree with you, you're actually directly threatening to ban me? That's pathetically sad.

I'm finished posting here. It's clear that if someone disagrees with certain people on these boards, they will be blindly criticised by these people even when they don't understand the discussion in the first place. The same thing happened in the Behemoth thread when I pointed out inconsistencies in the novels. If this is represenative of the way these boards are run, then these discussion boards are the worst boards I've ever seen.

Oh, no, we didn't automagically bow down to someone who came in here and repeated the same tired argument without citing any sources that we've seen thousands of times. And then we banned him when he got agrivated about it. Oh, woe is us, we've truly lost something here.

 

[LeHah]

LeHah made specific claims about actions the moderators had taken in the past. Was he correct, or not?

I was indeed correct, wasn't I?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I was indeed correct, wasn't I?

For those just tuning in, a little wrap up for the next time this happens.

The Wing Commander movie argument is to Chat Zone debates what abortion is to Freshman English argument papers.

If you pick the Wing Commander movie as your big, community-winning premiere argument then you'd darn well better do it right. There's interesting points still to be made, for sure, but we have been discussing this for six years straight. We have heard it all and we know the responses.

Our boy here made the classic mistake: instead of arguing better, he just got angrier... until he reached a breaking point where he was just insulting people instead of making a point. Do not let yourself get this angry. Regroup, make a better point - don't get vauge, we don't respect that, and don't repeat yourself.

Some other basic mistakes include blaming the community: after all this time, we are very well entrenched, and you're just not going to win the 'little guy' vote anymore. That may have worked in 2000, it doesn't in 2005. Everyone still reading the CZ knows exactly how this argument is probably going to go, and they're probably busy paypaling eachother over how long it too this one to end right now.

Contrary to popular assumption, the community does respect being wrong. I had a great discussion with Rob McKay at D*C about timelines - it ended up that I wanted to move Fleet Action and he wanted to move End Run in our respective projects. It was give and take and we cited paragraphs and quotations and behind the scenes intentions.

We have to be genuinely wrong, though - just because you don't like the movie (most of us don't!) doesn't mean there's a *reason* to discount it. Find that reason - and no one has yet - and you'll have a heck of an interesting claim to make. Repeat the same vauge reasoning about how you're sure it doesn't fit over and over and we'll ignore you at best and antagonize you at least.

So, good show, all, see you next go around.