Startling Discovery Adds New WC3 Facts to the Universe (February 18, 2015)

TCSTigersClaw

Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
Hello guys! Like Quarto here , I couldnt just let these amazing news go without commenting .
My very first thread here (2002 IIRC) , was about the WC2 to WC3 transition that always bothered me.Now without opening that topic once again I really laughed when I saw the *new* dates. If this is acceptable canon ,well it would explain a lot. A LOT about Wc2 and Wc3. Then again how can this work now ? It is not only that we are used to 2669 but , there is also the Wing Commander Arena manual that it has so much effort to try and fill in the gaps ..

Anyway some more thoughts.
**As Quarto said Excalibur date could be when it supposed to fly
** Hellcat (oh my favorite Hellcat :D ) , date can have an explanation. Maybe Hellcat I or II can be seen at 2650 era Hellcat V ,just released with a few updates huh ?

In conclusion to tell you the truth I would gladly accept that the Kilrathi War ended in 2676 . I always thought that Wc3 was 10 or more years after Wc2 when I first played the games ,without knowing a lot about the fluff. Everything made more sense to my brain. Funny thing I introduced a friend to WC recently and the first thing he asked me is how did that WC2 to WC3 transition is possible in just a year and a half...

:) So the real question.. when does WC4 takes place now ? :D or WCP ?
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
The new dates do lend some convenience to certain aspects, but I would say that the fact that they've remained obscure for nearly 20 years and that all the printed material says otherwise then we have an obligation to stick to 2669
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
The thing to remember here is that this isn't a case of WC3 being inconsistent with the rest of the universe, but rather a case of WC3 being internally inconsistent. 2669 is a date that's plastered all over the game manual. I don't recall if it also appeared on the box or if it was mentioned directly in the game anywhere, but regardless of this, it is clear that at the end of the day, late 2669 was the date preferred by the creators, while the weird dates we see in this in-game data remained unchanged simply because they were overlooked by the testers (easy to see why they were overlooked, given how few people seem to have known about this in the twenty years that followed). Keeping this in mind, these dates simply have no value. They're a mistake that was left unfixed by sheer accident.

It is possible that at some point in production, it had indeed been the intention to set the date ten years after WC2. But moving the date forward is clearly a decision made in order to enhance the plot of WC3. For every argument in favour of a later date, there is a strong counterargument in favour of an earlier date. Above all, WC3 was concentrating on the idea of the Kilrathi being well-nigh unstoppable, a sense of urgency, and a general feeling that the war has "kicked into high gear". These are notions that are greatly strengthened when the game takes place shortly after Fleet Action. They build on Fleet Action. On the other hand, if the game were to take place in 2676... well, yes, it would be easier to explain the presence of an all-new set of ships on both sides, but the sense of urgency would be harder to explain. And what had Blair been doing for the past decade? Remember, before the main events of WC2 (note: WC2 actually begins immediately after WC1 - the ten years are skipped inside the game, not before the game), Blair was effectively out of the Navy, so his inaction was clearly explained. Where would he be this time round? Is that what Angel's "is this forever" line on the beach actually meant? Ten years of shore leave? :) Clearly, WC3 had to take place much sooner than a decade after WC2.
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
Yeah, if you consider Admiral Banbridge was already a seasoned office in Action Stations/2634, he was still active at age 70-80 or more years old in Fleet Action.

Isn't there a reference in Star*Soldier that 70 isn't that high an age anymore? So, why not. Still better than having Hobbes join the Imperial Fleet at 4 years old...
 

Iceblade

Admiral
This does make me wonder if these dates were thought up when the game was in development as Confed fighting to get revenge against the Kilrathi for the loss of Earth or perhaps there was earlier designs that had the Battle of Earth occur in the early 2670s or WC3 as occurring several years after that battle with both sides having regrouped (perhaps the Emperor had some internal problems to deal leaving Confed a brief period to breathe and attempt to get some kind of functioning navy up and running).
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
This does make me wonder if these dates were thought up when the game was in development as Confed fighting to get revenge against the Kilrathi for the loss of Earth or perhaps there was earlier designs that had the Battle of Earth occur in the early 2670s or WC3 as occurring several years after that battle with both sides having regrouped (perhaps the Emperor had some internal problems to deal leaving Confed a brief period to breathe and attempt to get some kind of functioning navy up and running).
It seems pretty much impossible to really say anything about that without any input from people at Origin. It would certainly be an interesting question to ask Chris Roberts, although we may find that he actually has no recollection of this issue (it's not a huge deal in the greater scheme of things, after all).

And ultimately, there really didn't need to be any really significant thought behind the decision. The backstory is something that wouldn't have been a crucial consideration, because it didn't exist yet, it was being created, and it was fluid. I mentioned above that 2669 makes sense from the perspective of "what's Blair been up to", and because of the Battle of Terra. But the Battle of Terra didn't need to take place in 2668. I am pretty sure no date at all is specified in Fleet Action - we wouldn't have batted an eyelid, had Fleet Action ultimately turned out to have been set in 2672 instead (or something). Possibly what could have made a difference was Armada, which did put a year to Fleet Action's story (dates, incidentally, that Standoff somehow managed to ignore completely, because they squeezed the timeline even further). I wouldn't even be surprised if it was a case of an ongoing debate unexpectedly cut short by Armada's release - the small Armada team could have accidentally resolved the debate by choosing to go with one of several discussed dates, and the WC3 team subsequently deciding that they need to go with it for consistency's sake.
 

Blaster

Rear Admiral
I think it’s important to remember the context that we‘re seeing this stuff in. All we know is that when Blair uses his computer terminal its possible for this information to show up on the screen.

most of the fighters are seen in action in 2654 during Wing Commander Academy. So what could a service date be?

It could just mean when the latest version of the ship entered service.

If the Excalibur’s date is its planned entry date then it was rushed into service way ahead of schedule. Is there any information, anywhere, about how long it takes to develop new fighters.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Is there any information, anywhere, about how long it takes to develop new fighters.

Something like that would depend on many, many factors. It could be months, years or decades depending on the fighter, so you can probably go with anything in this case.
 
Top