TCS Cimino - Where?

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I'm assuming the CCG has pictures of the ships so we know the Bordrav and the Trak'hmar are both the same kindof escort destroyer (I didn't see this card in the pictures in the CIC WCCCG card scans), but the Frawquirg is just listed as an escort destroyer in FC. Can we really assume its the same type?
No, I suppose we can't - all we know is that the Frawqirg and the Wexarragh are the same class.

Of course, that brings up a more major issue - we can't prove that the Ajax is a Tallahasee-class cruiser, either.

Next version will reflect these changes.

How can we know the Invincible and the [/i]Hermes[/i] are Concordia class from a WC3 cutscene (a game in which the Concordia carrier hasn't even been thought of yet )? A pretty good case can be made that the Invincible is a Concordia because of its age, but that still can't pinpoint it to one class. The Hermes is contained in two or maybe three lines of text in the WC3N (the two that come to mind are the scouting in Loki and the one you have cited in the ship description. There might be one other) and I don't see how a class asignment can be brought about from that.
I think the logic here is that we know they're more important carriers than the Victory and that the Victory-type model is used to represent them in the cutscene.
 

psych

Destroyer of assclowns
Sorry guys, I was recently called to do some duty stuff all week, and some of us screwed up and got punished.

First off, I like this list. It's about time. So it definately shows what is confirmed and what is not.

- Waterloo . . . interesting subject. The Bible said CA-74, so we know a class designation. Then that WCP ship design says that a CA means heavy cruiser (we already know from False Colors that LCA means Light Cruiser). That's where I got the reference from. Of course, this goes into speculation cause the Bible wasn't published, which is totally against what this shiplist is supposed to speculate.

(in my opinion though, it's got the same # of AMGs. It's got 40 fighters. It's heavier in displacement then the TCS Ajax, herself a heavy cruiser. It's basically a counterpart to the Fralthra, also a heavy cruiser. I don't see why the Waterloo isn't not. But this is speculation, not confirmed.)

- To tell you the truth, I think it's better off calling the Hermes and Invincible unknown carriers, cause if we can't even confirm the main class that the Victory herself is from (and she's of course a major major part of WC3), it'll be kinda wierd if we can already off the bat confirm the names of a pair of carriers mentioned in 1-2 lines. We're giving other carriers mentioned in 2669 era the same "unconfirmed class" treatment, of which they are mentioned in 1-2 lines as well.

When I took another look at it, I find that it's even hard to confirm anything. It could go any of these different ways.

# scenario 1: That cool WC3 fleet movie shows a lot of carriers, all of them resembling the Victory. By the time the Hermes and Invincible are mentioned, the Terran fleet already took heavy heavy losses and wouldn't last for a few more hours (the campaign was a week long). They could be the only carriers left by that time, rather then the two core flagships. or . . .

# scenario 2: The novel confirms that the Hermes and Invincible were a "battlegroup". From a "big picture" naval perspective, a fleet or task force consists of multiple battlegroups. The difference is distinct, mentioned in the Hermes and Invincible "battlegroup", and another reference in the novel of the Admiral in charge of the fleet (rather then a battlegroup) telling Paladin they can only fight for a few more hours. They could have been just one battlegroup in a force of many. This is speculated by the fact that they were in the area near the covert jump point. The entire mission of that Confed strike fleet was to draw forces away from the jump point, leaving it open for the Victory to launch the strike.

And this is where I can put some of that naval training I have into this strategem. It wouldn't be wise to commit all your forces near the area of that jump point, of where the Hermes and Invincible were. Having your entire force near it tells the Kats, "Hey shitbags, we know all about your jump point! That's why I'm committed all my naval forces near it!" It's not smart nor a brilliant tactical manuever, especially when you want to launch a covert strike through that same point.

Of which, from that top paragraph, it would be feasible to have a battlegroup rather then a whole task force or fleet.

So what are they? Fleet carriers? Light carriers? Were they the Fleet's most important carriers? Or just two carriers in a list of major or cannon fodder carriers of which most were already destroyed durin the week fighting? The world will never know, cause there's no confirmation. Doing fan speculation to confirm defeats the purpose of this list in the first place.

- The Fralthi II's also a heavy cruiser as well, from that same OOG line that says the same for the TCS Ajax.

- You should add the TCS Belliard, from the SO fiction. If I remember, it even has a confirmed designation for frigate, FF).
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Bandit LOAF said:
Of course, that brings up a more major issue - we can't prove that the Ajax is a Tallahasee-class cruiser, either.
I guess that opens the floodgates for alot of novel class assignments. I always assumed that both the corresponding WC3 ships were identified as the Tally and the Bhantkara in FC because we knew that the author specifically meant that assignment. I also believed that was the case for the Concordia and Ark Royal being Concordia-class carriers from AS (author express intnetions - well after the Concordia/Confederation mistake was realized). Is this the case? Even if it is, is it "proper" to include them as "definites" in the list?

Bandit LOAF said:
I think the logic here is that we know they're more important carriers than the Victory and that the Victory-type model is used to represent them in the cutscene.
I never really thought of that, I'd always assumed that they were just other Victory type carriers (since for the purpose here, we've let go of the Ranger designation) that were thrown to the front lines like the [/i]Victory[/i] herself.

I guess all of these points comes down to how much supposition is actually going to make it into this list. The "purest" way is to say "none" and take it on a "if a future WC product referred to this ship as a different class, would it contradict a previous assignment" basis. The problem with that is that people who use the list "lose" alot of good info on what it "most probably" is (maybe thats a different entry, "Unknown carrier - most probably XXX-class because of XXX evidence", I'm not sure).

Definitely something to think about.

C-ya
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Sorry guys, I was recently called to do some duty stuff all week, and some of us screwed up and got punished.
Don't worry about it - your job is certainly more important than Wing Commander... although your advise in this thread will certainly be particularly valuable.

- Waterloo . . . interesting subject. The Bible said CA-74, so we know a class designation. Then that WCP ship design says that a CA means heavy cruiser (we already know from False Colors that LCA means Light Cruiser). That's where I got the reference from. Of course, this goes into speculation cause the Bible wasn't published, which is totally against what this shiplist is supposed to speculate.

(in my opinion though, it's got the same # of AMGs. It's got 40 fighters. It's heavier in displacement then the TCS Ajax, herself a heavy cruiser. It's basically a counterpart to the Fralthra, also a heavy cruiser. I don't see why the Waterloo isn't not. But this is speculation, not confirmed.)
This is all reasonable logic, and I certainly wouldn't fault anyone else (ie, Fleet Tactics) for calling the Waterloo a Heavy Cruiser based on this -- but I don't think it's enough to change this particular super-conservative list.

- To tell you the truth, I think it's better off calling the Hermes and Invincible unknown carriers, cause if we can't even confirm the main class that the Victory herself is from (and she's of course a major major part of WC3), it'll be kinda wierd if we can already off the bat confirm the names of a pair of carriers mentioned in 1-2 lines. We're giving other carriers mentioned in 2669 era the same "unconfirmed class" treatment, of which they are mentioned in 1-2 lines as well.

When I took another look at it, I find that it's even hard to confirm anything. It could go any of these different ways.

# scenario 1: That cool WC3 fleet movie shows a lot of carriers, all of them resembling the Victory. By the time the Hermes and Invincible are mentioned, the Terran fleet already took heavy heavy losses and wouldn't last for a few more hours (the campaign was a week long). They could be the only carriers left by that time, rather then the two core flagships. or . . .

# scenario 2: The novel confirms that the Hermes and Invincible were a "battlegroup". From a "big picture" naval perspective, a fleet or task force consists of multiple battlegroups. The difference is distinct, mentioned in the Hermes and Invincible "battlegroup", and another reference in the novel of the Admiral in charge of the fleet (rather then a battlegroup) telling Paladin they can only fight for a few more hours. They could have been just one battlegroup in a force of many. This is speculated by the fact that they were in the area near the covert jump point. The entire mission of that Confed strike fleet was to draw forces away from the jump point, leaving it open for the Victory to launch the strike.

And this is where I can put some of that naval training I have into this strategem. It wouldn't be wise to commit all your forces near the area of that jump point, of where the Hermes and Invincible were. Having your entire force near it tells the Kats, "Hey shitbags, we know all about your jump point! That's why I'm committed all my naval forces near it!" It's not smart nor a brilliant tactical manuever, especially when you want to launch a covert strike through that same point.

Of which, from that top paragraph, it would be feasible to have a battlegroup rather then a whole task force or fleet.

So what are they? Fleet carriers? Light carriers? Were they the Fleet's most important carriers? Or just two carriers in a list of major or cannon fodder carriers of which most were already destroyed durin the week fighting? The world will never know, cause there's no confirmation. Doing fan speculation to confirm defeats the purpose of this list in the first place.
I would argue that putting your carriers up next to your ships of the line at the opening of the jump point probably isn't a good idea anyway.

I guess my point is that the novel describes that exact scene of the Victory moving in and joining that fleet:

"The carrier edged toward the jump point, seemingly to reinforce the Terran battle group built around the Hermes and the Invincible which had been heavily engaged in the area for several hours."

Which is to say that the Hermes and the Invincible are what we're seeing there.

Your argument is compelling, though, that they shouldn't be Concordia-class, because the Concordia-class didn't exist at that point. Unfortunately, I think then that they have to be Victory (or rather now Hermes-type) Light Carriers...

(The same logic gets applied to the Kilrathi cutscenes -- hence the identifications for the H'var Kann and the Sar Hrai...)

- The Fralthi II's also a heavy cruiser as well, from that same OOG line that says the same for the TCS Ajax.
There's an annotation about this (under KIS Fralthi II) - the ACGWC3 calls it a *light* cruiser in the same manner (and then the OOGWC3 uses both 'light' and 'heavy' in different missions... it's all cited, I believe).

- You should add the TCS Belliard, from the SO fiction. If I remember, it even has a confirmed designation for frigate, FF).
Although the Blue Horizon article is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive things written for Secret Ops, it was not actually published at SecretOps.com -- nor was it given to us to post by Origin.

I guess that opens the floodgates for alot of novel class assignments. I always assumed that both the corresponding WC3 ships were identified as the Tally and the Bhantkara in FC because we knew that the author specifically meant that assignment. I also believed that was the case for the Concordia and Ark Royal being Concordia-class carriers from AS (author express intnetions - well after the Concordia/Confederation mistake was realized). Is this the case? Even if it is, is it "proper" to include them as "definites" in the list?
The Bhantkara is more definite because the novel goes through her 'Victory Streak' specifications at various points -- 920 meters long, eight laser turrets, etc.

The rest, unfortunately, are the same defense I wanted to use about the Escorts but decided wasn't appropriate -- I know that Keith based all the ships on a copy of Victory Streak and Claw Marks... but I can't prove it in the context of the novel.

I guess the problem now is divising a system to show that the "Frawqirg-type" could be a "Bordrav-type", but that it isn't necessarily so... and then applying that to all the typed-but-still-unknown novel ships.

Re: the Concordia (I). I still have to go with Concordia-class for her... we know she's one of two newly comissioned ships of a new class... and that she's intentionally described as looking like the Wing Commander IV Concordia-class ships (white hull). I'll take that over creating a fourth Concordia.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Bandit LOAF said:
Although the Blue Horizon article is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive things written for Secret Ops, it was not actually published at SecretOps.com -- nor was it given to us to post by Origin.
But didn't Captain Johnny, who provided this article, still an employee of Origin at the time (Oct. 7th 1998)? I think that when an Origin employee releases a piece that had been meant to be published but got omitted by accident, that should be enough for the piece to count as being officially published.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I don't know the extent to which not publishing it was actually an accident -- but even then I don't think I'd consider things like the bible in this list, just because Captain Johnny gave them to us.
 

psych

Destroyer of assclowns
One thing I can suggest that would work towards your end for the newshiplist.doc. A color code for each ship: green, yellow, red.

Kinda like this . . .

Green: Confirmed ships with a confirmed class that cannot be proven otherwise. For example, the WC4 Lexington being a Concordia-class carrier, or the KIS Karga as a Bhantkara-class, etc etc. The Longbow is an F/A-76 bomber. We seen it, it's there. Nothing can disprove it.

Yellow: Ships with some sort of facts that aren't confirmed but could go either way on class or designation or whatnot. And that there's several intelligent points of view for the issue. Basically, if it has controversy it's not confirmed, cause even if 80% of people agree with it, it's something that not everyone can agree with 100%. Examples: the class name of the heavy cruiser TCS Ajax, or the Hermes/Invincible affair (as I've said cause it can go either way), or if the Waterloo really is a heavy cruiser.

Red: We don't know anything about these things. It's mentioned in 1-2 lines, and that's it. It can really go in a lot of directions, of which we'll never know the answer. The carriers in the GCM Competition (with the exception of the Centurion, cause since the possibility that she's could be a carrier cause there's already been a confirmed different ship class incident between WC2 and WC3 with the TCS Agincourt, I'll give this one a yellow), the Winterrowd mentioned in WC1 then Privateer. Paulsen's first service from the TCS Potemkin, etc etc.

Kinda like the difference between Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret material, of which one can just take a look and immediately gauge the priority level.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
A few comments, looking at the latest version from today's news update...

Gladius Light/Medium/Heavy fighter - you've provided references for the light and the heavy... but where does the medium come from?

Hellcat V - the old ship list called the Hellcat "F-86". Is the "F-86" missing from here by accident, or for some other reason?

Arrow V - all things considered, should this perhaps be listed under two separate headings? We see three different versions of the Arrow (WCA, Armada, WC3), and while we're absolutely certain that the WC3 Arrow is the Arrow V, we don't actually know this about the others (the Armada Arrow is referred to simply as the Arrow, and the WCA Arrow isn't referred to at all). I would suggest using here the same approach that you took with the Dralthi - give the Arrow V one entry, and the remaining unidentified Arrows a second.


Also, I hope you're planning to add a BW/FRL/Neutral class list here, too. I know most entries there would be repeats of Confed/Kilrathi classes, but the few additional classes need to be noted somewhere.

Finally... I think it might be a good idea to also add introduction/first-seen and retirement/last-seen dates to the class list.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
So after all the previous discussions, it has been now established that the cruisers of WC3/4 were not actually Tallahassee class.

Or the TCS Ajax was an Agincourt type Heavy Cruiser, and the WC4 cruisers were Tallahassee class?
 

SabreAce

Rear Admiral
Couple of things from the class section:

The entry for CF-133 Unknown Troopship, the quote that follows refers to a CF-337d. Are these the same ship?

The Banshee (II) Fighter - listed under the Confed entry, despite it being a Border World's fighter. I remember a discussion aways back that talked about the possiblity that the Banshee was some kind of Confed castoff, but I don't recall that being based off of anything canon. Is the choice of putting it in the Confed section based off the "Blair becomes a flight instructor" ending of WC4 (seem to remember the space scene of that cutscene showing Banshees launching from the Intrepid), or something else?

Concerning the Broadsword, should there not be two seperate entries for the CF-131 and the A-17? The numbers would seem to suggest something similar to the movie Rapier being a completely different ship to the F-44 Rapier II, despite the Broadswords we see in-game don't have the II on the name.

The "Dreadnought class battlewagon"...perhaps a mention of that being in reference to the Project Omega?

Hades class - the opening cutscene for Secret Ops refers to Cerberus as a "quick strike assault cruiser". Slight difference from the heavy cruiser/quick strike carrier mentioned.

Gothri - Angel mentions in the debriefing after the first time we see Gothri in SO1 that they are heavy fighters.

Angel: Tactical says those were the new Gothri heavy fighters, Maverick
 

Iceman16

Vice Admiral
SabreAce said:
The Banshee (II) Fighter - listed under the Confed entry, despite it being a Border World's fighter. I remember a discussion aways back that talked about the possiblity that the Banshee was some kind of Confed castoff, but I don't recall that being based off of anything canon. Is the choice of putting it in the Confed section based off the "Blair becomes a flight instructor" ending of WC4 (seem to remember the space scene of that cutscene showing Banshees launching from the Intrepid), or something else?
Confed had Banshee's too, they appeared in Armada.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

psych

Destroyer of assclowns
Quarto said:
Hellcat V - the old ship list called the Hellcat "F-86". Is the "F-86" missing from here by accident, or for some other reason?
If I remembered a long time ago (3-4 years back), I remembered saying something like this to LOAF. My proposal went, cause if the Longbows and Thunderbolts both ended in F/A-76 and HF-66 (or F-66, going by the WCP gold manual) respectively, why not follow on that tradition to making the Hellcat and Arrow end in 6 as well, for F-86 and F-96? It's not confirmed of course, but it wouldn't hurt, cause it'll at least continue the '6' scheme of the other two for continuty purposes. That was why it was on the old ship list (and the reason I put it on my FT site, which is currently going through revamp now inwhich I took down the Joans section).

Ok, comments mode on.

The type/class of carriers of the Victory. Wouldn't it be better to call it the Victory? Because the WC4 novel said how the "40-series CVs" where mothballed. And the Victory is CV-40, so it would definately match with it, as the first ship (or at least earliest) ship of the class. And she was the last on the list for new equipment (as said by Eisen), so she must have been that old.

2) Agincourt cruisers. I guess that might be reasonable. You think it's worth the extra work to note a definate difference between the novel cruisers and the WC3 cruisers? Also, I noticed that these cruisers must be new or something, cause this cruiser is in WC3 and we all know there was a Waterloo cruiser with the name of the Agincourt, so she must have been destroyed in between WC2 and WC3). And it's normally bad juju to have two names at once on a vessel. And that leads to . . .

3) TCS Centurion. Another Waterloo cruiser with the same name. And it turns up in Victory Streak. Any possibility that she's some sort of unknown carrier? It is a definately possibility, cause the Agincourt name already shows a situation in which there's two ships with the same name, which means the first christened vessel must have bitten the dust. In addition, she carries an elite Longbow unit, the Black Widows. If I was an Admiral, I'll put my hottest bomber units on my hottest carriers. Another reason the Centurion was in the Terran Defense Fleet (and thus, had time to deploy squadrons for the GCM competition while the frontline fleet was getting their asses kicked).

4) There is another ship missing in the shiplist. The TCS Ticonderoga. The ship mentioned in False Colors, and infamous for having the Karga's Air Boss punch out the Secretary of Defense (can't remember the official thing, but it was a government official) during an inspection. I would think it'll also be another unknown and unconfirmed carrier.

And for a totally different issue . . .

You know what's the deal on bombardment munitions? The WC handbook says torpedo tubes are used for orbital bombardment munitions, and the KS manual says that CapShip missiles were used for it. Then WCP says how we had to intercept "cruise missiles" in that one mission (fired from the dreadnought) which turned out to be CapShip missiles in our targeting computer. So are CapShip missiles fired from torpedo tubes, or their own seperate launcher? Are they torpedoes, or cruise missiles, or bombardment missiles?
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Gladius Light/Medium/Heavy fighter - you've provided references for the light and the heavy... but where does the medium come from?
Sorry, the middle citation was wrong -- it's Voices of War that classifies the Gladius as being a Medium Fighter.

Hellcat V - the old ship list called the Hellcat "F-86". Is the "F-86" missing from here by accident, or for some other reason?
I haven't been able to confirm the F-86 designation.

Arrow V - all things considered, should this perhaps be listed under two separate headings? We see three different versions of the Arrow (WCA, Armada, WC3), and while we're absolutely certain that the WC3 Arrow is the Arrow V, we don't actually know this about the others (the Armada Arrow is referred to simply as the Arrow, and the WCA Arrow isn't referred to at all). I would suggest using here the same approach that you took with the Dralthi - give the Arrow V one entry, and the remaining unidentified Arrows a second.
The movie Dralthi got a separate entry because it has a backstory that's not compatible with the 'WC1' Dralthi -- it's a hundred years old while the Dralthi in the original game is the "new Dralthi" which first appeared at some point in the war.

I don't see any evidence that the Arrow in Armada and the Arrow in Wing Commander III are supposed to be different ships -- they're both referred to as 'Arrow' almost everywhere, they look exactly the same, they're in service at the same time.

Confederation ships seem to follow the American system of fighter designations -- the difference between the two Arrows would be that one was the F-99A Arrow V and the other was the F-99B Arrow V (or maybe the Armada one would be the RF-99... note to onlookers that this is all for the same of example -- I don't know what the Arrows numerical designation is.)

Also, I hope you're planning to add a BW/FRL/Neutral class list here, too. I know most entries there would be repeats of Confed/Kilrathi classes, but the few additional classes need to be noted somewhere.
Oh, certainly -- to quote the boys at Raylight, it's COMONG SOON.

(The station list is the hard part, as the old one was pretty slapdash...)

Finally... I think it might be a good idea to also add introduction/first-seen and retirement/last-seen dates to the class list.
Further out, but definately something that would be useful.

So after all the previous discussions, it has been now established that the cruisers of WC3/4 were not actually Tallahassee class.
No, it's only been established that there's no way to explicitly prove that they're Tallahassee-class.

The entry for CF-133 Unknown Troopship, the quote that follows refers to a CF-337d. Are these the same ship?
Good catch, CF-337 is the proper designation.

The Banshee (II) Fighter - listed under the Confed entry, despite it being a Border World's fighter. I remember a discussion aways back that talked about the possiblity that the Banshee was some kind of Confed castoff, but I don't recall that being based off of anything canon. Is the choice of putting it in the Confed section based off the "Blair becomes a flight instructor" ending of WC4 (seem to remember the space scene of that cutscene showing Banshees launching from the Intrepid), or something else?
Yup, it's entirely because of the "flight instructor" scene. I'm pretty certain that all three Border Worlds 'unique' fighters were Confed in origin -- because nothing else really makes sense... but the Banshee is the only one that we explicitly see serving in the ordinary Confederation fleet.

(I didn't count weird cover operations one-off ships in this version of the list -- the captured Ralari, the Ras Nik'hra, the Dralthi Mk. IIs, Seether's Avenger, etc. don't get counted with Confed this time around.)

Concerning the Broadsword, should there not be two seperate entries for the CF-131 and the A-17? The numbers would seem to suggest something similar to the movie Rapier being a completely different ship to the F-44 Rapier II, despite the Broadswords we see in-game don't have the II on the name.
As I mentioned to Quarto regarding the Arrow, the requirement I currently have for doing that is that they have completely distinct histories -- I don't see that in the movie Broadsword. Heck, if you squint you can even see the design evolution from the movie Broadsword to the WCA Broadsword to the WC2 Broadsword (to the Privateer Broadsword).

The "Dreadnought class battlewagon"...perhaps a mention of that being in reference to the Project Omega?
Yeah, that's a good candidate for a footnote.

Hades class - the opening cutscene for Secret Ops refers to Cerberus as a "quick strike assault cruiser". Slight difference from the heavy cruiser/quick strike carrier mentioned.
That's a good one, I'll add it.

Gothri - Angel mentions in the debriefing after the first time we see Gothri in SO1 that they are heavy fighters.
Great, no one on IRC last night managed to catch that. The other question was whether or not there's ever a mention of anything but 'experimental fighter' for the Hhriss?

If I remembered a long time ago (3-4 years back), I remembered saying something like this to LOAF. My proposal went, cause if the Longbows and Thunderbolts both ended in F/A-76 and HF-66 (or F-66, going by the WCP gold manual) respectively, why not follow on that tradition to making the Hellcat and Arrow end in 6 as well, for F-86 and F-96? It's not confirmed of course, but it wouldn't hurt, cause it'll at least continue the '6' scheme of the other two for continuty purposes. That was why it was on the old ship list (and the reason I put it on my FT site, which is currently going through revamp now inwhich I took down the Joans section).
I *think* the original claim was that the 'loaded, locked and ready to kick some ass' scene flashed by a screen that called the Hellcat the F-86 -- but I don't have a WC3 handy. If someone has a copy, can they check?

The type/class of carriers of the Victory. Wouldn't it be better to call it the Victory? Because the WC4 novel said how the "40-series CVs" where mothballed. And the Victory is CV-40, so it would definately match with it, as the first ship (or at least earliest) ship of the class. And she was the last on the list for new equipment (as said by Eisen), so she must have been that old.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

2) Agincourt cruisers. I guess that might be reasonable. You think it's worth the extra work to note a definate difference between the novel cruisers and the WC3 cruisers? Also, I noticed that these cruisers must be new or something, cause this cruiser is in WC3 and we all know there was a Waterloo cruiser with the name of the Agincourt, so she must have been destroyed in between WC2 and WC3). And it's normally bad juju to have two names at once on a vessel. And that leads to . . .
It's not really meant to imply that there is a difference -- just that there's no way of knowing. Any "unknown" or type ship *could* be something else that's already on the list.

The TCS Agincourt as a 'WC3 Cruiser' comes from the Wing Commander CCG. The other 'seen to be WC3 cruisers' are being called Agincourt (II) type because the types are assigned by whatever the first example alphabetically is (I made a note about this -- it's just to avoid showing any preference to a particular name fan projects might adopt as the 'class' of the ship).

3) TCS Centurion. Another Waterloo cruiser with the same name. And it turns up in Victory Streak. Any possibility that she's some sort of unknown carrier? It is a definately possibility, cause the Agincourt name already shows a situation in which there's two ships with the same name, which means the first christened vessel must have bitten the dust. In addition, she carries an elite Longbow unit, the Black Widows. If I was an Admiral, I'll put my hottest bomber units on my hottest carriers. Another reason the Centurion was in the Terran Defense Fleet (and thus, had time to deploy squadrons for the GCM competition while the frontline fleet was getting their asses kicked).
It's certainly possible -- but it's up to the fans to write that story, not the ships list to imply it.

4) There is another ship missing in the shiplist. The TCS Ticonderoga. The ship mentioned in False Colors, and infamous for having the Karga's Air Boss punch out the Secretary of Defense (can't remember the official thing, but it was a government official) during an inspection. I would think it'll also be another unknown and unconfirmed carrier.
Good catch, it'll be in the next version.

This list is moderately weak regarding False Colors references -- another one was missing until last night, too... the cruiser KIS Dravnor.

You know what's the deal on bombardment munitions? The WC handbook says torpedo tubes are used for orbital bombardment munitions, and the KS manual says that CapShip missiles were used for it. Then WCP says how we had to intercept "cruise missiles" in that one mission (fired from the dreadnought) which turned out to be CapShip missiles in our targeting computer. So are CapShip missiles fired from torpedo tubes, or their own seperate launcher? Are they torpedoes, or cruise missiles, or bombardment missiles?
CapShip Missiles in the classic sense have their own "launch racks", per the Kilrathi Saga manual.

The fact that both CapShip Missiles and Torpedoes are used for planetary bombardment is a red herring, not an implication that they're the same technology -- anti-matter guns, plasma guns and laser batteries all get used for that same purpose (bombardment) as well. You wouldn't say neutron guns and mass drivers were the same because they're all 'anti-fighter' weapons.

The Nephilim missiles are separate, too -- however their technology developed, it's completely separate from the Confederation's history of usage for missiles.

(Edit -- any fixes I mentioned in this post should be in the version now uploaded.)
 

Alexco

Rear Admiral
This list is very nice, but can you add a list of all used references? I mean, I know that WC4N stands for the WC4 novel, but what is OOGWC3 or PS?
This would make the list more complete...


regards,
Alex
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Bandit LOAF said:
I *think* the original claim was that the 'loaded, locked and ready to kick some ass' scene flashed by a screen that called the Hellcat the F-86 -- but I don't have a WC3 handy. If someone has a copy, can they check?
Ok some interesting info for you here. As far as the hellcat V is concerned there is no reall vay to tell from the video what its designation it. It's either P or F followed by a Dash and then some other undefinable characters (ex: P-XXX Hellcat V)

However what is interesting is that immediately below that line reads "space superiority interceptor" (or possibly "space superiority / interceptor" depending on if it is indeed a slash and not part of the Y as I am assuming) I am convinced this is what it says after careful examination of the stills and after looping the video where that part is visible.

The top of the screen says something to the effect of "loadout/ fuel status: Loaded" but I'm guessing on the last word)

The other interesting bit of discernable info in this sequence is that it designates some missiles. The Heat-seekers are "AIM-15" and Friend-or-foes are "AIM-31"

<AD> No one have any info on what NIM stands for?
<AD> Heat-seekers are NIM-15
<AD> friend-or-foes are NIM-31
<AD> Oh wait... AIM????
<AD> I dont know
<Trelane> AIM means Air Intercept Missile, I believe
<Trelane> Never heard of NIM
<AD> Its either AIM or NIM... so from what your saying It just might be AIM
<Trelane> There's no air in space though
<Trelane> That'd be consistent with modern terminology though
<Trelane> AIM-9, AIM-120, etc
<AD> Looking at the video again it's almost certainly AIM
 

Attachments

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
AD said:
Ok some interesting info for you here. As far as the hellcat V is concerned there is no reall vay to tell from the video what its designation it. It's either P or F followed by a Dash and then some other undefinable characters (ex: P-XXX Hellcat V)
Mmm, yeah, I see the problem. Hey, if you squint really hard, it kinda looks like F-91D :p.

psych said:
The type/class of carriers of the Victory. Wouldn't it be better to call it the Victory? Because the WC4 novel said how the "40-series CVs" where mothballed. And the Victory is CV-40, so it would definately match with it, as the first ship (or at least earliest) ship of the class. And she was the last on the list for new equipment (as said by Eisen), so she must have been that old.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's necessarily a logical assumption. For all we know, the 30-series CVs could have been the same class as the Victory, and had simply been mothballed earlier (...or none of them survived to be mothballed).

Bandit LOAF said:
Sorry, the middle citation was wrong -- it's Voices of War that classifies the Gladius as being a Medium Fighter.
Hehe, if there was ever a "most continuity-screwing manual" awarrd, Voices of War would have to receive it :p.

Great, no one on IRC last night managed to catch that. The other question was whether or not there's ever a mention of anything but 'experimental fighter' for the Hhriss?
Unfortunately, no - I checked all possible sources, and they all refer to it as an experimental fighter (or, in the case of FF, as a "hot new" fighter).


Some more comments:

TCS Intrepid (II) - does this one appear on the Confed list because of the WC4 ending?

KIS Ni'lakh - given that, in the quote, "ni'lakh" is not capitalised, I'm not sure if we can interpret this as its name.

WC3 Frigates - shouldn't there be an "unknown frigate" entry for these in the class list? After all, as far as we know these can't be positively linked to WC4's Caernaven frigates.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Quarto said:
TCS Intrepid (II) - does this one appear on the Confed list because of the WC4 ending?
That makes sense to me. All the pilots and officers in the background in that scene are wearing confed uniforms and patches. Hawk also apears in the "darker" ending in a confed uniform. It really leads to some serious questions though. What the hell happened to the Border world? And why does confed now own the Intrepid (I guess originally it was a confed ship but had a different name).

Plus would it be really that easy for them to switch back to confed once Tolwyn was deposed? (although both hawk and panther were confed pilots prior and Blair makes the same move) And there was still a big Border worlds logo on the hangar wall...
 

Dahan

Rear Admiral
Im just curious abuot the newship list doc. I am happy to see the full list of all the ships known in the Wing Commander universe, although I was wondering would be easier if there was a table or somewhat of all the ships classification and the ships under that class?? Would it be easier??
 

SabreAce

Rear Admiral
Is the WC2 Bloodfang considered to be a one-off? The WC3 version's in the document, and was mentioned as being flown by the Blood Most Noble squadron as well as Thrakhath, but were the BMN squad also equipped with the WC2 type? Then again, even if they weren't, there's still that other Bloodfang in Ultima. ;)
 
Top