The not be Midway

Cybot078

Rear Admiral
The Ship not be in the game.

What it in size to other CV ?
 

Attachments

  • Not to be Midway 4.jpg
    Not to be Midway 4.jpg
    622 KB · Views: 281
  • Not to be Midway W.jpg
    Not to be Midway W.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 182
  • confed cvs 2.jpg
    confed cvs 2.jpg
    491.7 KB · Views: 400
In your smallest to largest diagram. The Jutland class appears larger than the Confederation class. That's incorrect the Confederation class mesures 983.72 meters in length. The Jutland class is 775.10 meters in length and there for smaller than the confederation class.

But I do like the way the diagram was done.
 
The Gettysburg from Special Operations 2 is a "Jutland", not whatever secret super-carrier you folks have made up. It's just a Waterloo that carries more fighters.
 
The Gettysburg from Special Operations 2 is a "Jutland", not whatever secret super-carrier you folks have made up. It's just a Waterloo that carries more fighters.
Well, in defence of both Standoff and Saga, you're actually responsible for this particular invention :) Back when the WC Bible first showed up online, and someone pointed out that Jutland appears to refer to the Waterloo modifications, you shot down that theory, arguing that the Jutlands must be the elsewhere-mentioned replacement for the Bengal class CVAs (which does imply a pretty big and powerful ship). I don't know about the Saga folks, but Eder and I certainly talked a lot (at that point in time) about using a modified Waterloo model for the Jutlands... and decided against it specifically because you disgreed with that idea :).
 
I don't know if it is a right or wrong thing. Back then, we didn't have the invaluable Star*Soldier manual. Prior to its publication, LOAF's explanation was probably the most valid creating the least amount of fan clutter playing with unknowns. It would seem a convenient fit as the WCM manual specifies a carrier which immediately followed the Bengals in the late '50s.
 
Yeah, exactly - in light of the facts known at the time, it seemed like a reasonable connection. Of course, we all understood that it wasn't the authors' intent (because the Jutland was something made up nearly a decade before the Confed Handbook mentioned a replacement for the Bengals)... but regardless of actual intent, it did make sense at the time.
 
And it could still be right -- I think it's the intent of both the bible and the Arena manual to indicate that the "Jutland" is a Waterloo conversion... but it isn't made absolutely certain in either place.

Moreover, though, it doesn't *matter*. This wouldn't be the first time a canonical Wing Commander game swapped around ship types -- it's certainly something a fan project is allowed to do.

I would say the thing that generally bugs me is the desire to jump on these obscure ships in the first place, much as I participate in it. For something that existed only in an unpublished design document, the "Jutland" game sure gets a lot of name and press.
 
What the heck is this carrier? I've never seen it before. Is it a render of a ship mentioned in the novels or something? Please pardon me if I'm not quite as up to date as the rest of you guys.
 
See this thread to start. Then read the linked documents. That's a start.

The thread linked above is at the top of the CZ so I'm not sure how you would have missed it and posted your question here.
 
I would say the thing that generally bugs me is the desire to jump on these obscure ships in the first place, much as I participate in it. For something that existed only in an unpublished design document, the "Jutland" game sure gets a lot of name and press.

TCS Austin anyone? :p

Seriously though, perhaps it would be best if the "Jutland" were added to the CIC Ship database, Adding in a slight back story surrounding the TCS Gettysburg? That may clear up some of the confusion. Just a thought.
 
I think it's one of the (very) early designs for the Midway. If you've been following the "Making the Game" updates in recent months, I'm pretty sure it's there.
 
Back
Top