What ever happened to the WC4 improvements???

TC

SubCrid
Yeah, but in your case the names were appropriate.

TC

[Edited by TC on 02-12-2001 at 21:24]
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Name calling:)? I'm just saying, you're offensive, arrogant and egotistical. A simple look at this series of posts (or any of your 'pseudo-science' threads) will easily show all of these things.
 

Vondoom

Spaceman
Pseudo-science threads? I'll be sure to let Kip Thorne and Stephan Hawking know that they're totally wrong and that you are right. Might have to have a seance to tell Albert Einstien how wrong he was. And your pep squad is so very cute when they rush to defend you. And as I stated before LOAF, I'll never match your arrogance, offensiveness, or ego. And I'd never try.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
There you ago again with the science thing... (G)

My pep squad isn't defending *me*... I was saving Tye from your craziness, herr Doctor.
 

TC

SubCrid
And if you'll notice, I like to poke stupidity with a pointed stick. It's ever suck fun.

TC
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Hmm... as moderator, I'm not entirely sure what to say. On the one hand, LOAF was the first to start the name-calling. But on the other hand, the way Vondoom said that he assumes Napoleon is not American, it seems almost implicit that A) somehow Americans are superior to everybody else, or B) somehow American standards are the only ones that count. That's as insulting to the rest of us (or more so) than any name-calling.
 
wow, you go away to sleep and you get all this in reply. ok ill admit that wc is scifi, and therefore has little in common with science. it doesnt even have correct physics, though no games really do, except the dire and boring elite 2.

[Edited by Quarto on 02-13-2001 at 05:00]
 

redwolf

Spaceman
Lexington

Pardon my ignorance but I thought I had to ask this seeing as I'm only up to page 7 of this thread (which has deviated a lot from WC4 improvements).

Anyway, on first appearances it seems to me that the Lexington in WC4 looked very similar to the old Victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can one be a Ranger and one be a Concordia (and I'm aware of the Confederation class dreadnaught in WC4 where you steal the Bearcats).

Please advise.
 
it looks quite similar yes, but i have no idea about ship class names. all carriers from that era will look similar because they have a flight deck that is similar. like modern aircraft carriers (i think?)
 

redwolf

Spaceman
Good point. I just read some more and was reminded about the Lexington from Armada too (so confusing!) Oh and by the way, why would a carrier of the Vesuvius class be called the Eisen if all the others are named after mountains/volcanos?

Also, why would all these carriers (such as a the Ranger class) be built in the late 2500's when no one had even heard of the Kilrathi, let alone see one? Surely wartime production would be far greater than peacetime?
 

iCe

Vice Admiral
That's right. They are both diffirent classes. Look at the interior.And to me the outside is also diffirent. But i've never saw enything that says something about fighter completement. But maybe a Concordia Class is the replacemetnt of the Ranger Class.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Master_Anarchist: I edited one of your posts, because everything that needed to be said about that particular argument has already been said.
 
vondoom can you understand what that web page on physics you gave actually says? its too hard. i just want a page that explains why sci fi stuff doesnt hold up
 

Vondoom

Spaceman
I understand enough to grasp the basic principles. Although Quantum Mechanics makes my head scream. If you want to read any good books written for the general audiance, I'd highly recommend anything by Carl Sagan, "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstien's Outragous Legacy" by Kip Thorne, or "A Brief History of Time" by Carl Sagan. There are also books called the "Physics of Star Trek" and "The Physics of Star Wars". I'll send you a link if I find any good online resources.
 

OriginalPhoenix

Professor Emeritus
Originally posted by iCe
That's right. They are both diffirent classes. Look at the interior.And to me the outside is also diffirent.
Indeed. The area around the island superstructure ont he CONCORDIA-class carriers is "bulged" (for lack of a better term), and the overall length to beam ratio appears somewhat larger.

Originally posted by iCe
But i've never saw enything that says something about fighter completement.
RANGER-class light carriers typically carry 40 some fighters/bombers. IIRC, the CONCORDIA-class vessels carry 120.


Originally posted by iCe
But maybe a Concordia Class is the replacemetnt of the Ranger Class.
Not really. RANGER-class ships are light carriers, whilst the CONCORDIAs are fleet carriers. It's similar to the INDEPENDENCE-class vs. the ESSEX-class during WWII.
 
Top