FIGHTERS: Couldn't they have put a better explanation why the WC2 fighters vanished in WC3 and all of them were replaced? Ultimately there were some explanations proposed.
Confed:
1.) Many of them were destroyed at the battle of terra forcing older fighters to take their place. The older fighters would have had to have been modified because they were unable to hold up in WC3 with the newer weapons...
2.) Some fighters may have served concurrantly with these fighters and simply were outshined by them... but after the Battle of Terra they were primarily what's left and took over the job the other fighters did. They would have had to have been modified because the WC1 era fighters could not have held up in WC3... Of course the AIM-9 Sidewinder, originally a piece of crap, evolved eventually to be a decent missile... maybe the Hellcat was a Rapier rival that never could make it, but the newer version combined with the large number of Rapier destructions throughought the war made the Hellcat able to come out on top. The Hellcat for one, had substantially more armor.
3.) For capital ships, it makes much more sense. There were probably Gilgamesh's still left, and a few Waterloo's here and there... but so few that they couldn't hold on their own. Confed, then brought the older ships into the fleet. There were probably a few Exeter's and Gettysburg in there as well. It was probably like Capital Ship-soup with ships from every era showing up. Of course only the 2630-era ships were in the game, but that doesn't mean that others were present in the timeline...
The Kilrathi had no excuse though... their capships were brand new and yet they still were inferior to the WC2 ships. For example the Cruiser in WC2 could carry 60 fighters, and the WC3 one could only carry a few if that much. The WC2 destroyer was carrying 23-fighters, and the WC3 one was carrying either none, or a few.
And what happened to that Vatari-class fighter that was mentioned in Fleet-Action? It obviously wasn't the Darket. While the Kilrathi probably have different names for the fighters than Confed does. For example the Russian Archer-missile (AA-11 I believe) was called the Vympel R-73 by the Russians.
One Darket crashed into Confed HQ during the Battle of Terra (2668) -- Mentioned in WC4N, meaning it was already operational. The Vatari's were due to enter operational service the next-year. The Vaktoth could be a candidate.
UNIFORMS: Out of all the uniforms they could have designed, couldn't they have designed a better uniform than that blue piece of crap? I understand as a utility uniform it's okay but when tolwyn was coming onboard they were wearing the same stuff. When an Admiral comes aboard, usually everyone's in dress. They could have modified the WC2 uniforms with a greater degree of success than that!
CAPTAIN EISEN
-Eligibility: It is a requirement that carrier captains be pilots. That would technically make Eisen ineligible. NOTE: While Commodore Thaddeus O'Brien was also not a Naval Aviator and commanded the Carrier, it could be argued that the CVE, as a transport-based design, could be commanded by Transport-Captains as well. And Commodore O'Brien, as an Ex-Transport Captain, would theoretically be eligible.
-Command: Since 1986, the Navy has elaborated the position of CAG aboard a carrier. They called the title "Super-CAG", although Air-Wing Commander is more technical. Super-CAG's hold the same rank as the captain and similar responsibilities. The CAG decides what goes up and controls the Air-Wing... he answers straight to the battlegroup commander. The Captain does have complete control over the ship and areas that do not include the air-wing... he also has substantial control over flight-operations which include launch and recovery. Blair's title as Wing Commander is practically the same as Air-Wing Commander and since he holds the rank of Colonel which is equivalent to Captain in the Navy... he fits the Super-CAG profile. Eisen's authority on the ship was more like an admiral, being that he ordered Blair's missions, and controlled the battlegroup.
-Battlegroup Command: The battlegroup on the carrier is controlled by an Admiral of either one or two stars. The battlegroup commander is typically a Naval Aviator Rear Admiral, but not always... at least recently, the Navy has become more liberal in that respect, and a Surface Warfare Admiral can command a carrier-battlegroup. As a rule the Surface Warfare Admirals that command a carrier battlegroup are one-stars, and the Naval Aviator Admirals that command a carrier battlegroup are two-stars. It seems that once a carrier captain completes his three years in command, he is automatically bumped up to two-stars skipping straight over one star. There was no record of an Admiral being aboard the Victory with the exception of Tolwyn, and at the Treaty of Torgo.
RANKS
-Air Force/Space Force Ranks: Is that actually necessary? Why are there some Naval Aviators in WC and some Space Force ranks? It makes sense in some cases considering that there are still Planetary bases which sort of fits the Air-Force profile. Starbases sort of fit the description as well. It would have made more sense to use only Naval Ranks except with guys coming off the starbases, unless they were specifically stated to be Naval Bases. Having the Spaceforce/Fleet joint-force interactions is not a good idea. The Marine's being their own service is understandible that they retain their own ranks.
-Carrier Command: Carrier Captains are ex-naval aviators. This was to my knowledge, put into effect to make sure that captains inexperienced in fighter-operations could not command a carrier. The idea is that naval-aviators lead other naval aviators. Having the space-force as a seperate service would make this either an impossibility, or extremely difficult. And even though there are naval aviators in WC, why would anyone join the Space-Force when they could Join the Navy and be eligible for commanding a Carrier? Carrier Command is considered to be the pinnacle of a Naval-Aviator's Career.
SHIELDS AND ARMOR:
-Fighters: How did fighter shield and armor ratings end up in the several hundred-cm ratings for FIGHTERS?
-Capships: Armor increased somewhat, but compared to the fighters, the Capships come off as big giant easy-to-kill boxes with engines on them...
-Concordia
Confed:
1.) Many of them were destroyed at the battle of terra forcing older fighters to take their place. The older fighters would have had to have been modified because they were unable to hold up in WC3 with the newer weapons...
2.) Some fighters may have served concurrantly with these fighters and simply were outshined by them... but after the Battle of Terra they were primarily what's left and took over the job the other fighters did. They would have had to have been modified because the WC1 era fighters could not have held up in WC3... Of course the AIM-9 Sidewinder, originally a piece of crap, evolved eventually to be a decent missile... maybe the Hellcat was a Rapier rival that never could make it, but the newer version combined with the large number of Rapier destructions throughought the war made the Hellcat able to come out on top. The Hellcat for one, had substantially more armor.
3.) For capital ships, it makes much more sense. There were probably Gilgamesh's still left, and a few Waterloo's here and there... but so few that they couldn't hold on their own. Confed, then brought the older ships into the fleet. There were probably a few Exeter's and Gettysburg in there as well. It was probably like Capital Ship-soup with ships from every era showing up. Of course only the 2630-era ships were in the game, but that doesn't mean that others were present in the timeline...
The Kilrathi had no excuse though... their capships were brand new and yet they still were inferior to the WC2 ships. For example the Cruiser in WC2 could carry 60 fighters, and the WC3 one could only carry a few if that much. The WC2 destroyer was carrying 23-fighters, and the WC3 one was carrying either none, or a few.
And what happened to that Vatari-class fighter that was mentioned in Fleet-Action? It obviously wasn't the Darket. While the Kilrathi probably have different names for the fighters than Confed does. For example the Russian Archer-missile (AA-11 I believe) was called the Vympel R-73 by the Russians.
One Darket crashed into Confed HQ during the Battle of Terra (2668) -- Mentioned in WC4N, meaning it was already operational. The Vatari's were due to enter operational service the next-year. The Vaktoth could be a candidate.
UNIFORMS: Out of all the uniforms they could have designed, couldn't they have designed a better uniform than that blue piece of crap? I understand as a utility uniform it's okay but when tolwyn was coming onboard they were wearing the same stuff. When an Admiral comes aboard, usually everyone's in dress. They could have modified the WC2 uniforms with a greater degree of success than that!
CAPTAIN EISEN
-Eligibility: It is a requirement that carrier captains be pilots. That would technically make Eisen ineligible. NOTE: While Commodore Thaddeus O'Brien was also not a Naval Aviator and commanded the Carrier, it could be argued that the CVE, as a transport-based design, could be commanded by Transport-Captains as well. And Commodore O'Brien, as an Ex-Transport Captain, would theoretically be eligible.
-Command: Since 1986, the Navy has elaborated the position of CAG aboard a carrier. They called the title "Super-CAG", although Air-Wing Commander is more technical. Super-CAG's hold the same rank as the captain and similar responsibilities. The CAG decides what goes up and controls the Air-Wing... he answers straight to the battlegroup commander. The Captain does have complete control over the ship and areas that do not include the air-wing... he also has substantial control over flight-operations which include launch and recovery. Blair's title as Wing Commander is practically the same as Air-Wing Commander and since he holds the rank of Colonel which is equivalent to Captain in the Navy... he fits the Super-CAG profile. Eisen's authority on the ship was more like an admiral, being that he ordered Blair's missions, and controlled the battlegroup.
-Battlegroup Command: The battlegroup on the carrier is controlled by an Admiral of either one or two stars. The battlegroup commander is typically a Naval Aviator Rear Admiral, but not always... at least recently, the Navy has become more liberal in that respect, and a Surface Warfare Admiral can command a carrier-battlegroup. As a rule the Surface Warfare Admirals that command a carrier battlegroup are one-stars, and the Naval Aviator Admirals that command a carrier battlegroup are two-stars. It seems that once a carrier captain completes his three years in command, he is automatically bumped up to two-stars skipping straight over one star. There was no record of an Admiral being aboard the Victory with the exception of Tolwyn, and at the Treaty of Torgo.
RANKS
-Air Force/Space Force Ranks: Is that actually necessary? Why are there some Naval Aviators in WC and some Space Force ranks? It makes sense in some cases considering that there are still Planetary bases which sort of fits the Air-Force profile. Starbases sort of fit the description as well. It would have made more sense to use only Naval Ranks except with guys coming off the starbases, unless they were specifically stated to be Naval Bases. Having the Spaceforce/Fleet joint-force interactions is not a good idea. The Marine's being their own service is understandible that they retain their own ranks.
-Carrier Command: Carrier Captains are ex-naval aviators. This was to my knowledge, put into effect to make sure that captains inexperienced in fighter-operations could not command a carrier. The idea is that naval-aviators lead other naval aviators. Having the space-force as a seperate service would make this either an impossibility, or extremely difficult. And even though there are naval aviators in WC, why would anyone join the Space-Force when they could Join the Navy and be eligible for commanding a Carrier? Carrier Command is considered to be the pinnacle of a Naval-Aviator's Career.
SHIELDS AND ARMOR:
-Fighters: How did fighter shield and armor ratings end up in the several hundred-cm ratings for FIGHTERS?
-Capships: Armor increased somewhat, but compared to the fighters, the Capships come off as big giant easy-to-kill boxes with engines on them...
-Concordia