Wing Commander 3: Silly Stuff

[Concordia]

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

 

[t.c.cgi]

Ugh... All of this has been discussed to death individually, hasn't it? Should be an interesting rehash by LOAF anyway...

 

[Ripper]

Concordia! I missed you so much! Glad to see you back.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

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.

1994 called, it wants its usenet discussion back.

I'm at a loss to understand the word 'better' here - the only reason that was ever actually stated (Richard, we miss you) was that Wing Commander 3 has all new ships because its flight engine can't display rounded objects. As explanations go, they don't really get more straightforward.

{Now, even if we could have passable 3D spheres in 1994, Wing Commander III wouldn't have just re-hased Wing 2's ship models... because copying what you've already done is a great way to keep people from being interested in your game.}

Now, *perhaps* this was a reasonable complaint on the part of WC geeks in 1994... (and yes, I'm aware that you're the man who has trouble with linear time) when we hadn't seen any of the novelizations or any of the cartoon episodes and the service histories for all these fighters were pretty much blank slates. But in 2003 we know that the three of the five 'new' fighters were as-old-as-if-not-older than most of the Wing Commander 2 craft.

(And though we didn't really realize it at the time, Fleet Action had already told us about how the WC2 fighters were still in service in '68.)

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...

There is no indication that the WC3 fighters are 'older' or 'newer' than those we see in WC2. The Concordia has squadrons of Ferrets/Epees/Rapier IIs/Sabres/Broadswords and the Victory squadrons are Hellcats/Arrows/Thunderbolts/Longbows. Consider this simply exercise: you're looking at a ship. What is it? Thunderbolt? Based on your stupid version of logic THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE IS THUNDERBOLTS. The fact that we fly one type of fighter in WC3 does not mean others do not exist. The fact that we are SPECIFICALLY TOLD THAT OTHERS DO EXIST, in fact, points the other way.

There is no reason that there was any sort of a super secret hidden 'upgrade' program. Hellcats built in 2669 use 2669 era technology -- as do 2669 Rapiers, 2669 Hornets and 2669 Sabres.

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.

A Hellcat built in 2669 will be armored with Isometal. A Hellcat built in 2654 would be armored with Durasteel. The 2654 Hellcat would have *less than two* centimeters equivalent of armor (60:1 ratio). Similar to the other ships of its day.

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...
(snipped for char limit)

The cruisers around in WC2 and the cruisers in WC3 EXIST AT THE SAME TIME. The Victory's escorts were said to be fifty years old. That makes them *OLDER* than the classes we see in WC2. It isn't a case of the makeup of the fleet changing at all -- it's a case of us seeing one class at one time and another some other time.

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.

I've already been over *this* with you -- there are not super secret names for fighters in WC. As the Zulu debacle proved, from our 'point of view' both sides use the same scheme for referencing fighters. Whether this is for the reader/players benefit or whether the Kilrathi do call fighters Dralthi and such isn't clear -- but there's plenty of situations where both Thrakhath and Blair will call a Sartha a Sartha.

This is just another situation of your obsession with 'small universe' syndrome -- the simplest, most obvious, you're-stupid-if-you-don't-see-it explanation is that we simply don't *see* any Vatari in WC3. Thousands upon thousands of missions are flown every day off of dozens and dozens of ships -- the couple we fly in WC3 are *no* guarantee that we will 'encounter' everything in the *entire universe*.

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!

Could've designed? Perhaps you are not familiar with how Wing Commander III worked: they had three million dollars to film a script that's more than twice as long as your average Hollywood movie. They didn't "design" the WC3 outfits -- they bought blue 'garbage man' jumpers and stuck some little plastic pins on them. WC3s budget did not allow it the virtue of unlimited perfect costuming.

-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.

No, it isn't. You are making this up. You are confusing a post ^Death_ made about the United States Navy with the space ships seen in Wing Commander. There are absolutely *ZERO* recorded instances of Confed carrier captains having graduated flight school (Tolwyn flew at McAuliffe -- he didn't go to flight school and he never had an actual squadron assignment). None of the carrier captains we see (Eisen, Sansky, Gerald, Thorn, Paulsen, Wilford, etc.) have any recorded fighter service. In many cases, they specifically *DO NOT* have fighter service. You are *MAKING UP YOUR OWN PROBLEM*. WC IS NOT THE MODERN USN IN SPACE.

-Command: Since 1986, the Navy has (snipped for char limit).

Holy ChrisReids. Even if WC were, as you imply, directly analagous to water navy everythings you would have still shot yourself in the foot with "Since 1986", because if Wing Commander is anything it's *WORLD WAR II IN SPACE*. In the 1800s, ships were made of wood! None of the ships in WC are made of wood! What a crazy contradiction!!!!!!!!1 Freaking please.

-Battlegroup Command: The battlegroup on the carrier is controlled by an Admiral of either one or two stars. (snipped for char limit)

'automatically bumped up two two-stars'? Jesus freaking Christ, this has no basis in either reality or WC. THINGS YOU MAKE UP ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS. The process of making Rear Admiral (in reality) is highly political and *certainly* not "automatic". There can only be a certain number of flag ranks in the navy at any one time -- a number determined external to the military. It's absolutely *NOTHING LIKE YOU'VE MADE UP*.

-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.

There are some naval aviators in WC because the people doing the tie-in novels added them to the universe. The games are not contradicting anything: the original Wing Commander uses *no* naval ranks. WC has *always* been about the 'Space Force', so continuing this through WC3 is only very, very obvious.

But lets visit your old pal LINEAR TIME again. In 1994, there were roughly two instances of 'naval aviators' -- both of whom appear in a tie in novel (one of whom was originally introduced in the games as a Space Forces pilot)... to complain that WC3 didn't COMPLETELY CHANGE THE RANKING SYSTEM to deal with two lines in a tie in novel is a STUPID THING TO EVEN THINK ABOUT.

-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.

If I were you (and lets face it -- I'm really, really happy that I'm not), I would avoid using phrases like 'to my knowledge'. That aside, you already made this completely groundless complaint -- it has NO BASIS IN WC.

-Fighters: How did fighter shield and armor ratings end up in the several hundred-cm ratings for FIGHTERS?

I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand this -- as I must have *personally* explained it to you *SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES*. I *know* I've poured over all the well documented details with you: the alloys and conversion rates and what-not... so maybe you need something simpler.

During wartime, technology increases in leaps and bounds. Both constantly sides strive to create new weapons/shields/armor/engines/etc. When Confed improves its gun technology, the Kilrathi are forced to either improve their shields or lose the war. And so forth. It's a big circle. Its happened in every major conflict in history, and it very clearly happens in WC.

-Capships: Armor increased somewhat, but compared to the fighters, the Capships come off as big giant easy-to-kill boxes with engines on them...

People like you complained that torpedo runs were 'too hard'. The 'in universe' explanation behind all of this has also been discussed (WITH YOU) over and over... do you need me to go over it again?

 

[LeHah]

I can't remember the last time I saw LOAF this angry.

 

[ZFGokuSSJ1]

I've never seen Loaf angry!

 

[psych]

It just goes to show how annoying Concordia is. She's like . . . a cancer that goes into remission and comes back periodically

 

[Col.Dom]

Ahhh! Seeing LOAF go through this topic (which certainly has been beaten to death) still brings me a few chuckles. His answers are so tinged with sarcasm and aggravation. Makes for great stuff.

Also... Concordia is a female? I always thought Concordia was a 13-14 year old boy (no offense intended)!

 

[Concordia]

One More Silly Thing

FighterNumbers: Blairs Thunderbolt was listed as 300...

While the Squadron Commander's Aircraft is listed with two 0's at the end of them...

Ex. 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, etc.

The Wing Commander's fighter is 100.

-Concordia

 

[LeHah]

You, uh, didn't bother reading LOAF's reply, did you?

 

[Death]

Since when have little details like facts stopped Concordia before?

For the slow of uptake (this means you, Concordia):


WC is not bound by RL naval aviation constraints. Origin may base TCN carrier operations off of current naval aviation, but it is not required to stick strictly to real world examples.


As far as we know, there is nothing in TCN carrier aviation regulations that requires the Wing Commander of the entire ship's air wing must have a tail number of 100.

 

[Haesslich]

To nitpick a point, by using WC4 to hammer it to death...

-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.

Real-world US Navy, yes, this is the case. BUT look at the following Wing Commander examples.

WC1: Captain Thorn is TCN, from what we can tell, since the highest-ranking TCSF officer on the ship that we're aware of is Colonel Peter Halcyon.

WC2: Admiral Tolwyn is TCN. The rank 'Rear Admiral' is shown as O8 in Victory Streak, which is equivalent to 'Lieutenant General' in the TCSF. These chains of command are separate - Admiral Tolwyn runs the ship, while Colonel Devereaux runs her wing.

WC3: Captain William Eisen is TCN. He's superior in rank to Colonel Blair due to the Navy tradition of the Captain of a ship outranking all other officers while under weigh, to allow him absolute authority, though both ranks are O6 and equivalent if in different fleets.

WC4: When Captain Eisen hands over command of the Intrepid to Blair, the latter ends up looking stunned. In the Novel, Blair points out that he's Space Force, and thus isn't considered a line officer suitable to command the vessel.

Bondarevsky, Fortschen's favorite pilot, ends up taking a transfer to TCN when he keeps the Tarawa, since you'll note that he moves up in rank right up to Rear Admiral by the WC4 novel.

WCP: Brigadier General Blair becomes Commodore Blair when he transfers over to the TCN, as noted in the WCP manual. While the Navy and Space Force are still separate branches, and apparently separate chains of command onboard ship, transfer between these branches is relatively easy.

Therefore, how does WC have a Naval Aviator tradition? This is mostly an American invention anyways. The commanders of the Japanese carriers were from the Japanese Navy, as were the British, IIRC. American traditions would not have necessarily carried over to WC's Navy and Space Forces.

 

[Murray]

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.

I think the most reasonable answer is, as stated by LOAF, people wanna see new fighter/capships in a new game. This is just a game dude, try not to live in it.

On the other hand, I would disagree with LOAF about the "because you can't see them, that doesn't mean they are vanished" argument. In Victory, there may not be WC2 era fighters, but we were shown many cutscenes with huge fleets flying around. No WC2 era ships are present there either. Which means, the Confed must have replaced all the frontline fighters with new ones and put the WC2 ones into backline services. Also common sense suggests, there is no point in keeping two similar ships in your fleet, that does the same thing. If you have a new bomber, you don't keep producing the old one. Which again tells that Confed must have replaced all frontline ships with new ones.

I am no WC expert, maybe LOAF can enlighten us, what is the time difference between WC2 and WC3? If its couple of years, it is quite possible that all frontline fighters may be replaced by new ones and we don't see any old ships while fighting, basically because they are trash now.

 

[Haesslich]

I think the most reasonable answer is, as stated by LOAF, people wanna see new fighter/capships in a new game. This is just a game dude, try not to live in it.

On the other hand, I would disagree with LOAF about the "because you can't see them, that doesn't mean they are vanished" argument. In Victory, there may not be WC2 era fighters, but we were shown many cutscenes with huge fleets flying around. No WC2 era ships are present there either. Which means, the Confed must have replaced all the frontline fighters with new ones and put the WC2 ones into backline services. Also common sense suggests, there is no point in keeping two similar ships in your fleet, that does the same thing. If you have a new bomber, you don't keep producing the old one. Which again tells that Confed must have replaced all frontline ships with new ones.

I am no WC expert, maybe LOAF can enlighten us, what is the time difference between WC2 and WC3? If its couple of years, it is quite possible that all frontline fighters may be replaced by new ones and we don't see any old ships while fighting, basically because they are trash now.

Fighters do get moved to the second-line, once they're considered no longer fit for front-line duty; the Border Worlds fighters of WC4N fame are outdated, chop-shop material at worst. At best, they're just outdated. We also see Broadswords and the like in Privateer, which takes place in the WC3 timeframe, which also includes the Longbow and more modern and powerful craft in military hands.

Also, there is garrison duty as well, which means you're likely to leave older fighters there, especially if you're hurting for them on front-line bases and carriers. WC2 takes place about two years or so before WC3, which takes place almost a year after the Battle of Earth.

Beyond which, we know the Hellcat was around back in 2654 or so; the WCA cartoon has them, so that's not a new design, at least not in-game. Ditto, the Excalibur's still flying some 15+ years after it was designed, in WC:SO, and with beefed up shields. It stands to reason that some frames that we see in WC3 and WC4 could have conceivably been older craft, but with more modern technology than was originally included in their initial design specs.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I can't remember the last time I saw LOAF this angry.

Aww, I'm not angry... it's just that the only way to get through to Concordia is to YELL LOUDLY. (Also, this thread was making me miss Enterprise.)

On the other hand, I would disagree with LOAF about the "because you can't see them, that doesn't mean they are vanished" argument. In Victory, there may not be WC2 era fighters, but we were shown many cutscenes with huge fleets flying around. No WC2 era ships are present there either. Which means, the Confed must have replaced all the frontline fighters with new ones and put the WC2 ones into backline services. Also common sense suggests, there is no point in keeping two similar ships in your fleet, that does the same thing. If you have a new bomber, you don't keep producing the old one. Which again tells that Confed must have replaced all frontline ships with new ones.

Certainly that's *reasonable*, but it's unfortunately not supported by what we see -- Arrows, Hellcats and Longbows show up on Wing Commander Academy (in 2654-55), and all of the WC2 craft show up in Fleet Action (a few months before WC3). (On the other hand, we know that two of the WC3 ships *are* new designs -- the Thunderbolt and Excalibur are just entering service.)

I am no WC expert, maybe LOAF can enlighten us, what is the time difference between WC2 and WC3? If its couple of years, it is quite possible that all frontline fighters may be replaced by new ones and we don't see any old ships while fighting, basically because they are trash now.

WC2 ended in early 2667, WC3 begins in mid 2669.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

(I was pretty out of it last night, so I decided to politely re-respond to some more of Concordia's post. Because I have a very boring job. )

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...

I don't think you understand. They're not just... big temporal lumps of ships. There's probably a shipyard in one system that builds five Gilgameshes each year and a shipyard in another that builds eight WC3Destroyers... because we see *one* in WC3 is no indication that other types do not exist (and are not still in production). We divide WC into 'eras' based on game engine -- not by what ship is around when. The two are not related.

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.

This is an odd one -- since we don't *know* how many fighters the WC3 Kilrathi ships carry, isn't it a little premature to complain that it isn't enough? Or that it isn't equal to the ones seen in WC2?

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.

This is an unreasonable leap for two reasons:

* Whether they are 'code names' or not (and the original secret missions seems to imply that they are), Kilrathi characters in WC fiction refer to their ship classes using the same names as humans. Think of Prince Thrakhath referring to a 'Sartha pilot' in End Run, or Hobbes talking about a Fralthi in Freedom Flight.

* The standard "small universe" explanation - Col. Blair will not encounter every class of Kilrathi fighter in Wing Commander 3 (particularly a new one which is launched from a type of carrier we don't see in WC3). We know that, circa WC3, the Kilrathi have a large array of support craft - SWACS ships, refueling vessels, recon ships... but we don't see any of them in WC3. Furthermore, there's no evidence that the Vatari has even entered service yet. The quote from Fleet Action is that the Hakaga is "capable of carrying and servicing our newest Vatari-class fighters to be launched next year." Since Wing Commander 3 takes place less than a year after Fleet Action, there's no reason to assume that the fighter will show up.

I also can't help but wonder why you singled out the Vatari... there are a number of novel created Kilrathi fighters that never show up in games... the 'Draltha', the 'Grakhi', and so forth (and all those support ships in False Colors!). The 'actual' reason is, of course, that the guys developing the game don't know these things exist.

(In regards to your real life example, 'Vympel' is the company which designed the missile -- not the weapons 'name'. The AA-2, AA-7 and AA-9 and AA-11 were all designed by Vympel.)

(And finally, the Darket crashed into Orion Station (a low orbit defense station)... *not* Confed HQ.)

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!

Yes, I wonder... why *didn't* they just wear the WC2 uniforms? Sure would have saved some money. Please stand still, Mr. Hamill, we need to glue a low-resolution bitmap onto your naked body.

-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.

To go into more detail -- Captain Paulsen was a destroyer captain (barely), Captain Sansky was a battleship captain, Admiral Tolwyn was a frigate commander... the evidence seems to clearly indicate that flying fighters is *not* necessary to recieve a carrier command.

(And the Victory is nearly identical in role and in specifications to the CVE -- why the double standard, in your universe?)

-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.

Great... except this ignores some very important facts:

- The Victory's task force was *not* a battlegroup. It was a Main Force Support (MSF) group. You may read all about the difference in Victory Streak.

- The Victory's group was one of *two* carrier groups commanded directly by Rear Admiral Tolwyn (the second being the Hermes). Tolwyn, *not* Eisen, had direct command over the Victory and her escorts, and was responsible for all of its assignments (until his court martial). Tolwyn sent the Victory to Locanda to test his Excalibur. Tolwyn ordered the Victory to Blackmane to evacuate the base. Tolwyn sent the Victory to Ariel to scout for Project Behemoth. Etc. The Victory was not his *flag* (until the Torgo series), but it was still under his direct command. Captain Eisen may *brief* Blair, but he did not choose the Victory's objectives.

(snipped) The Marine's being their own service is understandible that they retain their own ranks.

Another oddity here: why *aren't* you complaining about Marines? It's (historically and in WC) the *exact* same situation as the Space Force... a branch of service with its own system of ranks that serves onboard naval vessels.

[QUOTE}-Fighters: How did fighter shield and armor ratings end up in the several hundred-cm ratings for FIGHTERS? (snipped)[/QUOTE]

Technology increases. Privateer tells us exactly *how* it increases. A ship built with 2 cm of durasteel armor in 2654 would be built with (physically) 2 cm of Isometal armor in 2669. It would then have *120* cm durasteel equivalent of armor. The Hornets flying around in Fleet Action have 180 cm of armor.

 

[The_Gneech]

Assuming the ship performance specs in Unknown Enemy are roughly accurate, I'm just as happy not to be in those older ships -- one good hit from a Gratha just chews my Epee up!

I know I'm not the best pilot in the wing, but da-yam!

-The Gneech

Edit: Gratha! Not Krant. Hmm, I think I need a Starbucks run.

 

[Starkey]

One solid full gun salvo from any fighter to any Epee chews it shield and armor (?) up.

 

[Haesslich]

One solid full gun salvo from any fighter to any Epee chews it shield and armor (?) up.

Epee never had much armor in the first place - you could shoot one down in a FERRET. And that thing had only one pair of mass drivers, but double the armor and 20kps more speed with almost as much maneuverability. Up against a Rapier, 'bye bye, Epee!' was just a matter of one full-gun volley or a few particle-cannon shots.

 

[LeHah]

...Don't knock the Ferrett