You Know What Would Be Cool?

[t.c.cgi]

Actually... even real battleships had a small airwing... usually only four planes or so, but nonetheless.

While I suppose they could be called air wings, they were redundant and obsolete when WW2 started. Battleships - and cruisers - had aircraft for scouting and fire control. They were by no means fighters or bombers. More like fancy crop-dusters with a pair of machineguns.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Well, two points here. One, carriers *aren't* a new concept in Action Stations - in fact, Confed's carrier fleet has been around so long as of the novel that many of the ships are completely obsolete. The point of the story is that naval doctrine is being built around battleships rather than carriers, not that the carrier is some new invention. Carriers have served for at least half a century before Action Stations in all sorts of supporting roles - anti-shipping, reconaissance, space-to-ground strikes, amphibious assault coverage, etc. That's all straight from the novel. Two, Wing Commander I *does* suggest that carriers are new - or, at least, that the only carrier we see in the game is. The manual goes out of its way to point out that the Tiger's Claw entered service ten years after the war started (and so ten years after Action Stations is set). If anything, the real 'contradiction' would be had Action Stations done the opposite of what you're complaining about - suggested that the Confederation had ships like the Tiger's Claw ten years before the continuity specifically established them.

In the Claw Marks book, it mentioned nothing of Battleships. From what was written, initially how the game's history was about mentioned nothing of Battleships. In fact it pretty much sounded like it was a carrier/escorts/fighter kind of battle.

In fact, for the most part, "battleships" (in the form of Dreadnoughts) were only added later in the form of the Sivar, and the Confederation (which from how it was written in the plot was largely based on the Sivar's weapon)

Regarding the Bengal-Class construction, it was not necessarily stated to be the first class of carrier the Confederation had. It was simply a new class of strike-carrier built.

Ack, I'm very sorry - I meant WC1... the first Wing Commander dreadnought introduced is the Sivar, in The Secret Missions. Like the battleships in Action Stations, they were a later addition to the universe.

Did the Sivar have any fighter compliment? In either case, the Sivar-Class would pretty much be a text-book case as a battleship like design -- it was said to be bristling with guns, and it had a monstrously powerful main-gun, a weapon that could wipe all the life off a planet's surface.

It's designation as a dreadnought may not have been to indicate it as being one of another many battleships (of which a dreadnought is simply a large subset of) built, but simply classed as a dreadnought because of it bristling with guns, and having an incredibly powerful gun that may be the most powerful ship mounted gun on any contemporary ship.

The Confederation-Class incorporated the same gun from the Sivar-Dreadnought, which is one of the primary reasons it's probably classed as a dreadnought. Sure it has 8-AMG's... which could qualify as bristling with guns, but if WC-1 had phase shields, I wouldn't have been suprized to have seen the Tiger's Claw having a couple of 'em too. That's speculation though. The Confederation Class, even without it's weaponry has an ENORMOUS fighter complement! 120 fighters is beyond the typical fighter compliment of a standard fleet-carrier.

I don't think that can possibly be true - the several-hundred-year history of the battleship overlaps only briefly with that of the airplane. The Iowa-class (briefly) carrying three seaplanes is in no way a standard feature among battleships... any more so than you might insist that submarines have air wings because the Japanese folded up little floatplane kits on some of theirs.

I'm talking about dreadnought battleships -- which was defined as having the internal area of the ship compartmentalized into a whole bunch of compartments with bulkheads, and hatches to seal off flooding; boilers with geared turbines; armored turrets, and a bunch of other things I forgot.

But there were a couple of German battleships and at least the Iowa-Class, but I think there was a few others that had a small amount of planes they could fly. 3 or 4 planes though, but still some.

There's no mention of this in Action Stations.

You're sure in the entire book which consisted of several hundred pages that it wasn't mentioned? Maybe I'm mixing it up with another book or something...

Nope, we only ever see 'CV' for the Tiger's Claw. The only place we ever see 'CVS' is on the 'door art' onboard the Concordia in Wing Commander 2 (and that was apparently a late decision, since the writers guide produced for the WC2-era novel licensing calls it 'BAH-65').

The Confederation-Class is kind of a hybrid of both Fleet-Carrier and Dreadnought. The fact that it carries the Sivar-Dreadnought's weapon, and to an extent the 8 AMG's, and it's size pretty much explains it's classification as a Dreadnought. It's 120-fighter compliment, and it's twin-flight deck set up kind of fits a profile of a Fleet-Carrier.

Victory is the quintessential Royal Navy name - the real HMS Victory was Nelson's flagship at Trafalgar... and it famously remains commissioned today, the oldest such ship in the world.

I didn't know that.

No, it's an actual-history story that gets explained in several of the Wing Commander novels Dr. Forstchen wrote (and several of his non-WC books). During the War of 1812, the Captain of the USS Chesapeake was wounded and taken below decks by a Third Lieutenant. In the time he was below decks all the senior officers were killed or wounded - leaving the Lieutenant who went below unknowingly in charge of the ship. He was ultimately court martiald for failing to take over as the chain of command required.

So he wrote about this in his non-WC books?

No, she's a character from the novels - Pilgrim Stars.

Pilgrim Stars? Like Pilgrims in the WC-Movie?

The name came from Action Stations, I incorrectly applied it to the Victory. I made the mistake of thinking that Action Stations referenced 'an old Ranger class light carrier'. The light part isn't in the book - the Ranger was just a normal carrier.

Actually, I think WC-3 Novel referred to the Victory as a Ranger-Class... Either way the basic Yorktown Class was around 85-years old in WC-3?

It doesn't really sound like the Iason incident, though, since there's two ships (one named 'Sparrow')

I suppose you could be right, but it would definetly be a fairly early sighting

I don't know - this may be more of a fan thing than a good way for a universe to work. As much as we'd like to see the biggest possible warships, it doesn't make sense after a point. If anything, warships should get *smaller* after a point rather than become increasingly large targets (I'm sure we'd see giant space-supertankers and similar support ships... but that's not as sexy.)

Well as you said, if they got around the 1,000 meter length rule before the late 2650's and early 2660's, you would have probably have seen supertankers and such. They'd be highly valuable for smaller vessels that run on a deficit.

... and WC2 had been created before WC3. No team has been willing to give up their own style in favor of what came before, in terms of art direction. That said, the movie had similarities just like the ones you just listed - the Dralthi is very pointed, the Thrak'hra is all knife-edged...

What's a Thrak'hra? Isn't that just the noble Kilrathi Blood? Either way the Dralthi did look vaguely like the Dralthi from the games... but it certainly seemed a lot smaller than the game's Dralthi

I don't remember whether or not it's even simulated in the mission - I just know Eisen warns you about it in the briefing (lets face it, it's *very* hard to get to the Blackmane Losing series... you have to be a pretty bad pilot to fail the first bunch of missions in WC3).

Oh...

Only the parts reprinted elsewhere.

So if it's re-printed from the WC-bible, it's canon?


Miracynonyx100

 

[Bandit LOAF]

In the Claw Marks book, it mentioned nothing of Battleships. From what was written, initially how the game's history was about mentioned nothing of Battleships. In fact it pretty much sounded like it was a carrier/escorts/fighter kind of battle.

In fact, for the most part, "battleships" (in the form of Dreadnoughts) were only added later in the form of the Sivar, and the Confederation (which from how it was written in the plot was largely based on the Sivar's weapon)

Claw Marks does mention dreadnaughts - in the Borger's entry on Turreted Lasers: "Terran and Kilrathi destroyers, cruisers, dreadnaughts, carriers, and bases are equipped with heavy, turreted lasers linked to advanced targeting systems."

It also has absolutely no description of the fighting at McAuliffe - save for the fact that the Kilrathi had twice as many ships as the Confederation did. There's nothing specific described about fighters, carriers, battleships or otherwise.

... and even if that weren't the case, McAuliffe *was* a carrier battle in Action Stations - that's the entire point of the novel. The Kilrathi launch a surprise attack with carrier-based planes which destroys the Confederation battleships while they're still in dock... and then Turner hits them back by saving a pair of human carriers which hit the vulnerable Kilrathi landing craft. The point that the novel pounds in again and again and again is that battleships aren't going to play a part in the upcoming war.

Regarding the Bengal-Class construction, it was not necessarily stated to be the first class of carrier the Confederation had. It was simply a new class of strike-carrier built.

No, it isn't necessarily that way - but what you claimed was that the manual implied carriers had always been the center of the fleet. It doesn't - instead, it specifically explains that only type of carrier it ever references wasn't around in 2634.

Did the Sivar have any fighter compliment? In either case, the Sivar-Class would pretty much be a text-book case as a battleship like design -- it was said to be bristling with guns, and it had a monstrously powerful main-gun, a weapon that could wipe all the life off a planet's surface.

Yes, the Sivar carried twenty fighters ("if configured as a light carrier"). The Sivar dreadnought seen in the movie doesn't have the PAG weapon but carries many more fighters.

It's designation as a dreadnought may not have been to indicate it as being one of another many battleships (of which a dreadnought is simply a large subset of) built, but simply classed as a dreadnought because of it bristling with guns, and having an incredibly powerful gun that may be the most powerful ship mounted gun on any contemporary ship.

The Confederation-Class incorporated the same gun from the Sivar-Dreadnought, which is one of the primary reasons it's probably classed as a dreadnought. Sure it has 8-AMG's... which could qualify as bristling with guns, but if WC-1 had phase shields, I wouldn't have been suprized to have seen the Tiger's Claw having a couple of 'em too. That's speculation though. The Confederation Class, even without it's weaponry has an ENORMOUS fighter complement! 120 fighters is beyond the typical fighter compliment of a standard fleet-carrier.

Not the *same* gun - a gun based on the same technology. The Sivar's weapon ("Proton Accelerator Gun") did a lot more damage... but was too slow to be used against capital ships. The Confederation's Phase Transit Cannon was just the opposite.

It's hard to say what makes a dreadnought in Wing Commander - the closest thing we come to an in-universe explanation is a mention from Academy that dreadnoughts have three times the shielding of a carrier. I believe we see five dreadnoughts (and a superdreadnaught) in Wing Commander: Confederation-class (WC2), Agon Ra Sivar-type (Academy), Hvar'kann-class (WC3), Sivar-class (SM/Movie) and 'Project Omega' (Fleet Action). There's no clear defining factor, aside from the fact that they're all heavy warships - only three of them have 'superweapons', only four of them carry fighters, etc. As neat as all this is, it's probably something closer to real life - the specific calibur of the weapons or the overall tonnage of the ships or the thickness of the armor.

You're sure in the entire book which consisted of several hundred pages that it wasn't mentioned? Maybe I'm mixing it up with another book or something...

Completely sure - we've gone over these novels with a fine toothed comb over the years with an eye towards figuring out things like what the specifications and capacities of the ships mentioned are. It's a very frustrating book in these terms, actually, since the battleships are described only sparingly.

So he wrote about this in his non-WC books?

Yes, there are a lot of common elements between Dr. Forstchen's various novels... you'll find similar names, anecdotes, historical allegories, etc.

Pilgrim Stars? Like Pilgrims in the WC-Movie?

Pilgrim Stars was a novel by Peter Telep which follows the events of the Wing Commander movie. It was the second part of a planned trilogy which intended to 'finish' the Pilgrim storyline introduced in the movie and clear the decks for the earlier-published/later-historically Baen books.

Actually, I think WC-3 Novel referred to the Victory as a Ranger-Class... Either way the basic Yorktown Class was around 85-years old in WC-3?

It definately doesn't - I made up the connection for the 'Ships List' I did for the Secret Ops guys in 1998. The "old Ranger-class" quote in Action Stations is, in retrospect, another one of its pre-WW2 historical references - the 'real' USS Ranger was the first American ship built as an aircraft carrier. 85 years is right, the WC3 novelization says the class was fifty years old when the war started.

What's a Thrak'hra? Isn't that just the noble Kilrathi Blood? Either way the Dralthi did look vaguely like the Dralthi from the games... but it certainly seemed a lot smaller than the game's Dralthi

The Thrak'hra-class was the ComCon ship which appeared a few times in the movie - first during Blair and Angel's patrol and then which the marines board towards the end.

So if it's re-printed from the WC-bible, it's canon?

Well, yes, the canon is everything that has been published. The bible is specifically interesting because it's a significant progenitor of a lot of published material. We can also figure out why certain things developed the way they did. For example -- why did End Run refer to Blair as 'Phoenix'? We can look at the Bible and figure that out... but it's all archaeological, not ecclesiastical.

 

[LeHah]

The point that the novel pounds in again and again and again is that battleships aren't going to play a part in the upcoming war.

Don't forget that Forstchen also has a character yell that the incoming Kilrathi attack on McAuliffe is the Panama War Game made real, with all the same subtlty and nuance as Jim Kirk screaming "Kahn" in a Star Trek movie.

How much more "on the nose" can you get?

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Claw Marks does mention dreadnaughts - in the Borger's entry on Turreted Lasers: "Terran and Kilrathi destroyers, cruisers, dreadnaughts, carriers, and bases are equipped with heavy, turreted lasers linked to advanced targeting systems."

Understood. It probably doesn't necessarily state which one came into being first however to my knowledge.

It also has absolutely no description of the fighting at McAuliffe - save for the fact that the Kilrathi had twice as many ships as the Confederation did. There's nothing specific described about fighters, carriers, battleships or otherwise.

I wouldn't be suprized if you were right, I don't recall any serious descriptions in that regard either.

... and even if that weren't the case, McAuliffe *was* a carrier battle in Action Stations - that's the entire point of the novel. The Kilrathi launch a surprise attack with carrier-based planes which destroys the Confederation battleships while they're still in dock... and then Turner hits them back by saving a pair of human carriers which hit the vulnerable Kilrathi landing craft. The point that the novel pounds in again and again and again is that battleships aren't going to play a part in the upcoming war.

The Concordia and the Ark Royal were the carriers involved right?

Regarding the statement that battleships aren't going to play any part in the war was not accurate in the fact that even the Claw Marks guide lists dreadnaughts (which are basically battleships -- pretty much all WW2 battleships were dreadaught-battleships)

No, it isn't necessarily that way - but what you claimed was that the manual implied carriers had always been the center of the fleet. It doesn't - instead, it specifically explains that only type of carrier it ever references wasn't around in 2634.

Can you quote me the exact passage where that was said? If it said the Bengals weren't around in 2634, that's perfectly logical. They weren't. But did it specifically say that no other carrier at all in any shape or form didn't exist before the Bengal?

Yes, the Sivar carried twenty fighters ("if configured as a light carrier"). The Sivar dreadnought seen in the movie doesn't have the PAG weapon but carries many more fighters.

If I recall in the game the Sivar-designation given to the dreadnaught that wiped off all the life on Goddard was a code-name that seemed to have been made during the Thor's Hammer campaign. They did not describe it as a Sivar-Class Variant or something.

After seeing the WC-Movie it was kind of my impression that it was meant to give WC-Fans a cool movie for entertainment value instead of just having a bunch of games to play. Fairly early into the movie it was kind of obvious that the movie wasn't exactly following the timeline for the game. One of the reasons I did not like the movie.

Not the *same* gun - a gun based on the same technology. The Sivar's weapon ("Proton Accelerator Gun") did a lot more damage... but was too slow to be used against capital ships. The Confederation's Phase Transit Cannon was just the opposite.

How much more damage would you speculate the Sivar's weapon did versus the Confederation-Class's

It's hard to say what makes a dreadnought in Wing Commander - the closest thing we come to an in-universe explanation is a mention from Academy that dreadnoughts have three times the shielding of a carrier. I believe we see five dreadnoughts (and a superdreadnaught) in Wing Commander: Confederation-class (WC2), Agon Ra Sivar-type (Academy), Hvar'kann-class (WC3), Sivar-class (SM/Movie) and 'Project Omega' (Fleet Action). There's no clear defining factor, aside from the fact that they're all heavy warships - only three of them have 'superweapons', only four of them carry fighters, etc. As neat as all this is, it's probably something closer to real life - the specific calibur of the weapons or the overall tonnage of the ships or the thickness of the armor.

The Confederation-Class is a class of ship the Concordia is a member of
The Hvar'Kann was the 22,000 meter flagship for Thrakkath
The Agon Ra was the one that looked like a Fralthi II in the Academy Cartoon
The Sivar-Class was the one that wiped Goddard off the map

What's the Project Omega?

Completely sure - we've gone over these novels with a fine toothed comb over the years with an eye towards figuring out things like what the specifications and capacities of the ships mentioned are. It's a very frustrating book in these terms, actually, since the battleships are described only sparingly.

Really?

Yes, there are a lot of common elements between Dr. Forstchen's various novels... you'll find similar names, anecdotes, historical allegories, etc.

I've only read his WC-books to my knowledge...

Pilgrim Stars was a novel by Peter Telep which follows the events of the Wing Commander movie. It was the second part of a planned trilogy which intended to 'finish' the Pilgrim storyline introduced in the movie and clear the decks for the earlier-published/later-historically Baen books.

I think the movie didn't really follow the storyline very well. The pilgrim thing I think was a way of infusing Star Wars elements like "The Force" into WC.

It definately doesn't - I made up the connection for the 'Ships List' I did for the Secret Ops guys in 1998. The "old Ranger-class" quote in Action Stations is, in retrospect, another one of its pre-WW2 historical references - the 'real' USS Ranger was the first American ship built as an aircraft carrier. 85 years is right, the WC3 novelization says the class was fifty years old when the war started.

Jeez, how did they update the armor and shields and all that over all those years? The shield and armor ratings changed wildly particularly from WC-2 to WC-3.

The Thrak'hra-class was the ComCon ship which appeared a few times in the movie - first during Blair and Angel's patrol and then which the marines board towards the end.

The ConCom was called the Thrak'hra? I suppose it did have some sharp fang like edges. But that antenna was ridiculous. Even modern-day we use phased-array antennae which can scan left right up down, etc way faster than moving a giant dish like that.

Well, yes, the canon is everything that has been published. The bible is specifically interesting because it's a significant progenitor of a lot of published material. We can also figure out why certain things developed the way they did. For example -- why did End Run refer to Blair as 'Phoenix'? We can look at the Bible and figure that out... but it's all archaeological, not ecclesiastical.

Blair was referred to Phoenix in End-Run? When?


Victoria Kent

 

[Nomad Terror]

After seeing the WC-Movie it was kind of my impression that it was meant to give WC-Fans a cool movie for entertainment value instead of just having a bunch of games to play. Fairly early into the movie it was kind of obvious that the movie wasn't exactly following the timeline for the game. One of the reasons I did not like the movie.

This community considers the movie to be completely canon and completely noncontradictory to the overall timeline.

I think the movie didn't really follow the storyline very well. The pilgrim thing I think was a way of infusing Star Wars elements like "The Force" into WC.

Wrong. Blair had the ability to perform intricate mathematical calculations in his head. Nothing more. There is no secret mystical force involved, and there is no reason to think that anyone would want to put a Force element into the movie.

Blair was referred to Phoenix in End-Run? When?

You can download the End Run novel from here. I just browsed through it quickly but Phoenix is mentioned on page 76 (of the PDF file. 68 in the actual book) at least. Jason remembers the mission in Wing Commander 2 where Blair and Norwood (Shadow) first encounter the Concordia.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Nomad Terror...

This community considers the movie to be completely canon and completely noncontradictory to the overall timeline.

Nobody's perfect I guess

Wrong. Blair had the ability to perform intricate mathematical calculations in his head. Nothing more. There is no secret mystical force involved, and there is no reason to think that anyone would want to put a Force element into the movie.

Yeah, but if he was known to have been of a genetically superior breed, his skills as a fighter pilot wouldn't have seemed as amazing.

Regarding to Blair being referred to as Phoenix... wouldn't you consider that to be a continuity-error?

 

[t.c.cgi]

Regarding the statement that battleships aren't going to play any part in the war was not accurate in the fact that even the Claw Marks guide lists dreadnaughts (which are basically battleships -- pretty much all WW2 battleships were dreadaught-battleships)

Except that the use of the term in dreadnought in Wing Commander doesn't clearly refer to a type of battleship. My guess is that it's a term used to denote a class that is special from other warships in some aspect. I mean, there's only one class of ship that's 22km long, only one that uses a PTC, only one that uses a Proton Accelerator, etc. It's Confed's way of saying "this isn't your typical whatever-it-is." Just as back in the day calling one of those new-fangled battleships styled after the HMS Dreadnought a dreadnought was a way of saying "this isn't your typical iron-clad battleship."

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Understood. It probably doesn't necessarily state which one came into being first however to my knowledge.

It doesn't - but neither does Action Stations... the novel claims only that pre-war naval doctrine was based around fleets of battleships rather than fleets of carriers, not that one preceded the other.

I wouldn't be suprized if you were right, I don't recall any serious descriptions in that regard either.

Yeah, McAuliffe only gets a few sentences about fleet sizes. You may have been thinking of the Enyo Engagement (2639), which mentions Raptors in its '15 Years Ago' entry. Knight's bio also mentions flying fighters at Enyo.

The Concordia and the Ark Royal were the carriers involved right?

Those were the carriers involved in the counter-attack - several others were destroyed in spacedock at Alexandria.

Regarding the statement that battleships aren't going to play any part in the war was not accurate in the fact that even the Claw Marks guide lists dreadnaughts (which are basically battleships -- pretty much all WW2 battleships were dreadaught-battleships)

No, I certainly agree that battleships were an important part of WC history. But that's the message of the book, not some statement on my part - carriers on the rise, battleships on the decline.

Can you quote me the exact passage where that was said? If it said the Bengals weren't around in 2634, that's perfectly logical. They weren't. But did it specifically say that no other carrier at all in any shape or form didn't exist before the Bengal?

I don't think you're following - it *doesn't* say anything either way. That's the entire point - you said that it suggested carriers had been essential for the entire war... and it doesn't. It offers no history whatsoever of carriers before the Tiger's Claw enters service in 2644.

If I recall in the game the Sivar-designation given to the dreadnaught that wiped off all the life on Goddard was a code-name that seemed to have been made during the Thor's Hammer campaign. They did not describe it as a Sivar-Class Variant or something.

Sivar was a code-name in The Secret Missions - which brings up an interesting question about which if any Kilrathi names are 'real' Kilrathi terms (I find it hard to believe that the Confederation would name something K'ha'haf...). We don't really know how the one from the movie fits in. Is it a variant (the SWC manual implies that these exist)? Was the Sivar 'super-dreadnought' given this code-name in TSM because it used a similar hull configuration? Is it an entirely unrelated ship that the Kilrathi call Sivar? I'm sure it'll get explained someday.

After seeing the WC-Movie it was kind of my impression that it was meant to give WC-Fans a cool movie for entertainment value instead of just having a bunch of games to play. Fairly early into the movie it was kind of obvious that the movie wasn't exactly following the timeline for the game. One of the reasons I did not like the movie.

The movie generally follows the same timeline - it takes place about a month before the original Wing Commander and tells the story of Maniac and Blair's first missions of the Tiger's Claw.

How much more damage would you speculate the Sivar's weapon did versus the Confederation-Class's

The Sivar's weapon was a planet-smashing super-gun... the Confederation-class' gun was for blowing up other capital ships. The former did several orders of magnitude more damage than the latter.

The Confederation-Class is a class of ship the Concordia is a member of
The Hvar'Kann was the 22,000 meter flagship for Thrakkath
The Agon Ra was the one that looked like a Fralthi II in the Academy Cartoon
The Sivar-Class was the one that wiped Goddard off the map

What's the Project Omega?

It was the secret "dreadnought class battleship" being constructed by the Confederation during Fleet Action. It was rumored to be fast and stealthy and to carry some kind of 'superweapon'. At the time of the novel it was 18 months away from being tested... so whatever it was it wouldn't have seen service in the actual war.

Really?

Yes, really. Heck, I even helped edit some of the later books (False Colors and the movie novels).

I've only read his WC-books to my knowledge...

You probably aren't missing much, unless you especially love his style (or are interested in incredibly detailed alternate histories of the Civil War).

I think the movie didn't really follow the storyline very well. The pilgrim thing I think was a way of infusing Star Wars elements like "The Force" into WC.

People say this, but I can't disagree more strongly - if anything, it's a response to or even parody of the Force. Consider what may be the most famous line in the movie: "it's *not* faith, it's genetics". The point of the Pilgrim 'power' (doing math real fast!) was that it wasn't some mystical superability - it was a grounded and understood scientific thing.

Jeez, how did they update the armor and shields and all that over all those years? The shield and armor ratings changed wildly particularly from WC-2 to WC-3.

Armor itself changed, not the overall thickness of capital ships - a ship that uses isometal armor plating has sixty times the protection as one that uses plain durasteel. Since armor is routinely worn away in combat, any future repairs would just use the new alloys - so a Yorktown class ship with 17 centimeters of durasteel in 2654 might have 1,000 cm durastee equivalent in 2669 just as a matter of practice.

The ConCom was called the Thrak'hra? I suppose it did have some sharp fang like edges. But that antenna was ridiculous. Even modern-day we use phased-array antennae which can scan left right up down, etc way faster than moving a giant dish like that.

Yes, the name (and specifications) come from the Confederation Handbook (Thrakhra was the class - I don't think the specific ship in the movie is ever named). The ship is actually covered in antennae of all sorts - including a big bent-flat one that looks similar to the phased array being used on the MESSENGER spacecraft today.

Blair was referred to Phoenix in End-Run? When?

Early on in the novel, Bear thinks back to a story about 'Phoenix and his wingmate' saving the Concordia after a bomb disabled the flight deck. For years, people wondered what this meant - was it an intentional reference to WC2? Did Forstchen just decide to name Blair 'Phoenix' in the absence of an official callsign? With the recovery of the 1992 writers' guide, we know - Origin had considered a story in which Blair's callsign was changed to 'Phoenix' after the destruction of the Tiger's Claw.

This community considers the movie to be completely canon and completely noncontradictory to the overall timeline.

Well, not exactly - a community doesn't decide what is and is not canon, it wouldn't make sense. The movie continuity is pretty clearly included in Star*Soldier and Arena, though. As for what is and is not contradictory... that's the fun fo these debates, so a blanket statement one way or another can't work.

Regarding to Blair being referred to as Phoenix... wouldn't you consider that to be a continuity-error?

Well, there's two points to be made.

- If yes, so what? Does a continuity error invalidate... anything? The events of End Run are still part of the canon and the story is essential to later works. (Also, who do you 'blame' here? The novel is clearly using a reference from Origin that was later retconned... so it's no *fault* of the licensed book.)

- No, for several possible reasons. One, the story doesn't have to refer to Blair - it was just meant to. It was also intentionally vague, since it was just a wink and a nod. Maybe Phoenix is someone else who saved the Concordia - after all, her flight decks were being knocked out *constantly*. Or, perhaps Blair was actually flying as 'Phoenix' at the time -- there's no concrete story one way or another there.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Bandit LOAF

Yeah, McAuliffe only gets a few sentences about fleet sizes. You may have been thinking of the Enyo Engagement (2639), which mentions Raptors in its '15 Years Ago' entry. Knight's bio also mentions flying fighters at Enyo.

Possibly

Those were the carriers involved in the counter-attack - several others were destroyed in spacedock at Alexandria.

Oh, okay

I don't think you're following - it *doesn't* say anything either way. That's the entire point - you said that it suggested carriers had been essential for the entire war... and it doesn't. It offers no history whatsoever of carriers before the Tiger's Claw enters service in 2644.

Understood

No, I certainly agree that battleships were an important part of WC history. But that's the message of the book, not some statement on my part - carriers on the rise, battleships on the decline.

Keep in mind though... Since the HMS Dreadnaughts, *ALL* Battleships by definition are also Dreadnaughts... so technically any ship called a Battleship in WC is also a Dreadnaught. Any Dreadnaught is technically a type of battleship, although some carried fighter compliments (CVS-65 Concordia)

Sivar was a code-name in The Secret Missions - which brings up an interesting question about which if any Kilrathi names are 'real' Kilrathi terms (I find it hard to believe that the Confederation would name something K'ha'haf...). We don't really know how the one from the movie fits in. Is it a variant (the SWC manual implies that these exist)? Was the Sivar 'super-dreadnought' given this code-name in TSM because it used a similar hull configuration? Is it an entirely unrelated ship that the Kilrathi call Sivar? I'm sure it'll get explained someday.

When was SWC made? Was it made after Freedom Flight?

The movie generally follows the same timeline - it takes place about a month before the original Wing Commander and tells the story of Maniac and Blair's first missions of the Tiger's Claw.

In that it takes place in 2654. But the Rapiers weren't ready until later, the first fighters Blair flew to my knowledge were the Hornets, he had not checked out on Scimitars and Raptors until later... Shotglass was telling Blair about the characateristics of the Scimitar during a conversation in WC-1.

The Sivar's weapon was a planet-smashing super-gun... the Confederation-class' gun was for blowing up other capital ships. The former did several orders of magnitude more damage than the latter.

I think you're overrating the Sivar... it didn't blow a planet up; it simply blew an outpost off the map -- granted there were shields protecting the outpost, but considering that even a particle gun produces a small nuclear explosion on impact, it could have very well been just as powerful as the Confed-Dreadnought's PTC.

It's inability for it to hit targets may have been targeting computer related or due to the ship's maneuverability. And intel guesses aren't always right...

It was the secret "dreadnought class battleship" being constructed by the Confederation during Fleet Action. It was rumored to be fast and stealthy and to carry some kind of 'superweapon'. At the time of the novel it was 18 months away from being tested... so whatever it was it wouldn't have seen service in the actual war.

Yes, really. Heck, I even helped edit some of the later books (False Colors and the movie novels).

Cool! I didn't know that. Were you like some kind of consultant?

You probably aren't missing much, unless you especially love his style (or are interested in incredibly detailed alternate histories of the Civil War).

I just liked his WC stuff. But he did seem to make the characters overly relgious -- dunno why.

People say this, but I can't disagree more strongly - if anything, it's a response to or even parody of the Force. Consider what may be the most famous line in the movie: "it's *not* faith, it's genetics". The point of the Pilgrim 'power' (doing math real fast!) was that it wasn't some mystical superability - it was a grounded and understood scientific thing.

Yeah but it was never mentioned about Blair from WC-1 to WC-P

Armor itself changed, not the overall thickness of capital ships - a ship that uses isometal armor plating has sixty times the protection as one that uses plain durasteel. Since armor is routinely worn away in combat, any future repairs would just use the new alloys - so a Yorktown class ship with 17 centimeters of durasteel in 2654 might have 1,000 cm durastee equivalent in 2669 just as a matter of practice.

Still, the refit time... especially such an old class of ship. You'd have figured they'd have scrapped it and built a whole bunch of new ships.

Yes, the name (and specifications) come from the Confederation Handbook (Thrakhra was the class - I don't think the specific ship in the movie is ever named). The ship is actually covered in antennae of all sorts - including a big bent-flat one that looks similar to the phased array being used on the MESSENGER spacecraft today.

I'd have to look at the MESSENGER. You got a diagram?

Early on in the novel, Bear thinks back to a story about 'Phoenix and his wingmate' saving the Concordia after a bomb disabled the flight deck. For years, people wondered what this meant - was it an intentional reference to WC2? Did Forstchen just decide to name Blair 'Phoenix' in the absence of an official callsign? With the recovery of the 1992 writers' guide, we know - Origin had considered a story in which Blair's callsign was changed to 'Phoenix' after the destruction of the Tiger's Claw.

The statement about the BOMB taking out the flight deck does sound pretty consistent. If a torpedo took it out or a missile or something that would be one thing... but generally the term Bomb isn't used in WC unless it's referring to sabotage... with a few exceptions

Well, not exactly - a community doesn't decide what is and is not canon, it wouldn't make sense. The movie continuity is pretty clearly included in Star*Soldier and Arena, though. As for what is and is not contradictory... that's the fun fo these debates, so a blanket statement one way or another can't work.

Actually, I was a member of a Star Trek forum, we all agreed that we wouldn't consider Nemesis Canon because it sucked. Few disagreed.

Well, there's two points to be made.

- If yes, so what? Does a continuity error invalidate... anything? The events of End Run are still part of the canon and the story is essential to later works. (Also, who do you 'blame' here? The novel is clearly using a reference from Origin that was later retconned... so it's no *fault* of the licensed book.)

- No, for several possible reasons. One, the story doesn't have to refer to Blair - it was just meant to. It was also intentionally vague, since it was just a wink and a nod. Maybe Phoenix is someone else who saved the Concordia - after all, her flight decks were being knocked out *constantly*. Or, perhaps Blair was actually flying as 'Phoenix' at the time -- there's no concrete story one way or another there.

Please read previous comment.


Victoria Kent

 

[AD]

In that it takes place in 2654. But the Rapiers weren't ready until later, the first fighters Blair flew to my knowledge were the Hornets, he had not checked out on Scimitars and Raptors until later... Shotglass was telling Blair about the characateristics of the Scimitar during a conversation in WC-1.

While yes some of the designs are different in the movie (and it's not like they don't change from game to game either) The rapier is one case where we can say with certainty that it isn't the same fighter or even the same make as the Rapier IIs from WC1. They're an old fighter design (the CF-117 ) that gets retired around the time of the movie and WC1. The WC 1 rapier is the F-44 Rapier II

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Keep in mind though... Since the HMS Dreadnaughts, *ALL* Battleships by definition are also Dreadnaughts... so technically any ship called a Battleship in WC is also a Dreadnaught. Any Dreadnaught is technically a type of battleship, although some carried fighter compliments (CVS-65 Concordia)

I couldn't agree more. The Texas-class ships in Action Stations are definately modeled after various state-class American 'dreadnaughts'.

When was SWC made? Was it made after Freedom Flight?

Yes, Super Wing Commander was done two years after Freedom Flight.

I think you're overrating the Sivar... it didn't blow a planet up; it simply blew an outpost off the map -- granted there were shields protecting the outpost, but considering that even a particle gun produces a small nuclear explosion on impact, it could have very well been just as powerful as the Confed-Dreadnought's PTC.

It's inability for it to hit targets may have been targeting computer related or due to the ship's maneuverability. And intel guesses aren't always right...

The Sivar's weapon wiped out everything on the surface of a targetted planet, not just a single outpost. It wasn't a straightforward explosion, either - it was some kind of gravity-increasing blast. We get to see this in the Secret Missions intro in the SNES port - the Kilrathi use it to destroy the planet where it was created (Warhammer XII).

Cool! I didn't know that. Were you like some kind of consultant?

Yeah, I've been the guy they've checked with for continuity stuff on a number of projects. I think I have actual credits on the movie novel, Pilgrim Stars, Prophecy GBA and Arena... and I probably consulted on at least as many others.

I just liked his WC stuff. But he did seem to make the characters overly relgious -- dunno why.

He's a Civil War historian - his idea of a military hero is probably a bit more religious than one created by some more modern-styled writer.

Yeah but it was never mentioned about Blair from WC-1 to WC-P

Well, here's a perfect example of what I was trying to explain earlier. Blair being a 'Pilgrim' is a continuity error... *only* if one of these previous sources already established his religion as something else. If not, it's simply a very common (some would say essential!) appearance of retroactive continuity. Did they? Keep in mind that we're talking about a man who took three games to get a name and five to get a callsign - there's not a lot of background to contradict.

Still, the refit time... especially such an old class of ship. You'd have figured they'd have scrapped it and built a whole bunch of new ships.

I don't even know if it's a matter of refitting a ship - armor has to be replaced on a regular basis. It's like having a house full of old copper pipes and replacing them with PVC ones whenever there's a leak. Eventually you'll have an entirely new system even though you didn't take apart your whole house to put it in all at once. Except that in this situation the Kilrathi are shooting at your house on a daily basis, so you're replacing those pipes constantly.

Also, the novels bring up the idea that producing enough carriers was a key problem throughout the war - because it takes five years to build a new shipyard. The Confederation can't afford to simply throw their old ships away in the middle of a war that's being stalemated at the narrowest margin.

I'd have to look at the MESSENGER. You got a diagram?

I... don't. It's the first (and only) real spacecraft to carry a phased array thus far, I assumed it was what you were talking about.

The statement about the BOMB taking out the flight deck does sound pretty consistent. If a torpedo took it out or a missile or something that would be one thing... but generally the term Bomb isn't used in WC unless it's referring to sabotage... with a few exceptions

The actual quote (which someone linked to earlier) doesn't say bomb: "[Bear] remembered the surprise strike on the Concordia, which had shut down both launch bays and almost finished the ship off...". That said, there are bomb weapons in Wing Commander - look up the infamous Null-G Bomblets!

Actually, I was a member of a Star Trek forum, we all agreed that we wouldn't consider Nemesis Canon because it sucked. Few disagreed.

That's great, but it doesn't mean anything. A canon isn't something for fans to beat their chests about, it's a specific tool for people writing in a shared universe. As long as Paramount is telling their licensees and their script writers that Nemesis 'happened', then it's in the Star Trek canon. There's no other reason to have the concept. "I didn't like {PRODUCT}, so it's not CANON!" just doesn't make sense - we necessarily have no control over such things.

(Now, keep in mind that I'm not some Star Trek Nemesis fan - I will argue to the end of the Earth that it is the only completely worthless Star Trek story - but not liking something and something not being a point of reference for future something-elses aren't one and the same.)

 

[Miracynonyx100]

I couldn't agree more. The Texas-class ships in Action Stations are definately modeled after various state-class American 'dreadnaughts'.

So, I guess it's agreed: all WC-Battleships by definetion are also Dreadnaughts

Yes, Super Wing-Commander was done two years after Freedom Flight.

Didn't SWC actually take various stuff from the Freedom Flight novel?

The Sivar's weapon wiped out everything on the surface of a targetted planet, not just a single outpost. It wasn't a straightforward explosion, either - it was some kind of gravity-increasing blast. We get to see this in the Secret Missions intro in the SNES port - the Kilrathi use it to destroy the planet where it was created (Warhammer XII).

Yeah, but in SNES it was referred to as some kind of Graviton-based weapon. In the PC version it's called a proton-superaccelerator. It sounds like a conflicting designation. Plus the damage shown to Goddard in the WC SM1 game looked like it just got the living crap bombed out if it.

Yeah, I've been the guy they've checked with for continuity stuff on a number of projects. I think I have actual credits on the movie novel, Pilgrim Stars, Prophecy GBA and Arena... and I probably consulted on at least as many others.

It does rock when professionals actually ask you for advice... doesn't it?

Either way, why do you have two nicknames: Bandit and LOAF?

He's a Civil War historian - his idea of a military hero is probably a bit more religious than one created by some more modern-styled writer.

Maybe that was his idea of a military hero would be... but the truth is that a good person, whether hero or not, isn't really defined by being religious, but by having a good sense of morals. And history has shown you can be religious and be a psychopath (no conscience and empathy), and be an agnostic or an atheist and be highly scrupulous. Although I have a feeling many Americans (especially in the 1990's) would have trouble finding an atheist to be a hero -- although I could care less.

I would have never known he was a Civil War historian. I just knew him as the guy who wrote some of the best WC Novels, and that he had a PhD. (I'm not sure about this-- maybe it's another author-- but I think he had a pilot's liscence also.)

Well, here's a perfect example of what I was trying to explain earlier. Blair being a 'Pilgrim' is a continuity error... *only* if one of these previous sources already established his religion as something else. If not, it's simply a very common (some would say essential!) appearance of retroactive continuity. Did they? Keep in mind that we're talking about a man who took three games to get a name and five to get a callsign - there's not a lot of background to contradict.

Actually, I don't think his religion was ever specified in the games, probably so you could just insert whatever you were in his place. That's why you got to put in whatever callsign you wanted.

I don't even know if it's a matter of refitting a ship - armor has to be replaced on a regular basis. It's like having a house full of old copper pipes and replacing them with PVC ones whenever there's a leak. Eventually you'll have an entirely new system even though you didn't take apart your whole house to put it in all at once. Except that in this situation the Kilrathi are shooting at your house on a daily basis, so you're replacing those pipes constantly.

Well not exactly... in WC2 the armor ratings stay the same... the same for WC... in WC-3 they changed. So I guess every couple of years they get new armor. Regarding shield generators that would be a bit of a more complicated upgrade...

Interestingly though, in WC-4 the armor and shield ratings changed even on the same ships.

Also, the novels bring up the idea that producing enough carriers was a key problem throughout the war - because it takes five years to build a new shipyard. The Confederation can't afford to simply throw their old ships away in the middle of a war that's being stalemated at the narrowest margin.

Yeah, I guess that's when you start dragging stuff out of the mothballs...

I... don't. It's the first (and only) real spacecraft to carry a phased array thus far, I assumed it was what you were talking about.

Phased-Array radars typically look like flat-panels. Look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and early shots of the USS Enteprise's island (conning tower)

The actual quote (which someone linked to earlier) doesn't say bomb: "[Bear] remembered the surprise strike on the Concordia, which had shut down both launch bays and almost finished the ship off...". That said, there are bomb weapons in Wing Commander - look up the infamous Null-G Bomblets!

Bear didn't serve on the Concordia until the Gettysburg incident I thought...

What's a null-G Bomblet? Is that like a cluser munition?

That's great, but it doesn't mean anything. A canon isn't something for fans to beat their chests about, it's a specific tool for people writing in a shared universe. As long as Paramount is telling their licensees and their script writers that Nemesis 'happened', then it's in the Star Trek canon. There's no other reason to have the concept. "I didn't like {PRODUCT}, so it's not CANON!" just doesn't make sense - we necessarily have no control over such things.

Well since it was a website in which we were writing all our storys on the same timeline, the moderators (of which I was one) decided that we wouldn't count Nemesis since it sucked so badly -- in otherwords we decided we would simply not acknowledge it. It may have been on the movie screen, but we weren't going to write any stories about it because anyone who's watched Star Trek Nemesis knows, you can make a better story than that with the stuff the dog barfed up.

(Now, keep in mind that I'm not some Star Trek Nemesis fan - I will argue to the end of the Earth that it is the only completely worthless Star Trek story - but not liking something and something not being a point of reference for future something-elses aren't one and the same.)

I would completely agree with you on it being the most worthless Star Trek movie. Even Star Trek V was better than Nemesis (And that's no compliment to Bill Shatner -- in fact Shatner would even acknowledge that the ST:5 was the result of pure panic, hoping someone would know what to do.)


Victoria Kent

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Well not exactly... in WC2 the armor ratings stay the same... the same for WC... in WC-3 they changed. So I guess every couple of years they get new armor. Regarding shield generators that would be a bit of a more complicated upgrade...

Interestingly though, in WC-4 the armor and shield ratings changed even on the same ships.

Between WC 2 and WC 3 you have Armada with shiled and armour rating just in between.

And I would say that replacing a ships armour is more complicated than upgrading its shield generator. Just exchange it for a more powerful/efficient one.

But you just have to look to Priv to see how easy it is to upgrade armour and shields.

Concerning WC 4 - the sole ship that got a protection boost and also appeared in WC 3 is the Hellcat V which went from 220 to 250 shield strength. The Arrow, Longbow, Excalibur, Thunderbolt VII and Dralthi IV all retained their WC 3 values.

What's a null-G Bomblet? Is that like a cluser munition?

It's only mentioned in the WCP manual (I think) and is not simulated in the game (pity). It's description (found here, thanks to Wedge) could imply that it was some sort of cluster munition though my English skills fail me perhaps on that.

 

[Quarto]

So, I guess it's agreed: all WC-Battleships by definetion are also Dreadnaughts

Eh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. In the real world, the "dreadnought" label just referred to all the battleships that were built after HMS Dreadnought (or rather, the ones that shared its most important design feature - exclusively turret-based armament). This clearly is not an especially valuable distinction in WC (...and in fact, the Concordia, with her centre-line PTC, would not qualify as a dreadnought in the classical sense...), so we don't actually know what the definition of a WC dreadnought is.

Yeah, but in SNES it was referred to as some kind of Graviton-based weapon. In the PC version it's called a proton-superaccelerator. It sounds like a conflicting designation. Plus the damage shown to Goddard in the WC SM1 game looked like it just got the living crap bombed out if it.

Well, it's fictional technology from the 27th century - we don't know how it works . Certainly, the two descriptions are not mutually exclusive, because we don't know what they actually mean. Consider, though, that an ordinary present-day gun could be referred to both as an explosives-based weapon, and as a bullet-accelerator... and neither description would really tell us anything about the weapon, in the same way as those descriptions fail to tell us anything about the Sivar's weapon.

Maybe that was his idea of a military hero would be... but the truth is that a good person, whether hero or not, isn't really defined by being religious, but by having a good sense of morals. And history has shown you can be religious and be a psychopath (no conscience and empathy), and be an agnostic or an atheist and be highly scrupulous. Although I have a feeling many Americans (especially in the 1990's) would have trouble finding an atheist to be a hero -- although I could care less.

Religion is where morality comes from, though. The only reason atheists can behave in a moral fashion is because they've been brought up in a society that, thanks to religion, has a moral system.

(that said, I'm not sure why you're going off on this tangent anyway - it seems to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand)

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Quarto...

Morality comes from a properly working Frontal Lobe and Limbic system...


Vicky Kent

 

[Quarto]

Ergh.... must... resist... urge to respond...

...There, I'm in control of myself . I completely disagree, and would love nothing more than to carry on this discussion - but this thread has been weird enough as it is, the last thing it needs is me arguing about religion.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Didn't SWC actually take various stuff from the Freedom Flight novel?

No, just the opposite: Super Wing Commander replaced Secret Missions 2 with a different story.

Yeah, but in SNES it was referred to as some kind of Graviton-based weapon. In the PC version it's called a proton-superaccelerator. It sounds like a conflicting designation. Plus the damage shown to Goddard in the WC SM1 game looked like it just got the living crap bombed out if it.

Quarto already replied to this as well as I possibly can, but I should point out that the 'Proton Accelerator Gun' name doesn't come from The Secret Mission - it's from the later Voices of War timeline.

Either way, why do you have two nicknames: Bandit and LOAF?

Bandit is my callsign, LOAF is my online nickname. It's just something I started doing when I was a teenager posting far too often to Origin's Official Wing Commander Chat Zone.

Maybe that was his idea of a military hero would be... but the truth is that a good person, whether hero or not, isn't really defined by being religious, but by having a good sense of morals. And history has shown you can be religious and be a psychopath (no conscience and empathy), and be an agnostic or an atheist and be highly scrupulous. Although I have a feeling many Americans (especially in the 1990's) would have trouble finding an atheist to be a hero -- although I could care less.

I don't think any of this is especially germaine to the Wing Commander novels. A quick search of the Forstchen-only novels shows 'God' used (over and over) to make Tolwyn sound like Hornblower. I don't think the novels address anything religious beyond that.

Actually, I don't think his religion was ever specified in the games, probably so you could just insert whatever you were in his place. That's why you got to put in whatever callsign you wanted.

That's exactly the point - there isn't anything established about Blair. His character is built entirely around retroactive continuity... making his mother a 'Pilgrim' in the movie is no differently than Wing Commander III giving him a name (though creates fewer continuity issues...).

Well not exactly... in WC2 the armor ratings stay the same... the same for WC... in WC-3 they changed. So I guess every couple of years they get new armor. Regarding shield generators that would be a bit of a more complicated upgrade...

Not really - the Tiger's Claw had 24 cm of armor in Wing Commander I... and the Concordia had 500 cm in Wing Commander II. There's clearly a shift in progress. As for shield generators... it doesn't seem hard - in Privateer it's just a matter of swapping an individual piece of modular technology.

Interestingly though, in WC-4 the armor and shield ratings changed even on the same ships.

That's largely because Wing Commander IV involved *fighting* the kinds of ships you were protecting in Wing Commander III. The earlier game was balanced to let your wingmen and capital ships survive lengthy battles with dozens of enemy fighters... but Wing Commander IV, obviously, had to work differently.

Yeah, I guess that's when you start dragging stuff out of the mothballs...

The idea that the Victory was bought out of mothballs for WC3 is a common fan misconception - Eisen talks about serving on her for his (and her) entire career.

Bear didn't serve on the Concordia until the Gettysburg incident I thought...

Yes, he mentions that a bit later: "That traitor damned near killed everyone on board. It was before I got transferred there, but they're still talking about it."

What's a null-G Bomblet? Is that like a cluser munition?

No one really knows. They were a weapon developed for Wing Commander Prophecy but apparently cut late in the process. A description and picture was included in some printings of the game's ICIS manual.

Well since it was a website in which we were writing all our storys on the same timeline, the moderators (of which I was one) decided that we wouldn't count Nemesis since it sucked so badly -- in otherwords we decided we would simply not acknowledge it. It may have been on the movie screen, but we weren't going to write any stories about it because anyone who's watched Star Trek Nemesis knows, you can make a better story than that with the stuff the dog barfed up.

There are some dangers in a fan group doing something like that, too. First of all, you alienate a potential audience for absolutely no benefit. There's a difference between not liking something and 'officially' pretending it didn't happen. What does such an odd blanket statement mean? You sure showed... the cast and crew of a movie who will never know or care what you think. It's pure spite - tilting at windmills without the romantic aspect. You anger only other fans who *do* like Nemesis and you have absolutely no effect on anyones ability to tell a story.

I would completely agree with you on it being the most worthless Star Trek movie. Even Star Trek V was better than Nemesis (And that's no compliment to Bill Shatner -- in fact Shatner would even acknowledge that the ST:5 was the result of pure panic, hoping someone would know what to do.)

I think Star Trek V deserves a little more credit than anyone gives it.

It was almost certainly doomed from the start, tasked with following up a Star Trek movie that was succesful for all the wrong reasons (I enjoy the heck out of Star Trek IV, but it was a box office hit because it bordered on parody - not because everyone in the world suddenly liked Star Trek). Star Trek V could be another half-comedy and doom the franchise forever... or it could go back to serious drama and lose millions of dollars. They tried to build a happy medium and I think it hurt V and haunted every movie afterwards.

As a result we got a movie that was kind of bland. The jokes didn't work, the story wasn't as 'big' as they hoped. Beyond that, a lot of the criticisms people have of it are far overblown. It was definitely a Star Trek story - boiling it down to 'Kirk fights God' is all well and funny, but that's actually a pretty standard Star Trek commentary.

 

[gr1mre4per]

The idea that the Victory was bought out of mothballs for WC3 is a common fan misconception - Eisen talks about serving on her for his (and her) entire career.

"I been with the Victory most of my career, I was the science officer durin her maiden voyage"

Strange really, I havnt seen any sort of reference to a Yorktown class prior to WC3. But then again, after privateer and armada, i was straight onto WC3. Missed 1 and 2.

 

[LeHah]

As a result we got a movie that was kind of bland. The jokes didn't work, the story wasn't as 'big' as they hoped. Beyond that, a lot of the criticisms people have of it are far overblown. It was definitely a Star Trek story - boiling it down to 'Kirk fights God' is all well and funny, but that's actually a pretty standard Star Trek commentary.

Star Trek V certainly had its heart in the right place. The whole "Lets go find God in the middle of the Galaxy!" idea was so silly yet so epic in a "60s hippy deep thought" way, it would've fit nicely in the original series. The execution was marred not only by Shatner's directing but improper handling of money as well (Rock monsters, etc)