Bandit LOAF said:
But seriously, Saga does seem to suffer from 'WC3' syndrome -- which really isn't correct when treating Wing Commander as a timeline instead of a series of linear games. Does including a Venture make that better or just remind everyone that something is wrong, though? ?
We do have alot of 'WC3', thats why I like having the Venture and a few WC2 vessels around to "stir the pot" a bit. Given fan projects want to finish in a reasonable amount of time though (hehehe, how many of those deadlines have come and gone guys?
), it seems that more "face time" is given to the ships from the era and the "tone" its set in.
Bandit LOAF said:
There's also some context to the particular incident that you're leaving out: before making that remark, Blair already believes that the frigate in question has been modified to support a group of strike fighters.
Actually, I did mention that in the first response. He makes the comment after he's discounted that the ship by itself is too small for cargo, not that it has no space
because of the fighters.
"No warship that small had enough cargo space to make a pirate raid profitable. Blair was willing to bet that whatever hold space the frigate did have was tied up in servicing fighters."
Bandit LOAF said:
Besides, your logic doesn't follow through at all on this. If *you* know that the Caernaven-class is 'variable', then so would *Blair*, who would then be unable to dismiss the computer's identification of the ship's class as being 'too small' to haul loot.
Maybe its late but I don't follow. How is Blair then unable to dismiss the computers identification (nitpicking, the computer doesn't declare the ship too small, Blair does after turning to the warbook page and after getting closer for a visual inspection) of the ship's class as being too small if he knows its variable?
If Blair knows the class is variable so does his handy dandy warship book which would list the "sub-types" if you will, just as fighters would probably be (be good to know if you were up against a bomber Sabre or a heavy fighter one, etc). Whatever information that warbook has in it and whatever he saw in his visual inspection seemed to sway him whether or not it could carry enough cargo.
After refering to the warbook, the novel then makes the point (whether it was intended or not - I would guess not, but oh well) of saying that "the
frigate killed the notion that the attack had been a botched raid for booty", not the fact that it was a Caernaven. I guess the wandering point I have is that its only after Blair goes to the warbook and makes a visual inspection that he deams it too small to carry cargo, not based on the fact that its a Caernaven alone.
Bandit LOAF said:
It certainly doesn't absolutely say that they don't carry fighters, but you must admit that it certainly points in that direction. No fighters show up in this battle in spite of the fact that the Juneau's bay clearly continued operating through the end of the fighting.
Very true. But that not to say either ship was outfitted with fighters in the first place, even if they have the ability. We are talking about an already depleted Confed sending two cruisers (and I'm guessing a bit more) to help the Landreich
. We also join the battle pretty deep into it. The Dover's about to go up and it doesn't take much to finally take out the Juneau. The fighters could already have bought it (we are only talking about 10 light fighters if both ships were outfitted).
I don't see how the bays launching shuttles would have any bearing on fighters or no fighters, especially if the fighters had been destroyed. The fact that the bay was operating through the thick of everything might actually be seen as a shred of circumstantial evidence that there were fighters that were already destroyed (bay was already active). Why be so ready to launch shuttles? They aren't going to help you in the battle? Anyway, neither here nor there.
Bandit LOAF said:
Well, that really depends what you mean by we -- I certainly don't believe that there are no Hellcats on the Victory before the end of the Tamayo series. The game pretty much requires there to be some in the Orsini series.
Now, what does that mean exactly? Does Red Squadron fly only Hellcats? Or do they fly Arrows and Hellcats, to make both the references in the novel (which mention both repeatedly) and in the game (which, of course, shows both on the Victory at the start of the game)? The latter seems more likely.
Well, Blair comes on the Victory and lists the 40 fighters on the carrier. Two squads of Arrows, one of Bolts, one of Bows. Arrows are never referenced again as flying in Red Squadron and before we stop at any base to resupply in the book or in the game, the references to Red Squadron consists of Hellcats. I guess there could have been differently armed Arrows that were replaced by all Hellcats at some point (since Tolwyn says hell trade off the Bows for
another squadron of Hellcats) but it seems as though its just another "mistake inside the novel", not worthy of making up someting to make both references right (just like we don't make up anything to make the Coventry a destroyer and a cruiser).
Bandit LOAF said:
That said, the TPoF novel doesn't actually give a class for the TCS Bainbridge; the idea that having a 'half squadron' made it a cruiser seems to be based on the possibly incorrect fan assumption that this is the signature of a Tallahassee-class ship.
If I were assuming today, I would probably call her a Shffield/Coventry-type ship. If I were makin ga reference list, I would call it unspecified.
I don't see how it does not give the class for the Bainbridge. Eisen specifically tells Blair that Dunlevy ended up in cruisers, commanding a half squadron off the Bainbridge.
Bandit LOAF said:
While I agree that the lower numbers I provided are more reasonable, I think that this is a very poor argument. Where's the fun in defending a carrier that can more or less ade through the thick of things without a scratch? See almost every scramble mission in the first three Wing Commander games...
The Tiger's Claw, Concordia and Victory were never really in any danger even from a gameplay perspective -- but I'm still humming the scramble theme music fifteen years later.
I know I always found scrambles one of the most dissappointing types of missions. You're right, the carriers were never in any real danger. Did that not suck away some of the fun and involvment knowing that you could stand back, do nothing and still win the mission because your carrier would still be there? I do agree that the first set is more reasonable, we might have another round of discussion about it, but I think the big downside that will keep coming up is shields weaker than a light carrier
.
Bandit LOAF said:
Then consider it more of a request than a criticism; there are practically threads at the CZ every day with people repeating errors from Fleet Tactics. You may be clinging to some odd ideal on this point, but if your mod is popular than there are going to be a lot of people who end up here for us to yell at who've taken your statistics as the official writ.
Well, if I can get what I want added to the website (making the non-canon stats noticably "Saga-specific" like the tech database), it will be a whole lot easier for you
.
Bandit LOAF said:
While I agree that trolling doesn't help anything, I believe the claim at the time was that the lighting would be fixed at some point -- is this an older screenshot?
He said as much right above the picture.
I really don't know how anyone could enjoy playing in the pitch black
. I usually turn up the ambient light to almost a WC3 "christmas tree" scheme, I just leave it dim enough that the system light source still barely casts shadows on the backsid eof the ships.
C-ya