TCS Concordia (from movie)
- Thread starter callitri
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Short answer: we don't know.
Here's the thing: sci-fi geeks like to derive incredibly rigid numbers and situations that don't really make sense in practice. If we know the Space Army planned to build ten megabattleships on January 1st, 3000 and that they were designed to last 50 years then it is treated as a given that they could never build more or less of the ships and that on January 1st, 3050 they will all immediately cease to exist.
That doesn't match the situation. Just think about it -- the Confederation likely *isn't* going to be decomissioning fleets of "older" warships in the middle of their desperate war for survival against a numerically superior foe. (And I use the term older with some trepidation, since the Concordia-class SuperCruisers seem to be fairly new as warships go. We certainly see older ships after the movie - Bengals, Southamptons, Tallahassees, Yorktowns, etc.)
(... and I will note the exception to this logic, which is that we do know that the Durango-class Heavy Destroyers were retired 'ten years' before Wing Commander IV... which would be ~2663, during the war.)
Beyond that, I don't think there can be two TCS Concordias at the same time - the Confederation-class TCS Concordia (which comes on the scene seven years later) almost certainly indicates that the supercruiser has been destroyed or otherwise stricken from service.
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Totally irrelevant but I always wondered - if it says 4 Antimatter Guns does it mean 4 Antimatter Turrets? Because each turret has two barrels thus making it 8 Antimatter guns? Or what?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
That's likely what it means.
callitri
Rear Admiral
thx guys for the specs and info , just need to figure out where to put the flight deck , my idea would be at the wides part where ad they launch and land side ways what u think
so the smaller turets are alsoe anti ship guns? not AA turets?
and the AA rockets are mounted in turrets or launched verticaly personali i would go for the vertical launch system got a prety nice silo made for something else
btw a little update completed the ribs and mounted the secondary guns plz look at my idea for fighter bay area and give suggestions thx guys hope u like it
so the smaller turets are alsoe anti ship guns? not AA turets?
and the AA rockets are mounted in turrets or launched verticaly personali i would go for the vertical launch system got a prety nice silo made for something else
btw a little update completed the ribs and mounted the secondary guns plz look at my idea for fighter bay area and give suggestions thx guys hope u like it
Attachments
frostytheplebe
Seventh Part of the Seal
There is a question I'm sure someone is dying to ask. So I'll ask, and answer it at the same time. "Well there can be no two ships of the same name, but what about classes of ships with the same name? Supercruisers and Carriers."
The answer: Weird and somewhat confusing though this may be, its not AS uncommon as you may think...
The United States Navy had two separate Iowa class battleships one was a class of Pre Dreadnoughts which, unless I'm mistaken, served with the GWF. The other is the ones we all know and love that were put into inactive reserve in 1991.
ELTEE
Vice Admiral
It appears, then, that in the end we are left with three ships and two ship classes named Concordia: 1 supercruiser, 1 fleet carrier, and 1 Confederation class dreadnaught.
I would think the potential for overlap could be high, especially in the case of the supercruiser and the original fleet carrier, but it doesn't really matter. With a navy so large, I don't see it as being that big of a deal. Each ship would have had unique service numbers and probably enjoy completely separate areas of operation.
I would think the potential for overlap could be high, especially in the case of the supercruiser and the original fleet carrier, but it doesn't really matter. With a navy so large, I don't see it as being that big of a deal. Each ship would have had unique service numbers and probably enjoy completely separate areas of operation.
frostytheplebe
Seventh Part of the Seal
Are you sure there weren't three forward turrets on that ship? If you take a look at the one next to her, which appears to be the same class, that ship has three turrets.
I thought she used them more like a destroyer would. I dont I've ever seen a sub with broadside torps.
callitri
Rear Admiral
i mean when it fired them from its frontal section , and ye there are 3 on top only i am having problems fiting 3 turrets so all can fire forward couse as they are on the mode they cant wich is kinda strange since it stands with her nose twords the kilrathi ships jumping in any ideas?
Farbourne
Rear Admiral
It does seem odd that you would have three ships and two classes named Concordia in short order, and possibly even overlapping, especially given the (understandable) penchant navies have for not having two active ships with the same name.
Two questions.
1) Where in the canon is the Concordia class fleet carrier TCS Concordia established? Is it just the one line in WC4 where the carrier you raid is referred to as "Concordia class"? If so, could it just be that BW intelligence was wrong, and they thought there was a Concordia class (either a Confederation class dreadnought that was just colloquially referred to as "Concordia class" or a Concordia class cruiser) ship there, but it turned out it was something else? Or does the canon establish a Concordia class fleet carrier?
2) Do we ever see or hear of a TCS Confederation? Or do we just infer that there was one from the class name? Is it possible that the Confederation class dreadnought we know as the "Concordia" from WC2 was originally named the "Confederation" while under construction, but when one or the other of the "Concordias" got destroyed, it was re-named the "Concordia" to honor the highly decorated ship that had just gotten destroyed? But "Confederation" remained the name of the class because (a) it stuck, and (b) it would be too confusing to have THREE Concordia classes?
Renaming a ship under construction or just completed is common practice in today's navy...if a particularly decorated ship is sunk and a new ship has just been completed, they will sometimes change the new ship's name to reflect the decorated one. For example, the USS Hornet, an Essex class carrier, was originally named something else, but was re-named the Hornet after the original Yorktown class Hornet was sunk at Guadalcanal.
Two questions.
1) Where in the canon is the Concordia class fleet carrier TCS Concordia established? Is it just the one line in WC4 where the carrier you raid is referred to as "Concordia class"? If so, could it just be that BW intelligence was wrong, and they thought there was a Concordia class (either a Confederation class dreadnought that was just colloquially referred to as "Concordia class" or a Concordia class cruiser) ship there, but it turned out it was something else? Or does the canon establish a Concordia class fleet carrier?
2) Do we ever see or hear of a TCS Confederation? Or do we just infer that there was one from the class name? Is it possible that the Confederation class dreadnought we know as the "Concordia" from WC2 was originally named the "Confederation" while under construction, but when one or the other of the "Concordias" got destroyed, it was re-named the "Concordia" to honor the highly decorated ship that had just gotten destroyed? But "Confederation" remained the name of the class because (a) it stuck, and (b) it would be too confusing to have THREE Concordia classes?
Renaming a ship under construction or just completed is common practice in today's navy...if a particularly decorated ship is sunk and a new ship has just been completed, they will sometimes change the new ship's name to reflect the decorated one. For example, the USS Hornet, an Essex class carrier, was originally named something else, but was re-named the Hornet after the original Yorktown class Hornet was sunk at Guadalcanal.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Looking great! I'm glad someone is paying attention to this oft-forgotten ship class.
The novel "Pilgrim Stars" describes the internals of the Concordia-class in some detail - let me thumb through a copy tonight and get back to you on this one.
They're supposed to evoke the submarine or destroyer-launched torpedoes used in World War II -- Google for 'Mark 14 Torpedo' -- more than they were cruise missiles (they lack the wings and the more comprehensive guidance mechanisms that you assosciate with cruise missiles).
But I do think that a verticle launch system of some sort would be a good way to integrate them into this model.
We don't know of any overlap; the original TCS Concordia (the carrier) was destroyed in 2634, during the first battle of the war. The second, the supercruiser, entered service some time after the Pilgrim War (so after 2635) and was last mentioned in 2656... and then the third, the dreadnaught, can not have entered service before 2660 (most likely 2661).
Action Station ends with the suggestion that 'Concordia' is a proud name that, because of the first carrier's actions, be carried on to future ships. That in mind, it actually makes more sense for the movie Concordia to exist... otherwise they went over twenty five years without using the name for another ship (also, the Kilrathi Saga manual mentions a Concordia in 2656... which is before the WC2 ship could have been around).
I will scan the side/top view in the Handbook to help with your turret placement.
The name 'Concordia class carrier' does originate from Wing Commander IV, but the ship herself appears in the novel Action Stations.
It's possible, but it doesn't pass the 'why' test - we're not limited to there being only one Confederation-class ship in the fleet.
The novel "Pilgrim Stars" describes the internals of the Concordia-class in some detail - let me thumb through a copy tonight and get back to you on this one.
They're supposed to evoke the submarine or destroyer-launched torpedoes used in World War II -- Google for 'Mark 14 Torpedo' -- more than they were cruise missiles (they lack the wings and the more comprehensive guidance mechanisms that you assosciate with cruise missiles).
But I do think that a verticle launch system of some sort would be a good way to integrate them into this model.
We don't know of any overlap; the original TCS Concordia (the carrier) was destroyed in 2634, during the first battle of the war. The second, the supercruiser, entered service some time after the Pilgrim War (so after 2635) and was last mentioned in 2656... and then the third, the dreadnaught, can not have entered service before 2660 (most likely 2661).
Action Station ends with the suggestion that 'Concordia' is a proud name that, because of the first carrier's actions, be carried on to future ships. That in mind, it actually makes more sense for the movie Concordia to exist... otherwise they went over twenty five years without using the name for another ship (also, the Kilrathi Saga manual mentions a Concordia in 2656... which is before the WC2 ship could have been around).
I will scan the side/top view in the Handbook to help with your turret placement.
The name 'Concordia class carrier' does originate from Wing Commander IV, but the ship herself appears in the novel Action Stations.
It's possible, but it doesn't pass the 'why' test - we're not limited to there being only one Confederation-class ship in the fleet.
frostytheplebe
Seventh Part of the Seal
AD
Finder of things, Doer of stuff
The one in the middle berth on the right hand side also looks like another Bengal.
frostytheplebe
Seventh Part of the Seal
ChanceKell
Rear Admiral
I think that's the idea.
And considering no ship in the American fleet circa 1941 could fly through space... doubly so.
frostytheplebe
Seventh Part of the Seal
The Concordia bears a striking resemblance to the Nelson class battleship in terms of gun placement, you may want to start there as she also has three forward turrets.
Also, whos to say all three turrets were meant to be fired straight forward? I doubt the turrets could only move side to side. Perhaps the guns could have been risen and lowered as well.
A second thought could be making the dorsal hull slope a bit to make it possible that all the guns could fire straight I see no evidence that the decks were completely flat.
