Confederation at War

[Penta2]

When the Navy decides to correct its mistakes, it usually does a pretty good job of it. (e.g. The numerous rewards and recognition given post-humously to General Mitchell.)

I suppose it totally does not matter that Mitchell was in fact with the Army and was convicted by an *Army* court-martial?

 

[AKAImBatman]

I suppose it totally does not matter that Mitchell was in fact with the Army and was convicted by an *Army* court-martial?

Heh. Whoops. s/Navy/Military/g

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Thrakhath ordered the destruction of the stealth production facility on Gorah Khar following the rebellion there (I'm not positive on the year either in 2650s or 2660s). I believe it's described at the beginning of WC2 although I might be (and probably am since the length of time it's been since I've been able to play) wrong.

You're correct. Thrakhath ordered the destruction of the facility shortly after the destruction of the Tiger's Claw, in 2656. The rebellion succeded in taking the planet the next year (and then the Confederation established Olympus Station in the system in 2659).

Vance Richards, a much bigger spook than Paladin, often took on the rank of a lower officer when serving on combat vessels, I believe it's FA where they mention the storires of some of his exploits, I believe related by Paladin even (been too long so forgive my memory, I'm sure LOAF or someone else can correct the errors).

It's from Bondarevsky's internal dialogue in Fleet Action: "...it was often rumored that he traveled into more than one action, hidden away as a staff officer under an assumed name."

I'm not sure the exact quote the marine commander in ER says (AH it's be so long I can see his name but not remember it! Something with a G or M...or I might be thinking of the captain of the Tarawas escort...little help from my fellow wingnuts please!) but the juiciest gossip travels the fastest, some times seemingly faster than burst signals.

The Tarawa had two escorts (as part of Strike Force Valkrie, anyway): the Intrepid (Captain Grierson) and the Kaginasha (Captain Teng). The Marine commander was Col. Jim Merritt. I believe the quote you're looking for is from Grierson: "Hey, juicy gossip is the fastest traveling news of all." (In reaction to Bear's surprise over the fact that he knew about Svetlana.)

But the skipper missiles would have existed in the WCII timeframe, since the production facilities had been rebuilt elsewhere.

I agree -- there's no definitive relationship between the Skippers and the Strakha (in terms of production). Skippers were apparently part of the Kilrathi arsenal for much of the war - Confed learned about their development in the late forties.

Which is exactly what the author claims the torpedos do in AS. With LOAF's information about the Concordia mistake firmly in hand, I can make a case that the author just didn't know any better and backported phase sheilds by accident. This lack of research is shoddy by any standards, especially when doing a prequel. That being said, this book was made at one of the more disorganized times for Origin, and thus it's no surprise that things slipped through the cracks.

I'm not really sure I see the connection between the Concordia incident and the phase shields term. Even if it was wrong to use the *term* phase shields, I certainly don't see that it was wrong to use the concept.

Ah, but there is a difference. The modern Enterprise is a peace-time carrier. As such, her design is intended to last about 25 years between each major overhaul and technology refit. The Enterprise CV-6 was a top-of-the-line wartime carrier which was immediately decommissioned after WWII despite a slew of decorations to her name. (Not the least of which was "The Fighten'est Ship in the Fleet!" )

Another point is that the Nimtz class carrier is distinct from the Enterprise class carrier. The Nimitz was a refinement to the Enterprise design that didn't enter service until ten years after the Enterprise. In many ways, the Enterprise 65 can be likened to the Vesuvius or Midway supercarriers.

The difference is that there was a radical advance in technology at the end of World War II. While Wing Commander is usually a World War II analogue, it falls flat in this area... the Temblor Bomb doesn't lead to a new sort of ship engine, and the series' 'jet' analogue falls flat, with there being no distinct operational difference between ordinary fighters and matter/anti-matter powered ships (or even evidence that such fighters have yet entered mainstream service).

Never the less, so much of stretch isn't required here - the Enterprise (CV-6) remained in mothballs until 1958... the fact that the Confederation still has carriers of an indeterminant age (the Concordia-class may be a thirty year old design... but the Princeton and the Lexington may only be a few years old) active less than four years after the war (*before* the newer heavy cacrriers have even been comissioned) doesn't seem unusual.

(I wasn't trying to imply a relationship between the Enterprise and the Nimitz-class... but I think it is telling that the Nimitz-class has been in *production* for thirty years. That is to say, they're still building one right now -- five years after you'd sugggest, source unseen, that the fleet should be automatically *scrapped*.)

How many references were there to the name Confederation, though? Also the Concordia class was a very powerful carrier despite its relatively small size and difficulties with its PTC cannon. They may have continued production of the ships, minus the cannon. It would certainly parallel well with the Essex class, which had a semi-spin off class, the Ticonderoga.

I don't think the Confederation-class was reletively small -- at 983.7 meters, it's longer than any other carrier in the fleet (and at 73,000 tonnes it's more massive than anything but the Tiger's Claw... including the rest of the Bengal-class ships). (Though I suppose the note here should be that it's technically a 'dreadnought' rather than a carrier, so it's difficult to compare it to the Bengal and Concordia-classes.)

The name itself shows up in the WC2 Joan's and then in the Kilrathi Saga manual's explanation as to why the Phase Transit Cannon was a failure. They certainly could have continued building them, though the original claim in the Joan's Fighting Ships 2664 Update was that the weapon 'formed the keel' of the Confederation-class. It's a story that could be told, but by all accounts hasn't been yet.

That just doesn't sit well with me, though. 30-40 years of technological progess is 30-40 years. Considering that the AS Concordia's class had never been tested in battle against the Kilrathi, I find it hard to believe that they would continue to produce the same exact class. It's far more likely that they'd make massive changes in response to their field use (paralleling the Yorktown -> Essex evolution) and thus result in a brand new class of ship.

Eh, you can swing the same theoretical story the same way: once field tested against the Kilrathi, it worked *so well* that it ended up staying in service for an unusually long amount of time (though I have seen no evidence that thirty years is a long time - Bengals were still around nearly fifty years after their original design -- though there was a major redesign in there. The Ranger-class lasted fifty years in production during peacetime... and then they continued to serve through another thirty years of war.)

In even more fairness to the game, "battleship" has long been used as a generic term for ships of the line. In the original use of the term, only frigates and sloops failed to meet the definition. Concepts like destroyers and cruisers came around long after the term battleship was in common use.

I really haven't ever heard battleship used to refer to cruisers and destroyers... certainly not in the manner in which it's used in the original game (and the dictionary.com definition lists battlewagons as a synonym - though I do not in general trust e-dictionaries).

Still, AS does seem to me to make a clear cut distinction between it's Iowa-class in space compared to things like cruisers and destroyers -- which also show up throughout the story.

He was demoted after the whole Tiger's Claw incident, and then held back for ten years. When the Navy decides to correct its mistakes, it usually does a pretty good job of it. (e.g. The numerous rewards and recognition given post-humously to General Mitchell.)

That being said, promotions usually do come quickly during war. However, it still isn't naval tradition to promote someone to a command position when they have a lack of *any* sort of command experience. It's not because the officer isn't capable, but rather because he can't have any real-world concept of what he's doing yet. He needs a chance to earn the respect necessary for command.

Ehh... I dunno. A Frigate is still rather massive and bound to have a reasonable large crew. They should assign him to something with an extremely small crew. Even so, my understanding is that is NOT a fast track to a large command.

I was thinking about the Tolwyn situation in class earlier. I believe you're absolutely right in saying that he didn't *practically* do much in the course of the novel... but I think there are some clear reasons for his 'fast track' (aside from academic merit and perhaps ability to keep cool under fire). Basically, he had impressed the people whose opinions now matter - Banbridge and Turner knew him because he yelled at Senator Moore... and now that there is a full scale war on, they're in a position to reward people they like. It's somewhat self-serving, but I think it's realistic that the people in power would want to promote like minded individuals.

The indications are that the two sides produce their warships by the thousands - the Kilrathi built two thousand Fralthi and three thousand Ralari. With production ramping up to that level in 2634, it seems appropriate that they'd be desperate for Academy graduates to command warships.

I feel his pain. But what was done, was done, and compouding the problems didn't make them any better. I found his treatment of Tolwyn in "False Colors" to be far more flattering than AS.

When the novels have a "co-author", that's generally the person who wrote the prose. The book packager asks someone whose name they'd like on the cover to do an outline -- and then the lesser known "co-author" writes the book. So, False Colors was largely written by Andrew Keith.

Yep. It's not a surprise that important military figures are connected. There's one thing that always bothered me, though - Banbridge. He's already the Chief of Staff in 2634, which means he's at least forty or so (IIRC, Action Stations mentions how long ago his own graduation was, though I don't remember)... and that just begs the question, how old is he in 2668? And how is it that he's back in the Chief of Staff position again? Since it's established on a few occasions that human lifespans aren't that much longer in the 27th century, that one's a bit of an issue.

My notes say he was born in 2577... which means he was 91 years old when he died.

 

[TopGun]

*Ahem*. Go research what makes a class of ship. Then realize that we are referring to a *class* of carrier called "Concordia" which is *not* the name of the vessel we are capturing. Then take foot, insert in mouth.

The exsistance of the Concordia-Class would suggest a TCS Concordia (the Class-Ship), and since the Concordia-Class in WC IV looks a version of the Ranger-Class, and nothing like the Confederation-Class, it's safe to say that there was a TCS Concordia commissioned WC III.

Also I never said that the ship in the mission was the Concordia

 

[SabreAce]

Given that the TCS Concordia (Confederation Class) had been shot down over Vespus just prior to the start of WC3, it's doubtful there was another TCS Concordia flying around somewhere during that period of time.

 

[Dundradal]

A new heavy weapon that was mounted as a reply to phase shielding.

More likely mounted as a new heavy weapon that could destroy capships with a single hit because of its damage potential. It took years afterwards for confed to develop the PTC from the gravitron gun on the sivar. New shield technology might not have been developed until the mid 2660s, not 100% sure.

Yes? A 30-40 year old wartime hull is lucky to be holding together, much less in operation. If you look at the WWII ships, you'll find that nearly all early war carriers (including the British fleet!) were either decommisioned or converted into training facilities after the war. That's despite the fact that assets like the Enterprise and the Indomitable were still in fighting condition. The commisioning of the Vesuvius class only underscores the point by showing that Confed is putting its resources into new carriers, not old ones.

What makes you think the Princeton was 30-40 years old? Concordias were produced throughout the war. Once the war was over there was no need to produce more carriers if confed already had several in service. The older carriers may have been decommissioned along with CVEs and other smaller vessels, but the newer ships would definately have been retained by confed.

The usual procedure is to mothball a ship just in case it is needed for active service. The ship will then be either reactivated at a later date, or sold for scrap when sufficient replacements exist. Either way, it's doubtful that the BW would attempt to capture a 30+ year old hull. They may be scrapping, but the gain of a carrier older than those of the BWN would hardly make up for the cost of risking one of the few carrier assets they do have.

Again the age of the Princeton itself is not mentioned although the text alludes to the fact that it is a newer member of the class.

 

[spiritplumber]

I agree -- there's no definitive relationship between the Skippers and the Strakha (in terms of production). Skippers were apparently part of the Kilrathi arsenal for much of the war - Confed learned about their development in the late forties.


My notes say he was born in 2577... which means he was 91 years old when he died.

Skippers: I think that it would be harder to cloak bigger things, so cloaking a smaller thing (a missile) was accomplished earlier, then a fighter, then in WC4 a small capship.

Lifespan: Well, 500 years from now I darn well hope that people can live to be 150 if they take care of themselves!

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The Skippers seem fundamentally easier to cloak -- they don't "see out"... they decloak to get a lock and then recloak and are completely blind. A "two way" cloak, which is what the Kilrathi develop for the Strakha, seems like a significantly more complex beast.

 

[Sarty]

The exsistance of the Concordia-Class would suggest a TCS Concordia (the Class-Ship), and since the Concordia-Class in WC IV looks a version of the Ranger-Class, and nothing like the Confederation-Class, it's safe to say that there was a TCS Concordia commissioned WC III.

No, the name-ship of the Concordia class was destroyed at McAuliffe, the Confederation class Concordia was named after it.

 

[AKAImBatman]

I'm not really sure I see the connection between the Concordia incident and the phase shields term. Even if it was wrong to use the *term* phase shields, I certainly don't see that it was wrong to use the concept.

Simple. If the author backported the Concordia without realizing how that would impact pre-WCII canon, wouldn't he also backport all the tech that went with the Concordia? She was a keel up design around the PTC, so her tech was a part of her identity.

The difference is that there was a radical advance in technology at the end of World War II. While Wing Commander is usually a World War II analogue, it falls flat in this area... the Temblor Bomb doesn't lead to a new sort of ship engine, and the series' 'jet' analogue falls flat, with there being no distinct operational difference between ordinary fighters and matter/anti-matter powered ships (or even evidence that such fighters have yet entered mainstream service).

Not so. As in WWII, the tech was all developed *during* the war and deployed thereafter. Jet planes were the biggest development of the war, and led to the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk supercarrier designs. The end of war tech (nuclear propulsion) led to the Enterprise supercarrier a few years later.

The parallels in the WC universe are stunning:

Vesuvius -> Forrestal
Midway -> Enterprise
Post-Midway -> Nimtz

You mentioned that there was no sign of the antimatter tech from WCIV. I disagree. The WCrophecy ships were overall larger, faster, more manuverable, and had far greater firepower than their predecessors. While we don't see the Dragons still in service (not too surprising since they were a prototype), we can see that the newer ships obviously have far more powerful engines and powerplants. Could this be due to the systems of the craft being upgraded to take advantage of the antimatter technology? It seems likely.

Never the less, so much of stretch isn't required here - the Enterprise (CV-6) remained in mothballs until 1958... the fact that the Confederation still has carriers of an indeterminant age (the Concordia-class may be a thirty year old design... but the Princeton and the Lexington may only be a few years old) active less than four years after the war (*before* the newer heavy cacrriers have even been comissioned) doesn't seem unusual.

There are two ways of arguing this, neither one of which makes sense:

1. The Concordia design was so good that it continued being produced throughout the war.

This is a pretty much nonsensical argument. The carrier design MUST have changed to accomidate new tech! At the very least, the addition of capship torpedos would have required a new class with properly fitted tubes. Late model phase shields, capship antimatter drives (which, now that I think about it, may provide some of the loophole that allowed WCII style phase shield improvements; meh), more powerful jump drives, the addition of strike capabilities (which would require a new style of CIC), etc, etc, etc. If those changes don't amount to a new class, then Confed must REALLY like the Concordia name.

2. The Princeton (name used for convenience) was a 30 year old hull that was being repaired because of a carrier shortage.

This makes just as little sense. The Big-E, the Illustrious class, and the Indomitable were all examples of ships that were decommissioned immediately after the war, despite their combat effectiveness. In the UK's case, they didn't even have that many carriers to go around. The trick is that in peacetime, these boats are not needed. They're only reactivated if hostilities break out.

(I wasn't trying to imply a relationship between the Enterprise and the Nimitz-class... but I think it is telling that the Nimitz-class has been in *production* for thirty years. That is to say, they're still building one right now -- five years after you'd sugggest, source unseen, that the fleet should be automatically *scrapped*.)

Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear. The Nimitz is a PEACETIME carrier. i.e. Her design is meant to be adaptable to PEACETIME needs, and thus each successive model gets built a little nicer than the last. This is similar to the WC Ranger class being a PEACETIME carrier. Notice that Confed had retired the Ranger class before the end of the war, and that most had been destroyed.

*IF* a threat as significant as that of WWII again faced the US, you can be quite sure that the CVN(X) program would be accelerated, and that the next carriers to leave the dock would be of classes other than the Nimtz. In short, Peacetime == Most longevity for lowest dollar, Wartime == No dollar spared to get a technological advantage on your opponent.

I don't think the Confederation-class was reletively small -- at 983.7 meters, it's longer than any other carrier in the fleet (and at 73,000 tonnes it's more massive than anything but the Tiger's Claw... including the rest of the Bengal-class ships). (Though I suppose the note here should be that it's technically a 'dreadnought' rather than a carrier, so it's difficult to compare it to the Bengal and Concordia-classes.)

I did say "relatively" . IIRC, the Tiger's Claw is actually longer than the Concordia, but the Concordia outmasses the Tiger's Claw. If you chalk up the extra mass to the PTC, then the Concordia is probably smaller than the Bengal class.

The name itself shows up in the WC2 Joan's and then in the Kilrathi Saga manual's explanation as to why the Phase Transit Cannon was a failure. They certainly could have continued building them, though the original claim in the Joan's Fighting Ships 2664 Update was that the weapon 'formed the keel' of the Confederation-class. It's a story that could be told, but by all accounts hasn't been yet.

Well, since those two are effectively the same source, the "Joan's error theory" could hold. As for the weapon forming the keel, there's nothing saying that the weapon's components would actually have to be installed. Perhaps they filled it in with extra supports, thus strengthening her beam.

I really haven't ever heard battleship used to refer to cruisers and destroyers... certainly not in the manner in which it's used in the original game (and the dictionary.com definition lists battlewagons as a synonym - though I do not in general trust e-dictionaries).

More info on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

It is a fairly generic term, but in modern naval terms it tends to be reserverd for the ships carrying 10" or larger deck guns.

I was thinking about the Tolwyn situation in class earlier. I believe you're absolutely right in saying that he didn't *practically* do much in the course of the novel... but I think there are some clear reasons for his 'fast track' (aside from academic merit and perhaps ability to keep cool under fire). Basically, he had impressed the people whose opinions now matter - Banbridge and Turner knew him because he yelled at Senator Moore... and now that there is a full scale war on, they're in a position to reward people they like. It's somewhat self-serving, but I think it's realistic that the people in power would want to promote like minded individuals.

I take no issue to Tolwyn getting promoted. He did his job admirably. But he didn't show any command intitive or experience necessary to warrant command of a Frigate. That's where my problem lies. It's a bit like giving a Cadet (not even a Second Lieutenant!) command of a platoon of soldiers. You just wouldn't do that. If anything, you'd give him command of something smaller like a Squad.

The indications are that the two sides produce their warships by the thousands - the Kilrathi built two thousand Fralthi and three thousand Ralari. With production ramping up to that level in 2634, it seems appropriate that they'd be desperate for Academy graduates to command warships.

Perhaps, but the traditional method is kick existing officers upstairs, then fill their slots with junior officers. Rinse and repeat.

The exsistance of the Concordia-Class would suggest a TCS Concordia (the Class-Ship), and since the Concordia-Class in WC IV looks a version of the Ranger-Class, and nothing like the Confederation-Class, it's safe to say that there was a TCS Concordia commissioned WC III.

You do realize that you're agreeing with me and not Bandit LOAF? LOAF is claiming that the Concordia class is 30+ years old, and I'm saying that is pure nonsense.

Skippers: I think that it would be harder to cloak bigger things, so cloaking a smaller thing (a missile) was accomplished earlier, then a fighter, then in WC4 a small capship

I think the reason why the skipper didn't appear until WCIII (yes, I believe Eisen) is that Thrakath was focused on developing the tech for fighters. His desire for stealth fighters would have blinded him toward other uses of the technology up until the fighters were in mass production. (And one of the problems with Kilrathi culture is, you don't argue with Crown Princes. )

BTW, spiritplumber, could you check your email? I sent you a question. Thanks!

 

[Sarty]

You do realize that you're agreeing with me and not Bandit LOAF? LOAF is claiming that the Concordia class is 30+ years old, and I'm saying that is pure nonsense.

How is that nonsense. You yourself have repeatedly compared Confed ships to modern day US ships. The Nimitz class, the newest class of US carrier, is exactly 30 years old. So why is it nonsense for Confed to still use a carrier class that is just over 30 years old?

This is a pretty much nonsensical argument. The carrier design MUST have changed to accomidate new tech! At the very least, the addition of capship torpedos would have required a new class with properly fitted tubes. Late model phase shields, capship antimatter drives (which, now that I think about it, may provide some of the loophole that allowed WCII style phase shield improvements; meh), more powerful jump drives, the addition of strike capabilities (which would require a new style of CIC), etc, etc, etc. If those changes don't amount to a new class, then Confed must REALLY like the Concordia name.

Several of the new techs you mentioned dont fall into place with:

1. Capship torpedo tubes. Standard procedure throughout the entire war was for capships to rarely come into contact, especially carriers. It happened occasionally but was supposed to be avoided, so why add torpedo tubes after the war?

2. Strike capabilities. (see above)

3. Capship antimatter drives. I believe capships already have antimatter drives. LOAF knows more than I do but I'm pretty sure that the engine scoops are for exactly that.

4. New jump drives. I dont think new jumpdrives make the jumps any faster or more efficient. I think the only advances in jump drive tech during and after the war was the size of object the drive could effectively encase.

That only leaves new phase-shielding, which I dont think would be too big a refit.

 

[AKAImBatman]

How is that nonsense. You yourself have repeatedly compared Confed ships to modern day US ships. The Nimitz class, the newest class of US carrier, is exactly 30 years old. So why is it nonsense for Confed to still use a carrier class that is just over 30 years old?

Go reread what I wrote. Then reread it again. Then reread it again. Then spend about three days on Wikipedia looking up the "Yorktown", "Essex", "Ticonderoga", "Midway", "Forrestal", "Kitty Hawk", "Enterprise", and "Nimitz" classes. Note their relation to wartime vs. peacetime. Note the technological development. Then reread my post again. Then reread it again. Then hopefully someone will actually pay attention to what I'm saying. (Hint: The words around carrier names aren't decorative.)

Several of the new techs you mentioned dont fall into place with Confed doctrine:

1. Capship torpedo tubes. Standard procedure throughout the entire war was for capships to rarely come into contact, especially carriers. It happened occasionally but was supposed to be avoided, so why add torpedo tubes after the war?

If that was the doctrine, then why did the Concordia have both a primary cannon and massive deck launch capabilities. (Admitedly, I think this was one of those ideas that Roberts has been trying to get away from. A bit like the GravLance concept in the Honor Harrington series.)

2. Strike capabilities. (see above)

Four words:

Bengal
Class
Strike
Carrier

The invention of torpedos would make it pretty dumb not to build carriers with strike capability. Recon and air superiority planes aren't going to win a war.

3. Capship antimatter drives. I believe capships already have antimatter drives. LOAF knows more than I do but I'm pretty sure that the engine scoops are for exactly that.

Possibly. I threw that out there because the more modern WC capships seemed to have better power capabilities than their predecessors. The comments by Pliers and Blair would suggest that the development came about during war time. And in the AS book, I don't believe antimatter drives were ever mentioned. They did mention scooping hydrogen for fuel, but that doesn't necessarily equate to antimatter drives.

That only leaves new phase-shielding, which I dont think would be to big a refit.

Since only large craft carry such shielding, it would suggest that the generators for WCII style shields required a large platform. One might suggest that they tweaked existing shield designs, but there is no evidence to support that. Using the Yorktown class WWII carrier as a reference, the Yorktown carriers were refitted with new armor plates after they proved vulnerable below the waterline. Future classes of carrier had better built-in armor plates that allowed them to better stand up in a fight, and resist the kamakazi runs thrown against them.

 

[Sarty]

Four words:

Bengal
Class
Strike
Carrier

The Bengal was designed before the war, so my point stands.

Recon and air superiority planes aren't going to win a war.

Blair's raid on Kilrah?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Simple. If the author backported the Concordia without realizing how that would impact pre-WCII canon, wouldn't he also backport all the tech that went with the Concordia? She was a keel up design around the PTC, so her tech was a part of her identity.

Then that would be a singular instance of ship specifications having some sort of effect on a novel -- Action Stations' use of the term 'phase shields' to mean what we previously assumed to simply be 'shields' almost certainly comes more from the fact that later novels use the term with complete abandon... with the term showing up over and over again in the Wing Commander III adaptation to describe fighter shielding.

Not so. As in WWII, the tech was all developed *during* the war and deployed thereafter. Jet planes were the biggest development of the war, and led to the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk supercarrier designs. The end of war tech (nuclear propulsion) led to the Enterprise supercarrier a few years later.

The parallels in the WC universe are stunning:

Vesuvius -> Forrestal
Midway -> Enterprise
Post-Midway -> Nimtz

You mentioned that there was no sign of the antimatter tech from WCIV. I disagree. The WCrophecy ships were overall larger, faster, more manuverable, and had far greater firepower than their predecessors. While we don't see the Dragons still in service (not too surprising since they were a prototype), we can see that the newer ships obviously have far more powerful engines and powerplants. Could this be due to the systems of the craft being upgraded to take advantage of the antimatter technology? It seems likely.

I just don't see where you're coming from. The analogy breaks down very easily -- the Vesuvius, for instance, is the more capable carrier in terms of fighter operations... and what about the fleet of modern escort carriers spoken of in the Wing Commander Prophecy literature? There's no direct parallel. Other than the fact that you have two Wing Commander class names that you can line up next to three real class names, I don't see the connection.

And consider what you're suggesting - in order to prove your point that Concordia-class carriers can't exist (?), you would have us believe that the Confederation went without *any* carriers for a period simply because the end of the war is an absolute date for you. Did the US Navy immediately decomission all its ships the day after World War II because it knew that, eh, later on they'd build some better ones? The Confederation Navy is clearly creating a modern carrier force - at the outset of Wing Commander IV in 2673, they are getting ready to fight another war without having comissioned a new class of ships yet.

They've clearly done the World War II analogy by decomissioning the light carriers and the earlier CVEs... heck, they may well have decomissioned the older Bengal-class ships and any surviving pre-war era carriers (which would be the Enterprise CV-6 equivalent - not a carrier built during the war).

In terms of antimatter technology - in fact, the fighters in Wing Commander Prophecy are all smaller than their war era counterparts... theoretically a result of the new doctrine of focusing on specialized roles rather than jack-of-all-trades designs. None of them have the "unlimited afterburner" effect that distinguished the Lance's propulsion system in terms of gameplay... and none of them make use of more gun energy than a Thunderbolt or a Banshee.

There are two ways of arguing this, neither one of which makes sense:

1. The Concordia design was so good that it continued being produced throughout the war.

This is a pretty much nonsensical argument. The carrier design MUST have changed to accomidate new tech! At the very least, the addition of capship torpedos would have required a new class with properly fitted tubes. Late model phase shields, capship antimatter drives (which, now that I think about it, may provide some of the loophole that allowed WCII style phase shield improvements; meh), more powerful jump drives, the addition of strike capabilities (which would require a new style of CIC), etc, etc, etc. If those changes don't amount to a new class, then Confed must REALLY like the Concordia name.

2. The Princeton (name used for convenience) was a 30 year old hull that was being repaired because of a carrier shortage.

This makes just as little sense. The Big-E, the Illustrious class, and the Indomitable were all examples of ships that were decommissioned immediately after the war, despite their combat effectiveness. In the UK's case, they didn't even have that many carriers to go around. The trick is that in peacetime, these boats are not needed. They're only reactivated if hostilities break out.

These arguments have little basis in fact. There has never, ever been a case where upgrading shielding or armor or weapons has resulted in renaming a class of ships in the Wing Commander universe. On the contrary, we've seen ships undergo major structural changes without any sort of acknowledgement -- the Bengal-class, the Hades-class, the WC3 Destroyers, etc.

The fact that a Concordia-class carrier built in 2668 would have shielding modern for 2668 should be an automatic assumption and not an amazing impossibility (... just like the improvements to modern Nimitz-class carriers you reference in another point).

And again, Wing Commander IV is not abject peacetime - Tolwyn was very consciously readying the fleet for another war.

The name Princeton comes from the Wing Commander IV novel, and originally from Wing IV design documents. The designation, CV-48, comes from the game itself.

Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear. The Nimitz is a PEACETIME carrier. i.e. Her design is meant to be adaptable to PEACETIME needs, and thus each successive model gets built a little nicer than the last. This is similar to the WC Ranger class being a PEACETIME carrier. Notice that Confed had retired the Ranger class before the end of the war, and that most had been destroyed.

*IF* a threat as significant as that of WWII again faced the US, you can be quite sure that the CVN(X) program would be accelerated, and that the next carriers to leave the dock would be of classes other than the Nimtz. In short, Peacetime == Most longevity for lowest dollar, Wartime == No dollar spared to get a technological advantage on your opponent.

... and Confed clearly was building a "peacetime" carrier fleet -- but no aspect of it was in place in 2673 (save perhaps whatever class of escort carrier the Wing Commander Prophecy documents allude to). It makes complete sense to me that the fleet in 2673 would be made up of whichever ships best held up through the war -- which would naturally include things like the TCS Lexington, fully refitted months before the surrender.

I don't see how you go from "they'll have new carriers eventually!" to "therefore, they must have *no* carriers now!".

I did say "relatively" . IIRC, the Tiger's Claw is actually longer than the Concordia, but the Concordia outmasses the Tiger's Claw. If you chalk up the extra mass to the PTC, then the Concordia is probably smaller than the Bengal class.

Other way around. At nearly a kilometer in length, the Confederation-class ships were the largest war-era Confederation warships (excluding the Behemoth weapons platform).

Well, since those two are effectively the same source, the "Joan's error theory" could hold. As for the weapon forming the keel, there's nothing saying that the weapon's components would actually have to be installed. Perhaps they filled it in with extra supports, thus strengthening her beam.

They're not at all the same source: they were written by different people and there were six years between the publication of the two manuals.

More info on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

It is a fairly generic term, but in modern naval terms it tends to be reserverd for the ships carrying 10" or larger deck guns.

I guess I still don't understand what you're talking about: why, in your opinion, is Action Stations using the term battleship or battlewagon to refer to anything but analogues for whatever sort of ship you think the Iowa-class is?

I take no issue to Tolwyn getting promoted. He did his job admirably. But he didn't show any command intitive or experience necessary to warrant command of a Frigate. That's where my problem lies. It's a bit like giving a Cadet (not even a Second Lieutenant!) command of a platoon of soldiers. You just wouldn't do that. If anything, you'd give him command of something smaller like a Squad.

Perhaps, but the traditional method is kick existing officers upstairs, then fill their slots with junior officers. Rinse and repeat.

I think it depends on the situation -- Lieutenant Tolwyn who's seen combat and has an Academy education is a more likely candidate the lightest of warships than some new recruit. It's the same reason we have the 'small universe' discussed above -- the pre-war-footing fleet just doesn't have trained officers that can be expanded to fit ten times as many roles. Tolwyn knows Richards knows Turner knows Banbridge etc. specifically because the officer corps in 2634 is so limited.

I think the reason why the skipper didn't appear until WCIII (yes, I believe Eisen) is that Thrakath was focused on developing the tech for fighters. His desire for stealth fighters would have blinded him toward other uses of the technology up until the fighters were in mass production. (And one of the problems with Kilrathi culture is, you don't argue with Crown Princes.)

That's not what I was referring to by quoting Eisen. The phrase "a new type of cloaked missile" indicates that there is an *old* type of cloaked missile.

... and a special thanks to KrisV for upping the character limit as a result of my complaining about having to split replies to this thread! (Although the movie half seems to have disappeared, so maybe it doesn't matter now.)

 

[AKAImBatman]

The Bengal was designed before the war, so my point stands.

And was overhauled after the war started. I'm sure LOAF has lots of wonderful stories to tell on that, but they what good would a STRIKE carrier do when you couldn't strike anything with it?

Blair's raid on Kilrah?

Not like he was carrying a torpedo or anything. Oh, wait.

You do realize that the definition of a Strike carrier is a carrier that is capable of striking it's target? Again using WWII as a reference (since AS is such a blatent ripoff), carriers prior to the invention of the Torpedo Bomber were only able to provide recon and ground support. The addition of Bombers and Torpedo Bombers generated an entire new class of strike carrier (later, fleet carrier). The addition of the torpedo in AS meant that carriers would have to be reengineered around the concept of coordinating defensive planes, torpedo runs, and recon capabilities. That would require a large CIC capable of collecting and intelligently directing the combat.

 

[TC]

Simple. If the author backported the Concordia without realizing how that would impact pre-WCII canon, wouldn't he also backport all the tech that went with the Concordia? She was a keel up design around the PTC, so her tech was a part of her identity.

He didn't do that though... The TCS Concordia in Action Stations isn't a Confederation Class Dreadnaught.

You mentioned that there was no sign of the antimatter tech from WCIV. I disagree. The WCrophecy ships were overall larger, faster, more manuverable, and had far greater firepower than their predecessors. While we don't see the Dragons still in service (not too surprising since they were a prototype), we can see that the newer ships obviously have far more powerful engines and powerplants. Could this be due to the systems of the craft being upgraded to take advantage of the antimatter technology? It seems likely.

The Prophecy ships were all much, much smaller than any other Wing Commander fighters excepting those in Wing Commander 2.

There are two ways of arguing this, neither one of which makes sense:

1. The Concordia design was so good that it continued being produced throughout the war.

This is a pretty much nonsensical argument. The carrier design MUST have changed to accomidate new tech! At the very least, the addition of capship torpedos would have required a new class with properly fitted tubes. Late model phase shields, capship antimatter drives (which, now that I think about it, may provide some of the loophole that allowed WCII style phase shield improvements; meh), more powerful jump drives, the addition of strike capabilities (which would require a new style of CIC), etc, etc, etc. If those changes don't amount to a new class, then Confed must REALLY like the Concordia name.

A few of these capabilities I can't recall having ever seen the Concordia class exhibit... however, the Confederation tends to stick with class names unless there's a complete change in the spaceframe. The Bengal class changed lengths during production, but still kept the class name, for example. There are significantly different sized Bengals out there. Upgrades to systems certainly doesn't seem to be something that they'd change class names based on.

2. The Princeton (name used for convenience) was a 30 year old hull that was being repaired because of a carrier shortage.

This makes just as little sense. The Big-E, the Illustrious class, and the Indomitable were all examples of ships that were decommissioned immediately after the war, despite their combat effectiveness. In the UK's case, they didn't even have that many carriers to go around. The trick is that in peacetime, these boats are not needed. They're only reactivated if hostilities break out.

We can pretty much disprove the fact that the Princton is an astonishingly old carrier by examining the lists of carriers available provided at different points in stories.

Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear. The Nimitz is a PEACETIME carrier. i.e. Her design is meant to be adaptable to PEACETIME needs, and thus each successive model gets built a little nicer than the last. This is similar to the WC Ranger class being a PEACETIME carrier. Notice that Confed had retired the Ranger class before the end of the war, and that most had been destroyed.

The ranger class is decades older than the Concordia class... The fact that it was retired doesn't really tell you a whole lot. There's also the fact that a similar strike capacity was provided for by the new dedicated escort carrier classes that appear to be incredibly quick to construct.

*IF* a threat as significant as that of WWII again faced the US, you can be quite sure that the CVN(X) program would be accelerated, and that the next carriers to leave the dock would be of classes other than the Nimtz. In short, Peacetime == Most longevity for lowest dollar, Wartime == No dollar spared to get a technological advantage on your opponent.

The reason the Confederation was always short on carriers was that it takes 10 years to tool up a shipyard and then a further 5 years to construct a ship. This style of construction doesn't really give you the opportunity to halt construction on existing designs in the middle of a war. You damned well have to keep building what you have because it's better to have the three older style carriers than the first new one you could get out in the same time period. The bottleneck with carrierr superiority was always time and yard capacity. Money wasn't an issue. That noted, they did come up with the Confederation Class during the war, which isn't bad considering the investment they need to make for any new class.

I did say "relatively" . IIRC, the Tiger's Claw is actually longer than the Concordia, but the Concordia outmasses the Tiger's Claw. If you chalk up the extra mass to the PTC, then the Concordia is probably smaller than the Bengal class.

The TCS Concordia is significantly longer than the Tiger's Claw (983.7m vs 700m). If you were talking about the Concordia class, it's 100 meters longer than the Tiger's Claw.

Well, since those two are effectively the same source, the "Joan's error theory" could hold. As for the weapon forming the keel, there's nothing saying that the weapon's components would actually have to be installed. Perhaps they filled it in with extra supports, thus strengthening her beam.

It's possible, but if so, it's strange that nobody mentions one... It's hard to sneak whole carrier classes through a timeline when people are constantly telling you what carriers exist. It's also possible that the Confederation class' yards were some of those that were destroyed.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

And was overhauled after the war started. I'm sure LOAF has lots of wonderful stories to tell on that, but they what good would a STRIKE carrier do when you couldn't strike anything with it?

That's correct -- it wasn't renamed, though.

Not like he was carrying a torpedo or anything. Oh, wait.

You do realize that the definition of a Strike carrier is a carrier that is capable of striking it's target? Again using WWII as a reference (since AS is such a blatent ripoff), carriers prior to the invention of the Torpedo Bomber were only able to provide recon and ground support. The addition of Bombers and Torpedo Bombers generated an entire new class of strike carrier (later, fleet carrier). The addition of the torpedo in AS meant that carriers would have to be reengineered around the concept of coordinating defensive planes, torpedo runs, and recon capabilities. That would require a large CIC capable of collecting and intelligently directing the combat.

Space to ground strikes were one of the roles of pre-war carriers, though (we see space-to-ground bombers in AS) - space to space strikes would seem to be a logical continuation of whatever coordinating system carriers use for these. (Note, of course, that the Victory had no problem catering to torpedo carrying fighters, despite entering service the same year as the Concordia-class.)

 

[TC]

You do realize that the definition of a Strike carrier is a carrier that is capable of striking it's target? Again using WWII as a reference (since AS is such a blatent ripoff), carriers prior to the invention of the Torpedo Bomber were only able to provide recon and ground support. The addition of Bombers and Torpedo Bombers generated an entire new class of strike carrier (later, fleet carrier). The addition of the torpedo in AS meant that carriers would have to be reengineered around the concept of coordinating defensive planes, torpedo runs, and recon capabilities. That would require a large CIC capable of collecting and intelligently directing the combat.

The Bengal class is armed well above a level we see on any other carrier. It's pretty much the only Confederation carrier class we've seen that seems capable of shooting things up. I assume the class was meant to shoot things and use its wing for recon, attacking small craft, and ground attacks. We've seen that the Tiger's Claw has weaponry capable of orbital bombardment, so it doesn't seem out of place...

 

[Sarty]

Not like he was carrying a torpedo or anything. Oh, wait.

Now you are changing your arguement. You said Recon and Air(should be Space) Superiority fighters dont win wars. When I point out the instance in WC that it happens, you reply, "Oh, well he had a bomb so that doesnt count". I dont think so.

And was overhauled after the war started.
You do realize that the definition of a Strike carrier is a carrier that is capable of striking it's target? Again using WWII as a reference (since AS is such a blatent ripoff), carriers prior to the invention of the Torpedo Bomber were only able to provide recon and ground support. The addition of Bombers and Torpedo Bombers generated an entire new class of strike carrier (later, fleet carrier). The addition of the torpedo in AS meant that carriers would have to be reengineered around the concept of coordinating defensive planes, torpedo runs, and recon capabilities. That would require a large CIC capable of collecting and intelligently directing the combat.

It may have been overhauled but do you not notice that after the last of the Bengals were decommisioned no "Strike" carriers have been designed. Thats my whole point. When the Kilrathi attacked McAuliffe with torpedo bombers and decimated Confed's fleet, Confed changed their focus. Suddenly, fighters were the key to military dominance, therefore carriers were needed. They no longer needed ships with large anti-capship armaments.

It is stated in the WC3 guide that most of the capship missile racks found in OLDER ships were replaced with ImRec and heat-seeking missiles, which are anti-fighter missiles.

The fighters became the strike capabilities of capships, if a cruiser or destroyer with no fighters was in the same system as a carrier, the cruiser/destroyer was toast. The bombers you pointed out became the primary strike capabilities once new phase-shielding prevented conventional fighter weaponry from damaging a capship.

 

[AKAImBatman]

Then that would be a singular instance of ship specifications having some sort of effect on a novel -- Action Stations' use of the term 'phase shields' to mean what we previously assumed to simply be 'shields' almost certainly comes more from the fact that later novels use the term with complete abandon... with the term showing up over and over again in the Wing Commander III adaptation to describe fighter shielding.

Another one of Forstchen's mistakes? The WCIII adaption is the only source I am aware of that refers to fighter's shields as "phase". The Kilrathi Saga manual OTOH, says the following:

Phase Shield
The latest in defense technology, capital ship shields are impervious to damage from all fighter mounted missiles and guns. Torpedos are the only fighter-mounted weapons capable of getting through.

I just don't see where you're coming from. The analogy breaks down very easily -- the Vesuvius, for instance, is the more capable carrier in terms of fighter operations...

Eh? How is the Vesuvius's single massive deck more capable than the two good sized Midway decks? Not to mention that the Midway is capable of carrying, refitting, and launching far more planes, Its design obviously reflects a different strategic thinking, but I don't see how it is any less capable than the Vesuvius.

and what about the fleet of modern escort carriers spoken of in the Wing Commander Prophecy literature? There's no direct parallel.

I thought about this too. The Cerberus kind of bothered me, because Jeep Carriers were all decommisioned after the war. After a bit of thinking, I realized two things:

1. The US operates amphibious assault ships, which are a form of mini-carrier. These ships operate helicopters and harrier jump jets off their decks, and are capable of independent operations and supporting fire. Very similar to the Cerberus's role.

2. After WWII, Britian switched to using nothing but light carriers. While these were later found to have problems projecting power, they were full blown carriers with complete flight ops capabilities. e.g. The Centaur class and later the Invincible class. If we assume that Confed encompasses a parallel of both Britian and the US, then things still make sense.

And consider what you're suggesting - in order to prove your point that Concordia-class carriers can't exist (?)

No, I'm attempting to suggest that either:

1. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. This would have made the Concordia class a later arrival. Given its precense at the Battle of Earth, it makes sense that the namesake may have been destroyed and thus replaced with the newer Confederation carrier. This would make the Concordia class easily only 10 years old or less by the time of WCIV.

2. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. Jane's manual "mistakenly" printed the class type as Confederation class, when the Concordia was in fact the first of her kind. Thus later references to the Concordia class carrier actually refer to a ship similar to the WCII Concordia. (Note that this explanation harmonizes with the books the best.)

you would have us believe that the Confederation went without *any* carriers for a period simply because the end of the war is an absolute date for you.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that drawing from the WWII parallel, the Confederation would immediately decommision and mothball its early war/pre-war carrier assets, thus allowing the newer models to remain in service while the latest in carriers finished construction.

Did the US Navy immediately decomission all its ships the day after World War II because it knew that, eh, later on they'd build some better ones?

They DID immediately decommission all of their early war/pre-war carrier assets. I named several classes in both the USN and RN as examples! It's EXPENSIVE to keep wartime readiness! So the fleets were immediately scaled back.

The Confederation Navy is clearly creating a modern carrier force - at the outset of Wing Commander IV in 2673, they are getting ready to fight another war without having comissioned a new class of ships yet.

But the Vesuvius *was* commisioned. Earlier than originally planned, but she was commisioned. And Tolwyn was certain that the existing carriers in service should be more than a match for the BW tech. (Which he would be correct.) It's possible they pulled a carrier from mothballs, but I sincerely doubt it. Remember, the whole situation was smoke and mirrors designed to place the blame for genocide on the Border World's sholders.

They've clearly done the World War II analogy by decomissioning the light carriers and the earlier CVEs... heck, they may well have decomissioned the older Bengal-class ships and any surviving pre-war era carriers (which would be the Enterprise CV-6 equivalent - not a carrier built during the war).

Close, but the Bengal class is a good comparison for the real life Ranger class. The Yorktown class carrier was built just prior to and during WWII.

In terms of antimatter technology - in fact, the fighters in Wing Commander Prophecy are all smaller than their war era counterparts... theoretically a result of the new doctrine of focusing on specialized roles rather than jack-of-all-trades designs. None of them have the "unlimited afterburner" effect that distinguished the Lance's propulsion system in terms of gameplay... and none of them make use of more gun energy than a Thunderbolt or a Banshee.

What are you basing the smaller size on? I have the manual up at the moment, and I don't see any sizes given. An "off the cuff" measurement based on cockpit and missile loadout, shows the Prophecy ships to be substantially bigger than their WCIII & IV counterparts. Also, the weapons appear far more powerful than the WCIII-IV era weapons, in that they penetrate shields and armor at a tremendous rate. These ships are also FAST. Using those assumptions as a baseline, we can figure that they built new fighters with the antimatter technology, but they uped the shields, weapons, and speed to a point where the outstripped the new power capabilities given by the antimatter tech. That would explain why the "no fuel afterburner" no longer exists.

These arguments have little basis in fact. There has never, ever been a case where upgrading shielding or armor or weapons has resulted in renaming a class of ships in the Wing Commander universe. On the contrary, we've seen ships undergo major structural changes without any sort of acknowledgement -- the Bengal-class, the Hades-class, the WC3 Destroyers, etc.

If I may, I'd like to cite a lack of information here. While the Bengal class may have differed significantly between ships, we don't have a whole lot of info on any other than the Tiger's Claw. The Yorktown and Essex classes were in a very similar situation. The Hornet and Wasp were technically in their own classes, yet the Hornet is usually listed as Yorktown class, and Wasp is considered to be part of the Yorktown family. In the Essex class, it has long been stated that no two ships were alike, and the only definition of the Ticonderoga class was the longer hull. Some have even argued that the Ticonderoga wasn't a true class, but rather a way of indetifying some of the more advanced Essex ships.

With so little information, we may be identifying Bengal class carriers that are actually of another subclass or in a class of their own.

The fact that a Concordia-class carrier built in 2668 would have shielding modern for 2668 should be an automatic assumption and not an amazing impossibility (... just like the improvements to modern Nimitz-class carriers you reference in another point).

Yes, but when new technology changes the very face of how a ship functions, it also allows for overall design changes that shipbuilder will take advantage of. For example, the introduction of torpedos would have suggested the addition of torpedo tubes. While a carrier could be refitted with these, they would probably have several issues that make them less effective than a ship which was designed with the tubes in mind. That's what happened between the major WWII classes. For example, the Essex class added the side elevator after the Yorktown class showed how the deck elevators made the carrier vulnerable. That, combined with other major structural changes, resulted in a new class of carrier.

The name Princeton comes from the Wing Commander IV novel, and originally from Wing IV design documents. The designation, CV-48, comes from the game itself.

I'm well aware of the novel. In the game it was unnamed, so I try to refer to it as nameless when speaking about it being an old carrier as opposed to a new carrier.

Other way around. At nearly a kilometer in length, the Confederation-class ships were the largest war-era Confederation warships (excluding the Behemoth weapons platform).

You're right. I had it backwards. The Tiger's Claw was heavier than the Concordia, and the Concordia was longer. (Seems somewhat odd, but whatever.)

They're not at all the same source: they were written by different people and there were six years between the publication of the two manuals.

I said "effectively" the same source. Most of the KS manual is a reorg and reprint of the WC1-WCIII manuals. Speaking of which, can you tell me what page it refers to the problems with the Concordia's cannon? I keep hearing about the issue, but I'd like to read the reference.

I guess I still don't understand what you're talking about: why, in your opinion, is Action Stations using the term battleship or battlewagon to refer to anything but analogues for whatever sort of ship you think the Iowa-class is?

Huh? You said the *game* used the term battleship interchangably, and that you are forgiving of it. I said that I'm even more forgiving, because the term battleship is actually quite generic. I think we both agreed that "battlewagon" was a stupid name, but it's now psudo-canon.

I think it depends on the situation -- Lieutenant Tolwyn who's seen combat and has an Academy education is a more likely candidate the lightest of warships than some new recruit. It's the same reason we have the 'small universe' discussed above -- the pre-war-footing fleet just doesn't have trained officers that can be expanded to fit ten times as many roles. Tolwyn knows Richards knows Turner knows Banbridge etc. specifically because the officer corps in 2634 is so limited.

*sigh* I think it's a rather stupid promotion. That, however, is a subjective opinion. Now dropping the topic.

That's not what I was referring to by quoting Eisen. The phrase "a new type of cloaked missile" indicates that there is an *old* type of cloaked missile.

No, it does not. One could read that into it, but that's playing with words. I could say that the Enterprise CVN-65 was a "new type of nuclear carrier" without suggesting that nuclear carriers existed before that.

Even assuming that you're right (which you're not, you just made that up), how does the "new type" differ from the "old type"? And if he really meant that, why didn't he say "a new type of skipper missile", and then follow up with it's full specs (including cloak)?

... and a special thanks to KrisV for upping the character limit as a result of my complaining about having to split replies to this thread! (Although the movie half seems to have disappeared, so maybe it doesn't matter now.)

Thanks!