Cruiser Confusion

Dragon1

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Ok, I have done extensive research from the 'Search' button on the Tallahassee-class Cruiser and have found some interesting, but conflicting information about when this class entered service. I personally have always thought that the Tallahassee-class CC/CA and the Sheffield type destroyers were old ships, but some recent mods and fanfiction states that both of these ship classes are state-of-the-art in 2669.

I remember in the WC3 novel (which I read when I was 15, so my memory may be slightly inaccurate) that the Victory's escort ships were described as being as old as she was. This seems to make sense because the Ajax, Sheffield and Coventry all appear to be of a similar design lineage as the Ranger and Concordia classes. The Tallahassees' seem to be a very numerous class (in service with both Confed and militia units). In WC4, the Tallahassee's do not have any AMGs mounted and instead utilize laser batteries. This may indicate that the AMGs were an afterthought, equipped in a refit.

The design philosophy of the Waterloo-class Cruiser is much more complicated than the Tallahassee and is more along the lines of the post-war Plunckett and Cerberus-class Cruisers. Also, the Tallahassee had a limited fighter complement, whereas the Waterloo carried 40 fighters and the Cerberus carried 30 or so (based on my observations from the Special Ops Game). The Sheffield and Coventry also had alot more in common with the ancient Durango-class. Though these destroyers had little in common with the sleek Gilgamesh-class. The later Murphy-class also appeared to be more closely related to a Gilgamesh than a Sheffield.

What do you guys think?
 
Your initial thought is correct - the Tallahassee-class is pre-war/early-war vintage, per the WC3 novel. I hate to be critical of fanfic, since it's ultimately a noble endeavour, but it isn't a great source for solid facts.

The Waterloo is a bit older than you're implying, though - it was around in the mid-fifties (the Ras Nik'hra blew up the Waterloo-class TCS Leningrad during the Vega Campaign).

Your guess ono the Cerberus is spot on - the WCP Gold manual confirms that the fighter complement is 30 (or 28 and 2 Hercules LCs).
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The Waterloo is a bit older than you're implying, though - it was around in the mid-fifties (the Ras Nik'hra blew up the Waterloo-class TCS Leningrad during the Vega Campaign).
Click to expand...

Was there a new cruiser built in the 60s in the canon? I remember a mention to the Achilles and the Agamemnon, but according to older threads, the general consensus is that these ships were actually Tallahassee-class.

Is it possible that, like the Concordia-class Carrier, the Tallahassee-class Cruisers were constructed throughout the war? If this were the case, new Tallahassees could concievably be coming off of the assembly line in 2669. This may satisfy both the canon and the fanfiction about the Tallahassee being both a pre-war/early-war ship and a late war model.

Also, some of the forward arrays on the Tallahassees were different (particularly the Border Worlds ships). May there have been similarly modelled Tallahassee I, Tallahassee II, Tallahassee III ships (like the Kilrathi's Fralthi)?
 
Was there a new cruiser built in the 60s in the canon? I remember a mention to the Achilles and the Agamemnon, but according to older threads, the general consensus is that these ships were actually Tallahassee-class.
Click to expand...

I would say that these two are a distinct class of heavy cruisers - the WCIV novel certainly makes the distinction that Achilles and Agamemnon are uniquely heavy ships. We certainly know of other cruisers (Gettysburg-class, Manassas-type, etc.), but not any that specifically came online in the sixties.

Is it possible that, like the Concordia-class Carrier, the Tallahassee-class Cruisers were constructed throughout the war? If this were the case, new Tallahassees could concievably be coming off of the assembly line in 2669. This may satisfy both the canon and the fanfiction about the Tallahassee being both a pre-war/early-war ship and a late war model.
Click to expand...

That's certainly possible/likely.

Also, some of the forward arrays on the Tallahassees were different (particularly the Border Worlds ships). May there have been similarly modelled Tallahassee I, Tallahassee II, Tallahassee III ships (like the Kilrathi's Fralthi)?
Click to expand...

I believe the roman numeral would generally refer to a completely new design - the Fralthi and the Fralthi II aren't related by design... but as with any ship there would certainly be modifications to the existing design throughout the production cycle (I don't recall specifically how the WC4 ships look different, though).
 
I think they were built either throughout the war, or the design was picked up because it was easy to produce, repair or to modify. They only had the same hull configuration, all of the systems, weapons, armor were up to the nowadays standard. remember, in WC3, a Tallahasse can put up a fight when attacked by a Fralthi II, the new premiere heavy cruiser of the Kilrathi, and beat it. Even if they were refitted, an old ship would have a hard time doing that. Plus we see quite some of them in WC4 too, and I#d imagine Confed would immedeatly retire them after the war if they were that old.

EDIT:

@LOAF: The WC3 and WC4 designs were indeed different. I looked at the original ingame models and IIRC, the differed slightly in their proportions and shape. Some window positions are different or removed, and the tech grating part on the sides of the bow is different too(windows in WC§ there, just technical stuff in WC4)

I think there are different version, like with the Bengal class(the two variants differeing in lenght etc.)
 
Lynx said:
I think they were built either throughout the war, or the design was picked up because it was easy to produce, repair or to modify. They only had the same hull configuration, all of the systems, weapons, armor were up to the nowadays standard. remember, in WC3, a Tallahasse can put up a fight when attacked by a Fralthi II, the new premiere heavy cruiser of the Kilrathi, and beat it. Even if they were refitted, an old ship would have a hard time doing that. Plus we see quite some of them in WC4 too, and I#d imagine Confed would immedeatly retire them after the war if they were that old.
Click to expand...

I agree. Although, strangely enough, the Cruisers in WC4 didn't have AMGs. The Victory Streak manual also didn't mention them in the armament. The way that manual mentioned the capital ships (Light Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, etc...) leaving out class-names and specific details indicates to me that these ships listed were probably massed produced and very common on the front lines.

Some sites also state that these ships carry onboard torpedoes. While I don't dispute that they could and probably would if this weren't a fictional universe, the games didn't show any capships ever firing torpedoes. Tactically, would it really be tangible for a large warship to fire a slow moving missile weapon that could probably shoot down the torp before it ever got into range? This factor is why torpedo bombers had to be very close to the target vessel when releasing the torp. Is there any canon reference to cruisers and destroyers carrying torpedoes in the novels? And if so, did they have heavier and faster torps than the bombers?

Thanks
 
Fleet Action and End Run have cruisers and destroyers firing torpedoes at each other. While torps can of course be shot down by point defences, the sheer number of them a capital ship can fire (the destroyers in Fleet Action can salvo a dozen, for example) and their destructive potential makes them a very usefull addition to energy weapons.

Best, Raptor
 
Capital ships do carry torpedoes - they show up throughout the novels (and in a few guide references... and in the movie). There's a lot of 'capship v capship' warfare that we just don't see in the context of the games.

The general agreement among the fanbase (and the various novelists!) is that the games simulate only some of a capital ships weaponry - and in the "continuity" thre are various point defense weapons and "heavy" weapons (plasma guns, torpedoes, etc) that just aren't simulated.
 
So there's an entire class of Confed cruisers that we have no data on? Interesting. Just for kicks, (yes, I am considering thinking up specs for this thing. No, it won't mount 8 PTCs on a Vesuvius-sized monstrosity that is lighter than a frigate), would this thing be heavier than a Waterloo-class, or between a Waterloo and a Tallahassee? Would this be more anti-capship oriented, or would it be more of an anti-fighter hull?
 
The "Achilles or Agamemnon" class is a good opportunity for someone who wants to invent a fanboy ubership - they're supposed to be "the fleets heaviest cruisers" -- which means you can, arguably, set up a ship that's bigger and more powerful than the Concordia and Gettysburg-class ships.

All we know about the ships is that there are only two of them in the fleet and that they carry a crew of 330.
 
I hate chiming in something now, but the proper literal phrase was "Fleet's most powerful heavy cruisers" (pg 171). And the other thing I noticed in the novel that's been overlooked so far was when Tolwyn was making his case for War in front of the senate, he referred to the Achilles as a "Fleet cruiser" (pg 333).
 
Does 'fleet cruiser' mean anything but a cruiser that's part of the fleet? Googling for it shows a lot of bicycles and 'star fleet cruisers'. :)
 
Hey, I didn't say anything to support or deny it :) I just threw those facts out there for anyone who wants to design it.

Personally, I'm don't have time for it. It took me a lot of work to coordinate with Lynx to make that light cruiser to complement the WC3 heavy one. I simply don't have the resources/time/manpower to design a heavy cruiser that's heavier then the WC3 heavy cruiser :(
 
Being referred to as a "Fleet Cruiser" may give some additional guidelines as to the size and armament the Achilles/Agamemnon-class cruisers are, as the Concordia-class carriers (and presumably the Lexington-class ones, as well) are referred to as "fleet carriers." IIRC, these carriers' main striking force were their fighters, with only point-defense weaponry to deter other fighters. The screening destroyers, frigates, and cruisers were meant to defend the carrier against larger threats.

Perhaps the mystery cruisers were meant to be the antithesis of the fleet carrier: Big, gunheavy warships, who could take on any capship in space (barring a Hvar'kann dreadnought) without much trouble, but would have to have carriers (CVLs, perhaps?) to fend off any fighters that trouble it. Think of it like a WWI dreadnought: All big guns, with some point defense weaponry. Maybe some torpedo launchers, as well? I figure the thing can't be all that big, perhaps a little over 600 meters? The space saved by not having a flight deck would make a difference, allowing it to be larger than both a Tallahassee and Waterloo-class, yet pack more firepower. Maybe it can be a bit "chunkier" than the thin Tallahassee, as well.

As for speed, maybe make it a little slower than the Tallahassee?
 
It's your choice. Achilles/Agamemnon debate aside (I'm not getting involved with this one), I kinda always thought the fleet cruiser as a standard vanilla stock cruiser (synonomous with fleet carrier). Kinda in the same way how the Ticonderoga-class cruisers of today's US Navy aren't designated heavy or light cruisers, just plain ol' cruiser.

In fact, my original plan for Fleet Tactics was to designate three classes of cruisers in the Confed 2669 Inventory. Light, fleet (medium), and heavy. I was to put the Tallahassee and Fralthi II as fleet medium cruisers. Then I looked at the freakin WC3 official guide again, and it said the TCS Ajax and the Fralthi II were indeed heavy cruisers, then that fucked my plans over, and I had to start over from square one.
 
Mmm, fleet doesn't work that way with carriers, though - the Midway is a 'Heavy Fleet Carrier', for example. It just means that it's a straight up ship of the line rather than some sort of patrol or deep strike ship.
 
Yeah, I seem to notice that 'fleet carrier' seems to be refer to either 1) stock vanilla aircraft carrier with no cool bells or whistles (like Concordia-class), or referring to 2) any large aircraft carrier of the line (Tolwyn called Vesuvius-class the newest fleet carriers, for example, and of course, your Midway reference).

But I digress, the topic here is about cruisers. I don't want to pull this thread off track.
 
Carrier designations

Some info that may of help those parsing out "fleet" this and "light" that. Looks to be of slight help to WC fans. This explanation is of course only "canon" to modern water navies:


From the sci.military.naval FAQ


The way warships are classified tends to be controversial, and there is no
set definition for the meaning of a term. There are, however, some nearly
"standard" classifications that can be applied to most major warships.
The designations listed here attempt to be "universal" to the greatest
degree possible. Keep in mind that many nations chose to "do things their
own way" at one time or another. An excellent example is the US Navy's
use of the term "frigate" from the 1950s to 1975 (see E.11). Also remember
that the definitions of terms tend to change over time, and several
classifications may be applicable to a single warship as the ship and the
classifications evolve. For example, a typical destroyer built during
WWII and still in service in 1996 would still be classified as a
destroyer, but it would be more similar to a modern frigate, corvette or
offshore patrol vessel depending on it's level of modernization. Some of
these designations are applied retrospectively, that is, a modern
designation is applied to older ships. For example, the "light carrier"
classification was not used prior to WWII, but, looking back, it is
obvious that some ships in service prior to WWII were certainly "light"
when compared to the majority of ships in service.

These terms are defined as they apply to "modern" (post-US Civil War)
steel, non-sail-powered warships.

Aircraft Carriers

The key characteristic of an aircraft carrier is that the ship is designed
to operate fixed-wing aircraft from a large flight deck, and is
equipped to maintain those aircraft and carry their fuel, weapons,
spares, etc.

Fleet Carrier (CV)

This is the "standard" upon which carrier sub-types are based.
Designation as a CV (as opposed to one of the specialized types)
implies that the ship is a mainly multi-mission vessel, similar in
size to the majority of CVs in service at the time, intended for
use as the major vessel of offensive task forces. Capable of
operating against enemy surface, air, submarine threats.

Large Carrier (CVB)

Fleet carrier with heavier armor and armament than
contemporary fleet carriers. Origin of designation may be
"Battle Carrier".

Attack Carrier (CVA)

Fleet carrier operating primarily (nuclear) attack aircraft,
rather than a full range of multi- and special-mission aircraft.
A mainly political classification to indicate nuclear capabilty.

Light Carrier (CVL) or Light Fleet Carrier

A smaller fleet carrier operating the full range of aircraft
operated by a contemporary fleet carrier, but fewer of them.
Capable of operating tactically with fleet carriers. Differs
from a CVE primarily in being intended for offensive operations,
and thus having higher speed and greater armament. Generally
built on a warship-type hull, rather than a merchant hull as in
a CVE.

AntiSubmarine Carrier (CVS)

Operating anti-submarine (ASW) aircraft as the center of an
ASW task group. Differs from a CVE in being faster and being
a true warship, rather than a converted merchant design.

Seaplane Carrier (CVS)

Ship intended to carry and operate seaplanes in scouting or
offensive roles. CVS designation rarely used, to avoid
confusion with Antisubmarine Carriers.

Escort Carrier (CVE)

Small, slower, generally mass-produced carrier intended
as a convoy escor, particularly ASW escort. Generally lightly
armed and armored, not intended for operation against enemy
surface or air threats. Note that the differentiations
between CVL, CVS and CVE is based on equipment and mission,
not size of the ship. Many CVEs were actually larger than
contemporary CVLs, but slower, less well armed/armored, and
intended for a different mission.
 
So the "Fleet x" designation just makes it your basic stock vessel. No specialized mission or purpose,. The mystery cruiser is a "Heavy Fleet Cruiser," according to the WCIV novel, so one would assume that it's just a bigger cruiser than your average Tallahassee-class. Hell, the "Most Powerful" comment could come from the cruiser mounting an extra AMG turret, and it technically would be the most powerful. Hmm, I think I'll let someone else take a shot at this cruiser, it's not quite what I would have thought up. WC has enough cruisers, I don't need to go making up stats for another.

Now, if WC had something like the PT boats of yore, I might be a bit more interested.
 
Patton said:
Now, if WC had something like the PT boats of yore, I might be a bit more interested.
Click to expand...

If you go to the Origin Archives Project in the new CIC section, there's something about "Fast Attack Craft" (AKA Patrol Boats) in the WCP Ship Sections. So in some form, they exist. You can start from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top