My attempt at a Bengal

Tiger's Claw, a strike carrier, is CV... Concordia, a dreadnought, is CVS. Clearly CVS doesn't stand for Strike Carrier <G>

(A strike carrier, in WC terms, seems to be one that has both offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate alone behind enemy lines...)
 
Hmmm...I must be getting my designations mixed up. I could've sworn that the TIGER'S CLAW was CVS-7.

I find it interesting that historically a dreadnaught has been a battleship, but in WC dreadnaught seems to be an offensively-enhanced carrier. You'd think with Chris Roberts's keen interest in WWII, he would have retained the simplistic definitions of these vessels.

Oh well....
 
Well... in WC a dreadnought seems to be any heavily offensive ship, fighters or not -- the Sivar or the WC3 Kilrathi dreadnoughts, for instance...
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Well... in WC a dreadnought seems to be any heavily offensive ship, fighters or not -- the Sivar or the WC3 Kilrathi dreadnoughts, for instance...
Click to expand...
The W3C Kilrathi dreadnaught had a small flight wing, did it not? I think it could be assumed so; it definitely had a flight deck, since that's where many of us parked to destroy the darned thing.... :)
 
From the Oxford Reference Suite:

dreadnought, thick cloth, battleship, not -naught


So dreadnought can mean any battleship. Doesn't narrow it down too much does it?
 
Originally posted by Dak
From the Oxford Reference Suite:

dreadnought, thick cloth, battleship, not -naught
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

According to Webster's online, either spelling is correct:

dreadnaught n : has big guns all of the same caliber (syn: dreadnought)

dreadnought n. : A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more.

According to Webster's printed dictionary:

dreadnought (also dreadnaught) n. : a large battleship with big guns

Most importantly, the WCIII Victory Streak (for all its errors) specifically spells it with an 'a', not an 'o'.
 
The assumption that the X in CVX stands for eXperimental may or may not be correct, but I for one do not see any support for this claim. For one thing, there is nothing experimental about the Midway - it's not, like the TCS Hades, a testbed, ergo it's not an experimental ship. The class itself also isn't experimental - that is to say, it's experimental only as much as any new class of ships is experimental (and I didn't see the TCS Vesuvius running around with a CVX-70). Secondly, we have no evidence that the X ever stands for eXperimental in WC - historical precedents, as you know very well, Phoenix, are flaunted in every way in WC :).

As for the Dreadnought thing, I daresay the Concordia fits the description of a WWII perfectly well. It carries the biggest guns, the best armour, and the best shields. Yes, it also carries a large number of fighters, but that's a necessity in this day and age. At any rate, there is a great difference between an offensively-enhanced carrier (AKA a strike carrier) and a dreadnought.
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
Most importantly, the WCIII Victory Streak (for all its errors) specifically spells it with an 'a', not an 'o'.
Click to expand...
A long while ago when I was unsure of the spelling I looked up my trusty Oxford and I'm sure it gave the English spelling as dreadnought. Dictionary.com also refers to the dreadnought as a British battleship - and you know my views on speaking English or American. ;)
 
Originally posted by Quarto
The assumption that the X in CVX stands for eXperimental may or may not be correct, but I for one do not see any support for this claim. For one thing, there is nothing experimental about the Midway - it's not, like the TCS Hades, a testbed, ergo it's not an experimental ship. The class itself also isn't experimental - that is to say, it's experimental only as much as any new class of ships is experimental (and I didn't see the TCS Vesuvius running around with a CVX-70). Secondly, we have no evidence that the X ever stands for eXperimental in WC - historical precedents, as you know very well, Phoenix, are flaunted in every way in WC :).
Click to expand...
True, but in this case, we have no evidence contrary to the historical precedent. Further, the state of the MIDWAY's development in WCP is condusive to "experimental" in the historical sense -- several new systems, on it maiden voyage, not yet fully crewed and operational. The US Navy currently has a few vessels in similar circumstances, and they are appened with the 'X' as well.

Originally posted by Quarto
As for the Dreadnought thing, I daresay the Concordia fits the description of a WWII perfectly well. It carries the biggest guns, the best armour, and the best shields. Yes, it also carries a large number of fighters, but that's a necessity in this day and age. At any rate, there is a great difference between an offensively-enhanced carrier (AKA a strike carrier) and a dreadnought.
Click to expand...
For the record, I'm not arguing the dreadnaught issue in terms of what is what isn't a dreadnaught int he WC universe. Tis one aspect where Roberts et al clearly chose to be ambiguous.

As for the spelling, the British ship which introduced the term in the first decade of the 1900's was the HMS DREADNOUGHT. However, I've seen the word spelled with an 'a' far more than with an 'o' when it's being used as a descriptive term. And as my previous post points out, according to the dictionary, either spelling is acceptable.
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
A long while ago when I was unsure of the spelling I looked up my trusty Oxford and I'm sure it gave the English spelling as dreadnought. Dictionary.com also refers to the dreadnought as a British battleship - and you know my views on speaking English or American. ;)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Dictionary.com is precisely where I got my definitions earlier in this thread.

dreadnaught n : has big guns all of the same caliber (syn: dreadnought)

dreadnought n. : A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more.
 
I'm just guessing here, but would the nought/naught be derived from naut, as in nautical? Dread meaning it inspires fear and/or awe. So by that, we'd end up with a big, scary ship, which is, as you point out Pheonix, rather ambiguous.
 
No, 'nought' or 'naught' or whatever, most likely is supposed to mean exactly what it sounds like - 'nothing'. As in, this is a ship which ain't scared of anything :).

Phoenix, in this case, the lack of evidence to support historical precedents is in itself evidence against historical precedents. We have a number of ships and classes that were seen in the experimental phase - the Vesuvius, the Hades, the Cerberus, the (original, 2634) Concordia. The lack of an X in any of these cases seems to imply that the Confederation did NOT follow this historical precedent, neither before the construction of the Midway nor after it.

And um... what exactly are you arguing about in the case of the dreadnought? :p
 
Originally posted by Dak
I'm just guessing here, but would the nought/naught be derived from naut, as in nautical? Dread meaning it inspires fear and/or awe. So by that, we'd end up with a big, scary ship, which is, as you point out Pheonix, rather ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Eh, PhOEnix, even. ;)
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Phoenix, in this case, the lack of evidence to support historical precedents is in itself evidence against historical precedents. We have a number of ships and classes that were seen in the experimental phase - the Vesuvius, the Hades, the Cerberus, the (original, 2634) Concordia. The lack of an X in any of these cases seems to imply that the Confederation did NOT follow this historical precedent, neither before the construction of the Midway nor after it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe any of the ships you mentioned were in experimental stage when we see them. New, yes, but not experimental. They all used tried and true technologies (with the possible exception of the VESUVIUS's armor), and all were fully crewed and prepared for combat. Such was not the case with the MIDWAY.

Originally posted by Quarto
And um... what exactly are you arguing about in the case of the dreadnought? :p
Click to expand...
The spelling. :)
 
But Phoenix, just because the Midway has some slight troubles doesn't mean it's in any way more experimental than, for example, the Cerberus. There is no new technology in it - it's just a new design utilising tried and tested technology. Well, maybe the ICIS, but that's hardly very important. And the concept of a mobile naval base is no more experimental than the concept of a quick-strike cruiser, powerful enough to penetrate into enemy territory without an escort. What then, is the difference between the Cerberus' maiden voyage and that of the Midway? Similarly, considering Confed's previous troubles with jumps for ships bigger than a kilometre, I daresay that the Vesuvius' maiden voyage was no less experimental. So you see, there is very little difference between them, and therefore the X does not mean eXperimental.
 
Originally posted by Dak
I'm just guessing here, but would the nought/naught be derived from naut, as in nautical? Dread meaning it inspires fear and/or awe. So by that, we'd end up with a big, scary ship, which is, as you point out Pheonix, rather ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Well, "naught" is another word for zip, zero, nothing, zilch.

Thus, perhaps "dread" of these bad boys will reduce their enemies to nothingness. (or more accurately, the military might contained IN such a beast will reduce their enemies to space dust; follow me?...) :)
 
Originally posted by Quarto
But Phoenix, just because the Midway has some slight troubles doesn't mean it's in any way more experimental than, for example, the Cerberus. (snip)
Click to expand...
I'm not referrign to troubles. IIRC, there are mentions in the documentation as well as in the game about systems not being completed yet. And there are more systems than just ICIS that are entirely new, the arterial launch system being one important one. Rachel makes a statement fairly early on in the game about some of the new systems not being completely fleshed out yet.

Originally posted by Quarto
...and therefore the X does not mean eXperimental.
Click to expand...
Does not NECESSARILY mean. However, with or without the aforementioned facts, there is no compelling evidence to NOT support the X as being 'experimental'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top