SWC Tiger's Claw

[frostytheplebe]

Formidable, absolutely! It's just that in order to use the weapon they would have had to put themselves in a compromised position, that otherwise they could have done at a longer distance (with fighters).

I suppose... I got a nice shock once when the Concordia fired off the PTC at the second cruiser, and to my shock, it survived the first blast. I'm sitting there watching the Concordia taking massive damage as shes broadsiding that thing with AM guns.

 

[ELTEE]

(Could the launch tubes handle bigger craft? Broadswords? Could the hanger and repair areas accomodate as many fighters as they could in the 50's?)

All good points and definite possibilities. I will say that we know the 'Claw can handle Broadswords as we see them in the movie and in the Academy cartoon series. Which brings up an interesting point altogether - why aren't they onboard the 'Claw during the Vega campaign?

Or are they, and we just don't encounter them in WC1?

As for the PTC discussion, it doesn't matter if it is unsafe or just difficult to use. Either way, in the grand scheme of things, the design would still be considered 'failed' because of the nature of the ship. Unless the weapon system is 100% reliable, what's the point?

Sure, you can argue that Connie will be just as effective being utilized as a regular carrier - but then it should have been designed and built as one. I don't think there's anyway of getting around this issue, regardless of whether Angel or the engineers are just being conservative.

I think it's telling, also, that the issue is never resolved. We never see a fix developed or hear of an important refit that rectifies the issue. Instead, it's almost as if Confed gives up on the issue altogether - maybe they concede that the PTC isn't that important, which is just further evidence of the flawed design.

 

[Death]

Yeah I think that was the point I was trying to make. So many people are saying it was unsafe. It seems to me that this all came up around the same time as the heavy plasma gun in WCP. Everyone seemed to assume that one 1-hit-kill weapon was the same as the other.

"PTC is dangerous to use" predates Prophecy, though I forget by how much more than "a good bit", off the top of my head. (At a possibly wrong guess, when KS came out, since that's where the note of the PTC being retired comes from.)

There's some connection - a weapon not working when you try to fire it is unsafe! Meanuvering the ship to point at the target, your CAP and your counter-strike craft moving out of the way, leaving you exposed - and in a lot closer range than you wanted to be! You could have been moving away from your target instead of exposing yourself to a 'frontal' =)

But we need to hammer this out - is it 'unreliable' in the "didn't fire" way, or "will backfire and cause secondary explosions" way? Both could be catestrophic.

Considering that head-on is the smallest profile to present to the enemy, it isn't necessarily dangerous to turn that way. Also, it's a fixed mount, and the ball of energy (for lack of a better description) is only so big. It's not like you'd have to leave some Hugey McHuge hole right in front of the ship to fire it without nailing some of your own fighters and/or escorts in the process. A simple, relatively narrow cone projected on one's displays is all that's needed to know where not to be when "home" is getting ready to open up an industrial-sized can of whupass.

In any case, frostytheplebe's and my point still stands: when it comes to why the PTC was taken out of service, beyond a vague note about reliability, there's only one answer to give, without getting into fanfic wanking:

We. Don't. Know.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Sure, you can argue that Connie will be just as effective being utilized as a regular carrier - but then it should have been designed and built as one. I don't think there's anyway of getting around this issue, regardless of whether Angel or the engineers are just being conservative.

I think it's telling, also, that the issue is never resolved. We never see a fix developed or hear of an important refit that rectifies the issue. Instead, it's almost as if Confed gives up on the issue altogether - maybe they concede that the PTC isn't that important, which is just further evidence of the flawed design.

The ship did a lot without the PTC its true, she had a heavy load out of weapons and a full fighter squadron. Plus I've seen her take out an enemy cruiser without actually using the PTC.

Perhaps a lack of resources had something to do with it. By the time the flaw was widely recognized, was around BoT wasn't it? So by that point all they could do was deactivate it and just use the Confeds as a Battleship/carrier. I'm sure they planned on getting back to it when/if the war turned back in their favor. By the time that happened, the war was over. By then what do you need a weapon like that for?

 

[Max Gene]

Hmmm? What's all this about the flaw being widely recognized? I still don't get how it was such a flawed design as far as the PTC was concerned. The flight deck went down quite often.... like when it needed to go down so that Blair had a reason to fly out there, and/or when Jazz lit bombs off conveniently (really, how do we know that the first time the flight deck goes out, it WASN'T Jazz? Xanatos' Gambit anyone?)... in other words, when it was a matter of plot convenience.

Certainly I'm not seeing the PTC itself as having been flawed unless you tried to fire it off one too many times in a row. So meanwhile, does anyone have the full list of when Concordia's flight deck went down? That might be useful for this discussion on the SWC Tiger- I mean, Concordia.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Hmmm? What's all this about the flaw being widely recognized? I still don't get how it was such a flawed design as far as the PTC was concerned. The flight deck went down quite often.... like when it needed to go down so that Blair had a reason to fly out there, and/or when Jazz lit bombs off conveniently (really, how do we know that the first time the flight deck goes out, it WASN'T Jazz? Xanatos' Gambit anyone?)... in other words, when it was a matter of plot convenience.

Certainly I'm not seeing the PTC itself as having been flawed unless you tried to fire it off one too many times in a row. So meanwhile, does anyone have the full list of when Concordia's flight deck went down? That might be useful for this discussion on the SWC Tiger- I mean, Concordia.

Was it three times that we knew of? Once it was damaged while fighting a capship. Thats when Shadow got killed. Then Jazz blew it up during his escape in a Sabre. Then Grimaldi blew it up during her escape.

 

[Max Gene]

So the first time was a very convenient way to force Blair into action when he wouldn't have had a reason to otherwise, and the other two involved internal detonations? Doesn't sound like a horrible flight deck setup at all.

 

[ELTEE]

So the first time was a very convenient way to force Blair into action when he wouldn't have had a reason to otherwise, and the other two involved internal detonations? Doesn't sound like a horrible flight deck setup at all.

OK - obviously there's some conjecture that is entering into the discussion. It is, as LOAF pointed out in the 'best class' thread, tough to make definitive assessments of these ships because we *see* relatively little of them.

That disclaimer aside, I think it's pretty obvious from what we do *see* that the Connie has a compromised flight deck. I'm sorry, but it seems too easy to knock the flight deck of a dreadnought out of action. How often are the flight decks of our other carriers taken down through explosives or other means?

In addition, the deck space just looks bad. The deck gives the impression of being cramped and it appears that it is very difficult to maneuver fighters around for casual placement, let alone a scramble for launch. We don't see evidence of launch tubes - just two openings that reveal a largely exposed runway platform. I would also argue that, by the location of the hangar openings, it would be much easier for a broadside from an enemy ship to damage both with one salvo. There's not alot of protection afforded by the location of the 'runways' or their hangar entrances.

The only reason the flight deck would be designed this way is if it had to. We know the ship was built around the PTC, so it makes sense that the flight deck would be built and designed around the necessary systems that support the ship's primary weapon - and primary reason for existence. There is nothing wrong with this - if the reason for the compromise operates effectively.

As a result, I again maintain that if the PTC itself is less than 100% successful, the ship itself cannot be said to be anything but flawed. It doesn't make its reputation or achievement in battle any less meaningful (in fact, you could argue the opposite - look what they managed to achieve EVEN THOUGH...) it just means that, on paper, the ship failed to execute the intended order of battle as planned.

 

[frostytheplebe]

OK - obviously there's some conjecture that is entering into the discussion. It is, as LOAF pointed out in the 'best class' thread, tough to make definitive assessments of these ships because we *see* relatively little of them.

That disclaimer aside, I think it's pretty obvious from what we do *see* that the Connie has a compromised flight deck. I'm sorry, but it seems pretty easy to knock it out of action. How often are the flight decks of our other carriers taken down through explosives or other means?

The deck even gives the impression of being cramped. It appears that it is very difficult to maneuver fighters around in order to scramble them for launch. We don't see evidence of launch tubes - just two openings that reveal a largely exposed runway platform. I would also argue that, by the location of the hangar openings, it would be much easier for a broadside from an enemy ship to damage both with one salvo. There's not alot of protection afforded by the location of the 'runways' or their hangar entrances.

The only reason the flight deck would be designed this way is if it had to. We know the ship was built around the PTC, so it makes sense that the flight deck would be built and designed around the necessary systems that support the ship's primary weapon - and primary reason for existence.

Flight decks and launchers being put out of commission during the from what I understand was a fairly common occurrence. Either by technical difficulties or by a kilrathi pilot flying in and blasting it. A problem they THOUGHT they corrected with Midway... a point that had me laughing my ass off when sure enough, an enemy attacks the carrier and the Midway 6 launchers go down all at once.

 

[ELTEE]

Flight decks and launchers being put out of commission during the from what I understand was a fairly common occurrence. Either by technical difficulties or by a kilrathi pilot flying in and blasting it. A problem they THOUGHT they corrected with Midway... a point that had me laughing my ass off when sure enough, an enemy attacks the carrier and the Midway 6 launchers go down all at once.

Well, again, this discussion is tough to have without the facts. I could certainly be totally off my rocker, but it's the impression that I certainly get.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with the flight deck - but it still looks funky to me, no matter how effective it is.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Well, again, this discussion is tough to have without the facts. I could certainly be totally off my rocker, but it's the impression that I certainly get.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with the flight deck - but it still looks funky to me, no matter how effective it is.

I'll give you it looks weird, but think about this... how big do you think the Tiger's Claw flight deck is? Don't count the actual runway, just the part behind the shield, that doesn't look much bigger to me.

 

[Max Gene]

How often are the flight decks of our other carriers taken down through explosives or other means?

How often do we see other carriers have explosive attempts at compromising the flight deck? This is a bit like asking how many times my Michigan home has been hit by hurricanes that sweep through the area...

At any rate, there's WC3/4, where taking down such a flight deck would be as easy as a fly-through backed by guns, in theory, and this notion is confirmed by Waypoint! and the fact that flight decks would be routinely compromised by the cats flying in and going kamikaze with a full barrage. As frosty said, the Midway was designed around this.... and still failed miserably. Heck, that means the Concordia is practically par for the course, at that rate....

 

[ELTEE]

I still maintain that we are meant to walk away from the WC gaming experience with the idea that the flight deck on the Concordia was a clear compromise as a result of the PTC. For the most part, we just don't see the same kind of problems being experienced on the other carriers...

...because the other carriers are designed as carriers. Their primary weapon is their flight deck and attached complement of fighters - they are not big gun wielding half battleship half carrier units. Any time you combine more than one primary element into a design, its going to be inherently a compromise. The Concordia was a flawed compromise, because the very reason for compromising is, in and of itself, a compromise to begin with.

Put another way, the order of battle philosophy that the Concordia is supposed to follow was already in many ways obsolete. Think of the parallels to WWII - battleships were quickly surpassed by the carrier as the principal naval weapon. Yamato, Musashi? Sunk by airpower. Tirpitz, even Bismarck? Doomed by airpower. Pearl Harbor, Taranto, British Asian fleet - all doomed by airpower. I think a similar passing of the torch occurs in the Wing Commander universe.

Why would anyone want the Concordia to actually close within range of an enemy ship to engage it point blank? There's so much to lose, and really, not a whole lot that Broadswords with torps (or an escorting cruiser designed for this role) couldnt nail up for grabs to gain. The whole design is a catastrophic combination of contrasting paradigm philosophies.

Every argument circles back to the PTC, because it is the essence of the class. Maybe, if the PTC was the weapon it was intended to be, the class would have made more sense - because better tactics would have evolved to dictate a more advanced doctrine. As things stand, the Concordia is a confused flagship carrier at best, and a misused and misunderstood war asset at worst.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I don't think that's intentional. The "PTC doesn't work!" one liner in the Kilrathi Saga manual is a very late retcon, added to kill the gun from a storytelling perspective. One of the problems with Wing Commander is that we constantly see the end-all technology introduced -- and then they have to come up with some reason why it isn't ruining gameplay two games down the line.

The "PTC doesn't work" bit is a simple answer to a common question: if this giant gun is so great, why don't we ever see it again?

 

[Quarto]

The weird thing about the PTC is that even before that retcon, it was virtually non-existent. It literally played no role in WC2 - sure, the Concordia fired it once or twice, but it wasn't ever actually mentioned, and the game would have looked the same without it (the Concordia's seven AMGs were more than enough). It wasn't until SO2 that the story actually makes a point of firing the PTC.

It actually reminds me a lot of the "Viper Cannon" that we threw into UE. HCl came up with a patch that allowed us to change which guns can damage a capship, so we thought, "great - let's give the Border Worlds an all-powerful gun that can destroy capships". And then we never actually made any good use of it, in fact in some missions we had to make enemy capships invulnerable just because we didn't want the player to kill them with the Scimitar. So, not only was the Viper a childish, excessive and stupid weapon, but it was also entirely counterproductive as far as the story was concerned. The PTC may be less childish, and rather than being counterproductive it's merely useless, but all in all, it seems to be almost as poorly thought-out as our Viper.

 

[ELTEE]

You guys are both more than likely right. I think that what's interesting here is that the real explanation actually meshes pretty well with the 'in universe' explanation. It might have been poorly thought out in reality because the game designers realized it would be difficult to utilize in-game.

It's almost a continuous circle. The designers realize it is, in fact, difficult to use in a tactical sense, so the result is that it really isn't utilized throughout the game. WC2 kind of acts like a simulator here - it's difficult to plan for and use in reality, so it appears difficult to attack with and operate in the game!

 

[Bandit LOAF]

There's no reason for it to exist in the game, but it actually came into being for the same reason as it was taken out -- as a retcon to balance the universe.

(The question in 1991 being, of course -- why the heck didn't the Kilrathi just build more of the super-weapon from the Sivar?)

 

[frostytheplebe]

There's no reason for it to exist in the game, but it actually came into being for the same reason as it was taken out -- as a retcon to balance the universe.

(The question in 1991 being, of course -- why the heck didn't the Kilrathi just build more of the super-weapon from the Sivar?)

Well lets not forget that the PTC was a refinement of the Mass Accelerator gun. That perhaps had more flaws. I always thought firing it drained the Sivar of its power. Which left it Vulnerable to attack.

 

[Quarto]

I always thought firing it drained the Sivar of its power. Which left it Vulnerable to attack.

...And it was still vulnerable days (or weeks?) later?

Besides, we do not know anything about the Sivar's weapon having any flaws. As far as we can tell, it did exactly what it was supposed to.

 

[Max Gene]

The Sivar was designed to get in, fire the cannon, and get out quickly. I'm pretty sure SM1 establishes that it's not expected to be able to attack a ship like the Tiger's Claw, as the Claw would simply move out of range... but the Sivar is a tougher nut to crack than a Fralthi, which are said to be fairly dangerous themselves. Overall, I don't see a flaw in the Sivar's gun, either.