Talahasse and Shefeilds (a wc history question)

powell99

Aviation Junkie
I read on the WC Galactic Conflict forums that they were a pre-war design. This would make sense considering they look like the Victory. I also remeber LOAF saying this as well. However, for the love of god, how can they be so good in WC3. I understand refits and whatnot but, really I remember when one of the Victory's escorts hammered a cruiser and it was a massacre. Also I remember when the Tin Can Sally hammered a Carrier. So yeah, why do they give off a feeling of techinlogical superiority when compared to the Kilrathi Counter parts.
 
Hmm... better turret placement? IIRC the Talahassee can hammer out every gun in the arsenal at a broadside turret, while the Kilrathi cruisers have a much more occluded arsenal from most angles. Vic vs. Carrier... maybe there was a capship missile involved, or one of your wingmen? I don't remember that mission, sorry.
 
I believe the battles in WC3 are rigged -- the good guys fire a CSM that automagically blows up the other ship after you've defended them for them for however many minutes the mission requires.

The Ajax and the Sheffield were the same age as the Victory. The Coventry was newer, and was a more recent version of whatever class of destroyer the Sheffield was.

(There's no Sheffield-class, though - we just happened to see a destroyer named Sheffield. This does not a class name make.)
 
I feel the need to clarify - we don't support/condone the use of the name Sheffield for a class name for those destroyers - it's more or less just a place holder name for lack of anything else to use.

(LOAF if you have a better name or some suggestions on what we should use I'd love to hear 'em)
 
I don't have a better name - I just know calling them Sheffield is wrong.

And no, the lack of a right answer doesn't make the wrong one correct. It is highly improbable that of thousands of destroyers produced the *one* we happen to see is the name ship. Avoid small universe syndrome.
 
I can think of no situation in the history of the universe where I would need to refer to them as anything but "WC3 destroyers" (out of continuity) or "destroyers" (in continuity).

If WC3 and half a dozen followup stories didn't need to define the class, fans certainly don't need to either.

(You certainly don't need it for prose: "My Douglas Aerospace F-103A Excalibur class heavy fighter/atmospheric bomber cruised in for a landing...")
 
Well I was hoping to have a class name for the RPG we're running at WCGC, but barring that I think I'll just call them Light Destroyers, or Heavy Destroyers, or whatever the Role-players feel like calling them...hmm, in fact, maybe we'd better have a poll about that...

Also, LOAF, there has been some dispute about the Date stated as the start of Production for the Bengal Class Carriers. Claw Marks gives the Tigers Claw as being built in 2644, and state that it's the longest Bengal which always made me think it was the first, but your carrier page (http://hamtwoslices.net/loaf/fleetcarriers.html) lists it as 2619 which I think was a date from the Confederation Handbook.

Anyway, some of the players have been asking about it so I was wondering if you had any sort of explanation that I could throw their way...
 
Well I was wrong about the class. Also neat fact about the battles being rigged. It explains alot.
BTW: It was a long time since I played through WC3 but it was a mission where I had to escort the Victory through some sort of nebula. It's funny how much you had to cover the Victory It was like the Kats had eyes in the back of thier head. You know a weird cat thing.
 
2619 is when the TCS Bengal entered service. 2644 is when the TCS Tiger's Claw, a major update of the design, entered service.
 
about wc3 capship fights being rigged, in a mission where Sheffield takes on a destroyer, if you blow off a couple of her turrets, she'll lose
 
Also after the Behemoth disaster (you know the mission where you have the option of flying under the influence) the Sheffield gets jumped by about a dozen light fighters and totally shreds them (although she will eventually be destroyed if you don't intervene). The class of vessel the sheffield is seems extremely combat worthy, especially if you take into account that she is described as being quite old (well old enough to be considered the namesake of the class, by some people anyway)
 
Just because a design is old does not mean the ship is as well...the sheffield would have modifications from the original design as time progressed....she was quite an effective tin can for her day...darkets are not hard opponents and all the weapons of the sheffield brought to bear on six of them sounds like a turkey shoot...
 
Paddybhoy said:
Also after the Behemoth disaster (you know the mission where you have the option of flying under the influence) the Sheffield gets jumped by about a dozen light fighters and totally shreds them (although she will eventually be destroyed if you don't intervene). The class of vessel the sheffield is seems extremely combat worthy, especially if you take into account that she is described as being quite old (well old enough to be considered the namesake of the class, by some people anyway)
I never thought flying while tanked was a good idea. Yeah the Sheffield is a pretty awsome ship
 
I always got liquored up at that point. I thought Blair would probably feel like crap after what just happened and he found out so I could see him throwing back a few.
 
I don't remember which ship it was in WC3 (I think the destroyer), but on the escort missions, I went after some of the enemy capships feeling that my capship could take care of itself, and it was destroyed by a flight of Vakoths (I think 3 of them after I destroyed 1 and went for the capships, but I don't remember since it was a long time ago). After that, if I remember correctly, I was given a generic replacement ship that said "destroyer" rather than a name as the Ajax/Sheffield/Coventry had. It was good vs. other capships, but not too hot vs. fighters.
Powell99 said:
So yeah, why do they give off a feeling of techinlogical superiority when compared to the Kilrathi Counter parts.
I would guess that was in keeping with the same WC theme as the fighters. The Kilrathi had a greater number of lower quality mass-produced ships whereas Confed had a smaller number of higher quality ships.
 
Mjr. Whoopass said:
I don't remember which ship it was in WC3 (I think the destroyer), but on the escort missions, I went after some of the enemy capships feeling that my capship could take care of itself, and it was destroyed by a flight of Vakoths (I think 3 of them after I destroyed 1 and went for the capships, but I don't remember since it was a long time ago). After that, if I remember correctly, I was given a generic replacement ship that said "destroyer" rather than a name as the Ajax/Sheffield/Coventry had. It was good vs. other capships, but not too hot vs. fighters.

I know which mission you mean and when I did it, the Sheffield also fell to a group of Vaktoths even though they were quite close to the ship where the AMGs should have wreaked havoc. This surprised me as I had previously seen it (or was it Coventry... not sure :confused: ) single handedly take down a much larger kilrathi ship. On a different playthrough I remember getting the "destroyer" replacement even though I hadn't lost any of the original destroyers, but Sheffeild later returned. Maybe it split off from the main group for a special task... or maybe it was just a bug.

I would guess that was in keeping with the same WC theme as the fighters. The Kilrathi had a greater number of lower quality mass-produced ships whereas Confed had a smaller number of higher quality ships.

This definitely seems like the case with most ships, but I was still under the impression that kilrathi cruisers and destroyers were statistically superior according to "Victory Streak". On paper, the Fralthi II and kilrathi heavy destroyer should beat their confed counterparts as they seem to have equal shielding and armour but more turrets, yet when it comes down to the actual battle the confed ships triumph. If I ignore the theory that the capship battles are rigged then the only explanation I can come up with is the kilrathi ships are significantly bigger than the confed ones, so are probably much easier to hit and this would also make their turrets more spread out, meaning they can't fire all the guns at the same time.
 
Back
Top