TCS Ark Royal

Bandit LOAF said:
I don't think the manual actually has the Lexington in it, though -- doesn't it have the green carrier from the intro and the cutscenes (a Bengal?)? The actual Lexington is shorter, gray-er and fatter.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm pretty sure that the intro ship and the Lexington in the game are both the same design, it's just that the Lexington model had to be simplified a lot so the game could handle it. This doesn't mean that the ship in the manual is the same class as the Lexington in the game, of course. After all, the Ranger and Concordia classes also look identical.

The decision we reached regarding this is that it was actually written *before* the carriers attacked Earth... 2669.330 would have been just after they'd been discovered, and the eight months could refer to the time the Concordia had spent inactive during the armistice.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. To be honest, I don't think it makes much sense to go with this interpretation... there's a lot of reasons why it would make more sense for the author to be referring to eight months after FA. At the same time, you're right that there really doesn't seem to be any other way to handle this, if there's to be a year between ER and FA.

This isn't entirely canon, I suppose, but the WC Bible has a section on capital ship classes and their namesakes. It says the Trafalgar is part of a class of attack carriers named after famous sea battles (there's a second name given, which I don't know off hand -- I'll look it up at home). It also gives some limited stats (length and mass and such), if that'd help the project.
Click to expand...
Any such information about non-game ships would be extremely useful and appreciated :).
 
psych said:
Got any plans for those names? I got some suggestions if you are interested.
Click to expand...
Good, suggestions are appreciated :)

Bandit LOAF said:
This isn't entirely canon, I suppose, but the WC Bible has a section on capital ship classes and their namesakes. It says the Trafalgar is part of a class of attack carriers named after famous sea battles (there's a second name given, which I don't know off hand -- I'll look it up at home). It also gives some limited stats (length and mass and such), if that'd help the project.
Click to expand...
That'd certainly help a lot. It may not be entirely canon, but it's probably as close as we can get if we want to have one of those attack carriers in the game. I think it'd be a nice addition to the project, since we've got CVEs in there and all (maybe someone might want to code an End Run campaign in the future? :p).
 
Just a quick thought, but is the Armada Lex look close enough to the WC4 Lex to be the same class of ship? We see the WC4 Lex after it's been rebuilt and upgraded from being hulled and pretty much destroyed after the Battle of Terra. Is it so much of a stretch that most Concordia class carriers around the time of Action Stations looked like the Lex from Armada, the one from Wc4 looks the way it does because of a massive refit after the battle of Terra (look how WC3 shipos look after they have been hulled, you could pretty much do what you want with the superstructure, flight bay, etc)? Just a thought.,

C-ya
 
That is a bit of a stretch, and it'd kinda work if we hadn't seen the Princeton in WC4. It's a Concordia class carrier, looks a lot like the reffited Lex, and has never been refitted itself (to our knowledge), IIRC.
 
Hmm, I'm pretty sure that the intro ship and the Lexington in the game are both the same design, it's just that the Lexington model had to be simplified a lot so the game could handle it. This doesn't mean that the ship in the manual is the same class as the Lexington in the game, of course. After all, the Ranger and Concordia classes also look identical.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well, I rendered both of them and then resized the image so they were the same 'length':

spacecarriers.jpg


They're very similar designs... but the Armada Lexington is decidedly wider and a bit taller (and, of course, it's gray :)).

Hmmmm. To be honest, I don't think it makes much sense to go with this interpretation... there's a lot of reasons why it would make more sense for the author to be referring to eight months after FA. At the same time, you're right that there really doesn't seem to be any other way to handle this, if there's to be a year between ER and FA.
Click to expand...

Yeah... FA goes into a good bit of detail about the time off between End Run and Fleet Action -- in a perfect world there'd have been more time between SO2 and ER, for the other campaigns Bear served in... but at least they don't go into detail about how long that all took. :)

The piece was clearly written to be 'after' Fleet Action... but it's not specific enough that it *has* to be :)

That'd certainly help a lot. It may not be entirely canon, but it's probably as close as we can get if we want to have one of those attack carriers in the game. I think it'd be a nice addition to the project, since we've got CVEs in there and all (maybe someone might want to code an End Run campaign in the future? ).
Click to expand...

Ah, here we go -- the bible calls it "Jutland class":

CVA-91 Jutland
Mass: 21,300 tonnes
Ship's Weapons
Flak Cannon (3)
ANti-Matter Guns (2)
Full complement of fighters
Other Names In This Class: Named for sea battles. Includes Jutland, Trafalgar.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
They're very similar designs... but the Armada Lexington is decidedly wider and a bit taller (and, of course, it's gray :)).
Click to expand...
Agreed. Seeing them together, they do look different enough to be different classes. I'm a bit confused as to what this would mean, however. The Armada Lexington is obviously in a class for which we haven't seen any other ships. But the ship in the intro, and in the Armada manual? Do we assume that's Bengal-class (because of SWC), or, given that their stats seem different to those of the Bengal, do we assume that it's a different class altogether?
 
I agree with Eder. My opinion is to rephrase Quarto´s sentence: "Agreed. Seeing them together, they do look (a little) different enough to be IN THE SAME CLASS".

I think they look very much alike, specially the Bridge and the shape as a whole.
 
Agreed. Seeing them together, they do look different enough to be different classes. I'm a bit confused as to what this would mean, however. The Armada Lexington is obviously in a class for which we haven't seen any other ships. But the ship in the intro, and in the Armada manual? Do we assume that's Bengal-class (because of SWC), or, given that their stats seem different to those of the Bengal, do we assume that it's a different class altogether?
Click to expand...

Either way is fine with me :) Personally, I'd go with Bengal -- especially since Privateer reused the Salthi model from SWC as a Salthi.

I agree with Eder. My opinion is to rephrase Quarto´s sentence: "Agreed. Seeing them together, they do look (a little) different enough to be IN THE SAME CLASS".

I think they look very much alike, specially the Bridge and the shape as a whole.
Click to expand...

They look very similar -- but their dimensions *are* significantly different, and they're miles apart compared to the Ranger/Concordia debacle.
 
Starkey, I suppose it is quite possible that the Lexington looks different because it was modified, not because it's a different design... but at the end of the day, the Armada Lexington won't be appearing in Standoff, so it doesn't matter if it's the same class or a different class :). What matters is whether or not the design, whether the intro version or the Lexington, can be called a Jutland-class.
 
Ok, then :) Well, LOAF said he thinks either Jutland or Bengal is fine (although he´d pick Bengal if he had to.)

I think you now have all the necessary info to make the best decision.
 
Yeah, we'll squeeze the TCS Jutland in there, and not actually worry about the Armada Lexington... since it won't enter service until after Standoff ends. :p
 
Here's what I think. If you compare the Enterprise from Star Trek to the Enterprise Refit or the Enterprise A, the dimentions are significantly different. They resemble the same basic shape, but they do look very different. However, both are Constitution class. I think we can write this off to the same thing - one we should consider a refit version of the same class.
 
there was a famous naval battle of Copenhaggen?

TCS Actium would be a good famous naval battle based name (battle between marc antony's naval forces and cleopatras against the forces of Octavius admiraled by M. Agrippa)

other good names:

TCS Hampton Roads (for the battle between the CSS Virginia and the USS Monitor)

TCS Manilla Bay (battle where US got phillipines)

TCS Santiago Bay (naval battle between US and Spain in Spanish American war)
 
Probably more than one. The passage between Denmark and Sweden had been something of a hotspot during WWI.

But I don't think we need extra names... given the general lack of Confed carriers, I'd guess you won't see more than the Jutland as far as this class is concerned.
 
To put in my two cents worth...

It'd be cool if it was named the TCS Atlantic.

All though the battle of the Atlantic wasn't really a battle, by most sources it is considered to have been. It was fought between defenders of the American coast (including units from the Army Air Corps, Coast Guard, and Navy) and Hitlers U-boats.

It would also be cool to see it named after the Atlantic, and it fits with the naming convetion of sea-battles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top