WC Carrier question

Dran

Nothing is written here
I have read the post topic about best fighters which started me wondering after finishing WC3, and 4 recently. In WC 1 we have the Tigers Claw. It has 1 runway, in WC2 the Concordia has 2, In WC3 the Victory has 1, and in WC IV all the carriers seem to have one runway. Why was there a switch back to one runway? No I can gather they had transports turned into Carriers, and funding. But would a carrier with two runways like the Concordia, and the basic shape (manual specs aside) be able to launch, land and carry more fighters? If so then why this change, and how come it stayed this way through WCP.

Now there may be tons of reasons for this including 3D graphic Development programs at the time, but it just seems weird that we never see a return to the Jewel of the Confed's carrier design like the Concordia.

Please I know they may have been making them, and they may not have stopped them, I just wonder why we did not see their return. Perhaps in WC3 because we were behind enemy lines and WCIV because Confed had not yet declared war against the Border worlds.

But Why not in WCP??

(Spell checked and proff-read before posting)
 
carrier design

In all likelihood, it started out with a desire to help the player connect better to the game. The Wing 3 carrier looks like it was designed to resemble a WW2 carrier. This resemblance may have been done for purposes of a theme as Wing 3 combat missions do vaguely resemble Allied and Axis carrier operations of WW2.
Wing 4 uses a modified version of the Victory for the Lexington either to save money or for familiarity. It may have been much harder for player to relate to the game if they had started building ships from scratch. So, once again, we are stuck with another single runway/flight deck again.
And even the Intrepid is subject to this. It is supposed to be a smaller carrier for a smaller force that is not as well equipped as Confed, in other words, an underdog. The Border Worlds could not possess any such advanced carriers or else it would break from the theme.
I've never played Prophecy, but it may be for similar reasons.
I know the do similar things on the new Battlestar Galactica series. If you watch, you will notice clothing, customs, equipment, and terms that resemble those of the present day. Take the ammunition belts loaded into the Viper's guns or, as another site pointed out, the rescue markings around the Viper's cockpit. Also, take a close look at the set for the Galactica. You will notice all sorts of little details like corrosion and dents that remind us of our live in the present.
I hope this helps.
Peace.:)
 
As for Victory having only one runway, I'd blame that on her being a pre-war design. Construction-wise, I think Concordia was one of the newest ships in the fleet in comparison to Tiger's Claw and Victory.
 
The Concordia's design is certainly newer than that of the Tiger's Claw and the Victory. Same goes for the Intrepid and Lexington in WCIV. The Vesuvius is newer though, so I'm not sure why that design only has one launch bay. As far as WCP is concerned, we know they had produced more Vesuvius class ships, and the Midway itself can launch 6 fighters simultaneously.
 
I'm not sure about the rest, but if a recall correctly, the Midway has six launchers. That thingie that catapults your fighter out into space. You might remember that if you played it.

It was kinda neat the first few times, but i missed the way you had to power up in WC 3/ 4.
 
Oh, and while on the subject, why always launch out the front end of a carrier?

In space you don't have to turn into the wind. So if you're not catapulted, why not have 1/2 your birds fly out the front, and the other half out the back? Just curious. ;)
 
I'm not sure about the rest, but if a recall correctly, the Midway has six launchers. That thingie that catapults your fighter out into space. You might remember that if you played it.

It was kinda neat the first few times, but i missed the way you had to power up in WC 3/ 4.


What mission?
 
Oh, and while on the subject, why always launch out the front end of a carrier?

In space you don't have to turn into the wind. So if you're not catapulted, why not have 1/2 your birds fly out the front, and the other half out the back? Just curious. ;)

The back is generally where they stick things like engines and such. It'd suck to wind up fried on launch because the main drive had a hiccup when you were launching. :p

(Also, in the WC4 novelization, during one of the engagements with the Vesuvius, the Intrepid lets its fighters drift out the back of the bay, powered down to remain invisible to passive sensors as part of a trap.)
 
What mission?

Uhm, all of them i think, at least those involving a carrier.

In WC3/ 4. You start on the launch deck. You get the clear to launch message, and you can auto pilot launch yourself, or manually switch to full power and fly off. (hence the powering up)

In WCP you get the clear to launch message and then get kicked in the Behind, out into space. Sort off anyway.
 
The back is generally where they stick things like engines and such. It'd suck to wind up fried on launch because the main drive had a hiccup when you were launching. :p

(Also, in the WC4 novelization, during one of the engagements with the Vesuvius, the Intrepid lets its fighters drift out the back of the bay, powered down to remain invisible to passive sensors as part of a trap.)

'Good point, but in seen in this light, was the Intrepid powered down along with the fighters? Because they would have had to pass the engines and as you pointed out, that's not good.
 
The Intrepid's flight bay was attached underneath the structure of the destroyer hull on which the design was originally based.

On further thought, though, my comment wasn't necessarily that realistic an objection, given the design of WC3/4 carriers having the engines around the bay, to allow fighters to land.

In short, my original reply should've been, if anything, "dunno". :p
 
I always thought the 'Claw had multiple launch tubes...am I wrong about this?

Though the Concordia is "newer", the flight deck element of her design is compromised. Though she has two landing bays, they also serve as launch bays as well. It is harder for her to run simultaneous launch and recovery operations.

Furthermore, and probably most importantly, the Concordia's flight deck was far more exposed to enemy fire than either the Claw's or the Victory. The advantage of the Concordia fleet carriers or carriers like the victory is the theoretical ability to launch and recover fighters simultaneously and in large numbers.
 
I'm not sure about the rest, but if a recall correctly, the Midway has six launchers. That thingie that catapults your fighter out into space. You might remember that if you played it.

It was kinda neat the first few times, but i missed the way you had to power up in WC 3/ 4.

I liked the Midway's design of launch tubes better. It gave the launchers less of a profile to shoot at and if one got damaged, the other five would still be viable. Conversely, one torpedo into the hangar bay of an Intrepid, a Lexington, a Victory, and on and on would wipe out (pretty much, anyway) flight ops and render a carrier instantaneously useless. Witness the sudden ease of the mission in Prophecy when taking out the single launcher of the Nephilum dreadnaught. Take it out early enough with the Devastator, and suddenly there's anywhere between six and twenty (roughly, anyway) fighters you suddenly don't have to tangle with. The dreadnaught suddenly becomes a sitting duck, and you can take the thing out at your leisure. That's proof positive right there.

Then again, if we're talking about the design of a launch system that's all about launching sheer numbers in very short order, then the Galactica has my instant vote. :D
 
The Galactica can certainly pump em out. IIRC, the Saratoga from SAAB launched fighters similar to the Galactica.
 
I liked the Midway's design of launch tubes better. It gave the launchers less of a profile to shoot at and if one got damaged, the other five would still be viable. Conversely, one torpedo into the hangar bay of an Intrepid, a Lexington, a Victory, and on and on would wipe out (pretty much, anyway) flight ops and render a carrier instantaneously useless. Witness the sudden ease of the mission in Prophecy when taking out the single launcher of the Nephilum dreadnaught. Take it out early enough with the Devastator, and suddenly there's anywhere between six and twenty (roughly, anyway) fighters you suddenly don't have to tangle with. The dreadnaught suddenly becomes a sitting duck, and you can take the thing out at your leisure. That's proof positive right there.
From a WCIII and IV perspective, you would have to take out 2 sections, not one since the hanger bay goes all the way through and has two entrances/exits. The launching area was pretty huge, so it would take a massive hit to take out even one. Based upon combat in the games, of course you don't even have the option of targeting the launch areas, but the carriers go up easy enough with a few torps. Making 2 separate attacks to take out hanger bays seems like a waste of effort when you could simply focus on taking out the entire ship.
 
From a WCIII and IV perspective, you would have to take out 2 sections, not one since the hanger bay goes all the way through and has two entrances/exits. The launching area was pretty huge, so it would take a massive hit to take out even one. Based upon combat in the games, of course you don't even have the option of targeting the launch areas, but the carriers go up easy enough with a few torps. Making 2 separate attacks to take out hanger bays seems like a waste of effort when you could simply focus on taking out the entire ship.

True, the option wasn't even there. But on a "real" circumstance, all you'd need is one torpedo and the whole hangar bay (if not the rest of the ship) would be either severely crippled or blow completely. Fuel lines, ordnance, fuel and ordnance on planes...they all go Boom. An enclosed launch bay, much less six tubes, makes that a lot more difficult.
 
True, the option wasn't even there. But on a "real" circumstance, all you'd need is one torpedo and the whole hangar bay (if not the rest of the ship) would be either severely crippled or blow completely. Fuel lines, ordnance, fuel and ordnance on planes...they all go Boom. An enclosed launch bay, much less six tubes, makes that a lot more difficult.

It certainly did prove to be a weakness with the Vesuvius.
 
I have read the post topic about best fighters which started me wondering after finishing WC3, and 4 recently. In WC 1 we have the Tigers Claw. It has 1 runway, in WC2 the Concordia has 2, In WC3 the Victory has 1, and in WC IV all the carriers seem to have one runway. Why was there a switch back to one runway? No I can gather they had transports turned into Carriers, and funding. But would a carrier with two runways like the Concordia, and the basic shape (manual specs aside) be able to launch, land and carry more fighters? If so then why this change, and how come it stayed this way through WCP.

The Tiger's Claw doesn't actually have one runway -- it has one recovery deck, and multiple launch tubes, similar to the Midway in Prophecy. Notice that the 'tube' you shoot out of at the start of a mission isn't the same as the open deck where you land (and you run past a 'TUBES 6-9' sign during the scramble sequence).

For all of the 3D games, it was primarily a design issue. Complex textured 3D in a game was new, and they developed a system where ships could have a hole in them -- and took full advantage. The 'in universe' background says that the ships in WC4 (the Concordia and Vesuvius-classes) all had two catapults (next to each other), and so were the same concept as the WC2 Concordia.
 
In terms of Bengal carriers, what's the overall consensus on them? Are they as a class generally considered a success or failure? The Tiger's Claw seems to be quite famous because of the pilots that came out of it and the way in which it was destroyed, but for their heyday (pre phase shielding) they certainly seemed to be quite formidabble.

I assume that Concordia fleet carriers existed in the time before phase shielding as well, is this true(certainly Rangers)? Would the bengals have achieved any continued success if they had been re-equipped with phase shielding?
 
Back
Top