See, this is why I wanted this topic locked as well as forked. Can't come to any form of good.
Excuse me, but those numbers are for two different ships that had different upgrades. Note that the Midway and Coral Sea, despite being the same class, weren't completely indentical either, as changes were made during construction.
Then qualify what those differences are and what the hell you're trying to prove by posting them. I see two crew numbers, a list of total crew before and a breakdown after, which shows that the newer of the two ships has fewer flight crew and more ship crew than the older. If there's a difference in fitting, that should have been clarified when you posted the numbers in the first place. Even saying it was due to upfitting would have said
something about what it was supposed to mean, even though it still wouldn't prove any point.
LOL...I see you're back to you old "insult the other one and paint him as a fanatical nut" method.
Real cute... I was hoping you might actually grow up and discuss this in a rational and civil way.
Guess I overestimated you...
Do you really want me to post the contents of your last PM to me, Trashman? Really? You really can't go flying off the handle in accusations since you've got just as much of a history with that in this debate as anyone. Ergo I wanted this thread locked before we came to this; rational and civil are two words that have never described this debate. Ever.
[EDIT for clarification]Since this thread does appear to still be open, I'll humor you and actually raise the points of concern.[/EDIT]
First, plase bear in mind that we're still talking about crew figures from Freespace ships. Not the US navy, not during WWII, not ten years ago, and not today. Secondly, we're dealing with a large number of unknowns. How big are reactors? Weapons? Power distribution systems? The habitable compartments? Storage areas? The hangers? Do we have canonical proof that any one of those things corresponds even remotely to any form of wet navy analogy? Do we know how many people it takes to man a plasma launcher? A high-powered laser battery? A cluster missile launcher where the missile is the size of my car? A photon beam emission system? Do we have any clue? How about the fact (seemingly ignored... over and over) that we're talking about something that operates in the vacuum of space, not in an atmosphere where any crew duty can be performed in the outside air? What does that change about the complexities of maintenence for a ship with an operational cycle spanning years? Quoting things from Star Trek would be about as relevant (my disdain for trying to associate anything canonically Trek with anything not part of Trek should be noted, by the way) as trying to say "this ship was X in WWII, so ships in Freespace must be Y". There is plenty of inferences that can be made off of the things we do know about the Freespace ships, but they all support larger crews for weapon, energy, and engine staffing than flight crew. That's not to say that the flight crew is tiny, but it certainly has nothing to do with how big the crew for the actual ship is. If you want to have an argument about historical vessels, go to a naval warfare forum and bug people there. Here we're debating Freespace.
