Author Topic: Ranger class versus Concordia class  (Read 11303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
the problem with seeing the Bengal class is that they were built to work independently of the main fleet so you would normally only see one if it was passing through the battle lines too or from a long range mission and I imagine rarely work with other flee elements for prolonged periods, in WC1 there was at most only 2 or 3 TC capital ships in the same area as the tigers claw at any one time.

also how many were built ? wingcommander.wikia.com lists 10 named ships with three known to be destroyed and to be honest i imagine that would be close to the number built as i imagine they would be very expensive to construct
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline Arrow

  • Denglish Interpreter
  • 28
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
You have to be careful with wingcommander.wikia.com, sometimes. They´re used to listing ships from non-canon sources like fan mods, so I wonder if all those ten Bengal carriers can be properly confirmed. I can only recall the TCS Wolfhound from the novels, though it make sense to assume that there was also a TCS Bengal to bear the name first.  Just check their "Ranger-class" article. They state that Saga calls this class of ships "Yorktown", as if they had never taken a closer look at the Arena manual which corrected that popular error once and for all.

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
fare enough arrow but i think my point still stands that there would be few Bengals built and their likely deployment pattern would have made one a rare sight
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline Arrow

  • Denglish Interpreter
  • 28
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Right. It´s still quite popular with fans... Design is a little illogical, though. Why having the most of that huge hangar deck in space?

 

Offline Aginor

  • Spelljammer
  • 210
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Isn't there a model of a refitted Bengal somewhere that has a closed flight deck? I think I remember something like that (a fan creation I assume) and it was really cool.
Member of the Scooby Doo model Fanclub "verticies and splines are the medium and he is the artist."

 
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Wcnews' WCPedia seems to be better but looks like some infos are wrong there, too.
Anyways, I thought you might want to have a look into WCPedia's stats of the Yorktown and Concordia class carriers:
http://www.wcnews.com/wcpedia/Yorktown-Class_Light_Carrier
http://www.wcnews.com/wcpedia/Concordia-Class_Fleet_Carrier
Audio Converter of Enigma Campaign 2666:
http://enigma.de.to/

German translator of WC: Hostile Frontier:
http://www.ciinet.org/kevin/wchf/

My Youtube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FekLeyrTarg?feature=mhee

 

Offline Spoon

  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
According to those links, the Yorktown has far superior armor and shielding.
Fore Shield:     3000 cm equivalent
Aft Shield:    3000 cm equivalent
Front Armor:    1000 cm
Right Armor:    1000 cm
Left Armor:    1000 cm
Rear Armor:    1000 cm

vs

Shields:     800 cm
Armor:    300 cm

That can't be right  :p
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Iss Mneur

  • 210
  • TODO:
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
According to those links, the Yorktown has far superior armor and shielding.
Fore Shield:     3000 cm equivalent
Aft Shield:    3000 cm equivalent
Front Armor:    1000 cm
Right Armor:    1000 cm
Left Armor:    1000 cm
Rear Armor:    1000 cm

vs

Shields:     800 cm
Armor:    300 cm

That can't be right  :p
Faster/better shield generation? Concordia class also has double the fighter complement and presumably, double the point defence fire power (double mount lasers rather than single) so it can presumably defend itself better.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -Douglas Adams
wxLauncher 0.9.4 public beta (now with no config file editing for FRED) | wxLauncher 2.0 Request for Comments

 

Offline Arrow

  • Denglish Interpreter
  • 28
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Any shield (re)generation rate is not taken into account in these numbers. I don´t think that Origin changed their shielding and armor system again, like they did between WC1-3, so these data just can´t be correct. Unfortunately, wcpedia doesn´t quote any sources for the Concordia-class. Are there any at all?

 

Offline KeldorKatarn

  • Moderator
  • 211
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
There aren't any sources for that "wiki" and they even have fan-based stuff in there in parts. So you can pretty much forget about that website.

Also don't rely on manuals. I used to extract the game values together with HCl for WC1,2 and 3 and usually they had little to do with the manual values.

 

Offline Arrow

  • Denglish Interpreter
  • 28
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
In this case, this discussion is quite pointless. We could also assume that the Lexington is longer than just 800m, then. Even the infamous, inofficial "WCbible" states 900m, as far I can remember. Here we go again...  :wtf:

 

Offline gevatter Lars

  • Another wingnut
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • http://gevatter_lars.tripod.com/
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Oh what a fun world of stats ^_^
Reminds me of the discussion why the Bengal production was stopped if it had more firepower then entire fleets. Espacialy the movie version was "ovepowered" according to the manual.
22 AA-turrets, 8 Laser turrets and ass kicking 40 torpedo tubes!
Even when you look at the manual you can see about 17 turrets on the Bengal. That is still quite impressive.

Indeed its pretty hard to tell what to take as given and what is just fantasy.
"Yes! That is my plan, and I see nothing wrong with it. I figure that if I stick to a stupid strategy long enough it might start to work."
 - comment to "Robotech: The Masters"

 

Offline Arrow

  • Denglish Interpreter
  • 28
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Espacialy the movie version was "ovepowered" according to the manual.
Which manual? For the movie? Maybe that could give some answers as to why confed´s fleet seemed only to consist of one big armada (too far away, of course) and one single carrier...  Given that mighty battle-carrier, who needs another fleet, anyway?  :lol:

 

Offline gevatter Lars

  • Another wingnut
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • http://gevatter_lars.tripod.com/
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
The movie manual indeed. I don't have it, just screenshots out of it with stats to the Confederation-class and Bengal-class.
"Yes! That is my plan, and I see nothing wrong with it. I figure that if I stick to a stupid strategy long enough it might start to work."
 - comment to "Robotech: The Masters"

 

Offline Light

  • 24
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Any shield (re)generation rate is not taken into account in these numbers. I don´t think that Origin changed their shielding and armor system again, like they did between WC1-3, so these data just can´t be correct. Unfortunately, wcpedia doesn´t quote any sources for the Concordia-class. Are there any at all?


The source for the Concordia-class shield and armor info comes from Origin's Official Guide To Wing Commander IV (ISBN: 0-929373-37-5). It list for carriers a shield strength of 800 with the armor as 300 both as the maximum per quadrant Fore/Aft/Port/Starboard and the body of the ship as 6000 with a shield regeneration rate of 800 points per second for the entire grid.     

 
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
well I have to say I agree with some of the statements about the Bengal class i disagree with others
according to claw marks http://download.wcnews.com/files/manuals/Wing%20Commander%20-%20Claw%20Marks.pdf page 47 in the pdf

"
Pride of the Fleet
The TCS Tiger's Claw

2642: The Confederation military command, determining that a need exists for a heavy space carrier,
authorizes design of the Bengal-class carrier line. Trojan Four Spaceyards wins the assignment to build the
new line of carriers.

2644: The newly-launched TCS Tiger's Claw, on its shakedown cruise, carrying a minimal spacecrew and
an under-experienced command, finds itself in the path of a surprise Kilrathi invasion force. The ship's
unexpected presence along the Kilrathi flight plan, clever tactics on the part of the command crew, and
performance above and beyond the call of duty by the spacecrews rout the superior Kilrathi force. Shortly
thereafter, Tiger's Claw is given permanent assignment in Vega Sector.

2645: The second Bengal-class space carrier, the Kipling, is launched. Owing to design modifications, the
Kipling and all subsequent Bengals are 10 meters shorter and several tonnes less massive than the Tiger's
Claw, making the Tiger's Claw the biggest space carrier in its class.

2649: Tiger's Claw performs a delaying action to allow Confederation transports carrying ground troops to
retreat out of Kilrathi-occupied space. The engagement, known as Custer's Carnival, concludes with Tiger's
Claw seriously damaged but able to return to port. The carrier is in spacedock undergoing repairs and
refitting until early '50.
"
The Tigers Claw was the first and its the biggest the second was the Kipling.
note I haven't seen any revised images with a covered flight deck however since there were "design modifications" in the ships launched after the Tigers Claw so it may be possible.

The Bengal  class was meant for deep strike missions however due to the number of transports required to resupply it they would need at least return to the front line during resupply after major campaigns.

Also I could see it being used in pincer maneuvers. A Bengal class carrier sneaks around the rear of the Kilrathi fleet to cut off supply lines and the escape route for the Kilrathi capital ships. while the main confederation fleet made a major push forward on the other side of the Kilrathi fleet slowly taking it out by attrition.

 
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Isn't there a model of a refitted Bengal somewhere that has a closed flight deck? I think I remember something like that (a fan creation I assume) and it was really cool.
Is this the one you were talking about?
http://www.wcnews.com/wcpedia/Image:Wcatv-bengal.png
Its from the wing commander academy TV series

  
Re: Ranger class versus Concordia class
Right. It´s still quite popular with fans... Design is a little illogical, though. Why having the most of that huge hangar deck in space?

well I have a thought on this
If you remember the first  game the Bengal class utilizes launch tubes that catapult fighters when launching, so the actual fighter flight deck is probably on the interior of the ship.  The deck that you see is just for landing and possibly used for launching for larger ships such as shuttles. since you could only land on the ship from the front is makes sense to have an open landing deck in case of an emergency wave off (order to abort a landing in progress), that could be caused by an accident involving an other landing fighter or the need to make an emergence course change.

This kind of design would have several advantages primarily it would make it impossible for an enemy fighter to strafe the flight deck and destroy fighters before they are launched. This is a tactic I used in wc3 against an enemy carrier that actually seemed to work in preventing a second wave of fighters from being launched. I got the idea from watching a something on TV about WWII it seems that that was a preferred and quite common way for fighters to attack a carrier. In real life this tactic also would prevented the launch of the remaining fighters that were still working until they cleared the wreckage from the deck

In addition the launch tubes would allow for a more rapid deployment of fighters in an emergency because it would allow simultaneous launch of multiple fighters at once without concern for accidental collisions on the flight deck. The only limiting factor in the launch speed would be the number of tubes and their reset and reload time. Also launch tubes would reduce the likely hood of utilizing a missiles on a launching fighters before they can respond, incidentally I've found this to be a useful tactic in WC Saga because the enemy fighters tend to be in close proximity during there launch as a result there is usually collateral damage done to the other fighters from the missile explosion.