Talk:MC40a light cruiser
Back to page
Contents |
better pic?
Edit
Please, upload better image - because this is awful :/ . SkywalkerPL 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Way too blurry. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Though a better picture only gives you a better idea of how ugly this ship really is. :-Þ —Darth Culator (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pity, cause the XWAUP one is actually quite pretty. YIIMM 20:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hideous. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's better than the previous one. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- finally SkywalkerPL 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'll say. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- finally SkywalkerPL 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's better than the previous one. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
since the MC40a is supposed to be in Empire at War, couldn't the image be changed to the version seen in that game? --BaldFett 21:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- If someone could provide us with one, I suppose so. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
EaWEdit
What does "Empire at War (extended version)" mean? —Darth Culator (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the cut material? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The published version of the game doesnt have it in so I've taken it out. I doubt it was left out because it wasn't used becuase there are plenty of unused ships in the source code. Freaky dug 16:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- What about the so-called "extended version"? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well I've never heard of it, so it's either not been released or doesn't exist. I'd guess it was planend for the game but left out in favor of the Nebulon-B, which seems to have a similar level of armament. There's also the fact that it's a carrier and no rebel ships carry fighters in EAW. Mabye it'll be in the probable expansion pack.Freaky dug 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps this incident is similar to the Venator-class Star Destroyer EaW incident. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is not, the Venator actually appears in FoC, but the MC40, as far as I've seen, isn't even in the EaW code (or maybe it is, and it is just so hard to find that no modder has ever noticed it).69.144.44.83 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this incident is similar to the Venator-class Star Destroyer EaW incident. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- Well I've never heard of it, so it's either not been released or doesn't exist. I'd guess it was planend for the game but left out in favor of the Nebulon-B, which seems to have a similar level of armament. There's also the fact that it's a carrier and no rebel ships carry fighters in EAW. Mabye it'll be in the probable expansion pack.Freaky dug 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- What about the so-called "extended version"? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
Faster than an MC-80a?Edit
I'm confused as to why the article says the MC40 is faster than the MC80 when the MC80 is running at 60 mglt and this thing's running at 13. Isn't that insanely slower?--76.22.118.231 03:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Because in the X-Wing series, all capital ships are very slow. The canon speed of the MC80 might be 60 MGLT, but in the game it's probably like 10. To adjust the speed would be fanon, so this inconsistency should be left. Tony Knightcrawer 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
MC40 vs MC40aEdit
are these two separate classes? I notice both names being used in the article, and this may explain two different lengths still a valid queryJustinGann 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
