Classifying Starships

Husky_Khan said:
Yeah there does seem to be a bit of a brainbug where dreadnoughts in both scifi settings and by the fandom are just considered a class above 'battleships' in just being some super-battleship type of class. Which is fine with me of course. If your in space might as well go big. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
Interestingly, in Star Trek Online "Dreadnoughts" actually don't refer to a specific class that are bigger than other ships. They tend to be specific subvariants of ships otherwise described as Heavy Cruisers (For Feddies), Battleships (for Klinks), or uhh, "Advanced Warbird"* that happen to be equipped with a "lance" type weapon. That is, a forward mounted BFG that can either one shot or heavily damage most any other ships.

STO actually does some very interesting things with ship classification spurred on by the more traditional Trek classes, and generally they make a lot of logical sense when you parse them down, even if some of the things are obviously done for gameplay reasons.

-----------
* The Romulans are kinda masters of understatement. Their "advanced warbirds" in STO are some of the LARGEST ships by volume that a player can use, and for some variants they're actually two in one ships that can separate into two more normal sized ships.
 
Mass Effect classification is pretty much spot on with each class having a clearly defined role.

Dreadnoughts are the top of the bunch with the most powerful weapons and shielding and dish out incredible levels of firepower but are quite expensive and rare. The main independent warship class is cruiser which do most of the heavy work of patrolling and heavy combat while dreadnoughts are reserved for the vital battles in which cruisers flank dreadnoughts. Carriers are actual carriers that stay far away from where the battle is happening and launch their fighters. Frigates and destroyers perform the usual escorting for cruisers and dreadnoughts and perform ''light'' patrol roles on their own as well.
 
ShadowsOfParadox said:
...wait... "Star Destroyer" wasn't a brandname?

I could have sworn all those ships with that in their title thingy were made by the same company...
Click to expand...
Before ISDs were formally known as Star Destroyers, they were called Star Cruisers which make a lot more sense considering their role in SW ship warfare. And of course many characters in OT like Han refer to ISDs as Star Cruisers.
 
ShadowsOfParadox said:
...wait... "Star Destroyer" wasn't a brandname?

I could have sworn all those ships with that in their title thingy were made by the same company...
Click to expand...

No, for example, the Victory Star Destroyer was built by Rendili StarDrive instead of everyone's favourite cutthroat matriarchal capitalist arms manufacturers.
 
Captain-General said:
No, but arrowhead ships as being the standard configuration for heavy vessels intended for regular fleet engagements is as old as the Sith Wars, so that isn't a surprise.
Click to expand...
Eh, Munificient's aren't really arrowhead... certainly Lucrehulks aren't... none of the Rebel Ships are... does Corellia make anything Arrowhead shaped?

Mandalorian ships aren't arrowhead either... ... ... ...
 
Classifying ship by role is a new invention in wet-navies, and that's increasingly only holding true for aviation and amphibious ships. Everything else is getting muddled, with "corvette," "frigate," "destroyer" and "cruiser" really indicating size and capability more than role. It increasingly sounds like most universes, except Star Wars, is doing that: grabbing wet navy terms to indicate size, not role, so the readers can get a feel for how ships relate.

We're reverting to things pre-1860ish, where ships were classified based on size and rig, not role. Perhaps we could have space ships "rated" instead of "typed."
 
Darth Robbhi said:
Classifying ship by role is a new invention in wet-navies, and that's increasingly only holding true for aviation and amphibious ships. Everything else is getting muddled, with "corvette," "frigate," "destroyer" and "cruiser" really indicating size and capability more than role. It increasingly sounds like most universes, except Star Wars, is doing that: grabbing wet navy terms to indicate size, not role, so the readers can get a feel for how ships relate.

We're reverting to things pre-1860ish, where ships were classified based on size and rig, not role. Perhaps we could have space ships "rated" instead of "typed."
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. Size is what mostly matters to the classification. Of course, it's inexact, since battlecruisers are usually smaller than battleships, when in the real world they were physically larger than dreadnoughts!
 
Captain-General said:
I would agree with that. Size is what mostly matters to the classification. Of course, it's inexact, since battlecruisers are usually smaller than battleships, when in the real world they were physically larger than dreadnoughts!
Click to expand...
1st Class Cruisers had been that way since RURIK, arguably since SHANNON, though. The engine plant and bunkerage meant they had to be longer and the same tonnage, or more, than contemporary battleships. Arguably, things got fuzzy as early as RENOWN or PERESVIET, where you had faster but less well armed and armored battleships, or even the KAISER WILHELM II, where you had cruiser-size guns on a battleship.
 
Darth Robbhi said:
1st Class Cruisers had been that way since RURIK, arguably since SHANNON, though. The engine plant and bunkerage meant they had to be longer and the same tonnage, or more, than contemporary battleships. Arguably, things got fuzzy as early as RENOWN or PERESVIET, where you had faster but less well armed and armored battleships, or even the KAISER WILHELM II, where you had cruiser-size guns on a battleship.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Which is precisely why the Royal Navy hated them; they were ruinously expensive in cost and men as a consequence.
 
Captain-General said:
Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Which is precisely why the Royal Navy hated them; they were ruinously expensive in cost and men as a consequence.
Click to expand...
The Royal Navy hated them, because the RN needed lots of them, and their opponents only needed a few. The worldwide nature of British commerce and interests meant the RN needed perponderance of force everywhere, while their enemies only needed it in one place. The RN estimated it needed 70+ cruisers post WWI for maritime policing and commerce protection.

Though, honestly, one does have to wonder why the RN stuck to their standard 2x9.2" and lots of 6" when most other nations were increasing the number of main battery guns well before INVINCIBLE.
 
Darth Robbhi said:
The Royal Navy hated them, because the RN needed lots of them, and their opponents only needed a few. The worldwide nature of British commerce and interests meant the RN needed perponderance of force everywhere, while their enemies only needed it in one place. The RN estimated it needed 70+ cruisers post WWI for maritime policing and commerce protection.

Though, honestly, one does have to wonder why the RN stuck to their standard 2x9.2" and lots of 6" when most other nations were increasing the number of main battery guns well before INVINCIBLE.
Click to expand...

Well, they did go to 4 x 9.2"... And 6 x 9.2" in a configuration which gave only four guns on the broadside... Those cruisers had good armament and speed, they played around with the 7.5" secondaries, but arguably even then those ships were inferior to, for example, the Memphis class. I really think economy had become "perceptual" if you will... The ships didn't look like battleships, so they didn't cost as much as them. Clearly.
 
The fundamental take-away is that ship classification is a function of the technology, and until you nail down the technology and thus how ships fight, you cannot really begin to come up with ship types. Most settings did not bother with this step, and just used what sounds cool, so there is obviously no form of logic to their designations. The problem is when fans then attempt to create a logic from nothing...
 
Captain-General said:
Well, they did go to 4 x 9.2"... And 6 x 9.2" in a configuration which gave only four guns on the broadside... Those cruisers had good armament and speed, they played around with the 7.5" secondaries, but arguably even then those ships were inferior to, for example, the Memphis class. I really think economy had become "perceptual" if you will... The ships didn't look like battleships, so they didn't cost as much as them. Clearly.
Click to expand...
Eventually. But long after most other nations were shipping the same or greater cruiser armament. British first class cruisers were very much at a disadvantage until DUKE OF EDINBURGH if they could not bring their 6" batteries to bear.
 
Darth Robbhi said:
Eventually. But long after most other nations were shipping the same or greater cruiser armament. British first class cruisers were very much at a disadvantage until DUKE OF EDINBURGH if they could not bring their 6" batteries to bear.
Click to expand...

No dispute to that assessment. It was a considerable flaw. I need to re-read Friedman's British Cruisers, now...
 
Flintsteel said:
The fundamental take-away is that ship classification is a function of the technology, and until you nail down the technology and thus how ships fight, you cannot really begin to come up with ship types. Most settings did not bother with this step, and just used what sounds cool, so there is obviously no form of logic to their designations. The problem is when fans then attempt to create a logic from nothing...
Click to expand...
How much of that is the need to give the audience a frame of reference?
 
Flintsteel said:
The fundamental take-away is that ship classification is a function of the technology, and until you nail down the technology and thus how ships fight, you cannot really begin to come up with ship types. Most settings did not bother with this step, and just used what sounds cool, so there is obviously no form of logic to their designations. The problem is when fans then attempt to create a logic from nothing...
Click to expand...

This problem of yours is literally what 90% of my threads are about. šŸ˜­

Captain-General said:
No Sir, that is called Fun. Time-wasting, pointless, silly, glorious Fun.
Click to expand...

You understand me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top