Vessel classifications in "pseudo" reality

This is the shiplist that is going to be proportionally accurate, and only able to be run on PHOST.

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Vessel classifications in "pseudo" reality

Post#1 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:11 pm

Ok, so I'm over at wikipedia to grab some fairly useful warship classifications.

Somewhat modified for VGAP:

Gunboat / Torpedo Boat (light wt, low-medium guns, short range)

Monitor (heavy wt, medium guns, very short range)

Mine Layer (low arms, drops mines, needs cargo, med range)

Mine Sweeper (sweeps mines, not countermine, med range)

Corvette (light arms, fast, short range)

Frigate (convoy escort, short range, light to medium weapons)

Destroyer (fast, long range, medium weapons, light to med mass)

Cruiser (Handles multiple smaller vessels but not BBs, medium mass, long range)

BCruiser/ Hvy Cruiser / Pocket BB (guns of a BB, low mass relative to BB, long range)

Battleship (big guns, big weight, long range)

Lt. Carrier (small to medium # of bays, low wt, short range)

Carrier (medium # of bays, medium wt, medium range)

SuperCarrier (high # of bays, high wt, long range)

Battlestations You know, the Gorbie.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#2 » Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:08 pm

nice list. but the frigate should be the small version of the cruiser. give it at least medium range. frigates are pocket-multi-tools :D
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#3 » Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:54 pm

Frigates are a goofy fish.

Prior to the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st, the frigate
was more of a small ship.

Now, it fills the roles all the way up to what cruisers do.

I figured on going with the more traditional role.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#4 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:04 pm

B A N E wrote:Frigates are a goofy fish.

Prior to the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st, the frigate
was more of a small ship.

Now, it fills the roles all the way up to what cruisers do.

I figured on going with the more traditional role.
haha, then explain to me the traditional role of carriers :P

i just can not imagine the ship-names with old 3-mast-frigates..... i see the new german ones and think: they should not have short range, cause they don´t.

also, in times of 1800 to 1900 there were frigates ruling the sea. no battleships or stuff. after that there came the battlecruisers of WW1. with WW2 the battleship and carrier evolved and there were no traditional frigates left. so now is the only time you have them all together. and their role is that of a small cruiser.

ships like the coldpain or the cats pawn should be called a frigate. while the death specula would be a destroyer.

i would implement neither "mine sweeper" nor "mine layer". stick to general classes.
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
the.Ant
Posts: 283

Post#5 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:09 am

I have no idea what you are talking about, since I am good with civil history, not technical. However, I see a different problem in translating those names (and functions) into planets: speed and capability.

Small ships are not more versatile, they just need less fuel. But that does not only affect speed, but also range and can be avoided if you have the right race, or are lucky enough to find good fuel resources.
Capability: besides fighting (and minelaying), the difference is if a ship can tow or not. Not much to distinguish here, is it?

cheers,
the.ant

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#6 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:49 am

the.Ant wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about, since I am good with civil history, not technical. However, I see a different problem in translating those names (and functions) into planets: speed and capability.

Small ships are not more versatile, they just need less fuel. But that does not only affect speed, but also range and can be avoided if you have the right race, or are lucky enough to find good fuel resources.
Capability: besides fighting (and minelaying), the difference is if a ship can tow or not. Not much to distinguish here, is it?

cheers,
the.ant
man, you are destroying our discussion here ;)

it is a s important as....... as it is.
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#7 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:18 am

Part of the classification problem is that in reality you cannot put eighteen inch guns on a fast attack boat. In planets you can put Mk VIII torpedos and Heavy Phasers on a ten ton hull with one engine. If your ship list allows it this same ten ton hull can have ten beams and ten tubes.

In Star Fleet Battles (and the later computer game Star Fleet Command) this problem is solved by energy requirements for weapons. It takes energy to move the ship, power the shields, and power the weapons. VGAP has no such system.

Got a solution? I sure don't.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#8 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:41 am

These are the only solutions.

# of weapons
# of weapon types
Hull Mass
Crew Count
ES bonus

By playing with the various crew counts, keeping little ships with
little crews, they can have a big gun but they won't fire it often.

Same thing with hull mass.
Since shields are directly affected by hull mass, by keeping the
mass down, the shields are lower and therefore ship is more
vulnerable.

I have no objection to small warships, I have objections to warships
that are outclassed by another warship that costs less within the
same fleet.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#9 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:58 am

B A N E wrote:These are the only solutions.

# of weapons
# of weapon types
Hull Mass
Crew Count
ES bonus

By playing with the various crew counts, keeping little ships with
little crews, they can have a big gun but they won't fire it often.

Same thing with hull mass.
Since shields are directly affected by hull mass, by keeping the
mass down, the shields are lower and therefore ship is more
vulnerable.

I have no objection to small warships, I have objections to warships
that are outclassed by another warship that costs less within the
same fleet.
Is that to say that crew count affects fire rate? I have never heard this. Or am I just not understanding what you are saying?

I do agree about the hull mass, and it is a good thing for us that it works that way.

I like small warships. We just need to put things in their proper places. I'd like to see small ships that, in a rare universe, become the standard, instead of lots of giant carriers running around all over the place. The effect of which is to make the CVA something to be feared.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#10 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:49 am

I'm referring to low crew ships don't get lots of shots off due to
their getting captured.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to remove completely
low crew warships.

The trick would be to set up a myriad of tests with various specs to
see at what point a low mass / low crew ship remains effective against
ships of the same caliber but do get captured or destroyed easily by
ships that are bigger.

Right now the crew capture weapons are almost all nullified by high
crew, high mass and ES bonus.

Xray is useless versus high mass and es bonus.
Disruptor destroys light ships rather than capture.
HDisruptor is even more devastating against small ships.
BOOM.
Gammabomb is crippled by insufficient blast to shields so a horde of
torps gets fired and no significant gain.

There are a few exceptions (capture fireclouds and such)

Personally, I'd like to be able to build effective crew kill ships.
I'd much rather capture than destroy an enemy's ships. :twisted:

IMO, exceptions would be:
BB's and SCVs and arguably most borg ships. (except fcc and b200)
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#11 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:29 pm

I understand what you are saying about the low crew ships. It's pretty frustrating to have the crew kill weapons that don't do any good at all. The only ships that are captureable (is that a real word?) are freighters. The only way to capture a high crew ship is to build a special purpose ship with something like Mk VII torps and X-rays and only load enough torps to knock down their shields. Even then there are some ships that are completely uncaptureable (if captureable is a real word so is uncaptureable...) like the LCC. There is no way for anyone other than the Orions or Tholians to capture a LCC.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#12 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:01 pm

Well, if I get gung ho, I'm going to play with the simulator.

IMO, Cruisers and down should be capturable by variants of:
Xray/Dis/HDis+Gamma Bomb.
Or
Xray/Dis/Hdis + minimal mk4/m7/mk8.

It'll take some time, but I figure I can come up with a range
for the various ship classes so that it can be done.

If the target ship is armed to the teeth with big beams and big torps,
the prey should/may find themselves toast! As it should be.

Regarding the Gamma Bomb... have you simmed to see just how
many of those duds you have to fire to capture things? :shock:
That's expensive.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#13 » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:15 am

i once battled an anihilation armed with gammas. it needed 60 torps to conquer my rather unprotected planet, after it took over my deth specula :D

IMO not all ships should be captureable. some are too easily and some just have too much crew onboard. i am ok with that. but some ships - especially smaller ones - have ridiculously high crew-counts. outrider, 180??? swift heart, 126? ..... compared to: serpent, 35! br4, 55 (less, most times ;) ) opal, 25! mig class, 10!!!
you can capture them all with XRL, D sometimes HD. you can capture the science ships as well. all of them. it´s a good thing. but you need not have cruisers that are getting captured unless they are unarmed hulls. privs can do such things, because they get 4x kill-ratio. they need that!!!

but some ships would win their battles, if they did not get captured ALL THE TIME! SSF, iron lady, sage, vendetta....
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#14 » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:11 am

I'm not wanting cruisers "easily" capturable.

That's why I'll probably fiddle with the sims for awhile to see what
sort of mass, what sort of crew and then es bonus to see roughly
where the boundaries are.

I do think the cruisers should be capturable.
There are exceptions, IMO, the Borg & Cylon would over staff their
ships as both races ideologically aren't impressed with individuals.

But if I get it right, if someone tries to capture an Hb/mk7 cruiser,
they get their teeth kicked in.

I am pushing more towards the rock-paper-scissors concept.
Yes, you can TRY to capture that vessel, and it just might work,
if it isn't properly armed.

Then there's the possibility that the prey is armed to capture ships.
hehehe.

I agree the crew arrays are nuts on the various ships.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
scooby dood
Posts: 116

Post#15 » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:36 pm

Frigates should be more long range with decent exploring

Return to “Project 2: The Accurate List”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron