Gigantism

[AtraUnam]

If were getting fuel then we have to get rid of magic space-friction.

 

[Kaamio]

With the upcoming shipyards and related repairing ability, I think more gradual damage to ships and their turrets will become a viable option to create maintenance costs to ships. Such as power outages damaging the reactors, shield piercing effects and so on. I certainly hope that if Schine listens to the community and implements fuel, they listen actually well and make fuel an addition instead of generic consumed stuff for everything that becomes a chore with very few positives.

The popular-seeming idea of fuel pretty much doesn't give a damn about space friction, since just scooting about with your thrusters isn't going to be at all difficult to achieve with your regular, non-fueled reactors. Unless you build stupid. But then again, we have plenty of weird, derpy game mechanics that are pretty damn tedious and/or counterintuitive (yet still very logical) so I wouldn't bet my life on having a sensible implementation of fuel...

 

[BDLS]

If were getting fuel then we have to get rid of magic space-friction.

That's a server.cfg option. Although most players cry when they have to play in servers without it (but it is superior).

 

[Visitor]

Recon is done via radar/sonar (much like our sensors) and so the size of the ship really doesn't matter.

The size of the objects radar scans for does matter (so called radar cross-section) - of course, it doesn't matter the most as there's whole lot of other, different qualities like shape, material or polarization, but it does. Properly built, smaller vehicle more often than not will be harder ot find or at least will provide smaller signature than a bigger ship which is quite a big deal for a stealthy recon.

You can't compare ground operations to naval operations, space ships are just that, ships. All you're doing is replacing water with vacuum. And when it comes to the navy, there's nothing small ships do better.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but US navy you've mentioned with their "supercarriers and battleships" disagrees, partially through phasing out battleships completely for the sake of smaller, yet effective destroyers. And it's not simply because they have no resources to build bigger ships but because required maintenance and supporting bigger crews per ship is actually not worth it (when it comes to ships that aren't platforms for smaller vessels). With battleships' value for money being contested thorough their existence - and smaller ships in many scenarios doing as well (after all, unlike in StarMade, real ships are often relatively fragile and you don't need prolonged high-calibre fire to start damaging them right away without bothering with shields).

Analogy to the situation with current drone carriers as more reasonable and worth it I find quite delicious, though.

You mention the navy making ships of a certain size due to technological infeasibility. That ALREADY exists in starmade. There's a reason most 'titans' are around 1-2km at most.

It exists only to a degree. Turrets, missile launchers, cannons will keep on being more powerful and useful as long as you have power to supply their fire. Most common reason for size of the ships you mentioned seems to be currently not as often them losing utility after 2 km, but because it's a pain to build and play with those, especially when there's more than one - technological limitation of users' computers.

Arbitrary nerfs like making them less efficient is silly, and unrealistic and illogical. A Nimitz class super carrier is over 300 meters long, yet it can run non-stop for decades before having to be refueled. How long can your honda civic go without refueling? Size often times opens up efficiency, not limit it.

While military hardware is made to be as efficient as possible, non-nuclear-powered US navy ships are regarded as the most fuel-consuming vehicles under the command of the Pentagon. Among mentions I found (which should be taken with a grain of salt, though, since they're online), you can find things like: 12 inches per gallon, 134 barrels per hour for cruisers and 68 barrels per hour for battleships - compare to that, honda civic you used for comparison is halfway to magical vessel powered by driver's will to drive if you'll get it fuel capacity of similar size. Since there are no civilian, commercially available vessels going on nuclear reactors, the relation becomes iffy when it comes to nuclear-powered newer ships (which, by the way, Nimitz-class belongs to so I don't think that comparing it to vehicle working on whole generation older propulsion is fair and objective) - but one way or the other, the size itself does not provide efficiency, it can only provide more space for the fuel which most likely you'll keep up burning faster than in a smaller unit.

I start to doubt however whether your comparison with real-world realities, even if apparently favoring certain 'balancing' of huge vessels, is really wise - the game with its portrayed technology does not really have to follow the same.

 

[jayman38]

All those talks are leading to .... nowhere. All I see is a hundred of fallacies, from both parties, so how about changing the method ?

-> Problem
|-------------------------> Big ships are the answer for everything
-> Why is that a problem ?
|-------------------------> Snowballing : The game, instead of encouraging things like a standardized fleet, encourages too much the action of throwing all the resources on one single ship, making a titan, because it's very less likely to die, and more likely to beat others with ease.

...

Now, if nerfing them are "silly" , tell me a better solution for that. Because this meta is unhealthy ....

I think a better solution could come with the shipyard system:
complete obliteration of ship constructions if attacked. (Ouch!)

In order for this kind of solution to be viable, even invulnerable home base shipyard constructions (not the shipyard itself; just the under-construction structure inside) should be destroyed if someone takes a potshot at the base. A larger titan would take longer to build, and so would be vulnerable to in-dock destruction for a longer period of time until completed.

This would allow a small ship, maybe completely cloaked, even with a weak weapon, to take down even the largest in-progress structure, even if it's just moments from being completed. (Kind of like the situation we see in Star Wars where a small craft takes out the super-weapon, even if the super-weapon's structure is only two meters of material away from being completed.)

I think this game mechanic would cause smaller ships to come into favor more, because they could come off the assembly line faster, making them less vulnerable to this kind of disruptive destruction. Unfortunately, this solution is grief-prone, but that's the whole point.

 

[Lecic]

titans can have jammers fitted to them just fine

Eh, not usually. Titans are actually pretty much impossible to fit jammers to, simply because they aren't power efficient enough.

EDIT- Permajamming, that is. A lot of big ships can jam for a decent length of time due to massive power capacity.

 

[Ithirahad]

That's a server.cfg option. Although most players cry when they have to play in servers without it (but it is superior).

Yes, most players cry because necessary game mechanics to comfortably play without it don't exist. I like it, personally, but nobody wants to lose a ship because of a glitch sending it floating away randomly. There needs to be some way for ships to automatically stop if there's nobody in them, in their gravity, or aligned to them.

 

[Colt556]

The size of the objects radar scans for does matter (so called radar cross-section) - of course, it doesn't matter the most as there's whole lot of other, different qualities like shape, material or polarization, but it does. Properly built, smaller vehicle more often than not will be harder ot find or at least will provide smaller signature than a bigger ship which is quite a big deal for a stealthy recon.

When it comes to the high seas, small recon ships simply don't exist. If they want recon they either rely on their sonar/radar which can detect other ships or aircraft from hundreds of miles away, satellites, or aircraft. The size of the ship, as I said, doesn't matter because 'stealthy recon' isn't something that exists within the navy. Again, how ground operations work are far different than how naval operations work. In game terms we can launch fighter craft if we want, we have sensors to pick targets up, small ships don't really hold an advantage in recon.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but US navy you've mentioned with their "supercarriers and battleships" disagrees, partially through phasing out battleships completely for the sake of smaller, yet effective destroyers. And it's not simply because they have no resources to build bigger ships but because required maintenance and supporting bigger crews per ship is actually not worth it (when it comes to ships that aren't platforms for smaller vessels). With battleships' value for money being contested thorough their existence - and smaller ships in many scenarios doing as well (after all, unlike in StarMade, real ships are often relatively fragile and you don't need prolonged high-calibre fire to start damaging them right away without bothering with shields).

Analogy to the situation with current drone carriers as more reasonable and worth it I find quite delicious, though.

They didn't phase out their battleships for destroyers, they phased them out for carriers. WW2 proved that airplanes beat battleships, at least until we develop some form of shield technology and require big ships with big guns again. Destroyers exist in the same role destroyers have always existed, smaller cheaper ships to go where the big ships aren't. But my point stands, if the US didn't have to worry about resources (that includes maitnenance obviously) then they'd build nothing but supercarriers and submarines. It isn't because small ships do it better, it's because small ships do it cheaper, which I have said several times now. In starmade resources aren't very much of a factor, so there's no reason to go for the cheaper, weaker option.

It exists only to a degree. Turrets, missile launchers, cannons will keep on being more powerful and useful as long as you have power to supply their fire. Most common reason for size of the ships you mentioned seems to be currently not as often them losing utility after 2 km, but because it's a pain to build and play with those, especially when there's more than one - technological limitation of users' computers.

Pretty much the exact same as real life. It isn't that we CAN'T build bigger in real life, we certainly can. It's that it's a hassle and not worth going bigger. Hence why I said soft-cap. There isn't some kind of hardcoded limitation put in by the devs that limit our titans to the sizes they are, they naturally stop there because going bigger really isn't worth it in a lot of ways and that's how it should be.

While military hardware is made to be as efficient as possible, non-nuclear-powered US navy ships are regarded as the most fuel-consuming vehicles under the command of the Pentagon. Among mentions I found (which should be taken with a grain of salt, though, since they're online), you can find things like: 12 inches per gallon, 134 barrels per hour for cruisers and 68 barrels per hour for battleships - compare to that, honda civic you used for comparison is halfway to magical vessel powered by driver's will to drive if you'll get it fuel capacity of similar size. Since there are no civilian, commercially available vessels going on nuclear reactors, the relation becomes iffy when it comes to nuclear-powered newer ships (which, by the way, Nimitz-class belongs to so I don't think that comparing it to vehicle working on whole generation older propulsion is fair and objective) - but one way or the other, the size itself does not provide efficiency, it can only provide more space for the fuel which most likely you'll keep up burning faster than in a smaller unit.

I start to doubt however whether your comparison with real-world realities, even if apparently favoring certain 'balancing' of huge vessels, is really wise - the game with its portrayed technology does not really have to follow the same.

You missed the point, size does add efficiency. Nuclear reactors are a thousand times more efficient, as you yourself pointed out when comparing it to ships that run on traditional fuel. Yet nuclear reactors are not small, you can't fit them on anything you want. Good luck finding some 50 meter boat with a nuclear reactor, it wont happen. So the size of the ship opens up options for more efficient technologies. If you wanna apply that to game terms then add in new power blocks that are really big, but also really efficient, since that's how it works. Obviously scaling up the same thing wont be as good, but bigger ships don't have to rely on the same power generation method. And beyond all that, that goes back to the whole "need fuel" big ships drain a lot more fuel to get places if using conventional power generators and that requires a lot of logistics, so just like real life you may opt to send smaller, cheaper ships instead.

The overarching point is when dealing with the ships directly there is not, and never should be, a reason to take a smaller ship over a bigger one. That is why we need to add incentives indirectly through things like maintenance costs. Yeah your big ship is better in every way than this smaller ship, but can you afford to send that big ship everywhere? Nope, so send the smaller one since it'll still get the job done.

Also, the best comparison to real life is WW2 minus the planes. Since most scifi operates like WW2. Our ships function on the same principles WW2 ships did. They're made to tank hits to the face and dish that damage back, and just like WW2 a smaller ship can't beat a bigger one. There's a reason a destroyer never sunk a battleship in the entire war. And that's because the destroyer simply lacks the firepower to do any real damage to a battleship. Same applies here.

 

[Lecic]

When it comes to the high seas, small recon ships simply don't exist. If they want recon they either rely on their sonar/radar which can detect other ships or aircraft from hundreds of miles away, satellites, or aircraft. The size of the ship, as I said, doesn't matter because 'stealthy recon' isn't something that exists within the navy. Again, how ground operations work are far different than how naval operations work. In game terms we can launch fighter craft if we want, we have sensors to pick targets up, small ships don't really hold an advantage in recon.

Well, it's a good thing we're in SPACE, then.

In Starmade, if you want to do recon, you do it in a small ship that can jump fast, has good scanners, and can stay radar jammed at the very least. Stealthy recon might not exist in the navy, but it sure as hell does in Starmade.

Stop thinking about space as identical to the oceans. Just because they share a lot of similarities doesn't mean you can apply everything that works in the sea to space.

 

[Colt556]

Well, it's a good thing we're in SPACE, then.

In Starmade, if you want to do recon, you do it in a small ship that can jump fast, has good scanners, and can stay radar jammed at the very least. Stealthy recon might not exist in the navy, but it sure as hell does in Starmade.

Stop thinking about space as identical to the oceans. Just because they share a lot of similarities doesn't mean you can apply everything that works in the sea to space.

Except space and the ocean work pretty much the same way. You want recon on the high seas? Use your sensors. Want it in starmade? Use your sensors. The only difference is starmade partitions things off into sectors so you can't get long range on your sensors like you can in real life. That's literally the only reason to use small ships, because you have to get right up in the enemies face and that isn't something you want to dedicate a titan to.

I'll stop thinking about space as identical to the oceans once they stop being basically the same thing in terms of functionality.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

If a WW2 destroyer could zip behind a battleship faster then it could turn then maybe you'd be onto something, but other then size scale Starmade ships don't handle like naval vessels at all. Manoeuvrability is a much bigger factor, and proportionally speaking Starmade ships are packing bigger guns, once shields are down even capital ships get shredded by anything bigger than a fighter. The only thing really keeping "titans" invulnerable from smaller vessels is shields, which can be brought down with concentrated fire in a way that isn't really analogous to how WW2 combat works.

There's already a reason not to use big titan ships in Starmade: Groups of smaller ships are objectively better in combat, and are a cheaper, more efficient use of resources. This is without factoring in drones at all. The only real advantage of bigger ships at the moment is that one person can operate it. On the subject of drones they're better still, pretty much the only thing keeping drone swarms from being commonly seen in "normal" play is that no one really wages war, there's very little point as there's nothing to gain. If redocking is ever a thing, then non-carrier bigger ships are pretty much done.

 

[Colt556]

If a WW2 destroyer could zip behind a battleship faster then it could turn then maybe you'd be onto something, but other then size scale Starmade ships don't handle like naval vessels at all. Manoeuvrability is a much bigger factor, and proportionally speaking Starmade ships are packing bigger guns, once shields are down even capital ships get shredded by anything bigger than a fighter. The only thing really keeping "titans" invulnerable from smaller vessels is shields, which can be brought down with concentrated fire in a way that isn't really analogous to how WW2 combat works.

There's already a reason not to use big titan ships in Starmade: Groups of smaller ships are objectively better in combat, and are a cheaper, more efficient use of resources. This is without factoring in drones at all. The only real advantage of bigger ships at the moment is that one person can operate it. On the subject of drones they're better still, pretty much the only thing keeping drone swarms from being commonly seen in "normal" play is that no one really wages war, there's very little point as there's nothing to gain. If redocking is ever a thing, then non-carrier bigger ships are pretty much done.

I disagree. Shields in starmade take on the role of armor in WW2. Once you can pen that you can wreak havoc on a ship. But small ships with small caliber weapons can't punch through a battleship's armor, just as how small ships with low damage weapons can't breach a titan's shields. It works pretty much the exact same way. And big ships in starmade are invulnerable for the same reasons WW2 battleships were, small weapons just don't pack the punch to get through their armor/shields. Also most titans rely on turrets rather than ship-mounted guns, so maneuverability doesn't matter much since it ends up being the same thing as WW2. Yeah, sure, a small destroyer can run circles around a battleship but no matter where that destroyer was, the battleship had weapons capable of firing on it. Same applies to starmade, you'll pretty much never find a titan that doesn't have turrets, so even if you zip around behind it, it'll likely have some turrets still firing on you.

Really starmade combat works on the same principles as WW2 naval combat, same as pretty much every other scifi. And you're right, swarms of small craft can and do kill titans. So again, just like WW2. Once we get better AI controls and can re-dock drones, and order them around you'll see titans being replaced by carriers, because carriers will just be objectively better.

Mechanically speaking the dynamic between small and big ships is perfect as is, all that needs to be added is indirect nerfs/buffs such as logistics and fuel, and some of that is on the way in the form of shipyards and the HP update.

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

I'm just gonna leave this here. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...n-will-use-to-sink-chinese-aircraft-carriers/

Doesnt look that big....and certainly isnt a swarm.

IIRC, there was also a wargame played where a swarm WAS used, where fishing boats were essentially armed with torpedoes or a single missile akin to a tomahawk. They were small enough to be all but invisible to a lot of radars, and the larger ships could not react fast enough to hit them, due to their small profile they were not good targets for missiles and the larger guns simply did not do well once they closed within a certain range, and of course you arent going to turn a battleship or carrier all that fast.

In fact, the main reason you have smaller ships is to ferry cargo and supplies, patrol, and of course, to defend against someone who also uses small ships.

 

[Colt556]

I'm just gonna leave this here. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...n-will-use-to-sink-chinese-aircraft-carriers/

Doesnt look that big....and certainly isnt a swarm.

IIRC, there was also a wargame played where a swarm WAS used, where fishing boats were essentially armed with torpedoes or a single missile akin to a tomahawk. They were small enough to be all but invisible to a lot of radars, and the larger ships could not react fast enough to hit them, due to their small profile they were not good targets for missiles and the larger guns simply did not do well once they closed within a certain range, and of course you arent going to turn a battleship or carrier all that fast.

In fact, the main reason you have smaller ships is to ferry cargo and supplies, patrol, and of course, to defend against someone who also uses small ships.

That's different, modern combat operates on drastically different principles over scifi or ww2 combat. In both ww2 and scifi the principle was "your ship will get hit, so make it strong enough to take the hit". So ships in WW2 were heavily armored and they didn't have weapons that could effortlessly bypass that armor. This is shared in scifi, and thus starmade, with ships having shields and being designed with the idea that they will get hit, but their shields will protect them.

Modern combat is entirely different, modern ships have no armor to speak of, they're built with the idea of "don't get hit". So they rely heavily on missile defense systems and stealth so that they don't take a hit, because they're all essentially glass cannons. Ships in starmade don't work that way, they CAN'T work that way. Your ship in starmade WILL get hit, and hit often in a fight and so it works much more like ww2 naval combat.

So when comparing starmade to reality, you have to compare it to ww2 rather than modern times, because starmade runs on the same principles as WW2 did when it comes to ship vs ship combat.

 

[Lecic]

Except space and the ocean work pretty much the same way. You want recon on the high seas? Use your sensors. Want it in starmade? Use your sensors. The only difference is starmade partitions things off into sectors so you can't get long range on your sensors like you can in real life. That's literally the only reason to use small ships, because you have to get right up in the enemies face and that isn't something you want to dedicate a titan to.

You've... literally just proved my point that small ships are superior for scouting in Starmade. Congrats.

There's already a reason not to use big titan ships in Starmade: Groups of smaller ships are objectively better in combat, and are a cheaper, more efficient use of resources. This is without factoring in drones at all. The only real advantage of bigger ships at the moment is that one person can operate it.

Aaaand you've just revealed the problem- lack of players. Sure, 5 corvettes with half the combined mass of a battleship might be able to defeat that battleship, but where the hell are you going to get 5 players?

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

So when comparing starmade to reality, you have to compare it to ww2 rather than modern times, because starmade runs on the same principles as WW2 did when it comes to ship vs ship combat.

I dont really think that's a fair way to compare for all things considered. I understand what you mean in the comparisons of armor, and for that you're right. However, combat is WAY different, when even the largest battleship can have 4 jump drives at the ready, you very much CAN combat without getting hit, and I've seen many a player jump in, dump a thousand missiles, and jump out, then back in again, then out again, before needing to recharge anything.

Please give me the comparison of jump drives or teleportation, homing swarm missiles, and AI turrets with perfect accuracy in WW2.

In other words, yea, I agree to some degree (which is to say I do not completely disagree), but the rules of engagement are far enough apart, the tactics different enough, that no amount of comparison to something else is really worth a drawn out metaphor, and instead we should just compare starmade to starmade, and discuss how combat works here, rather than anywhere else. Our challenges are unique to our game.

 

[Colt556]

I dont really think that's a fair way to compare for all things considered. I understand what you mean in the comparisons of armor, and for that you're right. However, combat is WAY different, when even the largest battleship can have 4 jump drives at the ready, you very much CAN combat without getting hit, and I've seen many a player jump in, dump a thousand missiles, and jump out, then back in again, then out again, before needing to recharge anything.

Please give me the comparison of jump drives or teleportation, homing swarm missiles, and AI turrets with perfect accuracy in WW2.

In other words, yea, I agree to some degree (which is to say I do not completely disagree), but the rules of engagement are far enough apart, the tactics different enough, that no amount of comparison to something else is really worth a drawn out metaphor, and instead we should just compare starmade to starmade, and discuss how combat works here, rather than anywhere else. Our challenges are unique to our game.

People often make this mistake, but comparison does not require both things are exactly the same down to the smallest detail. The style of combat used in starmade is comparable to WW2 naval combat. Is it the EXACT SAME in every possible little detail? Of course not, and that isn't the point of comparison. What you describe is comparable to hit n run tactics which even battleships were capable of, and did, in WW2. The exact details of how you pull it off is obviously different, but the principles behind it, the intent, the outcome, are all the same. Get in, do damage, get out, and harass the enemy. Just because your ship is designed to take a hit doesn't mean you intentionally get hit. Even in WW2 ships took evasive maneuvers and did their best to mitigate getting hit.

Really everything you see in combat you also see in WW2. You focus too much on the minor details which simply do not matter when comparing different things. The whole point of a comparison is that despite their differences they're still very similar. So yeah sure they didn't have jump drives or missiles in WW2, but then those differences don't actually change the fact that combat in starmade is pretty identical to combat in WW2.

 

[Valiant70]

Aaaand you've just revealed the problem- lack of players. Sure, 5 corvettes with half the combined mass of a battleship might be able to defeat that battleship, but where the hell are you going to get 5 players?

And if you DO get five players, they can all get a battleship in a reasonable amount of time and they probably will. This is a player-to-resource ratio problem.

If we had a player-to-resource ratio where boarding was worthwhile due to the high value of the target, Titans would be rare without a massive player base, and the number of players compared to these ships would be more realistic as it would take a lot of players and a lot of time to get to a ship that size.

I want to point something out here: The scalability of collection systems is insane. There are two limiting factors: How big that salvage nom-nom cannon is, and how fast you can put material under it. You either have to limit one or the other. Right now people can reasonably get a server-crashing sized ship with the labor of just a few people, and when HARDWARE is the limiting factor, resources are obviously too plentiful.

People often make this mistake, but comparison does not require both things are exactly the same down to the smallest detail. The style of combat used in starmade is comparable to WW2 naval combat. Is it the EXACT SAME in every possible little detail? Of course not, and that isn't the point of comparison. What you describe is comparable to hit n run tactics which even battleships were capable of, and did, in WW2. The exact details of how you pull it off is obviously different, but the principles behind it, the intent, the outcome, are all the same. Get in, do damage, get out, and harass the enemy. Just because your ship is designed to take a hit doesn't mean you intentionally get hit. Even in WW2 ships took evasive maneuvers and did their best to mitigate getting hit.

Really everything you see in combat you also see in WW2. You focus too much on the minor details which simply do not matter when comparing different things. The whole point of a comparison is that despite their differences they're still very similar. So yeah sure they didn't have jump drives or missiles in WW2, but then those differences don't actually change the fact that combat in starmade is pretty identical to combat in WW2.

And you're focusing on defending an analogy rather than doing anything useful.

 

[Colt556]

And if you DO get five players, they can all get a battleship in a reasonable amount of time and they probably will. This is a player-to-resource ratio problem.

If we had a player-to-resource ratio where boarding was worthwhile due to the high value of the target, Titans would be rare without a massive player base, and the number of players compared to these ships would be more realistic as it would take a lot of players and a lot of time to get to a ship that size.

I want to point something out here: The scalability of collection systems is insane. There are two limiting factors: How big that salvage nom-nom cannon is, and how fast you can put material under it. You either have to limit one or the other. Right now people can reasonably get a server-crashing sized ship with the labor of just a few people, and when HARDWARE is the limiting factor, resources are obviously too plentiful.


And you're focusing on defending an analogy rather than doing anything useful.

Your first mistake is assuming anyone posting anything in this thread is remotely useful. This exact same stuff was being discussed over a year ago and this thread has offered literally nothing new. If you want to be "useful" you'd do something other than post here.

And I defend the analogy because it shows how things can, and should work aptly. It shows why smaller vessels are used despite being inferior to larger ones and it shows how you can address spamming big ships. But then, as I said, this has been discussed for a very long time and nobody in this thread is treading new ground, which is why I had a chuckle when you said I'm not doing anything useful.

 

[Visitor]

When it comes to the high seas, small recon ships simply don't exist. If they want recon they either rely on their sonar/radar which can detect other ships or aircraft from hundreds of miles away, satellites, or aircraft.

Not exactly. Spy ships do exist, IRL, even now, in modern age. Often in connection to satellites or as the ones employing sonar/radar - exactly. They come in variety of sizes because often, for the sake of utility they are fit with equipment allowing them to perform functions beyond recon, but they do. And the small ones in case of recon - depending on the method used - don't do generally worse than their bigger counterparts.

And that doesn't take into consideration that space is a bit different than open seas. In space - space as we have it in StarMade - not only satellite and (relatively) long-range scanning is rather crude or nonexistent, but there are objects and ways to hide a ship more easily, making such function - if anything - more viable.

They didn't phase out their battleships for destroyers, they phased them out for carriers.

Wrong. I didn't check all the navies but US actually took pains to modernize and maintain standing number of commisioned destroyers (exceeding noticeably that of carriers by about 6 times) and in fact they're important enough partially because they serve as escorts for carriers which, despite their size, aren't very defensive do-it-all, unlike StarMade's sizeable ships.

Destroyers exist in the same role destroyers have always existed, smaller cheaper ships to go where the big ships aren't.

Wrong. Destroyers go as often to the same places said big ships go, because they're needed to protect those bigger ships as escorts.

You missed the point, size does add efficiency. Nuclear reactors are a thousand times more efficient, as you yourself pointed out when comparing it to ships that run on traditional fuel. Yet nuclear reactors are not small, you can't fit them on anything you want.

Very wrong. Hilariously, our space rovers have nuclear reactors. They cannot be comparable to the navy ships however, since both the reactors and the radioisotopoes powering them are prepared exactly to maintain rover's life for double/triple the expected mission time, no less or more. Hell, if you'd check US National Library of Medicine, you'd find papers on such quirky devices like radioisotope powered pacemakers.

No matter if they're a good idea, depending on what they can be used for - and whether it's worth the money - nuclear reactors/cells can power all kinds of devices. They went into navy quickier not because navy wanted them big and better but because their big ships were horrible drain on resources and the submarines without such reactors needed to surface periodically so they could turn on their diesel engines and recharge batteries needed for functioning underwater - which made nuclear reactors viable despite their otherwise high cost.

Good luck finding some 50 meter boat with a nuclear reactor, it wont happen.

Good luck finding some 50 meter boat in need of nuclear reactor for the sake of efficiency that would quickly return the expenses - it won't happen anytime soon. Given that navy uses FACs of such size sparringly and usually for things like coast patrol there's hardly a point of fitting them with one. But can it technically be done? Of course. There's just no point.

So the size of the ship opens up options for more efficient technologies.

Except it's not how it goes. As claimed above, size of the ship didn't open up options, it demanded them because too many sizeable ships are fuel-guzzlers. Size of vehicle doesn't further technological development - it's completely the other way around - it's the technology developments that allows ships of various sizes to maintain efficiency (or exist in the first place).

And beyond all that, that goes back to the whole "need fuel" big ships drain a lot more fuel to get places if using conventional power generators and that requires a lot of logistics, so just like real life you may opt to send smaller, cheaper ships instead.

Yes, it comes down to logistics, but what is important for the consideration is that just because the ship is big, it isn't more, unconditionally, efficient.

Your first mistake is assuming anyone posting anything in this thread is remotely useful. This exact same stuff was being discussed over a year ago and this thread has offered literally nothing new. If you want to be "useful" you'd do something other than post here.

Now you're being simply rude to Valiant70 - and quite a few other users here. Many of us post because not all of it was discussed the same and from the same standpoint in the major past threads and because we believe that it's wise to have Schine aware of this whole issue with possible ways of solving it (often using emerging ideas and features unavailable and undiscussed earlier) and thus useful. I am glad you agree with general premises of gigantism being some sort of issue but if you do not believe there's any point in this and post just for the sake of arguing with people, I am not sure you're doing anything good - beside bumping the thread.