Ship Classification

[Panpiper]

Panpiper used Necropost! It's super effective!

I did. I am not proud of myself, but I did.

 

[Calhoun]

I did. I am not proud of myself, but I did.

Well that's fair enough.

On an unrelated note, do you habit the Star Citizen forums? I swear I've seen that profile picture before!

 

[Panpiper]

On an unrelated note, do you habit the Star Citizen forums? I swear I've seen that profile picture before!

I have indeed spent far too much time on the Star Citizen forums. I am also a fairly prolific comment poster on certain YouYube channels and subjects. I get recognized from there often enough as well.

 

[Panpiper]

This is not a bump! This is a new contribution to the discussion.

Several posters commented that a ship classification should be based more on function than on mass. I do not recall if I challenged this, but they are not completely wrong. What I would stipulate is generally the design that meets the function tends to fall within a certain spectrum of mass and most of the time, basing the classification using mass makes the process simple. That said...

Just a few days ago, I set upon the task of building a ship designed to both be small and put serious hurt onto much larger ships, specifically it was designed to do major damage in a fleet engagement. That is the typical task of a destroyer. I have been calling these ships destroyers, despite the fact that they are only 4K mass. Normally a 4K mass ship would, in my classification, be a frigate. However a frigate generally speaking is not going to be, or be seen to be a threat to battleships and titans. The little 4K 'destroyer' I just built most emphatically is. (It can be deployed in numbers, and once a titan's shields are down, it can put a lot of penetrating damage 'very' deep into the ship, putting auxiliary reactors into explosion mode, whereupon the titan is doomed. Think of it as an independently flying, capital class turret.)

So in addendum, I would state that using the mass as a general guideline for a ship classification is sound. However if a ship outside of that mass scale is specifically designed for the role, it could still be called something else. I would stipulate however that this aught to be kept to a reasonable point. A 2K corvette is under no circumstances ever going to be considered by anyone other than their owner perhaps, to be a 'battlecruiser', or whatever.

 

[Blodge]

This is not a bump! This is a new contribution to the discussion.

Several posters commented that a ship classification should be based more on function than on mass. I do not recall if I challenged this, but they are not completely wrong. What I would stipulate is generally the design that meets the function tends to fall within a certain spectrum of mass and most of the time, basing the classification using mass makes the process simple. That said...

Just a few days ago, I set upon the task of building a ship designed to both be small and put serious hurt onto much larger ships, specifically it was designed to do major damage in a fleet engagement. That is the typical task of a destroyer. I have been calling these ships destroyers, despite the fact that they are only 4K mass. Normally a 4K mass ship would, in my classification, be a frigate. However a frigate generally speaking is not going to be, or be seen to be a threat to battleships and titans. The little 4K 'destroyer' I just built most emphatically is. (It can be deployed in numbers, and once a titan's shields are down, it can put a lot of penetrating damage 'very' deep into the ship, putting auxiliary reactors into explosion mode, whereupon the titan is doomed. Think of it as an independently flying, capital class turret.)

So in addendum, I would state that using the mass as a general guideline for a ship classification is sound. However if a ship outside of that mass scale is specifically designed for the role, it could still be called something else. I would stipulate however that this aught to be kept to a reasonable point. A 2K corvette is under no circumstances ever going to be considered by anyone other than their owner perhaps, to be a 'battlecruiser', or whatever.

I'd probably call the ship you describe either a Light Destroyer, A Heavy Bomber, or (depending on it's armament type) a Heavy Gunship. That's just my opinion though. No doubt other people will have some colourful suggestions.

 

[StarWars1981]

Assault Frigate

That's basically what most of us agreed on: Mass is the primary determining factor, but role has a big say in what it's called.
See massive post somewhere deep in the bowels of this topic by me, with a list of stuff I should probably vet for idiocy/redundancy/etc. and repost or direct people to. That list is the roles and relative sizes between different classes, based upon modern day navies and names like gunship or bomber and etc. that come up in a lot of sci-fi. The actual masses are where we have differences in opinion. I've seen people name destroyers as the size of something I was planning as a heavy cruiser at 50k mass pre-filling and 250m length; I've seen people call a heavy cruiser at 10k mass, at 5k, at 25k, whatever.

So, now we've necro'd this thread twice, anybody else got anything to add. Might as well, lol. This thread came up with some good discussion and interesting points.

 

[Calhoun]

Well, seeing as it's here.

I like this classification, but the Corvette and Frigate numbers seem a little low to me.

 

[Spoolooni]

What would a ship be considered at around the 600m range?

 

[Panpiper]

What would a ship be considered at around the 600m range?

Length alone doesn't tell us much. If it's nothing more than a needle shape for power lines and full of jump modules or whatever, it might be anything. For any normally constructed ship however, I find it hard to fathom such a length being that of anything less than a battleship, and very probably a titan. The telling factor would be it's mass. The breaking point for me is at 500K. If it's above that, I would call it a Titan. If it's below that, it's likely a battleship.

 

[kikaha]

What would a ship be considered at around the 600m range?

a fighter, probably light one as well. if the people using it are ten meters tall. Who knows what you'll encounter in space. Certainely not all living beings are humans.

 

[Blodge]

a fighter, probably light one as well. if the people using it are ten meters tall. Who knows what you'll encounter in space. Certainely not all living beings are humans.

10 meter tall intelligent NPCs would be cool. But that's another thread

 

[Spoolooni]

Length alone doesn't tell us much. If it's nothing more than a needle shape for power lines and full of jump modules or whatever, it might be anything. For any normally constructed ship however, I find it hard to fathom such a length being that of anything less than a battleship, and very probably a titan. The telling factor would be it's mass. The breaking point for me is at 500K. If it's above that, I would call it a Titan. If it's below that, it's likely a battleship.

That's a good system for me. I am making fleets and battleships are going to be a general asset in my upcoming releases as center points of those fleets, mostly used to kill titans. And yeah, I recall pencil ships being a thing!

 

[Nickizzy]

Assault Frigate

No, an Ion/Torpedo/Heavy Missile frigate, depending on it's weapons. I've played to much Homeworld to let that one fly.

 

[StarWars1981]

No, an Ion/Torpedo/Heavy Missile frigate, depending on it's weapons. I've played to much Homeworld to let that one fly.

It's a class out of Star Wars - which has a lot of idiocies and redundancies in its class system, plus a HEAVY CRUISER rebuilt to be BIGGER and BADDER and then named ... the Assault Frigate ... huh?

 

[Nickizzy]

It's a class out of Star Wars - which has a lot of idiocies and redundancies in its class system, plus a HEAVY CRUISER rebuilt to be BIGGER and BADDER and then named ... the Assault Frigate ... huh?

Where was that from? Is that the republic mini-star-destroyer?

 

[Brokengauge]

There's no reason a frigate can't be bigger than a cruiser. way back in the day, any fast ship that was able to go on ling voyages unsupported was a "cruiser". It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that a "cruiser" became it's own, specialized type of vessel.

 

[aRottenKomquat]

Where was that from? Is that the republic mini-star-destroyer?

It's from the old Expanded Universe material. It was a rebuilt Dreadnaught designed to be heavier and not require a billion crew.

Dreadnaught:

Assault Frigate:

 

[StarWars1981]

Dang Nebulon B design philosophy - throw enough odd and ridiculous shapes around and nobody'll question its lack of details...

 

[madman Captain]

Did anyone of you played the X3 games and now their ship classification:

Combat ships

M5 : Small Fighters, (scout ships, cannon fodder)
M4, M4+: Medium Fighters, (light Interceptors)
M3, M3+: Heavy Fighters, Light Bombers (multipurpose fighters)
M8: Bombers (heavy firepower against large ships)
M6, Heavy M6: Corvettes (escort, heavy Interceptor)
M7: Frigates (fire support, escort)
M7m: Missile Frigates (heavy fire support)
M7c: Carrier Frigates (support carrier)
M7dc: Drone Carrier Frigates (provide cannon fodder)
M2, M2+: Cuisers, Destroyers, Battleships, Dreadnoughts (Damage Dealers, Tanks)
M1, M1+: Carriers, Super Carriers (provide fighter/bomber support)
M0: Moterships, Titans, Superweapons, Planet-Destroyers (TOTAL ANNIHILATION)

Non Combat ships

TS: Fright ships, in size normally between Corvettes and Frigates
TS+: militarized TS ships
TM: Transporter for a small fighter squat, "Micro Carrier"
TP: Passenger Transporter, mostly smaller than TS ships
TL: Super Heavy Transporter Ships, Station Transporter, Luxusliner, Fleet supply ships
TL+: Mobile factories

Subvariants of most of them are: Raider (Alpha Damage), Sentinel (supstain), Vanguard (DPS), Hauler (extra Cargo), Prototype, Enhanced


This system works well. It gives me enough information about size and purpose of the ships.

 

[StarWars1981]

Did anyone of you played the X3 games and now their ship classification:

Combat ships

M5 : Small Fighters, (scout ships, cannon fodder)
M4, M4+: Medium Fighters, (light Interceptors)
M3, M3+: Heavy Fighters, Light Bombers (multipurpose fighters)
M8: Bombers (heavy firepower against large ships)
M6, Heavy M6: Corvettes (escort, heavy Interceptor)
M7: Frigates (fire support, escort)
M7m: Missile Frigates (heavy fire support)
M7c: Carrier Frigates (support carrier)
M7dc: Drone Carrier Frigates (provide cannon fodder)
M2, M2+:Destroyers, Battleships, Dreadnoughts (Damage Dealers, Tanks)
M1, M1+: Carriers, Super Carriers (provide fighter/bomber support)
M0: Moterships, Titans, Superweapons, Planet-Destroyers (TOTAL ANNIHILATION)

Non Combat ships

TS: Fright ships, in size normally between Corvettes and Frigates
TS+: militarized TS ships
TM: Transporter for a small fighter squat, "Micro Carrier"
TP: Passenger Transporter, mostly smaller than TS ships
TL: Super Heavy Transporter Ships, Station Transporter, Luxusliner, Fleet supply ships
TL+: Mobile factories

Subvariants of most of them are: Raider (Alpha Damage), Sentinel (supstain), Vanguard (DPS), Hauler (extra Cargo), Prototype, Enhanced


This system works well. It gives me enough information about size and purpose of the ships.

For starters, Alpha Damage and DPS (damage per shot, damage per second is another; but that really relates only to automatic weapons and is inapplicable to most warship weaponry in both SM and other sci-fi) are identical statistics. Second, where are the cruisers? I like the name, FYI, and it is, in most every fleet designations system, an important class to battle plans. Also I like the name.

Seems rather barebones; and where the heck are the other numbers?!?!?!?!?! M5, M4, M3, M8 WHAT? M6 what on EARTH? M7 now it's in REVERSE????!!!!!! M2 NOOOOO!!!!! M1, ok, M0, why not just bump them all up to have an M1 final class? OR GO THE OTHER WAY!!!! AAGH! OCD!!!!