[Spaceships] Ship sizes and other categories (cruiser, battleship etc.)?

[SolemnGolem]

Originally Posted by gjc8

I know Star Wars has TIE bombers, and a number of small ships that fill the torpedo-boat role (the B-Wing "fighter", in an example of the naming pattern above).

If you're taking the space flight sim games into account, then the Rebels have the Y-Wings and B-Wings later on.

The Empire had TIE Bombers, then Assault Gunboats, and then Missile Gunboats (although missile gunboats could also be very effective anti-starfighter craft, depending on their loadout).

To give credit to the game designers, the Missile Gunboat departed from the "make it faster and more durable" inevitable diminishing-returns arms race. Instead they chose to make a moderately armored, fairly fast bomber that had a very large payload of missiles. Basically it was like a capital ship in terms of spewing missiles and warheads, but much smaller and faster.

[sgtcallistan]

In my cinematic SF game, ships are named more by role and purpose than any abstract yardstick.

They can be modified after completion to be fast, carry more stuff, employ weapons or not, etc. within the role for the game.

So: my 'Fleet' ships have a great many patrol/policing/survey/courier vessels of several types, old and new; a few large theatre control vessels (which carry lesser ships and manufacturing/repair facilities) mostly old; and a handful of Nomad mobile stations, which are effectively hometowns and dockyards (tend to be ancient or under repair).
Then there's Thrale, the home planet of the Fleet, of course.

I have assumed in this game that the Fleet have not fought a war in nearly 100 years now, and any existing 'line-of-battle' ships are all hulked or scrapped as having no perceived role.

Civil ships vary from unmanned bulk haulers; to Trade League ships (often gargo ships with some defensive weapons); to independent traders, who use whatever ships they can get and keep maintained; to yachts/couriers intended to carry one to three in style.

I don't worry about 'cruiser' or 'destroyer', as the concept of a wet navy is almost forgotten.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by sgtcallistan

In my cinematic SF game, ships are named more by role and purpose than any abstract yardstick.

Which is after all where most of these names came from in the first place. They aren't originally size based.

I don't worry about 'cruiser' or 'destroyer', as the concept of a wet navy is almost forgotten.

Though both of those roles make perfectly good sense in starships. Cruisers are designed for long term independent operation away from bases. Destroyers are specialized in killing a particular kind of threat (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft), and operate with a fleet.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Which is after all where most of these names came from in the first place. They aren't originally size based.



Though both of those roles make perfectly good sense in starships. Cruisers are designed for long term independent operation away from bases. Destroyers are specialized in killing a particular kind of threat (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft), and operate with a fleet.

Okay, so what system ratios and/or presence/absence of what systems typically qualifies a ship as that or another?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so what system ratios and/or presence/absence of what systems typically qualifies a ship as that or another?

I do not beleive there are any general answers to these questions built in to the game system. Those answers exist only relative to other ships.

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so what system ratios and/or presence/absence of what systems typically qualifies a ship as that or another?

Depends. The terms haven't been used consistently through history. Napoleonic frigates filled the role cruisers do today, for instance, and people have applied the label "battlecruiser" to all manner of mutually exclusive designs.

In my space setting, for example:

• Battleship: a big, powerful unit, designed to attack and defend itself from other battleships.
• Destroyer: numerous small weapons, designed to provide fleet-level missile defense.
• Dreadnought: Superficially similar to its smaller cousin the battleship, but it has more guns rather than bigger ones. It also has enough point-defense to fight in fleet actions without destroyer escort.
• Frigate: a general-purpose warship, designed for the endurance of independent patrol.
• Corvette: designed to land on frontier planets that don't have space facilities. Otherwise a small frigate, used for scouting, anti-pirate patrols, and policing.

You might try here for a compilation of speculation about space fleets.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so what system ratios and/or presence/absence of what systems typically qualifies a ship as that or another?

Depends on the capabilities of everybody else's ships.

For the main ones, I'd say a battleship/dreadnaught/ship of the line needs weapons that can reliably destroy the other guy's battleships in times no greater to that it takes for them to cross the weapon engagement envelope at maximum reasonable speed. Everything else is secondary to that. A destroyer needs weapons able to kill whatever the small fast threat is in the setting before they can cross *half* her engagement envelope, but not more, sensors able to detect them, and either enough range to hit them well before they can range on whatever she's escorting or enough greater speed that she can be pretty far from her principals and still keep up despite the greater distance she has to arc through if the fleet/convoy makes a radical course change. A general cruiser needs enough life support, power and fuel endurance to operate for several times the length of a typical trip between major worlds, onboard repair and medical facilities that can recover from at least minor reverses out of her own resources, and some sort of show the flag capability - a weapon good enough to intimidate people who aren't protected by an actual warship and/or a marine company. A commerce raider cruiser needs endurance to get to and wait at a likely spot, which isn't necessarily the same kind of endurance as the general cruiser, good enough sensors to see merchants at ranges she could reasonably chase the down, enough firepower to take down a convoy escort, and enough speed to run away from capital ships.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so what system ratios and/or presence/absence of what systems typically qualifies a ship as that or another?

Well in my game, Battleships would devote more space to defenses and have a really big spinal gun. Carriers would have hanger decks. Cruisers would be large ships with more engines, allowing them greater mobility. Escorts would be small ships with light rapid-fire weapons. Scouts would be small ships with good sensors.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

Depends. The terms haven't been used consistently through history. Napoleonic frigates filled the role cruisers do today, for instance, and people have applied the label "battlecruiser" to all manner of mutually exclusive designs.

In my space setting, for example:

• Battleship: a big, powerful unit, designed to attack and defend itself from other battleships.
• Destroyer: numerous small weapons, designed to provide fleet-level missile defense.
• Dreadnought: Superficially similar to its smaller cousin the battleship, but it has more guns rather than bigger ones. It also has enough point-defense to fight in fleet actions without destroyer escort.
• Frigate: a general-purpose warship, designed for the endurance of independent patrol.
• Corvette: designed to land on frontier planets that don't have space facilities. Otherwise a small frigate, used for scouting, anti-pirate patrols, and policing.

You might try here for a compilation of speculation about space fleets.

Very nice triangular 'claculator' and table explaining ship types. I assume the percentages can be taken to refer to the number of systems dedicated to that or other aspect.

[Pragmatic]

I'm going to screw up the percentages (because I don't remember them exactly), but it's not a matter of size, it's a matter of design.

For instance, in terms of armor, WW2 battleships ("post treaty") tended to have around 28-33% armor. Whereas cruisers (IIRC) had armor percentages closer to 15-20%.

Battleships are designed for sustained engagements against other battleships (i.e., ships with armor strong enough to stand up to their own armament). Battlecruisers are cruiser-killers (which had the misfortune of being seen as battleships; they were NOT designed to stand up to their own armament). And so on, down the line.

I think that heavy cruisers were designed to stand up to other cruisers, while light cruisers were designed to kill destroyers. And large cruisers (see the Alaska class) were designed to take out heavy cruisers.