Soviet Socialist States Navy Designs

[El Pip]

TT

I agree on the general point. But about these specific ships are they actually that slow for Nuclear Thermal engined ships? I can't start Aurora right now to confirm, but from memory I don't think they are.

It is about relative speed, if the enemy is also using NT engines and can only do 1100km/s then the Soviets still have the relative speed advantage. Sure if the enemy is using Ion Engines these are slow, but if the enemy has that much of a tech edge you are in trouble whatever you do.

[DizzyFoxkit (OP)]

Apologies is this is necro-posting, but I don't find much time to play and when I do find time I find my attention being taken up by other games.
I'm going to go ahead and re-make this game because there are some things I would like to change, as my first approach did not go well. I do plan on continuing this particular campaign even if it takes some time to give it the proper love and write-ups. That being said, some of the items discussed in here caught my attention. So first:

Really, first Soviet missile cruiser (Grozny) was build just 1 year after Long Beach, and thereafter Soviet Navy was even more missile-oriented, than NATO's.
(Soviets relied upon ship-launched shipkiller missiles, while US Navy relied upon their advanced carrier doctrine with air-launched shipkillers.)

Sovremenny is a proper name for destroyer, not for fighter, and if you use Russian names, such as Sovremenny, Kirov, Moskva and so on, than you must use Soviet name for Kresta class - it was Berkut or Project 1134 or Admiral Zozulya, while Kresta is a NATO code, based on inaccurate translation of Kresta Gulf (originally "Zaliv Kresta" means "[Holy] Cross Gulf", where Russian word "kresta" means "Cross' ", "[smth] of Cross" - such words are not self-reliant in Russian, therefore, it just cannot be used as independent word or name).

Serger, would you happen to have a link or a document I could look at regarding the USSR navy's naming system? I would like to avoid some of the confusion with the NATO designations on a second go around if I could avoid it.

A second one would be just a question for general advice and discussion (If this would be better suited to another topic I'll go ahead and make a new topic on the Advanced Tactical Command Academy board). What are general design considerations for a Beam operated fleet? This shouldn't be limited to just Lasers, but close range ships in general. I have a couple of points from the discussion above, such as having enough passive and active defense to bleed the enemy dry of missiles, as well as have enough speed to close on the enemy after those missiles are depleted.

[serger]

DizzyFoxkit, sorry, I don't know even if it was some unified naming system in USSR Navy. It seems to me, that there was some casual mix of old Russian Empire, early revolutionary communistic and later semi-nationalistic naming systems, and all of them was quite... chaotic and irrational. Well, that's historically normal situation, AFAIK.
I'm Russian from Sevastopol (USSR main naval base at Black Sea). Good half of my childhood was around Russian and Soviet Navy, so it's natural and easy for me to hear if some name is a proper name for some Soviet/Russian ship type. But I don't know English references at this subject at all, and I even cannot explain such things clearly, because that's a knowledge of the same type, as native language knowledge - I just know words and names, but I don't know why they are proper or not.

[Garfunkel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ship_naming_conventions

That's pretty much your only source. Other alternative is to just go through Wikipedia for each Russian/Soviet ship class and write down their names.