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.

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.

Pip,

A little more bleating. The issue with speed isn't that you'll get to the bad guys before they finish firing their magazine.  The problem is that you can't catch them before they return to their planets and reload. A faster missile armed fleet will be able to fire until their species runs out of missiles. These ships don't really have the kind of point defense that can weather that sort of attack and it won't take too many missiles slipping through to disable one of these ships.   

There are some interesting strategic consequences to building a fleet with the slow beam fleet philosophy I mentioned above.

You can't really skirmish with it.  You either need to have enough of a fleet present to swamp the missiles, or you will get defeated by anyone with enough missiles to kill your ships.  On the other hand, if you move to a disputed colony world, the rival can shoot all they want, but they basically have to concede the world.  But all the rival loses is their ammo, not their fleet.  Which means not necessarily any huge hard feelings as there would be if they had to blow away a rival fleet to demonstrate their seriousness about their claim.

There is a huge issue of not being able to be in two places at once, of course, or of being able to really finish somebody off.  But if they also don't want to weaken a rival so much that some other rival gobbles them up, it could work.  Or at least make for interesting write ups.

Hello Dizzy,

I'll expand on a couple of points from my previous post. Unfortunately, I'm on my ancient Ipad so quoting is impossible (at least for me).

I reread your original post but I didn't see how you'll use lasers at 1250. Unless your oponents come to you, You are not going to be able to catch them.

I mentioned your maintenance life because becauseof the disparity in your deployment time and fuel load.  You have 5+ years of maintenance, 1 year of deployment and 40 days of fuel. It seems like you are carrying extra maintenance that could be used on your engine to make you faster.

You have slow ships that need to close with your opponents to fight them.  You are goingto have wade through all of their missle salvos when you fight.  You'll need point defense and you'll need armor.  7 layers is ok. 2 layer is too little. Even if you don't take damage from missles, you'll get shot up in the laser fight.

One of the cool things about Aurora is that you can design anything to your doctrine and RP. Maybe the issues I mentioned aren't really problems.  Good luck with your fleet

I am curious about the starting conditions.  Because in a conventional start, even if I set the shipyard growing after it is done making survey ships, it isn't likely to get to 18,000 ton capacity before Ion tech.

Ah, it's an SM'd start, hence the rather large shipyards. The other faction will be getting some SM touches as well.

I think you should compare your deployment times to your maintenance life.  Your maintenance life is way too high.  I usually aim for a match between my maintenance life and deployment time with at least twice as much msp as my max repair value.

The maintenance life was addressed by Shoe earlier, but I'll expound on it a bit here. I have that long Maint Life as a side affect, not as a primary goal. The primary goal was to lower the AFR down to something a bit more manageable. With all the Engineering spaces on the Kirov, it currently has an AFR of 152%. These are slow ships, and as such take quite some time outside of port even for something as simple as transferring bases. Over the course of three years out of port it's likely to suffer three breakdowns. If those breakdowns are it's most expensive item, that's half the MSP on the ship gone. That %chance goes up by a lot by dropping even one for only 1HS of savings. That's ignoring that by the time the third year comes around that % goes a lot higher. These are big ships, and according to aurora's rules, they break down fast. With that in mind I decided to play it safe with the maintenance for the first generation.

The craft are slow and rely on lasers.

This has been noted. In fact the entire doctrine hinges upon having superior speed. So while this is a valid point it does make it seem like you haven't read the original post and just looked at the designs.

They are unlikely to catch their targets.

See above.
 

Your ships seem to be designed to function as part of a fleet but they move at different speeds.

"What are you talking about the ships all have the same sp-..... Huh... when did that happen?" This has been fixed ^.^ Thank you and good catch!

Your armor is fairly weak for ships that will have to close with enemy to kill them.

I will definitely take a look at that. I suspect that having faster ships would do much better and that we just have differing opinions on design here though. Feel free to explain this more though. I'm certainly not against hearing it out.

While I like early fighters, until you get Box launchers they are not really effective as strike fighters.  If you really want to not rely on missiles, you should have a fleet that is very strong at point defense.  Fighter fire control can hit missiles that have significantly higher engine tech.

The theory is then if you can shoot down all the missiles, which you might be able to before box launcher or x.33 or x.25 launcher size tech, and your beam weapons outrange the enemy, it doesn't matter so much if the enemy is faster, because you just head to the objective and force them into combat to defend it.

It works better on defense than offense, as it is easier to exhaust the missiles of a mobile force.  And you would need to be able to track and pursue the empty missile boats of the enemy to do more than fend off the enemy.  But if your naval builders had a very defensive mindset, and didn't wish to build an efficient offensive force for fear of seeming threatening and aggressive, it could work, RP wise.

That's actually a pretty interesting concept. Not quite what I was going for, but may just end up being that way in execution. Could you go a bit more in-depth on Fighter fire controls hitting missiles with significantly higher engine tech? It sounds like something I should at least look into.

I am curious about the starting conditions.  Because in a conventional start, even if I set the shipyard growing after it is done making survey ships, it isn't likely to get to 18,000 ton capacity before Ion tech.

The fighters need some attention.  They're very, very slow.  They also have way too much deployment time.  You can save a lot of weight by dropping deployment time to 0.1.

Oh 100% noted here, I knew I forgot something. Yes the fighters are very slow, and while I could save SOME weight, it's not enough to justify it. (it goes to 427 tons compared to 455 for only 200km/s.) New engines that aren't entirely handicapped will do more to fix the problem then dropping deployment time. Lasers are heavy

if the other empire's ships are comparably sized you could get some more sensor performance by adjusting your resolutions upwards.

suggest redesigning your 12cm laser turrets to be 8-4 capacitor rather than 8-6 to save some $.

probably more maintenance life than you need on the heavy ships

a note, soviets absolutely did use naval missiles during the cold war, but eh~! w/e.

Ah had not considered changing the capacitors. As for changing the sensors, the other empire's ships just aren't designed yet, so maybe maybe not
About the maintenence life, I'm still not sure quite how long these ships would last, so I leaned on the safer side. After some play, I'll have a better idea of what I could feasibly get away with.

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).

I'm aware that Sovremenny is a destroyer name just as Kresta is the nato designation. There are also a couple dozen other ship names that are not in aurora's name database and adding them in was turning out to be a pain.  The list of USSR naval names in the database is extremely limited and I'd much rather spend the time it would take to put those names in on designing new ships and getting the game running. I may come back and address it, but for now I'll be using what's in the default database. Though that tidbit of the Kresta I didn't know in particular is actually quite interesting. A bit like the Shchuka and Akula subs :3