Author Topic: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora  (Read 14353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NihilRex

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 188
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2014, 12:26:06 PM »
Personally, I build a 50HS Commercial engine, and then a 20HS Military engine with similar power and worse efficiency.
 

Offline OAM47

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 142
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
Yeah, my designs tend not to be very fuel efficient.  I also tend to have fuel shortages.  Wonder if there's a connection  :P

To be fair, I typically use size 10 engines, but this last game I've been using size 5 engines (default).  I've not really noticed a difference in terms of fuel, but even just that little bit extra flexibility in design helps a lot I've found.  I'm orders of magnitude more happy with my ships this campaign than I ever have been before.
 

Offline Arwyn

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 05:07:02 PM »
So, just to complicate matters further, I do both size/function designation. The modern US Navy does it the same way. In actuality, ship naming conventions were not very static in historical navies.

Great example of this would be the age of sail. While ship types were defined by role, they we often designated by sailing rig. So, that would be like designating Aurora ships by engine type. Examples would be Barque, Brig, or Schooners.

Then you have the "class" system that arises in the 18th century. Ships of the line, as the Royal Navy rated them, were rated by decks, and number of guns. 1st Rate ships, were big ships, with mulitiple decks, and a large number of guns. As the times changed, 1st Rate ships, that were still in service, were down rated. The system got confusing, as ships less than 6th rate (still often called frigates), were "unrated" and generically called "sloops".

So in this case, my ships are broken out something like this;
Military
Fighter (pretty self explanatory), can be Light, Medium, or Heavy based on size and loadout.
FAC- short ranged, high speed, low endurance system based attack craft. Could be missile or gun armed
Gunboat- long ranged, longer duration small combatants (usually in the 1000 ton range, but have multi-month endurance)
CT- Corvette- Light patrol craft, system based, or lightweight long endurance warp point guards. Usually 5000 tons or less.
FF- Frigate- Patrol craft, generally smaller than destroyers, usually around 6,000 tons or so. Multi-role, designed for solo or small squadron ops, and cheap. Could be missile armed, but usually gun armed.
DD- Destroyer, fleet combatant, around 8,000 tons or so, gun armed. Single role ships.
DDG- Missile destroyer
ES- Escort- smaller destroyer sized or less anti-missile ships
CE- Escort cruiser, fleet escort, usually light cruiser sized or a bit larger
CL- Light cruiser, usually 9,000 tons or more, smallest capital ship for a fleet leader role
CA- Cruiser, gun armed, 12,000 tons or more
CG- Cruiser, missile armed, 12,000 tons or more
BC- Battlecruiser, could be either gun or missile armed, 15,000 to 18,000 tons. BC's are optimized for speed. I usually use these as the center of a gun fleet.
BB- Battleship, gun armed, 18,000 tons or so,
BBG- Battleship, missile armed, 18,000 tons and up

CVE- Escort carrier, usually a dedicated system defense or interdiction carrier. These are used to get some fighters into a system for long durations. Not for fleet use.
CVL- Light carrier, smaller than the usual fleet carrier, usually 1 to 2 squadrons, meant for smaller fleets or high speed fleets.
CV- Carrier, usually 4 to 5 squadrons, standard fleet carrier
CVH- Heavy carrier, 5 or more squadrons, major fleet combatant, usually command ship for the fleet, space control ship
CVA- Assault carrier, heavily armed and armored carrier meant to go in a warp point assault

In my case, patrol ships, or ships operating alone, tend to be multi-role capable. So, for example, my patrol frigates would be fast, gun armed, but have full sensors. Fleet warships are optimized for specific roles, and don't waste space on unnecessary systems.

As my ships change, the roles and designations may change as well. Especially as ships refit. I also tend to reclass ships as they are rolled out of main line service, and are not slated for refit.
 

Offline Akhillis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • A
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2014, 06:49:53 AM »
Its worth noting that the meaning of ship classifications has changed over time in real life. The first ship to be designated a Destroyer weighed in at 290 tons. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are close to 10,000 tons. A Napoleonic-era Frigate had roughly the same role as a pre-WWI Cruiser and the only reason modern Frigates aren't called Sloops instead is a whim of the Royal Navy Admiralty.
The Sorium must flow
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2014, 09:26:47 AM »
In my current game, the Terran Union Navy uses the following classifications:

CO - South Carolina class - 6,200 tons
SS - Cleveland class - 6,000 tons
DD - Portland class - 9,000 tons
DE - Brooklyn class - 10,000 tons
FF - Iowa class - 10,000 tons
CA - Fletcher class - 15,000 tons
BC - Arleigh Burke class - 21,000 tons
AT - Ticonderoga class - 23,000 tons
BB - North Carolina class - 28,000 tons
CV - Lexington class - 30,000 tons
CVA - Tarawa class - 30,000 tons

Then my fighters:
F-101 Lightning fighter - 235 tons
F-102 Thunderbolt fighter-bomber - 350 tons
F-103 Lancer heavy fighter - 500 tons

So it's a mix of size and function. DD and DE are for AMM and PD, respectively, FF is for ASM, CA is dual-purpose beam warship, BC and BB are full beam warships but BC is faster so it can hunt down lonely enemy ships, AT is for hostile landings, CVA is for jump point assaults and CV is for general fleet duty. SS is a stealth scout. CO is an experimental meson-armed PD platform.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2014, 04:36:00 PM »
Then my fighters:
F-101 Lightning fighter - 235 tons
F-102 Thunderbolt fighter-bomber - 350 tons
F-103 Lancer heavy fighter - 500 tons

I would have gone
F-101 Vodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
F-103 Thunderwarrior

followed up by
Starfighter
Thunderchief
Delta Dart

though after this it gets a little weird with either
Super Super Sabre, or Maneater (the F-107 was never assigned a real name)
Rapier (F-108)
F-109 was briefly assigned to the B variant of the F-101 Voodoo
Spectre (F-110, eventually became the F-4 Phantom II)
Aardvark

sorry for the derail, I love the Century series!

Matt

The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2014, 12:42:05 PM »
To reply on the original question on this thread I think the main reason why so many people end up using ships at around the same sizes and think that a 20k ship is a very large ship is how things scale up in cost, both resource and time wise with size.

Bigger engines and jump drives can be really expensive in research so make it prohibitive to build large ships using such components. Large naval yards is expensive and time consuming to build and large ships can be cumbersome to upgrade if you also have few large yards and several types of large ships. Then there is the thing about maintenance facilities that you need to construct wherever you want to place your ships.

In general you are better of slowly increase the size of your yards with time and technology increase. This way you can also take more advantage of technology such as cheaper expansion of yards etc...

It all depend on the setting you play in. If you play in a setting with multiple factions and there is full competition to maximise your profits then there is not time to invest in monster ships at lower technology levels. If you play a single Earth empire against the AI you can more easily go after more wasteful strategies, or optimise your resource gathering without fear of having them occupied or destroyed.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 01:08:10 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2014, 01:15:55 PM »
I would have gone
F-101 Vodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
F-103 Thunderwarrior

followed up by
Starfighter
Thunderchief
Delta Dart

though after this it gets a little weird with either
Super Super Sabre, or Maneater (the F-107 was never assigned a real name)
Rapier (F-108)
F-109 was briefly assigned to the B variant of the F-101 Voodoo
Spectre (F-110, eventually became the F-4 Phantom II)
Aardvark

sorry for the derail, I love the Century series!

Matt


I usually assign my fighters names alphabetically. F-1 Arbalest, F-2 Ballista, etc.

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2014, 04:38:14 PM »
I usually assign my fighters names alphabetically. F-1 Arbalest, F-2 Ballista, etc.

I actually trend towards a system similar to NATO's codenames for Soviet aircraft,  ie Fighters get names beginning with F (Fulcrum, Foxbat, Fencer, Figjam(honestly!)) bombers with B (Badger, Blackjack) recon fighters with R (Rascal, Renegade)

Matt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Origin of fleet doctrines for Aurora
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2014, 07:27:15 AM »
I would have gone
F-101 Vodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
F-103 Thunderwarrior

followed up by
Starfighter
Thunderchief
Delta Dart

though after this it gets a little weird with either
Super Super Sabre, or Maneater (the F-107 was never assigned a real name)
Rapier (F-108)
F-109 was briefly assigned to the B variant of the F-101 Voodoo
Spectre (F-110, eventually became the F-4 Phantom II)
Aardvark

sorry for the derail, I love the Century series!

Matt


I love the starfighter, who cares that it was a deathtrap, I always use it near the beginning of a campaign.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "