Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: justleroy on July 17, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
-
I started playing this game about a month ago. In reading the forums and the wiki, I've noticed that there is a lot of variation in ship classification. In doing a Google search to make sure I had a more or less realistic classification for my ships, I discovered there is a large variation in real-world ship classification, as well. There are a lot of nations that want to call their frigates destroyers (or vice versa in the case of some EU nations).
I decided to make a listing for my own reference, and have decided to share it with the community.
It can spot a 10,000-ton battleship [. . ]
-Aurora Wiki Active Sensor Design page
I included that quote from the wiki because it gave me a chuckle. This is like calling a chihuahua a horse. ;D
In general, this is what I came up with through various Google searches on naval displacement, tonnages, and classifications. The most valuable source was the AMI International Definitions of Vessel Types (hxxp: www. amiinter. com/pagex. php?pg=vesseltypes).
<700 tons - Fast Attack / Patrol craft --
FACs are small (under 700 tons), fast (over 25 knots) vessels that are intended for quick, hit-and-run strike operations within 100 miles of the coast. In Aurora terms, any craft under 500 tons is treated as a fighter, so this class in Aurora is generally from 501 - 1000 tons.
700 - 2000 tons - Corvettes / gunships / coastal patrol craft --
Corvettes are generally the smallest platforms capable of accommodating the sensors, weapons, and combat systems needed to operate in a medium threat environment. In Aurora terms, this would be used for defense of a planet, moon, or listening post, but would not give chase to an enemy once driven off.
2000 - ~5000 tons - Frigates --
A frigate is generally the smallest surface combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment.
~5000 - ~ 10,000 tons - Destroyers --
Generally, a destroyer is considered to be a ship that has all of the sensors (including a sophisticated phased-array radar), combat systems, and weapons needed to operate in a high-threat environment. This ship is the backbone of most navies as these ships are generally more cost effective than, and almost as capable as, cruisers.
~10,000 - ?? - Cruisers --
A cruiser generally displaces over 10,000 tons, and is fully capable of a wide-range of independent warfare operations in a multi-threat environment. These are the most familiar types of vessel in science-fiction. There does not appear to be an upper limit for cruisers. Even the old battleships could be classified as cruisers. Logically, though, the cruiser class shoufd probably end where the battleship class begins. :)
>~34,000 tons - Battleship/Dreadnaught --
The only real world equivalents are from WII, as no one has built a BB since ~1943. These ships are huge and expensive. Note, they are not necessarily slow! The Iowa class battleships of WWII could easily keep pace with the Essex class aircraft carriers they escorted and had a top speed of 31 knots. Respectable even for modern naval vessels. These ships carried the largest and most powerful armaments ever put on a naval vessel. The Yamato class battleships used 18" guns, the Iowas 16".
Some examples of past naval vessels and their sizes are below. (Taken from hxxp: www. rpsoft2000. com/shipsize. htm)
Passenger and Military Type Ships
approx. feet feet knots
date name owner weight (tons) decks people length width Speed
Passenger / Military
1912 Titanic White Star Line 46,328 9 3,000 882.5 92 21
1934 Queen Mary Cunard 81,237 12 3,131 1,019 28.5
1939 Bismark German War Ship 50,000 880 120 29.5
1962 Carrier Enterprise US Navy 89,600 5,830 1,101 133 30
1973 Carrier Nimitz US Navy 97,000 5,680 1,092 134 30
1991 Monarch of the Seas Royal Caribbean 73,941 11 2,350 880 106 19
2000 Explorer of the Seas Royal Caribbean 138,000 15 3,114 1,020 157.5 23.7
2001 Adventure of the Seas Royal Caribbean 138,000 15 3,114 1,020 157.5 23.7
2002 Brilliance of the Seas Royal Caribbean 90,090 13 2,501 962 105.6 25
2004 Queen Mary 2 Cunard 150,000 23 3,873 1,132 147.5 30
2006* Ultra-Voyager Royal Caribbean 160,000 4000+
-
I think these things are all relative. A destroyer today would be bigger than a destroyer from a century ago. I think you're generally in the clear as long as you have your cruisers bigger than your destroyers and reserve words like "battleship" for the biggest things you plan to build.
-
I am amused. I was looking at the same stuff earlier today. I came up with the same order and explanations =)
-
What I'd like to know, if anyone can find it, are some of the terminology from the olden days of wooden sailing ships. I know they used the term "frigate" back then, but I don't know how would it compare to a brigantine or a schooner or a ship of the line or what have you. Did they use the term "destroyer" in that era, or is that something new? It might add a little more flavor to the game if we had these hulls available.
-
What I'd like to know, if anyone can find it, are some of the terminology from the olden days of wooden sailing ships. I know they used the term "frigate" back then, but I don't know how would it compare to a brigantine or a schooner or a ship of the line or what have you. Did they use the term "destroyer" in that era, or is that something new? It might add a little more flavor to the game if we had these hulls available.
I do know (know might be a strong word, but I'm fairly certain) that some of the ship designations had to do with the way their sails were rigged, as well as size and type of guns carried, etc, etc.
-
I generally go with a 2000-4000 spread, but for the early game, a 20,000t ship is called a battleship. Mid-game, the civilization does an adjustment of sizes and 40,000t might be considered a battleship, and the obsolete ship in the museum that was a battleship now has the same displacement as a light cruiser.
As for the destroyer?
In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers. Destroyers, originally called boat destroyers in 1892,[1] evolved from the response of navies to the threat posed by torpedo boats...
So it's mostly what you make of it.
Oh, and amusingly, from slightly further in the same article:
...Modern destroyers, also known as guided missile destroyers, are equivalent in tonnage but vastly superior in firepower to cruisers of the World War II era...
Basically, how I handle it has modern-day precedent.
-
What I'd like to know, if anyone can find it, are some of the terminology from the olden days of wooden sailing ships. I know they used the term "frigate" back then, but I don't know how would it compare to a brigantine or a schooner or a ship of the line or what have you. Did they use the term "destroyer" in that era, or is that something new? It might add a little more flavor to the game if we had these hulls available.
First of all you have to understand that the US frigates of the time were not really frigates and that within any classification there was a lot of variation as the major naval powers were somewhat different.
Sloop of war was a single masted ship with carronades as its main weapon or a few light guns and carronades.
Frigate was 2 masted and had 1 or 2 gun decks, plus carronades. What the US called frigates were actually more accurately small 3rd rate ships of the line. I think they tended to 8-12 lbers and usual was 18-24 guns, but the US frigates had 44 guns and they were 12-24 lbers (if memory serves).
3rd rate ship of the line was a 3 masted warship with 18-24 lbers usually with 2 gun decks (44 or so guns) It mainly was applied to older ships of the line that had been refit...but were smaller and had weaker broadsides then modern ships.
2nd rate ship of the line was a 3 masted warship with 20-24 lbers usually with 2 gun decks. (60 or so guns)
1st rate ship of the line was as 3 masted warship with 20-48 lbers usually with 3 gun decks. (72 or more guns)
I think Brig-Sloop of War and so on were all just different names for essentially the same ship.
Frigates were intended to function as scouts and they lacked the armour (well hull thickness) and weight of broadside to fight in the line of battle.
The English SoL were usually smaller, and had fewer guns then the French and Spanish ships. But their crews were a lot more motivated and well trained.
When the batteries were mixed (which was fairly common) the heavier guns were lower in the hull so you might have on a 2 deck frigate with 12 guns in the broad side 6 8 lbers in the lower deck and 6 6 lbers in the upper deck, then with 4 4lbers on the main deck and 4 48 lb carronades bow and stern.
Destroyers came about when they introduced torpedoes in the later half of the 19th century and the full name was "torpedo boat destroyer" as they were tasked to destroy the ships carrying them. They transitioned to them mounting torpedoes by WW1. Modern terminology is probably motivated by budget concerns...it is easier to convince congress to buy "destroyers" then "light cruisers" which is what a modern destroyer is anymore. Same is true for modern Frigates most of which are the same displacement as a WW2 destroyer...but again "frigate" sounds cheaper when you are talking to congress.
WW2 ships are best classified by gun size:
Destroyer 4" guns
Light Cruiser 6" guns
Heavy Cruiser 8" guns (huge variation though)
Battle Cruiser 12" guns (lots of variation though)
Battle Ship 15+" guns
Again you have to take this with more than a few grains of salt as Germany had some designs that straddled the heavy cruiser/battle cruiser line, but pretty much everyone had odd classes and so on that were harder to define.
Hope this helps.
-
Silly question, but.... what's a carronade?
-
Silly question, but.... what's a carronade?
From my days of playing Wooden Ships & Iron Men (and maybe from reading Hornblower):
Large shot (heavy hitting), short barrel, short range. (Hence Steve's Plasma Carronades).
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade
John
-
Modern terminology is probably motivated by budget concerns...it is easier to convince congress to buy "destroyers" then "light cruisers" which is what a modern destroyer is anymore. Same is true for modern Frigates most of which are the same displacement as a WW2 destroyer...but again "frigate" sounds cheaper when you are talking to congress.
LOL, but I'm not convinced that's the case - I think it might be capability creep. I remember reading a Proceedings article 20 years or so ago that plotted cost and number purchased by the military of various weapons systems vs. time. My recollection is that basically they all (battleships, carriers, fighter planes, bombers, ...) had their unit costs go up up up while the number purchased went down - the article was talking about eventually having an air force with only one plane - but a really capable plane. I think it also mentioned disruptive technologies stopping the progression by truncating entire classes of weapons systems, like air power did to battleships.
I think it's analogous to the evolutionary arms races that lead to ridiculous peacock tails or really big dinosaurs. Everyone wants their next generation of frigate to be just a little more capable than the last one, until a few decades later the capability brackets have shifted. At that point, there's a void at the small end of the spectrum and they have to introduce an entirely new type to fill the void - I think that's what been going on with the Littoral Combat Ship. Come to think of it, a similar effect probably happened with aircraft carriers - the Wasp LHD class has a displacement ~50% larger than a WWII Essex class carrier.
I think the same thing happens in the automotive industry. My first new car was an '87 Nissan Sentra. 20 years later, the Sentras looked MUCH nicer (and cost a lot more) - I think they'd been hit with the same functionality creep. Not sure if Nissan slid another model underneath Sentra yet, though.
Didn't mean for that to be so long, but it's something that's interested me for a while now....
John
-
Yeah, that happens. In the business school we talk about the "Red Queen effect" in competition between businesses. Kind of a similar idea. The term refers to the episode in Through the Looking-Glass where the red queen's country moves so fast you have to keep running just to stay in one place:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
-
I usually class my ships more after their roles than size.
Anything below 1kt is considered a vessel, not a ship.
Aerospace vessels are below 500t and are classified as Scout, Fighter, Fighter-bomber or Bomber
Between 500t and 1000t are Patrol boats, Torpedo boats, Missile boats and Gunboats, as well as Couriers
Smallest Ship class would be Corvettes, around 2kt at the start
Frigates would be around 3-4kt, both to act as screen for Fleets, or long-range patrols. Escort versions of both would use slower civilian drives, and be a tad bigger.
Destroyers would mass around 5-7kt, armed with light torpedoes (I use the term torpedo for ASMs)
Cruisers would start around 8kt, up to 10kt at first. Standard cruisers get a balanced armament and are built for commerce warfare. There are several subtypes for specialized roles, Scout cruiser, Patrol cruiser, Missile cruiser, Torpedo cruiser. . .
Armored cruisers mass about 12-15kt, with heavy armor and guns/torpedos, basically pocket battleships
Battlecruisers are about 18-20kt, fast, heavily armed, but only moderately armored
Battleships would start at 18-22kt, with heavy armament and armor. Orbital defense ships (Orbitalpanzerschiffe) are the equivalent of seaborne coastal battleships, at or a bit below the lower range of size, with much lower range and endurance as regular battleships
Most classes from Cruiser upwards would also have jump capable variants with reduced offensive armament
-
I usually class my ships more after their roles than size.
The mission or role a ship is designed to fit into is more important than tonnage. Tonnage is just a rule of thumb, a guideline, rather than an absolute definition. However, in general, most ships are going to fall into a certain range defined by their tonnage as much as their role. And your list is a good example of that - various tonnages delineate what roles a vessel will fulfill. For example, a ship of 3000 tons is not large enough to pack enough armor and weaponry to be a general combat vessel. It must be specialized -- guided missile frigate; point defense frigate; search and rescue, escort, anti-submarine, patrol/coastal defense. Choose one, or perhaps even one and a half, but that's it. A destroyer-sized vessel that is specialized for it's role and can not effectively carry out any other mission, could rightfully be called a frigate. It may be a stretch to call an 8,000 ton ship a frigate, though, even if that is what the ship does.
The role/mission of a ship is going to define it's size as much as it's size is going to define what roles and missions it can realistically take on.
-
Here is how I generally designate my classes. I have a big text file that I keep designs and stuff in. Generally the form follows function and if I want something for a certain role it ends up within these weight classes (Like if I design something with 'heavy cruiser' in mind -Medium speed, armored, heavy hitter- they usually end up towards the higher end of my cruiser tonnage. Form and Function).
F Fighter/Interceptor/Scout < 250t
F/A Specialized Fighters/Bombers etc. 250t - 500t
B Bomber ~500t
FAC Fast Attack Craft 500t-1kt
C Corvette 1kt - 4kt
FF Frigate 4kt - 6kt - FF,FFG,FFA
DD Destroyer 6kt - 10kt DD,DDG,DDA
CL Cruiser 10kt - 14kt CA,CL
BC Battle Cruiser 14kt - 22kt
BB Battleship 22kt - 40kt
DN Dreadnaught 40kt - 60kt
TN Titan 60kt+
Really though, if you wanted to call a 2m kt super ultra dreadnought a frigate, there's nothing stopping you
-
What I find interesting is that when I started up a new game for a walk through recently, just with very basic default settings, Earth has about 4 shipyards that can build 1-2ish 13,000 ton (max) ships each and employs around 7 million people do so. Seems to me that many people working on a handful of ships which are only slightly larger than modern Ticonderoga-class cruisers is a bit excessive, and possibly counter productive :P
Maybe not though? I'm no expert!
-
I guess those people include also the various supporting industries, producing everything from the weaponry and electronics, to the bunks installed in the cabins and the paint on the bulkheads.
-
As others have said must roles I assume have no direct relation to any tonnage of the ships. A frigate are basically a very specialized ships, usually not very big and mostly defensive in nature. A destroyer is a ship that carries both offensive and defensive capabilities and adequate sensors and could operate in small groups independently. A cruiser is any ship that can act and operate independently and is a jack of all trades ship.
In my games a frigate will usually be about 3-6000t while destroyers is about 9-12000t a cruiser is as large as they need to be and I designate larger cruiser as battle-cruisers or very large ships as dreadnoughts (usually a battlecruiser/carrier type ship). Most of my cruisers have internal hangars in various sizes to accommodate recon and scout vessels of 2000 or below in size.
-
I generally class vessels by what they do rather than how big they are; Frigate are generally Anti-Missile ships, Cruisers independant action* ships, Battleships are the core of my combat fleets. It's not unusual for late game Frigates to be larger than early game Battleships.
Matt
* By Independant action I mean my cruiser squadrons are fast response before the main battle fleet gets involved formations, not the Star Trek wandering around alone idea
-
Ship classifications seem to depend entirely on the individual running the game or in the case of fleets it depends on the culture of the country.
I used to class my ships by tonnage with most combat ships being no larger then 25,000 (battleships) tons but when the next version of Aurora I am going to class ships by armament and/or role.
-
I think it is safe to say a majority of the original players of Aurora got their start in Starfire and SFB. Starfire classed hulls by tonnage and I think that practice carried over into Aurora.
-
I got my start in nowhere. Well, Dwarf Fortress, I suppose.
I tend to classify like this, though names change based on what they might be used for. This is assuming they're using approximately the same type and relative power of armament for their tonnage, since a Mine-layer could be 1000 tons or 10,000, but it's still a Mine-layer.
0>X>=100: Light Scout/Suicide Probe
100>X>=250: Light Fighter
250>X>=400: Fighter/Fighter-Bomber/Interceptor etc.
400>X>=500: Heavy Fighter/Bomber etc.
500>X>=750: Light FAC/Fast Scout Craft
750>X>=1000: FAC
1000>X>=1750: Light Corvette/Heavy FAC
1750>X>=2750: Corvette
2750>X>=3500: Heavy Corvette/Light Frigate
3500>X>=4500: Frigate
4500>X>=5500: Heavy Frigate/Light Destroyer
5500>X>=6500: Destroyer/Light Carrier
6500>X>=7500: Heavy Destroyer/Light Cruiser
7500>X>=9000: Cruiser
9000>X>=10500: Heavy Cruiser/Carrier
10500>X>=12000: Light Battlecruiser
12000>X>=14000: Battlecruiser
14000>X>=17000: Heavy Battlecruiser/Light Battleship/Heavy Carrier
17000>X>=20000: Battleship
20000>X: Depends on Role. Likely Heavy Battleship, Superdreadnought, Mothership, or the like.
-
No offense to anyone that don't agree with me but I just don't understand why (for logical or logistical reasons) you would designate a name for a weight of a ship rather than the role it serves. Calling any ship between 6-10000t a destroyer does not say a thing about it's purpose and the tonnage is there to show its size anyway. I'm not saying its wrong or anything, I just don't get why it's practical to do so other than confirming a sort of level system.
There is also the tendency that the game favor bigger ships as technology rises as it speed up production, lower production cost/time on refits and so on.
In one game I had a cruiser at 45000t escorted by 15000t frigates while destroyers where 9-12000 tones. The difference in the ship where its intended role, deployment time and armament layout. The frigates where mainly for protecting something else and large enough to accommodate all the weaponry and auxiliary vessels to do their job. The destroyers were built around the concept of squadron warfare and for self sustainability in that role or as a picket or screen for a bigger cruiser task-group or perhaps a reconnaissance in force where stealth is more important than brute force of a cruiser. In this game I also had very small frigates at about 3-5000t that were just beam or missile armed escort ships. Basically just one type of weapon system and not able to operate alone. The reason I call them a frigate and not a patrol ship, corvette or anything like that was because they have a long deployment time and are suppose to operate with a fleet on long missions (usually above three months). Any ship with a deployment of three months or less would be a patrol ship, corvette or something of that sort no matter its size. Obviously there are no real reason to build such ship larger than maybe 2-6000t but there might be.
The reasons why I decided on these designation are because of the historical background of different ships. A frigate was basically the smallest military ship equipped for long voyages and able to (cruise) perform more or less independent action. The ship of the Line was the battleship of its age while the frigate was the cruiser of its age. A ship of the line was a large ship that would perform the majority of military battles together with or without frigates. So the ship of the line became armoured ships became armoured frigates and then battleships. In WWII a battleship is mainly equivalent of a heavily armoured cruiser and actually they were not all that much bigger for the most part to a very big cruiser just heavier and also wider so they would not sink... ;)
Cruiser was in the beginning a smaller warship intended for longer missions while "battleships" was only meant for shorter more decisive action. Cruiser was more a type of ship than a real classification and could be a sloop, corvette or a frigate. Cruiser were later changed into the armoured cruiser and then into the type of ship they were in WWII.
So in my world a battleship is just a cruiser with a smeg load of armour and shields as a significant part of their total size. Cruisers have weaker armour but can certainly be as large of even as heavy, it all depends in technology level in my opinion what is what and on what other ship you have in your fleet.
I could even declassify a ship from battleship to cruiser if I no longer deem a ship to be an actual battleship in comparison with newer ships or changes in the fleet structure. In practical terms there is no difference in the role of a cruiser or battleship. A carrier on the other hand is just a ship that can be of any size that just has the majority of its space dedicated to hangars in some capacity. In Aurora though the difference between a large cruiser and a carrier can become a grey area so I also use the term battle carrier which basically is a mix between a carrier and a cruiser, size still have no real meaning here.
I'm trying to somehow relate to what I think would be a realistic interpretation of how humanity would go about naming ship classes in space in reality. Today for example the term cruiser is almost an extinct type of ship in place of frigates and destroyers. Even the term frigates are starting to shift because today the only difference between a frigate and destroyer are it's size and when that happens the classifications tend to shift and change. Most really modern frigates are becoming more short ranged coastal or amphibious or recon multipurpose ships while destroyers are the escorts for other ships with both defensive and offensive capacity in many varied sizes.
So, basically, my interpretation of the difference between a destroyer and cruiser in space would be that cruisers would carry larger capacity fuel, crew and auxiliary vessels for truly independent long range action while destroyers would always act with other destroyers and intended for shorter missions and closer to their base of operation. That is also why cruisers would naturally be much bigger than a destroyer and why you would ever need to build one over the other because they serve totally different roles.
In my opinion there are no real reason to build large multipurpose ships (other than for fun) if you only control a couple of systems. But by the time you control several real sectors and your empire span over a very large area you can really benefit from being able to deploy larger long range multipurpose ships. These ships can only be build and maintained at very few places in your empire but there is other benefits that outweigh those drawbacks.
There is obviously nothing wrong with classify ships by weight... it's being done today as we speak in our own navies. Even if there is a tendency to shift classification to role rather than size over time.
-
Oh, I classify by role. It's just that if I simply upsize say, a frigate, to 8000 tons, I'm not calling it a frigate anymore. A frigate, a battleship, and a cruiser are all very vague terms, in this case. There are, however, Area Defense Cruisers, Jump Frigates, Armoured Cruisers, etc., which I name ships as if they fit the bill. But when trying to figure out whether to call something a Jump Frigate or a Jump Cruiser? Of course I look at the size.
-
Personally I just call most of my long range self sufficient none attack ships a frigate. If it's purpose is recon, patrol or the protection of other ships it is a frigate so I have no designation such as area-defense cruiser or some such.
I also have no designation such as jump-(frigate,destroyer,cruiser) or even leader for that matter. I might however have different destroyer models who carries different types of sensors and weapon system that can be used in various combinations to form more complete destroyer squadrons. Although I try for most of my destroyer models to be as complete as possible so I'm not vulnerable to a single loss. The role of a destroyer is to perform almost any task, from direct attack to reconnaissance in force etc.
I might have different destroyers if I have types that are very different such as mainly missile or beam armed destroyers. But in any case a destroyer will have both offensive and defensive capacity so I don't have a single point of failure and to reduce research/production costs necessary.
My jump ships are almost always some sort of support and/or command ship. They carry better sensors (often good passive sensors) and extra supply and/or magazines as well as a flag bridge for bigger jump ships. They will usually lead the supply or auxiliary part of any battle group and ferry ships across a jump point or form up with a destroyer squadrons to make a JP assault.
They might also be equipped with hangars for different types of utility ships from shuttles (cryobeds, magazines or fuel) to recon and scout ships.
Ship sizes also tend to bloat as an empire grow, that is my experience. So an early destroyer might be 6-7000t with very limited defensive/offensive capability, usually also quite short ranged at about 50-75million km and very little armour. While later a destroyer might grow to 10-15000t and incorporate all kinds of sensors and weapon systems although offensive capacity is still imperative and its range of engagement grow with sensor technology as does the number of different weapon systems. A destroyer must be able to defend against both small and large ships and also able to engage them in battle, therefore they need to be bigger as time goes by.
The role of the ships classes would remain the same, it's just the size and quality/quantity of its equipment that develop. So they still perform the same type of missions in the fleet... they just get better at it with time.
-
Considering that I've had my ships almost always have a range of at least 100mkm, and usually around 150-200 mkm, even from the start, I don't know about that. And I've made 4000T frigates with a 300+mkm range.
-
I usually play conventional start or with reduced amount of research points in a newtonian start. Early sensor systems are very bad and get expensive fast and your build speed is not that great in the beginning. There is no problem to get missiles with good range, they are just slow... ;)
-
Most of the time I start at Magnetoplasma level or above , with a 200-400% difficulty modifier when I want some AI fun. Given this , my classification is usually
500-1.5kt -> LACs or Gunships/Patrol Pinnaces , as glasscannons with <5s flighttime missiles and reduced size lasers . Cloaked at higher tech levels (1 TCS)
2kt-5kt -> Heavy Corvettes and Frigates , mostly PD and escort , with either <5s missiles or 1-2 reduced size lasers for catching damaged stragglers. Cloaked if I have the tech. 15% engines , high power boost
8kt - 15kt -> Escort Destroyers to Assault Destroyers . Pure PD/escort , almost as fast as the frigates. Rarely I put some close range weapons on them. 20% engines
13-20KT -> Light Cruisers. A mix of very good escort/pd systems with a good long range combat capability. Very good ECM/support but lacks the magazines for extended combats. Either as fast as DDs , or just slightly slower. Tops at 10kkms most of the time. 20-25% engines , 2-3 months of fuel.
20-30kt -> Heavy Cruisers . Very powerful close range weapons , limited missile capabilities. At least 3 kt of hangars. Jump capable sometimes , or cloaked if they have the jump escort. About the maximum size ships I can cloak cheap enough. About 75% of CL's speed , faster than BCs ( but not by much) . About 15% engine mass , medium efficiency
30-40kt -> Battlecruiser . Both energy weapons ( like 2x quad 35cms ) and massive missile salvo capabilities. My current design deals 300 damage/energy salvo and can fire 120 missiles every 2400 seconds. Very heavy ecm and eccm , about the same armor as CAs . Almost as fast as them too . Low endurance , needs tanker and collier escort. Might have some hangar space. Variant - Heavy Assault Carrier , sacrifices the energy armament for hangar bays and massive two stage missiles. Jump capable and excellent passive sensor arrays.
50kt - 100kt - Battleships. No escort/pd weapons , most of the time heavy missile and hangars.
200-300kt - Dreadnaughts . I rarely get to use them , designed for jump point breaches and MASSIVE missile salvos. Usually 4000+ HTKs and able to launch 1000+ missiles . 20-30 fire controls. A pain in the ... to command.
-
As a Navy officer I want to point out in the USN and most other Navies weight has little to do with classification on the military side, it's all about role. Cruisers in the USN means AAW warfare which is why the Ticonderoga-class CG is classified a cruiser when it is literally built on a destroyer hull (Spruance-class DDG). Similarly the Zumwalt class is described as a DD even though it is thousands of tons heavier than an Arliegh Burke-class DDG.
To complicate matters many times ships are described not based on anything related to size or role, but rather what will make them easier to sell to the public or legislature you are trying to squeeze money out of which can lead you to making something seem grandios or small regardless of the actual ship. This is why a lot of European navies call their ships frigates or destroyers when the resemble neither in size of role. Or better yer, take a look at the Japanese Hyuga Helicopter Destroyer, so named to avoid breaking their constitution and to sound less awesome to lawmakers and voters.
Finally there are just some historic naming conventions that just don't translate we'll into modern navies such as frigate or destroyer. Frigates were originally self contained light units that could operate independently for extended periods to either scout for large fleets or project power into places that did not justify a larger ship. Destroyers were meant to screen larger ships against quick torpedoe boats (and their later outgrowth the submarine) the slow heavy guns of battleships could not track. Today frigates basically do what destroyers did and destroyers are hybrid destroyer/cruisers. But then you end up with things like AAW frigates which would just seem weird being called cruisers because in the popular imagination we still associate cruiser with something not a battleship but still big.
As far as I can tell the tonnage association is basically a consequence of video games that had to provide prearranged sizes and roles for simplicities sake. Since they are generally trying to recreate WWII IN SPACE! We end up with names in a sequence the reflected the role/size ratio of 1945.
-
GCT General Cargo Transport
GTV General Transport Vehicle (Colonists)
RTV Rapid Transport Vehicle (Courier/liner)
GRV General Recovery Vehicle (Salvager)
GMV General Mining Vehicle (Asteroid Miner)
GCU General Construction Unit (Gate builder)
MTV Main Transit Vehicle (Civilian Jumpship)
TAU Troop Assault Unit (Dropship)
TAV Troop Assault Vehicle (Armed Troop Transport)
TTV Troop Transport Vehicle (Freighter Troop Transport)
LCU Light Combat Unit (Strikefighter)
HCU Heavy Combat Unit (Gunboat)
LCV Light Combat Vehicle (Frigate)
MCV Medium Combat Vehicle (Destroyer)
RCV Rapid Combat Vehicle (Fast Destroyer or Light Cruiser)
GCV General Combat Vehicle (Cruiser)
SCV Strike Combat Vehicle (Battle Cruiser)
HCV Heavy Combat Vehicle (Battleship)
CTV Combat Transit Vehicle (Military Jumpship)
-
I'm still very new to Aurora. However, I want to chime in on this subject.
I do see how it could be more useful to have ship classifications based on role or purpose rather than by size. And using 2, 3, or 4 letter abbreviations seems especially useful.
That said, it is very tempting to classify one's ships based on size, purely for the sake of simplicity - especially for other games. From my limited observation, there does seem to be a tendency for ships of certain roles to more or less fit within certain size parameters. Though, it's not as accurate or useful.
But if one does tend to use size to classify one's ships, wouldn't it make some sense to reserve some of the largest class names for mid to late game? I'm rather fond of the idea of reserving class names like "Dreadnaught" or "Leviathan" for one's largest ships. Though, I'm now leaning towards classifications based on role. Perhaps a Dreadnaught is best used for a large multipurpose military vessel with, say, lots of missiles and fighters? Or perhaps it would be used for a flag ship or "capital ships" (a navy's most important warships; possessing the heaviest firepower and armor)?
Alternatively, perhaps it would be useful to use both a shorthand abbreviation for class based on ship role, combined with a size category represented by a simple scale of 0 to 9? So, for example, one might have a BB4 early in a game, but have BB6 or BB8 in mid to late game? Or maybe one might see GCT (cargo ships) ranging from 1 to 9?
BTW: Several years ago I had some ambition to design and program a space exploration or 4x game of my own. (Though, while I did some background research and preliminary designing, nothing became of that.) Towards this, I looked up stats on a number of real-world naval and commercial ships and compiled some averages:
***** MILITARY *****
Large Aircraft Carrier - 1,100 ft (335 m) approximately 6,000 crew
Aircraft Carrier ---- 1,000 ft (300 m)
WWII Battleship ----- about 900 ft (274 m)
Amphibious Warfare Ship - 800 ft (244 m)
Cruiser ------------- 600 ft (180 m)
Modern Landing Ship - 500 ft (150 m)
Destroyers ---------- 371 to 563 feet (113 to 172 m) [420 ft or 128 m avg.]
Submarines ---------- 142.7 to 561 ft (43.5 to 171 m) [350 ft or 107 m avg.]
Dreadnought --------- 500 ft (150 m)
Ballistic Missile Submarine -- 380 to 550 ft (115 to 168 m), 500 ft (150 m) avg?
Frigate ------------- 445 ft (136 m)
WWI Destroyer ------- 300 ft (91 m)
Corvette ------------ 150 ft? (46 m?)
Minesweeper --------- 150 ft (46 m) (classified as "small combatant")
Missile Boat --------- 130 ft (40 m) (classified as "small combatant")
Patrol Boat --------- ? (classified as "small combatant")
***** COMMERCIAL *****
Super Tankers ------- 1,500 ft (457) <500,000 Short Tons or 450,000 Metric Tons>
Ore / Bulk / Oil Carriers - <250,000 S.T. or 227,000 M.T.>
Multipurpose Carriers - <150,000 S.T. or 136,000 M.T.>
Ore / Oil Carriers ---- <100,000 S.T. or 91,000 M.T.>
Ocean Liners -------- 1,000 ft (305 m) <2,700 passengers + 750 crew>
Roll-On / Roll-Off Ships - 958 ft (292 m)
LASH ---------------- 875 ft (267 m) <370 Short Tons or 336 Metric Tons)
Dry Bulk Carriers --- 700 ft (213 m) <25,000 S.T. or 22,700 M.T.>
Container Ships ----- 700 ft (213 m) <12,000 S.T. or 10,900 Metric Tons>
Tankers ------------- 300 ft (91 m) <2,300 S.T. or 2,090 M.T.>
Car Ferries --------- <800 passengers & 360 cars>
GCT General Cargo Transport
...[snip]...
MTV Main Transit Vehicle (Civilian Jumpship)
...[snip]...
CTV Combat Transit Vehicle (Military Jumpship)
I like your designations. However, personally, I would switch MTV and CTV around: MTV = Military Transit Vehicle; CTV = Civilian Transit Vehicle. Or maybe use MJV and CJV, instead? Much less confusing that way!
-
Well I must admit since I know that ships will only get larger I am naming the NCNs ships based largely on the idea that eventually the name will fit. I could call the Terriers/Guardians/Londons frigates, the Wounded Knee/Gargoyle/Lake class destroyers and the Tribals either cruisers or battleships.
But because that would mean when the next size of ships comes out I would be re-classifying them I stuck more with a naming convention based on size but also role. The frigates (Escort, Heavy Frigate, Corvette) classes are the smallest warship and they each are mission specialized. Destroyers are the first multi-role ship but one that is not capable of independent operation. Cruisers are multi-role (in general) ships capable of indepentent operation. Battle cruiser doesn't make sense to me and won't be used. Battleships are large warships intended for decisive combat situations....since there is nothing more decisive than a Battleship on Battleship engagement.
"Independent Operation" here means: does not require a jump ship.
Other than that the NCN differentiates inside the class by role. But due to inter-building being fairly key to the Navy design all ships of a certain "class" will likely be the same tonnage. Also every ship carries the sensors needed to do its job (search, missile, IR, EM) to prevent mission kills by single ship losses. But designation wise the Gargoyles are FGE(H) or heavy escort frigates while the Wounded Knee's are just FGH. The Edinburoughs are classified as Supply Ships which makes them "SS." The game "War in the Pacific Admiral Edition" has a listing of ship classifications abreviations and it is quite extensive, and to effectively play the game you have to get familier with them...
I think how you define your ship will in many ways be determined by what the state your game is in. If you are like me in the process of building your navy and have limited hull sizes available then it is likely you are going to name your ships by hull size using names that reflect smaller ships. If on the other hand you do a regular start where you can begin with substantial ships then you can adopt the more modern convention of name by role since it is likely that further expansion will be on a more modest scale to a conventional start.
-
I often start with very low tech as you have done and I do much the same. Cruisers is a late edition to my fleets and generally very large to incorporate everything they need to be effective. The way the game
mechanics work it is not possible to build truly independent ship until you researched many levels of jump-drive technology. I never allow more than 30% total space for engines (normal+jump). So true cruisers will come late, later than battleships. I don't require jump-drives on battleships (I usually end up building carriers rather than battleships or batte-carriers), they are not suppose to cruise and mine need jump-gates to move from system to system in most cases.
My frigates are generally smaller then my destroyers but they don't have to be. The destroyer as the role I use them as seem to be similar to yours. They carry both offensive and defensive capabilities and are the biggest ship I can generally quickly deploy to forward bases with maintenance facilities. This means that destroyers general grow from around 6000t to about 12-15000t with mid tech levels. It's not unusual that I keep both a larger and a smaller type of destroyer as game progress. I also don't usually deploy frigates with destroyer TG unless really necessary. Destroyers also usually are faster than my frigates.
When I build cruisers I generally also design a larger escort frigate to accompany them. Not as large as the cruiser but a ship that has more defensive capabilities. You might say they are light cruisers, but that would imply they actually were truly independent ships, they also lack the offensive force to be a true cruiser.
This small but powerful group can act completely independent for at least 18-24 months from any bases and 36-48 months away from any maintenance facilities. The cruiser and frigates have enough hangar space to even accommodate a full squadron of attack crafts or geo/grav-survey shuttles. The cruiser can then act as the mothership for a survey mission.