Ship design rule of thumb?

[83athom]

Escorts
These are the smallest type of combatants in the fleet. Commonly used for reconnaissance, incursions and escort missions. Although individually weak when compared to capital ships, they are inexpensive to build and can become quite potent in large numbers, and can use their speed to harass the heavier capital ships while protecting their own from enemy escorts attempting to do the same.

• Fighters, Bombers - Small, fast, short-range craft that cannot operate independently. Their main roles include space superiority and anti-ship bombing, in the defence of stations and the large capital ships that they are deployed from.
• Frigates - Light multi-role warships capable as scouts, skirmishers and anti-fighter escorts. As Scouts, they are designed extra small, extra fast, with more range than usual, cloaking capabilities can be of use. Skirmishers designed to counter enemy fighters and bombers and escorts, they require speed/range advantage to split off from a main force and make their catch.
• Destroyers - usually carry specialised weaponry to combat specific threats, relatively heavily armed warships for their size, but commensurately ill-defended and with poor independent range. The actual vessels vary greatly between navies, but are all designed to engage multiple small, fast enemies (typically fighters and missile swarms) and or are loaded with point defense batteries. They will also have some anti-ship capability, but are not designed to go up against capital ships.

Capital
These are among the largest warships in the fleet, and are the focus of naval combat. Whether due to their heavy armament and heavy armour, or by carrying aircraft, capital ships allow you to bring the most firepower and durability to a fight. Also usually independent and long ranged, they are capable of controlling entire systems.

• Cruisers - Cruisers make up the backbone of any military fleet. These capital ships have the firepower and speed to be used for almost any sort of duty, including patrols, blockades, raids, and straight-up firefights. Cruisers are divided into many sub-types depending on their role e.g. combat, fast response, provide fleet support.
• Battleship - Battleships are the heaviest vessels, with colossal amounts of armament, heavy armour and or shields. Battleships are the pride of most naval fleets and usually serve as the flagship for the Task Force Commander of the Fleet, though this is not always necessarily the case.
• Carriers - Dedicated ship, capable of deploying large fighter and bomber squadrons, and provide shipyard facility for the fleet on the move. Usually helpless on their own, their aircraft can strike targets from far outside of the range of gun ships.

My only beef with that is that my destroyers are geared toward anti-capital duties instead of anti-fighter/anti-missile.
[/list]

[MagusXIX]

My problem with it is the escort/capital breakdown.  I think that's too simplistic.  Either that or Cruisers should be moved into the escort category. In real naval terms, the term "capital ship" is used to designate the lead ship(s) in any given fleet.  The primary idea behind a capital ship is that it's meant to serve as the mainstay or anchor of a fleet.  They're the sort of ships that the command staff would ride around on.  The other ships in the fleet serve in various support roles (yes, extra damage is a support role - very relevant in the case of ship-to-ship destroyers and heavy cruisers.)  A capital ship should be able to operate on its own, even if the rest of its fleet is destroyed.  The other ships in a fleet would need to stay close to a base without a capital ship to provide force projection (extra supplies, extra fuel, extra ammo, extra crew, etc.)  Here's the wikipedia page, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

I would probably just move Cruisers under the escort category. They have long range, sure, but (in real naval terms) they aren't capital ships by any means.  They are (or were, in WW2) the default escorts!   The main difference between a cruiser and any kind of capital ship is in force projection.  While cruisers tended to be very fuel efficient and carry extra fuel, they didn't have the extra crew, ammo, or other supplies necessary to supply or maintain anyone but themselves, generally speaking.  That capital ships tended to also have more turrets/fighters and armor is an important detail, but doesn't describe the main functional difference between the two.

Of course, this is a little bit of a gray area as naval doctrines are quite different between navies, but I can't think of any navy that has ever called cruisers capital ships.  They'll be quite inconsistent when it comes to differentiating between, say, frigates and destroyers, sure.  But there's a general consensus on what makes a capital ship: capital ships are the ships around which entire fleets are centered.

[MagusXIX]

Basically, a good rule of thumb that I like to use when designing my capital ships is: is this ship large and important enough to warrant adding extra space for a security detail of Marines?  A lot of capital ships in real navies (at least in the USA) will have Marines aboard.  Smaller ships will not.  In the Corps we used to call this sort of deployment "going on a float."  In Aurora, this really only applies vs other humans (or yourself) as the AI doesn't really try any boarding shenanigans.  If a human opponent spots a vulnerable capital ship that's ripe for boarding, though, and they're clever/prepared ...

[Erik L]

I usually go with the following:
Escorts - FG, DD, CL
Capital - BB, DN, Heavy Cruiser, Carrier
Self-Sufficient - Cruiser, BC, Light Carrier.

Fighters are their own category because they can be anti-shipping, anti-fighter, and anti-missile.

By self-sufficient, I mean a squadron can operate without need of escorts. These ships have offensive and defensive capabilities.

[boggo2300]

I usually have a much more WWII breakdown;

Escorts:  Corvettes, Sloops, Frigates, Destroyers, Light Cruisers
Independent: Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers
Capital: Battlecruisers, Battleships
Other escorted: Carriers, Tenders (for Torpedo and Gunboats)

Fighters I break down into Fighters, Scouts and Bombers
I also have Torpedo Boats, and Gunboats (for diplomacy )

I've never really found a solution for Jumpships I'm happy with,  for the smaller ones I usually do a Flotilla Leader variant with less weapons and FTL (up to Destroyers, Light Cruisers I usually give a Heavy Cruiser squadron Leader to cover the Jump support) Heavy Cruisers, Capital, Carriers and Tenders I usually give FTL drives of their own.

[Erik L]

Biggest issue with jump ships is the jump engines. If they are a subset of another class, they are losing defenses/arms to carry the JE. This makes them that much easier to kill.

On topic: Don't put your flag bridge on the ship with the biggest sensors.

[boggo2300]

I usually have one of my smaller classes (often a Sloop, or Destroyer) as a sensor platform,  in fleet formations I often attach one per division, though usually only have one with it's actives on at a time, since its a big red shoot at me sign!

That's part of the reason I've not come to a solution for Jumpships that I'm happy with,  the last few games I've built dedicated Jumpships all the way up the ship size scale, and a few times I basically only operate my war fleets inside my jump gate network,  though that only works for turtles.

[MagusXIX]

Why not have your jump ship double as a supply/hospital vessel? That's what I tend to do.  Extra fuel, supplies, or ammo as space warrants.  No real weapons to speak of, and tons of armor/shielding and/or a cloak if technology is sufficient.  It doesn't even have to travel into battle with its fleet unless the battle is right on a jump point.  You can jump through, detach, and hide it somewhere (or jump it back through.)  Reattach to the fleet when its time to refuel, resupply, dole out MSP, or pick up survivors/POWs.  That way it stays generally safeish and you don't have to worry about losing it during a battle as much.  Essentially, it's a sort of Support Cruiser.  Very much in the Cruiser category because Battleships and most types of destroyers typically won't have the range to go jumping a ton of systems away from a base anyway.

Getting a Battleship/Destroyer task force outfitted with a jump ship is a bit trickier.  I haven't yet come up with a solution for these shorter range fleets that I'm entirely happy with.  So far I've just been using my support cruisers for it.  Works out okay, but I'd like something a bit more tailored to the battleship style than a cruiser.

[Mor (OP)]

My problem with it is the escort/capital breakdown.  I think that's too simplistic.

Well yes, the prelude to that section is: "In aurora you have great flexibility as a designer in addressing your empire's need. Ships roles\size and fleet composition varies depending on the nature of each navy and its primary mission. overall ships can be categorized in many ways, this section cover the most basic methods".

And bellow I intentionally included a link to the design forum.

[..]I can't think of any navy that has ever called cruisers capital ships.  [..]

How about BattleCruisers? there is very little to distinguish them from battleships. Other than that I pretty much agree with you. However, if I move it down i'll need to either add BattleCruisers or some sort of super heavy BS with name like Dreadnought.

Overall what I was aiming at simple template with distinct, though not necessarily correct, roles. That most people can easily understand and use in creating their version of "dream" feet. I used simple concepts:

Escorts - Small/inexpensive: 
* Frigate, quick and maneuverable. For reckon, patrol, escort. (Small)
* Destroyers, heavily armed, mostly act as fleet escorts. (bigger)

Capital - Large/expensive: (unlike escorts, loosing one of those will hurt you a lot)
* Main combatant big guns\decks depending on your doctrine, or big support.
* Bigger main combatant generally used as flagship.

Unfortunately, this is the best I am able to produce with my English. If you can improve upon or have a better idea. Please go ahead!

Edit:
I can easily change to:

Escorts - Small/mostly inexpensive: 
* Frigate, quick and maneuverable. For reckon, patrol, escort. (Small)
* Destroyers, heavily armed, mostly act as fleet escorts. (bigger)
* Cruiser - able to operate independently for extended periods. Fast response and fleet support. (biggest)

Capital
* Battleship most heavily armed, armored and or shielded type of ship.
* Dedicated carriers.

[Mor (OP)]

Fighters are their own category because they can be anti-shipping, anti-fighter, and anti-missile.

Definitely. Btw has anyone done the math, on using "Fighters" (under 500 tons) craft to deploy marine boarding squads?

I've never really found a solution for Jumpships I'm happy with,  for the smaller ones I usually do a Flotilla Leader.

Since any ship can be designated as jump tender, I put them in the Auxiliary support section. Any sugestions there?

[Viridia]

Well, I may not be the most expert or efficient designer, but I've always found a good rule to be; make sure you know what you want your design to do. Don't create a fleet carrier and then go, 'hmm, maybe this needs three or four quad laser turrets'. It's wasting tonnage that could be put to furthering the design aspects you need, or even just saved altogether.

[Mor (OP)]

I have updated the ship roles. Separated fighters from escorts, added shuttles, moved cruisers to escort role and adding dreadnoughts (after all what self respecting scifi game don't not have one) Also mentioned force projection and navy detachments. - Bare in mind that I just donated blood and then like an idiots run across the whole city and I am soo tired but can go to sleep ... so don't blame me for any smeg.

Anyway while its fun researching the various roles for my next game, honestly, I created that entry because I needed a main fleet article to tigh all other fleet relate topics into and I was hopping that someone else going to take the lead on the roles and design concepts. If anyone want to further improve that entry please go ahead.

Also bear in mind we also need more specific design rules of thumbs For:
* Beam Warships
* Missile warships
* Fast attack craft
* Stealth ships
* etc ,,,

If anyone can write a complete topic than great, but don't hold your breath, you can already start by dropping barebone info and tips and see how it shapes out.

[Paul M]

I don't really think anyone "needs" rules of thumb for ship designs.  This is because you first have to determine what you want the ship to do.  After you decide what missions it is to perform, you determine your races strategic view point on things like: shields, armour, weapon mix, point defence, and any other topic that strikes you as "big picture."  This is the minor part of any "strategy game" and can be done while the game boots.  Then you take into account your specific racial limitations: shipyard capacity, research capacity, mineral state, known opponents, astro-graphy.  You further that with the degree you wish to RP any particular point.

Then you sit down and look at all that and the ship is designed.

The only "rule of thumb" that applies that I can think of is that 10% of the hull volume will be wasted, and you should not worry about it.

Of course you then have to come up with a fleet doctrine that allows that ship to be used to its maximum potential and hope that you don't encounter a combat situation that invalidates any of the assumptions that you based your strategic thinking on.

I play starfire, I've seen the crazy for ship designs, they all can be made to work.  They most certainly aren't all "optimal" but I think people worry about optimal far too much since optimal implies assumptions on how they will be deployed, and that is only possible in Aurora because the AI is relatively brain dead and the spoiler NPRs are relatively static.  This allows the player to game the game to a high degree but I find such a design process unappealing (I doubt I am the only one)...and besides possibly Steve will improve the AI then you are stuck.

Also Steve's rigillian diaries in Starfire had him start with the "optimal" "optimized" ship designs...which lasted until his first WP assault where several of the underlying assumptions were violated...if he had not been higher tech level he would have had his ass handed to him.  I saw this everytime the discussion came up on the starfire board...people make assumptions that feed directly into the design only most of the time they never mention the assumptions.  So plucking the design out of the ether and employing it will result in the occasion "ooops" situation simply because the underlying assumption is violated.

Way back in this thread Erik said it best, there is a different dsigns for every player.  Even when you take ship classes into consideration why is an escort a DD or CL?  Why can't you have a BBE or a SDE?  They exist in Starfire and exist for good reason...the TFN used BBA and SDA for escorting their CVs as an example.  There was SDEs in ISW4 and in the Theban War...basically minesweepers...also there were Escort bases, often quite large.  It is entirely possible you have a race with monitors that used battleships as "escorts" ...  economically I'd say this is painful but why not if it fulfilles your mission requirements.

My view is there is no rules of thumb there is only mission requirements, stragetic choices and limitations.  They determine the design.  And when you have settled on those three things the design is straight forward to the last 10-20% of the ship.  I fully understand why people like rules of thumb for this question but I think that leads to cookie cutter designs based on unmentioned assumptions and that results in people being dumped in hot water more often then not.  Just my €0.02 anyway.

[Mor (OP)]

I disagree, mainly because I think that we aren't talking about the same thing. You seem to speak about "optimal" "optimized" designs, if I wanted that I'd just copy pasted something from the design thread. Meanwhile, what is commonly requested is the WHY, only not all at once. If you explain how to design ____ ship, people can use that knowledge to adapt to their mission requirements, strategic choices and limitations. So unless you are volunteering to write tutorials, asking for "rule of thumb", tips or whatever you want to call information gathering is next best things, IMO.

[Iranon]

There are few rules of thumb.

"How much protection does my command ship need?" Heavily protected flagship works, but so does something too small to be targeted at likely battle ranges (more closely resembles a scout plane).
"How much range do my anti-ship missiles need?" Depends on what you want to outrange (sensors, ASMs, AMMs, beams), whether you are prepared to bet your fleet on your ability to do so, on the size of the deploying vessels, your preferred split of offensive/defensive vessels, how much space you like to devote to passive protection, how much you are willing to sink into capable sensor ships, how you evaluate enemy PD capabilities...

The rule of thumb is usually "do something that fits into your doctrine". Something less specific that gives you a "respectably average" design is likely to be weaker than the oddball designs made by people with a plan.