Ship design rule of thumb?

[83athom]

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

Code: [Select]

Pelican class Dropship    497 tons     3 Crew     3046.9 BP      TCS 9.94  TH 15  EM 0
150905 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 99%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 1069    5YR 16037    Max Repair 3000 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 1   
Drop Capacity: 2 Companies   

1500 EP Photonic Drive (1)    Power 1500    Fuel Use 148.09%    Signature 15    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 40 000 Litres    Range 9.8 billion km   (18 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

[MagusXIX]

The ship classifications are meant to be used in a descriptive way, as opposed to a prescriptive way.  Any ship that's designed to destroy a specific type of thing is a destroyer.  Any ship that's meant to go very far away from support is a cruiser.  And so on.  The purpose of this is the same as any system of categorization - not to decide how things should be, but rather to describe how things are in a way that makes communication of ideas and strategies clear, concise, and easy.

You don't *need* to make any of these types of ships.  This thread is more about creating a guideline for what is a (stereo)typical, proven fleet composition and doctrine to help (new) players understand some of the things they should be thinking about when designing ships.  The general design types and philosophies we've discussed so far are the most common, with real-world equivalents.  Really, I think what we're talking about here is more along the lines of "Fleet Composition and Strategy 101" which could then segue into specific design rules of thumb if given certain design goals for any given specific hull within the context of a larger fleet doctrine.

You can come up with any doctrine you want.  No one's saying otherwise.  All we're talking about here is a good starting place for players who might be confused about the hows and whys of ship design - which of course starts with an overall fleet doctrine before delving into specific ship designs and components.

[Erik L]

Your fleet doctrine will be influenced by your available starting tech. For example, I always start with the game randomly assigning my tech points. So it's always a surprise what I'll get. "25cm UV lasers? Capacitor 1? Score!" But that initial tech will decide if I build missiles or go with lasers or rails. Once I know what kind of ships I can build, I can form a fleet doctrine.

[MagusXIX]

I usually don't even consider building a proper navy until I have the techs I want. Getting the first few levels of any tech is super quick, while building a navy right at the start of a typical earth-based game consumes valuable resources and construction capacity.  Usually I focus on building up my economy/colonization and researching tech for the first decade or so.  Getting a proper PDC set up (and some orbital point defense if I decide to use beams instead of AMMs) is priority 1 after surveying/colonization is complete.  That alone takes a while.

By the time I'm set up and feeling comfortable to poke my head into other systems, I've already got all the tech I need to build whatever sort of navy I want.

The only time I'd say it's pressing to build a navy right away is if you're in a game where you've started with hostiles in your home system, or a multiplayer (or vs. yourself) game where you started your human-intelligence opponents in nearby systems. EDIT: And yeah, if you've got to build naval ships right away, of course they're gonna be janky.  And of course you're probably just gonna have to retrofit them as soon as they're out of the oven, because by the time they're done being built you'll have already researched more desirable tech.

[Paul M]

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.

The Why is because you have a mission you want to accomplish within some contraints.  The mission varies and the constraints vary which makes it hard to put down a general rule of thumb.  I can give you a rule of thumb for designing "a ship" in starfire because I've designed hundreds of them and there are design parameters I favor but...when I really design a ships it may differe wildly from my favored design parameters because I want it to do a mission.

Using some Aurora examples: 

The NCN wants to deal with the Super Salvo of Magic Missiles.  Their standard doctrine is Active defences, backed by shields and limited armour belts.  They can't make (due to game rules) a Counter Missile that can intercept a Magic, they haven't got a way to see them far enough out to enable an intercept with a slower missile and their missile technology and propulsion technology both need to advance.  So what they have now that is "effective" is point defence.  So they wanted to make a point defence escort based on their DD hull with a minimum of 5 double laser DPPAs.  Well when I started plugging in stuff to the design it became obvious the DD hull was too small...so now they have a CLE with 6 double turrets.  This then caused a minor burp in the whole BuPlanning as well it means the deployment structure has to change.  So doctrine changes are coming up.

The NCN wants to deploy the new Armed Pinnace.  Skipping the process which arrived at the Armed Pinnace being 700 tonnes they started with the idea that they would first deploy an Escort Carrier.  The decision was made they would carry 3 armed pinnaces on the Escort Carrier and deploy them in groups of 4 CVEs.  The hope was to use the Heavy Frigate hull.  Well stuffing a few things on that sized hull quickly made it clear it was a no-go, the DD hull wasn't even large enough to accomadate the mission required volume and the CVE ended up being about the size of a CL and carries 3 armed pinnaces...this was not met with glee by anyone in the NCN.  So there is some back and forth and humming and hawing about actually deploying them...especially since the Armed Pinnaces will be less effective in an anti-missile role (due to being 700 tonnes) then hoped.  Still to gain experience and more dakka ...

But as both these examples indicate the WHY comes down to the interaction of the mission requirement and the limitations.  For me, at any rate, it always comes down to that in the end.  I don't see how or even why that needs to be explained in a tutorial.  This is the "strategy" part in Strategy games...99% of the game is purely management but the 1% that isn't is exactly this.  You decide what weapons your navy uses, what missions they will perform and what doctrines they follow and then when you go to design a ship to do fulfill those you have to account for your limitations and fundamentally at that point the ship design falls out of the design window.  Give or take 10% that is selected to taste.

I am possibly also not fully understanding what you really want.  I explain in my AAR why ships look the way they do...or it is obvious why a design change was made (the previous design being blown to scrap metal).  But as far as I can recall I usually say what the mission(s) of the ship is (are)...and explain my reasoning there.  But I am dubious you can get rules of thumb from this sort of thing as most people have different mission parameters and assumptions that underline their doctrine in their heads...and those assumptions are almost always never mentioned.  Even in my case not always do I state an underlying assumption I may have...in some cases it can be as simple as "to be different" or "to try something oddball and see if it can be made to work."

[Paul M]

On fleet terminology via "escorts" and "capital ships" due the game mechanics I don't use that.  I use something closer to the old sailing ships description.  I break it down into combatents and escorts.  Combatents are designed to destroy the enemy.  Escorts protect the combatents and let them get on with their job.

In the NCN the Wounded Knee (Frigate), the Tribal (Destroyer) and the Fallen (L. Cruiser) are combatents.  The Tribals and Fallen class are "capital" ships but really it is better to say that the Wounded Knee is a 3rd Rate SoL (Ship of the Line) while the Fallen is a 1st Rate.  The Gargoyle, Lake and London class (all frigates) are escorts.  The new heavy cruiser class of ship will be the first class which doesn't require a dedicated jump tender and hence the first "independent" class....or true cruiser.

The use of ablative armour sorta wipes out the "capital ship" distinction for me, I'd classify a "battleship" as a heavy combattent or a 1st rate SoL rather than a capital ship.  Ablative defenses just remove the real meaning of a capital ship...a BB required you meet it with a similar sized gun armed ship...sending CAs after it would be ineffective as their guns would not penetrate the BBs armour.  Put in armour and penetration rating and then you can talk about capital ships is my view.

But for me the distinction is not by size of ship but by mission.  The Wounded Knee's are the same size as the Lake and Gargolye classes but they have radically different missions.   

[MagusXIX]

I am possibly also not fully understanding what you really want.  I explain in my AAR why ships look the way they do...or it is obvious why a design change was made (the previous design being blown to scrap metal).  But as far as I can recall I usually say what the mission(s) of the ship is (are)...and explain my reasoning there.  But I am dubious you can get rules of thumb from this sort of thing as most people have different mission parameters and assumptions that underline their doctrine in their heads...and those assumptions are almost always never mentioned.  Even in my case not always do I state an underlying assumption I may have...in some cases it can be as simple as "to be different" or "to try something oddball and see if it can be made to work."

Here's the question from the original post, for convenience:

I have looked through the bureau of ship design forum it has a lot of nice specific examples. But what I am looking for is run down of ship roles (military and civilian) and general design principles for said roles. Any thoughts ?

Like it or not, aware of it or not, ship classifications do have well-known structure and definition, even if some of them are just a bit fluid.  The entire purpose of having ship classifications is to describe roles in a way that makes communication of ideas between people easier.  If everyone knows what is meant when I say "the ship is a Cruiser" it makes discussion of ship design, fleet doctrine, strategy, etc. much easier for everyone.  Again, these classifications are meant to be *descriptive*, not *prescriptive.*  Using them, we can prevent confusion and conflation of ideas among ourselves.  The system of categorization in use in the real world may not be perfect, but that's okay so long as it gets the job done well enough.  That job being to provide a run down of ship roles and general design principles for said roles in a way that makes communication clearer and more concise.  It's when we all start to have different definitions of what these things are that communication breaks down and even discussing the simplest of ideas becomes next to impossible.

Does that help clear up what this thread is about?  Mor is basically asking, "WTF do people mean when they say, "a Cruiser", and what exactly does that entail from a ship design point of view?"  People can come up with their own definitions and ideas, sure, but that causes some pretty serious communication problems, as mentioned earlier.

[MagusXIX]

I'd like to also reiterate and clarify that nothing is stopping anyone from coming up with entirely new classifications.  The only problems arise when people take already well-defined classifications and try to redefine them.  If I create a ship that's a giant mass of guns and shields and has no hangars, but then start trying to call it a carrier ... well, that's just going to confuse the hell out of everyone even if *I* know what I mean.  Same with conflating battleships and cruisers, etc.

[boggo2300]

I'd like to also reiterate and clarify that nothing is stopping anyone from coming up with entirely new classifications.  The only problems arise when people take already well-defined classifications and try to redefine them.  If I create a ship that's a giant mass of guns and shields and has no hangars, but then start trying to call it a carrier ... well, that's just going to confuse the hell out of everyone even if *I* know what I mean.  Same with conflating battleships and cruisers, etc.

Why?  George Lucas called his major capital warships (with 72 fighters on board even) Destroyers, it didn't cause much confusion.

My personal peeve is designating type by mass,  damn Steve V Cole!
and Mark Miller!

I've been experimenting with purely role based ship types,  ignoring the Naval aspect entirely

things like;  Patrol Craft, Escort, Warship,  Bombardment Vessel, and Mothership,  with Light, Heavy and no weight descriptor to differentiate inside that.

for example  the Christchurch class light escort,  and the Balaclava class Heavy Bombardment vessel   (first being a pd laser equipped Frigate, the second a Missile Battleship)

[Mor (OP)]

Large ship often carry fighters, that not what defines a carrier. Also many try to invent sexier more descriptive names for the same roles, those who go with size tend to use 1.99 super upgrade(super heavy, super-carrier, super whatever) and end up with titans with colossal names, those who want to reflect military might go with thing like star destroyer.

Anyway, I found this nice article on the topic that other might find an interesting read.
http://geeksnewengland.org/2015/05/15/on-the-taxonomy-of-spaceships/

Also I love that intro image. Simple but inspiring.
EDIT: In case you are not stuck at work with a low res laptop (likely most of you), my pov was:

[boggo2300]

carrying fighters pretty much is the definition of a carrier though

[AL]

Thanks for that link Mor, I'm finding it quite an interesting and entertaining read.

[jem]

carrying fighters pretty much is the definition of a carrier though

In that case, since quite a lot of ships carried float-planes in ww2, all those ships were carriers?

[MagusXIX]

Technically any ship that carried a plane *could* accurately be called a carrier, yes. Remember, the roles are descriptive, not prescriptive.  That's why when carrier doctrine was brand new, people originally called the ships we all think of as carriers "dedicated carriers." Meaning the ship was mostly or entirely dedicated to the role of carrying fighters/bombers.  Over time, as the doctrine proved superior to battleship doctrine, it became easier to drop the "dedicated" part because most noteworthy carriers were dedicated carriers.

[Paul M]

Like it or not, aware of it or not, ship classifications do have well-known structure and definition, even if some of them are just a bit fluid.  The entire purpose of having ship classifications is to describe roles in a way that makes communication of ideas between people easier.  If everyone knows what is meant when I say "the ship is a Cruiser" it makes discussion of ship design, fleet doctrine, strategy, etc. much easier for everyone.  Again, these classifications are meant to be *descriptive*, not *prescriptive.*  Using them, we can prevent confusion and conflation of ideas among ourselves.  The system of categorization in use in the real world may not be perfect, but that's okay so long as it gets the job done well enough.  That job being to provide a run down of ship roles and general design principles for said roles in a way that makes communication clearer and more concise.  It's when we all start to have different definitions of what these things are that communication breaks down and even discussing the simplest of ideas becomes next to impossible.

Does that help clear up what this thread is about?  Mor is basically asking, "WTF do people mean when they say, "a Cruiser", and what exactly does that entail from a ship design point of view?"  People can come up with their own definitions and ideas, sure, but that causes some pretty serious communication problems, as mentioned earlier.

That works if the game mechanics supports it.  In Starfire if you say heavy cruiser you mean a ship between 50 and 60 Hull Spaces.  That is a fixed clear definition.

The NCN will have a heavy cruiser that masses 18 000 tonnes.  Heavy cruiser is their designation for that ship.  You might have a heavy cruiser that masses 180 000 tonnes and uses magical technology (compared the NCN).  How can you have classification that is a "well known structure and definition" in this case? 

A modern Destroyer is called a destroyer to sneak it by congressional oversight committees that would bauk at building a "cruiser."  The same was done by the British on their carriers for a while.  Destroyers used to mean "torpedo boat destroyers" but now doesn't mean that (see above).

Also using a definition from a wet navy for a star navy is prone to approximations.  Do Cruisers have all the time self jump capability?  Is there some difference between a cruiser and jump capable cruiser?  Is that a part of "independent operation" or not?

It is the same with "capital" ... the game mechanics remove that distinction since a large number of smaller ships can destroy that capital vessel...in much the same way "heavy mechs" in battletech are not the same thing as a heavy tank in reality.  A capital ship was one which mandated the enemy show up with their own capital ships or else there was no contest.   Carriers became defacto capital ships when the american battleline ended up at the bottom of pearl harbor.  Capital now means "big, expensive, hard to replace ship."  In Aurora it basically means the biggest warships you can produce.

I don't see how you can have a discussion in the abstract anyway you are proposing or what the value of it is.  Depending on your style of play it is pointless in the extreme.  At the end of the day even if you and I have the same concept for what a cruiser is: "capable of independent action"; but, your ship is 10x larger than mine it isn't going to be possible to discuss missions or roles since their capabilites will be extremely different.   I'm unsure where the fact we both have the same view of what a cruiser is or what a design for a crusier might be means compared to the detail you have 10x the hull space to work with.

You can discuss the navy's doctrines only within the context of the navy itself and if you do that you have well defined ship catagories and the question of "what do you mean by a cruiser" is answered.  There is no "arbitary potatoe shaped" fleet doctrine discussions possible in Aurora since the size scale of the ships is utterly arbitary, and the size scale of the fleet determines mission capabilities...and that feeds back into the design process and then into how they are utilized...

The discussion you are proposing is possible in Starfire, or Leviathan or High Guard or other space games where the size of the ship for a specific hull catagory is fixed, but in Aurora it is meaningful only in the context of discussing a specific and defined races fleet, or when comparing to roughly equivelent fleet.  Say in Steve's 2300 campaign where you could talk about the Japanese vrs German fleets.