Destroyers and all the rest

Isnt it just like, a apple is called an apple cause the term just got assigned someday or evolved into it. Its just a word that you associate with something.
If you give all the ship classes fantasy name you wouldnt really say this "Baram" class ship is to small compared to a "Rasam". Free yourself from these fixed associations and you expand your mind.

This is where you went wrong. Stop comparing a video game in space to World War I clashes. You'll be much better off in the long term.

i think destroyers would be an interesting addition to the game. they could be made in the capital ship factory, at a 1/3-1/2 of what a capital ship costs, with maybe one special ability. more variety wouldnt hurt...

Maybe think of the heavy cruiser as big destroyer.

There is an actual progression in ship sizes and firepower. Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers(Light, Heavy and Battlecruiser) and finally Battleships and Carriers. I can see why they lumped them together as it makes it easier for players who have no clue about this. The whole class thing really meant that lower class ships were less powerful than higher class ships. A battlecruiser couldn't take on a battleship in a straight one-on-one fight. The game has this in a way as the straight up most powerful ship for each faction is the battleship while the support ships are battlecruisers or carriers.

Ships are getting smaller, since big ships = costly, slow, and pretty much are yelling "HIT ME!!!"

Yeah, there should be 4 1500 credit destroyers...

1) A tanker that can force opponents to attack it briefly but does less damage. maybe has more shields and hull

2) A battle destroyer that takes out heavy cruisers and maybe lrms because i hate those .

3) A support destroyer that increases firepower somehow... and of course destroys lrms because i hate those.

4) A destroyer that destroys destroyers of course... or maybe a cap ship that does this. i think there should be a counter to every unit so there is not one super unit.

True, but then why are there cruisers, battleships and battlecruisers in the game? Battlecruisers don't exist anymore - it's not a matter of being outdated, it's a matter of consistency. If they're going to include levels of ships, they might as well include all the types that are commonly recognized.
And for that matter, destroyers, for example, still exist. If you're going to argue on the basis that comparison between history and this game is faulty, then make sure you back it up.

True enough, but remember a ship class isn't the same as a ship type. For example, there are battleships, and there are Queen Mary class battleships. Ticonderoga class cruisers. Invincible class dreadnoughts (at least I think they were dreadnoughts). Classes were usually named after the first ship in that series, not exemplars of the type. In other words, classes are subsets of types.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Have I misunderstood you?



Great; it's just missing a few, is all I'm saying

I've always taken 'frigate' and 'cruiser' to be general designation in Sins. For example, I've always considered the LRM to be a guided missile destroyer. It fills that role quite well. In terms of firepower, it's stronger than a Cobalt light frigate, but not as strong as a heavy cruiser, ergo, it's a destroyer.

Some things don't translate directly, though. For example, there are several battlecuisers in Sins. The concept behind a battlecruiser was to construct a ship with the firepower of a battleship, but the speed of a cruiser at the expense of armor protection. Obviously, this doesn't translate to Sins. An Akkan or Dunov battlecruiser is the same speed as a Kol battleship, but has less firepower and defense. The firepower issue is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that the Akkan and Dunov have useful support abilities.

Also, if we were trying to mirror modern naval combat, then the Kol battleship, the Radiance battleship, and the Kortul Devastator would be faster than any other cap ship. The US Navy's Iowa-class battleship was noted for its speed and to this day can run right with modern destroyers and cruisers.

Of course, you're perfectly correct
Perhaps I should have made it a bit clearer that I don't think that this game should parallel true naval combat; I merely got "inspired", or rather, excited, with my reading of the book. The book led me to wonder why there wasn't another size intermediate between the cruiser and the capital ship, and so on.
I beg your pardon for the confusion

Maybe we should just wonder why they're called 'light frigates' when they're not light and they're not good against light either? Calling them 'frigates' or 'destroyers' would be clearer than 'light frigate with medium armour that sucks against light ships like LRMs'.

i like these ideas, i'd add a flak destroyer with 3 times the firepower of a flak frigate, and a light regular gun -- one of the traditional roles of a destroyer is AA

Ship sizes in history have always been lose anyways. They were classified by armament and armor, but actually displacement was really the biggest factor in classification. This has changed alot over the years. A modern guided missle destroyer displaces 8-9000 tons which is more inline with cruisers in WW1 and WW2.

A battlecruiser was just as large as a battleship, but displaced less and had lighter armor but more speed.

Cruisers have always been a sort of jack of all trades but a master of none. But this made them versitile in the fact that you could use a cruiser to take out a hardened targets in shore bombardment. A group of cruisers could make it a painful day for a Battleship and they could maul several destroyers on their own. A cruiser had a unique sweet spot in firepower for shore bombardment because they had enough punch to take out hardened targets but still had a good rate of fire to rain shells on advancing troop columns and tanks like a destroyer. In the days of gun ships, there was a huge discrepancy jump between a heavy cruiser and a battleship!

Thanks for your input, sir; this is a cogent point!

So here is another way to think of classes of ship. This is gonna get long winded so prepare yourself:

Some time in the 1960's a change happened in the way ships were designated. This trend may have started in WW2 but was accentuated later over time. Instead of thinking of ships in terms of displacement and size instead an emphasis was placed on role in the fleet...

Take for instance a typical carrier group from the 1960's to 80's. Most of the carrier's anti sub warfare was handled by frigates used as longer range pickets. They would be inside the air defense bubble but far enough out to let their passive sonar get a good reading without the fleets back ground noise and had enough basic air defense and missile/guns to be not a total sitting duck. Functional on a patrol alone but anti sub was what they did best.

Destroyers did a mixed role. Better air defense and electronics but not as good as a cruiser. Decent anti sub systems but lacking much of the advanced stealth and passive sonar that made frigates so good at this. Also bigger guns and more surface to surface missiles but not even close to what a cruiser or battle cruiser had. They could operate alone but it was less common than frigates... they tended toward specialized escort duty (good for convoy escort too with a frigate, sub, or aircraft to back them up). Jack of all trades and master of none.

Cruisers were mostly for coordinating and providing air defense. They had solid anti surface capability also to deal with surface threats the carrier was not in a position to strike at... a rare thing but you plan for any thing. Some anti sub capability but if the sub had gotten close enough that the cruiser had taken an interest it was probably too late for the carrier... cruisers with all the sophisticated electronics and huge missile capacity were not worth risking so they would stay very close to the carrier... also to better provide air defense to the center of the fleet the carrier itself.

Carriers were... well carriers. Without an escort or their own aircraft they couldn't see an sub if it practically surfaced under them and were almost useless in surface to surface combat without aircraft. But they did what their roll was... mobile landing strip.

Battleships... the US was the last nation to field one and they were kind of out dated already by the time the Iowa was retired. Big guns... Lots of surface missiles.. virtually no air defense from a modern perspective and ditto for anti sub. They were for attacking land and sometimes other naval forces though at 60 miles (give or take a few) their guns would be considered to be at almost close range for cold war naval engagement. The missile refit was all that kept this class current bu in the end we had no one to use all that on that justified the expense. Always fielded with an escort much like a carrier.

And yes there were still battle cruisers thought the US did not field them. US naval doctrine had shifted totally to carries and limited sub (not many but very very good ones) navies. The Russians fielded 2 Battle Cruisers still. They were like a Super Destroyer... Jack of all trades and good at all of them... huge anti air... more surface missile systems than any 2 US cruisers (or even a cruiser and a battle ship combined) and very powerful sonar, radar and electronic suites. They also had full escorts. They were supposed to help keep US carrier groups from getting too close to Russia and operate near shore or carrier air cover... not to sail out in the middle of an ocean.

All these were ships who's class was defined by role. A British Mark 42 frigate massed as much or more than many types of destroyer when it was first fielded yet it's role put it in the frigate class. The Arleigh Burke Destroyer weighed in at 8,000 tons making it almost as big as the Ticonderoga class cruiser... which while called a cruiser was built on the Spruance class destroyer hull to begin with. It was all about the role of the ship. Even in WW2 (as there are still today) there were light carriers which could field decent air power without the huge expense (and in some cases over kill) of a full carrier battle group.


So in this game think of it as simply that the Destroyer class has for what ever reason been phased out (no need for multi role ships since everything is specialized). Carriers, Battleships, Battle Cruisers are still around but much like current cousins need escorts to function reasonably and not just be a huge floating target for the first submarine (or pack of light frigates) who happen to wander across it. Frigates are light ships with supposed support abilities (LRMS the exception that proves the rule) and Cruisers have either bigger firepower and staying power or specialized electronic abilities that warrent the added expense of a larger hull. Possibly a new use will be seen for destroyers and a future expansion will add them in again...


So now that I have bored every one to death with this endless post about stuff that most of you don't care about I will go do some actual playing and less typing.

I find it interesting that destroyers were intitally created and named as such because they were intended to counter torpedo boats. Destroyers should be in the game as the primary killing class for all lrms, flaks is a pretty dumb counter for lrms.

The ship classes are there and mis-used because they have two classes of spaceships and had to call them something. Did you expect that they would suddenly include a whole slew of new units for the sake of terminological satisfaction? That would be rather unreasonable. The words were changed to fit the purpose, not the other way around.

well, as there will be expansions, we can make suggestions for new ships... regardless of how exact the terminology is, calling some new units destroyers would work.

well, i have one idea how this could work in the game, perhaps a light factory, corvettes and frigates, a med. factory for destroyers and cruisers and a heavy factory for the battleships and carriers, this is only an idea for a mod or expansion pack.