Darkstar Shipyards classify ships by Name - Class - Role and sometimes a extra-designation.
Ships follow this example.
Classification as follows
Spoiler:
Powerplants are put in E.
E1- Eezo based plant. Reliable and effective,costly because of the material.
E2 - Nuclear reaction plant. Common
E3 - Plasma based energy generator. Effective and a bit salty.
E4- Antimatter energy generator.
Shields are put in K
K1- Basic starship shielding. Magnetic layers against radiation and projectiles
k2 - Kinetic barriers. Advanced version of K1
K3 - Mass Effect barriers. Ultimate protection against balistics
K4- CBT [Cyclonic Barrier Tech] Advanced version of the K3. More effective,power hungry and suited for opening volleys.
K5 - Dark Matter shield. Conversion of the usual stealth engine shell into a shield.
K0 - [CLASSIFIED- BEING TESTED]
Interestellar engines are put in W
W1- Eezo warp engine. It cuts the mass of a ship,making it easier to accelerate FTL. Effective and easy to use,but a little scarce because of materials [Darkstar has Monopoly on Eezo]
W2 - Fold drive. It makes the ship vibrate in a special rate,travelling in the space and time directly,"folding" the space between point A and B.
W3 - Sub-space drive. Navigation between nodes,its cheap but a bit unconventional. Node dependent,unless portals are used.
W4 - Standard FTL drive . Wormhole navigation drive
W0 - CLASSIFIED. STILL IN TESTS
Special systems are designed in G [ Offensive technology] and S [Defensive technology]
G1 to G3 : denote the GARDIAN family of weapons [GARDIAN,PHALANX,PIKE]
S1 to S5 : Singularity drives. Manipulation of Dark Matter as a mean of creating a stealth field. [ALPHA,BETA,SION,THETA and SIGMA}
Spoiler:
Name: Ironshield
Class: Frigate
Role: Scout,AA covering and patrol.
Powerplant: E1- Eezo-core mass reactor,2x E3- SUpercharger plasma plants.
Weapons: 2 decks of 10 Railcannons [150 mm] at broadsides. 5 x Flak cannons at each side,and 10x 20mm linked kinetic machineguns for AA cover.
Shields and additional systems: G1- GARDIAN-system,S1-ALPHA-Singularity engine and K1- Shielding.
Engine: W1- Eezo engine
The Ironshield is a old decomissioned starship. In the beggining,the main capability of the Ironshield was the extremely cheap manufacturing cost,being modular in nature. Now,the remaining Ironshields of Darkstar Fleet are being dismantled in favor to the newest Blade modular frigate,or being used as training vessels for newer officers.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:47 am
by Ivan2006
Remove Eezo. You'll need permission to introduce new materials with the new system.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 10:48 am
by Crash Override
Ivan2006 wrote:Remove Eezo. You'll need permission to introduce new materials with the new system.
What material is allowed?
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:01 am
by Error
AFAIK most ships use deuterium-tritium fusion reactors for power.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:42 am
by cats
Fisson>> Fusion>> Antimatter
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:19 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
If you ask me we should just ditch the individual classifications - they only really serve to muddle the waters by identifying the same stuff by different names. If people want them to be called as much they can specify it in the name, but the official class (ie in wiki) should correspond to one of the more 'hard' terms out there. For instance, one of Ivan's battleships is probably actually equivalent to a heavy cruiser, but he'd be free to specify any differences in both the name and the ship's information.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:32 pm
by Error
By that system, Tiel, my destroyers would fall under "cruiser", despite being considerably smaller. And so on, so judging by armaments/defenses would probably work better.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:00 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
HOW.
You know, I'm sorry, but I have a migraine right now, and that sentence just doesn't make any bloody sense.
If it fits the role of a cruiser, it's a cruiser, regardless of length. If it fits the role of a frigate, it's a frigate, regardless of what it's packing. That's why we apply the 'heavy' and other adjectives to the name. I don't see what's so difficult about the concept. Trust me, I've been working on the infobox templates for the wiki and things are much more cohesive by simply generalizing by universal roles.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:03 pm
by Error
"Capital Ship Destroyer". All my ships are intended to punch way above their weight. Quality, oh so much quality, very little quantity.
So calling a CSD a cruiser is actually inaccurate. Cruisers are general-purpose, destroyers are anticapship, and so on. Thus, just judging by armament/defenses/etc. would probably prevent confusion.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:03 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
Then one, that's pretty OP unless you have only a few of them, (I'm gonna be perfectly honest here, I'm rather convinced that's just your excuse for not attempting anything larger)
and two, that'd still just be an x class ship with heavy armament. We'd just apply an 'anti-ship' prefix to the traditional classification and the point is still conveyed. It's either a cruiser with big guns or a destroyer with big guns, make up your mind and that's what ends up there.
It's my opinion that the 'default' scale would look something like
Corvette
Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser
Dreadnaught
with prefixes like
recon
light
support
heavy
etc, tacked on to the front. Again, you'd be able to call it whatever you want, but size, role, and armament are going to determine what class it is by the core system.
A heavy battleship would just be slated as a cruiser with a ton of damage sink capability, for example.
Naturally I'm not a GM and it's thus not my call to make, but it's just my opinion that the coherency of the wiki is going to be negatively affected by people just assigning their own names willy nilly without a means to align them to any rigid system for the purposes of comparison.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:11 pm
by cats
Carriers, battleships, and dreadnoughts all have their own battlegroups.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:16 pm
by Chairman_Tiel
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:38 pm
by Error
@Tiel: Most folks have navies of thousands. I manage 140 peak capacity. With about 1 new (cruiser or smaller) ship every 2 years. So individually? Massively OP. In a strategic envionment? Not quite as much, and 10 of those (currently 114) ships are permanently at my homeworld, including one of my two battlecarriers.
So I could get just swamped by a zerg rush. Whereas 1v1, I will eat just about anything. So it's a balancing act.
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 4:05 pm
by cats
Icelandic Perehelion wrote:@Tiel: Most folks have navies of thousands. I manage 140 peak capacity. With about 1 new (cruiser or smaller) ship every 2 years. So individually? Massively OP. In a strategic envionment? Not quite as much, and 10 of those (currently 114) ships are permanently at my homeworld, including one of my two battlecarriers.
So I could get just swamped by a zerg rush. Whereas 1v1, I will eat just about anything. So it's a balancing act.
One hundred fourty... fleets?
Re: Darkstar Shipyards Ship Classifications
Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 4:27 pm
by Error
140 warships. And roughly 45-odd noncombat scouts, pworlers, and such.
So, 114 warships at present. That said, I only have 17 worlds, 7 of which are heavily populated, to defend.
