Universal Reference Categorization System

[҉]

I agree withCatsonmeth on the definition of a cruiser stating that it not be a capship.

But the definition doesn't say that. I don't understand why this is under contention. It isn't a matter of opinion: either the definition says that or it doesn't, and in this case it doesn't. If you can find a definition of 'cruiser' that says 'not a capital ship', please, tell me.

[Error]

@Tiel the problem with battlecruiser is that battleships are tougher. So a BC is as well-armed as a BB, but a BB is tougher.


So no, not "strengths of both".

[Ivan2006]

@LJS: Actually, I checked, and there is no major source stating that actually.

Okay, we have several options:

-add a new 'battlecruiser' class (allows for cruisers to be capship-sized while maintaining the battleship-class and its characteristics, but would cause an even more complicated system)
-rename the 'battleship' class into 'battlecruiser' (generally would solve all problems, except that the definition would have to be different for it to make sense, which would essentially change the class)
-remove the 'battleship' class (sounds simple, but I don't think anyone would be happy, because then it would make Dreadnaughts automatically the smallest capship possible)

Also I would like to point out that, as far as I can tell from what Fenway has put in his proposal, battleships are to cruisers what destroyers are to frigates, so I do not think there is much of a problem at all.

[҉]

For some reason ship classification schemes have always been one of the most controversial topics we know of. I have no idea why. We need to stop doing this, though.

JEDI'S NONCONTROVERSIAL SHIP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF AWESOME THAT ALLOWS SUPER-EASY COMPARISON OF SHIPS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES AND EVEN APPLIES TO FLEETS AS A WHOLE
Step 1: Assign each class of ship a point value representing its approximate military strength. Say a Corellian Corvette is a 20, Enterprise is ~100, and Executor is maybe 2000.
Step 2: Do everything the original system was intended to do really easily.

The people who're more into the RP than me will have to work out how much strength a point represents, but after that you can just assign a reasonable value when you introduce a new ship class and everything will be shiny.

[Chairman_Tiel]

For some reason ship classification schemes have always been one of the most controversial topics we know of. I have no idea why. We need to stop doing this, though.

JEDI'S NONCONTROVERSIAL SHIP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF AWESOME THAT ALLOWS SUPER-EASY COMPARISON OF SHIPS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES AND EVEN APPLIES TO FLEETS AS A WHOLE
Step 1: Assign each class of ship a point value representing its approximate military strength. Say a Corellian Corvette is a 20, Enterprise is ~100, and Executor is maybe 2000.
Step 2: Do everything the original system was intended to do really easily.

The people who're more into the RP than me will have to work out how much strength a point represents, but after that you can just assign a reasonable value when you introduce a new ship class and everything will be shiny.

A points system would be even more confusing; the idea is to have a universal set of named ranges to assign ships into, not a faceless number for people to tack whatever misleading titles they want on to. That kind of potential mess isn't what I'm going for here.

@LJS: Actually, I checked, and there is no major source stating that actually.

Ivan, this is starting to border on ridiculousness. I cited a dictionary with a longstanding reputation for impartiality and accuracy. It's regularly used by college-level students and even their educators to reference terms in their respective papers. If that isn't enough, just look at any other sci fi franchise and tell me 'there is no major source' to support the aforementioned text's excerpt. Cruisers have always been capital ships in science fiction, from Star Wars to Star Trek. In fact, I'd be more inclined to say Battleship isn't even used in the context you're trying to wedge it into nearly as often, if at all.

@Tiel the problem with battlecruiser is that battleships are tougher. So a BC is as well-armed as a BB, but a BB is tougher.


So no, not "strengths of both".

Hmm. You know, that's my mistake. Still, Heavy BC, problem solved. And if you really wanted a damage taker you'd probably spring for something in the dreadnought range anyway for the sake of cost-effectiveness.

[Error]

AFAIK battleships are cheaper, lighter dreadnoughts for those not willing or able to spend trillions and a ton of resources on dreads, but wanting more oomph than a cruiser.

[Chairman_Tiel]

AFAIK battleships are cheaper, lighter dreadnoughts for those not willing or able to spend trillions and a ton of resources on dreads, but wanting more oomph than a cruiser.

Again, I'd remind you this isn't about the classes you assign them. I accept that's going to be unique per faction, and in fact that's why I'm proposing this system in the first place.

But this, at least at present, is about the ranges those classes go into and their names, and whether one between cruiser and dreadnought is really necessary when the role you're saying distinguishes it from the two can easily be defined using either range with some modifiers.

I've been lured away from this into debating whether the term 'battleship' is really deprecated, but that stops now.

[Ivan2006]

I agree that a points system would be conter-productive and would only work if all ships had only one kind of weaponry and were multi-role as opposed to having specialized ships for different tasks than straight-forward combat.

And on my point, after hearing the arguments of both sides in all detail and thinking about it, I don't care whether you call it a battleship or a battlecruiser.

The main difference I have noticed is that Error preferably uses the definitions of RL-seaships for the roles, which would bring forth a fully valid reason to make 'battleships' their own class and why they are not battlecruisers.
Tiel on the other hand uses more sci-fi related sources, which give also a valid reason to NOT name them battleships and instead opt for battlecruisers.

I personally think that while neither the battleship nor the battlecruiser-concept would be invalid in space, advanced technology would defeat the point of distinguising between the two, as their role in a space environment would be equal. For reference, the only real difference between Battleships and Battlecruisers IRL was the heavy armour of battleships and resulting higher mobility of battlecruisers. In a sci-fi environment, the usage of shield generators and advanced armour materials would however result in it not making sense to add armour to a battlecruiser enough to significantly weight it down (aka turn it into a battleship), unless it was a siege Battlecruiser, for which we already have a prefix, so actually I'd say call it Battlecruiser.

[Iv121]

The point system tells you - if the ship of this kind was fully generic, no advantages or disadvantages, how many of them will be equal in power with another ship ? That will give you the basic unit worth of one unit. As for weapon classes etc. those are the advantages and disadvantages you now take into account. That means if a corvette is worth 4 fighters lets say, 4 fighters still wont beat a flak corvette. In the same time if I want to make some special kind of corvette that is twice as good as a standard corvette it will just be worth twice as much, a special ship or unit you can use in combat. Basically that means that no matter what kind of ridiculous case you can come up with we can evaluate it comparing to the base ships and decide it's worth.

Again if two fleets of the same overall point count collide it doesn't mean they are evenly matched, the advantages and disadvantages are the crucial factor here. How do you measure those ? Here it becomes rather individual per ship, meaning the GM will eventually need to apply his own judgment no matter what, but again those points and any RP system that is ever to be made for RPs will never replace the GM, only assist him. otherwise we could just make a video game. Oh Also keep in mnid taht convincing the GM why your ship / plan / whatever should work is up to you, whether or not he was convinced ofc is up to him.

[҉]

Adopting such a system would allow for easy * measuring, letting you know at a glance how a vehicle or ship stacks up against the competition.

Points system does that better than anything else will.

[Ivan2006]

The point system tells you - if the ship of this kind was fully generic, no advantages or disadvantages, how many of them will be equal in power with another ship ? That will give you the basic unit worth of one unit. As for weapon classes etc. those are the advantages and disadvantages you now take into account. That means if a corvette is worth 4 fighters lets say, 4 fighters still wont beat a flak corvette. In the same time if I want to make some special kind of corvette that is twice as good as a standard corvette it will just be worth twice as much, a special ship or unit you can use in combat. Basically that means that no matter what kind of ridiculous case you can come up with we can evaluate it comparing to the base ships and decide it's worth.

Again if two fleets of the same overall point count collide it doesn't mean they are evenly matched, the advantages and disadvantages are the crucial factor here. How do you measure those ? Here it becomes rather individual per ship, meaning the GM will eventually need to apply his own judgment no matter what, but again those points and any RP system that is ever to be made for RPs will never replace the GM, only assist him. otherwise we could just make a video game. Oh Also keep in mnid taht convincing the GM why your ship / plan / whatever should work is up to you, whether or not he was convinced ofc is up to him.

You are describing a mechanic suitable for a video game, not for roleplay.

[Shadowcatbot]

Holy shit how hard is it to add battleship to the list? One thing, it's not like we're developing a code shift.

Carriers stay in the enhancement list or whatever, way to diversified to make one class.

[Ivan2006]

Holy shit how hard is it to add battleship to the list? One thing, it's not like we're developing a code shift.

Carriers stay in the enhancement list or whatever, way to diversified to make one class.

The argument is whether it should be called a Battleship or a Battlecruiser.
And yes, to the average person, this may sound like a pointless argument, but actually it would make a pretty significant difference when you are trying to decide which class to fit your ship into.

[Error]

Battlecruiser = cruiser hull, battleship weapons.

Battleship = battleship hull, battleship weapons.

So BCs could be called that, or Heavy Cruisers. Battlehips are more Superheavy Cruisers, if you're feeling dedicated to calling them a cruiser.

[cats]

The term capital ship doesn't include ships of middling mass and armament, it's the large ships that usually have their own escorts. It's not that fucking difficult to understand. Cruisers and battleships are completely different in size, armament, and function. A cruiser is more similar to a destroyer than it is to a battleship. Can you not open wikipedia?