Universal Reference Categorization System

[Error]

So can we just add "battleship" above cruiser and below dreadnought?

[Chairman_Tiel]

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?

In the 20th century, especially in World Wars I and II, typical capital ships would be battleships and battlecruisers. All of the above ships were close to 20,000 tons displacement or heavier, with large caliber guns and heavy armor protection.

Heavy cruisers, despite being important ships, were not considered capital ships. An exception to the above in World War II was the Deutschland-class cruiser. Though this class was technically similar to a heavy cruiser, albeit with considerably heavier guns, they were regarded by some as capital ships (hence the British label "Pocket battleship") since they were one of the few heavy surface units of the Kriegsmarine. The Alaska-class cruisers, despite being oversized heavy cruisers and not true battleships/battlecruisers, were also considered by some[who?] to be capital ships.

Maybe you should read your own references before trying to be snarky about them.

In addition, I'd consider professionally authored encyclopedias/dictionaries a lot more credible than wikipedia. Never mind the plethora of sci fi works already out there that share my standpoint on the matter - which should really serve as a better source for comparison than maritime activities here on Earth.

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

How hard is it to not have a battleship on the list? It's one thing, yes, but evidently people want to fuss about it, so I'm more than happy to oblige defending my viewpoints on the matter. Again, if we can agree to have battlecruiser (ala Starcraft's) above cruiser than that's something I'd be up for.

[Shadowcatbot]

Why are we bothering adding battlecruiser if it's making this much fuss, it's essentially a midpoint between cruiser and battleship. There's a reason I put a ? Next to battlecruiser on my suggestion, I felt it was a possible idea but nothing serious.

[cats]

I didn't say there weren't exceptions. The battlecruisers of WWI were enormously oversized. They would have been classified as battleships had it not been for their speed. Cruisers have since been defined as having a displacement less than 10,000 long tons.

Merriam Webster defines a capital ship as one being within the first rank of size and armament. A cruiser is neither of these and shouldn't even be included in the examples. Battlecruiser, perhaps, but not the average cruiser.

Oxford Dictionary describes a capital ship as being a large ship such as a battleship or an aircraft carrier. A cruiser is the middle class (Corvette => frigate => destroyer => cruiser => battleship => dreadnought => *) and wouldn't fall within that category. It also defines "Cruiser" as a fast warship larger than a destroyer and less heavily armed than a battleship.

[Chairman_Tiel]

There's a reason I put a ? Next to battlecruiser on my suggestion, I felt it was a possible idea but nothing serious.

Truth be told I didn't even read your suggestion. At this point there are two or three people actually arguing a point here and the rest is just background noise.

I didn't say there weren't exceptions.

You didn't say there were, either. If you're going to state something as fact it helps to have sources that actually fully back up your claim.

The battlecruisers of WWI were enormously oversized. They would have been classified as battleships had it not been for their speed. Cruisers have since been defined as having a displacement less than 10,000 long tons.

I've seen nothing to indicate that they were oversized. At the end of the day I'd much rather have something with the speed of a cruiser and the guns of a battleship, anyway, as would many a fleet commander. If you explicitly design something to take hits as you say you are then it'd fall under the light dreadnought range.

Merriam Webster defines a capital ship as one being within the first rank of size and armament. A cruiser is neither of these and shouldn't even be included in the examples. Battlecruiser, perhaps, but not the average cruiser.

#opinions

And again, I argue with the logic in using maritime naval practices as a strict guideline for what we're doing here.

Oxford Dictionary describes a capital ship as being a large ship such as a battleship or an aircraft carrier.

Okay so one dictionary against another dictionary and perhaps every sci fi franchise ever.

A cruiser is the middle class (Corvette => frigate => destroyer => cruiser => battleship => dreadnought => *) and wouldn't fall within that category.

You're interjecting your own opinion in the middle of citing a credible source. I disagree with this as a matter of principle. Just felt the need to point that out.

It also defines "Cruiser" as a fast warship larger than a destroyer and less heavily armed than a battleship.

Maybe I should remind you again that this is not about classes. This is about categories that classes fit into based on their role in the order of battle.

There is obviously a gap between a strikecraft and a frigate - there are ships smaller than mid-sized, bulky multi-role vessels that aren't necessarily one or three person craft, but may perform functions of either. Hence the 'corvette' category that encompasses everything from cutters to pinnaces.

There is similarly an empty void between the frigate and the cruiser - where does this multi-role ship evolve into a dedicated man-of-war? This brings into being the 'destroyer' category.

And between the destroyer and the dreadnought there is clearly a singularity encompassing everything from a (comparatively light) combat ship to those designed to take hits and deal them in turn. This is filled by the 'cruiser' category, which would be filled with things like battleships, et al. What you've been arguing is to split this category into two, which I've been equally persistent about opposing due to the fact that anything that fulfills this niche of mainline combat vessel would merely be in the upper echelons of the spectrum; closer to something belonging in the 'dreadnought' umbrella than that of the cruiser; simple as that. There's absolutely no need to isolate it beyond fulfilling some misbegotten wet dream for the term itself. Because what, then, would go in this 'Battleship' category, but members of that specific class itself? It's redundant and unnecessary, and that's why I'm opposing it.

But the more I think about it the more I'm starting to favor Jedi's idea back on page...well, something, which just avoided using these names (and the confusion you guys seem to have regarding the difference between a category and a class) instead just picking different, unique ones. These serve to not only differentiate the reference system from the actual classes, but also our comprehensive lore from all the other sci fi love dreams floating around.

[Shadowcatbot]

Me has the feeling Tiel is arguing to argue.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Me has the feeling Tiel is arguing to argue.

Gee wiz, my bad. I guess I should have been arguing to agree, then. TIEL SORRY!

In all seriousness I don't appreciate this breed of post from you anymore than I do Fenway. Well, maybe a bit more, because I know he's better than this.

[cats]

Tiel, you're Iving. A cruiser is meant to be a ship of medium tonnage and armament with high speed. Since speed's not a factor, just medium tonnage and armament. It's not supposed to encompass everything from frigates to dreadnoughts.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Bro, again, it's the name of a category, not a specific class. It's called such because that's what majority of the classes in the spectrum it designates fall under, and thus an accurate one-word description of what everything in it does. It could just as easily be 'battleship' but as you point out the calling of a cruiser doesn't necessarily 'fit in' with that, so to speak, whereas it'd be easy to describe a battleship as a heavy cruiser in terms of functionality and where they're going to be at when the shooting starts.

Does that clear anything up? Because I'm still hot on Jedi's idea if it doesn't. Calling the categories something else would definitely clear up this debate once and for all, as I feel there are some serious miscommunication issues here if we're trodding these same steps again.

[Shadowcatbot]

Me has the feeling Tiel is arguing to argue.

Gee wiz, my bad. I guess I should have been arguing to agree, then. TIEL SORRY!

In all seriousness I don't appreciate this breed of post from you anymore than I do Fenway. Well, maybe a bit more, because I know he's better than this.

Tiel what I'm trying to say is it sounds like your just arguing to argue at this point, I wasn't trying to insult you otherwise I would just said "Tiel your being an ass". Insulting me isn't going to help your case any and that does make you look like an ass.

I'm trying to just say this is going overboard for one thing, why don't we just compromise and rename dreadnought to battleship and let dreadnought fall under experimental, it makes the post more coherent with the jump from cruiser to dreadnought removed and still conveys the same message.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Tiel what I'm trying to say is it sounds like your just arguing to argue at this point

If that's what it looks like to you then I do have to question whether you've read anything I've said, as my last post made it quite clear why I'm as opposed to this as I am.

I wasn't trying to insult you otherwise I would just said "Tiel your being an ass". Insulting me isn't going to help your case any and that does make you look like an ass.

Whether you were trying to or not your words undermined the points I spent what limited free time I have making by insinuating I'm doing this for nothing more than to be contrite and/or divisive. This is, of course, in blatant ignorance of the post I mentioned earlier with my own explanation for why I'm holding my ground on this matter in particular. Additionally, your further (quite poor) attempt at trying to take the moral higher ground in this post doesn't convince me any this was some kind of lingual accident.

If I were to make an analogy, it'd be like walking up to someone giving an hour-long speech, then walking to them at the conclusion and commenting nasally, "well you're just saying that because you like talking!" It's rude and completely belittles what they're saying. I'm not exactly the most polite person in the world myself but at least I try to address what a person is saying when I can instead of just adding antagonistic garbage to the mix.

I'm trying to just say this is going overboard for one thing, why don't we just compromise and rename dreadnought to battleship and let dreadnought fall under experimental, it makes the post more coherent with the jump from cruiser to dreadnought removed and still conveys the same message.

I'm still in favor of just renaming the categories at this point. This thread has made it clear to me that if the names of each cat are similar to those of the actual classes they house, there's going to be much more confusion than if we just use unique titles. I'll work on expanding what LJS said tomorrow.

[cats]

Wait, so what you're saying is to have a category called "Cruiser" instead of sub-capital ship classes?

[Archduke Daynel, PhD]

One side: "Add batalshyps cuz add batalshyps!!"
Other side: "Remov batalshyps yuo of wurst cruser!!"

I mean I don't even follow this closely but it seems like a pointless discussion.

[Iv121]

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

Then go ahead and read it again, read it again and again until you read the section where I address this point and come up with a new argument.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Wait, so what you're saying is to have a category called "Cruiser" instead of sub-capital ship classes?

Destroyers already fill the gap of sub-capital combat ship. Cruiser category is middling to capital ship. Dreadnaught category is capital ships as you describe them. Experimental is anything bigger.