Universal Reference Categorization System

[Ivan2006]

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.

Okay, I read again, but my concern was more about the fact that this would require the description of each ship class to be about as fleshed out as the stats of a D&D character, which I am not sure a lot of people would agree to.

And generally, on the topic of Battleship VS Battlecruiser VS Dreadnaught, so far the term 'dreadnaught' has commonly been used to describe non-supercarrier capships and I do not feel like the current role for 'dreadnaught' between 'battleship' and 'titan' is really required and instead suggest that battleships be renamed dreadnaughts and the dreadnaught category be removed.

[Chairman_Tiel]

There isn't a Titan category - we have Experimental and that does the same thing without trying to be SOASE.

My new proposal for the categories and their name takes heavy inspiration from LJS's post and Error's expansion of it a few pages back and is as follows:

Strikecraft: If you have a ship with one-to-three crew and is supposed to be deployed en masse, it is categorized as a Strikecraft.

Harrier: Any class that's too large to be deployed effectively as a Strikecraft but too small to be used as an Escort.

Escort: Classes that fulfill the function of a multi-role, utility vessel while being both larger and (in most cases) better armed than the Harrier category.

Lancer: Anything bigger than a Heavy Escort but smaller than a Lineship; used almost exclusively for direct combat.

Lineship: Comprised of mid-tier classes that form the backbone of a fleet element's "line" when in conventional engagements. Tend to be mid-tier; may also serve as the centerpiece of Lancer/Escort task forces depending on the faction and commander.

Juggernaut: Any class larger than a Lineship, and/or designed with the ability to take punishment first and foremost. Serve to anchor battle lines, draw enemy fire, act as command ships, be the most effective carriers, etcetera.

Experimental: Any class exceeding the mass of a faction's largest contribution to the Juggernaut category is probably extremely expensive and thus Experimental. Note: Must be at least semi-mobile.

Modifiers can probably stay the same.

[Archduke Daynel, PhD]

What about mobile space stations? Would those be Experimental or just mobile space stations?

[҉]

What about mobile space stations? Would those be Experimental or just mobile space stations?

If it moves around, it's not a space station. It's a ship. (I strongly object to the Death Star being called a space station, even though they do it in the movie; that's not what it is.)

[Chairman_Tiel]

Gonna assume there isn't an issue with the current one?

[ACH0225]

The names are weird and I don't like them.

Frigate- small

Cruiser- medium-small

Battleship- medium-large

Capital ship(dreadnought/carrier/ect)- large

Supership- verilously large.

[Vinyl]

The names are weird and I don't like them.

Why do you care? The only time you'll ever use them is when looking up the category of a ship, and even then you'd probably just call it whatever the creator does.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Thank you, but I think universal class is a bit of a misnomer at this point. Battleship, Cruiser, etc go into these 'categories', as I've taken to calling them, whose titles designate the role that classes in each's inheritance take up. IE a Corvette is a Harrier, a Battleship is probably either a Lineship or Juggernaut, and so forth. The only reason these were class names before is because a substantial portion of each likely would have been of a particular class and it was my belief this would provide an easy point of reference (we know what frigates do, and such). However, this thread has proved that instead of aiding my objective of rapid comparison, having any similarities between the titles of parent and child in any shape or form has proven to just be bloody confusing. Hence 'weird names'.

e: Didn't mean you had to change it; is my fault after all. Changed the thread title again to better reflect what this is supposed to be.

[cats]

So these categories would reflect the roles of the ships rather than the size?

[Vinyl]

So these categories would reflect the roles of the ships rather than the size?

That was the idea from post 1.

[Iv121]

Though problem is that size matters, again by this system a 2km long "cruiser" and some 500m cruiser are evenly matched, if you gonna say that this name doesn't tell you anything about the strength of the ship your system is practically useless from the very start.

[Ivan2006]

Actually, you can come up with your own ideas for that with your own ships.
The current proposal by Tiel actually works quite well for just putting ships into rough categories to get an idea of what said ships are doing.

[cats]

I don't like this thread's direction. Let's post our ideas in a clear and precise manner below and we'll discuss them. If we manage a compromise between them, we can incorporate it as a standard. If not, a classification system isn't really imperative.

[Chairman_Tiel]

The fuck? We finally get somewhere and you're "I don't like this thread's direction"? I've stated my thoughts and explained what my precedent was here too many times to count. If you really are that confused just look at any of my posts in this thread, as even when they're arguing that irrelevant battleship debate they still support what I was proposing from the getgo.

[cats]

If you've posted your entire idea cohesively then you should be able to copypaste it. If you can't, then you haven't and should organize it completely before we proceed. If you're not willing to work with me, you're not getting anything.