Universal Reference Categorization System

[Ivan2006]

On the matter of this not concerning the GMs:
As soon as it has the labels 'universal' and 'roleplay' on it, it automatically becomes the buiseness of the GMs.
No exceptions.
And I don't think you need to reference every single class individually, for wiki purposes, one entry with all the ship classes and redirects should be enough.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Tiel. You're objecting to adding one more item to the list.

Your list:

-Strike Craft
-Corvette
-Frigate
-Destroyer
-Cruiser
-Dreadnought
-Stuff


As opposed to everyone else:

-Strike Craft
-Corvette
-Frigate
-Destroyer
-Cruiser
-Battleship
-Dreadnought
-Stuff

One more thing? Oh, noes, suddenly I'm confused and can't keep track!

People are only saying that because you guys seem to be under the impression this is intended to be a mandatory replacement for every single naming scheme, which I suppose I didn't exactly absolve in the original thread title.

I repeat, the goal of this reference system is not to be comprehensive. It's supposed to define all roles in the line of battle in as little base terms as possible. And at the moment the role of a battleship falls under cruiser, as the abilities he has and what kind of part he plays are more or less identical to those of a heavy cruiser. The only real difference is size, but since it's not enough to justify a reclassification to Dreadnought it'd just be a heavy cruiser.

Also Ivan, I'm not responding to you for a reason, as I don't think even you know what you're arguing or why you're arguing save for the fact that it's me, and you're under some divine obligation to be at odds with me in all things.

[Ivan2006]

Well, keep in mind that in this system, Dreadnaughts would be those big ass flagships people were using in previous RPs.
Battleships would be what most people called 'Dreadnaughts' during that time.
So yes, the size difference is significant enough to warrant a seperate class.
(and AFAIK Titans are behemoths that would propably take the cooperation of several major powers to properly operate)

[Error]

Tiel, simple or otherwise, somehow I doubt calling a battleship a battleship will cause mass confusion and frantic scrolling through reference pages.

Besides. It's a freaking Internet game. We could call it a * and it still wouldn't frakking matter.

[Archduke Daynel, PhD]

I call dibs on *-class battleships.

[҉]

People are only saying that because you guys seem to be under the impression this is intended to be a mandatory replacement for every single naming scheme, which I suppose I didn't exactly absolve in the original thread title.

I repeat, the goal of this reference system is not to be comprehensive. It's supposed to define all roles in the line of battle in as little base terms as possible. And at the moment the role of a battleship falls under cruiser, as the abilities he has and what kind of part he plays are more or less identical to those of a heavy cruiser. The only real difference is size, but since it's not enough to justify a reclassification to Dreadnought it'd just be a heavy cruiser.

Also Ivan, I'm not responding to you for a reason, as I don't think even you know what you're arguing or why you're arguing save for the fact that it's me, and you're under some divine obligation to be at odds with me in all things.

First, please don't get defensive. No-one here is attacking you, not even Ivan. (This also isn't supposed to be condescending or anything, and I'm sorry if it sounds like it is. I just want the discussion to remain useful.)
Second, I don't think anyone here is under the impression that you're trying to make everyone name their ships the same way. You've gotten that point across.
All we're suggesting is the addition of a tier to the system, because we feel that there is enough room between the categories of 'cruiser' and 'dreadnaught' to justify it. Now, part of the reason we're saying that is that the names you've chosen for the categories are ones traditionally associated with size and not role. Most of us are used to thinking of frigates being just small cruisers being just small battleships. I think this would make more sense if we used exactly the categories you wanted but named them 'harrier' (or something similar) instead of corvette, 'escort' instead of frigate, 'ship of the line' instead of cruiser, etc. Then it would be more evident that the categories refer exclusively to the role the ship performs instead of to its size or power. That still has the problem, of course, that it doesn't really help compare things between fleets.

[Error]

To go by "role", smallest to largest:

Strike Craft, interception and harrier, escort, capital ship destroyer / torpedo boat destroyer, ship of the line, carrier, siege vessel.

These correspond roughly to fighters / bombers, corvettes and frigates, destroyers, cruisers and battleships, well, carriers, and dreadnoughts and titans.

Also, the "recce" (recon), "command", "support" or "defense" tags can be applied to most ships to indicate a change in role.

[Ivan2006]

I think a system that takes size as a main category and puts specific roles in prefixes is more efficient for comparing ships of different fleets, as different sizes attributed to the same class name usually are the primary difficulty in comparison anyway.

[cats]

I call dibs on *-class battleships.

Dammit.

Battleship is a class separate from cruiser just as a destroyer is a class separate from frigate. Frigates and cruisers are both moderately armed for their size, designed for multiple roles. Destroyers and battleships are heavily armed, meant for frontline combat. Battleships are also larger, but not "holy fuckimg mother of god" like a dread, large enough to merit a sizable escort.

[Professor Fenway]

Ok then. Let's name everything a cruiser

You have super-light 1 man fighter cruisers. And super-light 1 man bomber cruisers.

You have super-light escort cruisers. Super-light battleship cruisers. Light flak cruisers. Light corvette cruisers. Then we have Destroyer cruisers. Heavy destroyer cruisers. Frigate cruisers.

I'm not going to respond to whatever thoughts you're trying to present here on the basis that you're acting like a fucking five year old in the first three sentences. Go through elementary school a time or too, maybe pick up an inkling of maturity, and try again. I'll be here when you're ready to carry on a civilized conversation.[/quote]

I was not being immature, Tiel, and frankly, i'm not a fan of your insults. I was being sarcastic, and believe me, I KNOW how terribly sarcasm carries across the internet. I do not appreciate the personal insults you have taken to doing, and I won't be doing the same.

But here's where I see your argument failing; What classifies as different? How are they different? If the difference between a cruiser and a battleship is so minor that you could consolidate it into cruisers, then how can anything really be that much different? A frigate is more similar to a cruiser than a cruiser is to a battleship; a dreadnought is more similar to a battleship than a battleship is to a cruiser. So to improve readability and accessibility, we make THREE classes of ships (Strike class, Cruiser class, Dreadnought class) that form up every navy, and every ship is a subdivision of each class.

[҉]

A frigate is more similar to a battleship than a cruiser is to a battleship;

wut

[Professor Fenway]

A frigate is more similar to a battleship than a cruiser is to a battleship;

wut

Meant cruiser, not battleship in first part.

[cats]

Cruisers are not capital ships. Battleships are capital ships. Frigates are smaller than cruisers. Destroyers are smaller than cruisers but are more powerful than frigates. Destroyers and frigates are not capital ships. A carrier is a capital ship. A dreadnought is larger than a battleship. A dreadnought is a capital ship.

[Iv121]

I REFUSE TO CALL THE BIG FLEET SHIPS ANYTHING BUT BOMBERS !

[Ivan2006]

Iv, you can call the big ships 'bombers' in the UTA, or whatever your faction after the reboot is. Just make sure to mention what it would be under interstellar standards.

On that note, can we have some numbers on how large the typical ship of a class would be (just so that no one calls something a battleship that others think would be a frigate)