Topic: Naval Ship Definitions.

[jayvt3]

Well I found this site>>>http://members.tripod.com/~panzer99/shipclass.html
I hope it give s some help and information to modelers for the type/class of ship that they are trying to build.

[zerosnark]

not bad.

Reading this list does demonstrate how "definitions" change over time.

For instance, many of the carrier classifications in this list were never used concurrently and several ships changed designations several times through their careers. Some Essex class carriers went from CV to CVA to CVS to AVT orver the course of 40 years.

Today, in the US navy, there are CG's and DDG's. The primary distinguishing feature -no kidding- is the rank of the commanding officer.

The original SFB (and SFC) closely follow WWII classification schemes (ie, CV's, CVL's, CA's, CL's, DD's, FF's), which reflect the makeup of the US navy in the 1960's when Star Trek was first released. The system was later expanded to include NCL's, NCA's, HDD's and such.

In the original series, there was about one reference to the Enterprise being a "heavy cruiser", but in most cases federation ships were all generally classed as "Starships".  (If you think about it, the Fed CA and Fed DD have identical alpha strike firepower, and the original DN only had slightly more phasers).

[jayvt3]

For the most part I agree with you but I beg to differ on the "power" of the conceptual design of some of the vessels.  The DD and CA do have similarity in game of having same ALPHA strike ability.  But the DNs should be tremendously more powerful.  Mostly what I have found is that this is done through manipulation of the stats files and the flaw is found in the game designers were preoccupied in getting a product out in time for the release date also due to the cost of making and memory space available a properly outfitted dreadnought.

In my own opinion a TOS era DN should be able to pulverize a TMP era CA and against a TNG CA should be the victor only by default.  Also in the case of a mismatch between say a TNG CLC (i.e.Defiant) vs. a TOS CA (i.e.Enterprise) it should be a very grueling fight between them.  The TNG Defiant has modern weaponry and stealth ability but the TOS Enterprise has more powerful weapons to bare and a greater ability to "soak" up damage.  But this would truly be a test of the respective commanders.

[Tulwar]

For the most part I agree with you but I beg to differ on the "power" of the conceptual design of some of the vessels.  The DD and CA do have similarity in game of having same ALPHA strike ability.  But the DNs should be tremendously more powerful.  Mostly what I have found is that this is done through manipulation of the stats files and the flaw is found in the game designers were preoccupied in getting a product out in time for the release date also due to the cost of making and memory space available a properly outfitted dreadnought.

No, they were just following the SFB stats.  The Fed DN was dreadfully underarmed.

[zerosnark]

Yeah, the issue is not SFC design, but the Star Fleet Battles board game upon which SFC is based.

You can go back further (1975) to the Franz Joeseph Design manual which first introduced the DD and DN classes. This introduced the concept of the DD and CA have the same weapons. . . and the undergunned DN.

The other issue is that there is very little distinction between phasers and photons on various ships. I would imagine that over time, phaser power and accuracy would improve dramatically such that a TMP CA should be able to carve ice sculptures in the heart of an early era CA. Part of the problem is that the game system expanded in time more than the original designers intended. I suspect that the original time span of the came was 5-15 years. I think Star Fleet Battles predated Star Trek the Motion Picture => or they didn't have a license for those designs.

Consider the example of the US Alaska class CB's. "Large Cruisers" built in 1944. Compare that to the Battlecruisers (or even the battleships) of WWI =>1914. The CB's were significantly faster. They were larger. Primary guns equivilent, but the secondarys were vastly superior.

And then consider radar based fire control . . . I would readily pit an Alaska against a "splendit Cat" such as the Princess Royal... and I would favor an Alaska over an Iron Duke class Dreadnaught.

[Swordsman]

Actually, Zerosnark, while the role of the CG and DDG in the current US navy might be the same and the armament very similar, the volume is quite different. The Bunker Hill sub-type Ticonderoga-class CG can actually put a greater volume of missiles, be they BGM-109s TLAMS, or SMII SAMs into the air than the Arleigh Burke or Spruance. Ticos just have a greater number of VLS cells with which to hold weapons.

It is no longer the the size, but the capabilities that the vessel brings to the table and where those capabilities fall when compared to other ship classes (of the same time period) that is used to classify ships. That's why the Ticonderoga, though at a similar displacement to the Spruance (and indeed based on the Spruance hull) is considered a CG. The average capabilities of a Naval vessel have increased greatly since 1950, which is why the Tico isn't a BBG (if there were such a thing).

I don't think I've ever seen a long-serving ship "demoted" in designation, save for the Essex, but that's partially because usage was changed. Yet there are several starships in the Trek universe that underwent designation changes. The Miranda was initially a heavy cruiser and in the TNG era it's a destroyer. The Excelsior was a BC, and now it is down to a CA. It's because comparable capability has been decreased in the face of the Galaxy, Nebula, and Akira. Can you imagine the day when the Akira is considered a CL? I would not want to stand toe to toe against whatever is heavier!

I think the World War II classification system works better for Star Trek than the newer system, simply because I don't think there would be such a thing as a DDG or CG by the TOS era, as missiles had been replaced by photon torpedos for at least forty years. It still isn't perfect. I think this particular system uses a combination of comparative striking power, displacement, armor, and in a great part role to determine designation. For instance, you wouldn't find a a Destroyer on the line of battle or a Battlecruiser escorting a convoy during Worl War II, and yet these circumstances are pretty common in the Trek universe.

[J. Carney]

The average capabilities of a Naval vessel have increased greatly since 1950, which is why the Tico isn't a BBG (if there were such a thing).

Tico is far too small and lightly armed to be a battleship- a BB is unique in that it HAS to have big guns to be deignated as such.

And there was to be a BBG, her name was going to be the Kentucky, the last keel of the Iowa class laid before the end of WWII. The conversion was planned but never actually started and she wound up being used for spare parts for her older sisters until scrapped in the late 1950's.

[dogfighter]

i dont care much about class definitions. in some countries a destroyer is callad a frigate and in other countries its the other way around. fasa had frigates bigger and better armed than heavy cruisers. since all systems seem to be contradicting each other i use my own definitions for sfc and the specs i do in shipedit.
from the smalest to the biggist in the following order:

sc - scout - few weapons and weak shield but fast as hell
ff - frigate - 50 % the power of a ca but quit fast
dd - destroyer - basicly an interceptorship - fast and ca offensive potential. bad defense
cl -light cruiser -
ncl - new light cruiser - somewhat bigger and more powerfull but not equal to a ca (about 80%)
ca - heavy cruiser - an allrounder with good balance between firepower shields and speed
cc - command cruiser - bc eqivalent weapons but ca shields an hull strengts - good offensiv, less defensiv systems
bc - better shields and weapons but worse turnrates.
dn - as powerfull as a bc with better shields and more defensiv systems. the early fed dn is basicly an upgraded ca with somewhat better shilds and more heavy weapons
bb - 200% firepower of a ca - quit powerfull and well protected. speed and turnrate is pretty low when charging weapons. the fed bb is the weakest of all my bbs(big tactical explorer).
but it has great shield and more energy than it needs. basicly an oversized bc with enormous flexibility.

CV shuttle carrier
CF fighter carrier

upgrades:

G - general upgrade of basic systems
C - commando upgrade
M - minlayer upgrade
A - assoult upgrade
B - battle upgrade
T - troop transporter
R - Refit
+ upgrade of all mayor systems on older ships to match the new ones as good as possible
H - heavy upgrade - 2 combat upgrade in 1: for example M and T upgrade
E - explorer upgrade - more probes and labes
S - upgrade - extendet science upgrade for extrem long missions - more spareparts, more probes and labs, more crew
W - upgrade - all combat upgrades and the next closest system upgrade(g or +)
D- upgrade - Drone ship - very low crew number - big cargo space as well as 200% of the normal labs, more sensors more shuttles
V upgrade - upgrade to shuttlecarrier - 2 shuttles extra per bay - more tractors - less mines
F upgrade - upgrade to fighter carrier
X - prototype of a ship (bcx = excelsior prototype)
K-upgrade - for small freighters (made playeble with shipedit)only! - Kamikaze ship for base assaults.

[zerosnark]

I am not sure this is the right place to have a full fledged debate on current ship classifications. I think we have both made our points in that classification of ships is a strong function of time. I don't think anyone will debate that the *late model* ticos (the 22 with VLS systems, not the 5 with the twin armed launchers) are superior to either the 1st or 2nd flight Burkes.

******

What would be interesting if different star empires have completely different ship ratings.

In my mind, one of the great "compromises" of SFB was to make equivilent starships for every race in the name of "game balance". Why does every Battlecruiser have exactly the same batteries? The same warp power? That's just nuts on a practical level, but very important for "game balance". I could very easily see late fed ships with *no G-racks*. Heh.  What a twist that would be!

[J. Carney]

I could very easily see late fed ships with *no G-racks*. Heh.  What a twist that would be!

http://www.caddocourt.com/sfb/fed2.html

Ask and ye shall recieve...

[zerosnark]

Huh.

Cool website. This guy seems to think the way I do on somethings (ie, BCJ needs *waaaay* more power. . .Feds have too many drones. What's up with Feds and P-G'S? etc)

[dogfighter]

this might not be the right place to debate this but i think its easy for a moderator to move it to another board.

yeah i agree its a cool website but i still cant see why the developers gave drones to the feds in the first place.
im currently reworking the whole shiplist for a mod. my feds wont have drones at all. basicly because i hate them.
u just have to sty fast, use t bombs or cloak and if u have time just use your phasers. and when the enemies racks are empty hes preety harmless. boring.
in my mod my fed ships are using ph1 and phaserx as main weapons. as well as heavy photons (renamed to standart photons). phaser x are used as megaphasercannons and on advanced era ships like the enterprise b.
the normal photons were given to the hydrans with another waterlike texture because i gave the hellbore to the tholians (with a nice netgun texture)
klingons use heavy photons as well . main weapon is disrupter 1 to 4 and esg lances to simulate klingon heavy disruptors ( the esg lance uses a kind of green pulselaser texture.)
roms use disruptors and the heavy disruptor as well as plasma f,g,s and r.
gorn use phaser 1, pha and plasma e as main weapons.
the only races in my mod who use missles are the mirak and some pirates.

i hate drones

[J. Carney]

Huh.

Cool website. This guy seems to think the way I do on somethings (ie, BCJ needs *waaaay* more power. . .Feds have too many drones. What's up with Feds and P-G'S? etc)

http://www.caddocourt.com/sfb/shipyard.html

Here, some more stuff by him. I personally (flying Birdies and all) like the Heavy-Plasma KR ships he did.

[zerosnark]

I agree on the Feds and drones point.

I was also miffed at the lack of ADD's on Mirak ships -> and then all the late ships get ADD's. Boring.

I tried a personal mod of giving the Miraks P3's in place of ADD's for added drone defense. Problem was that the ships then became too powerful at range one, and too powerful against plasma ships. Maybe I should try again (but rebalance by taking off some P1's)

Hmmm that is a thought:
1) Remove G racks from feds. Add P3's for drone defense.
2) Remove Add's from Mirak. Add P3's for drone defense and adjust some P1's for balance.
3) Leave Klinks alone (but purge the carriers)

hmmm.