NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone know of a website where they list the ways to classify a starship? The one im making, ive been calling a Battlecruiser, buts just because i like the way it sounds.

(Edit: since I made the post above oh so many days ago, I have recived a variety of answers to my question, and this thread has become home to a lively discussion on all things starship. On page 2 I had compiled a list of all starship classes I will be usuing in the future, and now I am moving it to this post, for ease of updating. I hope that it can be used as a reference paper for anybody looking to find a class of starship. And now, without further adu, the list:

Scouts are very small, very fast ships with giant engines (relative to their size) and the ability to drop mines, deploy satellites, and scout out the enemy position. Lots of room is present onboard for the massive recon equipment.

Corvettes are light and rather fast attack gunboats. They mount light anti-capitol ship weapons, and usually hunt in packs. They have the ability to dock with Dreadnaughts and above, so they can travel with a fleet without expending their low levels of FTL energy.

Frigates are escorts for larger ships. They make excelent anti-missile and anti-fighter ships. Large engine-to-size ratios and oversized fins with correctional thrusters mean that this ship is fast and maneuverable at most speeds. Advanced Targeting, Tracking, and Termination (T3) computers help aim the many small anti-fighter weapons.

Missile Frigates are similar to Frigates, excepting that their entire armament consists of long-range missiles. When accompanied by a Destroyer and an Escort Carrier, these ships can make good recon forces when Scouts are unavailable.

Destroyers are larger than Frigates, and mount some serious anti-capitol ship weapons, but serve much the same purpose as Frigates. Slightly slower than Frigates and Missile Frigates, these ships are less useful than the two ships above, but are better for drawn-out engagements where there are not as many fighters.

Strike Cruisers are all around good ships. They carry good armor for their size, have mildly large fighter compliments, and pack a punch that would make even a Dreadnaught Captain sit up and take notice. They are usually fast and have the best rated FTL capability of any ship on this list, allowing them to jump in-system, hit an enemy, and jump out.

Light Cruisers are midline ships that are relatively well armed and armored. They tend to be used as stand-ins for ships-of-the-line during impromptu fleet engagements and are used to chase down pirates and the like when not in combat.

Heavy Cruisers are a bigger, badder version of the Light Cruiser. Heavy guns and armor, as well as large reserves of food and fuel make this a choice sector patrol vessel.

Battlecruisers are ships-of-the-line that have the speed and armor of a cruiser but the weapons of a battleship. These are exclusively used in fleet engagements, lacking any orbital bombardment capabilities, unlike the larger classes.

Battleships are your standard big boys of the fleet engagement. Heavy armor and heavy weapons make these a sight to behold in combat. Their sole purpose is to pound other ships into submission.

Dreadnaughts are larger and slower than battleships, due in part because they posses heavier arms and armor. They mount a frightening array of orbital bombardment weapons, as well as a startlingly vicious number of anti-capitol ship weapons. The main drawback to these beasts is their lack of anti-fighter weaponry.

Meganaughts are just what the name implies: a larger version of a Dreadnaught. One of these ships can engage an entire fleet and come out victorious. They often serve as flagships in the larger fleets.

Juggernaughts are arguably the most powerful capitol ship in this classification system. The only ship that can rival it in size or sheer number of weapons is the Worldship. The crew number needed to man this ship is so large, that entire populations of small planets have to be press-ganged to fill it.

Escort Carriers are a unique breed of ship. They are smaller than most ships-of-the-line, yet they carry large wings of fighters. They are faster than the Destroyers and Missiles Frigates they protect, which allows them to quickly get out of range of enemy weapons fire that would shred the paper-thin armor this ship has. If an enemy does get close, the crew almost always either surrenders of abandons ship, due to the total lack of armament.

Carriers are meant to carry fighters and bombers into combat. They are massive, with many, many decks of hangers and enough anti-fighter weaponry to decimate an armada.

Heavy Carriers are larger than the Carrier, and therefore better suited to long-range deployment.

Planetary Assault Ships are larger than any other ship (excepting the Worldships, Juggernaughts, and the Orbital Bombardment Platforms). They have massive heat resistant hulls that can deliver thousands upon thousands of ground troops and their equipment to the surface of a planet in just one trip. Because they are only meant for planetary assault, they don’t mount any anti-capitol ship weapons, instead relying on Dreadnaughts to protect them.

Oribtal Bombardment Platform are larger than the Planetary Assault Ships, although they don’t have the ability to land on a planet. They have large numbers of orbital bombardment weaponry, and even some anti-capitol ship guns. Small engines give this ship a low sublight speed, although it has a very fast FTL capability.

Worldships are massive anti-planet ships. Equipped with more guns than of the the other types of ships put together, these titans can reduce entire solar systems to to rubble in only a few days time. At least, thats what it can do on paper; because of the immense costs associated with building and maintaining a Worldship, there are none currently in existance. (The Worldship is a smaller, more powerful version of the Deathstar).

Transports are any ship of any size that hauls cargo or personnel, excluding regular combat vessels. They are generally unarmed and only lightly armored, and rely on other ships for protection. By far the most predominant ship in use, more than 5/6ths of all Transports are in civilian hands.

Repair Vessels do exactly as their name suggests: repair ships. They can be any size, from as big as a Frigate to as big as a Worldship. To date, no Repair Vessel has ever been armed or armored.

Mobile Asteroid Firebases (MAFB) are large ships built inside mineral-rich asteroids. They have giant engines and very thick armor, due to the asteroid that protects them. Over time, the MAFB becomes more ship than rock, as more and more of the minerals are turned into metal components for the ship inside.



In order of size:

Scout
Corvette
Frigate
Strike Cruiser
Missile Frigate
Destroyer
Light Cruiser
Heavy Cruiser
Escort Carrier
Battlecruiser
Battleship
Dreadnaught
Meganaught
Carrier
Heavy Carrier
Planetary Assault Ship
Orbitol Bombardment Platform
Juggernaught
Worldship

Excluded ships:
Transport: the transport has been excluded from the size list because it has no steady size.
Fighter: the fighter has been excluded because they have no steady size and are not really a starship because it lack an FTL engine.
Bomber: the bomber has been excluded for the same reasons as the fighter.
Shuttle: same reason.
Repair Vessel: ditto
MAFB: " "

As far as I am aware, the term 'starship' applies to any vessel designed for interstellar travel. Which probably means that it applies to any FT capital ship except for mine...

Dictionary.com describes the term as "A crewed spacecraft designed for interstellar travel."

But what about the terms "Battleship, Battlecruiser, Cruiser, Corvette, Destroyer", etc...?

Well, I found a website which describes the terms in relation to WW2 vessels, it should at least give you an idea of how those terms should be used in relation to FT:

http://users.swing.be/navbat/edito/navires/typesnavires.htm

It's not hugely concise, but it has the main ones. Think of a battlecruiser as the bizarre lovechild of a battleship and a cruiser. Not as heavily armed or as large as a battleship, not as agile or small as a cruiser, but somewhere inbetween.

Ok, ill check it out. Thanks. I still need a spaceship version tho.

If you're making your own ships, a spaceship version won't be of any more or less help than a WW2 version as I don't think people have altered the characteristics of the terms for FT. If you're copying ships from some TV show or movie, it would probably be better to find a website about those particular ships and see what they class them as.

Although, here you are anyway:

http://www.military-sf.com/Shiptypesandclasses.htm

Thank you. That answers a few of my questions.

its up to you really, i myself used a mix of Babylon 5 and my own ideas on how to work out my ship size and class. (cheak my storefront, go to the international mall link in my Sig to find it).

Ship classes define roles and basic design. Thisi is how I go by it.

Frigates and destroyers are escorts for larger ship classes and have light armor and weapons.

Cruisers are mid-line ships that have are moderately armed and armored. These tend to be used as supplements to ships-of-the-line during fleet engagements but would be used as to chase down pirates and such when not in heavy combat.

Battlecruisers are ships-of-the-line that have the speed and armor of cruiser but the weapons of a battleship.

Battleships are you're standard big boys of the fleet engagement. Heavy armor and heavy weapons. They're sole purpose is to pound other ships.

Dreadnaughts are more heavily armed and armored than battleships, are large and are slower.

Super-Dreadnaughts are what the name says. I call really big SD's Monitors for the hell of it.

As far as I am aware, the term 'starship' applies to any vessel designed for interstellar travel. Which probably means that it applies to any FT capital ship except for mine...Lies. Everything can do interstellar travel. It's just that (Apparently) your stuff and (Definitely) my stuff needs a veeeeeeery long time to do it...

If you're making your own ships, a spaceship version won't be of any more or less help than a WW2 version as I don't think people have altered the characteristics of the terms for FT.Thanks to the genius that is G*o*g* L*c*s, a lot of fanboys classify their heaviest ships as 'destroyers'...

Anyway.

Seeing as space != the ocean...

What do ya need?

First of all, Orbit to Ground assaults. That's what your ships are for (Initially, anyway), just like wet ships are (Initially) just there to transport ground forces.

Seeing the need to carry loads of ordinance and/ or shuttles/ supplies and shit, this ones will be biggish. Seeing as they will be used once your opponent's spacedy resistance has already been pounded, velocity is irrelevant, but IF there is still something (Especially with regards to ground to orbit fire), they need to survive some beating.

So, sizeable, heavily armoured bricks, possibly with an average diameter of about 400 metres (Note: All sizes I'm mentioning are pretty much the upper limit of necessity. Smaller should be possible with casual ease. Oh, and for comparison: A Nimitz carrier has an average diameter of about 140 metres).

Thus, we have just found class number one: Planetary Assault Ship (Possibly two types, one smaller for bombardement, one larger for deployment). It is pretty much resembling a (wet) coastal bombardement platform.

Then... You need something to protect them from enemy ships. Since space is space, with comparatively small weapons (Light kinetics, possibly in the doubledigit kg range, as well as smaller EM Radiation (I.e. Laser)/ particle beam weapons) doing tremendous damage, this ones don't need to be all that big. Average diameter... 200 metres, perhaps. You will need them faster, though, since they will operate in (Comparatively, which is to say, a couple hundred, to a couple thousand kilometres) close engagements, and it is nice to evade enemy fire. As such, your drives will consume a fair amount of space, so they wont be able to transport much stuff.

This would be pretty much a destroyer and/ or cruiser. Possibly both, a light and a heavy variant.

Next... A long range engagement vessel for support purposes. Smaller than the cruiser, but much more guns. Not bigger guns (Not for the kinetics and/ or lasers, anyway. Particle Beams are a bitch to aim, but that's not due to size.), since you will have serious troubles targetting an opponent going several km/s with a sloooooowly moving, giant turret, but still.

Additionally, long range weapons (Missiles with bomb pumped X ray lasers) to support the lighter vessels.

Here we have your battleship. The necessary size... Average diameter 300m, possibly. Although this does sound a tad big.

Finally, a scout of sorts. Something to deploy satellites, mines, whatever. To catch a glimpse.

Well. Fast, it has to be, so your drives should be monstrous (Compared to its relative size, anyway). A fair amount of space on board is necessary, too, for the reconnaissance stuff it carries.

Guns? Bah, a few self defence thingies. Nothing big.

Bang, here we have the Frigate/ Corvette, with an average diameter not exceeding 100 metres.

Now, hummm... Dunno if you're hot on carriers. In space, fighters have the little problem of being unlikely to be faster than the main ships, this negating the shiny advantage. Still, as mobile point defence against missiles, as well as expendable missile carriers for multivector (Read: From all directions at once) attacks, they make some sense.

Possibly an average diameter of, say, 200 metres, reasonably fast, weak (But not a complete lack of) armament, carrying, uh... Between 50 & 100 tiny craft

So, what do we have... Planetary Assault Ship (I'm using the Term Orbital Assault Carrier, but it's MINE!!!11 Mine alone! Ahem. Sorry. Back to our regular schedule), Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, Frigate, Corvette.

Yay.

Der Angst I take it you aren't FT. Most people throw around multi-km long ships fairly easily and often. Not to mention high gigaton yield weapons.

And in regards to SW the largest, heaviest non-Death Star ship we've seen is the Executor. Which is a Star Dreadnaught.

Starship (n). 1. Something God doesn't need.

(Okay... who'll admit to seeing THAT Star Trek flick?)

Lies. Everything can do interstellar travel. It's just that (Apparently) your stuff and (Definitely) my stuff needs a veeeeeeery long time to do it...

It specifies 'designed' for. You are not likely to design an interstellar spacecraft that can't sustain its crew for the time it takes to get where you're going, unless you are clinically insane or suicidal (often both).

Der Angst I take it you aren't FT. Most people throw around multi-km long ships fairly easily and often. Not to mention high gigaton yield weapons.

Just because most people do so it doesn't mean it is right to do so.

Starship (n). 1. Something God doesn't need.

(Okay... who'll admit to seeing THAT Star Trek flick?)

Yes. You can always trust Captain James T. Kirk to ask the important philosophical questions.

Just because most people do so it doesn't mean it is right to do so.

Of course it's not scientifically arcurate, but this is sci-fi so we use Suspension of disbelief.

I only get pissed when people do REALLY bad things like have infinite energy reactors.

If one used DA's proposed ship armaments he'd get his ass kicked.

Alot of the design specs come from philosophy...

Massive vessels with massive crews can be for two purposes... Massive planetary assaults or for deep space research.

Typically, the larger concept craft are more or less "mobile star-bases"... Capable of parking in orbit and delivering massive defense against assailants, with large numbered fighter-wings... They can also be for long-term deployment in deeps-space research, or be used as multi-purpose craft feeding all of the above, plus colonization duties.

Some civilizations have massive vessels, aka "planet" or "asteroid" ships, due to the fact the entire race literally "LIVES" in space... These are basically "city ships" where the populace lives.

I typically move to the large "mobile" star-base concepts... As my vessels are primarily designed for long-term, deep-space deployment for charting and research duties... And rely more heavily on fighter-wings and bombers for general usage... So basiccally massive mobile carriers... Generally not designed for planetary assault, since that itself is nowhere in my forces mission objectives. The idea is space born, or systemborn attacks and defenses... This also gives the advantage of multi-vector assault upon oncomming assailants... hundreds of fighters and bombers, while receiving suppression from the one or more massive "Sector Control Vessels" as I call them...

Your tactical options are to either engage the fighters with the ships weapons, while being pounded by heavy supression fire from the SCV, or engage the SCV while being pounded from all directions by the fighters and assault shuttles... or try to compromise load upon both.... none of which is entirely desirable or foolproof.

Alot will also depend on where to pull your tech from... As you will be constrained to types of the genre your technology is from... SW tech people will have massive vessels with moderate fighter capability... Battlestar the same, Star-Trek will generally have smaller swifter vessels, with little to no fighter support, and B5 will be a mix.

Starship.

Does NOT have to be a warship. There are peaceful purposes for traveling by ship between the stars. Cargo, freight, diplomacy, mail, vacation/holiday travel, exploration, a Sunday drive. ;)

Alot will also depend on where to pull your tech from... As you will be constrained to types of the genre your technology is from... SW tech people will have massive vessels with moderate fighter capability... Battlestar the same, Star-Trek will generally have smaller swifter vessels, with little to no fighter support, and B5 will be a mix.

I'm also not sure why people feel required to base their nations on a civilisation from a TV show or somesuch. Why not just come up with your own ships, cultures, etc?

I'm also not sure why people feel required to base their nations on a civilisation from a TV show or somesuch. Why not just come up with your own ships, cultures, etc?

Some do, some don't... It's the wonder of open RP. Some like the genre of a TV show and stick to it, alot who do will even expand on it. Some combine genres from multiple sources and congomerate, some design complete new forms of FT technology and ideas.

In the end, with the ammount of SF activity; there is little anyone uses, that has not in at least some way, been borrowed from another source. You can't, for example, pick a FTL form, that has not been used in at least one SF book/movie elsewhere...

So more or less, all FT bubbles down to BSG, ST, SW, B5, Robotech/Macross/ Warhammer, Starblazers, Battletech, or a reasonable combination of the above... And maybe even pull from books like Assimov's Nemesis etc.

Der Angst I take it you aren't FT. Most people throw around multi-km long ships fairly easily and often. Not to mention high gigaton yield weapons.*Checks* Psionics. Cyborgs. (Semi- sentient) AI's. Colonies on the Moon, Mars, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, (in) Thebe, (in) Themisto, Triton and in Neptune's atmosphere.

That's 'Modern' for you? Didn't know 'Modern' is defined by 'Lack of FTL capacities'. I guess you're very open-minded...

In any case, I'm not responsible for certain people needing to compensate with VERY LONG STARSHIPS and EXCESSIVE YIELDS OF STELLAR SEME- Ahem. $Weapon I mean.

You know, some people might actually check what their nation is capable of doing, under a given backstory and given the actual resources available, according to NS statistics (Ever noticed how nobody here is a multitrillion sentients star empire? Oh, certainly, some players claim to be...), and eventually even doing some research, rather than just claiming $stuff, rather than trying to be BIGGER! and BETTER! and GENERALLY HUGE!

Not that I expect you to understand this admittedly odd way of thinking.

It specifies 'designed' for. You are not likely to design an interstellar spacecraft that can't sustain its crew for the time it takes to get where you're going, unless you are clinically insane or suicidal (often both).I was mildly non-serious...

If one used DA's proposed ship armaments he'd get his ass kicked.Well, given the efficiency of EM Radiation weapons, your Gigaton yields would mean that you vaporise your ship by way of firing.

I win.

Given the phenomenon of recoil, gigaton yields based on damaging objects by way of accelerating mass in its general direction mean that the stresses that develop while you're firing will rip your ship apart.

I win.

Given the sheer amount of resources needed to build multikilometer-long ships, together with the maintenance required, and given that we have this shiny thing on the nation page, defining the resources a nation has, you will have, uh, what? A dozen vessels.

Me, using equivalent or (Given aforementioned nationpages) larger resources, can have 'a few' more ships.

I win.

And to make the entire thing really annoying for you, I could actually start with damage criteria (The roughly 10 Kilojoule necessary to vaporise a cubic centimetre of basically everything) and point out that the yields in question (The weapons you claim are pointless), tripledigit gigajoule for fixed EM radiation weapons, singledigit terajoule for Neutral Particle Beams, single- to doubledigit terajoule for kinetic projectiles, singledigit tera- to tripledigit petajoule for bombgrasers) are more than sufficient to cause damage.

I win.

Of course, such would require me to actually go into bitchfest contests about why I'm right and $Opponent is wrong, rather than just assuming relative equivalence based on basic NS statistics while indeed using suspension of disbelief when physics are raped (Which I'm doing myself, especially with regards to propulsion & psionics). Which is what I'm usually doing. But given your posts, I suppose that you're thinking in a somewhat different way.

BUT to come to the conclusion of this whole rant: It is a little hard to kick anyone's ass when he/ she doesn't want to, and claiming that $Completely_Made-up_Wank beats $Also_Completely_Made-up_Wank is more than just 'a little' silly. You try to enforce $Gigaton yields, I go and enforce $Pseudo_Realism. Mutual bitching ensues. Well, this might be your definition of roleplayed interaction, but I think a tad differently, and I also like the idea of using a bit of common sense when making up my stuff, rather than just going RAWR! DEATSTAR!

Aside from that, it is seriously silly to assume that $Complete_And_Utterly_Unfeasible_Wank is actually VASTLY BETTER that $The_Physics_Work_Though_The_Technology_is_Wank. How you can seriously follow this kind of logic is beyond me. Massive reality distortion? What is wrong with simply balancing based on what the game gives us, rather than what we make up in our wet dreams?

Or, alternatively, what is wrong with leaving people working under entirely different assumptions the fuck alone, rather than trying to bukkake all over them as you're apparently supposing that it would happen?

And, just to be sure, note that I'm absolutely not against $CAUUW. I'm having bits and bytes of it, and I'm regularily interacting with others who do, without any problems. I'm against $CAUUW BEATS YUO!!!11.

Since, ya'know, this is a game. None of the stuff we make up here is actually real and most of it isn't even remotely feasible. Claiming to be better than $Different_Stuff just because you claim to be more of a wanker than your opponent is... Seriously... Silly.

Alot will also depend on where to pull your tech from... As you will be constrained to types of the genre your technology is from... SW tech people will have massive vessels with moderate fighter capability... Battlestar the same, Star-Trek will generally have smaller swifter vessels, with little to no fighter support, and B5 will be a mix.There is this thing about NS nations generally not being 10000 years old empires with a million spacemarines or thousands of Stardestroyers.

They are pissant 'I fit on a single planet' civilisations. With histories that do not match those of said SciFi sources.

Guess what? Claiming canon technology without canon backstory is hilariously stupid. And boring.

[I'm also not sure why people feel required to base their nations on a civilisation from a TV show or somesuch. Why not just come up with your own ships, cultures, etc?Lack of imagination, I guess. Or an attempt at claiming the wankiest SciFi available to PWN.

In which case I would possibly just ask for help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=culture_warships), but...

What Der Angst describes is exactly why you have never heard me and will never hear me discuss the exact energy requirements of my ships' shielding, or the exact power of my ships' weapons. All it results in is someone else coming along saying theirs are better thus they are unbeatable. If a crappy laser destroying a ship in a single hit is conductive to the story line, so be it. If not, then it won't. Some people of FT-land seriously need to realise that technology = plot device, not technology = plot.

Der Angst, you've never seen me go to task on someone for breaking conservation laws now have you? Or maybe you have, anyway it would appear you're more of a tight ass than me, and people think I'm bad. I can handle people having insanely high yields, having insanely effective cooling, having insanely great recoil absorption and people having a few multi-km ships, you apparently can't.

In FT most people assume you have the vast material resources and technology to build said ships and weapons. Most people also assume that it doesn't take a few hundred trillion dollars to build a km long vessel with fancy FT construction and resource collection methods.

And not to mention essentially all of FT nations have shield tech that can withstand at least megatons of bombardment. One megaton is equal to 4.2 petajoules if you didn't know, so bare minimum tripple digit petajoule will be 100 petajoules which is ~24 megatons, which you can get with a bit more than 1 kg of mass annhilation. And since most FT ships can easily put that much into shields...

And also that this is all done with refference to a nation's economy and all that. In FT that means "wanktastic" ships are common and that most people don't spend all of their time calculating yields either. People may give them for a ship but in an RP they never come up in more than a passing manner and aren't really used to guage anything.

Der Angst, you've never seen me go to task on someone for breaking conservation laws now have you? Or maybe you have, anyway it would appear you're more of a tight ass than me, and people think I'm bad. I can handle people having insanely high yields, having insanely effective cooling, having insanely great recoil absorption and people having a few multi-km ships, you apparently can't.Oh, so can I. I can not handle people having all this and having the need to proclaim that they are the GODS of the universe, pwning everyone with saner claims, though.

Oh, and I will admit that I'm trying to spread a little bit of sanity... Although I'm generally failing.

In FT most people assume you have the vast material resources and technology to build said ships and weapons. Most people also assume that it doesn't take a few hundred trillion dollars to build a km long vessel with fancy FT construction and resource collection methods.Odd. I don't. And in the circles I interact with, I'm not alone. Odd, that, really. I suggest not to confuse 'The people I know' with 'Everyone'.

(Well, ok, I agree with the few hundred trillion. I'm generally assuming a few hundred billion).

And not to mention essentially all of FT nations have shield tech that can withstand at least megatons of bombardment. One megaton is equal to 4.2 petajoules if you didn't know, so bare minimum tripple digit petajoule will be 100 petajoules which is ~24 megatons, which you can get with a bit more than 1 kg of mass annhilation. And since most FT ships can easily put that much into shields...Again, 'People you know' != all. Now, I'm contemplating a rant about shields and the ludicrous energy requirements for them... Seeing as they need to fight off energy in the, well, kiloton range over an area of a few thousand squarecentimetres, and now, upscaling this to cover the entire ship, you get something that has its energy density something along the lines of a black hole.

Congratulations, you have crossed the border to ridiculousness.

Oooo... And matter annihilation is wonderful, isn't it? I mean, it doesn't suffer problems like antimatter not just floating around, but needing to be created, thus consuming energy (Incidentally, the same problem hydrogen as fuel for cars suffers from), there are no containment issues, no problem with regards to inefficiencies resulting in heat (Again vaporising your ship), the impossibility of protecting your reactor from this with shields (Which do, after all, need energy, whose production would merely create more wasteheat), nothing. No, antimatter/ matter annihilation reactors are MAGIK! with no downsides whatsoever.

O, last but not least, see above: Just because the circle you interact with gets off while thinking abut gigaton yields does not mean that everyone spacedy does it. And again, the people I'm interacting with generally don't.

And also that this is all done with refference to a nation's economy and all that. In FT that means "wanktastic" ships are common and that most people don't spend all of their time calculating yields either. People may give them for a ship but in an RP they never come up in more than a passing manner and aren't really used to guage anything.1. See above.

2. So why are you arguing this?

More importantly, why would someone who pays a wee little bit of respect to physics be utterly pwned (As you claim) when the techwank issues don't actually come up?

Ah, but I'm satisfed. Apparently the other points I raised are acceptable. Better than nothing, I guess.

Oh, so can I. I can not handle people having all this and having the need to proclaim that they are the GODS of the universe, pwning everyone with saner claims, though.

Oh, and I will admit that I'm trying to spread a little bit of sanity... Although I'm generally failing.

You and me both. Although I've set more realistic goals than you by just trying to get people to not break numerous conservation laws and get rid of gravity weapons although those are just a pet peeve and I can accept it even if I do so grudgingly.

Odd. I don't. And in the circles I interact with, I'm not alone. Odd, that, really. I suggest not to confuse 'The people I know' with 'Everyone'.

Hence the qualifier "most". It's generally older nations that don't show up on II all that much who don't.


Again, 'People you know' != all. Now, I'm contemplating a rant about shields and the ludicrous energy requirements for them... Seeing as they need to fight off energy in the, well, kiloton range over an area of a few thousand squarecentimetres, and now, upscaling this to cover the entire ship, you get something that has its energy density something along the lines of a black hole.

Congratulations, you have crossed the border to ridiculousness.

Only in your mind have I become rediculous. Shields, despite their shared imposibility with most sci-fi technologies, are a convention of non-hard SF and aren't rediculous when viewed in that light. Perhaps you've never heard of suspension-of-disbelief?

Besides, who says that shields must constantly consume as much energy as they can possibly abosrb and deflect? Maybe they'd only require vast amounts of energy when actively fighting off a high energy attack? In fact that's what essentially all SF shields do.

Oooo... And matter annihilation is wonderful, isn't it? I mean, it doesn't suffer problems like antimatter not just floating around, but needing to be created, thus consuming energy (Incidentally, the same problem hydrogen as fuel for cars suffers from), there are no containment issues, no problem with regards to inefficiencies resulting in heat (Again vaporising your ship), the impossibility of protecting your reactor from this with shields (Which do, after all, need energy, whose production would merely create more wasteheat), nothing. No, antimatter/ matter annihilation reactors are MAGIK! with no downsides whatsoever.

It was a fucking example meant only to show that these FT ships easily throw around fucking huge amounts of energy. Of course there all of those issues, but people who aren't anal retentive die hard reasism nuts assume that anyone who uses them has solved all of those problems.

O, last but not least, see above: Just because the circle you interact with gets off while thinking abut gigaton yields does not mean that everyone spacedy does it. And again, the people I'm interacting with generally don't.

Good for them. No we folks who realize that you can have gigaton yields and still have a good story will go right on using them and you can keep on ignoring us and everyone will be happy.


2. So why are you arguing this?

Because it was inferred that anyone who went by economies would automatically think like you and your buddies, and you accused all who don't conform to your view as wankers. It's only wanking when it becomes more important than the story. And that can happen no matter what tech you use.

More importantly, why would someone who pays a wee little bit of respect to physics be utterly pwned (As you claim) when the techwank issues don't actually come up?

Because they'd kill a bunch of smaller vessels but as soon as the multi-km ships start showing up they're gonna get destroyed by the much stronger more powerful, just by virture of existing and being that large even ignoring any "techwank", ships.

Ah, but I'm satisfed. Apparently the other points I raised are acceptable. Better than nothing, I guess.

I felt nothing else was worth responding to.

Different people have different RP'ing concepts....

Some adapt more "Starfleet-Battles" concept RPing, in operating at ship/fleet level only... Some take on more personal approaches... So adapt their style to the particular RP's as needs seem fit.

There is no one to say that any particular "style" is right or wrong, as long as the persons playing or operating the particular RP agree to the principle of style.

In regards to technology concepts, people operate in different realms of advancement. FT can have as many nuiances as any other form of tech level. Different propulsion concepts, different ideas regarding vessel construction and purposes.

Der Angst seems to apply to the "near-Future" tech area, lower level of FT capacity in regard to most Future Tech concepts... That is not to say his level and region of RP is right or wrong, just different. Same with Xessmithia... he may RP in the realm of FTL capable levels of FT, but again, there is no "right or wrong" in it.

When people of different Tech ideologies combine, the only rule is they should not discount the capabilities of the other... Take your losses, even if against a technologically inferior foe... Whether the weapon is a phaser, laser , rifle, or cross-bow, it still has the capacity to damage and kill.

According to Xessmithia's first set of guidlines, my ship would either be a Battlecruiser (yay, I was right!) or a Battleship (aw... I was wrong), but ill let you decide for yourselves. Obviously, i cant give you all the specifications (for security reasons, plus its not done), but ill tell you a bit:

The ship has 36 Lance Arrays (bigass laser guns), 80 Naval Railguns (bigass railguns that fire shells as big as a minivan), and 36 torpedo tubes. The railguns are layed out broadside-style, with the lasers above and below them on the sides of the hull. The torp tubes are between the the lasers, although there are six in the prow and six in the aft, between the engines. The ship has a crew of 18,520 (that includes 4,000 marines and 220 pilots). The hull is rather thick, with six layers of different materials. Two different kinds of shields are mounted; both void (void is like a particle shield) and energy.There are three engines onboard, each of them massive.

I havnt decided on diameter or lentgh or any measurements, really, so im kinda looking to see what this would compare to. Also, id like to point out i made my own FTL engines, with no influence from other universes. EAT THAT STARWARS!

According to Xessmithia's first set of guidlines, my ship would either be a Battlecruiser (yay, I was right!) or a Battleship (aw... I was wrong), but ill let you decide for yourselves. Obviously, i cant give you all the specifications (for security reasons, plus its not done), but ill tell you a bit:

The ship has 36 Lance Arrays (bigass laser guns), 80 Naval Railguns (bigass railguns that fire shells as big as a minivan), and 36 torpedo tubes. The railguns are layed out broadside-style, with the lasers above and below them on the sides of the hull. The torp tubes are between the the lasers, although there are six in the prow and six in the aft, between the engines. The ship has a crew of 18,520 (that includes 4,000 marines and 220 pilots). The hull is rather thick, with six layers of different materials. Two different kinds of shields are mounted; both void (void is like a particle shield) and energy.There are three engines onboard, each of them massive.

I havnt decided on diameter or lentgh or any measurements, really, so im kinda looking to see what this would compare to. Also, id like to point out i made my own FTL engines, with no influence from other universes. EAT THAT STARWARS!

I'd definitely set it in the "Battlecruiser"/"Battleship" range.... And would need to be in the ~1km range for length...

After much deliberation and brainstorming (well, not really), I have compiled a list of the different classes of ships. Please point out any flaws you may see, including but not limited to spelling errors:

(Moved to page 1)

Any additions to the list above would be appreatiated.

How about a light carrier?
Carries a small number of fighters/shuttles/bombers, little to no defenses, used to defend convoys and provide support for scout ships (such as corvettes/scouts) to fall back on.

Battlecarrier: Carries as many fighters/shuttles/bombers as a regular carrier, but is the size of a supercarrier. It has many, many weapon systems. capable of holding its own without the use of fighters/bombers against a cruiser.

Oooh! another one!

Hull assault ship
(about the size of a scout ship, maybe a subclass?)
Small ship with a set of shaped charges on the front. It carries around 40 men, and is meant to blow through a large ship's hull, seal itself with shields so the assault force can enter the enemy ship. Evens the odds for a smaller force by capturing enemy ships.

Interesting ideas. Ill mull them over tonight and annoucne my descision tomorrow.

Your list seems good. Though personally I wouldn't have any vessels designed for boarding during fleet-engagments as Arribastan suggested.

List looks good (Although I would stay away from the worldship-as-planetkiller design, but that's everyone's own perogative).

As for...

The ship has 36 Lance Arrays (bigass laser guns), 80 Naval Railguns (bigass railguns that fire shells as big as a minivan), and 36 torpedo tubes. The railguns are layed out broadside-style, with the lasers above and below them on the sides of the hull. The torp tubes are between the the lasers, although there are six in the prow and six in the aft, between the engines. The ship has a crew of 18,520 (that includes 4,000 marines and 220 pilots). The hull is rather thick, with six layers of different materials. Two different kinds of shields are mounted; both void (void is like a particle shield) and energy.There are three engines onboard, each of them massive.

I havnt decided on diameter or lentgh or any measurements, really, so im kinda looking to see what this would compare to. Also, id like to point out i made my own FTL engines, with no influence from other universes. EAT THAT STARWARS!I would make the railguns smaller, simply because the bigger your shell, the lower your rate of fire, and seeing as you have to hit targets a tenth of a lightsecond away, using this time to move a kilometre, and being able to change course and all, direct targetting doesn't make much sense. Hence, why I prefer smaller projectiles with which I'm not targetting the actual opposing ship but the general area I'm supposing it will be in when the projectiles arrive, and this requires a load of projectiles.

Otherwise, since I'm assuming that your ship fires at all sides and is as such... Bulkier... Than a normal, wet ship, well... I guess an ellipsoid with a 300m * 150m * 150m (All radius, so for overall length, double) should be able to carry it. Make that 400 * 200 * 200, that should definitely be able to carry it.

So, 800 metres long... Well, bigger than anything I have (Admittedly, a 500 metre sphere still has more volume. It just looks tinier).

But then, broadsides in space are a really bad idea, and Mr. Weber should be shot.

Mind, I'm completely clueless as of why you need such an excessive crew. Seeing modern Battleship equivalents, I don't think you would need quintuple digits. 5000 should be more than enough. Assuming reasonably sane operating methods, that is.

DA, the high crew comes from the given compliment of an ISD from Star Wars, which is 37,000. That's why everyone thinks space ships need huge ass crews and as such has become an annoying brainbug. Have people in the future never heard of a fricking computer?

As for ellipsoid shaped ships they hardly look cool now do they :p

Yes, I know where it comes from, and I despise it (Although the image of a spaceship run with punchcard machines appeals to me...).

And ellipsoid shapes are shiny, since they are so easy to describe. And lacking anything resembling a talent for arts, I love simple descriptions, simply because I can evade pictures.

'Sides, they make the calculation of its volume (Annoyingly, not its surface, but that's what spheres are for) easy. Which is a wonderful trait.

The only problem they suffer from comes up when you're using reaction mass for propulsion, which ruins the whole, shiny concept of perfect symmetry <.<

Yes, I know where it comes from, and I despise it (Although the image of a spaceship run with punchcard machines appeals to me...).

And ellipsoid shapes are shiny, since they are so easy to describe. And lacking anything resembling a talent for arts, I love simple descriptions, simply because I can evade pictures.

'Sides, they make the calculation of its volume (Annoyingly, not its surface, but that's what spheres are for) easy. Which is a wonderful trait.

The only problem they suffer from comes up when you're using reaction mass for propulsion, which ruins the whole, shiny concept of perfect symmetry <.<

Yeah. I just assume a conservative estimate for my ships volume/mass. And to describe them I use pictures rather than a thousand words :p Gotta like DOGA.

Such as this practically ellipsoid ship: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/Xessmithia/LTBattleship.jpg

Another option than making all the rail=guns smaller, is to vary sizes (you find this typical on most larger vessels)... Have a few large ones, a number of smaller ones (maybe 2x or 3x the larger ones) and then some point-defense systems (for anti-fighter/shuttle use)... This will round out the defense/assault capabilities of the vessel, and give you varying rates of fire for different forms of tactical engagements.

DA, the high crew comes from the given compliment of an ISD from Star Wars, which is 37,000. That's why everyone thinks space ships need huge ass crews and as such has become an annoying brainbug. Have people in the future never heard of a fricking computer?

As for ellipsoid shaped ships they hardly look cool now do they :p

I know, SW annoys me, but alot of it is technological considerations.

For example an ISD at 1.6km has a crew of ~37,000.... My Kali is twice the size of an ISD, but has a crew which is roughly 1/4 of that.... I think alot of it comes from the fact that those adopting warhammer and SW technologies, have manned weapons turrents... other adopted formats have guns operated by Combat/Control-FireControl computers... Thus you do not need massive crews manning each and every weapon turrent/strip/emiter on the vessels... And, given the concept of a nation capable of engineering a interstellar combat vessel with FTL capability; you would think they would also possess computer technologies of typified 20th century earth that can handle Weapons-Control... But, who said it all had to make complete sense...

I myself go with combat control idea... Why would I need enough crew to man 500+ cannon emplacements, if I can do the same job with less crew using a fire-control computer operating the gun systems, and then just bulk up engineering and maintenance crews.

Another possible ship type is really a different take on the battlecruiser.

Instead of being intended for fleet battles this vessel would be designed to operate as a lone trouble shooter/heavy scout/raider or as the command vessel for a group of lighter vesssels.
Basically a ship designed to kill anything lighter than itself and run away from anythign bigger.
For independent ops you could perhaps add a light carrier/ planetary assault capability.

Good examples of this type of vessel from Scifi could be the USS Sulaco from Aliens or the Space Marine strike Criuser from 40k.

Possible classifications could be:
Command Criuser
Assault Criuser
Raider
Response Criuser
All depending on possible variations on the theme.

Battlecarrier: Carries as many fighters/shuttles/bombers as a regular carrier, but is the size of a supercarrier. It has many, many weapon systems. capable of holding its own without the use of fighters/bombers against a cruiser.

Yes, the Coalition uses those, though they refer to them as 'strike carriers'. They cannot carry as many fighters as a dedicated carrier, because a lot of their mass is taken up by weapons systems and improved shield generators, but they can still hold a few.

My philosophy is "rounded" vessels... That is capable of operating under varying mission objectives.... Which is why they tend to be somewhat large...

Generally, within space-going "vessels" and not "support craft" I have three classifications...

The Orion Class is a "cruiser", by TSF classifications... It has relatively limited range, is a tad smaller than a Imperial ISD (1.2km), though could be considered a "battle-carrier" or at least a "strike carrier". It has moderately heavy armor, carries a strike-fighter wing of about 400 fighters... with 320 "assault shuttles" (which are a mesh of shipboard assault, small landing craft, and bomber duty type shuttle), as well as about 20 heavy transport shuttles (used for larger landing needs and heavy equipment). It has moderate weapons, with a total compliment of 4,100 persons. Generally it is only found doing "escort" for larger capital ships... And has not operated in independant fasion for some time. They are some of the oldest in-operation ships in my fleet, and thus, spend a good deal of time in port or as training vessels.

The Orion-II was originally an improvement of the Orion, slightly larger (1.6km) with no advancments in weapons or armor technologies, propulsion system is slightly more advanced, and thus is capable of keeping pace with the smaller Orion's, even with the larger size; and has an extended range for deployment in comparison. Carries a medium load of fighters (about 500) and similar loads of Assault and Transport shuttles (350/50). These generaly spend alot of time on deployment on interstellar exploration missions. We generally classify them as "BattleCruisers" or "Dreadnaughts" by our own system, though they would likely be considered Battleships or Battle-Carriers in others.

The Kali class is the front line vessel. ~3km in length. It has massive advancements over the Orion-Series of vessels in all categories... Massive weapon loads, multiple shields, heavy armor, and has the greatest range of any of the fleet-capable vessels. Typically it can be found on both interstellar and intergalactic exploration missions. And is almost always the preffered flagship for the fleets. Fighter loads are massive (1000), with large Assault/Bomber and Transports (800/200)... Close to 1/3 of the 8,500 compliment is marines for planetary deployment. And, while we classify it a "BattleStar/BattelShip) it likely surpases normative classification, due to its rounded design.

The vessels are a product of the Republic's "Sector Control Vessel" Project... and are classified for normative use as a "Sector Control Vessel"... That is, it is designed to hold defense of a region of space. Operating as both a mobile star-base/command center, as a battleship capable of dispensing large loadouts of weapons, and a carrier for throwing large fighter-compliments at on comming aggressors. And all can operate independent, or in fleet-force operations.

Typically, in defensive operations, the vessels can be rapidly deployed to a region of space, and hold gound while allies are called to bulk up defense operations.... Engaging the enemy with a combination of massive flight-wings, and supression fire from the vessels large guns and missile loads. In addition, it can dispatch large marine units planetbound, so as to hold gound assault missions, or occupational assault in aid of defending forces, should the "picket line" be broken.

The Republic's philosophy is that of peaceful exploration, so we generally do not design vessels which are capable of holding conquest over other states, but merely for massive defense of sectors by aggressors... As such, while are vessels may match size/mass of many emperial types, the vessels do not possess the same load-outs to engage in planetary assault, and holding conquest of regions.

I want to address the issues people have come up with my ship first, then i will talk about the suggested new classes.

Ok, the reason my ship has 18,520 crew is because im modeling it roughly after the Warhammer 40,000 universe. If this ship was in warhammer instead of NS, the crew would be so small that it would not be able to move and fire at the same time. As it is, this is how the crew breaks down: Gunners= 6,800; Point Defense Gunners= 6,000; Marines= 3,700; Crew= 800; Engineers= 1,000; 220 fighter/bomber/shuttle pilots. Those numbers are assuming the crew have 8 hour shifts, and the pilots and crew never take a break. The ship has 1,200 point defense Light Lance Arrays, which are similar to the Lance Arrays, but smaller. Each large Lance Array, although almost as large as the railguns, moves very quickly. They also have a much longer range. The guns arnt meant to hit a ship until it is very close, the torps and lasers will usually kill the shiup before a broadside is used.

Ok, on to the new ships:

The list I made is for use by Einhauser; different nations use different classification systems. Because it is for Einhauser, and we already have our own assault shuttles (no, i didnt stela this idea from tekania. I got it from Nexus) and boarding torpedoes, we dont need that hull attack ship.

As for the battlecarrier; well, it would be very expensive to build, and we wouldnt get as much use of it as would be possible with a carrier. Our main strategy for carriers is to have them wait on the outskirts of a fight, preferably surrounded by battlecruisers or above. Therefore, we have no need for a battlecarrier.

Now on to the light carrier. At first, I thought "what a horrible idea. Why would i want to risk an expensive carrier protecting cheaply made, mass produced light ships?" as i thought about it, tho, i realized that with a light carrier in tow, the previously limited uses for the destroyer and missile frigate could be expanded to recon and sector patrol, freeing up heavy cruisers. Therefore, Einhauser will commision a new class of carriers; the light carrier.

Finally, on to the strike cruiser. Although I read Warhammer activly, I have not had much experience with the space marine strike cruisers. However, i can see the uses for a well-rounded combat vessel, capable of taking on all kinds of foes. It will be added to the list A.S.A.P.

Edit: I was reading the list, and "Super-Dreadnaught" and "Super-Carrier" just dont sound right. So, im going to change the Super-Dreadnaught to the "Meganaught", and the Super-Carrier to the "Heavy Carrier". I dont much like using the words "Heavy" and "light" as much as i have, so im going to be renaming them as soon as i can think of new names. Feel free to pitch em.

bump

Added the massive Juggernaught and the spindly Repair Vessel to the list

Ok, I didn't actually want to go into this, but I can't resist!Because they'd kill a bunch of smaller vessels but as soon as the multi-km ships start showing up they're gonna get destroyed by the much stronger more powerful, just by virture of existing and being that large even ignoring any "techwank", ships.Nope. There is this funny thing about firepower being based on energy density, not beam diameter (Which is relevant for range, but seeing as every self-respecting spacedy nation is capable of hitting everything in a reasonable orbit...). Sure, the smaller ship will have less guns. It will also have less energy production. Alone, its chance are rather small.

However, due to the equal resource thing, the smaller ship wont be alone. And supporting weapons with sufficient energy densities to get through the target defences (Easy to do, due to the excessive problems armour/ shield strengthening poses) is simple.

Now, make that half a dozen smaller vessels against the one larger... One, two might be lost, but in the end, the economic victory is on the side that goes with ships sufficiently equipped to do their job, not the side that goes in with monsterships.

And sufficient equipment should easily be manageable with sizes < 1000 metres (Or rather, a volume < 300mio m^3, which is actually resembling a 1km+ ship, but that's my personal schtick with regards to volumous forms).

And since you yourself said that techwank (I.e. the stuff that makes the unreasonable ship über) doesn't enter the equation (And indeed, it wouldn't, due to a clear 'Fuck off' I would utter in such a situation), the deal's done.

This will round out the defense/assault capabilities of the vessel, and give you varying rates of fire for different forms of tactical engagements.The only reason to have kinetic projectiles in the multiton level is to fire at fixed installations in orbit, or (For multidozen tons) orbit to ground bombardement.

Furthermore, there is the time-to-target thing. You need excessive velocities to hit your target. Seeing as the Velocity of a railgun-fired projectile is V=(L'*I²*t)/(2*m) (V = velocity L' = inductance of rods I = current t = time length of current pulse m = mass of projectile. Typical inductivity (Modern, experimental railguns) is about 0.000001 Henry, personally, I wank a little and make it 0.001 Henry), you don't want to have your projectiles to have all that much mass. Granted, you don't want them to be in the gram- range, either, since they would vaporise upon impact... But still.

I think alot of it comes from the fact that those adopting warhammer and SW technologies, have manned weapons turrents...Those people should thnk a little about velocities in space and the utter impossibility of hitting a target with manual targetting. It would be completely random, and as such, pointless.

My philosophy is "rounded" vessels... That is capable of operating under varying mission objectives.... Which is why they tend to be somewhat large...Suicide. It's an utter waste of space to try this multifunctional things. They try to do everything good, and manage to be mediocre at everything, simply because in any given combat situation, a smaller, but specialised opponent is indeed a 100% equal opponent, due to its specialization. I will grand you that specialised vessels have problems in surprising situations (As such, exploring ships should indeed be 'rounded'), but for pure, military vessels... Specialization all the way.

The only reason to have kinetic projectiles in the multiton level is to fire at fixed installations in orbit, or (For multidozen tons) orbit to ground bombardement.

Neither of which I use... I have multi-mega-ton warheads (yield not mass) but not multi-ton projectiles... You're right about their use... fixed or general planetary assault... Neither of which I do (peacfull and all that).


Furthermore, there is the time-to-target thing. You need excessive velocities to hit your target. Seeing as the Velocity of a railgun-fired projectile is V=(L'*I²*t)/(2*m) (V = velocity L' = inductance of rods I = current t = time length of current pulse m = mass of projectile. Typical inductivity (Modern, experimental railguns) is about 0.000001 Henry, personally, I wank a little and make it 0.001 Henry), you don't want to have your projectiles to have all that much mass. Granted, you don't want them to be in the gram- range, either, since they would vaporise upon impact... But still.

Agreed there as well... I use rail-guns, however, for only two uses... Missiles launchers (warheaded missiles, not kenetic) and for rapid fighter deployment (on a lower energy scale than combat-type kenetic rail-guns).


Those people should thnk a little about velocities in space and the utter impossibility of hitting a target with manual targetting. It would be completely random, and as such, pointless.

True... Which is why I think it's odd... But, you know, to each his own...


Suicide. It's an utter waste of space to try this multifunctional things. They try to do everything good, and manage to be mediocre at everything, simply because in any given combat situation, a smaller, but specialised opponent is indeed a 100% equal opponent, due to its specialization. I will grand you that specialised vessels have problems in surprising situations (As such, exploring ships should indeed be 'rounded'), but for pure, military vessels... Specialization all the way.

Exploring ships.... you got it exactly... The primary purpose of even my massive capital ships is exploration/colonization... Followed by Defense... "Conquest" is no where written into their design form.
(In truth, I have one class of specialized military intelligence gathering vessel
that serves no other purpose, the 'Wraith Class'... though its design is classified)... But the exploration and research realm is the primary goal of the Republic, hence that of our Forces.... And since all of our "defensive" opeations are "surprise" rounded seems better than specializing... But its a matter of philosophy... It's likely for me to round, while on the other hand others may specialize being more militant than exploratory... But, to each their own... The purpose of the SCV project was to produce a large vessel, capable of extended time in deep-space, intra or inter galactic, perform detailed studies and research of areas of space... Contains enough expansion to carry colony loads and materials (defended) to new colonial aquisitions or outposts, and be able to rapidly deploy massive defenses to colonies and spatial sectors in short time, presenting oncomming foes with lots of firepower. Typically, its temporary as well, we can dispatch a Kali somewhere, while calling on allies.... The Kali's purpose is to hold back the enemy while the rest of the "fleets" arrive... Sometimes mutliple Kali's or smaller SCV's like Orion-II's and Orion's... You drop 5 Kali's in a system, and you're up against 5 massive Battle-Carrier's sizes monsters, 5000 starfighters and about 4000 assaultshuttle/bombers... Three levels of weapons, Point Defense phasers, and Medium to Heavy Turren Mounted Phased Particle Cannons, plus a butload of missile tubes.... in addition to all those fighters... You see, unlike in an assault, in defense you do not need to "win through defeat" you just need to keep the other guy from winning as long as possible, till his reserves are tapped.... I can keep a Kali in space for a decade or so with little to no support... Most other space-borne navies cannot.. Which is my key in combat.... don't defeat the guy... just out last him...

<general snipping>Well, yes, from your IC point of view, it certainly makes sens e(The designs, anyway, I still think the ships are overly large, but meh), so, yeah, points taken.

Well, yes, from your IC point of view, it certainly makes sens e(The designs, anyway, I still think the ships are overly large, but meh), so, yeah, points taken.

Well it's IC and OOC: Ship designs to reflect the philosophy of the designer/owner.... It's as unlikely for a race of peacefull explorers to have fleets of specialized military vessels, as it is for Emperial Conquerors to possess fleets multi-purpose research vessels... To each his own... Either way, the vessels serve the purpose they are designed for... To each their own... I do have largish vessels, but it's not like a run "thoudands of them" and throw them around like a wanker... (Too many SW types do that)

Nope. There is this funny thing about firepower being based on energy density, not beam diameter (Which is relevant for range, but seeing as every self-respecting spacedy nation is capable of hitting everything in a reasonable orbit...). Sure, the smaller ship will have less guns. It will also have less energy production. Alone, its chance are rather small.

However, due to the equal resource thing, the smaller ship wont be alone. And supporting weapons with sufficient energy densities to get through the target defences (Easy to do, due to the excessive problems armour/ shield strengthening poses) is simple.

Now, make that half a dozen smaller vessels against the one larger... One, two might be lost, but in the end, the economic victory is on the side that goes with ships sufficiently equipped to do their job, not the side that goes in with monsterships.

And sufficient equipment should easily be manageable with sizes < 1000 metres (Or rather, a volume < 300mio m^3, which is actually resembling a 1km+ ship, but that's my personal schtick with regards to volumous forms).

And since you yourself said that techwank (I.e. the stuff that makes the unreasonable ship über) doesn't enter the equation (And indeed, it wouldn't, due to a clear 'Fuck off' I would utter in such a situation), the deal's done.

Those of us in what you would call Far Future Tech with FTL travel, have multi-km ships with huge energy densities. And since everyone in FFT has said high energy density ships it's not wank as it fits the story. And our smaller ships have just as high an energy density.

And since FFT has GT/TT level firepower they'd be more than a match for any Near-Future Future tech like yourself.

And since most people in FFT would only RP with other FFT to avoid being called "unreasonable wankers" by assholes like yourself it is indeed not a problem. So let's let it go.

@Tekania:

True enough (Although I'm still reacting more or less allergic to your claim to 'protect sol' and that sol's inhabitants are basically fielding 'Crappy shuttles', since this is, well, ridiculous). After all, I'm following the same routine (Not with spacedyships, which I consider sufficiently good designs, from my technological point of view, anyway. But, well... An entirely urbanised nation (Me) doesn't exactly produce effective tanks... But I'm driving a bit too off-topic.

Those of us in what you would call Far Future Tech with FTL travel, have multi-km ships with huge energy densities. And since everyone in FFT has said high energy density ships it's not wank as it fits the story. And our smaller ships have just as high an energy density.

And since FFT has GT/TT level firepower they'd be more than a match for any Near-Future Future tech like yourself.

And since most people in FFT would only RP with other FFT to avoid being called "unreasonable wankers" by assholes like yourself it is indeed not a problem. So let's let it go.Heh, but this is the point. Assuming comparable technological capacities (I.e. what you yourself said, big ships are pointless, since the equivalent energy density of the smaller (Cheaper) vessel is sufficient to get rid of the bigger one.

As for your last point, NOPE. More often than not, they're simply fapping all over everyone with less insane claims. Hence, why they are called unreasonable wankers.

Yes, more or less FFT and FT does not mesh much.... But I have seen plenty of scenarios where it works... Mostly non-combat First-Contact scenarios, or diplomatic missions.... And high-energy densities is of no-consequence... different tech levels.... A nuclear power-plant has a higher energy density than a coal-burning plant... And Zero-Point and MAM reactors have higher energy-densities than Fusion/Fission reactors... FFT attacks upon NFT nations is just as much a "Wank" as NFT upon MT.... It's all relative to the tech level of the nations RP'ing....

I would never, however, argue that merely because of possession of FFT makes you able to take on a NFT nation with no losses, nor for an NFT a MT or PMT... EX: I'd be more likely to build a gate-network for DA than attack them... or anyone for that matter...

I just have little interest in going somewhere to attack a defending nation, and sacrifice hundreds of assets in conquest... Others like it... I'd rather be defending defenders against aggressors...

Since all my battle RP's have involved defending one group against another, or encoutering the need for defense while on exploration missions... I choose my asset designs based upon that...

Of course, a ship of the Kali's size carries a lot of fighters and bombers. If their loadouts are correct (I.E. anti-capitol ship stuff) they might as well count as enemy starships. They are a heck of a lot harder to hit, and their are a LOT of them.

If you think of fighters as small starships, than no carrier is ever truly alone.

Heh, but this is the point. Assuming comparable technological capacities (I.e. what you yourself said, big ships are pointless, since the equivalent energy density of the smaller (Cheaper) vessel is sufficient to get rid of the bigger one.


The small vessels have the same energy density of larger ships but since they're smaller the larger ships would have more energy and thus more energy for shields and can have more armor since it has more engine power. This makes the larger ships more powerful and stronger. Thus it would take at least the equivalent cost of the large ship in cheap ships to take it down.


As for your last point, NOPE. More often than not, they're simply fapping all over everyone with less insane claims. Hence, why they are called unreasonable wankers.

You'd be hard pressed to find an FFT RPer who isn't considered a wanker by other FFT RPer's who wouldn't take losses when RPing with a lower tech level. They wouldn't take losses to their super-capital ships but they'd suffer heavy casualties in their escort and light capital ships.

So why don't you stop fucking generalizing. Just because we in FFT happen to enjoy weapons of super-massive destruction doesn't make us fucking unreasonable wankers.

Lets all just say that FT players have no right to judge FFT players, and FFT players have no right to judge FT players. Ok? Is everything settled?

Of course, a ship of the Kali's size carries a lot of fighters and bombers. If their loadouts are correct (I.E. anti-capitol ship stuff) they might as well count as enemy starships. They are a heck of a lot harder to hit, and their are a LOT of them.

If you think of fighters as small starships, than no carrier is ever truly alone.

Not much in the realm of anti-ship... But operating in wings, enough to matter... a few MAM Missiles apiece from the fighters, and ZP and MAM's from the Bombers..... But enought to keep the other vessels firepower spread thin... which is the idea...

The small vessels have the same energy density of larger ships but since they're smaller the larger ships would have more energy and thus more energy for shields and can have more armor since it has more engine power. This makes the larger ships more powerful and stronger. Thus it would take at least the equivalent cost of the large ship in cheap ships to take it down.Misscalculation: The shields will also have to cover a vastly larger area. Now, since the volume (And as such, reactor space) will increase faster than the surface area, you're not entirely incorrect, unfortunately, given the excessive differences in shield area and beam area, this is a very minor issue.

As for engine power, naw. Relative equivalence in the size of the engines should result in relative equivalence with regards to the ship's acceleration capacities.

And, if you had actually read my posts, you would have noted that I wasn't saying that one small ship is enough. I was actually rather explicit in noting that the resource equivalent of smaller vessels was assumed. And (As I did also say), they would lose a few.

But, and here we get statistics: If you have a 1 : 1 between two monstrosities, one will win, one will lose. Long term average: 1 : 1 in casualities.

Now, if you have a 1 : 10 between one monstrosity and ten reasonable vessels, the smaller vessles (Having equivalent, though, for each vessel, numerically inferior weaponery) will basically always lose a couple ships. Lets be generous, five.

But their opponent will basically always fall, being outnumbered and attacked from multiple directions.

As a result, the long term average ends up being 1 : 0.5 in casualities, simply by multiplying the number of targets while retaining firepower, thus effectively creating an effective form of damage control.

Thats true, DA. However, if the large ship is accompanied by another large one, they would be able to take out double tyhe number of enemy ships (by using your reasoning, 10). The smaller fleet could double in size, but now the the two large ships have each other covered. Lets say this time, the small fleet manages to take out a big one, but at the cost of 10, instead of five. If you factor in the fighters that the large ones carry, the number of dead would increase to say, 11. The more large ships their are, the less succes the small ships have, even if you add 10 small for every 1 big.

Misscalculation: The shields will also have to cover a vastly larger area. Now, since the volume (And as such, reactor space) will increase faster than the surface area, you're not entirely incorrect, unfortunately, given the excessive differences in shield area and beam area, this is a very minor issue.

The extremely vast majority of shields fall into three mechanisms.

1)Heat Sink: These shields absorb incoming energy and store it in a heat sink. When the heat sink is full the shields can absorb no more energy until the heat sink is emptied.

2) Dissipation: These shields absorb then dissipate incoming energy at a rate of X Watts. If the incoming power exceeds X Watts then the shields fail.

3) Heat Sink and Dissipaion: These shields dissipate energy and rate X W with any excess energy being put into a heat sink which is emptied when the shields power influx is less than X W. The shields fails when the heat sink is full and the power influx exceeds X Watts. I use this kind of shield.

Your described shield is one where it blocks according Y J/m^2 where the fail if the attack's energy density is higher than Y the shields fail. However since that only applies to maybe .000000001% of FFT ships I don't see the problem. Especially since they have X equaling the output of small stars and heat sinks multiple times that.

As for engine power, naw. Relative equivalence in the size of the engines should result in relative equivalence with regards to the ship's acceleration capacities.

Exactly. And since the larger ships have so much more energy they can maintain said acceleration while having heavier armor and weapons. And since this much more massive ship is accelerating at the rather standard few hundred G's of FFT it must be extremely strong just to survive it's own engine's acceleration.

And, if you had actually read my posts, you would have noted that I wasn't saying that one small ship is enough. I was actually rather explicit in noting that the resource equivalent of smaller vessels was assumed. And (As I did also say), they would lose a few.

I read them. I was disagreeing with you saying that it would be cheaper to build all smaller ships. Generally in FFT large ships are worth more than their equivalent cost in smaller ships. Thus making it practical to build a wide range of ship sizes.

But, and here we get statistics: If you have a 1 : 1 between two monstrosities, one will win, one will lose. Long term average: 1 : 1 in casualities.

Yes, but since it would be more expensive to build the numerous small ships required to take one down it's more practical to engage large ships with large ships.

Now, if you have a 1 : 10 between one monstrosity and ten reasonable vessels, the smaller vessles (Having equivalent, though, for each vessel, numerically inferior weaponery) will basically always lose a couple ships. Lets be generous, five.

But their opponent will basically always fall, being outnumbered and attacked from multiple directions.

But in FFT the large ships outclass the small ships in terms of firepower and survivability that any attackers would suffer almost total casulaties to take one down. It's roughly equivalent to shooting an atoumatic rifle at a tank to destory it.

DA would definitely not like what I plan to pounce on the FT world (and I must ask DA a question...see the end of this post for it) sometime in the next few months. Of course, it will end up being well researched and all calculations will be done to a T in an attempt to make it fit as neatly with known physics as is possible for an object of its...stature.

No one has any idea what I'm talking about? Good, let's us keep it that way, ok?

Anyway, Xess, there is still something I wish to discuss with you. Do you still use MSN?

And DA: Quick question, but does your nation have any form of FTL travel?

<snip>Hrm. True, the larger the numbers both sides use are, the smaller the gap becomes, thus efectively reducing the advantage of the 'Many smaller ones' scenario, eventually resulting in a 1 : 1 (In massive battles involving hundreds of ships, I can actually see the bigger ones having an advantage, assuming that they field a 'shield' of smaller vessels, as they would usually do. Hrm). Ok, I shall rephrase: In smaller engagements involving only a small number of ships, the bigger is hopelessly lost. Increasing the number will reduce the gap.

Which fits my scenarios (In which a dozen vessels in the cruiser/ destroyer range are a considerable force), but not the more massive engagements.

Of course, as far as I am concerned, the trend of population/ number of ships ratios increasing (As it did since about 2000 b.c.) continues, so a FFT (Or, as I would prefer to call it, Soft SciFi) scenario involving hundreds of ships sounds highly unlikely to me.

But I know that the majority will disagree with this idea.

<shields>Well... From your point of view, you might actually be right, however, frankly... A shield that doesn't respect the principle of armour (It defends only were it actually is), thus ignoring the energy density problem is far too wanky for my liking, as it is essentially a plot device to allow überships to be effective.

And I'm allergic to that.

So, yeah, in a group that generally respects this kind of... Thinking, you're doubtlessly right. But personally, I simply can't accept the idea.

<engines>Not really. The ratios have to stay the same if you want to run on the same accel (Admittedly, maintaining a huge acceleration sounds kinda pointless, given that orbital battles will usually be fought at just under escape velocity...). It is true that the overall thickness of the armour will increase, however, how such can be sufficient to effectively protect from the (As mentioend before, vastly easier increase) power of $Beam_Weapon is completely beyond me.

Asumign that one doesn't against simply use the plotdevice of $Überarmour to force überships to be efficient.

I read them. I was disagreeing with you saying that it would be cheaper to build all smaller ships. Generally in FFT large ships are worth more than their equivalent cost in smaller ships. Thus making it practical to build a wide range of ship sizes.Well, true. Assuming that surface area is more costly than overall volume (Given guns, sensors etc.., yes, a realistic claim), a 1 : 1 ratio in volume would be more expensive for the smaller vessels. Note however that I said resource equivalent, not size equivalent. Which is to say, for the same costs the biggy creates.

And given the scenario I mentioend above, I maintain that a number of smaller (Please note that I'm not saying tiny destroyers. I'm thinking cruisers) vessels are superior, due to the damage avoidance.

lso, I'm not exactly saying 'All smaller ships'. I would build them in a wide variety of sizes, too. I would just generally cut down on size.

Not the least due to what I mentioned above, the population/ ship ratios (IRL, for wet ships, it's roughly 1mio/ 1 ship). Spending all my resources on half a dozen überships sounds, well... Too much like 'All my eggs in one basket'.

And yes, I know you will disagree with it, but as far as I am concerned, an FFT/ SSF nation claiming to have a thousand FTL capable capships of, say, 1000000m^3 or bigger gets the same treatment an MT /Surface based nation with a thousand Nimitz carrier gets.

And note that I do indeed interact with a good number of rather wanky FFT/ SSF nations, despite me playing a vastly inferior technology level (The Ctan comes to mind). I don't really care about the overall technology. I care about how it is used.

But in FFT the large ships outclass the small ships in terms of firepower and survivability that any attackers would suffer almost total casulaties to take one down. It's roughly equivalent to shooting an atoumatic rifle at a tank to destory it.I do believe that I addressed this above. Space isn't the ocean in 1900, and when you're ignoring this basic difference, frankly, I don't see why you're actually playing in space, since you're effectively ignoring everything that makes it unique.

Of course, your decision, but as far as I am concerned, no, thanks.

And DA: Quick question, but does your nation have any form of FTL travel?No (Although I do intend to get it some day, to escape the terrawank- terraforming in sol). Have a number of puppets with it, though (Z Ha Dum, Changeling Founders, Divine Predecessors).

... Why?

Or, as I would prefer to call it, Soft SciFi

Indeed. Those of us in FFT prefer Space Opera to Hard SF. I know that if given the choive between Timothy Zahn's Conqueror books or Ben Bova's Mars books, and having read both sets, I'd take Zahn's.


Well... From your point of view, you might actually be right, however, frankly... A shield that doesn't respect the principle of armour (It defends only were it actually is), thus ignoring the energy density problem is far too wanky for my liking, as it is essentially a plot device to allow überships to be effective.

And I'm allergic to that.

So, yeah, in a group that generally respects this kind of... Thinking, you're doubtlessly right. But personally, I simply can't accept the idea.

Fair enough. All I ask is that you don't make blanket statements that insult a large group of people.

Not really. The ratios have to stay the same if you want to run on the same accel (Admittedly, maintaining a huge acceleration sounds kinda pointless, given that orbital battles will usually be fought at just under escape velocity...). It is true that the overall thickness of the armour will increase, however, how such can be sufficient to effectively protect from the (As mentioend before, vastly easier increase) power of $Beam_Weapon is completely beyond me.

In FFT there are needs to chase down ships with similarily large accelerations and space battles are not always fought in orbit as people want to avoid damaging said planet with debris and stray fire. Of course some people take it to the extreme and have battles in deep interstellar space and I have no idea anyone would do that as it's just stupid to do so.

And my point on large ships strength comes from it's abbility to no rip itself apart when it turns on it's engines. With that much mass and acceleration there would be a hell of a lot of stress on the materials and so if it doesn't destroy itself it has to be strong.


Well, true. Assuming that surface area is more costly than overall volume (Given guns, sensors etc.., yes, a realistic claim), a 1 : 1 ratio in volume would be more expensive for the smaller vessels. Note however that I said resource equivalent, not size equivalent. Which is to say, for the same costs the biggy creates.

And given the scenario I mentioend above, I maintain that a number of smaller (Please note that I'm not saying tiny destroyers. I'm thinking cruisers) vessels are superior, due to the damage avoidance.

lso, I'm not exactly saying 'All smaller ships'. I would build them in a wide variety of sizes, too. I would just generally cut down on size.

That would work for the "smaller" super-capital ships. BUt it would take a hell of a lot of crusiers to take down those 17km Uber-Drednaughts, of course it's FFT custom to only have 1 said vessel as anymore would be wanking for FFT. The only people who can get away with it if it fits the story well, like in the Galactic Empire story arcs.

Not the least due to what I mentioned above, the population/ ship ratios (IRL, for wet ships, it's roughly 1mio/ 1 ship). Spending all my resources on half a dozen überships sounds, well... Too much like 'All my eggs in one basket'.

And yes, I know you will disagree with it, but as far as I am concerned, an FFT/ SSF nation claiming to have a thousand FTL capable capships of, say, 1000000m^3 or bigger gets the same treatment an MT /Surface based nation with a thousand Nimitz carrier gets.

Most FFT nations including myself only have a thousand ships tops. Only a small percentage of which are >1km.

And note that I do indeed interact with a good number of rather wanky FFT/ SSF nations, despite me playing a vastly inferior technology level (The Ctan comes to mind). I don't really care about the overall technology. I care about how it is used.

Same with those of us in FFT. We just like space opera style technology as our background.

I do believe that I addressed this above. Space isn't the ocean in 1900, and when you're ignoring this basic difference, frankly, I don't see why you're actually playing in space, since you're effectively ignoring everything that makes it unique.

Of course, your decision, but as far as I am concerned, no, thanks.

To each their own. As for myself I RP as FFT because I grew up watching Star Wars and Star Trek and have a deep love of Space Opera. Hard SF just doesn't satisfy my lust for adventure and extreme destruction that's only available with FTL travel and gigaton+ range weaponry.

Anyway, Xess, there is still something I wish to discuss with you. Do you still use MSN?

Yes I do. You know my e-mail address and you can always just send an e-mail if I'm not often enough.

Shields and armor both fit into multiple categories of function.

Typical Shield Types:

Deflector Shield

This is the typical absorbtion/dispensation.... The shield absorbs the energy and dissipitates the energy across the shield surface back into space as nominal radiation. The emitters act as partial heatsinks, and thus are similar to Xess's version in use... and in use by many FFT genre's... The emitters lose some power from shielf impacts... but is generally the most effecient form.

Particle Shield

This is similar to the principle of heat-sink... The emitters take the full load of shield impacts, channeling power into heat-sinks, or emitter combinations. Very hazerdous design, shields prone to overload under heavy fire-fights.

Regenerative Shield

Similar in design to Particle shield, but will derive power from base system and from heatsink. Major drawback, over loads from heavy fire-fights and can litterally blow the emitters for the shield if too much power is pressed upon the shield... Advantage, the shield gains alot of strength back from weapons hits.

Point Defense

These are rare, but not unheard of. Typically designed to deflect kenetic weapons. They are very powerful "Particle Shields" but only designed to cover a limited area of a vessel, and are "moved" to deflect inbound kenetic ordinance.

Hull Armor

This is the typical armor form known to many. The armor is designed to absorb impact, and channel it across the surface area of the vessel. To minimize damage to vessel super-structure.

Ablative Armor

Similar to normative armor... Though armor is designed to "shear", that is break off in impact... thus channeling all impact force back into space.

Regenerative Armor

Designed in similarity to Ablative, but combined with other forms of FFT technology to regenerate lost armor in firefights. Most typical is combining Ablative designs with nanotech based robots and material/armor storage holds.

___
FTL Types
___
Warp Bubble/Field

A field is generated using exotic matter around the craft. Field "flattens" space inside the "bubble" thus increasing the velocity of light in the locality of the vessel. Allowing it to exceed normative velocities in "normal" space.

Kraskinov/Gate Technologies

Operates by using exotic matter to open temporal "wormholes" between points in the universe, either through gate based technologies, or by applying field energies to open existing quantum "geon" holes in normal space. Thus creating a "shortcut" between two points in normal space. Also called "Warp-Gate", "Transwarp Gate", or "StarGate".

Fold-Space

Requires the most energy of all FTL forms. Operates by "folding space" to make quick leaps between two differing points. Generally has longest charge times, and even longer recharge times.

Interdimensional

Operates by completely removing the vessel from normal space. The vessel then travels through the other dimentional plane to the appropriate point in normal space, where it then re-enters such space. Also called "Hyper-Space". Typically it enters a dimentional state where the velocity of light is faster (Hyper-Space) or where distances are shorter (Sub-Space).

Most FFT nations including myself only have a thousand ships tops. Only a small percentage of which are >1km.

IF only a few ships are over 1km (I have no idea how long 1km is, because I use Imperial measurments),is my battlecruiser too long?

No (Although I do intend to get it some day, to escape the terrawank- terraforming in sol). Have a number of puppets with it, though (Z Ha Dum, Changeling Founders, Divine Predecessors).

... Why?

Then it appears you are what most people refer to as "Space Tech", an under-represented but by no means empty field of RP on NS. It goes all the way from things like Clarke's The Other Side of the Sky with space being more of an every day event with large space stations and such but without such excessive militarization and inter-planetary commerce to Benford's Redeemer where FTL is just starting to be probed but inter-stellar travel is akin to what orbital flights were in the late 60's.



Yes I do. You know my e-mail address and you can always just send an e-mail if I'm not often enough.

True, now I just need to remember which one it is on my contact list.

IF only a few ships are over 1km (I have no idea how long 1km is, because I use imerpial measurments),is my battlecruiser too long?

1 Mile is 1.6~ Kilometers.

ah, thank you.

I moved the list to page one, and wrote a small forward for it just now.

jeez, cant a guy go to sleep for 12 hours without waking ujp to find his favorite thread on page 11? Plus, nobody has answered my question: is 1.2km too long for a battlecruiser?

jeez, cant a guy go to sleep for 12 hours without waking ujp to find his favorite thread on page 11? Plus, nobody has answered my question: is 1.2km too long for a battlecruiser?

Yes, I'd go half that. Good for a battleship though.

If you're interested, THIS (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/Xessmithia/accuratescale.jpg) is an accurate scale of all of my capital ships. The largest being my 8km long Midgard-class Monitor(big super-dreadnaught) with the smallest being my 100m long Here/B-class Frigate.

While THIS (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/Xessmithia/accuratescalesmall.jpg) is an accurate scale of my sub-capital ships. The largest is the Here/B class frigate and the smallest is one of my Albatross Multi-Role bomber.

the only problem with cutting it's size is that I cant compromize on the weapons. Plus, its going to be released this week, so its a little late for drastic changes like that

the only problem with cutting it's size is that I cant compromize on the weapons. Plus, its going to be released this week, so its a little late for drastic changes like that

Then just call it a battleship. And look at my lonks I edited into my above post and give me your opinion of you don't mind.

I can maybe cut it down to a little less than 1km (im not sure what the measurment below kilometer is, but I was thinking 9.6 of it), or i could call it a battleship. My main concerns with the second option is Id have to increase its weapons loadout exponatially and rewrite the seven page document that im releasing, which would take time and effort.

Your charts are very nice, Xess, but they dont actually tell me how long each ship is, numerically speaking.

I can maybe cut it down to a little less than 1km (im not sure what the measurment below kilometer is, but I was thinking 9.6 of it), or i could call it a battleship. My main concerns with the second option is Id have to increase its weapons loadout exponatially and rewrite the seven page document that im releasing, which would take time and effort.

Your charts are very nice, Xess, but they dont actually tell me how long each ship is, numerically speaking.

I was just going for an general size impression rather than hard figures.

By "9.6 of it" I'm going to assume you mean 96% which would be 960 meters or 3149.6 feet.

See, now that I can understand. Why must metrics be so widespread...

Anywho, this ship is designed to hit the enemy and hit em hard, so having a light weapons load is kinda moot

(dang it, after reading that pirate factbook I cant seem to talk right!)

See, now that I can understand. Why must metrics be so widespread...

Anywho, this ship is designed to hit the enemy and hit em hard, so having a light weapons load is kinda moot

(dang it, after reading that pirate factbook I cant seem to talk right!)

Metrics is very simple. For length the meter, a little over 3 feet, is the base unit. One kilometer is one thousand meters since it has the prefic kilo which is equal to 1000, hence kilometer is 1000 meters. Same way a centimeter is 1/100th of a meter since that's what the prefic centi means. The metric system is far simpler than the Imperial system.

...maybe if you are raised with it, but me, I prefer Imperial. Anyway, thanks Xess, that little explanation will make things a lot easier when I design other ships in the future.

I think Ill just cut the length down to 960 meters and call it a large battlecruiser. Less work that way.

Bump

(does anyone know what a sausage-shaped ship 960 meters long with 56 decks would have in terms of diameter and mass? As you can tell, im REALLY inexperienced with ship design)

Bump

(does anyone know what a sausage-shaped ship 960 meters long with 56 decks would have in terms of diameter and mass? As you can tell, im REALLY inexperienced with ship design)

Depends on the deck height. If you say it's about 4 meters (~12 feet) then it would have a diameter of 224 meters(~672 feet). It would have a volume of ~37,831,812 m^3. If it's 10% solid and has the approximate density of Iron it would mass 30,265,450,173 kg or 66,583,990,381 lb.

56 decks high or long (For me it would be the latter. Not having Artificial Gravity/ Inertial Dampeners would mean utter chaos if I didn't)?

Well, seeing as the length is given, I would assume the former...

A deck... Spacedy, so you need, well, space. The 4 metres/ deck sound about right, and I will interpret sausage as a cylinder... That makes an approximated diameter of pi * 112^2 * 960 = 37831812.72m^3, and... I'm not especially knowledgeable regarding the density of modern warships, but very vague calculations with regards to their mass would assume an overall density of less than 200kg/m^3 (Quite likely less than 150kg/m^3), however, in space you need a bit more density (Radiation shielding), so, lets say 250kg/m^3 as overall density (For the record, I am assuming between 400- 600kg/m^3, but my ships also have a sentient crew of one, the rest is engines, guns, armour & maintenance drones, resulting in me having excessive densities. And of course, I pay for this with accelerations not exceeding doubledigit m/s^2 (singledigit gees)).

Wham, 9457953180kg, or roughly 9.5 million tons.

Of course, this is the upper limit, seeing as I suppose that your ship is not a pure cilinder and would as such have slightly less volume.

yea, 12ft high sounds about right. There is only room for one armored person in the cooridors.

I meant 56 decks high. It is 960 meters long.

As for your estimation, DA, im just gonna hack off about... 500,000 pounds or so, and call that the mass, k?

There, that leaves the maximum sublight speed and the cost to still be figured out.

Added the MAFB

yea, 12ft high sounds about right. There is only room for one armored person in the cooridors.

I meant 56 decks high. It is 960 meters long.

As for your estimation, DA, im just gonna hack off about... 500,000 pounds or so, and call that the mass, k?

There, that leaves the maximum sublight speed and the cost to still be figured out.Works, yes.

As for sublight speed, well... Acceleration is equal to Force (In Newtons, kg*m/s^2) divided by Mass, so if your drives manage, say, 9 billion Newtons, your ship would manage a maximum acceleration of about 1m/s^2.

Which would be painfully slow (But realistic, as modern spacecraft propulsion manages between about 30m/s^2 (Almost 3 gees, Liquid Fuel Rockets) and 0.01m/s^2 (Slightly more than 0.001 gees, Ion Drives)).

(Contrary to this, Ion drives allow the highest, Liquid Fuel Rockets the slowest maximum velocity/ velocity change with a given amount of fuel (Delta V). But I prefer acceleration).

Now... Generally speaking, since you're having a spacedy battleship, anyway, you can toss realism out of the window. Since you're having average density, a reasonably high acceleration (Paid for by being more vulnerable to enemy fire) works as well.

I would simply go with 'Propulsion works. Somehow.' And add 'Ion' or 'Plasma' or 'Reactionless' in front of 'Propulsion' and choose some rather arbitrary acceleration. I am running with doubledigit m/s^2 (Singledigit gees), but that is bottom-of-the-line even where I am playing (Due to the aforementioned density I'm running with), so, vaguely defined Inertial Dampeners (To prevent the crew from being turned into liquid when you accelerate the thing) and acceleration in the triple/ quadrupledigit m/s^2 shouldn't be a big problem. For NS purposes, anyway.

Maximum velocity has some constrictions I'm not entirely aware of, apart from the amount of fuel a ship can carry. For very soft science fiction, you would run into problems as soon as you reach relativistic velocities. Not due to the spacedy dust (You do, after all, have shields to prevent 0.001kg heavy particles from impacting your ship with a yield of 0.1 kilotons. Mind you, energy doesn't just vanish, so I would slow down before your shields break :P), but due to Lorentz transformation/ length contraction, which would have rather, ah... Severe effects on your ship (Like, the whole thing breaking apart).

As for the costs, there are maaaaaaaaaany different ideas floating around, so I'm not usually thinking about them. For a reasonably hightech ship like yours... I would run with tripledigit billions/ singledigit trillions (In Euro), but... Keeping it vague is possibly better.

It's not uncommon for sublight propulsion to be by some form of "reactionless" drive system in FFT concepts (similar to Trek-type 'impulse engines'). These are reactionless in the normal sense... Most use some form of "graviton wave reaction system" whereby they use gravitons as the reactionary force to drive the ship forward. And then use "thrusters" which are chemical based, more traditional "rockets" for maneuvering.

So DA's "they just work" concept best fits the technology.

The ship's got three plasma driven reactors, one for each engine, with the exces energy going to other systems.

Der Angst, youve gotta understand that when it comes to math, im about as intelligent as a soggy brick. All I see when you type that sort of stuff is numbers and symbols ill never hope (or want to) understand, lol.

I cant let the ship be slow, because battlecruisers are supposed to be fast. Perhaps i will just quote a randmom number with symbols in front of it and hope nobody notices...

Ok, im tired of waiting. This ship comes out NOW!

The ship's got three plasma driven reactors, one for each engine, with the exces energy going to other systems.

Der Angst, youve gotta understand that when it comes to math, im about as intelligent as a soggy brick. All I see when you type that sort of stuff is numbers and symbols ill never hope (or want to) understand, lol.

I cant let the ship be slow, because battlecruisers are supposed to be fast. Perhaps i will just quote a randmom number with symbols in front of it and hope nobody notices...

kg*m/s^2 [Kilogram-meters per second squared] = Newtons (A measure of force)... the mass of an object applied at a certain rate of accelleration.

m/s^2 [meters per second squared] = measure of acceleration. That is the "rate" at which something is increasing its own velocity.

"Delta V" the DELTA reffers to the "greek letter delta" which looks like a triangle; in math/science it symbolized "Change in" "v"
is the normal symbol of "velocity" so delta v = change in velocity...

EX: an object of mass 1 kilogram, accellerating at 1 meter per second squared (that is, every second, it increases its velocity by 1 meter per second) would apply a force of 1 kilogram-meter per second squared (or 1 N [Newton] of force).

Let's say your vessel weights 5 metric tons (1 metric ton = 1000 kilograms)... And its enigines could provide 5000 Newtons of force... 1 Newton = 1 kg*m/s^2

And we want to figure out the acceleration your engines can provide (we're going to ignore inertial mass for the sake of simplicity; that is an entirely different discussion)

To figure out such.... Force (Newtons) = Mass (Kilograms) * (times) Accelleration (Meters per second squared) [F=ma]

Now we know "F" (5000 kg*m/s^2) and we know "m" (5000 kilograms) what we don't know is "a" (acceleration)

To redo the equation to suit our needs, we first need to put "a" at one side of the equation....

F=m*a
F/m = (m * a ) / m
[the masses on the right cancel)
F/m = a

Let's put out numbers in now...

(5000 kg*m/s^2)/(5000 kg) = a
simplify
(5000/5000) * ((kg*m)/(kg*s^2)) = a
1 * (m/s^2) = a [the masses cancel out]
1 m/s^2 = a

So the best acceleration afforded is 1 meters per second square...
That is, every second, the vessel will be able to increase its velocity (speed) by 1 meter per second....
After 2 seconds 2 m/s
After 3 seconds 3 m/s

And so on...

It's all quite simple.

Ok, the ship is out. Heres (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8757073#post8757073) the link. I gave you guys credit, so dont go bad mouthing the design, lol.