Draft Hull Table

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Owner, SDS Members

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 02:53

SCC wrote:I'd try and set things up so that devoting HS to Gunboats is less efficient then devoting HS to Fighters, after all Gunboats should have much better endurance then fighters, you shouldn't have to keep them in bays all the time.


Gunboats will never be better in combat than fighters because they'll always be easier to hit. The question is just how MUCH easier to hit. Right now, they're simply way too easy to hit.

If chanting the MST3k Mantra and thinking "Space Opera" doesn't help the BC thing, try this: Drop the class and move everything up one and come up with a new name (Something like Picket or Patrol Ship) for the 15HS level and then declare that BC's BB's that have sacrificed some systems (likely armor and other passives) to that they can fit into a later generation/bigger CA hull, possibly a fast one



MST3k? Sorry, I don't know this reference, SCC.

As for "Space Opera", I'm all about thinking of Starfire as Space Opera. Ask Cralis, he'll tell you! :mrgreen:

As for removing the entire BC type, etc., it's something I'm vaguely considering, though probably unlikely. (And trust me, finding another tiny hull type name would be dirt simple. I could use the tried and true "Escort", though it's not a name that I like. Or "Sloop". or any other number of hull type names from human history. There's no lack of them, that's for sure.)
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Cralis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 03:52

Crucis wrote:MST3k? Sorry, I don't know this reference, SCC.


Mystery Science Theatre 3000. It was a show that the hosts watched low-grade sci fi flicks and made fun of the movie throughout the whole show.

A
s for "Space Opera", I'm all about thinking of Starfire as Space Opera. Ask Cralis, he'll tell you! :mrgreen:


Huh? What? I think he was referring to the genre as a whole, not just STARFIRE. But yeah :)
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby SCC on Sun 24 Mar 2013 04:36

Crucis wrote:
SCC wrote:I'd try and set things up so that devoting HS to Gunboats is less efficient then devoting HS to Fighters, after all Gunboats should have much better endurance then fighters, you shouldn't have to keep them in bays all the time.


Gunboats will never be better in combat than fighters because they'll always be easier to hit. The question is just how MUCH easier to hit. Right now, they're simply way too easy to hit.


Not what I meant. I was thinking set things up so that if you just leave the Gunboats in the hangers until a fight a carrier or tender gets a better return per HS from fighters but if the Gunboats spend most of their time out on patrols or something each hanger can support more then one.

The way I see it a Gunboat Tender is sort of like a freighter the Gunboats use to re-provision themselves at some interval, no more then once a month and likely shorter, two weeks, one week, one day or eight hours are all options. They also return to the tender to get new missiles after a strike, for patrol/guarding it isn't a bad idea
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 04:56

SCC wrote:
Crucis wrote:
SCC wrote:I'd try and set things up so that devoting HS to Gunboats is less efficient then devoting HS to Fighters, after all Gunboats should have much better endurance then fighters, you shouldn't have to keep them in bays all the time.


Gunboats will never be better in combat than fighters because they'll always be easier to hit. The question is just how MUCH easier to hit. Right now, they're simply way too easy to hit.


Not what I meant. I was thinking set things up so that if you just leave the Gunboats in the hangers until a fight a carrier or tender gets a better return per HS from fighters but if the Gunboats spend most of their time out on patrols or something each hanger can support more then one.

The way I see it a Gunboat Tender is sort of like a freighter the Gunboats use to re-provision themselves at some interval, no more then once a month and likely shorter, two weeks, one week, one day or eight hours are all options. They also return to the tender to get new missiles after a strike, for patrol/guarding it isn't a bad idea


My bad.

Ummm. GB's aren't really intended to have huge endurances, perhaps a week, though more than that isn't out of the question. So, yes, in theory, if GB endurances were relatively high, a single tender could conceivably do the equivalent of "hot bunking" a bunch of GB's. That is, a tender might only physically be able carry 1 squadron at a time, but it might be able to support multiple squadrons of GB's if their endurances were sufficient to keep them in space in rotating shifts.

Heck, this was sort of done with both fighters and GB's in the Canon History. Often, carrier forces supplemented their own fighters with fighters based on planets, which would fly out to meet the carriers. Obviously, not counting any combat losses, the carriers couldn't support both groups fighters but they could certainly support the planet based fighters and re-arm them. And of course the same was true for Bug GB's in ISW4 when GB's often were sent on long range patrols to meet up with XOg armed ships which could support them as well as their own GBs. So conceptually, it's not an unheard of idea.

But I'm not sure that it's unwise to allow gunboat tenders to constantly support more GB's than they can mount. It's one thing to do it in battle, and quite another thing to do it 100% of the time.SCC
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 05:42

SCC wrote:If chanting the MST3k Mantra and thinking "Space Opera" doesn't help the BC thing, try this: Drop the class and move everything up one and come up with a new name (Something like Picket or Patrol Ship) for the 15HS level and then declare that BC's BB's that have sacrificed some systems (likely armor and other passives) to that they can fit into a later generation/bigger CA hull, possibly a fast one



I've just done some reading up on this topic and have learned that the battlecruiser evolved out of a type of ship from the late 1800's and first decade of the 1900's called the "armored cruiser" (where the "CA" term comes from, as in "Cruiser, Armored"). Armored cruisers were also larger than your average run-of-the-mill cruisers of the era and more heavily armed. More powerful than regular cruisers and fast enough to run away from battleships. Sounds a little like battle cruisers. However, the difference is that BC's had BB-sized guns, while AC's only had guns somewhat more powerful than other cruisers but not on a battleship scale. They really did split the difference between cruisers and battleships, whereas historical BC's had the firepower to fight BB's but not the armor to take many hits.

It's a fine line, but after 1910, no navy built any more AC's as it was decided that (my words) in splitting the difference between cruisers and BB's, they were too expensive to be worth thinking of as filling a cruiser's role and not powerful enough to fight in a line of battle (whereas BC's were ... sort of).

The only ships built after 1910 that were close to being thought of as AC's could be the German "pocket battleships", which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns ... which in a way makes them "armored cruisers" rather than "heavy cruisers" since legit heavy cruisers weren't supposed to mount guns larger than 8". Also, the German term for those "pocket battleships" was Panzerschiffe, which literally means "armored ships".

Interesting stuff. :ugeek:
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby reddavid on Sun 24 Mar 2013 06:31

Let me cry and I will take on the world
reddavid
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu 02 Feb 2012 23:49
Location: Orion–Cygnus Arm

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sun 24 Mar 2013 06:37

Crucis wrote:
SCC wrote:If chanting the MST3k Mantra and thinking "Space Opera" doesn't help the BC thing, try this: Drop the class and move everything up one and come up with a new name (Something like Picket or Patrol Ship) for the 15HS level and then declare that BC's BB's that have sacrificed some systems (likely armor and other passives) to that they can fit into a later generation/bigger CA hull, possibly a fast one



I've just done some reading up on this topic and have learned that the battlecruiser evolved out of a type of ship from the late 1800's and first decade of the 1900's called the "armored cruiser" (where the "CA" term comes from, as in "Cruiser, Armored"). Armored cruisers were also larger than your average run-of-the-mill cruisers of the era and more heavily armed. More powerful than regular cruisers and fast enough to run away from battleships. Sounds a little like battle cruisers. However, the difference is that BC's had BB-sized guns, while AC's only had guns somewhat more powerful than other cruisers but not on a battleship scale. They really did split the difference between cruisers and battleships, whereas historical BC's had the firepower to fight BB's but not the armor to take many hits.

It's a fine line, but after 1910, no navy built any more AC's as it was decided that (my words) in splitting the difference between cruisers and BB's, they were too expensive to be worth thinking of as filling a cruiser's role and not powerful enough to fight in a line of battle (whereas BC's were ... sort of).

The only ships built after 1910 that were close to being thought of as AC's could be the German "pocket battleships", which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns ... which in a way makes them "armored cruisers" rather than "heavy cruisers" since legit heavy cruisers weren't supposed to mount guns larger than 8". Also, the German term for those "pocket battleships" was Panzerschiffe, which literally means "armored ships".

Interesting stuff. :ugeek:


That's essentially my take on BC's in this setting. They are closer to the old AC or Panzerschiffe model than the WWI BC's. Take a look a the original USS Maine and you'll see what I consider as a prototype for the BC's at least as how they evolved historically in the game system.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sun 24 Mar 2013 06:59

One thing to consider is that over time BC's wind up serving multiple roles in Starfire. They are command ships for lighter units, a fast reaction force on the frontiers, screening units for the battle line, heavy escorts for carrier groups etc.

Crucis wrote:There are 6 fighters to a squadron in Starfire (at this time). Do you mean a "squadron" to mean a carrier's strikegroup?


In SFB, most CV's carried a single 12 fighter squadron. CVA's had 2 squadrons. A couple of oddballs (FED CVA, Hydran Iron Duke) had 3 or more squadrons. The game system artificially capped fleet fighter strength on dedicated carriers (the Hydrans tended to mount some fighters on almost every ship bigger than a DD, much like the Khanate) at 3 squadrons. Honestly, it was a way to limit counter stack size. The reason the Hydrans got more fighters was twofold. First, like the Khanate, they were the premier fighter using race at least from a strategy and tactics standpoint. Second was that the Hydrans had no seeking weapons to keep track of. Their fighters used energy based weapons exclusively, while everyone else had drone or torpedo armed fighters which meant a much higher counter density.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 07:37

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:
SCC wrote:If chanting the MST3k Mantra and thinking "Space Opera" doesn't help the BC thing, try this: Drop the class and move everything up one and come up with a new name (Something like Picket or Patrol Ship) for the 15HS level and then declare that BC's BB's that have sacrificed some systems (likely armor and other passives) to that they can fit into a later generation/bigger CA hull, possibly a fast one



I've just done some reading up on this topic and have learned that the battlecruiser evolved out of a type of ship from the late 1800's and first decade of the 1900's called the "armored cruiser" (where the "CA" term comes from, as in "Cruiser, Armored"). Armored cruisers were also larger than your average run-of-the-mill cruisers of the era and more heavily armed. More powerful than regular cruisers and fast enough to run away from battleships. Sounds a little like battle cruisers. However, the difference is that BC's had BB-sized guns, while AC's only had guns somewhat more powerful than other cruisers but not on a battleship scale. They really did split the difference between cruisers and battleships, whereas historical BC's had the firepower to fight BB's but not the armor to take many hits.

It's a fine line, but after 1910, no navy built any more AC's as it was decided that (my words) in splitting the difference between cruisers and BB's, they were too expensive to be worth thinking of as filling a cruiser's role and not powerful enough to fight in a line of battle (whereas BC's were ... sort of).

The only ships built after 1910 that were close to being thought of as AC's could be the German "pocket battleships", which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns ... which in a way makes them "armored cruisers" rather than "heavy cruisers" since legit heavy cruisers weren't supposed to mount guns larger than 8". Also, the German term for those "pocket battleships" was Panzerschiffe, which literally means "armored ships".

Interesting stuff. :ugeek:


That's essentially my take on BC's in this setting. They are closer to the old AC or Panzerschiffe model than the WWI BC's. Take a look a the original USS Maine and you'll see what I consider as a prototype for the BC's at least as how they evolved historically in the game system.


Alexei, another way to look at AC's is this: As BC's were to dreadnought battleships in the dreadnought era, AC's were to pre-dreadnought battleships in the pre-dreadnought era. AC's were their era's "battlecruisers"... a type of ship stuck in between cruisers and battleships. One difference is that in the era of AC's and pre-DN's, the tonnage gap between pre-DN's and cruisers was much smaller than itt became as the dreadnought era progressed before and thru WW1 and thru to WW2. Cruisers didn't get particularly much larger (a little but not much), I suppose because their role sort of dictated that they didn't want to get too big and expensive because two 8-10,000 tonne cruisers would probably be worth more than a single 15,000 tonne (armored) cruiser since navies needed lots of them to spread around the various places they were needed.

I'm gonna have to really give this some thought, but it's been fun reading up on this stuff and learning more about armored cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts, etc.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Sun 24 Mar 2013 07:41

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:One thing to consider is that over time BC's wind up serving multiple roles in Starfire. They are command ships for lighter units, a fast reaction force on the frontiers, screening units for the battle line, heavy escorts for carrier groups etc.


Of course.


Crucis wrote:There are 6 fighters to a squadron in Starfire (at this time). Do you mean a "squadron" to mean a carrier's strikegroup?


In SFB, most CV's carried a single 12 fighter squadron. CVA's had 2 squadrons. A couple of oddballs (FED CVA, Hydran Iron Duke) had 3 or more squadrons. The game system artificially capped fleet fighter strength on dedicated carriers (the Hydrans tended to mount some fighters on almost every ship bigger than a DD, much like the Khanate) at 3 squadrons. Honestly, it was a way to limit counter stack size. The reason the Hydrans got more fighters was twofold. First, like the Khanate, they were the premier fighter using race at least from a strategy and tactics standpoint. Second was that the Hydrans had no seeking weapons to keep track of. Their fighters used energy based weapons exclusively, while everyone else had drone or torpedo armed fighters which meant a much higher counter density.



Ah... OK. I find this interesting in a way I don't particularly want to discuss because since it would take this thread way OT. But when I get around to posting a thread on fighters, it'll become obvious why I find this interesting.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron