It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:22 am


Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

Tell the world your Dropzone related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Hexer

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:46 am

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostWed May 20, 2015 8:09 am

Thunderboy wrote:Nice find Stormclad!

Was an interresting read!

+1, thanks! :)

Cataphract

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostThu May 21, 2015 12:50 am

Stormclad wrote:Pondering the difference between a cruiser and battleship?

Nice article at Critical Shit walking us through the differences, citing historical and sci-fi references.
http://criticalshit.org/2015/05/15/on-the-taxonomy-of-spaceships/


Excellent article. However they skip over modern warship classifications pretty quickly. Here's the NATOlist of hull classifications. They differ somewhat from individual nation classifications. What you can see is that there are quite a lot of retired classifications (like destroyer escorts, mine laying destroyers etc...) which are what are mined for cool space based platform classifications.

In modern navies destroyers are usually Area Air Defence (AAW) and Command and Control Platforms for Task Groups. Most navies that don't run Carriers use Destroyers as their flag ships.

Destroyers are usually of higher tonnage than frigates which normally are of a general purpose build, being equipped for a wide variety of tasks, often with specialization in Anti Sub Warfare. Frigates are also the smallest ships normally used for long range deployment overseas and globally. Modern frigate tonnage often is the same as modern destroyers and even the roles are changing. The German F-124 frigate is essentially a destroyer in other modern navies.

Cruisers are not built any more and for all intents and purposes no longer exist. The ones that do exist are really just re-skinned destroyers that were renamed due to Cold War "cruiser gap" competition. Some think that really heavy destroyers are just cruisers as well as AAW and C2 were their job before frigates stole ASW away from destroyers. Maybe there are a few floating around from old Russian fleets but realistically none have been built in years as destroyers are now the same tonnage as them and do all of their jobs.

Corvettes are one of the odd ones, they range from mini frigates that have a number of general purpose functions and warfighting capabilities to up-gunned offshore patrol craft. Modern corvettes main difference from frigates is that they are not very capable of self defence but can hit pretty hard.

As far a sci fi ship classes go their are a few that were not listed on that list. Titans are classic "bigger than battleship" ships, Deathstar type things. Also I have seen Monitors represent the super super heavy battleships though normally monitors are represented by non-interstellar capable heavy system defence ships where superbattleships are interstellar capable. Scout ships are also listed often, without a specific classification system. Scouts are also used as radar pickets which according to NATO are their own type of ship, though modern day frigates would do the same thing.

On thing that cannot be done is use tonnage to differentiate between classes. Current tonnages overlap significantly between each other, the Canadian Halifax Class Frigates were approx the same tonnage (4500) as the Canadian Iroquois Class Destroyers. The new Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels will be heavier than both at 6000 tons. Also sticking with the Canadian example their Maritime Costal Defence Vessels (Canadian classification MCDV or patrol ship) are classified by NATO as minesweepers though no one actually does minesweeping anymore as that's basically suicide (mine hunting yes, sweeping no).

So this is all to say it will be really interesting to see what happens with the ship classifications for Dropfleet, especially with the different races. Each race could easily have a different ship type focus and smaller or larger ship types that specialize differently. Should be interesting.
Offline
User avatar

wowskyguy

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:03 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostThu May 21, 2015 3:23 pm

Yeah, old designations mean very little on modern systems. Those names could be abandoned and more function oriented names used. Offensive capabilities: Anti-Air, Anti-Ship, Anti-Sub. Defensive capabilities: Electronic warfare, Point-defense, Missile interception. Other characteristics: fixed wing aircraft carrier, rotary wing carrier, nuclear-weapon capable (non-tactical offensive).

After all, "torpedo boat destroyer" is a very function oriented name.

The same dilemma is present with modern day combat aircraft. A-10 is not a bomber, it's close support. F-16 is a multi-role, not (exclusively) a fighter.

I'm yet about to see a game with space combat craft designations that are different than old water navy and air force ones.

Cheers,
--
Andy

"Here's everything I know
about war: Somebody wins,
somebody loses, and
nothing is ever the same again."
Admiral Constanza Stark,
C.Y. 9784
Offline
User avatar

killionaire

  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:22 pm

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostFri May 22, 2015 12:08 am

I do hope they do away with the overdone WW2 style size classifications, and are more heavily role oriented.

So thus, you could have a huge 'Frigate', if the role of Frigate was for a fast, long range general combatant, as well as smaller ones. Which could be different from a 'Destroyer', as a purpose-built destroyer of some other threat. A Battleship is fine, as your largest and most capable heavily armed warship.

So far, since 'Carrier' in this game refers to a troop transport, that'll be interesting to see if that pops up again.
Offline
User avatar

Creeping Dementia

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:10 pm

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostFri May 22, 2015 12:59 am

I think it would be cool if all the races didn't follow the traditional size/armament designations. Maybe Shaltari don't have Battleships, maybe the idea of a flagship was never historically in their culture and they fight naval engagements in a completely different way. Or what if the Scourge don't have any mid sized vessels, just big stuff and smaller carriers/picket ships, again due to their very different histories. Etc etc.

Point being, while I'm pretty sure UCM and PHR will have somewhat familiar size designations, perhaps the other races will completely surprise us.

Cataphract

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostFri May 22, 2015 1:35 am

Just listened to the Andy Chambers interview on pg 2 of this thread and was really excited to hear about the Harpoon aspect of the game. I still have Harpoon and love playing it. It's all about using your assets to find and define the other fleets assets before launching your attack. If you launch too soon your dead as the enemy main fleet will counter attack and sink you. Janes fleet commander is another example that is pretty good for this. This game is shaping up to be a really different fleet game overall.
Offline

snuggles05

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostThu Oct 19, 2017 11:02 am

wowskyguy wrote:Yeah, old designations mean very little on modern systems. Those names could be abandoned and more function oriented names used. Offensive capabilities: Anti-Air, Anti-Ship, Anti-Sub. Defensive capabilities: Electronic warfare, Point-defense, Missile interception. Other characteristics: fixed wing aircraft carrier, rotary wing carrier, nuclear-weapon capable (non-tactical offensive).

After all, "torpedo boat destroyer" is a very function oriented name.

The same dilemma is present with modern day combat aircraft. A-10 is not a bomber, it's close support. F-16 is a multi-role, not (exclusively) a fighter.

I'm yet about to see a game with space combat craft designations that are different than old water navy and air force ones.

Cheers,



(Fixed Wing)Actually with U.S. combat aircraft, although the f-16 is being used as an attack (ground) craft, it was designed and designated with an "F" to reflect its singular design purpose. Although used for bombing and support missions, the aircraft is not modified to accomplish the mission beyond the payload the A-10 uses the "A" designation as the sole attack craft currently employed en mass by the U.S. Air Force. The F/A-18 Super Hornet that the Navy and Marine corps use was designed as a multi role platform and is designated F/A to reflect this. the C(CARGO)-130 when used in the Hercules variation becomes the AC(ATTACK CARGO)-130 because the modification comes at the front for fixed wing.
(Rotary)the AH(Attack Helicopter)-64 Apache uses the "A" designation, the OH(Observation Helicopter)-6 Cayuse uses the "O" designation and when equipped for ground support (the "Little Bird" in the movie Blackhawk Down) it becomes the OH-6A to designate its new modified role. the UH(Utility Helicopter)-60 Blackhawk uses the "U" designation. when it is changed for a different purpose it adds its modification at the end, Like the Cayuse.
Basically, the dilemma isn't really there in modern day U.S. designation, however it is somewhat confusing.
Offline

snuggles05

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:21 am

Re: Dropfleet Commander - Reasonable Inferences

PostThu Oct 19, 2017 11:18 am

My previous post about aircraft designations aside . . .

I would like to see a destroyer or two for each faction.these are my (hopefully not too biased) ideas.
I would like to see:
-The Shaltari get a gimmic free ship with ok armor, guns, movement, and not awful point cost.
-The PHR get a . . .well PHR destroyer(with either broadside, 1 launch asset, or the rare forward arc weapon).
-The UCM get the stealth (ish) destroyer mentioned in fluff.
-The the Scourge get some kind of boarding ship that has similar effects to their Scald shenanigans
-And the Vandal's be a new race (think Predator type Archtype that is attracted to the fighting and just wants chaos by helping and fighting all factions because they think it's exciting and funny). or literally any other race/faction (besides resistance because they are pretty much planet bound), 'cause I like variety.
Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest