| Author |
Battle Ship Classes |
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
|  Posted: 2010-04-11 00:59
Instead of battleships or something like that, how about mobile support platforms?
These would be like a small support station, 2 reloaders, many heavy cannons, 1 core weapon, 4 fighters, and lots of regular and heavy beams. Speed would be about 10, and they use a HMA. Would probably be good for admirals, and people can use them for exchanging weapons and devices, and a readyreckoner alternate to invasion stations. A planet sort of thing, only smaller, mobile, weak on its own, dread armor, and slow. Guess 15 cargo slots would be fine, for resources and infantry.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-04-11 01:02
I like the idea of battlecruisers, I just don't know what role they'd fill. Is it really necessary to have combat ships in between cruisers and dreads? A ship that's slightly more maneuverable than a dread but less powerful, and slightly more powerful than a cruiser but less maneuverable doesn't seem worth the effort of developing.
I'd rather have new dreads with new layouts personally. The idea of a battlecruiser is interesting, I just don't think it's worth the effort.
And I always thought stations were the equivalent of aircraft carriers, even though we have dreads ingame called "carriers". They are the flagships of the fleet, the most important ships out there, and they range capability with their missiles and fighters. They certainly seem more like aircraft carriers than the dread carriers. Let's face it: DS fighters are not as threatening as WWII fighters and modern naval jets. Whereas an airstrike from a carrier would sink a battleship, a (spacestrike?) from a station or dread carrier is not gonna destroy a dread!
Stations don't really have a true modern equivalent, but I think they're closer overall to aircraft carriers than dread carriers.
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2010-04-11 01:07 ]
_________________
|
Achilles Lord of the Myrmidon
Grand Admiral
The Myrmidon Legion
Joined: December 15, 2009
Posts: 327
| Posted: 2010-04-11 01:46
Ok first, i have worked along side real life Naval Officers, dreadnoughts haven't existed since WW2 , with that being said they were infact a almost battleship more geared towards cargo raiding. They were smaller yes but not by much. the real diffrenceis the fact that thier main weapon systems were smaller not their actual size, thier armour was lighter inorder for the ship to quickly raid cargo fleets and getout of the area before real combat vessles arrived. While in contrast the battles ship was nothing more than a floating weapons platform (to put it in DS terms) its sole purpose was to rain destruction on anything and everything within range.
With all that being said I would love to see our most verten of players(ie Marshals ) get to play with a new toy. It would also be nice to see DShave alittle newness with a new shiny ship. Ontop of that it would be good to fill in that gap between Station and dread. And you know what why not have a new ship to give some of these battles a sense of "epicness." I think Dsshould have a battles ship class vessle .
_________________
There Are no Pacts Between Lions and men.
Signature size too large, please resize (600x200x100kb)
|
*Obsidian Shadow*
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 03, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2010-04-11 04:35
instead of calling it a battle ship why not call it something like a titan or leviathan.... something good like that because i used to play Astroempires and the class above dreadnought was a titan and then leviathan.... either one of those would be pretty cool i think.
[ This Message was edited by: The_man (suppliez for all) on 2010-04-11 04:38 ]
_________________
|
Nax
Marshal
Joined: May 12, 2005
Posts: 768
| Posted: 2010-04-11 08:07
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-10 13:32, Tael wrote:
layout or order of classes from weakest to strongest
scout/covette
Frigate
destroyer
cruiser
Battlecruiser aka Pocket battleships/dreads (depending on timeline)
Dreadnoughts
Battleships (aka a Dread mk 2)
Carriers
and for the hell of it for ds
Stations
|
|
/me scratches his head.
We already have
Scout/Corvettes
Transports/Extractors
Frigates
Destroyers/Engineers
Supplys
Cruiser
Carrier Cruisers (think WW@ Jeep Carriers)
Dreads
Carrier Dreads (think modern carriers)
Super Dreads
Stations - support
Stations - combat
Stations - Command
In game terms the ICC went with Jeep carrier concept.
[/quote]
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-10 13:55, James296 wrote:
actual there called Escort Carriers (Great grandfather servied on one plus I'm a WW2 history nut so I get a little nutty about the terms but they were called jeep carriers by their crews so I'll give you that one)
|
|
That's not completely true. The difference between the terms "escort" and "jeep" is absolutely nothing. They're just two terms for the exact same thing depending on who you talked to. In the past, I've usually heard the "escort" name, not "jeep". They were also nearly always built off Freighter Hulls, not cruisers.
I also agree that we have a wide variety of ship hulls and really don't need another arbitrary class.
One thing I've always thought about is how being a cruiser or a destroyer is really just a "range" of hull size. It's never really been true that (ship class X) is always 30,000 tons displacement. Today, ships are often classified by capabilities and roles rather than merely size. In fact, often you'll find that the earliest hull designs of a given class were often "out tonnaged" by classes designed and built later especially if they had the advantage of looking at the capabilities of a rival nation's warships. It was a game of "one-upping" for capabilities.
It might be interesting to have a range of hull sizes within a given designation. Cruisers were often termed Light or Heavy both with the primary mission of being a squadron command unit with extended all-around capabilities sometimes a bit like a 'mothership' to the the rest.
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2010-04-11 10:35
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-11 08:07, Nax wrote:
/me scratches his head.
We already have
Scout/Corvettes
Transports/Extractors
Frigates
Destroyers/Engineers
Supplys
Cruiser
Carrier Cruisers (think WW@ Jeep Carriers)
Dreads
Carrier Dreads (think modern carriers)
Super Dreads
Stations - support
Stations - combat
Stations - Command
In game terms the ICC went with Jeep carrier concept.
|
|
its
Scout/Corvettes
Transports/Extractors
Frigates
Destroyers/Engineers
Supplys
Carrier Cruisers (think WW@ Jeep Carriers)
Cruiser
Carrier Dreads (think modern carriers)
Dreads
Super Dreads
Stations - support
Stations - combat
Stations - Command
that Carriers are available even befor the man ships class, thake the dreads for example, you get the aggi and the carrier dread at VA
Also for those who fight if Battleship is above dreads or below, vurrent history says Dreadnoughts are Below, what ever you guys might want to think. Games however then to change that position, Eve makes the dreadnought a more massive ship than Battleship.
But sadly, History goes before games
I sitll hold my Previouse Opinion on Battleships, As for carriers, they are not, i say again NOT worth it in DS while it should. Carriers carry fighters, our current fighters ,well, meh. WHy is that? WHy is the carrier not the most important "FLagship" of a fleet?
boost the fighters firepower, or make torpedo bobmers, make them very painful, if a faction a sthe bright idea to then spam the agy, id like to see them in CQC lmao there gonna go boom. BUt at least they gopnna properlly fill there role as Fleet support
WW2 pacific theather was some sort of Carrier war. one could not win without Aircraft
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-04-11 11:45
I do like the idea of a torpedo fighter. Of course it wouldn't be like the WWII equivalent, but our cannon fighters are getting so old. Where's the variety?
I also think interceptors need a major update. I don't know what exactly, but I do know they're completely useless. They have short range beams that do pitiful damage, and are so hard to use in a true intercepting role that you never see them.
I've tried using Tarsus Hoards, and sometimes they break off and come around for another pass before they even fire their disruptors, as if they're firing longer range cannons.
I think a choice between cannon fighters, torpedo fighters, bomber fighters, a long-range beam fighter to replace current interceptors, maybe even sabot fighters (and whatever a kluth equivalent would be) would be a welcome addition to the game. My feelings on each:
Cannon fighters: Just like they are now. No change
Torpedo fighters: Shorter range than cannon fighters, slower flying, fires 1 medium range torpedo at target which is slow and inaccurate vs smaller ships
Bomber fighter: Just like they are now. No change except maybe a range increase on their bombs
Interceptor fighters: same range as current, fastest flying, longer range beams than current interceptor beams (so that they aren't useless), good choice vs small & fast targets like scouts or frigates that would dodge other fighters
Ideally fighter AI would need to be reworked so that interceptors can be launced as a preemptive defense vs enemy missiles, bombs and fighters. They'd fly around their target and automatically move to intercept incoming projectiles, which means you could target a point in space, a friendly ship, or friendly planet and they'd "guard" it until shot down or out of fuel. But lag issues need to be solved before this is ever possible.
One more change: Fighters need more hit points. They are instantly destroyed with just 1 beam, no matter that beam's strength. They need a bit more durability.
_________________
|
Aeraesoria
Admiral
Synchronicity
Joined: October 25, 2007
Posts: 49
From: Aeraesoria
| Posted: 2010-04-11 16:58
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-11 04:35, obsidian shadow wrote:
instead of calling it a battle ship why not call it something like a titan or leviathan.... something good like that because i used to play Astroempires and the class above dreadnought was a titan and then leviathan.... either one of those would be pretty cool i think.
[ This Message was edited by: The_man (suppliez for all) on 2010-04-11 04:38 ]
|
|
Overkill... Titans yes are large, but also nearly the size of a station, Leviathans dwarf all other ships and probably would have the firepower of two or three stations, as well as the defensive armaments... so it's simply overkill to add either ship... also this isn't EVE... as worse enemy to a Titan in is a Dreadnought anyways, they can snipe the buggers from at least 200 to 300 kms away and crack their shells/tank. I've seen it happen
[ This Message was edited by: Aeraesoria on 2010-04-11 17:01 ]
_________________
|
=Zeus=
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: February 19, 2010
Posts: 6
From: Jonesboro, Me.
| Posted: 2010-04-11 21:15
Rank of Marshal I just made GA and now it will take me 2 weeks to get the rank of Marshal to use a new BS sweet let the fun begin.But BS should come befor a station. The Station should be the last ship to Pilot in the game . and I have no problem giving that up if thats what it takes to balance the game better!!!!!
_________________
Nothing taste better than UGTO
|
=Zeus=
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: February 19, 2010
Posts: 6
From: Jonesboro, Me.
| Posted: 2010-04-11 21:25
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-11 21:15, ~Zeus~ wrote:
Rank of Marshal I just made GA and now it will take me 2 weeks to get the rank of Marshal to use a new BS sweet let the fun begin.But BS should come befor a station. The Station should be the last ship to Pilot in the game . and I have no problem giving that up if thats what it takes to balance the game better!!!!!
|
|
"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."
_________________
Nothing taste better than UGTO
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
