Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: TopAce on April 14, 2005, 12:45:18 pm
-
I don't know how many posts there will be in this thread, but I think this article is worth to mention:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military
Go down to navy ranks and start reading from Ensign. Familiar?
-
Shockeroony!
-
Pity they screwed up the ship descriptors ;)
-
Cruiser/Corvette/Destroyer you mean?
-
Yep, the correct Naval Terms should really have been
Destoyer - currently cruisers. Mainly anti-fighter or equal sized vessels.
Light Cruiser - Currently Corvettes. Anti-shipping based, but still strong anti-fighter defences.
Carrier - Currently Destroyer. Carries fighters (though the FS2 destroyers are armed like Heavy Cruisers so they are sort of a mixture of the 2, a real carrier relies on fleet protection)
I'd even venture far enough to say that it should be Escort, Destroyer, Cruiser, where it not for the ship carrying abilities of the FS2 Destroyers.
-
I've always found it odd that the little pansy ships (boats) are called DESTROYERS.
-
LOL I wondered that too, I think it was because when Destroyers were first created, they were the biggest ships around, larger than Galleons etc, and the name sort of stuck ;)
Actually, those little ships did far more total damage during both wars than any of the bigger ones. Destroyers mainly formed into Submarine hunting packs, though a pack of Destroyers could harry a Battleship for hours. In many cases, Destroyers and Escorts were the same ships, depending on what role they were performing.
-
In regards to the Freespace naming convention, I still stand by the re-shuffling of the naming conventions as a logical progression, not a screwed-up mistake. We already know it was intentional. Anyway, if you actually look at the dimensions, a FS cruiser is actually larger than its real-world counterpart. The Fenris comes in at about 250 meters; a Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier is only 335 meters long. A typical cruiser hull is less than 200 meters. So the logic would be that early in the days of the Terran space navy, the Cruiser designation fell on the then largest ships of the fleet, those measuring about the same dimensions as wet naval cruisers. When the Orion (or whatever the first FS destroyer class was, depending on whose history you use) gets built, and is so much bigger than anything else that it gets a different name. A Naval destroyer-sized ship may never have existed in the space-faring navy of Sol, and so the name was applied to the much larger Orions. Corvette was applied similarly because there was nothing to fill the gap.
-
But then, why choose Corvette, which is currenty a small 'Gunboat' sized vessel to represent the Deimos?
You are probably right about the naming, it's more or less what happened with Destroyers, but you would have thought 'Heavy Cruiser' or 'BattleCruiser' would have been a more accurate description?
Edit : Though you are, admittedly, talking to someone who thinks that Destroyers are too damn big, from both a real life and a gameplay point of view ;)
-
haha yay another ship arguing thread:p
-
Offhand, there's a post from either Adam Pletcher or Dave Baranec in the bowels of the FS mailing list, which says they basically chose real life naval terms and assigned the coolest ones to the coolest ships.
i.e. Destroyer sounds bigger than Cruiser - FS destroyer is bigger than cruiser.
It's that simply.... I mean, unless you know naval terminology and think it should be applied to space, why care? Hell, I never noticed before I came here.........
-
Hehe Who said it bothered me? I just like being pedantic about it :p
Edit : prawemit gnikcuf
-
I just look at it like this:
corvette- light, fast vessels used for protecting shipping
Destroyer- Nothing but a gun with engines (so as you can guess very lightly armored)
Cruisers- used mainly as flagships and also protecting important targets and used as a base of operations for small scouting forces.
-
Originally posted by redsniper
I've always found it odd that the little pansy ships (boats) are called DESTROYERS.
There's a story to this.
The destroyer class was first concieved of shortly after the torpedo became a reliable weapon. Everybody and their cousin suddenly had swarms of small, fast craft meant to torpedo enemy ships. These were called "battleship destroyers".
Though battleships and cruisers soon grew secondary batteries to combat this meance, another class of ships was also constructed, concieved of as a fast, highly manuverable, relatively small, and relatively cheap escort craft for the cruisers and battleships. Mounting battleship and cruiser secondary armament for their main battery, they were meant to hunt and kill the new "battleship destroyers", and were referred to as "torpedo-boat destroyers".
Eventually, someone came up with the bright idea of combining the two functions into one ship, which they named using the only common part of its two ancestor's names: "destroyer".
I think the FS destroyer acquired its name in much the same way. Cruisers came first, because they were roughly analogous in size and function. Then someone built a ship meant to blow your cruiser group to Kingdom Come, and called it a "cruiser destroyer". Eventually, it was shortened to just "destroyer".
-
Current naming-schemes are in my view irrelevant to the game of Freespace. The game is set hundreds of years into the future, why would they still use the same ranking system? The GTVA don't need a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships to come up with class names for their navy.
-
But do they tell you that"...we think you cheated." when you reach Admiralcy?
-
No. They just send you out on some inspection or ceremony or something.
-
If one dislikes the non-traditional naming conventions used in FS, then just make your own space fleet and political units. Arguing won't change FS canon, but modding can give you some measure of satisfaction for your own desires. The point is, there is no changing the existing FS storyline, but nothing preventing something from scratch being made to satisfy personal tastes.
-
I prefer FS's designations, personally. Destroyer sounds bigger than cruiser. And corvette... well, a corvette is a car, to me, but it works as a gunboat, too.
-
They call Orions destroyers because GTB looks like a bomber and GTC was a cruiser. Their lettered designations just weren't up to the task. They realised this themselves, as FS2 has many 4 letter designations, as the 3 letter system was too restrictive. It all makes sense, regardless of how stupid it is.
EDIT - 'Battleship destroyers'? Are you on crack?
'Destroyers' are an evolution of pre-WWI 'torpedo boat destroyers' used for escort, armed with smaller, quick firing weapons to kill - you guessed it - 'torpedo boats', which were small, fast torpedo armed ships. Battleships of the time could not engage them, as they were armed exclusively with large, slow firing weapons. Basically, the battleships were threatened by the cheap and nasty Torpedo Boat Swarm (TM), so they were protected by screens of Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
Later DDs gained more roles (ASW, AA area defence, etc) and they were simply termed 'destroyers'. The term comes down to us from a far simpler age.
-
Actually the ship designations changing is intentional, confirmed by the devs. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't to preserve the lettering conventions, it was a deliberate decision made early in the development of FS1 to change them. As for the rankings, I could be wrong but I don't think we have Commodores in the Navy anymore.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the ship designations changing is intentional, confirmed by the devs. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't to preserve the lettering conventions, it was a decision made early in the development of FS1 to change them. As for the rankings, I could be wrong but I don't think we have Commodores in the Navy anymore.
I stand corrected! :) I noticed the lettering thing in a discussion elsewhere, and it elegantly fit with the addition of more in FS2. However, it is a shame, because the ships in FS2 were left with the lame naval designations like 'corvette' for what are actually quite powerful vessels.
-
Wasn't there GTFr and GVFrs in FS1? If yes, then how is four-system lettering new to FS2?
-
PVFr
-
You people didn't know the ranking system was real? With the exception of Commodore (rank given to a fleet commander in the USN, no longer in use. I think the Brits do though? Don't remember) FS follows the USN ranking system exactly.
And personally, I'm glad to see FS doesn't use "Battleships." Most annoying overused naval term ever.
Oh, redsniper: the correct term for all these is ships. Boats are the piddly little things you take on a lake. Always, always use ship. (Submarines are the exception, but they're a strange bunch anyways, and there aren't subs in space. (Although technically that's what all the ships should look like...bleh.))
-
The only way you can judge the Class Designation System of the FreeSpace Canon is to know their past, and thus the evolution of Class Designations from the present to the time FreeSpace takes place. As there is no concrete history given stretching anywhere near as far back as our time, we cannot truly judge whether or not they were wrong, in fact, it was probably a good idea to change them around somewhat to give the illusion of Naval Evolution in the transition to space. An example of this is the fact that we no long see "Galleons" or other old school designations around today, as the Navies of the world have evolved beyond them...
-
Don't be ridiculous. We continue to use largely irrelevant designations today: modern frigates certainly don't serve the same role as 17th century frigates. Carriers and cruisers are probably the only ships whose modern form and role bears any resembleance to the original.
For that matter, the guns in FS aren't cannon: that word has a specific meaning. Should they change that too to give the 'illusion of advancement'?
They're just words: they don't follow naval convention, but who cares. They could call them housebricks and daffodils, and it wouldn't change anything.
-
Originally posted by Pnakotus
Don't be ridiculous. We continue to use largely irrelevant designations today: modern frigates certainly don't serve the same role as 17th century frigates.
Let's plug some different words in there:
"freespace corvettes certainly don't serve the same role as 20th century corvettes"
So what's the problem? You've already established a precedence. So it's certainly plausible. As someone said the only reason people think "oh, Corvette, what a crappy name" is because they're familiar with corvettes from history. If they didn't, would it be a big deal? No.
-
Originally posted by Jal-18
the correct term for all these is ships... Always, always use ship. (Submarines are the exception...)
Why is this?
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Let's plug some different words in there:
"freespace corvettes certainly don't serve the same role as 20th century corvettes"
So what's the problem? You've already established a precedence. So it's certainly plausible. As someone said the only reason people think "oh, Corvette, what a crappy name" is because they're familiar with corvettes from history. If they didn't, would it be a big deal? No.
Oh I agree. The problem is that most naval designations are size based, so when they added new classes in FS2 they got stuck with small ones, and as developers we're all stuck within that framework. Unfortunate coincidence, but that's how it is. The system makes progessively less sense the further you go from the TV war.
-
Originally posted by Pnakotus
EDIT - 'Battleship destroyers'? Are you on crack?
'Destroyers' are an evolution of pre-WWI 'torpedo boat destroyers' used for escort, armed with smaller, quick firing weapons to kill - you guessed it - 'torpedo boats', which were small, fast torpedo armed ships. Battleships of the time could not engage them, as they were armed exclusively with large, slow firing weapons. Basically, the battleships were threatened by the cheap and nasty Torpedo Boat Swarm (TM), so they were protected by screens of Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
Later DDs gained more roles (ASW, AA area defence, etc) and they were simply termed 'destroyers'. The term comes down to us from a far simpler age.
No, but clearly you are.
As a serious student of naval history, sir, I am offended. Name your sources.
And while you're at it, your factual errors are rather grevious.
Go look at a picture of a pre-Dreadnaught ship of the line. He's got lots of secondary battery weaponry suited to engaging small targets. Post-Dreadnaught ships do too.
You fail to explain why destroyers would have evolved heavy torpedo armament.
They were referred to as simply "destroyers" well before WWI. The first torpedo boats were actually constructed not long after the US Civil War, around 1867, when the Ley torpedo, the first semi-reliable self-propelled torpedo, was perfected. These were the "battleship destroyers", battleship then meaning merely a ship that formed part of the battle line. The "torpedo-boat destroyer" did not arrive until the 1880s or so, and the first "generic" destroyer around 1890.
-
Amazing. Thread got hijacked so fast.
I have no problem with that, don't misunderstand.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Why is this?
Actually, the definition of a ship or a boat changes depending where you are. In America, it used to be done on displacement, hence submarines were originally considered Ships by the American Navy. In the UK, it used to be done by crew size, so Submarines were considered Boats
.
In other countries it depends if they are 'River' vessels or 'Sea' Vessels. In some cases it depends on whether the ship is military or civilian.
I don't think theres ever been a rock solid definition of the difference between the two.
Basically, I'd call something like a small Freighter a Boat, since it has a low crew count, limited offensive capability and was not designed to actively perform combat.
-
A 'Boat' is something small enough to be carried by another vessel. A 'ship' is too large to be so carried. Always the definition I used... :)
-
Yep, that's another one, also, apparently, a Ship has a 'Captain', whereas a Boat should have a 'Skipper', and, according to British Maritime Law, ANY boat that has an Admiral aboard automatically becomes a ship, wierd huh?
-
As I'm fond of pointing out, if the President were to board a Cessna, it would instantly become Air Force One. :p
I'm not sure if the same would apply for hanggliders. Or a lawn chair with balloons tied to it.
So, no, it doesn't seem too bizarre. ;)
-
Theres something about that thought of George W Bush floating around in a chair with baloons tied to it that I find somewhat funny ;)
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
As I'm fond of pointing out, if the President were to board a Cessna, it would instantly become Air Force One. :p
I'm not sure if the same would apply for hanggliders. Or a lawn chair with balloons tied to it.
So, no, it doesn't seem too bizarre. ;)
That's only if it's an Air Force aircraft. If it belongs to the Marines, it's Marine 1. The President, as a rule, doesn't travel in anything that's not a military vehicle.
-
Originally posted by Jal-18
And personally, I'm glad to see FS doesn't use "Battleships." Most annoying overused naval term ever.
Nope, the most annoying overused naval term in SF would be Dreadnought..
-
I'll agree with you there, it's one of the reasons I'm kinda glad V chose Juggernaut instead :)
-
er... the only reason I said boat was to clarify that I meant the water-faring ships and not space ships. I realize that any decently sized water vehicle is a ship.
-
Original name of FS destroyer : "Cruiser Destroyer"
-
No it wasn't, it's been called a Destroyer from the top afaik. Maybe the first time those names were used they may have started off longer and been shortened but I don't see it happening the second time round.
Besides 'Cruiser Destroyer' is now reserved for naming battlegroups that contain both Cruisers and Destroyers.