Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Gee1337 on April 19, 2015, 04:49:26 am

Title: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Gee1337 on April 19, 2015, 04:49:26 am
This is about the designations. I was looking through a couple of other threads and an old news letter and I spotted a picture of someone who was doing a "Shivan Battleship". It occured to me whether Battleship status on the designations had ever been considered? Okay, I know there are Juggernaughts, Super Destroyers and Carriers... but it was just a thought.

I think it could open up a whole new class as well... such as "pocket battleship" using the Graf Spee principle of "nothing smaller has more firepower and nothing bigger is faster".

Just a thought!
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: wardog300k on April 19, 2015, 05:03:12 am
In Final Destination,i have one battleship,the GVBs Duat.
Duat is a special warship,fast as a corvette,armored as a juggernaut and armed as a superdestroyer.
The ship itself is ,,the most advanced warship ever constructed",and it is a one-of-a-kind.
Serving as a flagship of Vasudan first fleet,GVN and Vasudan species.

The original idea was to have a large Terran battleship that'll fill Terran's lack of a juggernaut.However after downloading OTT and finding Duat,i decided to dump the GTBs idea and replace it with a brand new Vasudan Flagship.

As for whole new class,it is actually a good idea.It could become like a larger destroyer,having pocket and super variations as well.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 19, 2015, 08:59:41 am
You mean a frigate? Because that's what a destroyer without a hanger is, according to most interpretations.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Black Wolf on April 19, 2015, 09:50:28 am
Frigate isn't really a hangarless  destroyer. It's used more as a catchall term in FS. The Iceni fits that description, and is called a frigate, but the Hippocrates is a long way from it, and is referred to a few times as a "Medical Frigate".

Even amongst non cannon ships, the best known non BP Frigate I can think of is the Arpiya, which is a corvette with a fighterbay.

If I had to pick a definition for a Frigate in the FSverse, I'd say its a combat capable ship, larger than a cruiser, but which has a significant secondary purpose, e.g the Iceni is a command Frigate, the Hippo is a Medical Frigate, the Arpiya is a Spec Ops frigate etc. Etc.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: wardog300k on April 19, 2015, 10:00:28 am
It doesn't have to be hangarless.Corvettes are also supposed to be hangarless,however Moloch does have one.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 19, 2015, 10:28:24 am
Corvettes and frigates have very similar niches, but I think frigates are conventionally a bit larger. There are only a few user made 'battleships', but they all seem to be bigger than a destroyer but smaller than a juggernaut.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Gee1337 on April 19, 2015, 01:19:49 pm
Corvettes and frigates have very similar niches, but I think frigates are conventionally a bit larger. There are only a few user made 'battleships', but they all seem to be bigger than a destroyer but smaller than a juggernaut.

I was thinking this about the Corvettes in relation "pocket battleship", but I find that the corvette class tends to be name a little bit too loosely... for example Corellian Corvettes in Star Wars are designed for speed, not power and the corvettes in Homeworld geared more towards destroying fighters. Corvettes are a bit like Frigates to me, where the term is used a little bit too loose for my liking.

I know the Graf Spee was technically a heavy cruiser... and that description does seem to fit the Deimos class corvettes. I completely agree with what you say about Battleships, as they are meant to big hulky things like the dreadnaughts of WW1... designed to take the hits and give out more!

In all the great story telling and research that went into making FS2... I'm just wondering if maybe they were a bit slack when it came to naval designations.

I suppose a new idea for a mod could be a remake of FS2 (and maybe even FS1), but incorporate a few more classes into the games. It shouldn't have to change the storybut it could bring another element to game play.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: The E on April 19, 2015, 02:24:41 pm
In all the great story telling and research that went into making FS2... I'm just wondering if maybe they were a bit slack when it came to naval designations.

If by "a bit slack" you mean "ignoring real-life precedent altogether", yes, they were. What FS2 calls a cruiser, RL navies would call a destroyer or frigate, FS2's corvettes are more akin to RL cruisers, and FS2's destroyers have no equivalent (Except maybe for weird ships like Russia's Kuznetsov class, which carries both a fighter complement and a bunch of antiship missiles).

Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: wardog300k on April 19, 2015, 02:40:58 pm
And why is Kuznetsov weird?I really like the ship,and its better than Nimitz in both armament and look.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: headdie on April 19, 2015, 02:48:11 pm
And why is Kuznetsov weird?I really like the ship,and its better than Nimitz in both armament and look.

Nimitz is more dedicated as a carrier.
Kuznetsov is more of a mixed role ship and in that deviates from the classic categorization as a carrier
Destroyers in FS are more akin to Battle Carriers in sci-fi generalisations in that it is both a heavy direct combat vessel and a carrier for small combat ships so the Kuznetsov with its broader mission profilie more fitting description as its role is split evenly between an air launch platform and its used of anti-ship and anti-air missiles
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: The E on April 19, 2015, 02:59:43 pm
And why is Kuznetsov weird?I really like the ship,and its better than Nimitz in both armament and look.

The Kuznetsov's look good, yes. Whether their particular weapons mix (which was dictated by the treaties which forbid aircraft carriers from crossing the Bosporus strait; Russia calls these ships "aviation cruisers" in order to get around that, and carrying something like a direct fire battery allows them to do so with a straight face) is more or less effective than a dedicated carrier supported by a dedicated guided missile destroyer is something I hope we're never going to find out.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 19, 2015, 03:29:09 pm
And why is Kuznetsov weird?I really like the ship,and its better than Nimitz in both armament and look.

The primary armament of an aircraft carrier is aircraft. Anything that's not about aircraft is probably dead weight; most of Kuznetsov's deployments have been with her big missile tubes empty, in reality. (Also Kuznetsov is in pretty bad shape these days by most reports; during her Med deployment last year there was a real concern she'd suffer a serious engineering casualty, possibly even something that could sink the ship.)
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Nohiki on April 19, 2015, 04:09:19 pm
In my head canon, a battleship in FreeSpace would basically be a destroyer without a fighter bay, but with either more guns, or one big gun to replace the missing strike craft. Some user made ships also refer to that design as dreadnought for some reason, although IRL that's just a name for the 'all big guns' concept - I suppose Homeworld might have influenced that? In any way, it'd be a ship you would only have few in numbers and deploy when expecting to combat a larger amount of cap ships and above, probably best suited for offensive role rather than defense, where the strike craft is quite irreplaceable. 
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Gee1337 on April 19, 2015, 05:28:57 pm
My idea of a battleship in FS2 would be something like the Orion, but bigger and with the beam weapons on the swivel like you get on a traditional battleship.

There would be no hanger as it would be dedicated to obliterating... say the equivalent of 2 or 3 destroyers and withstanding some heavy punishment.

It would not be juggernaut size!

@ The E... yes that is basically what I meant, but I was trying to be amiable about it! ;)
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Trivial Psychic on April 19, 2015, 05:50:20 pm
Sounds like a hanger-less super-destroyer.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: karajorma on April 19, 2015, 08:17:46 pm
Ah, this thread brings back memories of the battleship threads of old.

/me shudders and walks away.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: qwadtep on April 19, 2015, 09:06:44 pm
On another note, the GTB/GVB/SB designation is already taken by bombers. You'd need -Bb or Bc for battleships or battlecruisers, respectively.


(Super vanilla nitpicking: CV is historically a carrier designation, but  :v: gave it to corvettes which are basically heavy cruisers, forcing modders to designate their carriers CA, which is historically a heavy cruiser designation.  :mad:)
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Mongoose on April 19, 2015, 09:23:59 pm
Honestly I like the FS definition of a "destroyer" much more than the real-world equivalent.  Something with that name sounds like it should be a massive hunk of steel that kicks ass and takes names, not a comparatively-smaller vessel.  FS2's use of "corvette" never seemed to fit all that well semantically though.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Droid803 on April 19, 2015, 09:27:50 pm
FS definition of "destroyer" is kind of like the Star Wars one (ya know, Imperial Star Destroyers) - about the same size and mission profile.

(Super vanilla nitpicking: CV is historically a carrier designation, but  :v: gave it to corvettes which are basically heavy cruisers, forcing modders to designate their carriers CA, which is historically a heavy cruiser designation.  :mad:)

Cv != CV
Ca != CA
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on April 19, 2015, 10:50:41 pm
On another note, the GTB/GVB/SB designation is already taken by bombers. You'd need -Bb or Bc for battleships or battlecruisers, respectively.
The title is referring to a "Bs" designation, not the plural of the "B" designation.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 19, 2015, 11:33:39 pm
The title is referring to a "Bs" designation, not the plural of the "B" designation.

I believe qwadtep's point is that any designation which can be mistaken for the plural of another is probably a bad idea, both in and out of universe.

He's not wrong on that front.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Droid803 on April 20, 2015, 12:49:20 am
Which is another reason why some people have used Dreadnought (Dn) over to "battleship".
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Nohiki on April 20, 2015, 12:55:00 am
Honestly I like the FS definition of a "destroyer" much more than the real-world equivalent.  Something with that name sounds like it should be a massive hunk of steel that kicks ass and takes names, not a comparatively-smaller vessel.  FS2's use of "corvette" never seemed to fit all that well semantically though.

I believe the origin of the name of the class comes form "torpedo boat destroyer" - the rest jsut got truncated afterwards, hence why the tiniest little ships have the most kickass name nowadays. not that the modern equivalents fit any class description whatsoever with all the missile destroyers and stuff. If anything it's been reduced to a weight category.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Black Wolf on April 20, 2015, 01:48:45 am
I remember reading something years ago that has always stuck with me regarding the FS class names. FS cruisers are roughly the size of modern naval cruisers - a bit bigger, but the same order of magnitude. It's not outrageous to assume that the initital naming conventions for space warships followed the modern convention - small frigates and destroyers supporting large, powerful cruisers.

Then, human technology advances and our space vessels become more sophisticated. Fighters start to become more powerful, and carriers need to scale up to fit more fighters. These carriers also need to defend themselves, but they're still dominantly carriers despite maybe also mounting heavy weapons.

Then, someone decides to go all "Britain in 1906" and build a massive ship capable of carrying enough fighters and weapons to easily eliminate cruisers. A "Cruiser Destroyer", if you will. We know from the Colossus getting the green light that "Do the same thing, but much much bigger" is considered a solid strategic construction decision in the Freespace universe, so it's not an unlikely course of action, and would be a fairly logical progression to the apparently illogical end state we have now.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on April 20, 2015, 02:30:21 am
FS cruisers are roughly the size of modern naval cruisers - a bit bigger, but the same order of magnitude.
This prompted me to do a small trip to wikipedia & the HLP wiki, so here are some numbers:
The US Ticonderoga-class cruiser has a length of 173 m.
Compare to the GTC Aeolus-class which has a length of 272 m.
The Cold War USSR Kirov-class battlecruiser has a length of 252 m.

Just for kicks, the Nimitz if about 330 m.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: ScottFreeCapital on April 20, 2015, 09:21:55 am
Then, someone decides to go all "Britain in 1906" and build a massive ship capable of carrying enough fighters and weapons to easily eliminate cruisers. A "Cruiser Destroyer", if you will. We know from the Colossus getting the green light that "Do the same thing, but much much bigger" is considered a solid strategic construction decision in the Freespace universe, so it's not an unlikely course of action, and would be a fairly logical progression to the apparently illogical end state we have now.

I think that, like with many things, this is one of those things that is just inherently linked to the FS universe.

Also, is it possible there was a point where Volition did not intend to put people onto the Galatea in FS1? I think that the FreeSpace demo sent to press had them believing they were part of a cruiser's crew, like the Orff, though that could have just been covering up revealing the 2.1km long destroyer later for the game's release. On top of that, I could be wrong all together, as the FS1 demo is ancient and old these days and my memory fades.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Lepanto on April 20, 2015, 09:53:30 am
I like FS's weird capital ship naming conventions, because they help give the FS universe its own unique identity, vis-a-vis other sci-fi universes using more real-world naval designations.
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Mars on April 20, 2015, 10:09:04 am
The demo readme made it clear that the Orff wasn't that big for the FSverse .
Title: Re: GTBs, GVBs, SBs.. etc...
Post by: Goober5000 on April 22, 2015, 12:53:45 am
Ah, this thread brings back memories of the battleship threads of old.

/me shudders and walks away.

/me waxes nostalgic
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Gee1337 on April 22, 2015, 02:44:05 am
I've changed the the name of the thread to capitalise the "S" in each designation to try and stop confusion. I can understand the confusion caused with bombers and it was something I had thought about, but I also thought I had made it reasonably clear in the first post.

Anyway, for Freespace purposes I think the dreadnought designation is probably better than battleship, as they are basicaly the same thing. Suppose you could even call it a battlecruiser.

As for having the beam weapons on the swivel... has this been done any community made ships? Just to clarify, this wouldn't mean beam slash weapons, but typical straight firing beam weapons like those on a battleship with a typical firing arc of anywhere between 180 to 270 degrees.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 22, 2015, 02:48:16 am
Yes, it has.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Gee1337 on April 22, 2015, 03:36:35 am
ooo.. please show me! :)
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Phantom Hoover on April 22, 2015, 05:24:21 am
Sorry, the only example I can think of right now is the pulse beams on Aesaar's unreleased Erebus model.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Droid803 on April 23, 2015, 02:18:47 am
Beams on multiparts have always worked, hardly a new concept.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Dragon on April 23, 2015, 07:44:44 am
Sorry, the only example I can think of right now is the pulse beams on Aesaar's unreleased Erebus model.
How about the Orion's front turret? IIRC, that one has been a multipart beam since retail. Trashman's Orion has a dedicated turret modeled for the beam.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Kie99 on April 23, 2015, 05:23:15 pm
I've never seen it done well.  The stock Orion one looks like **** because :v: didn't bother to make any modifications to the Orion to reflect that it would now be firing awesome beams of destruction rather than being a glorified pea shooter.  As much as I liked having the old ships remain for the second game they could all have done with having some minor work done to them.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: The Dagger on April 23, 2015, 06:12:58 pm
I'm pretty sure the fsport-mediavps Hades has beams on turrets too. And as the rest of the model, they look good.
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Vrets on May 11, 2015, 09:47:47 am
It is not only the front beam turret of the Orion that is silly, but rather all beam turrets that are nonsensical.

You are fools, FOOLS to be busily fighting the last war! Your beams are nothing, nothing at all against fleets of carrier-launched bombers with attack ranges that span light-years!

Except for this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89521.0) bug.  :nervous:
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Galemp on May 11, 2015, 12:02:01 pm
Frigate isn't really a hangarless  destroyer. It's used more as a catchall term in FS. The Iceni fits that description, and is called a frigate, but the Hippocrates is a long way from it, and is referred to a few times as a "Medical Frigate".

IMO this is a Star Wars reference. Return of the Jedi has the Nebulon-B called the "Medical Frigate" based on its appearance at the end of Empire, and the Hippo even looks like it.

In FreeSpace terms, "Frigate" as "Ship with the armor and firepower of a destroyer but no hangar" is much more apt for the NTF Iceni... perhaps more accurately designated the NTFg Iceni.

waxes nostalgic with the grognards
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: procdrone on May 11, 2015, 02:27:08 pm
Come on, how can you question fs2 designations when they put up wrong names on all of them. Fenris should be around destroyer designation per earth ships designations
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 11, 2015, 08:35:51 pm
It is not only the front beam turret of the Orion that is silly, but rather all beam turrets that are nonsensical.

You are fools, FOOLS to be busily fighting the last war! Your beams are nothing, nothing at all against fleets of carrier-launched bombers with attack ranges that span light-years!

Except for this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89521.0) bug.  :nervous:

bro do you even threat exigency
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Wobble73 on May 12, 2015, 06:40:12 am
Every time I see this thread title i think "That's a lot of BS!"


LOL  :lol:
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: wardog300k on May 12, 2015, 10:52:11 am
Shouldn't designation for the BFRed be more like ETAD,Enemies...they're already dead?
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: Vrets on May 12, 2015, 02:58:13 pm
It is not only the front beam turret of the Orion that is silly, but rather all beam turrets that are nonsensical.

You are fools, FOOLS to be busily fighting the last war! Your beams are nothing, nothing at all against fleets of carrier-launched bombers with attack ranges that span light-years!

Except for this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89521.0) bug.  :nervous:

bro do you even threat exigency

Nonsense! Your super battleships shall not divert funds from my bomber fleet! I will convince the Admiralty!
Title: Re: GTBS, GVBS, SBS.. etc...
Post by: BirdofPrey on May 12, 2015, 08:04:42 pm
I always figured, when they classed FS ships, they just pulled names from a hat

Ships of that size should be called
*Pulls random name out of hat*
Escorts