[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 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.

[Pnakotus]

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Wasn't there GTFr and GVFrs in FS1? If yes, then how is four-system lettering new to FS2?

[Taristin]

PVFr

[Jal-18]

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.))

[Mefustae]

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...

[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.  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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Jal-18
the correct term for all these is ships... Always, always use ship.  (Submarines are the exception...)

Why is this?

[Pnakotus]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[TopAce]

Amazing. Thread got hijacked so fast.
I have no problem with that, don't misunderstand.

[Flipside]

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.

[Admiral Nelson]

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...

[Flipside]

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?

[WMCoolmon]

As I'm fond of pointing out, if the President were to board a Cessna, it would instantly become Air Force One.

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.

[Flipside]

Theres something about that thought of George W Bush floating around in a chair with baloons tied to it that I find somewhat funny

[StratComm]

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.

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.

[TrashMan]

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..

[Flipside]

I'll agree with you there, it's one of the reasons I'm kinda glad V chose Juggernaut instead