Ship categories and descriptions (very long but has pictures!)

@ThornEel is correct. Our plan is to have civilian and industrial ships with separate characteristics and thus different classes than military ships. These types of class designators are already used today to describe objects that have similar characteristics - particularly within the military. For example you have virginia class attack submarines or ohio class missile submarines. As far as Battlescape is concerned, and depending on how much money we raise, there will primarily be combat ships. The current classes from smallest and/or fastest to biggest and/or slowest are:

  • Recon
  • Fighter
  • Bomber
  • Corvette
  • Frigate (capital)

The classes describe, in very broad terms, what can generally be expected in relation to size, mass, defensive & offensive capabilities, speed, etc. Of course each faction will have its own sub-classes for each of those. To continue with the previous example the United States, a faction, has submarines, a class of ship. The “Virginia” and “Ohio” designators would be a sub-class that is specific to the United States. Industrial ships will work similarly in the same way there are different classes of freight ships sailing the oceans today.

EDIT: We’re also discussing including cruisers which are much larger and slower than frigates

Oh yes. I can just imagine how truly epic the cinematic trailer will be.

“Sir, we have a Really Small ship on System For Detecting Ships That Isn’t Called Radar!” (I assume that would be your name of choice).
“Not to worry, we’re in a Not so small ship!”
“Oh noes! An A little larger than Medium but not too much ship just appeared! It’s launching Really Small ships!”
“Quick! Use the communication method which definitively has nothing to do with radio to call for help from our Quite Large ship!”
“Crikey! They even have an Awfully Quite Sizable ship!”
“Spin up the drive which definitively isn’t named something with ‘jump’ or ‘warp’ as that would be too cliche! Jump to our Battlemoon!”

Why do you think that the US navy, an organization known for turning literally everything into an acronym, still uses the (as you pointed out highly imprecise) term “frigate”? If anyone is going to start shouting out “AlltMbntM (pronounced Alltambnotm) on radar!” it’d be them.

Because even if people don’t know exactly what the word means, they still know it’d be in trouble if it went up against a Battleship.

Because in some cases, there’s a reason why something has become cliche. In some cases, you care more about usability and accessibility and keeping people interested in something than you care about being different. Like, say, if you’re trying to sell a product for use rather than for art or proving you make more money than your neighbor.

Sort ships by tricount. Set mass and size accordingly. Slap a label on it that people will think they might know what means. Make game. Profit.

3 Likes

Now that is really silly. You don’t launch ‘Really Small Ships’ from Little Larger than Medium’ ship. that’s completely the wrong way to handle it. and you call yourself a spacer?

Actually, ignoring the arena combat ICP3 stuff. If it was a MMO, the class is determined by how it’s fit. So it becomes:

  • Ensign Wigglewang, “Sir! our (science fiction radar) has detected a small, unimpressive looking blip!”
    Captain Snotrag, “Ghads, confound it! get on the (science fiction tactical) and find out what it is.”

    Ensign Wigglewang, “Sir! the target is a Jigglington Type 3 Replenishment ship that looks a lot like a Herringbone class 2 Attack ship but is just a civilian ship.”
    Captain Snotrag, “Good thing we have you here ensign or I might have been stupid enough to think it was a ‘Small unimpressive Attack ship’ instead of a regular ‘Small unimpressive looking civilian ship’ and blown it to hell. You saved the day again.”
    Ensign Wigglewang, “Glad to hear that sir. I told my girlfriend that I was in the safety of a ‘Dahak’ class Battlemoon.”
    Captain Snotrag, “good thing you didn’t tell her it was a ‘Gigantor’ class Gas Harvester MoonSphere. One got blown up yesterday.”
    Ensign Wigglewang, “Yes Sir. those look exactly like the ‘Dahak’ except for the exposed exhaust ports.”

It ain’t a class until it is made that way. Use a generic hull and then add crap to it to determine what it does. In WW2 and even today, a generic cargo ship can become a carrier, freighter, landing ship or hospital ship all built on a single generic hull of some tonnage. Re-rig the ship and convert it down the line as one sees fit. Then you can slap a proper descriptive label on it, avoid the problem of slotting the game to a bunch of combat ships playing at freighters.

  • BuPers, “Oh geez. Those guys at the shipyard have laid down a cruiser class hull and didn’t tell us!”
    Shipyard, “Oh well, too bad for you that once we started to build a cruiser we can’t turn it into something you need that uses the same hull type, like a fleet oiler or a carrier.”
    BuPers, "Yeah I wish we could do that.

You should just make me feel better by using ‘Littoral Combat Ship’ instead of ‘Frigate’ or just do what the US Navy does and redefine the term ‘Destroyer’ as the standard go-to non-capital ship class. :stuck_out_tongue:

1000$ Backer bonus status for Kickstarter - All ship and equipment names are extremely explanatory. Your Not-So-Small Ship will feature two additional Mediocre Plasma Guns and a Slightly Larger Than Usual Radar.

Ye know… idk how Infinity might end up doing this, but I’m gonna have to call BS on what you just wrote in terms of how things are done today.

This is an example of a typical warship. Specifically, it’s a Udaloy-class destroyer (according to wikipedia’s image text):

This is an example of the idea cargo ship. Specifically, it’s the Mærsk McKinney Møller, the largest and most efficient container ship in the world:

Notice any differences? Perhaps one seems more pointy than the other? More like something slim and built for speed and handling? No? Well I guess cargo and combat ships all have identical hulls, then.

Certainly, given the choice between swimming across the Atlantic and manning a cargo ship with some guns strapped on, most people would probably pick the latter (if you’re going to die, might as well be dry until you do, right?) but in no way is there no difference between the hulls of different types of ships.

EDIT: Before anyone asks, the Mærsk is in water in the above picture; just unloaded. Something about cargo hulls being unarmored and thus able to float very well indeed if there isn’t any cargo pushing them down. To be fair, this bonus buoyancy could be used for adding some water-line armoring with a bit of work.

You know, the more you expound on a subject the farther away you go away from a subject. Odd that. What was posited by me as a “don’t turn a hull into a military label until militarized” has turned into a picture fight about how different ships look. I think you should get back to the point of the argument. I have already listed some ship types that were re-purposed. Either you fear the google or you need me to illustrate to you directly in some ways. Perhaps you want to turn this into a picture heavy thread?
NO I think I refuse that. The argument isn’t about a wet navy ship design it’s about classification of a hull BEFORE you have filled it. Here are a few examples.

Ships based off of one type from the WW2 vintage Liberty or Victory and Empire class freighters: Freighter, Tankers, Escort Carrier, Landing Ships, Ferry, Rescue, Repair, Nuclear power plants, lightships, Q-ships . Some were armed like a Merchant Marine ship or a Carrier and some were unarmed. Many were converted to transport ships by the likes of Aristotle Onassis.

Ships based on a Battleship Hull include a few Japanese Carriers
The first US Carrier (CV-1) was based on a Collier
Ships based off of the Battlecruiser intended hulls include two US aircraft carriers CV-2 and CV-3, several Japanese Carriers and several British Carriers.
These were usually reclassified mid build.
Several Cruiser hulls were reclassified into Carriers.
The fully modern Ticonderoga class cruiser’s design is based on the Spruance class destroyer.
A whole raft of Destroyers and Frigates were reclassified (after build) in the 1970s
Destroyers were reclassed as Frigates after refit, Frigates being reclassed as Cruisers again, after refit.
A number of different types of Attack submarines became milch cows, mine layers, radar picket and special operations ships. A number of Ballistic Missile submarines carry tomahawks cruise missiles only.
It’s even worse today because no new frigates are planned, nor does it seem any new cruisers may be planned. The little tiny Destroyer of ww1 era now grown up and being the go-to design of choice at least by the US Navy with all the capability of a Cruiser except for endurance and size.

Is that enough for you or did you want me to list off all the many cargo ship designs that are based on other cargo ship designs but increased or decreased in size? Or do you want to go into airplanes and how cargo ships, liners, and tankers can be all the same airframe? Or how a B-29 Bomber also was a airliner, a tanker. No?

I would be fine if ships would be labeled after the mass they have.

Preferably in F. A unit I created. 1 F is 1 kg.

So a ship of 10 MF would be a 10 MF ship …

Yeah sorry. I don’t have a solution to your classsification problem.
But I have a solution for the uggliest SI unit out there.

You have a solution for the candela?

I was talking about appearance. Nearly every SI unit is an abomination … because they are forced into boxes we can measure. But well.

If that’s your issue, all I can say is tough luck.

Ships in Infinity will be modular (to a point) and multi-purpose, yes. They will, however, have intended uses, whether that is combat or industry (whether civilian ships are still on the table, I don’t know); and there are still distinct sizes (or weights, if you absolutely must).

That is how they are classified: by size AND intended use. They are not useless outside of the activities that they are intended for, nor even overly hindered, merely average (or slightly below) while excelling in their intended activities. Classification does NOT equal role, nor does role equal classification.

A Frigate-type ship is a ship between 100 and 300 meters in length that is intended primarily for combat activities. Said Frigate-type ship can be used for anything from E-WAR to brawling to long-ranged fire-support, or even exploration or mining if fit correctly, but at the end of the day, it is simply a ship between 100 and 300 meters intended primarily for combat activities. A Destroyer-type ship is simply the same, but with a length between 300 and 750 meters, while a Corvette-type ship is the same, but with a length between 25 and 50 meters.

A Tug-type ship is a ship between 25 and 100 meters in length that is intended primarily for industrial activities. It can mine, it can prospect, it can haul cargo, but it can also fight if properly equipped. But at the end of the day, it is simply a ship between 25 and 100 meters in length that is intended primarily for industrial activities. A Light Tug-type ship is the same, but with a length between 0 and 25 meters, while a Super Hauler-type ship is the same, but with a length larger than 1500 meters.

The base characteristics of a ship do not change. A Hauler is not turned into a carrier simply because you stuff the hold with hangers, nor does a Frigate become a freighter simply because you strip the guns and fill it with cargo.

EDIT: Type, not class. Thanks ThornEel

We should be talking about ship type, not class, btw. ‘Frigate’ is a ship type, ‘La Fayette’ is a ship class and ‘Surcouf’ is an individual ship name, for example.
So there is no such thing as a Frigate-class ship, apart maybe from a class of galleass in the XVe century.

1 Like

Changed it, but the point still stands, right?

What I’d really like to see is a few examples of combat ships being turned into traders or traders being turned into first-line combat ships, without modifying the hull, that wasn’t caused by some ongoing war limiting the available resources.

If I came off as disagreeing with your postulation that the difference between frigates, destroyers, and cruisers has mainly been arbitrary numbers related to length and guns I assure you I have been misunderstood. Pretty sure that’s all a matter of greater/lesser than a very easily varied X.

For clarity I would like to state that my avoiding this mistake was entirely accidental and caused purely by a low word-to-image ratio in my last post.

If by “point” you mean the fact that the devs had pretty much decided to split ships into uses years ago, then yeah, until they announce a change of heart that point still stands. Whatever made you think simple developer decisions would influence the argument in any way, though?

To be fair, it makes perfect sense to talk these things through now, as it’s not impossible someone might make a valid point that differs from how it’s planned to be done, at which point the sooner the devs hear about it the easier it’d be for them to implement it. My reason for pointing out any major inconsistencies I find is that I believe developer-time is better spent developing the game than pondering the merits of an unopposed argument.

For example:

This is indeed true - or at least I’ve heard of at least 1 bomber that fulfilled all 3 roles with only relatively minor modifications to how it’s hull was built - with most of it being entirely invisible from the outside, which is what you’d care about if you were making a game. Don’t remember it’s name but B-29 sounds about right. DC-something for the passenger version, right?

As such I propose that any vehicles which functions entirely by aerodynamic principles be entirely multi-purpose within the limitations imposed by lift, thrust, and structural rigidity, as compared to mass.

The C-130 was also basis vor different uses.

Hello, in the future the category of vessels of the class “Amorph” is possible. The amorph-not means that the vessel will be able to take any form, as a transformer. Here that this vessel was let out from the production “Amorph” line means. That it means is that it consists of blocks means and is collected in the conditions of zero gravity by the principle of a kontstruktor. To change purpose of a vessel, as well as its size (in a certain framework), to repair, it will be possible in special docks. So for example, to make of the cargo ship, or the ship of complex supply, kolonizatsionny. And so forth. That is in special docks to change a design and purpose of the ship. It will demand difficult docks, but in the future, possibly such production lines and the ships will be. Excuse for machine translation, and that probably not absolutely clearly I express.

You mean a ship that is essentially composed of legos, and is actually a bunch of completely different ships depending on how you arranged it? A few such ships were submitted in the past, back when there was a contributions system, however, I’m not sure any were actually accepted; as for the current attitude of the devs towards such ships, I’m not sure (would appreciate a dev answer here).

That said, the trend is definitely towards distinct, singular hulls with a few interchangeable components (such as different sets of wings, or swapping out a cargo-hold for passenger cabins or equipment mounting points) rather than sets of generic building blocks.

the matter is that the covering and a design of the ship means a strong material, so or difficult in processing, or long process of production. therefore such lines will be, and under them will be focused, in realities, design of the ship. to provide such line with a wide range конструкицй the ships - very complex challenge of designers of the future. it is unconditional that there will be also those ships which are made only on one line, on one technological process, only for one ship. they will be better, stronger, easier, but is much more expensive. it only the forecast concerning possible future space exploration, no more than the theory.

Here, now only I thought. We take a cabin from the fighter. What in it is from the equipment? From the equipment system of navigation, firing, coordination between allies. It is good. What is at several tools of the cruiser, the raschitanykh on fire on fighters? All too most, only on the contrary. That is, it is enough to replace the software or a software mode, and the cabin from the fighter can be used as a fighting compartment of a gun crew. we put on a cabin from above system blind, like an eye century, and everything, the cabin already became an element of the designer. And with the system curtain covering transparent part by analogy of an eye eyelid, ejection can happen only down. The task is solved. Here it is possible to dream long and persistently. I will try to draw such cabin on the fighter and as fighting office on the cruiser tool. I apologize if strongly I distract.

You are not making a lot of sense; I think that whatever translation software you are using might not be very good. All it is producing is gibberish.

Yes, it is possible. Simply I that wanted to tell that in space will be as on land. We will allow there is a tank, and on the basis of its running do anti-tank self-propelled guns, self-propelled artillery pieces. Space-not water space, there isn’t present forces of an attraction, depth, storm. Here in this plan I also wanted, simply, from interest, to reconsider a difference of navy and space fleet. And respectively the first that occurred - Lego. Sorry, that I confuse you with the free-thinking, I don’t deny also that I talk totally nonsense. Excuse once again.