Hello there On my trips around the internet looking for TMP Era vessels for KA2, i've noticed well, how do I put it politely...A lot of crap. Basically, a hoard of bloody awful kitbashes that are given such rediculous hull types as "Advanced Tactical Dreadnaught" or are simply a mismash of different designs that have no real thought put into them. Now everyone is free to make and design whatever they like, but in the best spirit of a rant, heres my problems with these designs. The first, very minor point is that "Dreadnaught" is the incorrect spelling. The naval term, as carried on in Star Trek, comes from HMS Dreadnought, whose name came from a saying of the time "Fear God, and dread nought." The word "Dreadnaught" is a misspelling that has since become a synonym. Still "Dreadnought" is the correct word. The second problem is the lack of proper terms when classifying them. People throw around terms without understanding the origins or meanings (the above is case in point). There is no such thing as a "Light Battleship". It would either be a Fast Battleship* or a Heavy Battlecruiser. *Really, this is not applicable at all as in real life this was only used for the few years after WWI when newer battleships had faster, more efficient Oil-Fired propulsion rather than the older, Coal-Fired Steam Turbine (ships known as "Dreadnoughts" due to the era when they were built) or the Coal-Fired Triple Expansion Steam Engines (Pre-Dreadnoughts). Since Star Trek uses none of this systems. I suppose you could term a Sovereign as a "Dreadnought" if you had transwarp equiped battleships as "Fast Battleships" but theres another reason why that isn't so which I will come to later. Now, the next problem is down to your prefered interpretation of Star Trek ship types and the form that space combat in Star Trek takes. For example, some people (indeed those who stick strictly to canon) subscribe to the train of thought that says that the Federation and her erstwhile rivals only ever employed cruiser type starships and that the larger ships, such as the Sovereign and so forth are the result of an arms race type event caused by the arrival of the D'Dereidex Class "Warbird" and the Borg. However, the problem with his is that we are given a naturally narrow view of Starfleet and an even narrower view of other races navies if we only go by canon. If you only watch old war films about the pacific, you will think that the US Navy and the IJN only used Carriers, Destroyers and PT Boats, such is the narrow picture that an action film portrays. We know this is total pigswill, but as Star Trek is fiction people are less willing to let go their misconceptions. So with these problems in mind, I hereby set about writing a new "codex" of sorts, to do with Star Trek ship design. Completely non-canon and groundless but, based upon the real life era of naval warfare from 1900 to 1950 (which SFB/SFC uses very successfully i feel). Because naturally we need a frame of reference, I used this period as my basis, even though there is no reason why it couldn't be totally different. Its just how I see it being based on what we have seen in Star Trek and how we can rationalised that for the purposes of writing a purely historical document, rather than inventing things like Schimitars and so forth for plot convienience. So here goes. It is ludicrous to suggest that starfleet only uses cruisers or that no ships larger than a constitution class existed until the excelsior and so forth. Any military force must be well balanced and also economically viable. Therefore ,in the tradition of naval warfare, I have decided to use the following basic hull types to form a well rounded, balanced, economical (and therefore realistic) fleet composition for Starfleet. (Other powers may differ and this is mentioned later) Escort - EC Frigate - FF Destroyer - DD Light Cruiser - CL Cruiser - CA Battlecruiser - BC Battleship - BB It is important to note that Starfleet ships are not explicitly designed for combat in most cases and so unlike contemporary warships they are not specifically destroyers, cruisers or the like. However, the descriptions I give are from a military point of view. As we know in real life, Aircraft Carriers are also used for humanitarian aid but they are designed as military vessels. However, in Star Trek, some ships are truely not military at all, and are either drafted civilian utility vessels or designed for support work. Escorts are either designed as light, corvette or torpedo boat type craft, or the term "Escort" is given to small craft not designed for combat that have been hastily used in such a way. For example, the B'rel is probably the closest thing in Star Trek to a Torpedo Boat, but the Oberth is not designed for military use. Terming it an Escort would either be a simple measure purely for classification or it would be the term used to refer to an Oberth when it was attached to a battlegroup, perhaps for scouting purposes. Frigates are designed to face the rigours of combat, unlike smaller Escorts that may not be. Frigates are often colonial ships, used to patrol borders, protect colonies from pirates, custom inspections. A mix of a traditional military corvette, a customs cutter, and coast guard from a 20th century POV. In Wartime they are used for patrols, probes, scouting, and to escort larger ships and bring some extra firepower to bear. Not powerful ships, they are cheaper to maintain than a vast fleet of expensive cruisers. Specialised forms of Frigate are the Scout and the Destroyer Escort (SC and DE respectively. The Scout is a hybrid of the naval scout plane and the ELINT aircraft. While ordinary Frigates can be used as scouts, Scouts themselves are modified for this spotting and intel gathering role. Destroyer Escorts are somewhere between Frigates and true Destroyers. They have less firepower than a Destroyer, and due to their duties, do not need to be as fast as Destroyers. They are sort of, stop-gap Destroyers built on Frigate hulls and are used for convoy escorts and the like when a true Destroyer is needed elsewhere. Destroyers are like their naval ancestors combined with their former prey. A mix of destroyer and attack submarines, Destroyers are typically used to screen larger vessels in fleet actions and to attack supply convoys, merchant vessels and other economic targets. Taking inspiration from WWII Destroyers, such ships are often very well armed for their size but fragile. A good example would be the Defiant. She is the epitome of a Destroyer (however she was overdone in DS9 in a typical hero-shielded way). She is NOT as some have said, a Battleship or an Escort, despite what has been said onscreen. Some Destroyers are modified into command ships and are known as Destroyer Leaders. A Destroyer Leader carries a little more firepower than regular Destroyer and is built on an upgraded version of their class hull. They are the leader of their Destroyer Flotilla, and are also fitted with better communications for ship to ship and ship to shore transmissions. Light Cruisers are a mix of a traditional Light Cruiser (which took over the role of a Destroyer Leader in the latter half of the First World War) and a form of cheap Cruiser. They sometimes lead Destroyer Flotillas in large fleet actions, and are also designed to carry Cruiser-like firepower on a smaller, shorter ranged hull, specifically for wartime duties. These are more economical Cruisers that are used to bring firepower to bear in wartime at the expense of station time, crew comfort, multi-role capabilities and resilience to battle damage. Cruisers are like a cross between the Victorian idea of a Cruiser, and the First/Second World War idea of a Heavy Cruiser. They are often long ranged vessels used for peacetime patrols, and expeditions into foreign space (much like the Victorian idea of a commerce raider) in wartime they are fleet combat ships, and the general multipurpose workhorse of a fleet, like the Heavy Cruisers of WWII (which could be just as easily found escorting a large convoy as travelling with a carrier taskforce). Sometimes basic Cruiser hulls are turned into Command Cruisers, specifically for use as a command post, or turned into Strike Cruisers, which are the Star Trek equivilent to Fire Support Ships. Rather than coastal bombardment, naturally Strike Cruisers perform planetary bombardment. Battlecruisers are much like their 20th Century counterparts. They are lighter than Battleships and are designed to carry a powerful main armament at high speed at the cost of protection. Sometimes this leaves ships like the Excelsior Class a little underprotected and vulnerable for a ship of her size. Some Battlecruiser hulls become Command Cruisers, in much the same way as smaller Cruiser hulls (which are used depends on the time period and the power in question) Now, when mentioning the final type it is important to remember our conversation about Dreadnoughts at the beginning of my rant. Basically a process similar to the following occurs. New Battleship commissioned Former top of the line Battleship downgraded to Dreadnought Classification Former Dreadnought mothballed or scrapped Obviously these ships are very expensive so the maximum amount of usage is wanted out of them in their lifespan. The Federation uses the Dreadnought term a little differently, never officially calling them Dreadnoughts and always lacking the firepower and resilience to be Battleships. The Galaxy Class is a good example of the above process however. When the Sovereign came in, the Galaxy was downgraded and while more resilient than a Battlecruiser like the Prometheus, she was less powerful in terms of weaponry. She was used as a command ship, a flagship and so forth, anywhere were some firepower was needed. However she was a little vulnerable, as is shown in DS9. Quite a few Galaxies are heavily damaged or destroyed by the Dominion. As mentioned, what Starfleet actually calls her ships makes little difference (see the Carrier vs Through Deck Cruiser issue with the Royal Navy..), the roles above are those that all Federation and infact all Trek ships can be nicely placed into. Okay so the Borg bugger it all up, well they would wouldnt they, but they aren't like most powers so they are beyond classification. For example, my designations for some common "canon" ships (TNG as you all know my TMP designations from KA2) Sovereign - Battleship Galaxy - Battleship turned Dreadnought Prometheus - Battlecruiser Akira - Strike Cruiser Steamrunner - Cruiser/Light Cruiser Nebula - Cruiser, probably more of a Command Cruiser though Excelsior - Battlecruiser downgraded to Cruiser Miranda - Light Cruiser downgraded to Destroyer or Frigate Intrepid - Light Cruiser Norway - Light Cruiser/Destroyer Leader Defiant - Destroyer Sabre - Destroyer/ Destroyer Escort perhaps Nova - Escort or Frigate, possibly Scout Constellation - Light Cruiser (although shes more of a Lost Era design, hence Light Cruiser in the Lost Era, if she were used TNG/DS9 she'd be a Frigate) You will notice this contradicts certain things in KA2. Well thats because KA2 is based on my own interpretation of Starfleet Command, and is designed to fit with TOS/TMP Era vessels. This here is a more generic, more historical based version which works for all eras. Also, very importantly, theres no such bloody thing as a "Medium Cruiser" or a "Heavy Destroyer" or a "Tactical Dreadnought". Slapping adjectives on the front of a designation does not make any sense in most cases, as I mentioned a Light Cruiser is not a lighter version of a Cruiser, its an economy version of a Cruiser with similar weaponry but reduced operational range and so on. Therefore a "Medium Cruiser" makes no sense (as there is no quantifiable "medium" value for it to fall into) So, is what i've said "canon"? No, but it makes far more sense than these 6 nacelled "Super Heavy Advanced Technical Dreadnaughts" that I keep seeing!
well, I use above half the terms that piss you off and I'd be willing to reclassify except Dreadnought sounds much more threatening than battleship... I guess I could cut the Dreadnought classification.
Also what the hell would an artillery ship be?
An A2 style artillery ship would fall under the afformentioned title of Strike Cruiser :)
The cake is a lie.There is no cake.
13th November 2004
To expect people to know and then understand the different military/naval desginations for a computer game is a tad ridiculous. I fall foul of the dreadnought spelling, so I'll make sure I get that right in the future, but you've got to remember when people put up a file, they're in 'competition' with hundreds of other files, so they get creative with classifications. That in part is due to lack of understanding the classifications themselves, but sometimes it works.
Ah Dreadnoughts, I always think of Red Alert 2 when that word is said lol. But I agree with you Squire, there are far too many "stupid" classifications of vessel out there. Though I agree with Achilles, Dreadnought sounds more threatening than most other names lol. Strangely enough, my BFG mod uses practically all these terms properly lol. Cruisers were sent on lone or grouped fleet actions against the enemy or to keep the peace, supported by smaller, more nimble destroyers and escort craft. Battleships were only used in the biggest of battles.
Well In Creu Chwedl Im using Scout Escort(fed)/BOP(kling)/Destoryer (other) Light Cruiser Medium Cruiser Tatical Cruiser Battle Cruiser Exporation Cruiser(fed)/Heavy Cruiser (other) Battle Ship Dreadnought (klingons,dominon,cardassions)
One thing that really gripes me is when people classify the Sovereign Class as a Battleship when it is clearly a BATTLECRUISER
Similarly the Galaxy is not a Battleship nor is it a Dreadnought. It is classified by Starfleet as an exploration vessel and it's weapons armaments are akin to a Heavy Cruiser. Then again why are we classifying interstellar craft using the outdated classification of naval vessels??
People class the Sovy as a battleship because the game tells them it is a battleship. The game tells them it is a battleship because no one has ever come up with newer or different classifications for the different types of ships in the Star Trek universe. According to the TNG Technical Manual, the Galaxy class is officially listed by StarFleet as "Explorers". However, who is going to announce across TeamSpeak during a game something like, "Leave that alone or I'll sic a whole fleet of Explorers on you!"? :rofl:
A2 is about naval combat. Three dimensional, warp drive naval combat sure, but naval combat nonetheless. Hence the designations for naval warships being used to refer to ships in A2 becomes a natural thing. If we come up with new designations, they should be based on mission profiles for the hull in question. The mission or function defines the class name, not the size of the ship. Even then, someone will ask, "What's an explorer class?" Answer: "It is a battleship which explores, does first contact missions, scientific and technological research, functions as a diplomatic courier, etc..." At this point, the person who asks is thinking, "Okay, it's a battleship." Because none of the noncombat functions are modeled or used in A2.
Squire James mentioned destroyers in his post. This ship class came about around the turn of the Twentieth Century to specifically counter attacks by torpedo boats on the line of battle. Early submarines were not nearly as big a threat to a ship of the line because all of the technology that makes them so lethal now had not been developed or refined sufficiently yet. "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" as a class name was a little clumsy to put in dispatches, so it got shortened up to "Destroyer". The qualities that made them a good counter to torpedo boats; Shallow draft, high maneuverability, and good speed, were also useful against submarines as these began to assume the role of the torpedo boat.
A ship class name like "Advanced Tactical Super Battleship" really only translates into one thing for me. That would be "Target." :p
A Battlecruiser is more or less a large cruiser with Battleship Class weaponry. By this definition, the Sovereign is a Battleship not a Battlecruiser. Also Jolt, I was not specifically nagging about people who play Armada, actually its more about those people who design ships on sites like Starship Schematics Database. For example, the first page I come to I see the Albuquerque Class "Command Heavy Assault Carrier". What sort of jargonised designation is that! Ragnar, the reason BFG uses the terms so well is that in fitting with the Imperialistic, Victorian-Gothic style of 40k, GW based BFG on the Dreadnought-Era of naval warfare. :) Also in regards to the Explorer classification, Modern naval terms have always gone by form not function. In the past a cruiser was any ship that went on long distance patrols (with the old spelling of Cruizer), but now a Cruiser is a defined class of ship. Infact regarding military classification of Starfleet vessels I believe I said the following
It is important to note that Starfleet ships are not explicitly designed for combat in most cases and so unlike contemporary warships they are not specifically destroyers, cruisers or the like. However, the descriptions I give are from a military point of view. As we know in real life, Aircraft Carriers are also used for humanitarian aid but they are designed as military vessels.
While a Galaxy Class may be sent on missions of exploration, diplomacy, emergency courier (carrying medical supplies and so forth), it is still classed by its military form rather than its roles. As I said, much like a modern day Aircraft Carrier.
IKS;4196060why are we classifying interstellar craft using the outdated classification of naval vessels??
Because we can't imagine Starfleet existing without conforming to our expectations of a navy.
That sort of nonsense derives from Star Fleet Battles and goes back to the core of the fandom. They classified the original Constitution class starship as a cruiser of some sort, and envisioned a whole armada using a naval template.
The simple fact is, it's wrong. Starfleet is NOT a navy in space. Starfleet is an exploratory body adjoined to the United Federation of Planets. Defense of those explorations ALONE motivates Starfleet to arm its vessels. In a perfect universe, we'd never need phasers or torpedoes, and the only shields on a starship would be those required by navigation.
Ostensibly because of the Borg threat, Starfleet has changed from being an organization of exploration into an organization of defense. It's my theory that this is a pendulum that's been swinging through Starfleet's history from the Xindi through the Romulans to the Klingons and Cardassians, up to the post-VOY "present", with threats from the Borg, Dominion and Species 8472.
It is categorically erroneous to classify any starship in Starfleet's proud ranks as a warship, since such a classification smacks in the face of Starfleet's history. Even the Defiant has a science section.
What bugs me is that the very concept of games like Bridge Commander, Armada II, SFC, Conquest and so on require, as a prerequisite, a state of war that the UFP is not likely to endorse beyond any further than necessary-- the recent developments in the Dominion War, the Borg incursions and so on requiring an expedient defense in order to assure the safeguarding of the continued existence of the Federation.
However, to suggest that the Federation would allow such classifications to persist implies a warlike tendency that, thankfully, it has been the experience of countless numbers of Trek characters that such a tendency does not exist, nor does it seem likely to exist. Those elements within the Federation which prefer conflict seek to settle it through agencies like Section 31. If anything, Starfleet is committed to pursuit of Sun Tzu's principles that a conflict fought is a conflict that has already been lost.
While we can't possibly understand every point of its history through this lens, the very fact that Starfleet is founded on the principle of exploration rather than defense implies that Explorer is a valid and appreciable classification. After all, no warship would have families on board except for an emergency evacuation of some sort. Applying naval logic to Starfleet is like using a line formation in space-- it might make sense for certain aspects, but it's not a perfect fit.