I think they should have made them bigger too but some of the mods such as The Last Stand are adding ships like this.

Ehm ..

Why should one know about any "navy doctriants" to play or help shaping a game ? If you want stuff like that, go fight for oil or something -.- It's about science fiction, you can't know how "capital Ships" behave here.

Topic:

I think they should scale a bit more. They do just fine at the beginning - say for about 45 min. But after some research, they surely may become pointless when doing focus fire.

so what your saying is that you want capitalships to destroy everything that is what you are saying here.

the size is right anyway for the craw maning it also look at the size of the capitalship to the size of a planet and you would see that it is about 2-4 times the size of any navy capitalship that would be in the water on the planet.

They are massive, especially the Advent's Mothership. I haven't seen huge guns (big turrets) on space ships in a long time, the biggest (most recently) i can remember right now are the hiigaran destroyer's guns in HW2, and they werent huge imo. Still, making any ship bigger would hamper their movement in the gravwell, as they would bump with everything.

As it stand right now, compare the size of a capital ship with that of a Terran planet in game. Thats massive there imho.

About the ship sizes relative to a planet mesh:

Most planets uss a mesh that is roughly 5000 units in radius (the Earth is roughly 4000 miles in radius, 8000 miles in diameter)...  If you declare each unit to be a mile, then the KOL is over 800 miles long, and a fighter is 4 miles long 

  On the other hand, if you made a fighter 50 feet across (.01 units), them zooming would take forever, and it would ruin the game...

  I think the sizes are right for when you play, although I liked in the Starwars ship-taster mod that the gravitywells were a million or so units arcoss, as it felt vast like space does...

 ( Also, two units on the mesh translate roughly to 1 unit for weapons ranges)...

Froid anyone?

:

I disagree, applying current naval doctrine to the 3d battlefield is a terribly ignorant fallacy (granted SINS isn't very 3d). 

Even if I were to accept that space warfare is nothing but "water combat tatics against a black background" the technological differences inbetween what we know now about tatics would be revolutionised when you consider such things as shielding.

But for a moment I'll even disregard that aspect of the combat and simplify things even more.  Let's pretend that capital ships are the equlivent to carriers and battleships to try and support your claim.

Then all carrier capital ships would have much better ordinance interception (such as the Block B varient of the Phalanx), and larger strike craft yields.  Carrier ships would be launching strike craft from 2 or 3 gravity wells away with their support fleet clustered around them.

All combat "battleship" type capital ships would be much heavier armored (Navy ships today have just a quarter inch of armor, while the battleships are protected by several inches of steel) and would contain much more powerful guns than the current iteration if you considered them to be futuristic variants of the current USN Iowa class.

Let's reverse your theory and apply SINS style combat to modern naval warfare.   Naval engagements would be won by guys in rubber speed boats with huge missile launchers mounted on them.  You could fight and win engagements with support cruisers alone.