I figured I’d add my two cents…

I agree with ta_erog - everyone is assuming the largest ship carries with it the most complex design and advanced technology which is not necessarily true. I could be wrong here, but if you look throughout modern warfare, smaller but more advanced ships have developed later than, say, battleships; take the AEGIS cruiser, for example. The same goes with several other technologies such as computers (in a general sense). Nowadays, smaller usually means more advanced.

Miniaturization, it can be argued, is more difficult to design into a vessel because, even though it yields smaller ship, it turns out to be more efficient and powerful. While capital ships may be have more firepower, cruisers may be more effective warships. That is to say, if you do a cost-benefit analysis determining how much firepower you get for your buck, the ratio on cruisers ought to be more beneficial than behemoth capital ships. To illustrate my line of thinking, take the simple math (with made up numbers, mind you) below:

Cruiser Attack Value: 1500
Cruiser Cost Value: 300
Attack Value Per Cost Value: 5 (1500 / 300)

Capital Ship Attack Value: 16000
Capital Ship Cost Value: 8000
Attack Value Per Cost Value: 2 (16000 / 8000)

With that being said, I tend to agree more with those advocating researching subsystems on capital ships to make them more effective warships (i.e. raising their Attack Value Per Cost Value figure). By following this line of logic, capital ships will retain their feel preeminence on the battlefield while smaller warships must be given credence.

Of course, this opens up issues of balance and raises the question of whether towards the end of the game capital ships should ever be as effective warships as smaller vessels (again, that is to say their Attack Value Per Cost Value figure being higher).

What do you gentlemen think? Sorry for the long post, by the way, I just wanted to make sure I elaborated on my point of view clearly.

Call me crazy, but...

Combined-arms is good for realism.


I don't want realism. I want fleets of mighty, proud capital fleets phasejumping into a system and laying waste to all and sundry. Picket ships are harassers and planetary defense, but they shouldn't stand up to capital ships unless massed in truely ridiculous numbers - swarm-type numbers.

Frigates should kill frigates and trade ships, do scouting, and serve as cannon fodder. Cruisers should kill frigates and (maybe) serve some crucial secondary role as support for the capital ships - such as repairing them.

Capital ships kill everyone, and they should mow through frigates like a lawnmower. However, they should also be hideously expensive.

That's just how I like my space opera.

Call me crazy too…
I agree with ShadowDragon, Capitol ships should be the most powerful, most expensive and hardest to get ships in the game.

Omega, yes the USS Ticonderoga class Aegis cruiser did come out much after the WWII Battleships like the USS Missouri and USS Iowa, but the navy also had cruisers, destroyers, and frigates during WWII. The battleship was the most powerful surface ship on the seas in WWII. (Not counting the carriers, because it was the planes that did the fighting.) They were also more of an engineering marvel then the cruisers, destroyers or frigates because of their size.
Also, the Aegis weapons systems, as well as, many other modernizations were added to the WWII battleships (the ones not decommissioned that is) as years progressed to keep them up with technology. The main reason why the navy decommissioned all her battleships in the 90’s was fuel. The Navy wanted to have only two fuel sources Nuclear and JP5 (jet fuel). No more oil burners.

USS Ticonderoga "Aegis cruiser" was a "Aegis destroyer". They saw they had a "cruiser gap" they renamed it a cruiser . . . so much for nameing conventions?!?

"The main reason why the navy decommissioned all her battleships in the 90’s was fuel."
one reason possibly, but the battleships where decommissioned for other reasons also . . they were a liability (read single high value target), they would have to be entirely retrofitted, a big task for a old ship. BUT the main reason was the origonal basis for there design (the big guns and armor made to take big gun hits) is entirely obsolete. There is NO reason to have such a large armored ship in the modern navy . . even IF they made a new modern version.

"Frigates should kill frigates and trade ships, do scouting, and serve as cannon fodder. Cruisers should kill frigates and (maybe) serve some crucial secondary role as support for the capital ships - such as repairing them."
By who's definition?? Offical navy deffinition this is NOT the case.

~ the 60's
US Navy "cruisers" are large vessels equipped with heavy offensive missiles for wide-ranging combat against land-based and sea-based targets.
"Frigates" are almost as large as the cruisers and optimized for anti-aircraft warfare, although they were capable anti-surface warfare combatants as well.
Late 70's
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, Ticonderoga-class cruisers change the definition slightly more inline with other countries (But the Roles have changed)

And since the 90's the definition still changing as new ships are constructed and figured in to the obsolete designations. (new ships will have Modular “mission” packages that allow different weapon/sensor/utility systems to be replaced or matched as needed. The only difference between the ships would be the number of modules . . )

the UBER ship is and old worn out idea and possibly even childish to contemplate, The Yamato or Bismarck where not as UBER as the grandeur of the hype that went with them.
“Yamato and Musashi made little direct impact during the war. The Musashi did not engage any Allied battleships during the war, yet the Yamato did have limited success when in October 1944 she opened fire on US escort carriers and destroyers. It was the first and last of her battles with enemy ships.”
Line of battle fleets involving modern dreadnought-style ships rarely occurred to the displeasure of those who had invested billions in equipping themselves with expensive capital ships.

Ta_erog, are you a fellow squid? ET2(esws wannabe) ‘89 to ‘94
----
OK I’m going to correct myself I indicated that there were some battleships were not decommissioned after WWII, I was wrong, I forgot the Navy had decom’d all BB’s during the late 50’s early 60’s. However, in the 80’s some WERE brought back into service, and WERE refitted and modernized with among many other things the Aegis Weapons Combat System. Why, because they were needed. USS Ticonderoga was the first to have Aegis so it is often referred to as an Aegis cruiser. The Missouri, Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were all ‘retrofitted’ with Aegis too, as did many other ships in service from the 80’s and 90’s. Therefore, The Mighty Mo could also be called an Aegis Battleship. The ship I lived on for 4 years USS Fox CG33 also had Aegis. I remember reading at that time that the Navy had plans to remove from service all ships using fuel oil for propulsion. The list of ships scheduled to be decom for this reason included the BB’s that were in service, the midway and my own ship.
---
Naval History aside, my main argument is that this is a video game about building and defending a space empire, not great battles of Naval History. As such navy convention need not necessarily apply.
For the game I think it’s logical to say, the lager the ship the more complex and more powerful the weaponry onboard should be. That it should be a researched tech to be able to build something so large. I liked how Homeworld did this, the hull tech combined with what weapons researched decided what ships were available for build. It was simple to the point and easy to follow, unlike trying to compare the inner workings of the US Navy.

had 4 aegis units. the battleships i believe had one. the so called aegis frigates have 2. this is why the ticonderoga was reclassified as a cruiser.


each unit is able to track 100 targets. or maybe it is 50

OK yes I just read JANES on the subject.
unclassified.
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/misc/aegis010425.shtml

It is 100+ targets.
I correct myself again.The Upgrades made to the BB's and the Fox were not actually Aegis. Due to the fully integrated nature of the Aegis system required the actual Aegis ships to be build from the hull up. But they WERE upgraded and modernized.
And I stand down from the actual reason behind the reclassification. Although the Fox started it’s carrier as guided missile frigate and was later reclassified as cruiser the only reason given for that was that the word cruiser was “forbidden” from use at the time of its construction.

But this all misses the point I was trying to make, and that is all this bantering about naval ships, naval history and naval terms is pointless for this is a game about galactic empires and massive space battles.

On topic – I still stand on the premise that if we have to research cruiser tech then it stands to reason that researching and building capital ships ship be more difficult.

yes

I guess, my point is that the terminology we are using does not really fit. OR has to be redefined in detail.

The BB refit did not include the Aegis system, and mostly added tomahawk, harpoon and defensive Phalanx systems. They where tasked as mainly bombardment ships . . 16 inch artillery and tomahawk. With harpoon to defend from ship threats and Phalanx from anti ship missiles. They had NO air defense of note. A single modern bomb could sink them.

"But this all misses the point I was trying to make, and that is all this bantering about naval ships, naval history and naval terms is pointless for this is a game about galactic empires and massive space battles. "
Yes, but it does IF we insist to use navel terms and navel conventions on combat in game. If people want large battleships with massive guns slugging it out they are thinking WWI/WWII (even though in WWII this did not happen) . . our sci-fi often looks back as much as it looks forward. Star wars used WWII exclusively and since that is where sci-fi hit the main stream that is where we all get the idea of massive space battles . . . WWII in space . .

I would like some of these games to at least go one step forward and at least have modern navel warfare in space?!?
I would prefer space combat . . but . . I guess baby steps

On to game researching . . I have no problem researching tech upgrades or weapon systems. Or possibly a built from the ground up special task ship. . but the Bulk of the fleet needs to be constructible as soon as you have the factories and resources to make them (the real limiting factor) .
The time frame of this game is not 100s of years but years. And they already know how to build massive ships and have been space going for a long time. Why all of the sudden do they need to research making a large space going superstructure? (it already says that some of these ships are retrofitted and the BB is one of the few new ones - and lets not forget you start with a BB) So by game lore and starting conditions push the idea that making the ships is not the hard part but weaponzing them and using them in combat is.
So, why not start out with bit but rather lightly armed ships that get upgraded in tech to make them formidable. Rather then just do what every other 4x does? This could make SIN’s quite interesting.

I haven't got the beta yet, (I just now pre-orderd it) so I don't know much about the ships, but I do know what I like about games.


I currently play Homeworld so for those of you who havn't played it, when I hear "frigate" I think of the smallist capitol ship possible.

Frigates need to be reaserched in Homeworld, but usually you can get them about ten minuets into the game, as one thing I like about homeworld, is that most games are around 30 minuets, and fit VERY well into my busy schedule.


from what I have read, I gather that the average game in sins is about three hours. I know that alot of you die hards would glady spend up to five hours a game without a problem, but people like me haev a forty hour workweek, and soon I will start my first, of ten, years of collage. I don't have time for a three hour game, nor do most other gamers. If this game takes too long to play, then it will die quickly, all the die-hards will move to newer games, and the non-diehards will simply no have enough time.

so in the end, I guess I don't want caps reaserched becouse it would make the game significantly longer.

(slightly off subject, but I think it could be awsome to make maps as small as two planets, for ppl like me who don't have three hours to play one game)

Tesla: the devs are working on this right now. I have *heard* that you will be able to adjust game times to pretty much any length you want.

I still think all races should have instant access to all sizes of ships. Two of them are warmongers anyway and will have huge ships stacked already while TEC has huge trade ships ready to be converted. First aircraft carriers in reality were converted cargo (trade) ships!

So I don't understand why the size should be limited in the beggining of the game.

Technology should be limited though. The special abilities and new classes of ships should only be available through research.

At first capitals should only be lumbering giants with more firepower and durability than other ships. Than with research they should become the true highlight of battles.

But that is just my opinion.

wrong

Didn't Happen? Tell that to the HMS Hood.


OK, I already corrected myself on this one. But I'm going to add that what you're not going to read on their spec sheet is the improvements in CIC(Command Information Center). The targeting computers on our ship were upgraded to the equivalent of what Aegis had, and I’m sure the Iowa Class Battleships did as well. As far as air defense goes that’s why we traveled in battlegroups. Each ship had a special purpose, some overlapped, but we each had our own.


I wonder if it might be possible to set this as a pre-game condition. ‘Pre-researched Hull Tech Y/N’ type of thing . When you look at the tech tree you would already have those techs pre researched. So those of us that want to research it can, and those that don’t, don’t have to.

Actually, the USS Jupiter a coal tender(collier)was converted into the first US aircraft carrier the USS Langley(CV-1)
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/cv1.htm

A) you can edit your posts
wonder waht I was thinking of...

HMS Hood . . . ok then name another? or name when a fleet of BB's clashed? you do not make a entire class of ships for one main purpose and expect only to use them as designed only a handful of times or never. As soon as aircraft where used as a navel stand off weapon BB where on there way out. (also the Hood battle was more of a tactical error, with a possible destine flaw that ended a relatively short battle with a catastrophic sinking . . and the hood was a battlecruser)


"As far as air defense goes that’s why we traveled in battlegroups. Each ship had a special purpose, some overlapped, but we each had our own."
Accally I agree with you entirely here! in fact that IS what I want to see in game. fully intergrated battlegroups! To have a good battle group with overlapping mission priorities and responsibilities you must have a wide range of ships. You can't have this with only a few small ships.


(additionally it would seem the shore bombardment role of US BB's was not necessarily as effective as a carrier's more flexible compliment of aircraft and so the already rather narrow role of the refitted BB was made less important . . though I have to admit a massive shore landing could really use that level of bombardment and would have been a good reason to keep at least one around . . on the off chance we would do a massive shore landing . )

eh, massive shore bombardment doesnt work very well unless you spend quite a while doing it, (ever seen flags of our fathers?)

USS Houston (CA-30) sunk by gunfire and torpedoes of Japanese warships in Sunda Strait, Netherlands East Indies, 1 March 1942.

USS Quincy (CA-39) sunk by gunfire and torpedoes of Japanese warships off Savo, Solomon Islands, 9 August 1942

USS Cushing (DD-376) sunk by gunfire from Japanese warships off Savo, Solomon Islands, 13 November 1942.

USS Monssen (DD-436) sunk by gunfire from Japanese warships off Savo, Solomon Islands, 13 November 1942

fleets?

the last battleship battle was during the Philippine campaign and i am going to be lazy and not look it up. but it was included in a john Wayne movie. i don't remember which us battleships where there. but the yamoto was, of course it was in almost every major battle.

This is quoted from a web site on the USS Jew Jersey.
http://www.multied.com/Navy/battle/NJ.html

"The Japanese response to the Marianas operation was an order to its Mobile Fleet, it must attack and annihilate the American invasion force. Shadowing American submarines tracked the Japanese fleet into the Philippine Sea as Admiral 8pruanee joined his task force with Admiral Mitseher's to meet the enemy. New Jersey took station in the protective screen around the carriers on 19 June as American and Japanese pilots dueled in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. That day and the next were to pronounce the doom of Japanese naval aviation, in this "Marianas Turkey Shoot," the Japanese lost some 400 planes. This loss of trained pilots and aircraft was equalled in disaster by the sinking of three Japanese carriers by submarines and aircraft, and the damaging of two carriers and a battleship. The anti-aircraft fire of New Jersey and the other screening ships proved virtually impenetrable. Only two American ships were damaged, and those but slightly. In this overwhelming victory but 17 American planes were lost to combat."
For emphasis
"The anti-aircraft fire of New Jersey and the other screening ships proved virtually impenetrable."

Oops sorry for the typo.
guess I should proof read before post.
New

or you could edit your posts

I Can? How?