Wyrdysm Games

... railgun destroyer?

So, I became curious about ship designations after looking at the Mini-Fleet thread, so I was looking into modern naval operations, and the ships that make up the navy. Sure, space isn't actually an ocean, but BF sort've treats it like a cross between land, sea, and air all at once. So, I figured I'd look into the biggest mother hubbards on the ocean for fleet-building inspiration. Here's some stuff I found.

Battleships
Obviously, big ships with big large-bore guns. I think we all know what a battleship is. But do you want to know the surprising thing? Nobody uses battleships anymore. Anywhere. At all. There are a variety of things that have greatly outranked ship-mounted artillery pieces, such as bomber planes and missiles. Battleships, with their limited range guns, are a relic of the past. Whether or not this will change in the future with newer technology, I don't know. I'll get to that in a bit.

Carriers
In case you don't know, THESE are the capital ships of the day. Rather than having mounted weapons, it seems that having a bunch of planes that can just fly a long way and shoot and bomb things for you is a lot more versatile and powerful. Carriers often have some machine guns to ward off small ships or individual swimmers, but that's about the extent of the guns on the ship. One may wonder how a Carrier defends itself against a direct attack. Well, it doesn't. Instead...

Destroyers
These do the defensive work. They're not as big as battleships of old, but they're probably much more useful. They're often equipped with anti-air, anti-missile, and anti-torpedo weapons and systems to defend both themselves and their respective carrier(s). Usually a group of ships has more than one of these, and each can be outfitted differently. Many are even equipped with long-range missiles for some more direct attack options.

Cruiser
What is a cruiser? Actually, its not a particular ship design. Most militaries don't even have them, and the US military only has four. It's more of just a ship designation. It used to be that they were regular ships, outfitted and sent out to scout and observe. Now they just function more like destroyers. Really, one could say they're basically the same thing nowadays. One can use the terms interchangeably in BF, I guess.

Note: Apparently, the same could be said for the term "frigate," though the older usage of that term seemed to refer more to front-line fighting ships, not scouts.

Submarine
Well, it's a sub. The ninja of the sea. They're built to be ridiculously quiet and hard to track. Sadly, this concept doesn't really carry over well to space combat, since space ships could all be tracked entirely off of their heat emissions even from ridiculously long ranges, and trying to hide those emissions would just cause more emissions. The only way for there to be space stealth ships would be if we could make perfect machines, which is absurd even from a distant futuristic standpoint.


So, what does all this mean for BF? Nothing I suppose, if you feel like making random stuff, which is fine. But for the military nuts amongst us, some of this could be taken into consideration for fleet building. Unfortunately, a problem with the whole "carrier" thing is that we can't make effective carriers. I think that's a feature that's been asked for, but I have no idea what the feasibility of it is. Oddly, this causes us to fall back more on the capital ships of old: battleships.

Of course, the future of battleships might not be just as a relic of history. For instance, even now, a fully functional railgun has been designed and tested. From what I understand, we should see these railguns on our ships sometime next decade. Railguns have a major advantage over missiles in that they're really freaking fast, and also output the same amount of power for much less money per shot. Where missiles need thrust (or a plane) and chemical explosives, railguns just need dull metal slugs.

Now, I'm not sure what effect this will have on the ships themselves. Will we just have railguns mounted on destroyers? Or will something more akin to battleships make their way back into use? Due to the power demands of a railgun, one would think they'd be put on nuclear ships. Would we just make nuclear destroyers, or would we scale it up a bit?

If we launch deeply into BF territory, we not only have things like railguns, but also lasers which practically instantly strike their targets from considerable ranges. Between these different kinds of almost instant-hit weapons, its not hard to imagine that big ships mounted with these kinds of guns would actually be more effective than slow-moving "fighter" ships or missiles. So battleships aren't really an illogical thing.

So, your basic fleet of ships would probably have a battleship providing most of the offense through direct-fire cannons, railguns, blasters, beamers, and the like. Then there'd be a handful of carriers which would provide defense for the fleet, and might also be equipped with long-range missile-like weapons. Then finally you might have various support ships, such as fast annoying fighters, or maybe little nano-repair ships.

A carrier isn't altogether impossible to create. First, you could just have something that spews demeter drones. Second, you could maybe make a big repair ship, and say that ships are "docking" by just hanging out around it and getting repaired. Or you could do both. And it might have some small guns to ward off small threats.

So, these are my thoughts on sensible fleet design, based off of the suggestions of the mini-fleet thread, as well as by example of our modern navy, and some soon-to-come military advancements. Anybody else have some thoughts on this matter? I feel like it'd be good to go into designing a fleet with some idea of what the overall strategy of that fleet is, even if it isn't the one I described above. There's plenty of devices in BF that I didn't mention that I'm sure could be used to make some interesting fleets.[/u]

Darlos9D wrote:.Unfortunately, a problem with the whole "carrier" thing is that we can't make effective carriers. I think that's a feature that's been asked for, but I have no idea what the feasibility of it is.

um... what?
you know what the ship deployer module does, right? :/

Carriers are quite simple to make.
Now if we only got AI for fighters...
Now THAT would be fun...

lightstriker wrote:

Darlos9D wrote:.Unfortunately, a problem with the whole "carrier" thing is that we can't make effective carriers. I think that's a feature that's been asked for, but I have no idea what the feasibility of it is.

um... what?
you know what the ship deployer module does, right? :/

Actually, that's closer to an "instant ship factory" than a hanger.

You can't cram the ships back in afterward and it'll just keep making more as long as it has enough energy.

Actually, that's closer to an "instant ship factory" than a hanger.

You can't cram the ships back in afterward and it'll just keep making more as long as it has enough energy.

you know, if you give it no energy recharge, and have a sane energy limit, it will have to stop spawning after a pre-determined limit.

we do need triggers so we can force fire it though


also, you should look into some of the cold war stuff, especially how the Russians had their navy set up, as it was significantly different from the current US navy setup.

Cruiser usually mean ships that runs independent long ranger operations, mostly raiding.

lightstriker wrote:um... what?
you know what the ship deployer module does, right? :/

Whoops. Okay, didn't see that feature... still, sounds like it functions like a glorified demeter drone launcher, except you can launch something besides demeter drones. The "fighter" ships need to be able to come back, as Draco points out.

And whats this about "fighter AI"?

AnnihilatorX wrote:Cruiser usually mean ships that runs independent long ranger operations, mostly raiding.

Well, it USED to. Conventionally, there's only 4 cruisers around today (not just in the US military, which I think I said earlier. That's wrong), which function with other ships in a manner similar to destroyers. Nobody really seems to send a single boat out for that sort of thing anymore. That's why we have submarines.

Here's a neat-o random question: how would one optimally arrange the weapons on a space battleship? Like, outside of BF, were we thinking about it... uh, "realistically." Since there's really no up and down in space, one would have to make some kind of setup where you could point an optimal number of weapons in a direction. I imagine a ship would actually be somewhat elongated like a sea ship, but with weapons on both the top and the bottom. That way it'd be able to kinda "broadside" and point all of its top and bottom guns at something. Side guns would be wasteful since half of them couldn't come to bear on a given target, or group of targets.

... sorry about all my random brain droppings here guys. I've been puzzling out in my head how one might construct a space fleet in general, in order to help me figure out how to construct a space fleet in BF. Some of the side-thoughts, like the one just above, isn't really applicable to BF. But I can't help but find it interesting anyway.

Now, I think I'll go look into the Russian fleet stuff.

Um, actually. Carriers have more than a few machineguns for defenses. They have SAM Batteries, CIWS guns (which are chainguns), and the new or upgraded American carriers have RAM (some sort of radar-guided missile) batteries. And I'm pretty sure they have a few anti-ship missiles for back-up.

But still he does have a point. And to clarify on history and a few things.

During and after WWII was the starting point of the decline of battleships, not because they weren't useful anymore but because, they cost just as much as a carrier to operate but aren't as flexible. Also carrier can indeed project they power at greater range and carriers do not have to expose them selves in order to engage the enemy. While battleship have to expose them selves. So losing planes and pilots is alot cheaper then losing a whole ship.

Also to explain that Carriers, destroyers, and subs are all that remains is simply once again a case of cost vs usefulness. Destroyers do everything short of air power projection. They have direct ship to ship combat capabilities, via standard guns and missiles. Have anti plane and anti missile capabilities as well as anti sub and anti torpedo. Roles which prior to WWI and the advent of submarines were filled by different types and sizes of ships. The destroyer simply replaced them all. So in today's terms calling a combat ship frigate, destroyer, or cruiser is merely a direct reference to it's size and the number or weapon systems it carries since they will all essentially carry the same types of weapons for the same roles.

Sub are the stealth agent of the seas and nothing can replace them so they are hear to stay.

But the biggest reason for the disappearance of direct combat ships is because armor technologies did not evolve enough to compensate for the superior added fire power of modern weapons. A modern weapon, anti-ship missile or torpedo will one shot any WWII or modern era ship. Also as a matter of a fact current modern ships have weaker armor then WWII ships. Today armor is only there to stop some of the smaller/weaker weapon systems out there. In WWII and prior heavy combat ships were needed since armor was superior to weapons. A ship could take a real beating before going down.


How ever for space ships it is likely that direct combat ships will reappear since weight will no longer be a real issue so putting very thick armor will be possible. In addition direct line of sight weapons will have the same range as strike craft, which in space strike craft will be quite vulnerable since for them space will be a whole new ball game. Also in space decompression is is a very bad thing so you can be sure armor and defensive systems will be plentiful. Gunning down craft in space will be much easier then on earth. Thus will push direct combat ships with none intercepable weapon systems the kings of the hour.

Should you see the advent of far superior armor or shield defense systems then combat ships will probably make a come back since their direct force projection will become needed to punch through the enemy once again. Since direct combat systems can lay down much more firepower, faster, longer, and for a much cheaper price then strike craft.

Check Supreme Commander out then, it has one of the best naval combat in a conventional RTS.

Battleships has evolved in SupCom to frickin huge armored platforms with artillery pieces on them. And since in SupCom its easy to put up an air-proof defense, the one who has the biggest gun wins the confrontation.

Of course SupCom is a game so its not very realistic but it's a fun way to speculate how the navy evolves in the next 1000 years or so.

But if you're trying to apply naval techniques to space combat then they maybe some problems here. As mention before, space is a very different place from the sea, limitations like gravity are removed while new ones like life-support or turning are added.

Thanks EadTaes, good history lesson. Sometimes its nice to just have somebody tell me things, rather than doing the research myself...

D00D! wrote:But if you're trying to apply naval techniques to space combat then they maybe some problems here. As mention before, space is a very different place from the sea, limitations like gravity are removed while new ones like life-support or turning are added.

Realistically, yeah. But I'm only talking about realism in my other thread. Since BF treats space combat kinda navy-like, I thought the topic of real navies was worth discussion for the sake of fleet-building strategy in BF. Oddly, this makes this some kind of "meta-realism" conversation, since I'm talking about a realistic military setup in a setting where it wouldn't realistically exist.

I looked into the Russian cold war era navy briefly. Sounds like they had not as many carriers, arguably better subs, and small boats with big missiles. This is in comparison to the US navy of course. Anything else that's noteworthy about the differences? It doesn't seem so significantly different, as firestorm implied. Not that I'm any expert on the subject.

bien4500 wrote:Um, actually. Carriers have more than a few machineguns for defenses. They have SAM Batteries, CIWS guns (which are chainguns), and the new or upgraded American carriers have RAM (some sort of radar-guided missile) batteries. And I'm pretty sure they have a few anti-ship missiles for back-up.

RAAMs are high speed hard-kill point defence missiles. They're replacing the CIWS on most ships. The problem with the CIWS is that it's kill range is so short that a good Harpoon or Exocet missile will explode and still do damage to the ship.

RAAMs are missiles that are stabilized by rolling at high speed and are launched to take down incoming missiles about 2000 yards out.

How ever for space ships it is likely that direct combat ships will reappear since weight will no longer be a real issue so putting very thick armor will be possible. In addition direct line of sight weapons will have the same range as strike craft, which in space strike craft will be quite vulnerable since for them space will be a whole new ball game. Also in space decompression is is a very bad thing so you can be sure armor and defensive systems will be plentiful. Gunning down craft in space will be much easier then on earth. Thus will push direct combat ships with none intercepable weapon systems the kings of the hour.

Should you see the advent of far superior armor or shield defense systems then combat ships will probably make a come back since their direct force projection will become needed to punch through the enemy once again. Since direct combat systems can lay down much more firepower, faster, longer, and for a much cheaper price then strike craft.

What would be more possible though, is unmanned AI or remote operated warships. For the reason that the designers will not have to worry about crew quarters and the likes. Allowing them to put more weapons, and less armor, since decompression is less of an issue. Which will in turn make them more cost effective.

Meh, we'd probably still use guided missiles most of the time. The distances involved in space combat means that it's pretty damned hard to hit anything with a dumb shell. It would depend heavily on how manoeuvrable ships are though.

I looked into the Russian cold war era navy briefly. Sounds like they had not as many carriers, arguably better subs, and small boats with big missiles. This is in comparison to the US navy of course. Anything else that's noteworthy about the differences? It doesn't seem so significantly different, as firestorm implied. Not that I'm any expert on the subject.

Well, I'm definitely no expert either, but as I understand it, the reason for us having so many destroyers is to protect our expensive as hell carriers from Russian attack subs. The aircraft helped there too I think, but there was never a real naval engagement between the US and USSR, so it's harder to judge how it would turn out. also, If you are looking into the cold war, it would be an enormous mistake to overlook nuclear missile subs. A major part of the navy at that time was nuclear deterrence, for both sides.

On the subject of space combat, there are many good articles about what it might be like, but the big thing to consider is that engagements would likely take place at a distance of light seconds to light minutes, so conventional weapons, and fighters are almost worthless. Also, without significant advances in armor, one hit kills become very likely. The hard part is getting a hit in the first place. Drones and guided missiles are a good Idea, but beams realize that at this distance, a missile would take several minutes to reach its target, even at a significant fraction of light speed, and beam weapons wouldn't be instantaneous.

For a high level of realism, you would want very slow ships, very slow weapons, and extreme engagement ranges. Also, fog of war would help greatly if you could convince Kaeles to implement it (though he's working his ass off already).