I, and I guess utilae, was approaching "role" in terms of current or traditional naval usage. In this context, a cruiser, battlecruiser, frigate, pt boat or corvette, battleship, destroyer, carrier, and sub are the distinct "roles" of combat-capable ships, and did not historically refer to a consistent particular absolute size of ship.Magus wrote:I think we don't see eye to eye on what makes a role. Here's a list of what I see as sample roles: Artillery, Battle, Carrier, Close Combat, Torpedo, Missile, Strike, Escort, Special Weapon, Bombardment, etc.
More importantly, your suggested roles seem a bit limited in scope, covering mostly combat-tactical distinctions. This ignores the (potential for) important strategic differences between a cruiser, destroyer or battleship on the strategic map, as well as inhibiting creative attempts to find new strategic roles that don't fit into historical categorization or combat-specific thinking. Even though all the above modern roles are of combat-capable ships, that doesn't mean the only distinctions between roles are in terms of their tactical combat use.
Regardless, there's no good reason (AFAIK) to confuse size vs. role nomenclacture by referring to FO ship sizes by terms used historically for ship roles.... Nor is there a reason not to use clear size-indicating terminology to indicate size (be they labels or numbers) in favour of somewhat less clear labels like "destroyer", "battlecruiser" etc.
That's a good point... If we end up having more than 6 or 7 sizes, it might be worth using a more numeric / sequential label. I'd prefer sizes of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. to "A", "B", "C", though, in that case... However if using numbers, and if whatever number limit is relevant to ship size ends up being a major factor in ship design and importance, perhaps a unit-bearing number (eg. 50 kT) would be appropriate; if there's going to be a number given, it might as well be a useful one if a useful one is available.utilae wrote:It's easier to think of the next size up, eg C is bigger than B. With "Small", "Medium", "Large" you might get to the sixth size and you will find it hard for a name to describe that size, eg Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Giant, Collosal, Titanic, etc. The size labels start to become very interchangeable, ie you don't know whether Titanic is bigger than Giant or vice versa. With A, B, C, you are certain.Geoff the Medio wrote: Why is "A", "B", "C", etc. better than "Small", "Medium", "Large" etc.?
That said, I don't imagine we'd need so many sizes that numeric labels become necessary to avoid confusion, though. Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Colossal... how many until the distinctions are insignificant?
Granted, some people might want to eliminate predetermined sizes altogether, and have no discrete max ship size levels, but rather a bunch of bonuses on a continuous scale to "max ship size" for an empire, or have no max ship size, but just have performance or cost decrease or increase (respectively) prohibitively at lower tech levels. This sounds appealing, but would be problematic in practice for graphical purposes and design and would result in a very complicated (and difficult to balance) ship performance and cost calculation. The discrete levels are easier to grasp and represent to the player, in general.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me...? About what?As for race neutral terminology, well if we had to worry about that, then imagine how much of a pain diplomacy would be.
I meant that ship sizes should be in race-neutral terms, so that every race could agree that a ship is "Large" or "Tiny". Design class names would still be race-specific, and everyone would refer to other races' designs using the names the other races' gave them.