minor point about ship sizes

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
Moriarty
Dyson Forest
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

minor point about ship sizes

#1 Post by Moriarty » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:00 pm

assuming this wiki entry is correct (about the ship sizes):

http://www.freeorion.org/wiki/index.php ... scratchpad


i'd like to point out that dreadnoughts are actually larger than battleships in that (originally anyway) they were simply battleships that were made even bigger (the original one being called the HMS dreadnought: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-f ... rednt9.htm )

However on that lil scratchpad, the dreadnought is classed as being smaller than the Battleship.


Just a minor point. :)

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#2 Post by Ranos » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:29 pm

I am pretty sure that the Wiki is just a summary of what one person would like to see or a compilation of many people's suggestions. I very seriously doubt that it is set in stone yet and changes to that can be made.

The RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissors) diagram is also not a set in stone thing. We have a thread going right now to discuss a countering system.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
Bastian-Bux
Creative Contributor
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:32 am
Location: Kassel / Germany

#3 Post by Bastian-Bux » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:15 am

Ranos, only things that are in the passed features thread are set in stone (well, at least till we stumble again over them making it necessary to change them ^^).

Away from that you should look into the credits for who's who in the development. If team leaders state something for their team it usually is correct (human errors allowed ^^).

emrys
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:44 pm

#4 Post by emrys » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:58 pm

The wiki post is definitely just a collection of ideas form various places (I know, I wrote it (mostly)).

On the history front, agreed that Dreadnaughts were originally larger than previous "battleships" (labelled "pre-dreadnaught"). The Dreadnaught herself was so much better than any previous ship that she was essentially responsible for the naval arms race in the buildup to the first world war. However that race led to such a huge increase in size and power of ships, that by the end of the war the Dreadnaught was actually so outclassed by the newer ships (often classed as 'superdreadnaught'), that she was scrapped shortly after the war finished.

Since 'Battleship' is a fairly moveable term, that generally just refers to the largest most powerful gunships around (e.g. the Dreadnaughts were still called battleships), I just used the nice sounding word Dreadnaught to refer to the 'pocket battleship' or 'battlecruiser' concept (that the dreadnaught herself effectively became within a few years of her launch). (I.e. a ship not quite up to fighting real ships, but fast enough to avoid them and strong enough to trounce anything else.)

Perhaps Battlecruiser would have been a better choice.

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

Ship sizes

#5 Post by guiguibaah » Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:04 am

I never liked the term "battlecruiser", or other terms like "light cruiser, medium cruiser, heavy cruiser" as there are so many other ship sizes that could be substituted in between.

Such as....

- Figher
- Bomber

- Pinnace
- Sloop

- Corvette
- Frigate

- Destroyer
- Cruiser

- Battleship
- Titan

- Doom Star
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

emrys
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:44 pm

Re: Ship sizes

#6 Post by emrys » Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:53 am

guiguibaah wrote:I never liked the term "battlecruiser", or other terms like "light cruiser, medium cruiser, heavy cruiser" as there are so many other ship sizes that could be substituted in between.

<snip>
- Cruiser
text equivalent of shot of tumbleweed
- Battleship
<snip>
:D

Though I take the point that there are enough names around that we don't need to use potentially confusing variations on the word cruiser.

Though since whatever set of names one chooses is going to confuse someone, and more probably many people, maybe to avoid slipping into heated discussion on irrelevancies, we should just stick to sizes 1 to blah, and worry about 'fluff' names later.

User avatar
Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#7 Post by Ablaze » Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:34 pm

Waht we clal tginhs is irenveralt. I rlelay cna't iginmae aonnye bnieg cfeonsud by scuh a monir isuse. Eisclapely if a prtciue is idcleund anolg wtih the wrod.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

emrys
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:44 pm

#8 Post by emrys » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:42 pm

:) :) :)

Post Reply