Ambrosia Software Web Board: A rant about ship classes - Ambrosia Software Web Board

I just realised, the Human gunship is a pretty good multirole ship. It has the laser turret to take out fighters and pester cruisers, and lots of armor, and relatively powerful magnetos(good enough to go toe to toe with a Cantharaan Carrier and come out on top)

If it was a teensy bit more nimble, or had a more powerful laser, it would rule.(but it would hardly be fair, would it?) The all-capable gunship is the reason Humans win at multiplayer building only gunships.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

Yeah, the gunships rule. One on one, they could probably take any other gunship below Salrilian. Piloted well, they DOMINATE.

------------------
William Darkk, head of the Darkklight Entrepenurial Federation
"Strategic warfare" is code for "killing civilians", and it's my calling. Yeah, it's barbaric. War's supposed to be.

Here, after much thought and consideration, is my intrerpretation of the ship classes;

Fighter: Inteceptor. Small pesky ship generally used to annoy and escort. Can be quite dangerous in groups.
Cruiser: Heavy fighter/Corvette/MTB. Much better than the fighter. Is actually quite dangerous alone. Is very dangerous in groups.
Heavy Cruiser: Corvette/MTB A little better than the Cruiser. Has better long range ability.
Gunship: Destroyer/Light cruiser. Very good alone. In groups can take out carriers.
HVD: Cruiser/Battlecruiser/Pocket Battleship. Very good at Anti-Bigstuff. Can be destroyed by smaller, faster, more manuverable units e.g. several cruisers.
Carrier: The name says it all. One of the most powerful ships. Fighters are good for distracting enemies but they cant do much damage to a determined attacker. The fighters hold off/delay enemies while the carrier brings its heavy arnament to bear. Several are very good at blockading planets. Like the HVD can be bestroyed by more nimble groups of ships but the fighters help prevent this.
Battleship: The name says it all. Generally a carrier type/sized ship with no fighter bay. Can be bestroyed by more nimble groups of ships like the carrier but lacks a fighter escort (unless you biuld it one) and is therefore vurnerable.

Phew!

------------------
Grand Fleet Admiral Slathkill, Supreme Commander I.M.A. Fleet

[This message has been edited by Admiral Slathkill II (edited 01-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Admiral Slathkill II (edited 01-12-2001).]

I like it. I think that there are some exceptions, but they depend on the individual races weapons.

I mean not to stick on one subject too long, but the Human Gunship defies the standard gunship class with that laser turret. I personally would like to see long range missile ships. HVD sized things with faster firing, long range homing missiles and such. Maybe higher payload cluster missiles for killing groups.

You know, like artillery. Soften the enemy up before they engage.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

Quote

How could you ever leave out the F-19 'Frisbee' and the B1?

------------------
We don't go to hell,
memories of us do.
And if you go to hell,
I'll still remember you.

I really LOVE the Human cruisers in 'Ishiman Quest'. Fast, mediocre maneuverability, but a REALLY kick-ass long range cannon. The human frigates are also nice, as are the bombers. (both have rapid-fire light long-range missiles)
That way, with a human cruiser you can take out an Aud cruiser if you have a good aim.(like me)



------------------
We don't go to hell,
memories of us do.
And if you go to hell,
I'll still remember you.

Quote

I only just noticed this but the seeds for destroyers were sown with the invention of the steam turbine, which provided high speed to low size. Steam turbines were put in realitively small ships. These ships were armed with another realitivly new invention, the torpedo and were known as motor torpedo boats or MTBs. The MTBs posed a large threat to the capital ships so something had to be done. The answer came in the form of an MTB type ship with its torpedoes (anti-big-and-sitting-relatively-still-stuff weapons) replaced with smallish guns (anti-small-and-zipping-around-stuff weapons). It was called a torpedo boat destroyer or, more commonly, a destroyer.
Somewhwere in the mists of naval history the roles of MTBs and destroyers were munged together. This ship was known as a destroyer. It carried both the anti-bigstuff torpedoes and the anti-smallstuff guns. Then around WWII the destroyers were used, as Captain Pharris says, as anti submarine weapons. From here on Captain Pharris is more or less right.

------------------
Grand Fleet Admiral Slathkill, Supreme Commander I.M.A. Fleet

Quote

Thankyou. I so seldom hear of my scenario that I though it was quite dead. My newer scenario which is-yet-to-be-put-on-the-add-ons-section includes more ships but with the same design philosophy.

------------------------
"I have changed my name to Count Altair to avoid detection."

[This message has been edited by Count Altair El Alemein (edited 01-30-2001).]

Basically the rapid increase in the ammount of firepower that a small vessel can carry has driven down ship size considerably. Now, the same destructive power possessed by battleships can be weilded by a small AEGIS cruiser or destroyer with SSMs and powerful radar. This makes large boats a liability. They are expensive, can be destroyed almost as easily as a small ship, and can carry only a slightly larger ammount of firepower. More importantly, in the modern age of rapid deployment and widespread conflicts, several smaller ships are more useful, as they can cover a larger area, and cost less at the same time.

That concludes the Naval History bit. Now the Ares bit:

I'd like to suggest that all ares ships have crews of at most 5-6, with the exception of carriers and transports, almost all ares ships seem a lot more like large fighters than naval vessels. They have forward faceing weapons, and they have limited range/energy. Therefore, I presume that the ships don't have large crew quarters, only a cockpit and perhaps an engine room. They are deployed from the Gateship for the duration of a battle, then return.

That oughta string this thing out for a few extra posts...




------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

Fighters undoubtedly have crews of no greater than 2, probably 1,
Schooners would have either 2 or 3, and
Cruisers would have 3-6.
Heavy Cruisers would be run by a crew of 6-8.
Gunships, IMNSHO, would have 10-12, generally.
HVDs would have 30-40, at least half being engineers, with
Carriers maxing out at 500, starting around 350, and the same for Battleships.
Assault Transports carry 12 EVATs, plus 10-12 crewmembers, and
Transports carry ~200 troopers with 15-20 crew.

Gateships carry 3000-4000 at a minimum.

Engineering Pods are automated, probably so are Defense Drones (too boring).
I have maintained that Obish Escorts have crews of 12, and I consider it reasonable.

I don't believe there are any other classes present in more than one race in Ares (discounting EVATs).

------------------
-Pallas Athene of Dysian Beta, Obish Consensus Representative
-Nieru Dast, {M}ilitia Aeriane
-Danae Vernius
"Cheaters don't really win, and winners don't really cheat. Unless you're talking politics." -Durandal

I'd give you that for the cruisers and such, but there are other sci-fi vessles that have their guns forward firing but large crews. I'd say gunships have decent crews and are habitable for long periods, somewhere between Airforce One and a strategic bomber. HVDs probably have crews of 30 or so, as they are large and complex, mounting specialized weapondry extremely advanced weapondry. They are the snipers of Ares.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

I still think that they really are small, even an HVD. I think they're about the size of a midsize Airliner, with most of the space being taken up by fuel and weapons. There isn't enough room in a ship that size to house a crew larger than 10 for very long, and more importantly, I don't think they need it. Look at a B1-B (the lancer, not the stealth bomber) That is a ridiculously complicated machine, and a powerful weapon, but it is crewed by four. Assuming that the battles you fight in ares are only five or six hours long, I would think that a comprehensive Engineering team would be pointless. The engineer is there to monitor the engines and assure that they are running at optimal levels. On smaller vessels, that sort of thing could be done by computers, or controlled from the cockpit (like on some old airliners, where there is a third seat for an engineer)

I think what I am suggesting is that these are not run like ships, they are run like airplanes. They are piloted, not captained. The captain of an HVD is the pilot as well. There isn't a bridge, there's a cockpit or a flight deck(like in an airliner). Just because a ship is bug and complicated doesn't mean it can't be flown by few people. Airliners contain millions of individual moving parts. They are so complicated that they are almost never in perfect condition, odds are the last plane you flew on was running something on a backup part, because trying to isolate and repair something can take days. They are ridiculously complicated, but now, with computers, they can be flown by one person.

The sort of dynamic dogfight-style battles that you fight in Ares ships wouldn't be very easy if they were run with a naval ship-style bridge. Fighting in an HVD moves too quickly to have that sort of chain of command, decisions need to be made at the pilot level. I really think that even the largest sub capitol class vessels, the crews never get bigger than five or six.

The only evidence I have found to the contrary is the cantharaan schooner that is chaseing the asteroid, though this can be explained away saying that schooners are made for long distance travel, and have crew berths.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

HVDs are large ships, and apparently are fleet command vessles. It's quite possible that they have captains, who are really more pilots, and admirals. Or just pilot/captains. I'm not sure about gunships, as they can have turrets and seem to manuver slowly and deliberately.

Oh, it might be that the HVD weapons are complex and experamental, and need teams of engineers to run. This would be backed by their rarity and high degree of power (except for Sals and Auds).

Gateships, however, seem rather rare to house fleets. It might well be that there are special fleet transports (converted superfreighters?) that house small fleets, similar to my captured freighter.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

Well they're not much more rare than carriers, in fact, you see them more often.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

P.S. Why are HVDs fleet command vessels?

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

Quote

UM,
NO.

Gateships appear twice in the levels. Carriers are all over. HVDs appear about 5 times.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

An engineer is not comissioned to monitor only the engines, but the entire technical operation of the ship.

I doubt HVDs are very stable ships. A little power overload, and the entire thing's gone. I think it rather likely that most races would want to have crewmembers there to eliminate any possibility of the ship malfunctioning and destroying itself. Therefore, they put a team of engineers to eliminate any chance of malfunction.

Gunships do not need all that space for weapons and engines. Let's take a look at ths Ishiman Gunship. They're slow as it is, and you can see the PK-cannon on top. The side "nacelles" are where the lepton beam cannons are, and the front is the cockpit. So what do they do with the remaining space? Leave it empty? I doubt they'd do that. They have to have found some constructive use for it - i.e. crew housing.

Gateships are not necessarily massive fleet transporters, but allow the ships to move with their assistance - if they did nothing but carry ships within them, then they would only need the Jumpgate generator to transport themselves, and thus could be much smaller and more numerous. They aren't. Besides, the Cantharans only have one. Are they expected to carry every single ship the Cantharans own to battle? And the Ishimans weren't willing to commit their Gateships to any great extent, but still they seem to move their fleet fine.

------------------
-Pallas Athene of Dysian Beta, Obish Consensus Representative
-Nieru Dast, {M}ilitia Aeriane
-Danae Vernius
"Cheaters don't really win, and winners don't really cheat. Unless you're talking politics." -Durandal

Darkk:
I was talking about HVDs, they appear at least 4 times, and once five at the same time. They can't be that rare.

Athena: We've already agreed that gateships don't need to enter a system to drop ships in, they can have the fleet flying near them, and send the ones they need out, or pull reinforcements to them from elsewhere.

I don't see why a race so concerned with saving lives as the Ishimans would ever dream about flying a ship that wasn't 100% reliable. HVDs may be powerful and complicated but that doesn't necessarily make them unstable or fragile(besides having weak shields)

Now, as for the gunships, how do you think they power those energy weapons? They need fuel, and energy. (Apparanty ship's power and manouevering fuel are separate, as you can still fly after you've run out of energy) The Ships need space to house generators and engines and fuel. These things all take up a lot of space.

Here's part of something I posted ages ago in clarification.

Ships in Ares are limited deployment vessels. If you notice, its possible to exhaust an entire HVD's Energy supply in a few minutes. I don't think any ship has the capability to move between systems on its own, let alone survive in open space for extended periods of time(except for perhaps carriers)

Then Darkk Said:
----------
I'm pretty sure you're right on all counts. The thing about building them in a small amount of time (even if time in Ares is compressed) is a clear indication of that too.
-------------

Now, I say: If you're flying a ship that only has the fuel to run for twenty hours or so(and that's being very generous with time compression in the game) You don't need an extensive engineering crew. I hate to stomp a point into the ground, but seriously, there are lots of extremely complex machines that do not require multiple engineers to operate them, many ships now a days can literally run themselves, everything from starting the engines to leaveing harbor. All you have to do is point to a spot on the GPS, and the ship is off. Of course these ships have engineers on board because they are out to sea for months on end, and they need emergency repairs. Carrying large teams of engineers on spaceships that only run for hours or, at best, days at a time is useless. Redundant systems would be enough to let a ship limp back home, and, if ships are limited deployment vessels, loseing an HVD would not be much more troubleing than loseing a B-52 or some other large aircraft.

I suppose that it is possible for ships to stay out for perhaps longer than 24 hours, but I still think that an HVD wouldn't require a much larger crew than a gunship, at most ten crewmembers. They really only need a Pilot, a copilot, a WSO, a Radar Operator, and an engineer to monitor the ship's performance. Aided by computers, a crew of this size could be remarkeable effective.

(also, compare the Lepton cannon Nacelles on the HVD and the Gunship: If they are to scale, than there is not a huge difference in size between the two, and that can be accounted for by the Missiles and Pulse weapon on the HVD)

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

[This message has been edited by Captain Pharris (edited 01-31-2001).]

Hmm... My estimate for HVD:
Captain/Pilot
Sensors
Turret/Missles
Computer Opp (all too common on modern craft)
Engineer (HVDs are big, but have flimsly shields, and might need in-flight repairs)
ECM (hey, it seems likely given modern craft)
4 Damage Control [they are rather large]
TOTAL: 10 crew

Gunships, however seem more like endurance patrol craft, as evidenced by your comment about them loosing shields at the same time they run out of ammo. They might have shifts of similar composition, plus some more engineers - say 15 total shift. 3 (standard # shifts) times 15 is 45.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

I actually like the idea you put forth, HVDs are large because their weapons are large. They are interceptors. Short ranged, advanced capability ships, but lacking range.

Gunships and cruisers are patrol ships, with a cruiser being somewhat like a PT boat (small crew, mid range, a bunk or two) and gunships being slightly larger, with perhaps a few more crewmembers, but still, I bet they wouldn't need to break the 15 crew mark.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

The idea that ships endurance would be limited by fuel: ARES DOESN'T HAVE FUEL. The ships can manuver FOREVER without problems. Fighting will drain the ENERGY, as will superlight, but planetary patrols would be limited only by the endurance of the crew.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

...which means there must be some way of generating near infinite amounts of power usable only by the engines. However, if there was something like that, it would be miniaturized, since the power would still be in great enough quantities to power a ship.

I still maintain, however, that HVDs are trying to pack too much power into the ship. Again, we have the Lepton "nacelles," but CMissile storage would not take up too much space; they are undoubtedly self-propelled to minimize space, and the almost the entire frontal area remains to house the fullerene cannon. We still have the same amount of "empty space" as the Gunship. If anyone wants to argue that the Gunship houses larger crews, then the HVD must as well.

My arguement is this: computers are not 100% reliable. If ships are valuable, most would want to install failsafes (lifeforms) to regulate it.

------------------
-Pallas Athene of Dysian Beta, Obish Consensus Representative
-Nieru Dast, {M}ilitia Aeriane
-Danae Vernius
"Cheaters don't really win, and winners don't really cheat. Unless you're talking politics." -Durandal

I'd have to agree with Pallas. It would be possible NOW to computerize large portions of our mechanized forces. Nobody's about to yet. Conclusion: organic lifeforms will view organic lifeforms as more reliable than computers or electonic lifeforms (if the civilizations in Ares are suffficiently advanced), and thus use them wherever practical.

Gunships and HVDs probably have about 30 crew. As to the fuel concern, it's simple: if the velocities in Ares aren't too great, fusion could achieve them with very little fuel. It would make sense to fight at low velocities, as it would make dogfighting and turning easier. The amount of fuel used is quite insignificant, and easily replenished with Bussard collectors.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

This is turning into a Captain Pharris vs. the World, isn't it...

You're actually incorrect, computers, when well programmed are much more reliable than life forms. A computer doesn't get bored or tired, and doesn't get distracted when the ship swerves hard to avoid incomming Audemedon Missiles. Generalising about how much creatures trust computers is dangerous, as I am right now disproving your point. I think that in applications where a computer is more effective, and more economic, they should be used. You can't try and tell me that building a Giant army of robots would be any cheaper than training people to fight, and the capability isn't there to make a replacement for good old fasioned infantry. The Computers that monitor the instruments on ships are there because they can reduce the number of people needed to fly the ship, and we all know how much the Ishimans hate risking lives, so it would make sense that they would figure out a way to automate as many systems as possible, leaving only top level decisions to the pilot.

This is already how planes are flown now. There are almost no commercial or military planes that still have any type of direct connection from the controls to the control surfaces. What happens now, is that the pilot pulls back on the stick, and instead of hitting an electrical switch to activate Hydraulics, A computer says "huh, he's pulling back on the stick, He wants the plane to go up." The computer then chooses whichever combination of flaps, Aelerons and Elevators will make the manouever smooth, fuel efficient and quick. The Fly-by-wire system really does separate the pilot from the controls. If the computer dies, the pilot cannot do anything to control the plane. Not that the computers don't have backups and redundancy built in, but they are absolutely critical to some planes. There are aircraft that not even the best pilot could fly without fly by wire. Computers already are very much in control of flight operations, computers on airliners can take a plane from wheels up over Heathrow to a standing stop in Logan without a pilot touching the controls. The flight crews are smaller, because they don't have to do as much, and it makes flying easier.

------------------
NEW NAME FOR THE DREADNOUGHT
The Hard-Boiled Egg
Why?
Because she cant be beaten!

No, versus Pallas and Darkk.
I think that submarines might be a better metaphor. They COULD probably be automated, but they're not. They need humans, because sentiants are more mentally adaptable than non-sentiants. Unless the auds aren't the only sentient computers, the Ish will have people there in case the computer messes up. In space ships, the vast majority of the crew of non-capital ships will probably consist of damage control. The systems will need tight monitoring. Think about how many people are needed to supervise a relatively simple rocket flight from Cape Canaveral.

Oh, and you're the one talking about automating the armed forces being possible. I'm agreeing to that. Training infantry is cheaper than building infantry, but building robot tanks is possible and is being implemented (dog-sized kamakazi tanks are being develeopled for the Army).

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI