Ship Specializations and Military Classifications

[JacobFlowers]

This is something to be considered when developing ships classes and such. I am springboarding off of this thread here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14614)that I also started.

So here is the deal. The Klingons are an aggressive race. So yes, their ships and thinking tend to be more militaristic in nature. Armor differentiation and bonuses and such can be expected.

The federation however is farrrrrr more diversified (From what we know anyway). They are also geared more towards exploration than war. HOWEVER... given circumstances of wars in the past, they are savvy in this arena.

Here is my question for the Dev's and federation:

Will we have:

Exploration Ship Classes (Galaxy Class)
Medical Ship Classes (Dr. Beverly Crusher's ship)
Diplomatic Ship Classes (Ambassador)
Transport Ship Classes
Science Vessels (Oberth Class)
Salvaging Ships

As for warships, there is plenty outside of official ST Canon that has for potential Star Ship designs in:

Scouts
Destroyers
Heavy Destroyers (Soyuz)
Escort Destroyer/Cruiser (Miranda)
Light Cruiser
Cruiser (Constellation Class)
Tactical Attack Cruiser (that one ship in a Voyager episode... memory alpha isn't working today!)
Heavy Cruiser (Constitution/Refit)
Command Cruiser (Nebula)
Battlecruiser (Excelsior)
Battleship (Sovereign, Galaxy)
Dreadnaught
Escort Carrier
Light Carrier
Carrier
MOTHERSHIP??? wooot wooot


I think this kind of diversity would make for delightful and interesting fleet missions/encounters/PvP.

Perhaps something like a Galaxy Class ship could be (in the name of the ST Universe) be an Exploration ship with abilities in medical, combat, etc etc.... but then have variations on the Galaxy Class ship that would fit the warship category for a Battleship, etc.

[Varrangian]

This is something to be considered when developing ships classes and such. I am springboarding off of this thread here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14614)that I also started.

So here is the deal. The Klingons are an aggressive race. So yes, their ships and thinking tend to be more militaristic in nature. Armor differentiation and bonuses and such can be expected.

The federation however is farrrrrr more diversified (From what we know anyway). They are also geared more towards exploration than war. HOWEVER... given circumstances of wars in the past, they are savvy in this arena.

Here is my question for the Dev's and federation:

Will we have:

Exploration Ship Classes (Galaxy Class)
Medical Ship Classes (Dr. Beverly Crusher's ship)
Diplomatic Ship Classes (Ambassador)
Transport Ship Classes
Science Vessels (Oberth Class)
Salvaging Ships

As for warships, there is plenty outside of official ST Canon that has for potential Star Ship designs in:

Scouts
Destroyers
Heavy Destroyers (Soyuz)
Escort Destroyer/Cruiser (Miranda)
Light Cruiser
Cruiser (Constellation Class)
Tactical Attack Cruiser (that one ship in a Voyager episode... memory alpha isn't working today!)
Heavy Cruiser (Constitution/Refit)
Command Cruiser (Nebula)
Battlecruiser (Excelsior)
Battleship (Sovereign, Galaxy)
Dreadnaught
Escort Carrier
Light Carrier
Carrier
MOTHERSHIP??? wooot wooot


I think this kind of diversity would make for delightful and interesting fleet missions/encounters/PvP.

Perhaps something like a Galaxy Class ship could be (in the name of the ST Universe) be an Exploration ship with abilities in medical, combat, etc etc.... but then have variations on the Galaxy Class ship that would fit the warship category for a Battleship, etc.

Keep in mind STO has mentioned "Classes" or "roles" rather for ships.

It appears ships will fit into three classes (though there may be some overlap) -

Feds - Scout/Escort, Science, Exploration/Cruiser
Klingon - Raider, Carrier, Cruiser.

So Class appears to have multiple meanings in STO. One being related to the traditional MMO idea of class.

[USS_ARROW]

Like Varrangian said, each faction is suposed to have 3 broad classes.

Federation:
Scout/Escort- Saber, Nova, Defiant...
Science: Oberth...
Exploration/Cruiser: Galaxy, Sovy, Nebula...

Klingon:
Raider: Bird of Prey, K-vort...
Carrier: ?
Cruiser: Negh-Var, Vorcha...

[JacobFlowers]

Hmm...

but what about the vast amount of other options available. Medical ships, transport ships... etc. Ships specifically geared for War. Perhaps better suited for an expansion :-D

[Varrangian]

Hmm...

but what about the vast amount of other options available. Medical ships, transport ships... etc. Ships specifically geared for War. Perhaps better suited for an expansion :-D

I'm sure Medical ships will fit into Science, though perhaps there is no real place for them in STO, as they would have nearly zero role in space combat so they'd only have one area (exploration) open to them for game play.

Transports are very unlikely to be PC ships, again too narrow a role.

The running theory is that in groups for the Feds Scouts will be hit and run artists, kind of DPS in most MMOs. Science will be electronic warefare or combat control in other MMOs and Cruisers/Exploration ships will be close to tanks as they will have the ability to take more hits.

Now this is just combat content. For exploration I think it becomes clear that a Scout is hindered by size for exploration so they can explore, but they have fewer resources. Science ships are great for scanning systems and such, but likely like fire power if the exploring turns into a violent situation. Obviously exploration ships like the Galaxy class are well rounded for this task, but they will be likely higher level ships and require more time in service to earn and a larger well trained crew.

[PaperBackHero]

It would be prudent to expect the game to evolve and add other possible vessels in the future expansion packs.

[BreachAndClear]

The emphasis of the game is not combat, sure some will engage in it frequently, but it's been suggested that people can go out and explore and what not as end in itself. Sure you'll probably end up fighting eventually, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be the focus unless you make it the focus. Therefore, not every ship class necessarily has to fit into some niche comparable to those of other MMOs.

I.E. the scout vessels might be outclassed by escorts in every way, when it comes to combat. They don't necessarily have to occupy an electronic warfare niche to balance out their combat skills if they excel in some other non-combat role.

[IanD967]

Like Varrangian said, each faction is suposed to have 3 broad classes.

Federation:
Scout/Escort- Saber, Nova, Defiant...
Science: Oberth...
Exploration/Cruiser: Galaxy, Sovy, Nebula...



the Nebula ican also be a majorly Science vessel.
its Pod can be converted for mainly scientific assignments but gives up a large number of its defense's from the basic tactical pod (for example the USS Berkeley in Bridge Commander and the USS Pheonix)

[BreachAndClear]

The Nova will likely be a science vessel, and I believe the Intrepid was confirmed to fall under that classification in the context of STO.

EDIT: In the Ask Cryptic from Sep. 17, 2008:

[...]Federation ship classes are inspired by the television shows. So, for example, you could have a ship like the Enterprise, the Defiant or the Voyager. We call the different classifications of ships Cruisers, Escorts and Science Vessels[...]

It seems Enterprise, Defiant, and Voyager match the roles of Cruiser, Escort, and Voyager respectively. The first two definitely match up, so I'm assuming the Intrepid class (e.g. Voyager) will be classified as a Science Vessel.

[Saladin_Class]

Once again I will point out that Starfleet like all other navys, builds ships on displacement.

If its been the constant for 100s of years, you can figure it shall continue for 100s more.

All naval vessels have two roles, peace time and combat.

You all continue to mix this up.

Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battle Cruiser
Deadknought

There are countless exsamples in star trek of how each of these work.

You all can thy and unmilitary them all you want.

The Reliant was a light cruiser, it was on a sicience mission.

The Enterprise under Kirk was a heavy cruiser, it was on a 5 year exploration mission, but got puilled off for combat missions.

An escort, scout, science vessel is preforming its role mission

Any of these can be a frigate, destroyer, light or heavy crusier

and YES some have dedicated missions (both peace & war time)

It was not until the 80s when the lines were blurred by STNG.

[BreachAndClear]

Starfleet is not a military organization, and therefore it is non-essential that every ship type be classified as such. A tugboat is not an off-duty cruiser. Escort is a euphemism for warship, the most famous of which (Defiant and Sovereign) were constructed to combat the borg. The rest of the ships have weapons for defense, but the vast majority of the ships do not serve for combat, as is the case in the modern world's militaries.

[Varrangian]

Starfleet is not a military organization, and therefore it is non-essential that every ship type be classified as such. A tugboat is not an off-duty cruiser. Escort is a euphemism for warship, the most famous of which (Defiant and Sovereign) were constructed to combat the borg. The rest of the ships have weapons for defense, but the vast majority of the ships do not serve for combat, as is the case in the modern world's militaries.

I'm not going to argue the intentions of Starfleet a fictional organization that has honestly contradicted itself greatly over the life of Trek, but I feel this needs to be said.

STO is a game and while they will likely attempt to make a game that does not force people to engage in combat in order to play, they also have to make it so anyone who wants to can participate in combat. So all ships will nearly certainly have a role in group combat regardless of what even people might think the fictional intentions of Starfleet are. So a science ship is very, very likely play some role in group combat, as will all the other roles.

[IanD967]

Starfleet is not a military organization,.

yes it is.

it is the Military strongarm of the UFP

[Griffin]

The roles of ships have been mentioned in a magazine article somewhere, the classifications are listed above and below:

Federation:

Exploration
Escort
Science

Klingon:

Crusier
Raider Type
Carrier

It's safe to assume most of the ships we've seen so far fit into one of these types, but we recently received more info on ships from Zinc at Comic Con. He mentioned 'Frigate Type' vessels in which we begin our careers in, and also 'Engineering Support'. Where do these 2 new types fit in I wonder... are they new types of ship, are they variations of the current 6, subgroups, belonging to one of the above 6? nobody knows yet.

[BreachAndClear]

I'm not going to argue the intentions of Starfleet a fictional organization that has honestly contradicted itself greatly over the life of Trek, but I feel this needs to be said.

STO is a game and while they will likely attempt to make a game that does not force people to engage in combat in order to play, they also have to make it so anyone who wants to can participate in combat. So all ships will nearly certainly have a role in group combat regardless of what even people might think the fictional intentions of Starfleet are. So a science ship is very, very likely play some role in group combat, as will all the other roles.

I agree. And the battles of the Dominion War show that many of the Federation ships are competent in combat, but the majority of the vessels are multipurpose craft that are not made specifically for the rigors of war. And in the case of ships like the Oberth, it's unlikely that it was created for any kind of combat, as it has only the bear minimum armaments.

yes it is.

it is the Military strongarm of the UFP

I stand corrected. However, it still isn't entirely a military organization, as exploration is also a fundamental element of Starfleets mission. So, while I made a mistake in my assumption, I think my prior point still stands; that not all ships need be given a designation that implies a combat role, like "heavy cruiser", etc.

As an aside. Names like heavy cruiser, light cruiser, frigate, destroyer, etc. are largely arbitrary and give only the vaguest suggestion of the ships function. I feel it is far more logical for Cryptic to continue classify ships strictly based on role (e.g. science) and not type (e.g. light cruiser), given the arbitrary and incoherent nature of such designations.

[JacobFlowers]

I'm not going to argue the intentions of Starfleet a fictional organization that has honestly contradicted itself greatly over the life of Trek, but I feel this needs to be said.

STO is a game and while they will likely attempt to make a game that does not force people to engage in combat in order to play, they also have to make it so anyone who wants to can participate in combat. So all ships will nearly certainly have a role in group combat regardless of what even people might think the fictional intentions of Starfleet are. So a science ship is very, very likely play some role in group combat, as will all the other roles.

I hope, for the sake of staying true to the Star Trek Universe, that this will not be the case. It will play to similarly to EVE where a "Science" ship will take on the role of a logistics cruiser or such.

In cases of wartime, NON-COMBAT (or inadequately defensive) VESSELS FLEE. They do not turn into the tide of battle with their one utility phaser beam.

Do we not recall the recall the USS Grissom being one shotted by a b'rel class bird of prey in Star Trek ... IV i think it was. Not star trek III the Search for Spock :D yes thats it.

It seems people are wanting to create or improve upon the ST Universe. There is too much possibility for it to be done poorly or done well and still flop. The TV shows and movies should be law.

[JacobFlowers]

As an aside. Names like heavy cruiser, light cruiser, frigate, destroyer, etc. are largely arbitrary and give only the vaguest suggestion of the ships function. I feel it is far more logical for Cryptic to continue classify ships strictly based on role (e.g. science) and not type (e.g. light cruiser), given the arbitrary and incoherent nature of such designations.

It may be helpful to use a dual classification system. One to help people understand the ship's primary role, purpose and special abilities, and the other classification (i.e. light cruiser) to describe its defensive/offensive abilities.

This is under the assumption that we will get "Normal Ships" by purchase or reward and can upgrade them accordingly as we see fit. However at least with the military classification, we can know that the bare minimum of a heavy cruiser will have at least 6 phaser banks (fore and aft) and two torpedo launchers and a shield rating of xxx and hull rating of xxx, etc. Does this make sense ?

For example:
Oberth Class Ship
Ship Type: Science Vessel
Ship Classification: Scout/Light Destroyer
Phaser Banks: 1
Photon Torpedo Launchers: 0
Hull Rating: xxx
Shield rating: xxx
Special Abilities: Deep planetary scan, augmented long range sensors, stellar cartography lab, large compliment of probes, etc.

[PaperBackHero]

Star Fleet is more of an para military org. If it were to be measured against things we know, Federal police with special tactical units and equipment.

[JamesDBurke]

My biggest question about the thread is why are we using antiquated ship designs as a reference? An Oberth? They aren't even in use by the end of TNG and will certainly not be around by the STO time line. Howsabout we use Nemesis era ship references?

Think about it. Voyager was clearly shown to be a science vessel during it's show run. That being said, it had 15 phaser emitters and five dual shot torpedo tubes. Even the Nova class made it through a significant portion of the Delta Quadrant alone and unaided (and would have likely done better if not for the immorality of the crew). While exceedingly capable at their scientific mission, both were able to perform well at combat. Even the Luna Class (Titan book series ship) falls into this same category.

The Sovereign is a ridiculous powerhouse when compared to any other vessel as it should be as Cruisers are intended to be the most versatile of ships in the Trekverse. The Galaxy Class also is both combat savvy as well as having multiple scientific capabilities. Cruisers are meant to be big and good at multiple things - which is why I would imagine that it will take the resources of entire fleets to make one of these vessels (as per the Cryptic devs).

The Prometheus and Defiant and Akira classes are prolific Escorts that are powerhouses of combat. Fast, agile, maneuverable - they are role oriented. That being said, they still have accurate sensor systems and limited scientific capabilities.

Ever since mid TNG, any starfleet ship has been capable of - at the very least - defending itself if not being able to retreat at high warp. I can't remember the last "new" ship to be introduced that was a sitting duck like the Oberth.

As it is, from the TOS era we have very few ships that are canon to work with.

Oberth
Miranda
Constitution
Constellation (referenced in ST VI, never seen until TNG)
Sydney (never seen or referenced until TNG - the Scotty episode)

And that is all of them. Not much pickings to get into but basically you have Constitution as the Cruiser, Miranda and Constellation as the Escorts and the Oberth and Sydney as your Sience ships. And that's all the TOS canon ships there are.

I can see how it may be dificult to grasp going into combat with a Science vessel (like an Intrepid class) if you may be using the TOS concepts as your frame of reference.

[Flatfingers]

Good thread.

I tend to the view that terms like "cruiser" and "frigate" and so on, despite their military origins, are generally appropriate for designating ship classes in a paramilitary force like Starfleet. They're reasonably well-understood as a shorthand for size and general capability, so that's helpful. And these terms were used in Star Trek, if not always consistently, then at least frequently, so that's another point in their favor.

So my preference would be for designating ships in a Star Trek MMORPG based on combining two factors:

class (shuttle/runabout, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship, dreadnought)
role (Science/Engineering, Tactical, Diplomacy)The class would match up with what Cryptic is currently calling "tier." A Tier 2 ship would be a destroyer, and so on. (Shuttles/runabouts would be Tier 0 ships to denote their standing as support craft.)

And the role would be similar to, though not identical to, Cryptic's notion of Escort/Science/Cruiser "classes" of ships. (I think their nomenclature confuses "class" with "role" as described above, which is unnecessary even given that we're talking about designing functional gameplay for a MMORPG.)

This two-factor approach would give us a classification system that is relatively simple but usefully expressive in communicating the general capabilities of any ship type. For example, if we say a Nova is a "Science frigate," it's easy to understand what that class is likely to be good at compared to a "Tactical battleship" like a Sovereign. And if we really felt it was necessary to have an "Explorer" role for ship types as Cryptic has proposed, it's easy to get that by combining the fundamental roles: Explorer = Science + Tactical.

To quote myself from the "Defining Starfleet Ship Roles (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=9464)" thread:

DIPLOMACY
(?)

SCIENCE
Hermes, Oberth, "Raven", Nova

TACTICAL
Defiant, Norway, Steamrunner, Akira, Saber, Peregrine (provisional), Sovereign, Prometheus

"GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY" (Diplomacy + Tactical)
Excelsior, Challenger

EXPLORATION (Science + Tactical)
Miranda, New Orleans, Nebula, Intrepid, Delta Flyer (provisional), Luna(provisional)

SOCIAL (Diplomacy + Science)
Olympic

FLAGSHIP (Diplomacy + Science + Tactical)
Constitution, Ambassador, Galaxy

I understand that all this isn't exactly what Cryptic has announced as their current design intentions. But the game's not set in stone yet. ;)

The emphasis of the game is not combat, sure some will engage in it frequently, but it's been suggested that people can go out and explore and what not as end in itself. Sure you'll probably end up fighting eventually, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be the focus unless you make it the focus. Therefore, not every ship class necessarily has to fit into some niche comparable to those of other MMOs.

The Nova will likely be a science vessel, and I believe the Intrepid was confirmed to fall under that classification in the context of STO.

EDIT: In the Ask Cryptic from Sep. 17, 2008:

[...]Federation ship classes are inspired by the television shows. So, for example, you could have a ship like the Enterprise, the Defiant or the Voyager. We call the different classifications of ships Cruisers, Escorts and Science Vessels[...]

It seems Enterprise, Defiant, and Voyager match the roles of Cruiser, Escort, and Voyager respectively. The first two definitely match up, so I'm assuming the Intrepid class (e.g. Voyager) will be classified as a Science Vessel.

BreachAndClear, on both of these points (especially the first one) you've succinctly said precisely what I was thinking, but which probably would have taken me several pages to say. Thanks for helping me not babble on these things more than I already have here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2007/10/non-combat-gameplay-in-star-trek-mmorpg.html) and here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2008/04/tanks-nukers-and-healers-in-star-trek.html). :)

Varrangian, I've noticed in a couple of posts now you've referred to the three Starfleet classes as "Scout/Escort, Science, and Exploration/Cruiser." The thing is, I don't recall seeing or hearing anything official from Cryptic in which they mention an intention to offer "Scout" ships as a type of Escort class and "Exploration" ships as a specific type of Cruiser class.

I know they've talked in a general way about letting us do exploration as gameplay. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the "Cruiser" class they've mentioned will be most suitable for that gameplay mode (although I might could make that case for the "Science" class). But are those assumptions on your part, or has someone from Cryptic actually stated those things somewhere and I just missed them?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, but I just can't find anything explicitly saying that "Scout" and "Exploration" would be actual classes or subclasses of Escort and Cruiser, respectively. If you could point me to such comments, I'd be indebted to you. If they're assumptions you're making, that's completely fine; I'm not criticizing them -- in fact, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for those views.

Not much pickings to get into but basically you have Constitution as the Cruiser, Miranda and Constellation as the Escorts and the Oberth and Sydney as your Sience ships. And that's all the TOS canon ships there are.

There's an interesting argument (http://www.trekplace.com/article09.html) that since the Federation-, Saladin/Hermes-, and Ptolomy-class designs from the old Franz Joseph Tech Manual appeared in the Enterprise's on-screen displays in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, they should be considered canonical.

I won't try to persuade you either way on that; it's just an interesting observation.

--Flatfingers

[BreachAndClear]

It may be helpful to use a dual classification system. One to help people understand the ship's primary role, purpose and special abilities, and the other classification (i.e. light cruiser) to describe its defensive/offensive abilities.

This is under the assumption that we will get "Normal Ships" by purchase or reward and can upgrade them accordingly as we see fit. However at least with the military classification, we can know that the bare minimum of a heavy cruiser will have at least 6 phaser banks (fore and aft) and two torpedo launchers and a shield rating of xxx and hull rating of xxx, etc. Does this make sense ?

The problem is that there really isn't any sort of agreed upon definition of what makes a destroyer a destroyer, a light cruiser a light cruiser, etc. Often times these are just designations that are inherited by a predecessor. In the US Navy (and I assume all the world's navies), a modern cruiser bears more resemblance to a modern destroyer than it does to its predecessor nearly 100 years ago. The first destroyers were predominantly fast ships used to combat missile boats, but then as needs change the function changes, to combat submarines, intercept missiles, as a platform for the launching of guided missiles, etc. The function changes radically, such that the modern destroyers barely has any resemblance in function to its predecessors, and so what the two ships have in common scarcely extends beyond name only.

Often these names are inherited. If a cruiser designed predominantly as an escort for an Aircraft carrier is phased out and replaced by a guided missile cruiser used predominantly to support ground forces, the designation of cruiser is inherited, even though there really aren't any obvious characteristics that tie the two ships together as "cruisers."

A person can get a vague idea of what a person is talking about if I refer to a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship, but if I start introducing words like light cruiser, medium cruiser, destroyer, heavy cruiser, light frigate, heavy frigate, battleship, battlecruiser, etc. there is so much overlap and redundancy in function among these types that many of these designations become meaningless.

[JamesDBurke]

There's an interesting argument (http://www.trekplace.com/article09.html) that since the Federation-, Saladin/Hermes-, and Ptolomy-class designs from the old Franz Joseph Tech Manual appeared in the Enterprise's on-screen displays in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, they should be considered canonical.

I won't try to persuade you either way on that; it's just an interesting observation.

--Flatfingers

Don't get me wrong, I know they've been referenced but a picture of a ship is still a picture of a ship. We've never seen any of those vessels in action, we have no way to properly gauge their categorization in the Trekverse. For all we know, they were only supposed to be prospective design schemes - not actual ships. There is no dialogue to support either perspective so we can definitely say the concepts are canon but the ships? Never on screen means doesn't exist in canon (as much as I would like the TOS era to have more than six ship variants).

And as for the whole scout/explorer sub class, I believe that in several interviews cryptic devs have stated how a player could spec their ship in that direction, but not that there would be an actual sub class for explorer.

I would imagine, though, that some ships would be better suited to the role just as other ships would be better for more combat oriented players. The beauty of it being is that Cryptic is allowing us players to do the following:
If I happen to be a Defiant fan I can use that vessel type as my mainstay. Let's say, though, that I'm hellbent on focusing on exploration more than anything else. I can focus my character and crew progression in that direction as well as ensuring all my ship upgrades are science oriented.

Now, would it be easier to use an Intrepid or Galaxy to seek out new worlds? Most probably yes, but Cryptic is allowing us fans to choose our role and choose our vehicle for that role without tying the job to the tool, so to speak.

The allowance to experience the Trekverse in your "dream" way that you've always wanted to is incredibly appealing to everyone, I would imagine. Granted, some ships will be much easier to attain than others (I'm taking a wild guess that I'll be able to use a Nova long before I could use a Sovereign) but the opportunity to use your most desired ship in any method you choose is enticing. As it is, ships in Trek have always been shown to be multi purpose ever since mid TNG.

One final question though, why are you using TOS ships in your examples? Even if Cryptic allows for the use of TOS hull designs, do you realize that the technology within will be vastly different from what existed in their classic counterparts? Different enough to the point that it may not even be classifiable in the same way the original version was. Just food for thought.

[Saladin_Class]

Breech&Clear

All military ships are based on how much water/air they displace

How big they are.


If it has the word cruiser in its name, it is a certain size.

You can take a duty destroyer (DD) and remove the photons, replace them with more phasers, and it becomes a DDE (duty destoryer Escort). It can fly faster, and circle its mother ship, and remove incoming threats.

It is still a destroyer, if you remove the extra phasers and install jammer/sensor generators, it is not s DDS (scout).

Those ships once refitted or made that way, will always do that role

[_Pax_]

This is something to be considered when developing ships classes and such. I am springboarding off of this thread here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14614)that I also started.

So here is the deal. The Klingons are an aggressive race. So yes, their ships and thinking tend to be more militaristic in nature. Armor differentiation and bonuses and such can be expected.

The federation however is farrrrrr more diversified (From what we know anyway). They are also geared more towards exploration than war. HOWEVER... given circumstances of wars in the past, they are savvy in this arena.

...

When a ship class is specified, it incldues some degree of information about TWO things: Size, and Role. The "classes" that Cryptic has described to us are very broad Roles. Within each of those, ships should come in all Sizes.

For Sizes, the most basic setup - taken directly from Star Fleet Battles, by the by - is this:

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BB) ... Battleship


Another, more-extensive version (also from SFB, from a few decades later in the setting's history):

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(DW) ... "War" or "Heavy" Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CW) ... "War" or "Medium" Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BCH) ... Heavy Battlecruiser
(BB) ... Battleship
(DN) ... Dreadnaught


Now, a ship's Role was represented by the addition of one or more letters (in a few cases, replacement of a single letter). A few examples:

(-E) ... Escort; less offensive weaponry, more defensive systems. These were used to keep larger, more heavily armed and expensive ships alive longer. Not usually applied to HEavy Cruiser or larger, but SOMETIMES is.
(-V) ... Carrier; yum, fighters!
(-G) ... Drone/Missile; yes, SFB had warp-speed missiles with antimatter warheads. And ships designed to make extensive use of them.
(-C or -L) ... "Command" or "Leader"; dedicated Flagship model, with systems especially designed to facilitate Fleet, Squadron, and Flotilla command. The -C was generally not used on ships below Cruiser size, and the -L was generally for Destroyers and Frigates, though some War/Medium Cruisers got an -L role.
(-T) ... Troop Ship; designed to carry and deliver ground forces in large quantities. HUGE transporter capacity, can send entire Company-sized units WITH their combat vehicles, all at once!
(-S) ... Scout; pretty self-explanatory, yes?


So, putting the two together, you might have an FFE, or an FFG, or even an FFL. That's (Escort Frigate:, "Missile Frigate", and "Frigate Leader", respectively).

You might even have multiple Roles ... a CWV ("War Cruiser Carrier") might me accompanied by a DVE ("Escort Carrier Destroyer" - and note how one of the "D's" gets omitted) and an FVE or FFE ("Escort Carrier Frigate" or "Escort Frigate") for protection. Usually, to the best of my recollection, this didn't happen except with -V and -E.

Some other possibilities:

(CLS) ... Light Cruiser Scout
(DWL) ... War Destroyer Leader
(BCV) ... Battle Carrier
(CC) ... Command Cruiser
(CLT) ... Light Cruiser Transport
(BCG) ... Missile Battlecruiser
(DNG) ... Missile Dreadnaught
(CV) ... Carrier (standard version, built on a Heavy Cruiser template)
(CE) ... Escort Cruiser
(CVL) ... Light Carrier (built on a Light Cruiser hull, and an unusual case where hte "V" comes between the "C" and "L")


So, with just a few Sizes, and a few Roles, note how many Types of ship can be described ...! :D

[EDIT to add:]

With Cryptic, it seems we'll have three, maybe four Roles per faction:

Federation

(-X) ... Explorer
(-E) ... Escort
(-S) ... Science


Klingon

(-V) ... Carrier
(-C) ... Cruiser
(-R) ... Raider


Thus, as a Federation captain, you might start with either an FFX, FFE, or FFS - and there may be multiple hulls to choose from, for each of those. :) Meanwhile, your Klingon counterpart will start with an FFV, FFC, or FFR.

[Flatfingers]

One final question though, why are you using TOS ships in your examples? Even if Cryptic allows for the use of TOS hull designs, do you realize that the technology within will be vastly different from what existed in their classic counterparts? Different enough to the point that it may not even be classifiable in the same way the original version was. Just food for thought.

Assuming that was directed toward me, if you look closely you'll see that I only used TOS-era ships as examples to explore some ideas regarding ship roles, not ship classes.

Although the tools changed between 2265 and 2380 or so, Starfleet vessels were still being used to conduct Science and Diplomacy and Tactical activities -- the three mandates Starfleet was given at its founding.

I think a reasonable argument could also be made that ship classes, despite changes in technology, are OK to apply to TOS-era ships as long as we bear in mind your point that a TOS cruiser is no match for a VOY-era ship considered to be an instance of a cruiser class. But I won't push that too hard.

Besides, I think _Pax_ has pretty nicely laid out how the class side of a class/role system might look if we really wanted something we could sink our teeth into. :)

Bring on the Kzinti scatter pack drones!

--Flatfingers

[cv_coco]

Varrangian, I've noticed in a couple of posts now you've referred to the three Starfleet classes as "Scout/Escort, Science, and Exploration/Cruiser." The thing is, I don't recall seeing or hearing anything official from Cryptic in which they mention an intention to offer "Scout" ships as a type of Escort class and "Exploration" ships as a specific type of Cruiser class.

I know they've talked in a general way about letting us do exploration as gameplay. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the "Cruiser" class they've mentioned will be most suitable for that gameplay mode (although I might could make that case for the "Science" class). But are those assumptions on your part, or has someone from Cryptic actually stated those things somewhere and I just missed them?

--Flatfingers

The source Var is using for this is the Game Informer article (http://stokt.aforumfree.com/fleet-talkback-f3/gi-article-on-sto-transcribed-updated-w-pics-more-info-t26.htm), but because it was an exclusive it was never put online for general view.

[JamesDBurke]

Bring on the Kzinti scatter pack drones!

--Flatfingers

KZINTI!!

Bring'em on!! :D

I definitely see your perspective on the whole class thing. It just bugs me that everyone is using the old Starfleet Battles/SFC ship categories. Makes everything a tad bit too militaristic for me. Starfleet is supposed to be an exploratory/scientific branch of the Federation that doubles as a defense force - not the other way around.

Some may point out that Starfleet vessels have only gotten more heavily armed over the centuries. To that I can only say that it has been noted that the Galaxy is an extrememly dangerous place. You can't pring a knife to a gun fight.

All these references to destroyers and battleships seems kind of unStarfleet to me. Frigate, Freighter, Light/Heavy Cruiser, Explorer - all these sound more Starfleet to me as they don't necessarily have a military connotation.

When I hear Destroyer, when I hear Battleship, when I hear Carrier, I automatically think to myself "Self, that is a military ship." I would think those terms would be more appropriate for the Klingon Defense Force vessels.

And yes, I understand the displacement = size category but the terminology won't always hold true. A cargo container ship sidplaces as much (if not more in some cases) than an aircraft carrier. That being said, I wouldn't see them as being placed in the same category. That's why I don't think size/displacement alone should justify class. Remember, this is supposed to be starfleet, not ocean flotillas and navies.

I just think as this is a new IP (gamewise) we should all think in new terms as opposed to concets from older games based on a very different user interface and gameplay style.

Meh, there's 2 cents more from my brain.

[DanSeale]

...

When a ship class is specified, it incldues some degree of information about TWO things: Size, and Role. The "classes" that Cryptic has described to us are very broad Roles. Within each of those, ships should come in all Sizes.

For Sizes, the most basic setup - taken directly from Star Fleet Battles, by the by - is this:

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BB) ... Battleship


Another, more-extensive version (also from SFB, from a few decades later in the setting's history):

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(DW) ... "War" or "Heavy" Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CW) ... "War" or "Medium" Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BCH) ... Heavy Battlecruiser
(BB) ... Battleship
(DN) ... Dreadnaught


Now, a ship's Role was represented by the addition of one or more letters (in a few cases, replacement of a single letter). A few examples:

(-E) ... Escort; less offensive weaponry, more defensive systems. These were used to keep larger, more heavily armed and expensive ships alive longer. Not usually applied to HEavy Cruiser or larger, but SOMETIMES is.
(-V) ... Carrier; yum, fighters!
(-G) ... Drone/Missile; yes, SFB had warp-speed missiles with antimatter warheads. And ships designed to make extensive use of them.
(-C or -L) ... "Command" or "Leader"; dedicated Flagship model, with systems especially designed to facilitate Fleet, Squadron, and Flotilla command. The -C was generally not used on ships below Cruiser size, and the -L was generally for Destroyers and Frigates, though some War/Medium Cruisers got an -L role.
(-T) ... Troop Ship; designed to carry and deliver ground forces in large quantities. HUGE transporter capacity, can send entire Company-sized units WITH their combat vehicles, all at once!
(-S) ... Scout; pretty self-explanatory, yes?


So, putting the two together, you might have an FFE, or an FFG, or even an FFL. That's (Escort Frigate:, "Missile Frigate", and "Frigate Leader", respectively).

You might even have multiple Roles ... a CWV ("War Cruiser Carrier") might me accompanied by a DVE ("Escort Carrier Destroyer" - and note how one of the "D's" gets omitted) and an FVE or FFE ("Escort Carrier Frigate" or "Escort Frigate") for protection. Usually, to the best of my recollection, this didn't happen except with -V and -E.

Some other possibilities:

(CLS) ... Light Cruiser Scout
(DWL) ... War Destroyer Leader
(BCV) ... Battle Carrier
(CC) ... Command Cruiser
(CLT) ... Light Cruiser Transport
(BCG) ... Missile Battlecruiser
(DNG) ... Missile Dreadnaught
(CV) ... Carrier (standard version, built on a Heavy Cruiser template)
(CE) ... Escort Cruiser
(CVL) ... Light Carrier (built on a Light Cruiser hull, and an unusual case where hte "V" comes between the "C" and "L")


So, with just a few Sizes, and a few Roles, note how many Types of ship can be described ...! :D

[EDIT to add:]

With Cryptic, it seems we'll have three, maybe four Roles per faction:

Federation

(-X) ... Explorer
(-E) ... Escort
(-S) ... Science


Klingon

(-V) ... Carrier
(-C) ... Cruiser
(-R) ... Raider


Thus, as a Federation captain, you might start with either an FFX, FFE, or FFS - and there may be multiple hulls to choose from, for each of those. :) Meanwhile, your Klingon counterpart will start with an FFV, FFC, or FFR.

Well done Pax. You are quite correct on all points. You should also know that many of those designations are from Naval applications !

a good example of an application of this would be as follows:

I'm currenty working on a Fed ship that as far as the roll it might play would be a "scout class. It offiical size however would either a DD or heavy DD. From Cryptics stand point it might be considered an explorer or escort..

[titanticjj]

Well done Pax. You are quite correct on all points. You should also know that many of those designations are from Naval applications !

a good example of an application of this would be as follows:

I'm currenty working on a Fed ship that as far as the roll it might play would be a "scout class. It offiical size however would either a DD or heavy DD. From Cryptics stand point it might be considered an explorer or escort..

sweet, u talking about the difiant right?

[JacobFlowers]

The problem is that there really isn't any sort of agreed upon definition of what makes a destroyer a destroyer, a light cruiser a light cruiser, etc. Often times these are just designations that are inherited by a predecessor. In the US Navy (and I assume all the world's navies), a modern cruiser bears more resemblance to a modern destroyer than it does to its predecessor nearly 100 years ago. The first destroyers were predominantly fast ships used to combat missile boats, but then as needs change the function changes, to combat submarines, intercept missiles, as a platform for the launching of guided missiles, etc. The function changes radically, such that the modern destroyers barely has any resemblance in function to its predecessors, and so what the two ships have in common scarcely extends beyond name only.

Often these names are inherited. If a cruiser designed predominantly as an escort for an Aircraft carrier is phased out and replaced by a guided missile cruiser used predominantly to support ground forces, the designation of cruiser is inherited, even though there really aren't any obvious characteristics that tie the two ships together as "cruisers."

A person can get a vague idea of what a person is talking about if I refer to a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship, but if I start introducing words like light cruiser, medium cruiser, destroyer, heavy cruiser, light frigate, heavy frigate, battleship, battlecruiser, etc. there is so much overlap and redundancy in function among these types that many of these designations become meaningless.

That's talking about Navies. There is enough in the Star Trek Canon for the developers to make rational classifications based on star trek considerations. Aside from even this, most of the ST Games even have agreement for what is what SFC anyone? SFC III anyone?

The choices can be made easily, and can as follows be understood by the community. I am confident of this. I am also confident that most players won't have the confuddlements of modern world navies in the back of their minds when looking at ship options in STO.

[JacobFlowers]

KZINTI!!

Bring'em on!! :D

I definitely see your perspective on the whole class thing. It just bugs me that everyone is using the old Starfleet Battles/SFC ship categories. Makes everything a tad bit too militaristic for me. Starfleet is supposed to be an exploratory/scientific branch of the Federation that doubles as a defense force - not the other way around.


All these references to destroyers and battleships seems kind of unStarfleet to me. Frigate, Freighter, Light/Heavy Cruiser, Explorer - all these sound more Starfleet to me as they don't necessarily have a military connotation.

When I hear Destroyer, when I hear Battleship, when I hear Carrier, I automatically think to myself "Self, that is a military ship." I would think those terms would be more appropriate for the Klingon Defense Force vessels.

I just think as this is a new IP (gamewise) we should all think in new terms as opposed to concets from older games based on a very different user interface and gameplay style.

Meh, there's 2 cents more from my brain.

First, it may seem very "unStarfleet" but it is still very "Star Trek", hence my reference made before when the Klingons reference the Enterprise A as a "Heavy Cruise." Now my reasoning for introducing this concept at the first was to have a "Universal" way of recognizing ships and their abilities/sizes/

Pax did a very very good job at carefully distingsuishing between class and role thus breeding many types.

This is not to make Starfleet overly zealous or seemingly militaristic. It is simply a universal classification system that could apply to all factions, and can be cross factionally referenced.

[JacobFlowers]

...

When a ship class is specified, it incldues some degree of information about TWO things: Size, and Role. The "classes" that Cryptic has described to us are very broad Roles. Within each of those, ships should come in all Sizes.

For Sizes, the most basic setup - taken directly from Star Fleet Battles, by the by - is this:

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BB) ... Battleship


Another, more-extensive version (also from SFB, from a few decades later in the setting's history):

(FF) ... Frigate
(DD) ... Destroyer
(DW) ... "War" or "Heavy" Destroyer
(CL) ... Light Cruiser
(CW) ... "War" or "Medium" Cruiser
(CA) ... Heavy Cruiser
(BCH) ... Heavy Battlecruiser
(BB) ... Battleship
(DN) ... Dreadnaught


Now, a ship's Role was represented by the addition of one or more letters (in a few cases, replacement of a single letter). A few examples:

(-E) ... Escort; less offensive weaponry, more defensive systems. These were used to keep larger, more heavily armed and expensive ships alive longer. Not usually applied to HEavy Cruiser or larger, but SOMETIMES is.
(-V) ... Carrier; yum, fighters!
(-G) ... Drone/Missile; yes, SFB had warp-speed missiles with antimatter warheads. And ships designed to make extensive use of them.
(-C or -L) ... "Command" or "Leader"; dedicated Flagship model, with systems especially designed to facilitate Fleet, Squadron, and Flotilla command. The -C was generally not used on ships below Cruiser size, and the -L was generally for Destroyers and Frigates, though some War/Medium Cruisers got an -L role.
(-T) ... Troop Ship; designed to carry and deliver ground forces in large quantities. HUGE transporter capacity, can send entire Company-sized units WITH their combat vehicles, all at once!
(-S) ... Scout; pretty self-explanatory, yes?


So, putting the two together, you might have an FFE, or an FFG, or even an FFL. That's (Escort Frigate:, "Missile Frigate", and "Frigate Leader", respectively).

You might even have multiple Roles ... a CWV ("War Cruiser Carrier") might me accompanied by a DVE ("Escort Carrier Destroyer" - and note how one of the "D's" gets omitted) and an FVE or FFE ("Escort Carrier Frigate" or "Escort Frigate") for protection. Usually, to the best of my recollection, this didn't happen except with -V and -E.

Some other possibilities:

(CLS) ... Light Cruiser Scout
(DWL) ... War Destroyer Leader
(BCV) ... Battle Carrier
(CC) ... Command Cruiser
(CLT) ... Light Cruiser Transport
(BCG) ... Missile Battlecruiser
(DNG) ... Missile Dreadnaught
(CV) ... Carrier (standard version, built on a Heavy Cruiser template)
(CE) ... Escort Cruiser
(CVL) ... Light Carrier (built on a Light Cruiser hull, and an unusual case where hte "V" comes between the "C" and "L")


So, with just a few Sizes, and a few Roles, note how many Types of ship can be described ...! :D

[EDIT to add:]

With Cryptic, it seems we'll have three, maybe four Roles per faction:

Federation

(-X) ... Explorer
(-E) ... Escort
(-S) ... Science


Klingon

(-V) ... Carrier
(-C) ... Cruiser
(-R) ... Raider


Thus, as a Federation captain, you might start with either an FFX, FFE, or FFS - and there may be multiple hulls to choose from, for each of those. :) Meanwhile, your Klingon counterpart will start with an FFV, FFC, or FFR.


Nicely done Pax. I however would stay away from the multi-use of "L" for light and leader as that can be a bit confusing.

Also... I liked the definitions SFC used in differentiating between light cruisers, standard cruisers, and heavy cruisers: CL, CA, HCA respectively.

Anyway, this may be fun for those of you at work: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_ships2.htm

hehehe.

[_Pax_]

Bring on the Kzinti scatter pack drones!

--Flatfingers
... go ahead, kitty-rat, bring 'em on. Drones don't work so well in web ...! (I love me them Tholians ...)

[_Pax_]

Nicely done Pax. I however would stay away from the multi-use of "L" for light and leader as that can be a bit confusing.
One: I didn't design the system myself. ADB did.

Two: even then, the only time "L" is used for "Light" is in CLs. Which, mind, never have an -L designation; the LEader type is for Destroyers and smaller (I think there's a DWL in most fleets; the Gorn use "HDD" for "Heavy Destroyer", and might have an "HDDL"). A flag-bridge equipped Light Cruiser would be a CLC ("Cruiser, Light, Command"), or maybe CCL ("Command Cruiser, Light").

Also... I liked the definitions SFC used in differentiating between light cruisers, standard cruisers, and heavy cruisers: CL, CA, HCA respectively.
Which is very strange IMO, because most places in the world? "CA" is Heavy Cruiser. Cruisers usually come in two flavors - Light, and Heavy (a.k.a. Not Light). Also, in terms of an internally consistent nomenclature, SFC shoudl have used "CH", not "HCA".

I think I'd map SFC's "HCA" designation onto SFB's "BCH" designation.

[Saladin_Class]

... go ahead, kitty-rat, bring 'em on. Drones don't work so well in web ...! (I love me them Tholians ...)

HELLBORES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-PAX- Your logic is impeccable

/CONCUR

[_Pax_]

Well done Pax. You are quite correct on all points. You should also know that many of those designations are from Naval applications !
Yep. As do most of Starfleet's traditions, ranks included.

I'm currenty working on a Fed ship that as far as the roll it might play would be a "scout class. It offiical size however would either a DD or heavy DD. From Cryptics stand point it might be considered an explorer or escort..
In SFB? DDS, or maybe DDY if it's an explore-and-survey sort of ship ("-Y" is for survey ships; the Federation is the ONLY race to field CA-sized ships with that designation; they're so unique, they get their own, out-of-bounds code: "GSC", for Galactic Survey Cruiser).

In my conjectural setup for STO? DDX - "Destroyer class, Explorer role". :)

It just bugs me that everyone is using the old Starfleet Battles/SFC ship categories. Makes everything a tad bit too militaristic for me. Starfleet is supposed to be an exploratory/scientific branch of the Federation that doubles as a defense force - not the other way around.
Nonetheless ... Starfleet is the UFP's defensive military force in space. And Starfleet did inherit it's traditions and nomenclature from pre-Warp Earth naval traditions ... which include words like Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, and so on.

I just think as this is a new IP (gamewise) we should all think in new terms as opposed to concets from older games based on a very different user interface and gameplay style.
To use an old Maine saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Flatfingers]

The source Var is using for this is the Game Informer article (http://stokt.aforumfree.com/fleet-talkback-f3/gi-article-on-sto-transcribed-updated-w-pics-more-info-t26.htm), but because it was an exclusive it was never put online for general view.

Ah. Thank you for the pointer -- that clears up several things. (Although, having written for money, I have to say I discourage people from typing in the text of print articles and publishing those transcriptions online. That deprives writers and publishers of income, which is what allows them to continue to write and publish articles for people to enjoy reading.)

To the specifics of "Scout" and "Exploration" classes, I don't see the term "Scout" used anywhere in the transcribed article, so I'm still not sure where that came from in mentioning it as an Escort variant. And as for "Exploration"... I'm tempted to say that the use of that term was something dreamed up by the writer of the GI article based on what the Cruiser class ship (apparently a Sov) was seen doing, rather than an official use of the term "Exploration" to define one of the three intended ship classes.

If it seems like I'm getting a little picky about this, I admit it. This matters to me because how ship purposes are being defined by STO's designers is a decision that will have deep and far-reaching consequences for space-based gameplay. There's an enormous difference between thinking of a ship type (and the gameplay content driven by that design) as a "Cruiser" class and conceiving of it as an "Exploration" class.

I hope we'll see something official and reasonably definitive on this soon. (Or at least as definitive as anything can be for a game that's still in development, anyway!)

Starfleet is the UFP's defensive military force in space. And Starfleet did inherit it's traditions and nomenclature from pre-Warp Earth naval traditions ... which include words like Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, and so on.

That right there is the most persuasive point for me.

That said, I'm open to suggestions for better terminology for describing a ship type's general level of capability. If not the classic frigate/destroyer/cruiser/etc. terminology, and we can agree that roles like Science/Tactical/etc. don't really describe a ship type's capability level, then what terms could we come up with that communicate the concept of capability level but that don't have militaristic overtones?

--Flatfingers

[Elfender]

actually, the Federation isnt stupid, and neither are the klingons. Since the end of the TOS Era, most if not all Starfleet vessels are equiped to be able to hadle themselves in a fight, and since the cordial relations with the Federation, most newer klingon ships have extensive scientific suites. Granted ships on both sides are better suited to one role or the other. Also, as far as extensive ship clasification, keep in mind that the Federation has a policy against warships, hence the defiant.

Though Starfleets first TRUE warship, it was in fact a Scout Light Cruiser in DS9 to circumvent the Federations policy of not building "Warships". The Sovy was classified a Heavy Cruiser, not Battleship or Dreadnaught. So Cryptics narrow ship classifications sounds much more in line with Starfleet and Federation policy than an extensive naval classification.

[_Pax_]

The Sovy was classified a Heavy Cruiser, not Battleship or Dreadnaught.
"Heavy Cruiser" is every bit as much a military term as "battleship".

So Cryptics narrow ship classifications sounds much more in line with Starfleet and Federation policy than an extensive naval classification.
Except, that's more speaking of the ship's ROLE ... not it's SIZE, which termss like "frigate", "destroyer", and "heavy cruiser" are meant to convey.

Perhaps the Sovereign is a "Heavy Cruiser" rather than a "Battleship", simply because Starfleet does have conjectural "on the drawing board" designs that would be MUCH larger ... and would get the Battleship designation, if Starfleet were ever prompted to build such a huge ship.

And they might elect not to build one for purely economic reasons, after all. Nothing says that Starfleet can't have a "Science Battleship" just as much as a "Science Cruiser", after all.

[cv_coco]

Ah. Thank you for the pointer -- that clears up several things. (Although, having written for money, I have to say I discourage people from typing in the text of print articles and publishing those transcriptions online. That deprives writers and publishers of income, which is what allows them to continue to write and publish articles for people to enjoy reading.)

--Flatfingers

Blame GI for not making it available where I live...but in general I agree.

In the last 2 Ask Cryptics I asked to explain the classes and tiers (which they hinted they would but so far haven't). Still waiting tho...

[DanSeale]

In SFB? DDS, or maybe DDY if it's an explore-and-survey sort of ship ("-Y" is for survey ships; the Federation is the ONLY race to field CA-sized ships with that designation; they're so unique, they get their own, out-of-bounds code: "GSC", for Galactic Survey Cruiser).

In my conjectural setup for STO? DDX - "Destroyer class, Explorer role". :)


[/COLOR]

Yeah .. I was thinking perhaps ADD (extrapilating the clasification to "Advanced" ) or DDX (explorer) .. possibly a 3rd: XDD (experimental advanced DD class) ...

Just to throw some ideas around.

At any rate getting back on topic. Understand those hull designations and classifications also helps with being able to understand their classifications for storage, weapons and mass. There is always an exception or two .. the Defiant is one that is often contraversial. But aside from those exceptions it really does help a lot.

[Elfender]

Meh....i doubt thier going to be using SFB classifications, though i wish they would, it would mean a much larger database of ships, i doubt even more they'd use X-ships...those overpowered bucket of bolts never really did work into the SFB universe well...

Furthermore my point of Cryptics classification system works better into the Star Trek world, given Starfleets reluctance to call thier ships "Warships", it may not be flashy, but then i dont really care what my Defiants called as long as its armed to the teeth and ready to blast some Klingon tail....

[_Pax_]

Yeah .. I was thinking perhaps ADD (extrapilating the clasification to "Advanced" ) or DDX (explorer) .. possibly a 3rd: XDD (experimental advanced DD class) ...
"DX" is hte base code for an Advanced Destroyer; there are almost no specialist hull types of these ships in SFB, as they are built with such advanced technology that they can function, in part, as "a little of a LOT of things". I do believe one of the few specialist ships to retain it's specialty, yet also get an X-tech facelift, is the Glactic Survey Cruiser ... I think there's a GSX class out there ... so a "DXY" might be possible. But definitely not DXS; the nature of X-tech is such that NO X-ship woudl be a "pure scout".

And just FYI, all movie-era (and later) ships are called "X-Ships"; the Enterprise as refit for the movie is considered a CX - "Advanced Heavy Cruiser".

TNG-era ships are simply off the charts, for SFB. And probably always will be.

Meh....i doubt thier going to be using SFB classifications, though i wish they would, it would mean a much larger database of ships, i doubt even more they'd use X-ships...those overpowered bucket of bolts never really did work into the SFB universe well...
The system didn't originate with SFB, though - the system originates with real-world Earth navies, especially those derived from European traditions..

Furthermore my point of Cryptics classification system works better into the Star Trek world, given Starfleets reluctance to call thier ships "Warships", it may not be flashy, but then i dont really care what my Defiants called as long as its armed to the teeth and ready to blast some Klingon tail....
Again - they DO use "Frigate" (New Orleans class, TNG era), "Destroyer" (Saladin class, TOS / TMP era), and "Heavy Cruiser" (TOS and all later eras; anything named "Enterprise" at the time it was built).

And if they use those, why not others? Aside, I mean, from the economics of not wanting to build and maintain terrifically HUGE and EXPENSIVE ships, such as a Dreadought would perforce be.

[Elfender]

The original Star Trek was the basis for SFB, TNG era however borrowed its mechanics from a Pen and Paper game called by most FASA . . . which took ST cannon and warped it forever.

[Elfender]

Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser and Frigate are not necessarily warship, but a ship of a certain size class, and mot of the naval calssification of terms originated in the 1100-1700 time period. Not all Frigates were warships then, though they were close to the largest ship sailing, now considered some of the smallest warships in a nations arsenal. ALSO...given starfleets preference to make multipurpose ships, i would say they dont put a pricetag on thier ships per say, ever Enterprise has been larger and more advanced than thier predecessor...

AS for Cruiser designations....it all has to do with perception...

Starfleets primary mission is exploration and science, trumped by war only during a time of hightened hostilities. Cruiser, Ligh Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser still dont have the sound of Dreadnaught or Battleship, it has nothing to do with cost and all to do with perception.

The Defiant class vessel is one of Starfleet's most advanced ship designs, conceived in response to the Borg threat. In the Episode "The Search", the Defiant Class is officially designated as an "escort" ship, which Captain Sisko noted was due to Starfleet policy of not operating warships.

Also, only one ship has been termed in the actual series as a Dreadnought in TOS (which again was overwritten by TNG Era cannon) and only two ships have ever been called Heavy Cruisers. The Constitution and the Ambassador.

[Xidane]

This is something to be considered when developing ships classes and such. I am springboarding off of this thread here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14614)that I also started.

So here is the deal. The Klingons are an aggressive race. So yes, their ships and thinking tend to be more militaristic in nature. Armor differentiation and bonuses and such can be expected.

The federation however is farrrrrr more diversified (From what we know anyway). They are also geared more towards exploration than war. HOWEVER... given circumstances of wars in the past, they are savvy in this arena.

Here is my question for the Dev's and federation:

Will we have:

Exploration Ship Classes (Galaxy Class)
Medical Ship Classes (Dr. Beverly Crusher's ship)
Diplomatic Ship Classes (Ambassador)
Transport Ship Classes
Science Vessels (Oberth Class)
Salvaging Ships

As for warships, there is plenty outside of official ST Canon that has for potential Star Ship designs in:

Scouts
Destroyers
Heavy Destroyers (Soyuz)
Escort Destroyer/Cruiser (Miranda)
Light Cruiser
Cruiser (Constellation Class)
Tactical Attack Cruiser (that one ship in a Voyager episode... memory alpha isn't working today!)
Heavy Cruiser (Constitution/Refit)
Command Cruiser (Nebula)
Battlecruiser (Excelsior)
Battleship (Sovereign, Galaxy)
Dreadnaught
Escort Carrier
Light Carrier
Carrier
MOTHERSHIP??? wooot wooot


I think this kind of diversity would make for delightful and interesting fleet missions/encounters/PvP.

Perhaps something like a Galaxy Class ship could be (in the name of the ST Universe) be an Exploration ship with abilities in medical, combat, etc etc.... but then have variations on the Galaxy Class ship that would fit the warship category for a Battleship, etc.

I love as much diversity as can be added to the game, but I don't think even half of those old ships will be in the game. I hope the Excelsior/Excelsior Refit is, and a new Excelsior NX class, which could be the mothership that you suggested, they can't just have that Sovereign ripoff ship as "the new ship". (it's such a lazy design,so unoriginal)

I love using fast maneuverable fighter and pseudo fighter classes of ships such as the Sabre, Defiant , and the Peregrine fighter.

Here's another important ship you forgot to add, the Prometheus, that is one of my all time favorite starships in Star Trek, even in the new times, it would be cutting edge.

[THORN74]

not to open old wounds too much, but many people here comapre starfleet to the navy as a purely or heavily millitary organization. While this concept was intoduced or shapped durring ST2:wok, i feel it is incorrect. Gene kept TOS very ambiguous for a reason, Millitary dtuy is NOT the main function of starfleet. The ideal comparason to a modern day orginazation would be to the US Coast Guard.


Starfleet is a DEFENSIVE, RESCUE, and EXPLORATION orginization. if u combined the USCG and NASA u would get STARFLEET. it is a millitary orginization with ranks and structure and ships, but its mission roles are closer in spirit to NASA and USCG than anything else. think about the types of missions we have been shown onver the years, mostly exploration, diplomatic, rescue. sure they had their share of combat too but combat is a small piece of the pie.

thats my $0.02

[DanSeale]

not to open old wounds too much, but many people here comapre starfleet to the navy as a purely or heavily millitary organization. While this concept was intoduced or shapped durring ST2:wok, i feel it is incorrect. Gene kept TOS very ambiguous for a reason, Millitary dtuy is NOT the main function of starfleet. The ideal comparason to a modern day orginazation would be to the US Coast Guard.


Starfleet is a DEFENSIVE, RESCUE, and EXPLORATION orginization. if u combined the USCG and NASA u would get STARFLEET. it is a millitary orginization with ranks and structure and ships, but its mission roles are closer in spirit to NASA and USCG than anything else. think about the types of missions we have been shown onver the years, mostly exploration, diplomatic, rescue. sure they had their share of combat too but combat is a small piece of the pie.

thats my $0.02

I understand totally your concern for not turnig Trek into a naval war ... or EVEN SFB. It just so happens that many of the things you find in Trek do use as a background .. its "roots" if you will drawn from the Navys experience in clasifications and hull class notations.

That said .. does that mean that Trek is proactive "military" in all its persuits?

NO ! Not at all.

IMHO that is the msitake that SFB assumes. It saumes that everything is a war ship ; and that is simply not the case.

On the other hand that should not take away from using hull classifications as a basis for identifying ships.

[Elfender]

I understand totally your concern for not turnig Trek into a naval war ... or EVEN SFB. It just so happens that many of the things you find in Trek do use as a background .. its "roots" if you will drawn from the Navys experience in clasifications and hull class notations.

That said .. does that mean that Trek is proactive "military" in all its persuits?

NO ! Not at all.

IMHO that is the msitake that SFB assumes. It saumes that everything is a war ship ; and that is simply not the case.

On the other hand that should not take away from using hull classifications as a basis for identifying ships.

actually, SFB doesnt assume everythings a warship. Each race had its share of escorts, TUGS, Scouts etc etc, the Federation Starships all had extra labs and sensors, in addition to special rules for thier labs and stuff, but given the hostilities of the SFB universe, every starfleet ship is built to hold its own long enough to withdraw or recieve reinforcements.

[_Pax_]

Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser and Frigate are not necessarily warship, but a ship of a certain size class, [...]
Actually, yes ... yes they are. From Wikipedia:
Frigate: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate)
A frigate /ˈfrɪgɪt/ [frĭg'-ĭt] is a warship. The term has been used for warships of many sizes and roles over the past few centuries.
Light Cruiser: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Cruiser)
A light cruiser is a warship. The term is a shortening of the phrase "light armoured cruiser", describing a small ship that carried armour in the same way as an armoured cruiser: a protective belt and deck.
Heavy Cruiser: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser)
The heavy cruiser was a type of cruiser, a naval warship designed for long range, high speed and an armament of naval guns [...]

and mot of the naval calssification of terms originated in the 1100-1700 time period.
Nope. "Light Cruiser", as a naval term, did not exist until the beginning ob the 20th century:
The term light cruiser was given a definition by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921.
"Heavy Cruiser":
In 1930 the Washington Naval Treaty was extended by the London Naval Treaty, which finally settled the arguments on cruisers which had raged in the 1920s. The treaty defined limits on both heavy cruisers - those with guns larger than 155 mm (6.1 inches) - and light cruisers - those with smaller-calibre guns. The limit of 10,000 tons displacement still applied to both. This was the point at which the split between 'heavy' and 'light' cruisers finally became official and widespread.

Also, only one ship has been termed in the actual series as a Dreadnought in TOS (which again was overwritten by TNG Era cannon) and only two ships have ever been called Heavy Cruisers. The Constitution and the Ambassador.
... from :
In addition to the above, the following classes were referred to as "heavy cruisers" exclusively in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual:

[url=http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class]Akira-class (]Memory Alpha[/url)
D'deridex-class (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/D%27deridex_class)
Jem'Hadar battle cruiser (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Jem%27Hadar_battle_cruiser)
Keldon-class (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Keldon_class)
Vor'cha-class (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Vor%27cha_class)

Note the inclusion of the Akira class. Oh, and then there's this, from the same page:
Rick Sternbach in an interview with Star Trek: The Magazine, stated that the Sovereign-class was designated a heavy cruiser.

[_Pax_]

The ideal comparason to a modern day orginazation would be to the US Coast Guard.
One of the Five Branches of military service in the United States, originally under the aegis of the Department of the Navy (it's been moved to Homeland Security since 9/11).

And, Sir, my father very nearly got posted to combat duty in Viet Nam while serving in the Coast Guard; his discharge papers (after 11 years of service) came through the DAY his cutter was due to leave port.

if u combined the USCG and NASA u would get STARFLEET.
... NASA, the people who go to the Air Force for their pilots and otehr personnel?

:rolleyes:

[Elfender]

Nasa actually draws from all 3 services for thier aviators...and your still talking about REAL organizations...Starfleet, isnt real, and most of what i pulled up are from ST Wiki's, being that the Ship tech mauals arent hard cannon, and are often overwritten by novels, movies and series, i dont look to them for hard classifications. My point standind in that the ST wiki describes Light and Heavy cruisers as multi-purpose ships, heavy cruisers having a designation of Battle Cruisers in the KDF...but this argument is pointless anyways since no one really knows what is hard cannon and what is soft cannon to the variouse designers of the game.

[_Pax_]

IMHO that is the msitake that SFB assumes. It saumes that everything is a war ship ; and that is simply not the case.
No, SFB doesn't assume everything is a warship.

The Galactic Survey Cruiser isn't a warship. SFB has it's stats and SSD (and no, I can't recall what SSD stands for, sorry - but it's the sheet you track damage with). You never know when someone on a "five year mission" will run afoul of some new, strange creature. Or just some hostile klingons, for that matter.

The Federation Tug, hauling a Starliner module, certainly isn't a warship. But SFB provides you with it's stats, the SSD for the core Tug, and the SSD for the Starliner module. You never know, someone migh want to run a scenario where a small Orion Pirate ship attacks a passenger ship ...

Tholian Web Tenders don't even have weapons, IIRC. Maybe one phaser-3, to represent the antimeteor defenses. At most. And while their role relates to defense against military incursion, they still aren't a warship themselves. (No more than the fuel tanker that pulls up alongside a battleship, thus supporting the war effort, is itself a warship.)

With that said ... SFB is a game that is about starshp combat. So most of the ships it DOES give details on are, yes, generally of the "Warship" variety. I mean ... if you buy a game about car-racing, would you expect much detail to be given to, oh ... garbage trucks ...!? :)

[DanSeale]

actually, SFB doesnt assume everythings a warship. Each race had its share of escorts, TUGS, Scouts etc etc, the Federation Starships all had extra labs and sensors, in addition to special rules for thier labs and stuff, but given the hostilities of the SFB universe, every starfleet ship is built to hold its own long enough to withdraw or recieve reinforcements.

True ... I wan't thinking about tugs ...etc .. just star ships .. all sizes and types. And yes ... I was refering to the nature of the game of SFB itself. I really was not attempting to come across as blasting SFB. In fact of anything just pointing out how that SFB and Trek both use the hull class designations: nothing more. The reason IMHO is obvious .. HULL clasifications. Where better to find those: the Navy: US, Canadian, and HMS.

[THORN74]

One of the Five Branches of military service in the United States, originally under the aegis of the Department of the Navy (it's been moved to Homeland Security since 9/11).

And, Sir, my father very nearly got posted to combat duty in Viet Nam while serving in the Coast Guard; his discharge papers (after 11 years of service) came through the DAY his cutter was due to leave port.


... NASA, the people who go to the Air Force for their pilots and otehr personnel?

:rolleyes:

i am quite aware that the USCG is a military organization, and one part of the "pentagon" branches. I was mearly suggesting that the USCG like starfleet does not have combat as its main function. The navy by conparason IS a combat oirented group.

The "model" of the USCG is closer to the day to day activities of starfleet. Yes, USCG has guns and does partisipate in combat, but its main focus is safety, security, and rescue.

the nasa reference was for the exploration of space. these 2 combined services are very close to what starfleet is.

[R4mp4ge]

I have to agree with Pax on ship size compared to role, however I don't think it should be implemented so rigidly

A good way to implement it would be to have crew skills affect the ships performance heavily and use that to determine effectiveness, and allow roll to be determined by how a ship is equipped, given the level of customization already shown, I'd say that it wouldn't be that far out to simply classify by displacement and leave roll up to the player depending on how his ship is fitted, rather than trying to place different ships of similar class into different rolls.

I'd think that several intrepid class ships (probably of DD class by my estimation) could have very different roles, one sacrifices shielding and weapons for advanced sensors and extra science facilities, another sports the astrometrics lab and a hydroponics facility, another sports advanced sensors and heavy shielding, still a fourth has extra weapons and shielding.

Those four ships fill four different rolls but share the same base hull, the first is a science ship, the second is a deep range explorer, the third is a combat scout, and the fourth is a combat escort. You don't need arbitrary designations beyond the hull configuration, in fact it might actually be detrimental from a gameplay standpoint, forcing players to limit their choice of hull configuration based on play style strikes me as unnecessary.

The fact that they share a similar visual appearance also adds an interesting gameplay element, as you don't know exactly what you're confronting, making it advantageous to observe a lone target before engaging.

[JacobFlowers]

I love as much diversity as can be added to the game, but I don't think even half of those old ships will be in the game. I hope the Excelsior/Excelsior Refit is, and a new Excelsior NX class, which could be the mothership that you suggested, they can't just have that Sovereign ripoff ship as "the new ship". (it's such a lazy design,so unoriginal)

I love using fast maneuverable fighter and pseudo fighter classes of ships such as the Sabre, Defiant , and the Peregrine fighter.

Here's another important ship you forgot to add, the Prometheus, that is one of my all time favorite starships in Star Trek, even in the new times, it would be cutting edge.

Actually I was just using those ship's as examples in my threads, not actually intending them to be included in STO.

And as for mothership, if they HAVE a mothership design, I am hoping it will be bigger... MUUUUUUUCH bigger than The Excelsio refit. I mean... behemouth. A ship that can carry Galaxy Class warships. oooh, shudder... the thought!

And yes, I agree with your sentiments about the Sovereign class design. It was rather lazy. For the enterprise E i was hoping for something bigger and grander, and not a space hotrod. I mean, its nice and all... but... it just meh... i dunno... to me it didn't represent a leap forward for STF.

And actually, the Prometheus design was spectacular. Very very creative. I'd fly one of those FOR SURE!

[cocoa-jin]

The problem is that there really isn't any sort of agreed upon definition of what makes a destroyer a destroyer, a light cruiser a light cruiser, etc. Often times these are just designations that are inherited by a predecessor. In the US Navy (and I assume all the world's navies), a modern cruiser bears more resemblance to a modern destroyer than it does to its predecessor nearly 100 years ago. The first destroyers were predominantly fast ships used to combat missile boats, but then as needs change the function changes, to combat submarines, intercept missiles, as a platform for the launching of guided missiles, etc. The function changes radically, such that the modern destroyers barely has any resemblance in function to its predecessors, and so what the two ships have in common scarcely extends beyond name only.

Often these names are inherited. If a cruiser designed predominantly as an escort for an Aircraft carrier is phased out and replaced by a guided missile cruiser used predominantly to support ground forces, the designation of cruiser is inherited, even though there really aren't any obvious characteristics that tie the two ships together as "cruisers."

A person can get a vague idea of what a person is talking about if I refer to a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship, but if I start introducing words like light cruiser, medium cruiser, destroyer, heavy cruiser, light frigate, heavy frigate, battleship, battlecruiser, etc. there is so much overlap and redundancy in function among these types that many of these designations become meaningless.


Even though tasks change the ships are still maintain reasonable relativity amoungst same generation vessels. Cruisers may be more like "big" destroyers, but key relationships remain.

Destroyers are still fast, less armored/thin skinned screening/escort vessels...they are fleet vessels...they can be screeners against subs, aircraft, etc..but they screen, they escort. They can also be tasked to do jobs you dont want to waste a full blown warship on, like hunting-killers for subs where speed, maneuverabilty for sure and expendability is important. So destroyers screen, escort, patrol and are fleet vessels...that never changes.
Frigates are similar but smaller and are better patrol or rescue vessels in light to non-combat tasks(coast guards use frigates not destroyers).

Cruiser are entry level capital ships, ships of the line, etc. They are armored, bigger guns, designed for multi-role combat ops. They can be raiders/supply interdictors, screen battleships from torpedo boats, provide anti-light and anti-small craft fleet defense(AAA platforms against aircraft, etc), they can be tactical missile boats, electronic warfare and sensory specialists, patrol, research and observation vessels, etc. They jacks of all trades, the core of your fleet, big enough to do most stuff well, but cheap enough to have lots of them. The various variants are just specializations for more specific tasking.

Cruisers are great convoy smashers, faster than any freighter and good guns to dispatch them quickly, but with a war brewing why waste a good cruiser on unarmed convoys, so you design a cheaper, thinner skinned cruiser with possibly a few less guns...a light cruiser is born. Why not a destroyer?...because they have horrible patrol endurance and combat stamina.

But now the enemy begins arming convoys, or placing light escorts with the convoy...now we need a cruiser that can take a little bit more of a beating, dish out more fire power...plus the war is ramping up and we need an advatage in the fleet battles, something to beat the enemies screening cruisers...but we cant afford more battleships, nor will we waste a battleship on convoys...enter the heavy cruiser.

Everybody beefs up to heavy cruisers, fleet engagements are turning the tide of the war, but battleships cost too much to mass produce...enter the battle-cruiser, they cant beat a battleship one on one, but it can enhance the main line and act as a multiplier for the more expensive battleships....each battlecruiser is like mounting one or two more guns on the battleships. Dont fire on the battle-cruiser and you have to deal with more guns firing at you...shoot the battle-cruiser and you have battleships firing on you unmolested...its a catch 22 if you have fewer guns to put to bear.

Anyway...the basic relationships between classes havent changed much.

Voyager was frigate, lightly armed and patrol vessel with good scientific ability. What was it Voyager was first tasked to do? Capture a small under-armed criminal vessel...coast guard stuff....a short mission requiring relativly little time on task.

The Galaxy class was a cruiser(maybe a heavy cruiser...it was at the razors edge of tech at the time), multi-roled, capable of performing just about any naval task asked of it.

Sovereign is more of a Battle-cruiser.

Defiant is tough...its displacment seems more like a frigate, but it packs a punch like pocket battleship...but if I really had to relate it to something, Id think a compact cruiser class, guided missle boat.

[cocoa-jin]

Starfleet is military...their peaceful exploration and diplomacy is the same stuff the US Navy did and does. The US navy has explored the artic circle, the north pole...they deliver aid to disater areas, evacuations, take part in international relations, etc.

Their vessels have offensive weapons...its not just for defense because they are forward facing...if it was defensive they'd be in large part rearward facing, because thats all you'd see when they ran away.

They have Admirals, they have armed security, they have court-martials.