Anthony Neal:
> I've been looking through a few designs and have been thinking
>about my own designs (Mediocre, really) and have become confused as
>to what various classifications mean. I have heard of Battleships,
>Carriers, Cruisers (Light and Heavy) and Dreadnoughts (sp?) and
>Frigates and Destroyers and, well, What are the requirements for a
>ship to be classed as any one of these?
There are no set requirements for any label for your warships.
Supposedly, a "Battleship" is capable of standing "in the line of
battle" (an imaginary concept in space), but most heavy "cruisers" do
it just as well as most battleships. A "dreadnought" is another word
for "battleship" (referring to the first "modern" battleship, HMS
Dreadnought).
The classifications are so vague that we have called Bainbridge
and Truxton (two old missile cruisers) "cruisers", "destroyer
leaders", and "frigates" at various times in their careers, based
mostly on current fashion. The British call "Invincible" a
"Through-deck cruiser", even though Invincible is what we would call
an "escort carrier".
> I have looked at the Voroshilef (spelling by memory) Battleship
>listed in the Rebellion Sourcebook, and I see it's big (300,000
>tons), has a lot of firepower, but why is it a Battleship? Why not a
>Destroyer or Planet Crusher? Whatever.
The labels used are the modern ones we use today. More or less.
The Voroshilev (sp?) is a Battleship because it is big and tough. Or
should be. It's not really tough, and there are certainly bigger out
there. It isn't anything else because GDW decided to use modern Naval
definitions (which don't really fit, quite frankly) for HG.
> My common sense tells me that factors such as size, firepower,
>maneuver drive and jump capability, as well as duration of operation,
>must all contribute to this classification process. But how?
Nope. Size, maybe, but there are "battleships" both larger and (much)
smaller. In my Islands campaign, the "battleships" are smaller than
most Impy "cruisers".
---Steve