These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

so what's with the battleships?

First post
Author
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#41 - 2015-02-25 14:45:17 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
We got a lot of folks that "know". BS doesn't just stand for BattleShip.

BB = Battleship, not BS. I tried using it when I first started playing and nobody got it, so I stopped.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-02-25 16:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Jacob Holland wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
A Neb-B frigate from Star Wars is 150m long, a little bigger than a Rifter, and even it can carry two squadrons (24 ships total) of X-wings.

Yeah, no it can't...
The Nebulon 'B' is a long spindly ship with an aft section which is all engines and a forward command section approximately 1/3 its length in height; an X-Wing is some 12 meters long with a similar "S-Foil span" perhaps 3-4 meters high? - and it's handled much the same as modern jet fighters and requires another meter or so vertical space to let the astromech board, probably more for the canopy.
The volume of those X-Wings alone is pretty much that of the forward command section, to service them, allow pilots and droids to board, ground crew to work on them...

But then Star Wars Maths has always tended to hyperbole... Just as the ship twice the size of a Rifter is "a little bigger"...



My only mistake here was that they're actually ~300m long, which yes, makes them a little over twice the size of a Rifter. I got confused with 150m Corellian corvette model. But yes, that just puts them more on the EVE destroyer/cruiser size scale, probably closer to cruiser given their mass, and they definitely carry two squadrons of fighters, of a variety of types, and anyone that's played an X-wing game knows that the fighters are stashed in the aft section, with a launch bays port and starboard. In addition to that, there is also space remaining for several assault shuttles, 2 to 3 platoons of infantry and 6,000 metric tonnes of cargo.

The 'maths' of it is entirely irrelevant. We're talking about spaceships here, with laser guns and hyperspace and other things that make trying to explain anything with real math a task in complete futility. My suggestion, though, was not putting fighters on frigates or cruisers, but putting them on a new T2 battleship. Consider the Galactica - at 1.4km long, it's not much bigger than a Megathron or Hyperion, and yet it always seems to have enough Vipers and Raptors aboard to fend off whatever threat they face on the next episode.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-02-25 22:33:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sniper Smith
His point is that "Star Wars Maths" is pointless, since they get it wrong. Not sure about the Frigate in specific, but I remember from when I used to follow that stuff that there were ships who who didn't have enough room inside to carry their official complement of Starfighters, Shuttles, etc, even if they had room for nothing else. Or ships that carry shuttles that are larger than the hangar, etc.

In Short, Star Wars never cared about the math, or if it all worked together or not.. They just made it up as they went along, and no one should care.

Star Trek, Eve, and some others are far more technical, and like to keep details consistent and accurate to eachother.


Also, if you're gonna pick on BS's not carrying a bunch of fighters and stuff cause they can in other Sci-fi's.. then you also need to bring up that we only get 8 weapons, how many did Galactica have again? Of how many different types and sizes? Ya, exactly. Moving right along.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-02-26 03:33:19 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
His point is that "Star Wars Maths" is pointless, since they get it wrong. Not sure about the Frigate in specific, but I remember from when I used to follow that stuff that there were ships who who didn't have enough room inside to carry their official complement of Starfighters, Shuttles, etc, even if they had room for nothing else. Or ships that carry shuttles that are larger than the hangar, etc.

In Short, Star Wars never cared about the math, or if it all worked together or not.. They just made it up as they went along, and no one should care.

Star Trek, Eve, and some others are far more technical, and like to keep details consistent and accurate to eachother.


Also, if you're gonna puck on BS's not carrying a bunch of fighters and stuff cause they can in other Sci-fi's.. then you also need to bring up that we only get 8 weapons, how many did Galactica have again? Of how many different types and sizes? Ya, exactly. Moving right along.


I wasn't making a mathematical argument or academic presentation when I provided examples, I was establishing basic fictional precedent, so even if the point is 'star wars math is pointless', it's an irrelevant point because I wasn't using math. I'm not 'picking' and if you were paying attention, I also suggested limiting a mini-carrier battleship to five fighters. I already took all you just said into account, but you can't tell me that a ~1km long ship is entirely incapable of carrying a few 15-20m sized one-man fighter craft, or that it's entirely 'mathematically' impossible. But let's talk about mathematics, shall we?

Explain to me how a heavy attack drone at ~11m is only 25m3, while a fighter at ~22m is 5000m3? Now explain how a Gecko, same size as a Dragonfly fighter, only takes up 50m3, but it's identically-sized counterpart requires 100 times the space. See, if we want to get mathematically technical here, then there's already an established precedent for carrying fighters in battleships in this very game, because there is no good reason why two identical ships with identical 34m long axes require a difference in drone bay space by a factor of 100 other than game balancing, which is where any good argument against the implementation of fighter-carrying battleships needs to begin - balancing.

Now I can only see one reason to restrict the use of fighters to capitals, and that's to keep them out of high sec. I'll be honest, I have no idea why that would be necessary in the first place, and I've thought about it for years, ever since I started playing, but perhaps someone could explain. In the meantime, allow me to reiterate - the maths of it is entirely irrelevant, as CCP themselves ignore the math entirely with the implementation of fighters as is. But since I detect there is going to be further anally-retentive pedantry on the issue of maths - the USS Nimitz is 333m long, with a beam of only 77 meters, yet it can carry 90 aircraft of mixed varieties. If you were to load her only with F/A-18 Hornets (17m length, 12m span), the Nimitz can carry 130 of them, including loadouts, maintenance gear and spare parts, and crews for all craft. That's substantially more operational aircraft per cubic meter than even the Galactica. So if the argument is gonna be maths and not balancing, then the maths works just fine.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2015-02-26 04:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
DPS, projection and application are all lackluster.

even on ABCs where they're solely dedicated to wielding the biggest guns you can put on a subcap the DPS and projection is unremarkable.
Claud Tiberius
#46 - 2015-02-26 09:56:16 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
We got a lot of folks that "know". BS doesn't just stand for BattleShip.

BB = Battleship, not BS. I tried using it when I first started playing and nobody got it, so I stopped.

Most people I know use BS for Battleship. What do you use BS for (if anything), and how is BB the abbreviation of Battleship?

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-02-26 10:31:31 UTC
Claud Tiberius wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
We got a lot of folks that "know". BS doesn't just stand for BattleShip.

BB = Battleship, not BS. I tried using it when I first started playing and nobody got it, so I stopped.

Most people I know use BS for Battleship. What do you use BS for (if anything), and how is BB the abbreviation of Battleship?


http://everything2.com/title/US+Navy+pennant+number+prefixes

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Claud Tiberius
#48 - 2015-02-26 10:52:02 UTC
Yeah, well, Americans are doing it wrong. Just like their driving on the wrong side of the road and their inability to use the metric system :P

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#49 - 2015-02-26 11:23:15 UTC
Claud Tiberius wrote:
Yeah, well, Americans are doing it wrong. Just like their driving on the wrong side of the road and their inability to use the metric system :P


Or tell people what the temperature is.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-02-26 12:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Claud Tiberius wrote:
Yeah, well, Americans are doing it wrong. Just like their driving on the wrong side of the road and their inability to use the metric system :P


It's not just how the US does it, it's the NATO standard for describing and comparing the broad roles and capabilities of naval vessels. STANAG 1166 broadly groups both naval and non-naval vessels as either combatants or non-combatants. Combatants are vessels which possess some sort of inherent armed or combat capability primarily intended for offensive use. They are further defined as submarines, principal surface combatants, patrol vessels, river/roadstead patrol vessels, mine warfare vessels, amphibious warfare vessels or coast guard. Non-combatants tend to be role-specific vessels, and may possess an armed or combat capability intended primarily for self-defence. They are further grouped as auxiliary, service and support, government-owned, merchant or recreational.

For each of these groups a system of two, three or four letter designators exists which defines a ship or submarine’s category and principal role. In addition to the letter N, which as already noted signifies nuclear propulsion, other common suffixes include, G – a unit equipped with one or more force guided missile systems and H – a unit equipped with a helicopter, or capable of operating a helicopter or vertical or short take-off and landing aircraft.

A conventional submarine fitted with underwater to surface or surface to surface missiles is therefore designated a SSG, which is consequently the designation used for the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins class submarines. The USN’s submarine fleet on the other hand, consists not only of SSGNs (nuclear powered guided missile capable attack submarines) but also SSBNs (nuclear powered, ballistic missile submarines). The surface combatant designator which currently best applies to RAN vessels is FFGH, which is defined as:

"A surface combatant in size range of about 75-150 meters. Generally has lighter armament than a DD. Fitted with one or more force guided missile systems. Fitted with a flight deck with a primary mission of operating and maintaining helicopters."

Or, more simplified, a guided missile frigate with helicopter capacity, such as Australia's frontline Anzac-class frigates.

Now I can understand anti-American sentiment and/or bias on any number of issues, but I can also understand any anti-[insert any given nation here] sentiments on just as many issues, and in this case, if the US is 'doing it wrong' then everyone is doing it wrong and has been for a very very long time.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2015-02-26 13:40:39 UTC
Shocked

i thought we fly a spaceships. why all these SW an now even NATO/US abbreviation appeared...

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#52 - 2015-02-26 13:45:47 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Now I can understand anti-American sentiment and/or bias on any number of issues, but I can also understand any anti-[insert any given nation here] sentiments on just as many issues, and in this case, if the US is 'doing it wrong' then everyone is doing it wrong and has been for a very very long time.

As I pointed out in another thread; it's not that they're doing it wrong, just that their history is very different to that of capsuleers.
The US/NATO designations for example duplicate letters almost whereever possible (BB, DD...etc) so that when the messages using them were transfered in action by a fairly weak transmitter and in Morse Code - the key elements of the message would have a redundancy in the event of incomplete receipt... "Have eng--- D---on N3--------28,14----" if you know the last reported position of the vessel in question than if only the garbled D had been transmitted.
Meanwhile, in the New Eden Cluster, our communication systems are more secure but often voice based (where repeated sylables are more likely to be detrimental than advantageous), if Bee-See (BC) is slightly garbled on Vent it's very easy to mishear as Bee-Bee (BB) and so forth but very difficult to mistake for Bee-Ess (BS). The priority for capsuleers therefore is to abreviate in a manner which is not only distinctive and efficient in Latin characters but also flows easily (while retaining its distinctiveness) in normal speech.

The systems have grown up independently (as I say, their histories are different) and they don't need to be unified.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-02-26 16:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Jacob Holland wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Now I can understand anti-American sentiment and/or bias on any number of issues, but I can also understand any anti-[insert any given nation here] sentiments on just as many issues, and in this case, if the US is 'doing it wrong' then everyone is doing it wrong and has been for a very very long time.

As I pointed out in another thread; it's not that they're doing it wrong, just that their history is very different to that of capsuleers.
The US/NATO designations for example duplicate letters almost whereever possible (BB, DD...etc) so that when the messages using them were transfered in action by a fairly weak transmitter and in Morse Code - the key elements of the message would have a redundancy in the event of incomplete receipt... "Have eng--- D---on N3--------28,14----" if you know the last reported position of the vessel in question than if only the garbled D had been transmitted.
Meanwhile, in the New Eden Cluster, our communication systems are more secure but often voice based (where repeated sylables are more likely to be detrimental than advantageous), if Bee-See (BC) is slightly garbled on Vent it's very easy to mishear as Bee-Bee (BB) and so forth but very difficult to mistake for Bee-Ess (BS). The priority for capsuleers therefore is to abreviate in a manner which is not only distinctive and efficient in Latin characters but also flows easily (while retaining its distinctiveness) in normal speech.

The systems have grown up independently (as I say, their histories are different) and they don't need to be unified.


I get why we don't use NATO standards as players. I was responding to 1) the question, "what would anyone use BB for?" and 2) the supposition that America is 'doing it wrong'. Which is why both are included in quotes in my replies. Context is everything.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-02-26 16:31:09 UTC
People get over it. Players in Eve don't call a Battleship a BS because of US Standards, NATO Standards, or anything else. We call it cause cause Battle Ship --> BS .. And apart from you guys, no one else gives a hoot what the world calls them in the actual military.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-02-26 16:36:01 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...


The answer to your question is because It's a VIDEO GAME. These are the roles laid out. Fighters are limited to Carriers and Supers. Bombers are limited to just Supers. Dones can be used by any ship with the space and bandwidth.

Things like this sure, if you really wants to rant about them, by all means, but they are in place to keep the game moving. Fights are more than just higher DPSing drones. They also can be assigned to someone, chase them around a system, etc. As such CCP has limited them to being used by Two classes of ships, neither of which are allowed in Highsec. From a universe logic it doesn't make sense, from game design it does. End of the day Game>Universe.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-02-26 17:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Sniper Smith wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...


The answer to your question is because It's a VIDEO GAME. These are the roles laid out.


My actual question was, of course, why not? As in, why not expand/change the roles. Like you said, it's a video game, and the devs are changing stuff all the time. "It's a video game" is not a reason to not do it. And I know what fighters do, and it doesn't matter. High sec rules already limit who they can chase around system so it's not like you can just go on a rampage with fighters in high sec. So again... why not?

Sniper Smith wrote:
People get over it. Players in Eve don't call a Battleship a BS because of US Standards, NATO Standards, or anything else. We call it cause cause Battle Ship --> BS .. And apart from you guys, no one else gives a hoot what the world calls them in the actual military.


If you're going to criticise a conversation you took no part in, at least try reading and understanding it first. There was never any argument over why people call battleships in EVE a BS. One guy was talking about calling them BBs on coms and no one understood him, someone else proclaimed not understanding why anyone would call it a BB, and an explanation was provided. It wasn't even an argument, there's literally nothing to get over except your own lack of context and sense of snarky critical superiority on a conversation you didn't even read.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#57 - 2015-02-27 13:38:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
My actual question was, of course, why not? As in, why not expand/change the roles. Like you said, it's a video game, and the devs are changing stuff all the time. "It's a video game" is not a reason to not do it. And I know what fighters do, and it doesn't matter. High sec rules already limit who they can chase around system so it's not like you can just go on a rampage with fighters in high sec. So again... why not?

Again it could be explained by the differing histories - the Caldari-Gallente war saw a lot of manned fighters; perhaps at the time the ship you're asking for existed - though with shorter range fighters, craft without warp drives which needed a "mothership" to cross the interplanetary distances (let alone interstellar) involved.
Then, as the Gallente started to equip their mines with low powered thrusters and guidance units and pilot skill became more and more important for the survival of such fighters the escalation became more and more costly. Eventually the Gallente were fielding semi-autonymous vehicles which were out-turning and out-accellerating the manned Caldari fighters and retained the costly training and vetting even when they were shot down (the crew being safely elsewhere)...
Then along came the Jove with Capsule technology and the manned fighter could be replaced with a manned frigate - far more solid, more heavily armed and with a version of the telepresence effect which worked even better, was entirely invulnerable to disruption by simple electronic warfare... and had a warp drive - meaning the "mothership" was no longer necessary.

Now the concept of the "mothership" with manned, short-ranged fighters is entirely obsolete - surpassed by the cheaper, faster and more controllable (well... sometimes) drone technology which the Gallente developed. Who would build a ship which history shows is long obsolete.
It would be like commisioning an Ironclad for a modern navy.


Of course manned fighters have made a comeback aboard Carriers - but they're long ranged fighters with their own warp drives.
The fact that only Carriers and supercarriers can field them suggests that they require quite significant maintainence, some form of support structure or organisation which is beyond the reach of a simple ship of the line and therefore that there is a significant cost to their mobility which is ill-suited to simple picket duty...
So while it might not match the obsolete pattern to build a "mothership" for such long-ranged craft it is sufficiently awkward that the designers lump the idea in with it regardless.
Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-02-27 22:48:51 UTC
Battleships are the best suited for structure bashing (POS for example) where long range, hefty tank and consistent DPS application are required. Veterans can bring Marauders for the bastion mode, and escort ships as deemed necessary.

What sub-cap ships are you going to use for this? Yeah I thought so...

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Yui Nagisa Sora
Odin's Brotherhood
#59 - 2015-02-28 23:54:18 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Battleships are the best suited for structure bashing (POS for example) where long range, hefty tank and consistent DPS application are required. Veterans can bring Marauders for the bastion mode, and escort ships as deemed necessary.

What sub-cap ships are you going to use for this? Yeah I thought so...



i like how you would stress "sub-cap", at least you know nobody would use battleship to bash pos lol



just for fun here's a km of a ratting revenant which kinda adds some truth to what you say
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44917133/
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#60 - 2015-03-01 16:17:41 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Most HAC's and T3's will not out-DPS or out Tank properly fit Battleships. No, it doesn't count if you are comparing a Cruiser with an optimal range of 1km vs a BS with ranged guns.. of course those will be off.

But they are for sure far faster (sublight/warp) and benefit from a smaller sig.

But your points aren't lost.. They are WAY too close.
BS's in general I think need a buff, and I think more BS's, T2 BS's, would be nice. That or HAC's need a nerf..


How much of a buff are we talking here?

Are you saying most battleships should be able to hit like.. 150k ehp minimum before links etc? A raven will only reach 90k but there are reasons for that.

The biggest problems with battleships are the mechanics of gates/wormholes/stations forcing them to engage in an environment where they simply aren't competitive.
Previous page123