Ships & Modules

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?



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.

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...

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.