[FT][OT] Ship Classification Grid

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#shipgrid
I'm fiddling around with using a triangular grid to define various classes of
warship. I'm using
Weapon/Defenses/Movement for classification variables,
but I'm sure others could be used.

Very interesting chart. (the rest of the Atomic rocket site also!)

I like that it clearly shows the relationship between Movement, Defense,

and Offense. (ie: That is to increase something on a given size ship, you have
to give up something else.)

I think you are also correct that it doesn't take ship size/mass into
account.

I don't know if it can be adjusted for that...:-(

I think that the table can't be adjusted to handle mass, though by the same
token there isn't any real need. The basic concept functions
regardless of mass, just that by the percentages your SD-sized courier
boat will naturally have more space for weapons than the EX-sized
version.

As an aside, the only way I can think to make it hold more data is to
introduce a third dimension.... and that makes reading it rather
tough....

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:32:59 -0500, Donald Hosford
> <hosford.donald@acd.net> wrote:

Nyrath the nearly wise said:
> http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#shipgrid

Heh, now I'm going to be really confused... When I first saw this for some
reason I thought it was on the GZG mailing list, and now it really is.

Still think there should be a difference between thrust and delta vee. An ion
drive and an orion drive may have the same delta vee, but are very different
in military terms. This is of more importance to rec.arts.sf.science (where I
first saw it) though than FT, since in the latter all ships have infinite
delta vee but limited thrust.

(Wasn't Dv called movement initially? May be a better term for an FT specific
classification).

Also, how about the difference between finite ordinance and unlimited weapons
(e.g. salvo missiles compared to beams)?

Took a look at the chart. Reading the context of the ship nomeclature, I was a
little disappointed. Cruisers were called that because they were capable of
[long] independent cruises (from the age of sail), not beacuse they were soley
general purpose. I also, believe that the term Battleship MAY be a corruption
of or derrived from a "line of battle" ship.

These terms aside. I take issue that crusiers are not specialized. Since the
chart is in part based on modern thinking, crusiers can be specialized such as
an Air defense cruiser or ASW cruiser (battleship in the case of the
Russians). The chart did not seem to take into account mission of the ship.
For eample, A strike destroyer has traded much of its light guns for weapons
that will cripple or destroy capital ships such as a battleship, while an air
defence [AAA]
cruiser/destroyer/frigate will have traded much of its anti-ship
weaponry for anti-fighter/small craft weapons.  In FT terms, these AAA
ships would trade beam batteries for PDS and [hopefully] an ADFC or two.

IMO, ship function generally determines the nomeclature of the ship [aka
class] and not just ship manuverability, fire power, etc. There are modern
destroyers that would be rated cruisers by the chart, and older cruisers that
would be rated destroyers by modern standards, soley by
the firepower/maneuvability ratings.

I don't see any point in creating HARD classes for ships because it makes the
flexibiliity system harder than concrete. After all, the term ship is a hold
over from the age of sail and that was subject to interpertation and political
expendiancy.

Why try and fix something that ain't broke. A chart is okay if you prefer,
like so many of the earthlings, to have everything sorted out into some
definition (but that's the nature of out programing). If you like thinking out
side of the box, ignore the chart and get on with the conquest of the known
universe.

> Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrathwiz@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#shipgrid
I'm fiddling around with using a triangular grid to define various classes of
warship. I'm using
Weapon/Defenses/Movement for classification variables,
but I'm sure others could be used.

Once you see the method in my madness, you can see if it is worth adapting to
Full Thrust.

> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:40:12AM -0000, Samuel Penn wrote:

> Still think there should be a difference between thrust and

I agree with your usage; deltaV is _total_ velocity change, after all,
rather than instantaneous acceleration, and those are different
characteristics (the patroller vs the interceptor). These might even be worth
separating out; certainly "defensive weaponry" is hard to classify under the
current system, particularly weaponry designed to
defend _other_ ships.

I suspect the surface of a hypersphere may be a good bet for adding more
characteristics.

R

> Samuel Penn wrote:

Good point. Perhaps "Propulsion" will be a better label.

From: "Sylvester M. W."
> I think that the table can't be adjusted to handle mass, though by

Not necessarily true. For instance, 1m thick armor takes up 100% of your ship
if you have a 2m dia sphere, but around 0.6% of your volume
if you have a 1000m diameter sphere.  Or a one-ton ECM jammer may give
equal protection to either size.

What if you turned the table into a 4-side die?
Then you could follow a chosen line around the thing.

The present table could be the "bottom" side. Make new panels for the other
three sides.

What would the fourth point be?
Mass?  Specials / misc systems?

Would this work Nyrath?

Donald Hosford

> Sylvester M. W. wrote:

> I think that the table can't be adjusted to handle mass, though by the

> Donald Hosford wrote:

There would be some points near the center of the tetrahedron that would not
be displayed on any side.

To do this properly one would need a set of "slices" through the tetrahedron,
preferably ten of them. Each slice would be a smaller triangle than the one
below.

A brute force approach would be to have a family of triangular graphs. These
would be a set of slices through a prism shape instead of a tetrahedron