Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GiledPallaeon

Belay That Order: Ship Types and Star Wars Exceptions

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Rikash said:

@GiledPallaeon This was a fun and informative read so thank you for tossing it together. But now I'm curious how you think carriers and Star Wars mixed-role craft who also act as carriers (basically all of the capital ships) fits into your grouping? 

So the problem is that as Star Wars obeys the Rule of Cool, basically every combatant can pretend to be a carrier in a pinch, and most of them are normally. The issue is that, put bluntly, that ship concept does not work efficiently IRL. The IJN tried with the refit of Ise and her sister Hyuga, but it didn't work very well. They also had their scout aircraft formations all attached to their heavy cruisers (e.g. the Tone class) which created all sorts of other interesting issues.

Anyway to answer the question, I would consider the carrier capabilities independently of their role as a ship to ship combatant, and only worry about combining them when you're trying to do some sort of holistic cost analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

So the problem is that as Star Wars obeys the Rule of Cool, basically every combatant can pretend to be a carrier in a pinch, and most of them are normally. The issue is that, put bluntly, that ship concept does not work efficiently IRL. The IJN tried with the refit of Ise and her sister Hyuga, but it didn't work very well. They also had their scout aircraft formations all attached to their heavy cruisers (e.g. the Tone class) which created all sorts of other interesting issues.

Anyway to answer the question, I would consider the carrier capabilities independently of their role as a ship to ship combatant, and only worry about combining them when you're trying to do some sort of holistic cost analysis.

A simple Rule....

If you put Expanded Hangar, Boosted Comms or Flight controllers on it, it becomes a Carrier.

Sure the Quasar can hardly be anything else but using ship upgrades to perform the role of fighter activator is a nice touch for the game. It negates the need for a heavy, light & escort carrier for each faction. If you ever played Star Fleet Battles..... Sooo many ship designs and minor variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rikash said:

@GiledPallaeon This was a fun and informative read so thank you for tossing it together. But now I'm curious how you think carriers and Star Wars mixed-role craft who also act as carriers (basically all of the capital ships) fits into your grouping? 

The trouble is what has become the official load out of an SD doesn’t really fit well with a fleet battleship, ie: a whole division of troops, ground attack walkers & fighters etc etc. It’s a bit of a mess.

And as you say a ‘battle-carrier’ has no working real world equivalent.

Before everything got the ‘star destroyer’ moniker eg GSDs, I took SD to almost be a classification in itself ie: destroyer-cruiser-battleship-star destroyer. Like it was an evolution of the ship class system. But that was just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GiledPallaeon Thank you very much for this very interesting, informative lesson about naval ship classes. I enjoyed this well written text very much!

When it comes to Armada, I asked myself would ships should come next. Not what sort of cool ship designs -- canon or not -- could be the next miniatures, but what roles are lacking by now in terms of game design. Your description of classes based on roles, gives a good overview to compare and get a feeling for strength and weakness of the ship pools by now.

Rebels seem to have a very well rounded pool: 1 Corvette (Hammerhead), 2 Frigates (CR90, Nebulon), 1 Destroyer (MC30c), 1 Light Cruiser (Pelta), 1 Heavy Cruiser (AF II), 1 Battlecruiser (MC80-L), 1 Battleship (MC75), 1 Dreadnought (MC80-H). The only ship class they lack, when compared to the Empire is a Carrier. But when we accept, that some large based ships could be carriers, when equipped with the according upgrades, even this isn't true.

In comparison the Empire lacks Corvettes and Frigates. It has 2 Destroyers (Raider, Gladiator), 1 Light Cruiser (Arquitens), 1 Heavy Cruiser (Victory), 1 Armored Cruiser (Interdictor), 1-3 Battleships (ISDs) and 1 Battlecruiser (Cymoon-ISD).

For that the Empire could really need a Frigate (or Corvette). When I look at the rebel list, I only find the rebel cruisers (AF II / Pelta) not too useful. So maybe a cruiser with some capability to be equiped as a carrier would be nice?

And as a question: What naval ship class(es) would be the flotillas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

So the problem is that as Star Wars obeys the Rule of Cool, basically every combatant can pretend to be a carrier in a pinch, and most of them are normally. The issue is that, put bluntly, that ship concept does not work efficiently IRL. The IJN tried with the refit of Ise and her sister Hyuga, but it didn't work very well. They also had their scout aircraft formations all attached to their heavy cruisers (e.g. the Tone class) which created all sorts of other interesting issues.

Anyway to answer the question, I would consider the carrier capabilities independently of their role as a ship to ship combatant, and only worry about combining them when you're trying to do some sort of holistic cost analysis.

The issue with battlecarriers is that a battleship needs to be within weapons range, and enemy fire could prevent continued use of the flight deck, or hit a seperate magazine of aircraft ordinance. In star wars, fighters carry a lot of ordinance, and shields will still be up when fighters are launched. The only thing you need to do during battle is coordinate squadrons and take in damaged fighters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of miss the dreadnought class (not the starship bu the classification). I feel like the ISD should be a dreadnought as it has no noticeable shortcomings, and is well armed and well shielded to be a threat to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FWIW, there are some other nuances in how navies historically designated ships - the OP post is certainly true for how the US saw things, but varied a bit in the smaller categories by Navy.For instance - in the (UK) Royal Navy in 1950s to 1990s-ish (arguably the practice has stopped) the term 'frigate' and 'destroyer' were not used to refer to size of ship at all, but role.  'Frigates' were escort ships designed for anti-submarine defense, and 'Destroyers' were escort ships designed for air defense or surface-to-surface defense.  Frequently frigates would be larger than destroyers, or vice versa, depending on the designed-for range and capability of the class.  And the French use the term frégate (basically 'frigate') for anything that carries missiles at all, of any size between corvettes (aviso) to their cruisers (croiseur).

16 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Superdreadnoughts were the evolution of that, bigger, heavier, more heavily armed and armored.

 

Bit of trivia... the term 'superdreadnought' was popularized as a result of those types of ships having 'superfiring' turrets.  IE., while Dreadnought battleships did indeed have a primary armament of the same caliber guns, they remained (as with pre-Dreadnought battleships) placing them all on a single deck.

Consider the main gun layout of the Dreadnought-type Nassau-class...

nassau.jpg

...vs the Super Dreadnought Bayern-class...

rfagvrfe.jpg

The main battery placed in 'superfiring' position, with the B and X turrets firing over the top of the A and Y turrets.

Edited by xanderf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

FWIW, there are some other nuances in how navies historically designated ships - the OP post is certainly true for how the US saw things, but varied a bit in the smaller categories by Navy.For instance - in the (UK) Royal Navy in 1950s to 1990s-ish (arguably the practice has stopped) the term 'frigate' and 'destroyer' were not used to refer to size of ship at all, but role.  'Frigates' were escort ships designed for anti-submarine defense, and 'Destroyers' were escort ships designed for air defense or surface-to-surface defense.  Frequently frigates would be larger than destroyers, or vice versa, depending on the designed-for range and capability of the class.  And the French use the term frégate (basically 'frigate') for anything that carries missiles at all, of any size between corvettes (aviso) to their cruisers (croiseur).

And the USN in the 1950's-1970's called their large guided missile destroyers "frigates" (Bainbridge, California, and Virigina classes), which of course only adds to the confusion, since those ships would fall into Giled Pallaeon's Destroyer/Light cruiser category.  This is probably the reason the Rebel Assault Frigate is named as such.  As GP said, this is a messy subject depending on time period and nation involved.

 

Still, always an entertaining & informative read, and makes for good food for thought.  It's great GP has taken the time to explain all this, and in the process give us some common terminology from which to work.

 

Now I'll add one more twist - the concept of carriers in Armada really doesn't match up with our traditional concept of aircraft carriers, since by the time our game starts the squadrons are largely already launched and ready to tango (with the exception of Rapid Launch Bay ships).  Really what ship actually carries and launches the squadrons is quite irrelevant in our game.  What IS relevant, however, is fighter direction - which is the concept that most closely parallels our squadron command value.  In modern navies, fighter direction is also handled by the carriers they launched from, but this wasn't always the case.  

In WWII the British (pioneers in the concept of fighter direction) often used heavy cruisers as their fighter direction ships, especially when coordinating with land-based fighters to provide air cover.  The loss of heavy cruisers Cairo and Nigeria to submarine attack during the Pedestal Convoy to Malta left the convoy with uncoordinated fighter cover, and vulnerable to Italian & German air attacks.  So in Armada, we could definitely imagine ships that don't carry many (or any) fighters in hangars, but yet still having high squadron values through a fighter coordination center.  Maybe the Command Pelta fits this description?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am loving this conversation, as I am still working on my Imperial Naval Officers Handbook idea. I am using a mix of age of sail, modern naval, and armor tactics to explain things for Armada tactical wise, but this conversation will help fill fluff stuff I am doing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maturin said:

And the USN in the 1950's-1970's called their large guided missile destroyers "frigates" (Bainbridge, California, and Virigina classes), which of course only adds to the confusion, since those ships would fall into Giled Pallaeon's Destroyer/Light cruiser category.

Well, yeah, you then have that ultimate twist - democracies needing to deal with budget-conscious voters!

Try telling a war-weary nation with escalating conflicts in Asia that you want to build a new series of cruiser-sized warships, and you'll be out of office so quickly the door won't be able to swing fast enough to hit your ****.  But humble frigates?  Well, sure, THAT doesn't sound so bad... 😎

See also: "through-deck cruisers" from the UK.

300px-HMS_Invincible_During_T200_Celebra

Or Japan's "Helicopter Destroyers"...

300px-DDH-183_%E3%81%84%E3%81%9A%E3%82%8

Not an aircraft carrier at all, no sir, because an aircraft carrier would be EXPENSIVE...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Well, yeah, you then have that ultimate twist - democracies needing to deal with budget-conscious voters!

Try telling a war-weary nation with escalating conflicts in Asia that you want to build a new series of cruiser-sized warships, and you'll be out of office so quickly the door won't be able to swing fast enough to hit your ****.  But humble frigates?  Well, sure, THAT doesn't sound so bad... 😎

See also: "through-deck cruisers" from the UK.

300px-HMS_Invincible_During_T200_Celebra

Or Japan's "Helicopter Destroyers"...

300px-DDH-183_%E3%81%84%E3%81%9A%E3%82%8

Not an aircraft carrier at all, no sir, because an aircraft carrier would be EXPENSIVE...

That's not why the helicopter destroyers in JMSDF service are destroyers. They're destroyers because the Japanese constitution is actively pacifist, and ships capable of offensive warfare (cruisers, capital ships, and aircraft carriers) are illegal under that constitution. The recent admittance that the Izumo class is not only capable of handling fixed-wing aircraft, but was designed with them (specifically the F-35B) in mind sparked an enormous diplomatic furor in East Asia and led some commentators to argue the ships were actually illegal. This is similar to the Soviet (and now Russian) practice of having aircraft-carrying heavy cruisers (Kiev and Kuzentsov classes) because the Montreux Convention bars aircraft carriers from transiting the Dardanelles Strait. All of the former Soviet shipyards assigned to the construction of those classes and the abandoned Ulyanovsk class are all in what is now Ukraine on the Black Sea.

5 hours ago, xanderf said:

FWIW, there are some other nuances in how navies historically designated ships - the OP post is certainly true for how the US saw things, but varied a bit in the smaller categories by Navy.For instance - in the (UK) Royal Navy in 1950s to 1990s-ish (arguably the practice has stopped) the term 'frigate' and 'destroyer' were not used to refer to size of ship at all, but role.  'Frigates' were escort ships designed for anti-submarine defense, and 'Destroyers' were escort ships designed for air defense or surface-to-surface defense.  Frequently frigates would be larger than destroyers, or vice versa, depending on the designed-for range and capability of the class.  And the French use the term frégate (basically 'frigate') for anything that carries missiles at all, of any size between corvettes (aviso) to their cruisers (croiseur).

 

Bit of trivia... the term 'superdreadnought' was popularized as a result of those types of ships having 'superfiring' turrets.  IE., while Dreadnought battleships did indeed have a primary armament of the same caliber guns, they remained (as with pre-Dreadnought battleships) placing them all on a single deck.

Consider the main gun layout of the Dreadnought-type Nassau-class...

nassau.jpg

...vs the Super Dreadnought Bayern-class...

rfagvrfe.jpg

The main battery placed in 'superfiring' position, with the B and X turrets firing over the top of the A and Y turrets.

Generally speaking this is correct, but there are other details that define being a superdreadnought. You can be superfiring without a superdreadnought; USS South Carolina, the first American dreadnought was the first superfiring battleship and is not considered a superdreadnought. (She was also started before HMS Dreadnought but completed and commissioned after her RN cousin.) The other qualifications all revolve around the weapons fit (generally something larger than the 12" guns early dreadnoughts carried; the British Orion used 13.5" guns, everyone else used 14" and up) throwing often double the weight of shell per salvo, increased displacement (Orion was over 25% heavier than her predecessor) , and in later superdreadnoughts oil-fired engines that provided additional speed and weight offerings for the armor plating. Not trying to harangue you @xanderf, just add additional information.

14 hours ago, Mad Cat said:

A simple Rule....

If you put Expanded Hangar, Boosted Comms or Flight controllers on it, it becomes a Carrier.

Sure the Quasar can hardly be anything else but using ship upgrades to perform the role of fighter activator is a nice touch for the game. It negates the need for a heavy, light & escort carrier for each faction. If you ever played Star Fleet Battles..... Sooo many ship designs and minor variants.

This isn't a bad policy.

3 hours ago, Maturin said:

And the USN in the 1950's-1970's called their large guided missile destroyers "frigates" (Bainbridge, California, and Virigina classes), which of course only adds to the confusion, since those ships would fall into Giled Pallaeon's Destroyer/Light cruiser category.  This is probably the reason the Rebel Assault Frigate is named as such.  As GP said, this is a messy subject depending on time period and nation involved.

 

Still, always an entertaining & informative read, and makes for good food for thought.  It's great GP has taken the time to explain all this, and in the process give us some common terminology from which to work. 

 

Now I'll add one more twist - the concept of carriers in Armada really doesn't match up with our traditional concept of aircraft carriers, since by the time our game starts the squadrons are largely already launched and ready to tango (with the exception of Rapid Launch Bay ships).  Really what ship actually carries and launches the squadrons is quite irrelevant in our game.  What IS relevant, however, is fighter direction - which is the concept that most closely parallels our squadron command value.  In modern navies, fighter direction is also handled by the carriers they launched from, but this wasn't always the case.   

In WWII the British (pioneers in the concept of fighter direction) often used heavy cruisers as their fighter direction ships, especially when coordinating with land-based fighters to provide air cover.  The loss of heavy cruisers Cairo and Nigeria to submarine attack during the Pedestal Convoy to Malta left the convoy with uncoordinated fighter cover, and vulnerable to Italian & German air attacks.  So in Armada, we could definitely imagine ships that don't carry many (or any) fighters in hangars, but yet still having high squadron values through a fighter coordination center.  Maybe the Command Pelta fits this description?   

I fully endorse this idea. This much more smoothly incorporates squadron command value (i.e. how much staff/seats in CIC does the "air" action officer have at his/her disposal?) as an attribute of the ship beyond nominal hangar capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

That's not why the helicopter destroyers in JMSDF service are destroyers. They're destroyers because the Japanese constitution is actively pacifist, and ships capable of offensive warfare (cruisers, capital ships, and aircraft carriers) are illegal under that constitution. The recent admittance that the Izumo class is not only capable of handling fixed-wing aircraft, but was designed with them (specifically the F-35B) in mind sparked an enormous diplomatic furor in East Asia and led some commentators to argue the ships were actually illegal. This is similar to the Soviet (and now Russian) practice of having aircraft-carrying heavy cruisers (Kiev and Kuzentsov classes) because the Montreux Convention bars aircraft carriers from transiting the Dardanelles Strait. All of the former Soviet shipyards assigned to the construction of those classes and the abandoned Ulyanovsk class are all in what is now Ukraine on the Black Sea.

I think some nuance of my comment might be missed, because that's exactly why the JMSDF carriers are "destroyers" - it is required for political expedience to classify them as a "destroyer" instead of a "carrier", when literally everyone on seeing the ships once put to sea went...'hey, waitaminute, THAT'S A CARRIER'

The point being that taking the named classification of a ship at face value...isn't always useful.  Political realities often result in new types of ships being classified as something they are plainly and obviously not, but the classification is used anyway.

EDIT: And actually to bring that around to the current topic - there had been a theory advanced in an EU work somewhere, not currently backed by any canon source I'm aware of, that did indeed suggest that is where Star Destroyers got their nomenclature from.  Given the start of the program would have been under the Imperial Senate, a reasonable argument could be that the Emperor (and Imperial Navy generally) got approval for development of these warships through the Senate by calling them only 'destroyers'.  *shrugs*  Not really an explanation I like, as 'Star Destroyer' seems its own type easily enough, and rule of cool says that if something is named for destroying stars...it's extra cool.

Edited by xanderf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xanderf said:

I think some nuance of my comment might be missed, because that's exactly why the JMSDF carriers are "destroyers" - it is required for political expedience to classify them as a "destroyer" instead of a "carrier", when literally everyone on seeing the ships once put to sea went...'hey, waitaminute, THAT'S A CARRIER' 

The point being that taking the named classification of a ship at face value...isn't always useful.  Political realities often result in new types of ships being classified as something they are plainly and obviously not, but the classification is used anyway. 

You were carrying on about cost, which is why I clarified. Political expediency is definitely a thing. Part of the reason for the Great Reclassification of the USN in 1975 that @Maturin alluded to is the ability of the Soviets to point to rows of destroyers, cruisers and other "large [whatever the Soviets called it]", whereas we had frigates, ocean escorts, and other terms that sound much less impressive despite being equal in all relevant characteristics to their Soviet counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am considering the term "Star Destroyer" to be analogous to a U.S. Navy LHD (like the current Wasp class) mixed with a surface combatant of a desired size. So not a ship type based on size or tradition but on a role it would play in the pacification of the Empire. With this in mind, a Star Destroyer would be a mix of warship and assault ship carrying shipboard weapons batteries as well as equipment for surface combat (like a mix of Venator and Acclamator). 

Then, Gladiators for minor actions, Imperials for major ones, and Victorys for in between. We know ISD and VSD carry troops and ATST's as well as ATAT's (just ask General Veers). I'm proposing Gladiators do too (though maybe not ATAT's).

For each class of Star Destroyer the balance between warship and assault ship wouldn't necessarily be the same. Gladiators lean towards the warship side (because of Demolisher), Victorys lean towards the assault ship side (because of speed and manuvrability) with the ISD's as the perfect blend of both. Anyway that is my 4¢ worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, axe238 said:

I am considering the term "Star Destroyer" to be analogous to a U.S. Navy LHD (like the current Wasp class) mixed with a surface combatant of a desired size.

Nah, the only real way to look at the series is picking out what references Lucas was attempting to emphasize.  Famously, the dogfighting over the Death Star in ANH was intended to be evocative of the Battle of Britain (not just aircraft dogfights, or even WW2 dogfights, but specifically the Battle of Britain).  And I think the ship-to-ship combat - although not as clearly stated in interviews (that I'm aware of), but certainly VISUALLY clearly indicated - was meant to be Age of Sail.

From the opening scene of ANH, which could have as easily been a 3rd or 4th-rate Ship of the Line chasing down an enemy Sloop or Schooner (or, heck, a Frigate)...to the battles in RotJ where the Rebel and Imperial ships saddled up alongside each other and exchanged broadsides meters apart, as the classic sailing vessels of old...throughout the series, the ship-to-ship interactions were always the more glacial and COMPREHENSIVELY multi-role nature of the sailing era ships.

No offense to the LHDs and newer LPDs!  Amazing ships, indeed!  But very much 'Marine landing and support ships' - they'd never survive a surface-to-surface engagement with an enemy fleet, nevermind an air attack, OR a submarine attack.  The smallest (3rd and 4th rate) SAILING ships of the line were a different story.  They were intended to serve in a line of battle, slugging it out with the best of enemy warships and pulling their weight...at the same time as being able to carry supplies to distant stations...or conveying an entire government from one country to another to install a new executive...to putting enough marines ashore to assault a small garrison...or all at once, in the same mission.  It's very much THESE kind of ships that the capital ships of the Star Wars setting seem more evocative of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Nah, the only real way to look at the series is picking out what references Lucas was attempting to emphasize.  Famously, the dogfighting over the Death Star in ANH was intended to be evocative of the Battle of Britain (not just aircraft dogfights, or even WW2 dogfights, but specifically the Battle of Britain).  And I think the ship-to-ship combat - although not as clearly stated in interviews (that I'm aware of), but certainly VISUALLY clearly indicated - was meant to be Age of Sail.

From the opening scene of ANH, which could have as easily been a 3rd or 4th-rate Ship of the Line chasing down an enemy Sloop or Schooner (or, heck, a Frigate)...to the battles in RotJ where the Rebel and Imperial ships saddled up alongside each other and exchanged broadsides meters apart, as the classic sailing vessels of old...throughout the series, the ship-to-ship interactions were always the more glacial and COMPREHENSIVELY multi-role nature of the sailing era ships.

No offense to the LHDs and newer LPDs!  Amazing ships, indeed!  But very much 'Marine landing and support ships' - they'd never survive a surface-to-surface engagement with an enemy fleet, nevermind an air attack, OR a submarine attack.  The smallest (3rd and 4th rate) SAILING ships of the line were a different story.  They were intended to serve in a line of battle, slugging it out with the best of enemy warships and pulling their weight...at the same time as being able to carry supplies to distant stations...or conveying an entire government from one country to another to install a new executive...to putting enough marines ashore to assault a small garrison...or all at once, in the same mission.  It's very much THESE kind of ships that the capital ships of the Star Wars setting seem more evocative of.

I am familiar with some of what you've said and agree with most of it and I should not have used a real life example when my point of view was from inside Star Wars. My only real point was to rationalize what a "Star Destroyer" is (or could be) based on what the ships could do on screen and in print...why they are singled out as "Star Destroyer" instead of cruiser, battleship,etc... but in universe only and setting aside the fact it is only a set of movies acted out using a history relevant script.😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maturin said:

And the USN in the 1950's-1970's called their large guided missile destroyers "frigates" (Bainbridge, California, and Virigina classes), which of course only adds to the confusion, since those ships would fall into Giled Pallaeon's Destroyer/Light cruiser category.  This is probably the reason the Rebel Assault Frigate is named as such.  As GP said, this is a messy subject depending on time period and nation involved.

 

Still, always an entertaining & informative read, and makes for good food for thought.  It's great GP has taken the time to explain all this, and in the process give us some common terminology from which to work.

 

Now I'll add one more twist - the concept of carriers in Armada really doesn't match up with our traditional concept of aircraft carriers, since by the time our game starts the squadrons are largely already launched and ready to tango (with the exception of Rapid Launch Bay ships).  Really what ship actually carries and launches the squadrons is quite irrelevant in our game.  What IS relevant, however, is fighter direction - which is the concept that most closely parallels our squadron command value.  In modern navies, fighter direction is also handled by the carriers they launched from, but this wasn't always the case.  

In WWII the British (pioneers in the concept of fighter direction) often used heavy cruisers as their fighter direction ships, especially when coordinating with land-based fighters to provide air cover.  The loss of heavy cruisers Cairo and Nigeria to submarine attack during the Pedestal Convoy to Malta left the convoy with uncoordinated fighter cover, and vulnerable to Italian & German air attacks.  So in Armada, we could definitely imagine ships that don't carry many (or any) fighters in hangars, but yet still having high squadron values through a fighter coordination center.  Maybe the Command Pelta fits this description?  

One thing with the fighter direction is sort of as you said handled by the carriers, but sometimes by other aircraft such as the AWACS. You can have the AWACS doing this job by its self sometimes supporting ground control (common with units such as E-3 Sentry and the like), or supporting/forwarding for the carriers (like the E-2 Hawkeye and the like), but they can also be as small as helicopters (like the Sea King ASaC7).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CDAT said:

One thing with the fighter direction is sort of as you said handled by the carriers, but sometimes by other aircraft such as the AWACS. You can have the AWACS doing this job by its self sometimes supporting ground control (common with units such as E-3 Sentry and the like), or supporting/forwarding for the carriers (like the E-2 Hawkeye and the like), but they can also be as small as helicopters (like the Sea King ASaC7).

I believe that's the intent of Relay - extend a ship's command range via a forward controller.  I can't really think of a mechanism by which a squadron would itself have a squadron command value.....though i suppose it could be included as a special rule.

 

11 hours ago, xanderf said:

Nah, the only real way to look at the series is picking out what references Lucas was attempting to emphasize.  Famously, the dogfighting over the Death Star in ANH was intended to be evocative of the Battle of Britain (not just aircraft dogfights, or even WW2 dogfights, but specifically the Battle of Britain). 

I've seen mention that the trench run scene is modeled after the scenes from the Dam Busters when the Lancasters were making their bombing runs?

 

Anyways, to get back to GP's original post, I think Armada has room for more Cruisers.  As the most flexible type of ship we should be seeing them more often!  They could play MSU-leader, or Support for a Battleship/Dreadnought....it would be nice to have more ships in the ~70-80 point range to choose from.  Right now the VSD and AF seem squadron-focused in their roles; how about a beefier ship with a 0 or 1 squadron value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...