Would be nice to have modules (not class) to drop armour in exchange for additional engines and thus create battlecruisers.
- 3
Battleships vs Corvettes
- Thread starter Jezbob
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Would be nice to have modules (not class) to drop armour in exchange for additional engines and thus create battlecruisers.
Indeed! Maybe some support modules will do things like add increased speed, or evasion. More options is good
This could be good role playing. Role play a horrible bloated powerful Empire, by putting incompetent admirals in charge and make them have all large ships and see if any other polity can defeat that fleet.
- 2
The large ship vs small ship balance is something space 4x games often get wrong. I hope Stellaris does not. The relationship between large and small ships is driven by the rules of geometry & physics which I expect will same in the future and should be followed by Stellaris.
Rule 1: As dimensional size doubles volume increases by the order of three. 2 squared=4; 3 squared = 9; 4 squared = 16…. so….as dimensions doubles mass and volume are cubed
Rule 2: force and energy of weapons is proportional to mass
Rule 3: all other factors being equal…energy production is proportional to the volume and mass of the engines
Rule 4: in space there is no friction from air or water to overcome, the only disadvantage of size is momentum/ maneuverability duo to mass
The mass and volume advantage of a large ship is more efficient as a weapons platform when compared to an equal cost number of smaller ships.
In naval history the large ship had a very great advantage over the small ship and a large ship was often tactically invulnerable to a small ship. A large ship (SOL/ BB) could mount heaver guns(with more power, range) and more guns (including small rapid fire guns for use against small targets) per tonnage than a small ship (frigate/DD). The large ship (SOL/ BB) could also have more armor (wood planks or steel) than the small ship.
All of this made the small ship unable to effectively attack the large ship. The only exception was torpedoes in WW2. But we can assume that once a counter to missiles is discovered that would render this advantage moot in space.
Small ships have a strategic role as scouts and in their larger numbers/lower individual cost allow for more strategic coverage of an area. A single large ship is a lot of resources in one location.
Rule 1: As dimensional size doubles volume increases by the order of three. 2 squared=4; 3 squared = 9; 4 squared = 16…. so….as dimensions doubles mass and volume are cubed
Rule 2: force and energy of weapons is proportional to mass
Rule 3: all other factors being equal…energy production is proportional to the volume and mass of the engines
Rule 4: in space there is no friction from air or water to overcome, the only disadvantage of size is momentum/ maneuverability duo to mass
The mass and volume advantage of a large ship is more efficient as a weapons platform when compared to an equal cost number of smaller ships.
In naval history the large ship had a very great advantage over the small ship and a large ship was often tactically invulnerable to a small ship. A large ship (SOL/ BB) could mount heaver guns(with more power, range) and more guns (including small rapid fire guns for use against small targets) per tonnage than a small ship (frigate/DD). The large ship (SOL/ BB) could also have more armor (wood planks or steel) than the small ship.
All of this made the small ship unable to effectively attack the large ship. The only exception was torpedoes in WW2. But we can assume that once a counter to missiles is discovered that would render this advantage moot in space.
Small ships have a strategic role as scouts and in their larger numbers/lower individual cost allow for more strategic coverage of an area. A single large ship is a lot of resources in one location.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
It seems like overall, in terms of battles, a mixture will be more efficient because a pure heavy fleet against a mixed fleet would find itself swarmed by small ships and pummeled by large ships in the distance. They can focus on either, the former they're bad at hitting (or have to divert many resources to be able to) and often will regardless, and the latter will mean constantly suffering bombardment from the smaller ships from all sides.
Maybe fighters will act as a slight corvette counter while covering anti bomber for capital ships.
All comes down to the destroyer class I guess, I mean we know that is a solid counter how solid it is determines how many capital ships you can field safely.
All comes down to the destroyer class I guess, I mean we know that is a solid counter how solid it is determines how many capital ships you can field safely.
As a point, it was basically aircraft and later guided missiles that rendered the battleship obsolete, not the torpedo. Those, and the small ships that delivered them had been around since the late 19th century, and submarines had been around since WW1. Neither had the battleship killing effect that was hoped for.
Since you mention wood, I assume you're projecting this assertion back into the age of sail? Because that is definitely NOT correct, and a suspect analogy for space combat in any case (Unless you're a rabid David Weber fan...)
I'd not be so confident that point defence in space can be a total shield. You get into ECM/ECCM territory and for every tech argument you postulate for it, a tech argument can be postulated against it.
The key questions are: can Space Armour be made invulnerable to Space Guns on any reasonable ship design? And what are the costs of the big ships?
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
I'm curious if space future will mimic Earth history. If cruiser size carriers will end up dominating the space lanes and battleships become obsolete. Would that be a cool surprise for people if the Devs designed it to work out that way by mid game or would it just tick people off? I wonder.
My strategy will actually involve mostly Battleship and Destroyer hulls.
I will try this strategy so I can concentrate research/station modules on just two classes.
I will still build some Corvettes and Cruisers but mainly for raiding and scouting purposes.
I think that the Destroyer is a very versatile ship type and durable enough to take some damage but at the same time evasive enough to dodge heavy weapons with some regularity. The main job of the destroyer will be to act as a screen for the battleships/carriers and engage enemy Destroyers, Corvettes, Fighters and Missiles. The Battleship are the ones to engage enemy static defenses and capital ships. I will most likely not bother adding small weapons to battleships and instead add point defenses and have my destroyers worry about enemy corvettes.
In any way Corvettes don't seem very efficient against battleship since small weapons are quite weak against them and likewise battleship seem like a poor choice against corvettes. You most likely need heavy weapons or bombers to tackle battleships, even cruisers seem pretty resilient in a fight against corvettes even if the corvettes will take rather little damage from cruisers.
It seem to me that a fight between indecisive opponents should end up in one side retreating relatively intact for the most part.
I will try this strategy so I can concentrate research/station modules on just two classes.
I will still build some Corvettes and Cruisers but mainly for raiding and scouting purposes.
I think that the Destroyer is a very versatile ship type and durable enough to take some damage but at the same time evasive enough to dodge heavy weapons with some regularity. The main job of the destroyer will be to act as a screen for the battleships/carriers and engage enemy Destroyers, Corvettes, Fighters and Missiles. The Battleship are the ones to engage enemy static defenses and capital ships. I will most likely not bother adding small weapons to battleships and instead add point defenses and have my destroyers worry about enemy corvettes.
In any way Corvettes don't seem very efficient against battleship since small weapons are quite weak against them and likewise battleship seem like a poor choice against corvettes. You most likely need heavy weapons or bombers to tackle battleships, even cruisers seem pretty resilient in a fight against corvettes even if the corvettes will take rather little damage from cruisers.
It seem to me that a fight between indecisive opponents should end up in one side retreating relatively intact for the most part.
If I was building Battleships to go against an opponent who used masses of Corvettes
I would install sections on the Battleship to maximise the number of Small weapons to engage Corvette sized ships
I would balance the weapons to Energy and kinetic and a missile or two, thus each battleship could damage effectively shields and armour.
Then balance the armour on the battleship, maybe favour armour as it has the damage reduction quality
We do know the Battleship can fit specials in the rear section but don't know what they are.
still don't know if this would work, but interested the see.
You would aim to destroy a few Corvettes each time before disengaging and falling back to repair.
I would install sections on the Battleship to maximise the number of Small weapons to engage Corvette sized ships
I would balance the weapons to Energy and kinetic and a missile or two, thus each battleship could damage effectively shields and armour.
Then balance the armour on the battleship, maybe favour armour as it has the damage reduction quality
We do know the Battleship can fit specials in the rear section but don't know what they are.
still don't know if this would work, but interested the see.
You would aim to destroy a few Corvettes each time before disengaging and falling back to repair.
While I agree that torpedo didn't make battleships outright obsolete I think it did make them into white elephants. The psychological threat torpedo posed made the increasingly more powerful and expensive battleships often fight timidly, hence compromising them as the decisive weapon that they were supposed to be. The torpedo is in a sense better thought of as defensive denial weapon rather than offensive one.
- 1
I'm curious if space future will mimic Earth history. If cruiser size carriers will end up dominating the space lanes and battleships become obsolete. Would that be a cool surprise for people if the Devs designed it to work out that way by mid game or would it just tick people off? I wonder.
Thing about Earth history is that it's ongoing. We haven't seen a fleet engagement between comparable modern powers since WW2. It's entirely plausible that with current or near future technology, a surface ship armed with effective automated defence systems can destroy incoming aircraft and missiles with 100% reliability. This could hand power back to the ship with the biggest gun (probably a railgun), making it unclear if the reign of the carrier ever lasted more than a few decades.
- 3
- 1
More than likely In space the Battleship will be THE capital ship especially If we use Kinetic Weapons, a long spinal gun is incredibly lethal afterallI'm curious if space future will mimic Earth history. If cruiser size carriers will end up dominating the space lanes and battleships become obsolete. Would that be a cool surprise for people if the Devs designed it to work out that way by mid game or would it just tick people off? I wonder.
This is kind of an interesting balance problem, so forgive me for being a bit roundabout here...
If we can simply boil down each class of ships into a measure of fleet strength per unit resources, then you're either left with a clear outlier, or a "why bother" problem where you might as well use... whatever. You choice stops mattering.
Fortunately, we know it does not boil down quite that simply! Swarms of corvettes can overwhelm small numbers of larger ships. The exact mechanism there, I'm not totally clear on. There was something about large weapons (which bigger ships have in abundance) being less effective vs. large numbers of smaller ships due to overkill, but if that's all it is, there's an easy way to write out smaller ships in the form of modules featuring large numbers of smaller weapons... unless those modules are less cost effective, and you might as well just build the smaller ships? BUt then why have those modules? Unless there's rare techs in the three that potentially lend outsized effectiveness to different classes of ships, rare modules, that sort of thing...
God I can't wait to start poking around this game!
If we can simply boil down each class of ships into a measure of fleet strength per unit resources, then you're either left with a clear outlier, or a "why bother" problem where you might as well use... whatever. You choice stops mattering.
Fortunately, we know it does not boil down quite that simply! Swarms of corvettes can overwhelm small numbers of larger ships. The exact mechanism there, I'm not totally clear on. There was something about large weapons (which bigger ships have in abundance) being less effective vs. large numbers of smaller ships due to overkill, but if that's all it is, there's an easy way to write out smaller ships in the form of modules featuring large numbers of smaller weapons... unless those modules are less cost effective, and you might as well just build the smaller ships? BUt then why have those modules? Unless there's rare techs in the three that potentially lend outsized effectiveness to different classes of ships, rare modules, that sort of thing...
God I can't wait to start poking around this game!
As to the age of wooden ships and iron men....my point was that a a 32 gun frigate with 26 x 12 pdrs and 6 x6 pdrs had no chance against a 1st class SOL like HMS Victory with 30 x 32 pdrs, lb, 28 x 24 pdrs, lb, 44 12 pdrs, plus carronades. A 32 pdr had twice the range of a 12 pdr gun... the frigate was out gunned 3 to 1 and out ranged 2 to 1. A frigate was 1/3 to 1/4 the tonnage and 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of a first rate SOL. I don't think 4 frigates would win against a 1st class SOL in battle. Maybe I should try in Empire Total war and see
I forgot to mention aircraft carriers and guided missiles...yes.. you are correct on the end of the battleship. It was large projectiles delivered with accuracy (torpedoes and bombs by airplanes ) that did end the battleship. Guided missiles are still a question...the Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf or Sea Viper, anti-aircraft guns, electronic warfare jamming, decoys, chaff, and flares.... are all close-in weapon systems for defense against anti-ship missiles. The same tech i assume will be in Stellaris rendering small missile armed ships and fighters unable successfully to attack a large ship with defensive close in weapons.
Now going in to the future world of Stellaris and space fiction...it seems to me that shields would be the end of large low velocity projectiles like missiles. A heavy shielded large spaceship would only be vulnerable to high energy weapons like beams or mass drivers or ultra-high yield hyper speed missiles…
It still seems that large ships would have much higher offensive and defensive capabilities when compared to a number of smaller ships that have the same cost as the one larger ship.
- 1
That would be bad. New AShM missiles are still coming which means people are still confident in their capability to see through or overload ship's defences. I am definitely gonna try small missile ship tactics in Stellaris
- 2
The big problem with small missile tactics in Stellaris is you have no way of knowing if they'll work until you're into the fire. And even then you may not be able to identify why they don't work. If you run into an empire that runs heavy on point defense and armor, those ships aren't going to get very far. On the other hand, shield heavy and no point defense will have a bad day. [unless shields are specifically good against missiles and bad against armor, but anyway, in that case just reverse them].That would be bad. New AShM missiles are still coming which means people are still confident in their capability to see through or overload ship's defences. I am definitely gonna try small missile ship tactics in Stellaris
Just like the Blorg ran into mass driver focused ships that shredded their fleet, due to an over reliance on shields. Specialized ship designs are very much a gamble in Stellaris, because you have no way of knowing what you'll face.
Generalist design seems safer, with multiple weapon types and a mix of defenses on every ship. Sure they won't excel against everything, but you won't get trounced by perfect counters either.
- 3
That's probably one of the best 'limited' type fleets. Your BBs are good against the enemy BBs and CAs, while you DDs are good against enemy DDs and DDCs. Hard to say if that would better than pure mixed fleet, but if you really want to focus on as few different ship types as possible this is probably the way to go.
As to the age of wooden ships and iron men....my point was that a a 32 gun frigate with 26 x 12 pdrs and 6 x6 pdrs had no chance against a 1st class SOL like HMS Victory with 30 x 32 pdrs, lb, 28 x 24 pdrs, lb, 44 12 pdrs, plus carronades. A 32 pdr had twice the range of a 12 pdr gun... the frigate was out gunned 3 to 1 and out ranged 2 to 1. A frigate was 1/3 to 1/4 the tonnage and 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of a first rate SOL. I don't think 4 frigates would win against a 1st class SOL in battle. Maybe I should try in Empire Total war and see
Well, my point is that those 12 pounders still had some ability to damage the first rate (especially the rigging), unlike say a 6" gun against the Bismarck. And if all four frigates kept out of the first rate's broadside arcs (not impossible) and harrassed they could seriously inconvenience it.
But that underscores even more that the analogy is invalid for space combat. Just because you couldn't practically mount a 32 pounder on a frigate, or a 15" gun on a ww2 destroyer does NOT mean that applies to small spaceships. For a given ship size, design a weapon to damage it, then build the minimum ship around that weapon to operate it. Mass produce.