Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates

[TheHolyAsdf]

As of now:

> Destroyers are mostly used for their point defence and are too situational for viability.

> Whatever necessary role cruisers take, battleships or corvettes can do better.


I propose the following changes

> Frigates are a new class that are most effective as point defence/anti-corvette roles.

> Destroyers are changed to serve as a glass cannon role. They have minimal shields and armor. But have the most efficient firepower to naval cap + alloy cost. They should not be restricted primarily to large weapon slots like battleships are, but can be equipped with a large number of small or medium weapons instead. Destroyers can now do what their namesake implies. Destroy.

> Cruisers are changed to serve a tanking role. They do not have substantial weapons inventory, but feature the most slots for shields and armor, more than battleships or at least more efficiently than battleships naval cap and cost wise.

Hopefully this will bring some design depth, realism and greater distinction between each warship class

 

[TheHolyAsdf]

In fleet to fleet engagements, mechanically to ensure cruisers and corvettes remain effective, cruisers and corvettes absorb a portion of enemy fleet fire. This ensures the cruisers and corvettes can "protect" destroyers and frigates from damage. The proportion of enemy fleet fire that is drawn is dependent on the amount of cruisers and corvettes you have in comparison to the volume of enemy fire.

If you have lots of cruisers and corvettes, then the enemy fleet will target primarily those ships.

If you have some cruisers, some enemy ships will target your destroyers and frigates.

 

[3ishop]

The name "Destroyer" historically is from the original role: "Torpedo boat destroyer". Their historical role was to destroy small, hard hitting ships that would threaten the capital ships. They fill that role well in game as is, changing them makes no sense. Currently frigates and destroyers are rather interchangeable.

Cruiser change again makes no sense. If anything they should have more weapons choice and less defences. Again that's what they are. They were lighter ships than Battleships however could often be armed to the same extent as battleships, becoming battle-cruisers.

 

[TheHolyAsdf]

The premise of your argument is built on the fact that science fiction warships should be based on how humanity classes their sea based warships, a tight coupling of which isn't necessary.

Destroyers are not alpha threats to battleships in Stellaris.

My proposal is for ship role distinctions instead of each class of ships upwards simply being "bigger and slower"

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I would distinguish the roles as follows.

Offensive ships - corvettes and cruisers - assault role, close and destroy, capital ship killers. High firepower and speed for their cost.

Defensive ships - destroyers and battleships. Battleships long range artillery and destroyers are escorts for battleships providing point defense and cover against small assault ships. High armor and accuracy for their cost.

 

[TheHolyAsdf]

At the end of the day, i feel destroyers and cruisers have the least impact on your fleet's capability. Corvettes are fast, battleships are strong. Cruisers are in the middle ground in such a way they don't have a defined purpose that corvettes or battleships can't do better. Destroyers are situational.

 

[3ishop]

The premise of your argument is built on the fact that science fiction warships should be based on how humanity classes their sea based warships, a tight coupling of which isn't necessary.

Destroyers are not alpha threats to battleships in Stellaris.

My proposal is for ship role distinctions instead of each class of ships upwards simply being "bigger and slower"

Yeah, strange how the ships in game have the same class name as ships we've had and strange how they have the same role in game. There's a reason why the Devs have taken these names.

 

[TheHolyAsdf]

Yeah, strange how the ships in game have the same class name as ships we've had and strange how they have the same role in game. There's a reason why the Devs have taken these names.

I fully understand why it's like that. But I just propose to change it up to something that it's perhaps better

 

[PK_AZ]

Yeah, strange how the ships in game have the same class name as ships we've had and strange how they have the same role in game. There's a reason why the Devs have taken these names.

Nah, its more complicated than that. In very early Stellaris days, ships didn't have any enforced role., and 'corvette', 'battleship' etc were just ways to describe hull size. Size roles came later, with Leviathan DLC.