Because they're smaller, faster, and able to respond to sudden reports of piracy more readily. They're basically one step up from commanders in Elite Dangerous.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Why is a corvette more than twice as good at piracy suppression than a Nimitz supercarrier?
- Thread starter GuardianGI
- 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.
Fun fact, there used to be a bug in which fleets would move at the speed of the fastest ship, so you could put a single corvette in a fleet of battleships and they'd all move faster.
- 11
Here I am reading all the but the corvette is faster discussion and I'm thinking the Battleship costs 8x the naval capacity, has a much higher cost and upkeep, if the Battleship provided the same amount of Piracy prevention as the corvette, the corvette would still be the better investment.
Also Corvettes are the only ships that can counter Battleship monos, destroyers and Cruisers are 100% useless.
Also Corvettes are the only ships that can counter Battleship monos, destroyers and Cruisers are 100% useless.
- 4
- 1
There are some real issues with scale here, both for pirate ships and the warships working to suppress them.
I do a lot of calculations regarding Evasion and such, which I'm not going to go into here, but based on them, I've supposed that Corvettes are realistically about 400 meters long by 80 meters in diameter. I follow the vanilla 1:2:4:8 ratios in costs, build times, Command Points, etc., to suppose that Battleships are 8x the volume and 2x in each dimension if proportional to the Corvette, making them 800 x 160 meters. That difference in volume/mass can be viewed as an order of magnitude.
Going the other way by an order of magnitude, you have a 200 x 40 meter ship - this might be FTL-capable, but maybe not that AND a capable combat vessel. If it's proportionately combat capable to the Corvette (1/8th as powerful), it's absolutely still more than sufficient to quickly overcome any civilian (i.e., unarmed) vessel. A warship of that size is certainly going to be independent for system-level operations. It's probably still too big to be the equivalent of Strike Craft, as I don't think you could comfortably load the bare minimum of 24 of those into the 3 Hangars on a carrier Battleship. Basic pirates would prize this size warship, especially if it had FTL capability.
Let's drop another order of magnitude, to 100 x 20 meters - I'm thinking FTL capability is probably not compressible to this level, especially while still keeping significant operational capability as well (maybe just pure scouts or couriers). If they can remove FTL drives and all their resource demands, these little warships should still be a threat to at least civilian vessels by themselves, and to virtually any ship in sufficient numbers. While automation might allow for small enough crews to make 3-shift/24-hour coverage difficult during cruising, more likely this is still capable of independent duty for at least a couple of weeks at a time. This is probably the biggest vessel that could be considered Strike Craft, in terms of fitting enough in Hangars to be worthwhile, but also likely the smallest that would be of any threat to a warship. This is likely the mainstay of a basic pirate operation, and certainly the best that a non-affiliated crew could hope to operate.
Finally one more order of magnitude, to 50 x 10 meters - absolutely not FTL-capable, and possibly too tough a squeeze to allow for warship-grade weapons or defenses. These are probably only useful against mid-size civilian vessels individually, and not much bigger even with numbers. Stripped down to bare bones accommodations, this would be rough camping for anything beyond extended sorties (24-36 hours). Strike Craft of this size would be reasonable to "clown car" out of proper Hangars, certainly, but likely would be of little use against military targets. Pirates would still find them quite useful, but only as short-duration raiders on purely civilian targets - there might be some small & desperate criminal crews who would live in something this cramped, but all other uses are as task vessels in larger operations.
Anything smaller is just going to be a missile with a cockpit.
As far as patrolling goes, the 200 x 40 warship is probably capable of extended patrols, especially a hyperlane or two down a trade route, and would be comfortably capable of handling a couple of 100 x 20 warships by itself, but would need to either have backup or cut & run against anything larger in size or quantity (i.e., better to report on a threat than to die against it). Similarly the 100 x 20 would be capable of at most a trip to the jump limit and back within a system, with some loiter or patrol time included, and similar scaled down capability. Anything smaller is almost entirely dependent on a carrier or tender to ferry them to the operational area.
All of this assumes that the pirates are basic brigands, looking to get loot off of civilian vessels, and not terribly interested in showing the military that they're big boys, too. Moving up to a Corvette is pointless for a pirate, assuming that it's trying to extort civilians, as the 200 x 40 and even 100 x 20 ships are capable of doing that. Any group, especially in the early game, that is 1) capable of producing empire-grade warships, and 2) willing to go toe-to-toe with an empire, isn't a pirate - they're a splinter political faction, and they would need to have an infrastructure capable of producing said warships, that would be easily visible from even a lane or two over. Smaller ships don't need the same facilities to get off the ground, and both the facilities and the ships are much harder to spot from outside of close range.
The patrols necessary to tamp down on piracy require regular periodic activity, relatively thorough sweeps, and lots of travel between points of interest, including travel to neighboring systems. If there is an expectation of lots of little pirate operations, you'll need lots of little ships to check everything out often enough to catch pirates or at least force them into their holes more than they can fly free to terrorize the citizenry. More advanced and larger operations will be easier to spot but harder to suppress, so you'll occasionally need to send something bigger through the area.
I get the concern that a Battleship or Cruiser carrier should have a more impressive impact on pirate suppression, and I also understand the thought process behind giving a Corvette an outsized effect, in order to provide a reason to still build them (I don't agree with that thought process at all, though). Other than the graphics shown during battles to represent Strike Craft-size ships in action, there's no graphics to represent civilian trade vessels operating in system and any pirates that may be preying on them - it's just not that scale of game. But there needs to be a way to better simulate the activity at that level.
- 3
- 1
That logic requires a hell of a lot of assumptions. The X wing from star wars is capable of FTL. The Colonial Raptor and Cylon Raider from Battlestar Galactica are capable of FTL. Star Trek: Voyager includes an episode where they find Warp Capable missiles slightly smaller than me with AI to control them. Fully Autonomous or Remote Controlled craft can be much better armed/Protected for their size. I expect any space capable civilization is capable of making an RC car. The Boeing B-29 is a WW2 Era Bomber with Remote Controlled turrets. Look at any Turret in the Star Wars Universe, none of them are Remote Controlled (that we can tell anyways). Different Universes have different logic, Stellaris is intentionally Vague, so you can fill it with your own Headcannon. Detail and specifics make assumptions that are hard to square, it's best to not make them.
- 8
- 1
If Stellaris' vanilla Strike Craft were FTL-capable, why would they need to be on a carrier? Wouldn't they just fly alongside the bigger ships in the fleet? If they have to be carried aboard a larger ship, does that mean they don't have the endurance to fly out to the hyperlane limit and then back to an inhabited planet? If they don't have the endurance necessary to take advantage of their FTL capability, why would they have it installed?
The fluff text for Strike Craft technologies doesn't indicate them as being AI-controlled drones, but instead flown by living pilots.
- Advanced Strike Craft - A further refinement in strike craft design, these advanced strike craft are a pilot's dream. Their performance far exceeds that of previous models.
- Synapse Interceptors - Increasing the speed at which fighter pilots can process and act upon enemy positioning data elevates strike craft a few steps up the food chain.
The main gist of my previous post was to show that pirates would be flying warships that make sense when going against civilian vessels, not imperial warships; that those pirate warships would be smaller than a Corvette, probably in-line with the sizes for Strike Craft; and larger "pirate" fleets made up of Corvettes and other proper warships would require the resources (and the footprint) of a small stellar empire, not some basic criminals.
I could legitimately spend pages going through my justifications for the sizes and shapes of the warships that I've given. I had and have no plans to hijack the OP's thread to cover them all. If you want to substitute your own head-canon for mine and explain how you would do it instead, you're welcome to PM me with those details and we can debate that there.
I've been inside a F-16 Cockpit it's cramped and uncomfortable, there's nowhere to keep your lunch and even for a guy there isn't enough room to spread your legs to pee, I doubt your average Strike fighter is any different. We also don't see Carrier Squadrons fly CAPs, in a wartime they would be doing CAPs constantly. BSG Raptors don't hang out outside even though they can jump, it's not made for living in, it's made for long range Sorties and Support roles. You tell me why the X-wing comes with a hyperdrive. If your doing a star trek fantasy then it's a shuttle with a replicator a bathroom and a fold out bed. Maybe you can also tell me why Strike craft that enter combat never return to the carrier until combat is over, even if it takes years.
The same fluff text is probably used for gestalts if my Machine Pilots are dreaming then it'd time to recycle them, apparently I also have to recycle my Calculators for speaking English, and adding flavor to their descriptions 1s and 0s only. Don't take fluff text too seriously.
In context this difference isn't important.
I don't impose my head cannon on anyone they are free to their headcannon as I am free to mine. My Space Gekos are adorable 10cm tall killing machines. My space Rock monsters knock human sized hikers off their peaks and listen real hard for the splat that comes half an hour later, size is relative.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I'm so happy for you! Are you happy for me that I've been inside the flight decks of both military transports and strategic bombers, as well as single- and tandem-seat fighter cockpits? Yay, me!
__
Pick whatever sizes you want for your Corvettes and Battleships, and look at how those sizes relate to each other. Then look at the how the Stellaris rules play up the damage-output and -withstanding of the Battleship relative to even 8 Corvettes. That's essentially what happens when you drop an order of magnitude down, too, now comparing the new much smaller vessel to a Corvette.
Is that the size of your cockpit-only Strike Craft? No? Then let's drop another order of magnitude, and make it even more of a joke to compare the sizes. Keep doing that till you get where it's right for your head-canon.
Unless you make the Corvette and Battleship smaller than RW naval warships, you're not going to get small enough on your equivalent Strike Craft to have them 1) be small enough to fit at least two 8-SC wings in each Hangar (1 launched, 1 as reinforcements; oh and repair & re-arming facilities, too), 2) be still capable of doing any reasonable amount of damage (in line with vanilla Stellaris rules) to even a Corvette, and 3) have a non-ridiculous looking cockpit as the only personnel accommodations on board.
- 1
Always refreshing to see commenters resorting to snark instead of just engaging in civil discourse.
- 7
Those were the days, along with selling energy credits for energy credits.
- 15
When commenters stop trying to Big Man me with pointless tales of their experiences, I'll gladly let up off the snark pedal.
A cockpit like you would see on an F-16 or similar military aircraft is primarily intended for flights and sorties of no more than about 8 hours. Between energy bars and MREs on the food side, and catheters and Depends on the waste disposal side, adjustments CAN be made to allow an aircrew to extend their personal endurance out to maybe 24 hours, but that is by no means typical. Single- or tandem-seat cockpits are a Bad Idea for craft taking regular flights of more than 24 hours - more likely you would see a "cockpit" or flight deck closer to a large commercial airliner or military transport/bomber, with room to get up, walk a few steps back to bunked cots, an RV-style head, and a canteen with refrigerator and microwave. The crew is likely to be at least two, probably three, for the smallest non-trivial-endurance ships, even with a robust autopilot available.
IF Strike Craft are never realistically intended to EVER spend more than even 24 hours away from their carrier, AND they're small enough (w/w/o automation support) to allow a one or two person crew to manage all of their functions in a combat situation, THEN I could see a cockpit being a reasonable accommodation for the crew. Anything beyond that would require a flight deck, with other facilities alongside (even if very brief in size and capability). Continuing to harp on cockpits like they're the primary, if not only, option is just belligerence.
Yeah that's not what I was doing I was just using personal experience to point out that a Cockpit can be really small. Or it can be really large, ala other examples that you chose to ignore. Also role playing can really alter important things, 1 empire may rely on MREs while another conjurs Unlimited food out of thin air. Your making assumptions about a game where a day passes in a second and space battle are carried out as if they were in real time.
- 5
Maybe corvette is fast enought to catch damm pirate scums?
I have more problems with:
There is no option to dedicate some amount ships to piracy duty, so it is whack a mole and multiple patrol routes.
The amount of base pirate supression from tradition or tech is pathetic or not on the scale of how much we need.
I have more problems with:
There is no option to dedicate some amount ships to piracy duty, so it is whack a mole and multiple patrol routes.
The amount of base pirate supression from tradition or tech is pathetic or not on the scale of how much we need.
- 1
The litany of examples that you gave could be referred to as a "Gish gallop" - the way in which they were all trailed out, didn't seem to me like you were actually looking for me to answer them for your information, but just to waste my time in answering. If you honestly weren't trying to just spin me up, I apologize, but I legitimately didn't see where most of what you were saying was trying to go.
Star Wars deciding that snub fighters need to be able to FTL seems to me at least to just be an expedient way to get Luke to Dagobah without having to come up with another method to get him there - he's already in a space ship, he can just use that one. Star Wars also has no requirement to fly through normal space to a distant hyper-limit before using FTL capability, so even a trip to another star system isn't terribly time consuming (although I've seen it said that Hoth to Dagobah was supposed to take 4 days, in a fighter cockpit). Similarly with new Battlestar Galactica and the Raptors and Cylon Raiders: it's easy to just have one of the existing ships do the more difficult FTL jump that realistically probably should have been done by a separate larger ship (either by or apart from the Galactica or a Basestar). Plus the Raptors have a flight deck rather than a cockpit, and Raiders don't really have a concern about flight crew endurance.
Combat Air Patrols could totally be done by carriers in Stellaris, but the Devs haven't decided that it's important enough to include, and I'm not terribly worried about it myself, so :shrug:. And puhleaze don't bring up crap like battle length based on the "calendar = game clock" trope, which only exists to make battles interactive for the RW player in their room.
I'm more than willing to talk about any of my justifications for the points I make in these posts, especially for someone who makes it clear they're truly interested in learning about them. Let me know if you are.
- 2
I always felt like cruisers and destroyers should have better use for trade patrol ships. Since, ya know, *waves to history*.
Humble cruiser has even less going for it in late game than torpedo boats too!
- 2
It does make some sense; Carriers are slow and bulky, and can't do anything without launching their aircraft, which both takes time and is expensive. Corvettes are much faster and thus more able to chase down and suppress pirates.
That being said, a few well positioned gateways and a single bastion loaded up with Hangers does the same thing.
That being said, a few well positioned gateways and a single bastion loaded up with Hangers does the same thing.
seems excessive in hindsight, considering how corvettes are ALWAYS worth building
Battleships are better imo, but yes, there were certain other hull types that needed looking at more than corvettes.