You dislike Centuri Nomenclature!!! What about EA

[Kosh127]

You dislike Centuri Nomenclature!!! What about EA

The Centauri are far better at labeling there ships than the EA. They have to be the worst in the game. The Omega “The ship of the line” is called a destroyer. The only thing smaller than that is the destroyer escort. The Hyperion is called a cruiser. Well its interesting that they call that a cruiser and an Omega a Destroyer. The Sagittarius is called a cruiser. It should be called a GMD (guided missile destroyer). The Warlock is a destroyer, o come on. People are complaining about the Centauri and how they name there ships. They are fare more accurate overall. To me and most likely anyone with any idea in the modern navy its very obvious that the people that made the names or informed them on classes for ships knows little to nothing on ship classes.

 

[H]

whats all this about??

the Nomenclature is based upon mostly fictional races, several hundred years in the future, on the type of vessel we can only imagine. No-one is therefore accurate anyway, i have a startling comment... it's all made up, really. people need to stop being so anal about things!

 

[madpax]

But the vorlon names of their ships are right!
Wonder why an earthian game blundered so badly...
Surely to deceive the enemy!
Wait until my olympus dreadnoughts arrive. :lol:
Marc

 

[harikaridog]

Hmmm, there is no right or wrong about ship naming terms, indeed in the current day there is little consistancy, the Royal navy has some frigates that are bigger than destroyers, indeed back in the 60's no one could decide whether the Country Class was a destroyer or a cruiser, it was political expediant that dicated in the end to classify them as destroyers.
Just as in the 70's the Invincible 'harrier carriers' were classed as 'Through Deck Cruisers' to make them politically acceptable to the treasurey.

I can imagine as the EA got its A** kicked in the Minbari war, and its Dreadnaughts and Cruisers were fragged...that the term destroyer was used descriptivly...for a shop supposedly designed to go toe to toe and destroy a Minbari Warcruiser.

The term destroyer is a shortening of the term Torpedo Boat Destroyer.....i.e a ship tasked to destroy Torpedo boats...so the Omega is probably tasked to destroy enemy capital ships and the name is appropriate

 

[harikaridog]

Hmmm......must proof read.........a 'shop' designed to kill Minbari Ship...the mind boggles

 

[tneva82]

the Nomenclature is based upon mostly fictional races, several hundred years in the future, on the type of vessel we can only imagine. No-one is therefore accurate anyway,

Amen for that!

 

[harikaridog]

whats all this about??

the Nomenclature is based upon mostly fictional races, several hundred years in the future, on the type of vessel we can only imagine. No-one is therefore accurate anyway, i have a startling comment... it's all made up, really. people need to stop being so anal about things!

Yeah buts its fun....and no less anal than discussing whether the latest set of AD's ,special traits, range etc better represent the effects of a Lightwave animated beam on a Lightwave generated ship.

 

[H]

whats all this about??

the Nomenclature is based upon mostly fictional races, several hundred years in the future, on the type of vessel we can only imagine. No-one is therefore accurate anyway, i have a startling comment... it's all made up, really. people need to stop being so anal about things!

Yeah buts its fun....and no less anal than discussing whether the latest set of AD's ,special traits, range etc better represent the effects of a Lightwave animated beam on a Lightwave generated ship.

It's fun till people start getting nasty, and abusive, then bans occur, people start hate campaigns and vendettas against others, matt gets dragged into it, and it's a spiral of doom!

 

[Locutus9956]

The term destroyer is a shortening of the term Torpedo Boat Destroyer.....i.e a ship tasked to destroy Torpedo boats

Hmmm... I did not know that, very interesting (and if true yet more weight to my Sulust = Destroyer of Escorts argument )

ps. Hiff is sadly correct in his last post as well but this thread has so far I feel stayed more or less civilised

 

[harikaridog]

whats all this about??

the Nomenclature is based upon mostly fictional races, several hundred years in the future, on the type of vessel we can only imagine. No-one is therefore accurate anyway, i have a startling comment... it's all made up, really. people need to stop being so anal about things!

Yeah buts its fun....and no less anal than discussing whether the latest set of AD's ,special traits, range etc better represent the effects of a Lightwave animated beam on a Lightwave generated ship.

It's fun till people start getting nasty, and abusive, then bans occur, people start hate campaigns and vendettas against others, matt gets dragged into it, and it's a spiral of doom!

Surely that does not happen (gasp!).....

 

[harikaridog]

....sorry was not trying to be controversial.......I am a 47 year old anorak who loves his Starfleet Technical Manual as much as his Janes Fighting Ships 2007-8...but I don't think I'm anal yet....well........at least thats what my psychiatrist tells me.... :wink:

 

[Hugbiel]

The term destroyer is a shortening of the term Torpedo Boat Destroyer.....i.e a ship tasked to destroy Torpedo boats

Hmmm... I did not know that, very interesting (and if true yet more weight to my Sulust = Destroyer of Escorts argument )

I may be wrong : The ship that modern navy come from that but i may not be consistent with the chosen setting. Eg AFAIK Star wars call their biggest ship destroyer who probably stand for ultimate think destroyer. Generally a ship classification is purpose based and is a reflection of the way the war was made at his time. Generic terms as destroyer ( the guy who destroy ) or cruiser ( the guy who cruise ) may be used in many different ways.

But overall the canon as made by JMS who is known to have little care for consistency in military nomenclature ( ship classification, personal ranking ... )

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The term "destroyer" does, indeed, descend from the term "torpedo boat destroyer," simply because the original destroyers were designed for this purpose, to screen big-gun dreadnoughts from the new MTBs, which could counter dreadnoughts easily and for a fraction of the cost. The role of the ships soon expanded to include torpedo attacks on dreadnoughts and cruisers, and anti-aircraft screening. Then it expanded again to include ASW ops. Modern destroyers also perform guided missile attacks on other surface ships in addition to the "tradtional" roles of the type.

So, a destroyer in ACtA should have teeth to threaten capital ships, anti-fighter weapons to screen capital assets from fighter attacks and enough firepower to chase off opposing destroyers. The Centauri Maximus, for instance, is about as close to a proper destroyer as ACtA gets, off the top of my head anyway.

 

[Chernobyl]

it has to do with generations of ships. long before the omega was developed the Hyperion was classified as a cruiser. indeed, for a long time the Hyperion was the main ship of the line for earthforce - it was their biggest ship, save for the Orestes. Later, when the Omega came around, they decided to keep the hyperion clasified as a cruiser (instead of re-classing it as a destroyer) so as not to offend the crews - face it, if you want to instill pride in your ship, and you wake up one morning and find its not as big as you thought it was, how would you feel?
there's a little bit of this in the background for the hyperion in the ship plans booklet.
Chern

 

[Sulfurdown]

I'm pretty sure it get's mucked up because someone thought "the Omega Destroyer" sounded cool for a mainline warship. Label got applied and canon set.

 

[Silvereye]

And lets face it where does a Warcruiser fit into the wet navy things.

Besides I think I read somewhere that the Omega was classified a Destroyer so as not to sound as expensive to the accountants.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Originally ("Spider In The Web") the Omega was classed as a Heavy Cruiser, but so too had the Hyperion been designated.
JMS isn't a military buff and likely called it a "destroyer" as it sounded good.

The T'Loth and G'Quan are both referred to as Heavy Cruisers in the show too.

the rationale for the Omega in the EA factbook is as Chern says because of the crews. It rings hollow though, nio military takes into account its grunts feelings like that, it's a laughable attempt at ret-conning.

Personally I'd have gone with the designation "destroyer" being a cover for the Omega project to prevent the Minbari learning about a new "super cruiser". Similar to the reason why tanks are "tanks" or why military units aren't numbered sequentially

 

[inq101]

I suggest we stop all arguments by re-classifying all ships as 'Dead Badgers'

All in favor?

 

[Arch Lector Petrovski]

Aye!

Also, if it's good enough for the creator of the entire B5 universe then it's good enough for me. Besides, as stated the classification comes from role not size or anything like that. You could have a three mile long ship lined with anti-fighter weaponry and interceptors and little else, it would be no more a destroyer than a Brakiri Halik.

But yes from now on they're all 'dead badgers', and I move that the fighters now be known as 'squidgy pears'. :lol:

 

[Voronesh]

Originally ("Spider In The Web") the Omega was classed as a Heavy Cruiser, but so too had the Hyperion been designated.
JMS isn't a military buff and likely called it a "destroyer" as it sounded good.

The T'Loth and G'Quan are both referred to as Heavy Cruisers in the show too.

the rationale for the Omega in the EA factbook is as Chern says because of the crews. It rings hollow though, nio military takes into account its grunts feelings like that, it's a laughable attempt at ret-conning.

Personally I'd have gone with the designation "destroyer" being a cover for the Omega project to prevent the Minbari learning about a new "super cruiser". Similar to the reason why tanks are "tanks" or why military units aren't numbered sequentially

Amen to that.

Humans would go to quite some lengths just to mislead their enemies.