Frigate? Why not just Torpedo Corvette???

[Valse Griffyre]

I know things are subjected to changes, but anyone think it doesn't make sense to call the new ship class Frigate? Don't Frigates and Destroyers are often about the same size? I kinda think maybe a Frigate should be a missile-dedicated ship class using Destroyer hulls set. The new torpedo-dedicated ship class that use Corvette hulls set should be call something else, I don't know, maybe just "Torpedo Corvette" instead of "Frigate"? Just my take on the naming, but otherwise i like the new changes to the combat aspects and weapons.

[Niroc]

Torpedo Corvette would be too confusing to someone brand new to Stellaris. We could dive into the details of what a ship classification is and how it's basically up to the navy of any given nation on what defines what, but essentially the reason it's called a frigate is so that it is distinct and recognizable as a different class.

[Oakshadow]

I think it has to do with behavioral and stat changes typically related to ship chasis.

Corvettes get more base evasion and sublight movement speed. While frigates have lower evasion and sublight speed in general. Basically the devs wanted to balance the torpedo changes in a way that wouldn't have been possible if they left the G segment as part of the corvette model. So they spun it of into a new ship type.

At least that's my take on it.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Niroc:

Torpedo Corvette would be too confusing to someone brand new to Stellaris. We could dive into the details of what a ship classification is and how it's basically up to the navy of any given nation on what defines what, but essentially the reason it's called a frigate is so that it is distinct and recognizable as a different class.

but you don't research the frigate class like you do destroyers/cruisers/battleships. you just get it for free with a weapons tech.

and ofc it looks the same as a corvette and takes up the same amount of fleet capacity.

i think calling it torpedo corvette would actually cause less confusion.

[Immortalis]

I mean, ship classification is, and has always been, a hit and miss issue because different nations and different navies do things differently.

This is what Italy classifies has an aircraft carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour) and this is what Japan classifies as a "helicopter destroyer" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer). The latter is 50 meters shorter and carries 18 planes to the former 22 (excluding on deck transport). And this obviously is what the USA classify as a carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)).

And if the difference in "big ships" is this enormous, things are a lot more complicated when you look at small vessels. Some nations have destroyers, others have frigates, others have corvettes, others have "fast attack ships" or such such and in most cases they lack one (or more) of the aforementioned types of ships completely. Germany for example has no destroyer but its frigates are for all intent and purposes destroyers in all but name.


Now, imagine what bringing such a convoluted system in space (where you'll have to measures against not just different names for roughly the same vessel but an entirely different species approach to ship design and construction) would do to the age old question of "is that a frigate or a destroyer? Or maybe that's a missile corvette?".

[pipo.p]

Back to the sailing era, and still in the modern navies until quite recently, I believe that frigates were deemed to be oceanic-grade, fast, self-sufficient ships. We just have to say that destroyers are slower and mostly aimed at working within a squadron with larger ships.

For example, frigates could be limited to picket and line roles, while destroyer could equip even carrier computers to act as escorts/decoys at this engagement distance. Frigates would have only a few multi-role but light ship designs available, whereas destroyers would have the current (heavier) ones. Frigates would be inherently faster and nimbler, whereas destroyers would be slower and have less evasion.

I one sense, I would see frigates vs destroyers like one used to see light cruisers vs heavy cruisers.

[Half Phased]

Destroyers name comes from their role: torpedo boat destroyers. The original function of the destroyer was to destroy the smaller torpedo boats before they could strike at the far more vulnerable, far more valuable battleships. Which is the role they are actually best at in stellaris, punching down at corvettes and providing large amounts of point defense to shoot down missiles and torpedoes headed for the battleships.

Frigates are a mishmash, they’re original “type” as a ship that was built for speed and maneuverability in the age of sail. In the iron clad era the class was given to iron clad due to their single gun deck.

And in the modern era, frigate is used for basically anything and everything, namely as if there doesn’t seem to be a class for the role the ship serves, call it a “(insert role here ) frigate”.

(How you get to the name battleship is an exercise to the reader, though it’s interesting to see how the class got its name.)