"A) Frigates are anti-capship platforms,..." + 100000000000000000000000000000000000

"...or B) Frigates are mini-carriers carrying anti-missile and anti-fighter weaponry." +5

Well, one thing is for sure, whatever the heck a "Frigate" is, the Trident and Teradon shouldn't both be called that.

+1 to the capital charge cannon idea. That sounds sweet.

Personally, I refer to the Trident as an Escort. Take it for what it is, I guess.

For me, I generally use the following classifications:

* Escort - Trident (carries anti-missile and anti-fighter weaponry. While capable of fighting other capships, it's not really designed for it. Mostly used for escorting larger ships)
* Frigate - Teradon (anti-capship with heavier weaponry. Wish this one had a dock)
* Cruiser - HAC? (primary capship armed with mostly anti-capship weaponry and more susceptible to fighter/bomber attacks. Could probably use light and heavy varieties)
* Battleship - No instance yet exists in VO, but essentially a bigger version of the Cruiser paradigm.
* Carrier - Constellation (yeah it's a stretch, but it's as close to one as we've got. Armed with anti-missile, anti-fighter weaponry, not as good in close combat against the anti-capship ships)

I tend towards this, because I think we should define the framework in which the capships should be used. Otherwise, we just end up making suggestions without any real sense of game balance. In additional to building (manning) the things, there should start being missions which use and require capships. I know it's been said before, but start giving the things a real reason to be in the game. It would start making building them useful beyond the bragging rights of building them.

Lets not pretend like classifications have any real value to how a thing is balanced. Balancing is about mechanics, and as far as capital ships go, I consider myself a 'capital-ship conservative' when it comes to this kind of discussion. The ships and their capabilities are fine for now, until we start seeing people using Type M's with shields and different turret variations, nobody even has to think about having this kind of discussion, it's completely premature.

TRS, I can't tell if you're joking or not...

I refuse to reveal whether or not this post was made with the sole purpose of confusing slime. Read into it what you will.

A Trident is a Merchant aircraft carrier or Escort Carrier, despite not being used properly as such due lack of players or tatics from NPCs. As I suggested before, its storage area, docking bay and shield usage should be tie, resulting in specializations.

Connies are closer to a Assault Carrier than a freighter, despite its lack of main guns really makes then more like a support ship.

After reading those links and another on naval warfare, I think we should not make the Trident a Capship-killer, or even a decent foe for HACs and Connies. Just give them some capital-grade turrets with more diversity, and allow pilot to control own turrets. Or else why would be other ship models?

TRS, just trying to look ahead, dude. Just trying to look ahead. Of course, no matter what we discuss here, it's Inc's call as to how the game proceeds forward. If he doesn't want player driven fleet combat, that's his choice. My commentary was that if we HAD classifications of capships, could we shoehorn our existing classes into them? In the end analysis however, if VO is to eventually simulate fleet combat by players (with piloting being how advantage is gained; true, that's not really a true space thing where basically whoever spots the other first with the most weapons on focus wins the battle), we're going to need a framework in which it can be evaluated and developed. Let's face it, the Trident-M is basically a big XC; little else, so you are correct in that evaluating it as a capship is really an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, the need for analysis remains.

More of a big normal moth, actually. XC has no turrets. A Trident's turrets are not totally useless. Nor is it's single large port.

Also, I don't see why turret purpose has to be either-or. The whole point of having modular weapons instead of hardwiring them to the ship is that people who want different styles can switch weapons. People who want to use their turrets for fighter defense could install faster lighter weapons in them, and people who want to use them for fighting other capital ships could install slow heavy high-powered weapons.

The lighter fighter-defense type weapons would use less grid than the powerful long-range anti-capship weapons. That's important since a Teradon is about the same size as a Trident, but has 28 turrets (and can bring at least nine of them to bear on a single target if it gets oriented right).

EDIT: The wiki says there are 32 turrets. I will count harder.
EDIT2: Nope, I still count 28 turrets. Maybe four got removed since then? I'm seeing eight along the center, and ten each on the port and starboard sides, five of which are in the middle with the other five around the aft end.

I've read a lot lately, on naval warfare evolution, and want to return to original topic, Cappie vs. Cappie:

1. As long as we don't have shields, nothing else is required. (new versions are welcome)

2. Once player-owned tridents get shields, we need:

2.1. Capital-grade turrets.
2.1.1. The same existing now, N2, Gauss, swarms, etc.
2.1.2. new FLAK type
2.1.3. That probably requires a new "port type", capital-turret-port, so it won't fit on an Atlas, and should weight a lot. And "small-turrets" should fit in a capital-turret-port

2.2. Capital-grade *NEW* main weapons:
2.2.1. Avalons, as a capital flare
2.2.2. Capital grade cannon, blaster, gauss or similar
2.2.3. Anti-shield weapon: EMP missile or bomb, disruptor gun, whatever... something very efficient against shields but almost useless against hulls

Next, I'd like to tie Shield usage with turbo. Simply only one can be used at once.

Finally, since the submarine and aircraft carrier has supplanted the battleship in terms of usefulness and importance, we need to consider the "carrier aspect" of tridents. So, just like a Carrier, or a escort carrier, does not need big guns, a Trident can project its power as many fighters-bombers, both offensive as defensive.

So, for me, best solution is that the Trident remains a bad capship hunter, and we have a new ship to fit its role. Either that, or a dedicated version, with very small docking bays and storage and a dedicated anti-capital weaponry!

The new turrets/main guns suggestion remains valid in this scenario, where Tirdents remains as ESCORT corvettes/carriers, and a new ship comes to role of anti-capship, like player-flown Teradons!

Alloh... no one is saying make the Trident a "capship hunter". It is however completely idiotic that the Trident is basically useless against other Tridents.

Trident vs Trident now is just like a Moth duel... with one more turret, one less main gun and lots more armour... but in future, when shield appear:

Best option: launch your bombers/fighters... just like two carriers fighting in seas.
Second option: Capship-grade anti-shield main weapon and cap-turrets.
Elegant Option: Specialized anti-capship ship, preferably new model or a simple Trident version