Class, subclass refit, individual ship drop-down and no repeat checkbox to the ship menu

[upyr1]

I have brought up the idea that we need a class drop-down before and I will do it again. I think the simple fact ship names get reused in real life is a good argument to have the class menu. For example, the US Navy has assigned the following names to two different aircraft carriers

• Lexington
• Yorktown
• Saratoga
• Enterprise
• Wasp
• Hornet 

If we had the class drop-down then we could have both carriers, as the World War II Enterprise would be a Yorktown-class carrier and the nuclear would be an enterprise-class carrier. 

subclass- this isn't as important as class but it might be nice to have

Refits if a ship served for decades it will go through upgrades. Again, this would be nice especially if different fittings would be in service at the same time.

Then the ship drop down- I don't care if the ships are individually modeled or if they are simply a different livery. The ships in the class should be in the same spot. Also there should be an option for a random ship, when I don't care which ship is in a formation. This should be the default.  

Lastly the no repeat checkbox- we should be able to prevent the same ship showing up twice (at least per coalition)

[Northstar98]

For the first case, it would probably be handled by including the hull number and hull classfication.

So the Yorktown-class USS Enterprise would be "CV 6 USS Enterprise" and the Enterprise-class USS Enterprise would be "CVN 65 USS Enterprise".

Unless the individual members of the Yorktown-class have different configurations, the name in the unit list would probably be "Yorktown-class CV" and the members be something selectable in the liveries.

 

For things like subclasses, we would need to have ships of different subclasses in the first place for it to be relevant IMO (we only have 1 example, that being the Nimitz-class, though in future it'll also apply to the Leander-class).

The other thing is that we have ships that are somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster, not really conforming to a specific subclass/flight/whatever, the 2 main examples being the Oliver Hazard Perry-class and the Arleigh-Burke Flight IIA 5"/62:

Spoiler

• The OHP has Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B (accurate for early 2000s and onwards), Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS (accurate pre 2004/5), but no STIR (accurate post 2004/2005). The Mk 13 GMLS also fires an unknown version of the SM-2MR, when it should fire the RIM-66E SM-1MR. Though the SM-2MR has the guidance of the SM-1MR.
• The Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA has 2 Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS (accurate for the early Flight IIAs - DDG 81-84), but the funnel design of DDG 89 and onwards and the liveries of the last 12 of the Flt. IIAs, all of the Flt. IIA restarts and the first Flt. IIA technology insertion - none of which have 2 Phalanx IRL.

 

With all that said however, I do agree that it would be nicer to have classes in collapsible menus. So at the upper most level we'd have class, then subclass/flight/batch/block/variant/whatever and then finally the individual members.

With our 2 examples:

• [-] Nimitz-class CVN
  • [-] Nimitz-subclass
    • CVN 70 USS Carl Vinson
  • [-] Theodore Roosevelt-subclass
    • CVN 71 USS Theodore Roosevelt, 2007-2009
    • CVN 72 USS Abraham Lincoln, 2007-2010
    • CVN 73 USS George Washington, 2006-2010
    • CVN 74 USS John C. Stennis, 2006-2008
    • CVN 75 USS Harry S. Truman, 2007-2010
• [-] Type 12I (Leander-class) FF
  • [-] Batch 3 (Broad beamed)
    • F57 HMS Andromeda, 1968-1977
    • [-] Batch 3B (Gun)
      • F12 HMS Achilles, 1970-1990
      • F72 HMS Ariadne, 1973-1992

 

For one-off naval units like the USS Enterprise CVN, the B-871 Alrosa and the Seawise Giant, I think it would be better to just list the member.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Northstar98
corrected dates, added batch details, formatting

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For the first case, it would probably be handled by including the hull number and hull classification.

So the Yorktown-class USS Enterprise would be "CV 6 USS Enterprise" and the Enterprise-class USS Enterprise would be "CVN 65 USS Enterprise".

Unless the individual members of the Yorktown-class have different configurations, the name in the unit list would probably be "Yorktown-class CV" and the members be something selectable in the liveries.

I would prefer to have ship names and liveries separated, as I believe it would simplify things. First there is consistency, the ship names will always be in the same spot. Also it would simplify the livery menu. Using the current approach, a livery pack could get freaking huge. For example, let's say a someone wanted to do a livery pack for a class of 20 ships that on average went through 3 standard liveries. A comprehensive livery pack would comprise at least 60 liveries. If they are separated then a livery pack for the class would be 3 liveries and 20 ship names. In short better orginization.

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For things like subclasses, we would need to have ships of different subclasses in the first place for it to be relevant IMO (we only have 1 example, that being the Nimitz-class, though in future it'll also apply to the Leander-class).

The other thing is that we have ships that are somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster, not really conforming to a specific subclass/flight/whatever, the 2 main examples being the Oliver Hazard Perry-class and the Arleigh-Burke Flight IIA 5"/62:

   True on both accounts, though I figure if ED gets the frankenships straightned out it would be nice to have the OHP and Arleigh-burk flights listed as the proper sub-class and fitting. Adding more ships IMHO should be a higher priority followed by updating old models. The Arleigh-Burke class destroyers would be an awesome choice for a ship module

[Northstar98]

29 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I would prefer to have ship names and liveries separated, as I believe it would simplify things.

Oh I agree, I was just stating what's more likely to happen - it would be better IMO to have classes, subclasses and what have you in collapsible menus, if you see my example.

29 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

First there is consistency, the ship names will always be in the same spot. Also it would simplify the livery menu.

True, it would better organise it, but the naming should be kept consistent at right now it isn't, I did (and have an updated one in progress) a renaming overhaul, which can be found here.

29 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Using the current approach, a livery pack could get freaking huge. For example, let's say a someone wanted to do a livery pack for a class of 20 ships that on average went through 3 standard liveries. A comprehensive livery pack would comprise at least 60 liveries.

True, but the same rings true for the members listed in the example above.

29 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

True on both accounts, though I figure if ED gets the frankenships straightned out it would be nice to have the OHP and Arleigh-burk flights listed as the proper sub-class and fitting.

With the Arleigh-Burke, they have got the flight correct (flight IIA), but they've made up their own fit, making an amalgamation of earlier and late ships.

With the Oliver Hazard Perry-class, there's only 2 subclasses - short and long, we've got the short; however, ED has made their own fit up.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

44 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh I agree, I was just stating what's more likely to happen - it would be better IMO to have classes, subclasses and what have you in collapsible menus, if you see my example.

I think the collapsible menu would work though everything comes down to readability.  No matter how it is displayed the data in the menu would be built the same. 

 

[Northstar98]

20 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I think the collapsible menu would work though everything comes down to readability.  No matter how it is displayed the data in the menu would be built the same.

If they extend the footprint of the drop-down, unit list menu and maybe make it such that the categories automatically reset upon closing, then all good.

[upyr1]

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

If they extend the footprint of the drop-down, unit list menu and maybe make it such that the categories automatically reset upon closing, then all good.

I've always imaginged the subclass and fitting categories drop down would appear and disapear as needed. 

For example let's take the Alaskas, Iowas and Essex class carriers

The Alaska

category- battlecruisers

class- Alaska

ship- Alaska

the subclass and fitting wouldn't be used as the Alaskas were short lived. 

Iowas

Category -battleship

class- Iowa

fitting options- WW II, Korea, Vietnam, 1980s

Ships- would appear as needed for example if you select Vietnam only the New Jeresy is listed

then with the essex you get a drop down for all 3. 

If having a disappearing and appearing drop down would be annoying I get it.