I really would like the fleets to have a more realistic disposition.
I have done some reading recently on this topic and I kind of have to disappoint you. Battlefleets don't have that much variety in composition. Let's go through some ship designations first, most of these names were coined before and during WW1:
- Warships (as per my english dictionary) or Ships-of-the-Line: In the early 20th century this was the designation for all ships which where designated for large scale naval battles. They didn't have excetional speed but were the biggest ships avaiabe, packed with heavy artillery and armor. The philosophy here being, that weapons technology dictated, taht range and fire power were more important then armor and speed and battles would usually be fought at maximum range (hence battle lines, see the battle of Skagerrak as biggest example).
- Dreadnoughts: Up to the ship called the Dreadnought, warships would often have a wide array of different calibres in their artillery, which made fire guidance a lot more difficult. A 'Dreadnought' is basicly a warship which uses only one calibre of heavy artillery.
- Armored Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: The battle fleets in this doctrine usually had a smaller fleet scouting ahead, which contained smaller faster vessels. The idea behind an armored cruiser is a creuiser which is armored heavily enough to fight in the battle line, but this concept didn't proof too useful. Battle Cruisers are basicly Warships, which sacrifice armor for speed, but ahve similar artillery. These scouting fleets were also supposed to drive at the tip of the battle line durin the battle and attempt 'crossing the T'. If this sounds a lot like sail ship battles to you, yes, they used battle lines back then, too, and the phrase 'crossing the T' also is from that time.
- Battleships: eventually as hull sizes grew, the functions of battle cruisers and warships would be unified into the battleship. The concept of the battle cruiser also didn't live up to expectations, since they couldn't use their speed advantage that well, but blew up way more often. The name here is very indicative to the ships purpose: To fight in battles. They were too valuable and slow to conduct trade war, and smaller ships were simply inferior to battleships in battle
- (Torpedo-)Destroyers: In that time a destroyer was a smaller ship armed with torpedo tubes. A couple of those escorted the battle fleets, but would often remain withdrawn behind the battle line, due to being too vulnerable, to fight in it. What they did though were raids, at night (when sight range was lower) in particular. But the actual battle was primarily fought between the capital ships. The name in this case is not very indicative. Note also, that destroyers in WW2 would fill a completely different pair of shoes and in modern fleets again have a completely different purpose.
- Cruisers: Here the name is also very indicative: They cruise over the seas. Their main purpose was to conduct trade war. The had to be large enough to hold provisions for extended operations and armament to fight destroyer escort and fast enough to not be outrun, but in turn outrun warships. They were present in battle but by no means suited or designed for it.
- Submarines: in WW1 these were not suited for battle, because they couldn't fire torpedoes while under water and were way too vulnerable above. They were primarily used for trade war. Do also ote, that in that time they had to travel on the surface, because there speed beneath it was a lot smaller.
So ironicly - as boring as it is - pure battleship fleets are quite reasonable. Battleships fight battles, cruisers cruise the seas and escort ships should duck an cover during battles.I am bringing this up, because the space battle fantasy and designations only has this historic timeframe as suitable reference.
So what happens with more modern ships:
- Carriers: In the time between the world wars, the japanese and US navies in particular had realised, that carriers were way better suited as main combat ships (which battleships/warships had been before) of a fleet. This was simply due to the far superior range of planes (up to 400 km) as compared to naval artillery (approximately 20 km with sight range, up to 40 km with the use of radar, which wasn't available in WW1).
- Destroyers: In WW2 the destroyer takes an escort role again, but this time it is for locating and hunting submarines.
- Missile-Destroyers: The cold war brings a shift in weaponry again. The armament with ship to ship missiles (SSM) can rival aircraft in range and is harder to intercept. Missile destroyers are large enough to conduct long range operations. In principle even smaller boats can carry SSM and it is more economical to lose one of these as compared to a big destroyer are carrier, but they aren't large enough for long range operations.
There is more I didn't mention here, but I will conclude with this remark: Due to communications technology up until WW2 made it most practical to treat one ship as one unit in combat. Modern communication computer assistance makes it practical to view a group of ships as one unit. So this is one aspect which can speak against a trend of larger ships.
So if you had anything else in mind with realism, then enlighten me, but if we go by historic terminology, realism is actually rather boring. This also goes for choice of weapons to fight main combat ships (naval artillery in WW1, aircraft in WW2, tendency towards SSM since the cold war).
What is realistic in the sence of the science fiction universe? Whatever you imagine the technology to be like. Is it gonna be a firepower/range dominated technolgy as in the 20th century? Or is it a defense focussed technology as around 1860 (they brought back naval rams because of this! Their modern warships were designed to ram other ships like old galleys^^). Talking realism in scifi games is a mood point in my opinion, because at the point where you accept FTL-travel you are using magic, for all we know. Why not use magic for any other tech either?
-----------cut-------------
So, on to the actual topic of your thread. ^^
This is not to say, I think the current state of the battle system is ideal.
But if you currently go by the numbers, the larger hulls are usually better in all regards. What could also be done is rethinking the stats on the hulls, so, for example (not very well thought through), huge hulls could have low hp for their logisticcs and manufacturing cost, but high capacity and be well suited as carriers. Medium hulls could feature non ideal hp/logistics and mass/logistics rations, but be very cheap to manufacture (-> escort ships and crusier ships). Large ships could have high HP/logistics => battleships.
Maybe formations (beyond everything is layered by purpose and charges straight ahead) could be used in battle.
And, since I brought up submarines, what about stealthed ships? This would in turn require designating stealth hunter ships. This could also add to the variety.
Another thing I would actually find very interesting is the following: point defense is a fleet property, not a ship property, different from shields and armor, point defense would ahve to broken on a fleet level but then all ships are vunerable.
I hope this was somewhat interesting, else my apologies for the wall of text.
