|
|
Post by umbaretz on Aug 18, 2018 3:57:29 GMT -6
Soviet aircraft carrier naming conventions we know--cities or admirals. Aircraft carrier names in a theoretical still-white postwar Russia... well, cities and admirals still seem safe, though the Leningrad would therefore still be the St. Petersburg. Problem with city names is that soviet destroyer leaders also carry them. Btw, imperial Russia had seaplane tenders, with names "Orlitsa" (Eagless) and various Monarch name. So, bird names should also be safe, since Soviet Union also used Bird names as carrier project names : "Krechet" (Gyrfalcon), "Kondor" (Condor) and "Oryol" (Eagle).
|
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Aug 18, 2018 4:49:52 GMT -6
You gentlemen seem to be rather confident, so let me throw the ball up high: A-H carrier names.  I don't know much about Austro-Hungaria but presumably if it survives WW1 it would name its first carrier Franz Ferdinand? Either in recognition of his historic death or if WW1 never happens just because they were an absolute Monarchy and that seems like a logical start. Otherwise you could go for similar naming conventions the RN use, just good words like Illustrious or Auspicious, but obviously whatever sounds best in Austro-Hungarian (was that a language back then?) I guess. Any mythological creatures associated with the Germanic lands? Valkyries or such? Imperial Russia has a whole list of Tzars and Admirals to draw from, they'd probably want to forget Zinovy Rozhestvensky unless they'd recognise the incredible seamanship of his damned voyage, that depends on the Russian character as a whole, are they willing to overlook failure if it is historic and encompasses some successes? That would come down to how good humoured Russians are, and I can't really speak for that. Soviet Union is a really perplexing one, depending on what year you are in depends on whether it would be accepted to name a ship Lenin or not, I don't think Stalin would have been ok with it, I suppose Marx would always be acceptable, Stalingrad possibly as recognition of the Battle? Sevastopol (but that carries the negative connotations of the Crimean War), I suppose a good fallback would be Russian words for Courage, Patriotism, Heroism, etc. "бодрость" pronounced "Bodrust", "Патриотизм" pronounced "Patriotism" (but with a funny Russian accent) and "героический" pronounced "Ger-hi-eat-cho-ski" The RN never had a HMS Queen Victoria, dying in 1901 it would have been a bit soon to go naming ships after her in WW1, I'm surprised nothing was ever commissioned in WW2, but then there would have been the obvious political coup for the Germans sinking a HMS Queen Victoria, we were less confident of the Navy given the start of the War and having lost so many capital ships, in a alternate history where Britain heavily dominated all other naval powers by 1930 I'd say it would be reasonable that a ship would be confidently named after Victoria. Other famous ships like HMS Victory could be reused, in theory HMS Victory is still in service which is why the name hasn't been reused since 1805, as you can't have two ships named the same, but it could be decommissioned and kept as a museum ship. HMS Jellicoe? Other good fallbacks would be HMS Britannia, Albion, Boudicca, Arthur/Pendragon, Christendom. |
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Aug 18, 2018 5:37:17 GMT -6
Imperial Russia has a whole list of Tzars and Admirals to draw from, they'd probably want to forget Zinovy Rozhestvensky unless they'd recognise the incredible seamanship of his damned voyage, that depends on the Russian character as a whole, are they willing to overlook failure if it is historic and encompasses some successes? That would come down to how good humoured Russians are, and I can't really speak for that. Soviet Union is a really perplexing one, depending on what year you are in depends on whether it would be accepted to name a ship Lenin or not, I don't think Stalin would have been ok with it, I suppose Marx would always be acceptable, Stalingrad possibly as recognition of the Battle? Sevastopol (but that carries the negative connotations of the Crimean War), I suppose a good fallback would be Russian words for Courage, Patriotism, Heroism, etc. "бодрость" pronounced "Bodrust", "Патриотизм" pronounced "Patriotism" (but with a funny Russian accent) and "героический" pronounced "Ger-hi-eat-cho-ski" Lenin, Stalin and Marx were destroyers. Stalin was Destroyer twice. Once as a Novik-type, another as 30-K class.
Stalingrad and Moskva - cruisers. Stalingrad was also used twice - once for transferred Duca d'Aosta cruiser, another for an incomplete heavy cruiser.
Adjectives are also names for destroyers, both in imperial Russian Fleet and Sovier Union fleet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 6:53:29 GMT -6
Then you can use for example Pamiat Pobedy, or Pamiat Poltavy. Or just use names of generals/admirals...
|
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Aug 18, 2018 9:02:55 GMT -6
Then you can use for example Pamiat Pobedy, or Pamiat Poltavy. Or just use names of generals/admirals... Different birds of prey should be the safest for RE/SU, since there are a lot of them, and you need admiral names everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 18, 2018 10:55:50 GMT -6
For US carriers, I am going to name them first after famous battles.
1. Bunker Hill
2. Yorktown
3. New Orleans
4. Mexico City
5. Gettysburg
6. Antietam
7. Manila Bay
8. Santiago Bay
After that, maybe some famous admirals like John Paul Jones, Admiral David Farragut, Admiral Dewey, Commodore Mathew C. Perry
Yup, that is what I am going to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 18, 2018 12:11:39 GMT -6
Among others, there is an HMS Victoria which was commissioned in 1890 and was a predreadnought battleship whose name was changed from Renown to Victoria prior to being launched in 1897 in celebration of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee, at least according to Wikipedia's article on it, so it was presumably named in honor of Queen Victoria rather than Victoria, Roman goddess of victory.
As to the First World War and earlier being 'too soon' after her death to name a ship after Queen Victoria, maybe, but on the other hand HMS King George V (41) was commissioned about four years after the death of its namesake.
Especially for types where we do not have significant numbers of historical ship names to use, I would suggest that we should concern ourselves less with whether or not the name of a historical figure or event would be politically acceptable historically and more with whether or not the name is appropriate for the period and plausible given the naming convention(s) for that country and that type of ship. Remember, the game is set in an alternate timeline - there is no guarantee that Lenin dies in 1924 or that Stalin becomes the leader of the Soviet Union while Trotsky is exiled and eventually murdered.
The Battle of Stalingrad occurs too late in the period which we expect the game to cover (roughly 1900-1950, or 1920-1950 with a late start) for me to think it an appropriate namesake for a ship within the game. A Soviet ship might plausibly have been named Stalingrad without the battle, though, as Stalingrad was a reasonably significant city during the period covered by the game.
So? US state names were used for all but one of the ships in the USN's Armored Cruiser series as well as for contemporary USN battleships. Rule the Waves might reflect this to some degree, depending on whether or not you think that the New York in the CA name list is meant to be the state, as is presumably the case for the New York in the BB name list and was the case for the historical USS New York ACR-2, or the city (which would currently be shown by naming the ship New York City or perhaps City of New York rather than New York, but customs change, and it's probably not particularly likely for the US Navy to have both a New York and a New York City/City of New York concurrently commissioned due to the potential for confusion).
Rule the Waves usually recognizes when a name is already in use by an existing ship, anyways, so the only particularly strong objection - the risk of having two or more ships with the same names - that I might have to use the same naming scheme for multiple types of ship seems to already be handled. |
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 18, 2018 12:27:08 GMT -6
As aeson has mentioned, the Royal Navy did have an HMS Victoria that was likely named in honor of Queen Victoria. I don't think it would have been too soon to name a ship after her before or during World War I. Both King Edward VII and King George V had warships named after them while they were still alive, ( HMS Edward VII commissioned in 1905 and HMS King George V in 1912). Both of the fought in World War I, and HMS Edward VII was sunk by a mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 18, 2018 12:31:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 18, 2018 14:19:35 GMT -6
just want to add with regard to japanese carriers, the ones that use mountain/province for names are all converted from battlecruiser(e.g akagi, which use mountain names) or from battleship(e.g kaga, which use province names).
Purpose build carrier or the ones converted from liners/sub tenders always use names of flying animals with the exception of Katsuragi and Amagi, which again are using mountains for some reason( their sister ship unryu follows the usual flying animal names).
Also note japanese carrier don’t use simple animal names but short descriptive phrase of that animal, e.g taiho= great Phoenix, Shokaku= soaring crane. Also generally only animal considered mythical or blessed are used, eg dragon, crane and phoenix
|
|
|
|
Post by hotellobby on Aug 18, 2018 14:31:40 GMT -6
Adding a little more about Kaga and Akag, they were converted from a battleship and battlecruiser, respectively, and as such followed the naming patter for those classes. BBs were named after provinces, and BCs after mountains. All other IJN carriers were named after mythical flying creatures, minus Amagi and Katsuragi. Amagi was supposed to be Akagi's sister, but was hit by an earthquake while under construction, so the IJN replaced her with Kaga. No clue about Katsuragi though
US carriers from the Essex class onward (CV-9 to CV-43) were almost all named after battles or founding fathers except Intrepid, Hornet, Wasp, and FDR. Hornet and Wasp were named for US carriers sunk earlier in the war, and FDR was a special case. AFIK Intrepid was the only US carrier from 1940 onwards to be named after a non-carrier earlier ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Aug 18, 2018 16:12:46 GMT -6
Imperial Russia has a whole list of Tzars and Admirals to draw from, they'd probably want to forget Zinovy Rozhestvensky unless they'd recognise the incredible seamanship of his damned voyage, that depends on the Russian character as a whole, are they willing to overlook failure if it is historic and encompasses some successes? That would come down to how good humoured Russians are, and I can't really speak for that. Soviet Union is a really perplexing one, depending on what year you are in depends on whether it would be accepted to name a ship Lenin or not, I don't think Stalin would have been ok with it, I suppose Marx would always be acceptable, Stalingrad possibly as recognition of the Battle? Sevastopol (but that carries the negative connotations of the Crimean War), I suppose a good fallback would be Russian words for Courage, Patriotism, Heroism, etc. "бодрость" pronounced "Bodrust", "Патриотизм" pronounced "Patriotism" (but with a funny Russian accent) and "героический" pronounced "Ger-hi-eat-cho-ski" Lenin, Stalin and Marx were destroyers. Stalin was Destroyer twice. Once as a Novik-type, another as 30-K class.
Stalingrad and Moskva - cruisers. Stalingrad was also used twice - once for transferred Duca d'Aosta cruiser, another for an incomplete heavy cruiser.
Adjectives are also names for destroyers, both in imperial Russian Fleet and Sovier Union fleet.
Is that because they never built Battleships or Carriers or because they saw it as more of an honour to have a Destroyer/Cruiser named after you? I think had they been building carriers at the same time as either of the Stalin destroyers he'd probably have wanted the bigger ship right? I don't know, Stalin wasn't dumb enough to get sucked into a dickmeasuring shipbuilding contest with the Royal Navy I guess... There must be something apt though, there were plans for the Soyuz battleships like Sovetskaya Belorussiya, which I'm guessing means that areas of Soviet Republics would be good starting points for capital ship names, Rus, Varangian (in recognition of the tribal people who became the Rulers of the steppes, or some kind of Russian mythology like Baboyaga. I mean HMS Fearless sounds cool but the USSRS (Union Socialist Soviet Republics Ship? I couldn't find a Soviet version of HMS) Baboyaga sounds downright scary. |
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Aug 18, 2018 16:43:58 GMT -6
Among others, there is an HMS Victoria which was commissioned in 1890 and was a predreadnought battleship whose name was changed from Renown to Victoria prior to being launched in 1897 in celebration of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee, at least according to Wikipedia's article on it, so it was presumably named in honor of Queen Victoria rather than Victoria, Roman goddess of victory.
As to the First World War and earlier being 'too soon' after her death to name a ship after Queen Victoria, maybe, but on the other hand HMS King George V (41) was commissioned about four years after the death of its namesake.
Especially for types where we do not have significant numbers of historical ship names to use, I would suggest that we should concern ourselves less with whether or not the name of a historical figure or event would be politically acceptable historically and more with whether or not the name is appropriate for the period and plausible given the naming convention(s) for that country and that type of ship. Remember, the game is set in an alternate timeline - there is no guarantee that Lenin dies in 1924 or that Stalin becomes the leader of the Soviet Union while Trotsky is exiled and eventually murdered.
The Battle of Stalingrad occurs too late in the period which we expect the game to cover (roughly 1900-1950, or 1920-1950 with a late start) for me to think it an appropriate namesake for a ship within the game. A Soviet ship might plausibly have been named Stalingrad without the battle, though, as Stalingrad was a reasonably significant city during the period covered by the game.
So? US state names were used for all but one of the ships in the USN's Armored Cruiser series as well as for contemporary USN battleships. Rule the Waves might reflect this to some degree, depending on whether or not you think that the New York in the CA name list is meant to be the state, as is presumably the case for the New York in the BB name list and was the case for the historical USS New York ACR-2, or the city (which would currently be shown by naming the ship New York City or perhaps City of New York rather than New York, but customs change, and it's probably not particularly likely for the US Navy to have both a New York and a New York City/City of New York concurrently commissioned due to the potential for confusion).
Rule the Waves usually recognizes when a name is already in use by an existing ship, anyways, so the only particularly strong objection - the risk of having two or more ships with the same names - that I might have to use the same naming scheme for multiple types of ship seems to already be handled. I had no recollection of any HMS Queen Victoria, gave it a quick google and nothing turned up, lo and behold now I find four ships with unimpressive (and one with disastrous) service history. Guess that isn't such a great name after all... KGV came about under different circumstances, because of Victoria's long reign and Edward VII's shorter reign there hadn't been a monarch named ship for quite a while ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_King_Edward_VII turns out that's wrong too but the ship was a stop gap and didn't survive WW1 so it was quietly forgotten) and the RN get ancy when we don't have something to clean especially well compared to all the others. It certainly wasn't the sort of ship you'd name after a Monarch if it could be avoided, the experimental armament and lowered tonnage were a bit emasculating in the great dickmeasuring contest of Naval warfare. The subsequent HMS Vanguard is closer to what you'd expect, we'd have gotten away with it too if only it wasn't for those meddling Yanks and their Naval treaties! As for the thorny issue of historical accuracy I'd say that because we don't know what way it goes with each playthrough either avoiding specific names for AI factions should be a must, you don't way Imperial Russia making a Stalin in 1902 or an AI Communist Britain creating the HMS KGV... unless some clever system could be put in place to have specific names cut off or locked out of the pool based on time period and government type, perhaps flavour events "Trotsky exceuted" or "Hitler imprisoned" etc to explain what to expect? Stalingrad the battle could reasonably have a ship built and named after it just about 2 years after the end of the battle so 1946 or 1947 which is right at the end, sure it isn't a brilliant example but it isn't impossible, or am I wrong in believing the ambition is to extend to 1950? Trying to traintrack history as much as possible would make sense, it is after all a simulation, I don't really ascribe much to the Butterfly effect, I highly doubt one more war in the Balkans would turn the Soviets back to an Empire or the Frogs Fascist, of course a player led war swatting them so hard they go Commie should still be possible, but really I don't see that altering their ambitions much, same base desires for land, just different names, different production modifiers, one more ship here and one less there, these really aren't the things that win wars, time and time again we've shown that numbers aren't always the deciding factor in battle, but hey what do I know? I digress, I'm no great philosopher, I say stick the biggest gun on it and point me at the French, I only really popped in to hear about funny ones like Austro-Hungarian Aircraft Carriers and such, my experience is much more at the hand's on level than the Adm of the Fleet experience provided here, I'm certainly no politician, I won't be around to catch the release of this I don't reckon, shipping off soon (but you know what they say about loose lips...) so I'll probably only swing by when I can and catch this for some hopefully intense simulations in the future. Cheers Gents! Tristan |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 18, 2018 17:13:52 GMT -6
If I recall British tradition for battleships was as each new monarch took the throne to name the next battleship after them. Not sure when they started the tradition though. The first HMS Victoria (1839) was a 5 gun paddle-wheel sloop. So this may be a later tradition started sometime during the ironclad battleship era. There was a pre-dreadnought HMS Edward VII, named after Victoria's heir and one for his heir, King George V, which was a WW1 vintage dreadnought.
There was no HMS Edward VIII, presumably because he was only monarch for 11 months and the scandal involved in his abdication. His brother, George VI, who was monarch through WW2 and the Current Queen's father directed that the battleship that would have been named after him be named after his father George V which is why there are two KGV battleship classes. They apparently didn't follow the tradition with the new HMS Queen Elizabeth CV either as the Royal Navy's official website states the ship is named for Elizabeth I rather than the current queen Elizabeth II.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 18, 2018 19:11:50 GMT -6
There was no HMS Edward VIII, presumably because he was only monarch for 11 months and the scandal involved in his abdication. His brother, George VI, who was monarch through WW2 and the Current Queen's father directed that the battleship that would have been named after him be named after his father George V which is why there are two KGV battleship classes. HMS Prince of Wales, to my understanding, was intended to be named King Edward VIII before King Edward VIII abdicated, and is implicitly named for him anyways since Edward VIII was the Prince of Wales prior to becoming King. Similarly, HMS Duke of York is implicitly named for King George VI, who was the Duke of York prior to his ascension to the throne. Also, I suspect, though I do not know, that it's less that HMS King George V was intended to be named HMS King George VI but was instead named for George VI's father George V as that after the Duke of York became King George VI upon Edward VIII's abdication someone suggested changing the planned name from King George V to King George VI and George VI demurred. |
|
