User blog comment:TheAlphatheOmega/FLYING SHIP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM/@comment-99.244.85.249-20140614000307/@comment-11135771-20140614005403

- How about having a separate category for aircraft, but including a note that says something along the lines of "if a ship has a value of 0 in this category, do not count it"?

- I've never actually seen MCMs destroy a flying ship's base before. For me at least, they usually fly underneath ships and then shoot up and hit the bottom of them, often missing and then wandering for a while until they finally manage to hit. Also, they only have one shot per silo, so I don't feel that counting each silo as an entire "big weapon" gives entirely accurate results.

- One other thing that you might want to take into consideration is that there are very few flying ships with moderate big gun armaments (say, in the 30-60 and 80-160 ranges for number of 204cm guns). Most either have relatively few guns, or tons and tons of guns. Basically, the system doesn't seem to properly account for there being two main flying ship design philosophies, those being actual spaceship-looking craft, and massive flat barges covered in hundreds of guns. Example: HXFS Delta Freedom compared to HXFS Royale. Both are comparable in their other statistics and categories (and based on other examples, probably similar levels of combat effectiveness), but the former has far fewer guns than the latter. The barge-like design has a very strong opening salvo and would be classed much higher by the system, but takes tremendous damage from missiles and loses most of its guns almost immediately. More aesthetically-oriented ships, on the other hand, tend to be roughly the opposite, dealing lower but consistent damage, losing fewer weapons and resisting missiles better.