I organize in a general pyramid structure already. 

Maybe a rule that makes it a disvantage to build one big ship?

One rule that we've used is the Lemon Rule.

10% of your force composition is picked by your opponent; you pick 10% of his.

This tends to reduce over-optimized fleet building to some extent...

All of this structure is facinating, but is it necessary?
I note that the WW2 navies did not often follow this.  For example, in early 1941, the BB Bismark sortied with the CA Prinz Eugen, but had No CLs and no DDs.  The force Z that attemped to stop the Japanese landing on Malaya in Dec 1941 consisted of BB Prince of Wales, BC Repulse, and only 4 DDs:  No CAs, no CLs, and only 4 DDs... :shock:
The World War One navies did not follow this idea either! When the British Grand fleet sortied, its BBs outnumbered its cruisers, but there were twice as many DDs as BBs. Same situation for the German High Seas Fleet.  But yet, they somehow were able to sortie.
I suppose that if players want to make home rules restricting what each person can bring, that is their choice, but I would find that to be very stifling... :!:

Yes, that is true, but there is also something else. In WW1 and 2, yes, when the fleets sortied out it was something to take notice of, but what about the countless battles between escorts? The number of cruiser battles, convoy battles, light naval unit engagements and the like far outweigh the capital ship engagements that took place.

Maybe for a single scenario a pyramid structure is something that shouldn't be used, but in a campaign structure it should practically be mandatory. I know this is against what I like to see--large ships fighting it out with large guns in copious numbers, but I realise that the light ships are fighting too--and much more than my superdreadnoughts and battlecruisers.

Why do people insist on others playing with certain playstyles?

Why were there escorts in wet navy fleets?   To counter enemy strategies and tactics; for example DDs were meant to fight small torpedo boats and adapted later to counter submarines.  Does there need to be a DD-like escort in a space game?  If not, then why must I have one in my fleet?

Go back further: did fleets during the age of sail have such compositions?

Or go to futuristic settings:
1) Did Sheridan of B5 insist that his fleets have small, medium, and large White Stars?  2) Did Star Trek's Enterprise always operate in a fleet with a mix of different sized ships?

Why can't I use 100 30-point ships, or 10 300-point ships, or 1 3000-point ship?  Why must my fleet consist of, for example, 1 1000-point ship, 2 500-point ships, and 4 250-point ships?  Just because you have some outdated notion of fleet composition from your gravity-sucking mudball histories does not mean I have to do the same.

If you could come up with a good answer for that one you could make millions……

DD's, like all ship classes, are ships designed to fit a role.  The size and capability of the DD has varied wildly by year and nationality.  All warships are a result of a compromise of a perceived need and the economic cost to build and maintain it.  If your game world doesn't support the need for a DD, then don't have one.  In my little corner of space gaming I have eliminated ‘fighters'.  They simply make no sense to me.  There is nothing gained by a deep space ‘fighter' that cannot be done better by a unmanned drone.  The drone can maneuver faster and harder and doesn't have to use up valuable volume on life support.   But that is another subject.

Age of Sail warfare did indeed have compositions.  The modern term Cruiser can trace its origin to a term that referred to the frigate.  During the Age of Sail fleet compositions varied by country but ships had even more rigidly defined roles than some modern navies.

This line is actually irrelevant to the question of whether or not ship classes matter.  A science fiction story's ‘fleet' composition is based on the ‘speed of the plot'.  In B5 all the races that were actually shown in a ‘fleet' actions had multiple warship types.  The White Star argument is a cherry picked misdirection.  In the B5 universe (as defined by the TV series and movies) the White Stars are not a ‘fleet', instead they are fast scout class warships with a heavy punch operating on specialized missions for the Alliance.   For major operations they always combined with the various standing ‘fleets'.  And for Star Trek.  That show was so internally inconsistent and the writers were so clueless on ship class terminology that nothing ther can be taken as a guide.

Kinda uncalled for and a little childish.  But you don't have to do anything in you world.  If you wish to have battles of 30 50-point ships on a side, or 100 30-point, it is up too you.  But the information the people referring to in an attempt to infuse a bit of realism is neither old nor moldy.  In fact current navies are composed of multiple ship classes filling specific roles.  The question I have is why someone who is so opposed to the idea of anyone trying to apply real world concepts to their games and demonstrates such a lack of knowledge in this area would post to this thread in the first place?

I kinda like the pyramidal structure. . . perhaps not as strict as the one you propose though.  Maybe just something for the biggest units.

For every B level ship, you have to have three ships of C or below, or something like that.

I don't any kind of force structure should ever be mandatory.
One of the selling points of Starmada is being able to design one 3000 point ship, or two 1500 point ships, or thirty 100 point ships, and theoretically have a balanced game. Force structure has never been restricted or mandated.
I believe any kind of restricted force structure should be on a scenario basis only.
Kevin

cricket

I tend to pattern my fleet organization by the type/era I am mimicking. 

If my inspiration is the Age of Sail, I center the main fleet on a heavy but slow battle line supported by small fast “scouts” plus a healthy dose of mid-weight ships designed for independent cruising. 

If my inspiration is WW1 I use the Grand Fleet and High Seas Fleets as a guide.  Since the war will be decided by the heavy battleship they make up the core.  With the only other threat to the battleship being a fast attack by fast moving Torpedo (missile) Boats  I screen the battle line with numerous Torpedo Boat Destroyers.  Cruisers and Light Cruisers exist to scout out and locate the enemy line and survive long enough to notify the fleet.  And by the way, we have those new fangled Battle Cruisers.  Gunned like a battleship but armored like a cruiser.  Oddballs for accepted fleet tactics but they are fast fast fast.  We'll make them an independent unit supported by other fast units, say Torpedo Boat Destroyers and Light Cruisers. 

If my inspiration is the modern navy, then the fleet will consist of fewer ships.  But those ships will be highly specialized and deadly in their areas.  With a combined battle group being a very deadly force.

Though I don't really do much of anything based on WW2 forward.  While aircraft may have completely rewritten how wars are fought in the real world, gaming wise fighters really sucked the fun right out of things.  For me anyway. 

Following the original subject, there is nothing wrong your fleet composition guidelines.  And they can lead to a fun game which is the bottom line here.  When I build ships designs I don't usually try to be the most efficient, rather I try to build toward a concept.  History is littered with military equipment based on the perceptions of the period rather than the best and most efficient design. In the age of steam many warship designs were rendered obsolete almost as soon as they rolled out of the yards. 

If you really want and interesting game, try separate ship building and fleet make-up guidelines.  One for each player side.  Each based on a different theory of warfare.  In WW1 the theory was that the big gunned ship decided battles, later it was the aircraft carrier.   Be warned though, this can lead to really lopsided battles even if they are interesting and a whole lot of fun.

Where, exactly, did I say you couldn't have whatever ships you wanted?

1) I was asking if it would be "interesting", not "this is how you have to play".

2) Even if I did propose a rule mandating a pyramidal structure, how many of my attempts to constrain Starmada over the years have actually stuck? Heck, if it was up to me, the largest available hull size would still be 10.

3) My intent was to discuss possible ways to build in a structure to player-designed fleets -- not to mandate a particular type of structure.

For example, note that I never said the more powerful ships had to be "on top" -- or that there had to be three levels. If you (the designer) decided that the fleet was a free-form amalgamation of whatever ships were available for a particular mission, then all the ships of that fleet would be on the "lowest" tier of the pyramid.

If you think about it, you'll find that my suggestion is more flexible than it might first appear.