Updated Numbering/Nomenclature System (Alpha)

[CAVBOSS]

So, with all the CAVs and vehicles in CAV being "human" now I wanted to set up a common set of letters and numbers to designate everything with to give it a more "military" feel by manufacturer or by model. My examples here are working off Northern Alliance Robotics. They manufacture the following CAVs: 

ARCHER, FIREFLY, GNOMIC, RAPTOR, SHRIKE (RAPTOR), & SILVERBACK

The Shrike while based on the Raptor chassis is not a variant.

My initial thoughts are using the name of the model with a number in the order they were released by the manufacturer, either using the first three letters or the first letter of each syllable. This would result in:

ARC-1 Archer or AC-1 Archer

If I go by manufacturer, then it would be NAR-1 Archer. True variants would add a "block" letter after the number for the variant.  Example: ARC-1A Archer

In the case of the Raptor & Shrike it would be: RAP-4 Raptor or RT-4 or NAR-4 with the Shrike being RAP-5 Shrike (or RT-5/NAR-5) as it is based on the Raptor chassis but is a new version more than a variant.

Thoughts or suggestions?

[ColonelKane]

Although I think I would prefer the first, ARC-1 Archer, the manufacturer way is a 'novel' way to do it. I could see some corps doing it either way.

I think the first is the way to go, here is why. Say a corp is making the Archer, ARC project. 1 would, at least in my mind, designate the first of the Archers, which may not work, ie, have a major flaw that would require going to ARC-2. 

I feel if you went with the manufacturer way, then the Archer project would be say NAP-1. Ok, how would they designate a development revision of that project? Could be NAP -1-2... Then a variant would end up being NAP-1-2A... Starting to get a bit on the long side there, IMO. 

Now I also have the issue of the leading zero... Example ARC -1 being ARC-01. Now sure if a corp has a 100 or more projects, then again we are getting long on the numbering. My POV, is that with the leading zero, it might help a corp sort the projects in order. Cause most software will sort ARC-1 then ARC-10.... Now I know I am rambling... I think you get the point. 

[Syagrius]

ARC-## is the same nomenclature that Battletech uses, if it matters.    

Did they copyright their nomenclatures?  It might be beneficial to delineate CAV from BT.   Of course, this only matters where the CAV and Mech names are the same, like the Archer.   

 

I would lean toward manufacturer - that way, if the model was stolen or redesigned by another manufacturer (or home-grown), then there'd be a natural change.  

Edited August 27, 2023 by Syagrius

[CAVBOSS]

I think I'm going towards the second system using the syllables of each name with the numbers Kane suggested. Using the manufacturer name does create problems down the road.

[dominick]

It could be by role, or situation. Nomenclature used could be CL-32 for a light carrier or BB-2 for a Battleship

Archer being long range AL-11
A strike CAV SK-23