Lyraeus, on 01 Jun 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:
I hope you understand that point blank range is thousands of kilometers right. . . If not more. . .
Look, we can get into this debate all day long, I could counter your statement with the simple fact that 18th century ships were classified by size because that limited their Armaments as well as their crew size, and even their range from a port of call.
I could then add that today's modern Cruisers and Destroyers are roughly the same size with the same armaments. Thus effectively phasing out a cruiser. Which leads to the point that combining ship roles is how the future is leading towards and eventually carriers will be Cruisers as well as our tech progresses.
I then could counter that even in the Star Wars novels and EU novels, there are clear signs of classifications.
This is all meaningless really though since it is our interpretations and knowledge that is guiding our concepts of this and you are a historian with a vast array of knowledge from 3 centuries plus past and I am a Navy Veteran Intelligence Specialist who specialized in ship identification, classification, with a love of WWI and WWII tactics and naval combat.
Actually, fleet engagements in Star Wars do take place practically at point-blank range; see the battle at Coruscant in Ep III or Endor in VI. In most cases, ships had to close to do significant damage. When you collide in Armada your ships are colliding literally. Heck, turbolasers have individual gunnery teams firing cartridges, to extend the 18th century naval metaphor. This isn't Battlefleet Gothic.
Ships in the 18th century were classified by the number of guns they carried and their number of decks. The earliest rating was based not on the number of guns, but on the established complement (number of men). The first classification took place in 1626, and From about 1660 the classification moved from one based on the number of men to one based on the number of carriage guns a ship carried. First, second and third rate ships had sufficient numbers of guns to be considered strong enough to stand in the line of battle; the number of guns required was constantly going up. Fourth and Fifth rate ships were designated based on their roles and how they mounted guns; A 'Frigate' originally meant that the guns of a ship were mounted on deck in a single row. The most powerful ships in the mid 19th century were 'Armoured Frigates', and retained their designation.
Over time, of course, designations change as technology changes and roles become obsolete. The designation 'cruiser' was originally given to ships which were able to operate for long periods at sea and raid merchant shipping, hence the term 'cruise-r.', but had to be fast and large enough to mount guns capable of sinking armoured merchant vessels. They were never intended to be ships of the line, even if they commonly served as such, which is why many people misinterpret the term. Since missile technology the need for a cruiser has been redundant since a frigate or destroyer mounts sufficient armament to sink an entire convoy of merchant ships in a single salvo, hence why no modern navy builds 'cruisers'.
That prediction seems absurdly naive as future carriers will never be direct-fire ships of the line; modern firepower outstrips defenses to a ridiculous degree. The trend is toward unmanned aviation and submersible drone carriers for an effective 22nd Century navy. Until we develop ships capable of surviving nuclear weapons (highly unlikely) or even mach 5 anti-ship missiles, we won't see direct engagement from carriers. (They already fulfil the role of the cruiser in the sense they can undertake long voyages and sink all merchant shipping in a 300km exclusion zone and have for decades.)
The EU can classify as they wish but I'm trying to draw historical parallels here. I wrote my response to your classifications because I felt they were wholly erroneous and lacking in actual insight on how navies actually classified ships. For instance, you classified the Imperial Star Destroyer as a 'Scout Battleship'. If the backbone of the Imperial fleet is a 'Scout Battleship,' what would qualify as their actual battleships?
No offense meant, and I'm not entirely sure what being a naval intelligence specialist entails, but you do seem awfully misinformed about modern and historical navies. Perhaps read a little less soft sci-fi and catch up on some current naval defence journals, and read a little more widely in your Naval histories? 
