[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
The thing about it is that it's almost universally true that a bigger ship will be better at the same tech level, simply because you can fit more onboard.

Yes, better, and unproportionaly expensier to build and maintain.

The Nimitz is considerably larger than any of the Battleships floated in WWII. It displaces 97,000 tons, while the Missouri displaces 45,000 tons. Modern ships are nearly twice as large as WWII ships.

You aren't comparing Carriers to Battleships, aren't you?.
No Battleship have been built after WW2. The Last american Battleships comisioned during WW2 were scrapped and the hulls used for Carriers. The largest warship in any fleet today its a Cruiser size.
The Battleship saw battle for the Last time in the Gulf War, and it was obvious that they have just become an ultra expensive platform to launch missiles, something that an AEGYS Cruiser do far better and cheaper.
Now Carriers, are a completely diferent ballgame. They do something nobody else can do, and they are pound by pound the expensiest floating structure ever build. The cost of one single Carrier is higher than the estimated price that NASA have for a permanent scientific colony on planet Mars. The maintainace of carriers is so high that the UK had to settle for the 3 mini Carriers they keep today.
That's why I believe that in SE4 big hulls have to be desproportionaly expensier to build and maintain, thus giving a chance to small ships to remain effective.