What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Grendelsbayne]

Been watching DS9 and as amazing as they are…Trek’s space battle scenes don’t make a whit of sense.

The writers have two-dimensional thinking. So, we have to get past an enemy fleet. The fleets are always gathered horizontally. Well, how about simply flying upward or downward?

Am I missing something?

Mostly, no.

But there's some wiggle room there. Sensors are amazing in Trek, so if you try to fly above the enemy fleet, the enemy fleet can see that very quickly and rise to your level, unless you're extremely maneuverable such that no enemy ship can keep up with you. But even then, they can still shoot at you anyway.

The really iffy part is that these massive fleets just *have* to meet each other at all in the first place. In three dimensional space, a fleet should be able to fly in a totally unexpected direction and approach their target from the completely opposite end of where the enemy fleet is waiting for them. I guess that part's still partially covered by sensors being amazing and partially by defensive fleets just waiting right on top of the target.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Been watching DS9 and as amazing as they are…Trek’s space battle scenes don’t make a whit of sense.

The writers have two-dimensional thinking. So, we have to get past an enemy fleet. The fleets are always gathered horizontally. Well, how about simply flying upward or downward?

Am I missing something?

Hold over from the days of limited SFX, plus they need the battle to look visually interesting. And of course Needs of the Plot.

 

[Macintosh]

The really iffy part is that these massive fleets just *have* to meet each other at all in the first place. In three dimensional space, a fleet should be able to fly in a totally unexpected direction and approach their target from the completely opposite end of where the enemy fleet is waiting for them. I guess that part's still partially covered by sensors being amazing and partially by defensive fleets just waiting right on top of the target.

J Michael Straczynski spoke about this issue in one of the Babylon 5 episode commentaries. There are a few sequences in that show where they show space battles happening at extreme long range but they realised that for viewers it is at best boring and at worst confusing.

The TNG Technical Manual also speaks about the effective range of starship weapons being measured in light-seconds rather than a few kilometres. But the problem is that a realistic space battle is going to involve two ships accelerating towards each other for a long time over an extreme distance and then one of the ships suddenly stops existing before they can even see each other, which isn't terribly good for extracting Hornblower-style drama from close quarters combat and derring-do.

I suppose there's two possible headcanon explanations here – one, that we're watching "sensor log reconstructions" where the ships are shown much larger and/or closer than they really are, just so we can see what they're doing; and two, that in-universe ships routinely employ exotic sensor countermeasures, so ships of a similar technology level can't target each other except at very close quarters where visual targeting is possible.

 

[drt]

Controversial opinion - Captain Pike is not the best captain to be in a crisis - look how he freezes at the end of season 2....

To be fair, I think that was exaggerated to drive home the seriousness of the situation and “hey, cliffhanger” for the sake of the viewing audience.

J Michael Straczynski spoke about this issue in one of the Babylon 5 episode commentaries. There are a few sequences in that show where they show space battles happening at extreme long range but they realised that for viewers it is at best boring and at worst confusing.

The Expanse seems to pull it off with their longer-ranged battles. I think it just needed someone to figure out how to depict it successfully.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Easy. A system can be definied up to a point and if a system is not in the federation, then the limit is there: the heliopause or heliosheath. If It's a world, then its orbit and nearby space up to some median up to another world. A interstellar polity could consist of multiple systems and their shared space or corridors in between, and maybe some freedom of movement with deep space working akin to the high seas.

Space borders will be 3d, demarcated by buoys and computers, and *fullll* of Holes. Sort of like this, though this is a 2d look down (not even a slice!) :

Or like this from a 3d view, or like:

(Federation map, Atomic Rockets: Galactic Empire Maps, Starfleet Museum) You go up and over and connect with direct lines and if someone doesn't want to join, well, they don't, and you negotiate travel, trade, and customs thereof.

All these illustrations do is emphasize the nonsensical intrinsic absurdity of Star Trek's 'geopolitics' (For lack of better).

 

[Nerys Myk]

To be fair, I think that was exaggerated to drive home the seriousness of the situation and “hey, cliffhanger” for the sake of the viewing audience.

Yep. Not the first or last time our heroes will dramatically pause on the cusp of disaster.

 

[Macintosh]

The Expanse seems to pull it off with their longer-ranged battles. I think it just needed someone to figure out how to depict it successfully.

Never seen The Expanse so I can't really comment there.

 

[Tallguy]

Never seen The Expanse so I can't really comment there.

I almost added The Expanse as an example myself.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

J Michael Straczynski spoke about this issue in one of the Babylon 5 episode commentaries. There are a few sequences in that show where they show space battles happening at extreme long range but they realised that for viewers it is at best boring and at worst confusing.

I'm willing to agree to disagree with JMS on that aspect.

Spoiler: Battle of Gorash 7

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

You can accomplish this by showing close ups of both sides and showing sensor scans on both sides seeing how far everything is.

Also, "The Expanse" has made long range combat that is properly depicted viable as well.

I don't think it's the issue he thought it was.

The TNG Technical Manual also speaks about the effective range of starship weapons being measured in light-seconds rather than a few kilometres. But the problem is that a realistic space battle is going to involve two ships accelerating towards each other for a long time over an extreme distance and then one of the ships suddenly stops existing before they can even see each other, which isn't terribly good for extracting Hornblower-style drama from close quarters combat and derring-do.

Less accelerating towards each other but more keeping distance with each other and moving about to maintain maximum distance while throwing beam/kinetic weaponry at each other.

Accelerating towards each other like Knights on horse back with lances is a surefire way to get yourself killed.

It'll be more Circle Strafing and running away to re-position yourself while blasting each other at range while making sure you're positioned well relative to the battle field and any stellar objects in 3D space.

I suppose there's two possible headcanon explanations here – one, that we're watching "sensor log reconstructions" where the ships are shown much larger and/or closer than they really are, just so we can see what they're doing; and two, that in-universe ships routinely employ exotic sensor countermeasures, so ships of a similar technology level can't target each other except at very close quarters where visual targeting is possible.

Drones / Fighters would be more likely to get close while large StarShip / Capital Ships would be staying at long range pelting one another.

The only vehicles that should get close are drones / droids. There's no logical reason to put your own vessel at risk by getting too close.

 

[The Wormhole]

A majority of sci-fi on TV or movies treats their space battles as analogues for either naval or aerial combat. Star Wars especially goes to town with the idea, their fighter craft literally maneuver as planes do while their larger warships basically "sink" when they get take out of a fight. Because of this, it makes the most sense to show the battles close range, as that's how naval and aerial battles have been fought historically. That and the first and foremost priority for shows and movies when depicting a battle is to provide memorable visuals, which the battle needs to be close range in order to do.

 

[Frontis]

I think in Star Trek battles are more about strategy than in Star Wars.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think in Star Trek battles are more about strategy than in Star Wars.

Not really. The majority of battles seen in Star Trek are just ships flying at and shooting each other. Indeed, one of the common criticisms I remember hearing about Dominion War battles is that they lacked strategy and were just flying and shooting until there is an inevitable winner, usually the good guys.

 

[fireproof78]

I think in Star Trek battles are more about strategy than in Star Wars.

What strategy?

 

[Nerys Myk]

What strategy?

Picard pattern delta three gamma! (or some such nonsense)

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Well, that's the name of the thread

And honestly, it is isn't a commentary on what is the better movie. It's just a preference of interesting themes and ideas that I find more interesting.

Nemesis has more Romulans, which I definitely welcome, as well as a pretty fun little escape sequence with the Scorpion ship. It doesn't have the Borg.

For me, it's just fun. It's a fun little adventure.

For me:

1. Generations
2. Nemesis
3. Insurrection
4. First Contact

@Nyotarules

Is that good enough?

 

[cooleddie74]

Picard pattern delta three gamma! (or some such nonsense)

You sank his Kataan flute!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not really. The majority of battles seen in Star Trek are just ships flying at and shooting each other. Indeed, one of the common criticisms I remember hearing about Dominion War battles is that they lacked strategy and were just flying and shooting until there is an inevitable winner, usually the good guys.

That was a problem of the Berman-era series, where they rinsed and repeated the same "Er...we want Star Wars-ian, but not be so apparently Star Wars-ian" space battles, which rarely made sense. Contrast that withTWOK's initial attack by the Reliant, where there was a clear strategy to the attacks, as confirmed by Spock--it was all integrated with the story, rather than being "ooh! spacey battles and explosions!" like other production chapters of the Star Trek franchise.

 

[Nyotarules]

For me:

1. Generations
2. Nemesis
3. Insurrection
4. First Contact

@Nyotarules

Is that good enough?

No off with ya head!

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Picard pattern delta three gamma! (or some such nonsense)

That's what we call a "Tactical Maneuver".

Strategy is having a "Over All Game Plan" for the battle & the war.

Lelouch is a great Anime character that is shown to have a pretty good Strategic Mind on how to win his battles / wars.

 

[Citiprime]

I think tactical combat in Star Trek slides between naval warfare in the age of sail and World War II era naval warfare with huge fleets arrayed in formations and support craft.

Nicholas Meyer definitely wanted the former for Wrath of Khan, where starships lumber like 18th or 19th century sailing ships at impulse, and combat importantly becomes about being able to make a series of maneuvers in order to bring phasers and photon torpedoes to bear against an enemy.

Deep Space Nine changes that a bit where things become more akin to World War II era naval battles. Starfleet is organized in fleets akin to the way the United States Navy does it, and fighters become important in battles. Up until that point, it seemed like having fighter wings had become obsolete for space combat, because presumably a starship and enemy capital ships could brush them aside easily, and their shields are too strong for smaller ships to penetrate.

However, "Sacrifice of Angels" implies that fighters are an important part of Starfleet's Dominion War planning, either as a way to soften up targets for Federation starships, or to allow starships to weaken enemy shielding and fighters would then be able to sweep through and swarm. The presence of fighters also means starships, especially large capital ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign Class, would serve dual roles as both battleships and attack craft carriers.

When the Federation fleet charges the Dominon lines in "Sacrifice of Angels," Sisko orders the "Galaxy Wings" to engage the Cardassian Galor Class ships that are attempting to flank their position (i.e., attack from a side angle to divert their advance). I've always wondered if "Galaxy Wing" is meant to imply the same meaning as "Carrier Strike Wing" does in the modern US Navy?

It's not impossible to think that each Starfleet capital ship, like the Enterprise, commanded a group of ships who were their support craft. All of those Miranda Class ships and fighters were the screens so the big boys could get through to deal out punishment.