Can a "Realistic" Space Battle be Fun?

[Daedalus12]

kv1at3485 said:
^ There are times when I can take comfort knowing that despite how inane Star Trek can be, there are worse.

kv1at3485 said:
No worries. I believe in equitable sniping. You'll find me too in the front of the ranks who decry the idiocy in B5 space combat as well.

Don't see how you can think the battles in UC gundam are worse than the Trek's spin on the same matter. For one thing Star Trek battles both in space and on land tend to be completely devoid of any sound military tactics at least when considering the level of technology that is available to the Federation and co.

 

[kv1at3485]

^ The concept of giant humanoid war machines finds its way into the 'unrealistic' and 'stupid' sections of my book with even greater speed. To say nothing of using giant humanoid war machines as space fighters.

 

[Daedalus12]

kv1at3485 said:
^ The concept of giant humanoid war machines finds its way into the 'unrealistic' and 'stupid' sections of my book very, very quickly.

Yes the premise is unrealistic but it's no more so than having saucer shaped starships. The history of giants robots in the gundamverse can traced to the fact that early colonists of those giant O'Neill cylinders that you see often in Gundam posters used smaller robotic suits for EVA repairs and other maneuvers. Eventually they were developed into larger and space/land fighting units. While it's true that the land units are quite a bit unsound since any tank would provide a much smaller profile there is no reason to think the space units are on the same level of stupity with the exception of the hand to hand combat style which I admit is a mistake that Tomino should've never committed if he was indeed going for a real robot genre. However moving beyond the premise space battles that include most importantly ship to ship battles and other forms are generally more sound than Star Trek's various portrayals.

 

[Newtype_A]

kv1at3485 said:
^ The concept of giant humanoid war machines finds its way into the 'unrealistic' and 'stupid' sections of my book with even greater speed. To say nothing of using giant humanoid war machines as space fighters.

Which, if we were talking about giant humanoid war machines specifically, would make sense. OTOH, there's something to be said for execution, such that much of the activity in U.C. Gundam would make a hell of a lot more sense on a smaller scale (space suits instead of giants, shuttles instead of battleships).

In any case, the subject here is ship-to-ship combat which, however you feel about giant robots, was extremely well executed in this case, as it includes alot of realistic elements (decoys, ECM, beyond visual range weapons, CIWS, stealth, orbital mechanics, inertial maneuvering and how much it can suck) that Trek battles either neglect or handle sloppily.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Never mind the fire and sound effects in space, right?

Never after TOS (maybe TAS) did we ever see space combat at warp speed.

Borg fired on the Enterprise in "Q Who" while at warp.

Borg Queen fired on Voyager in a slipstream.

 

[Newtype_A]

^ Also, Klingons firing on Excelsior at warp in "Flashback." Prometheus trashing a federation starship in "Message in a Bottle." Numerous fights between Enterprise and Suliban battlepods.

Also worthy of note, Encounter At Farpoint was something of an abbreviated space battle in that it was extremely realistic, eerily so for a Trek episode. Included features like time delay (i.e. the torpedo detonation is timed so that the flashes from the explosions arrive at the same time as the image of Enterprise' separation) extremely long-range firing, FTL maneuvering without slowing down, and so on.

Of course, nothing with the scale and elegance of TOS' Ultimate Computer or Elaan of Troyus where warp engines are explicitly shown as being absolutely necessary for any sort of effective space combat. It's an idea I cling to even today; after all, if you have a ship that is capable of moving and maneuvering at hundreds of times the speed of light, there is no intelligible reason not to use that capability during a firefight. And even if you don't, sooner or later you'll run into somebody who does.

 

[Trubinator]

Absolutely. Just look at "Severed Dreams" or any other major battle episode from Babylon 5. Strategy was at the heart of every major engagement in that universe and it was better for it in my opinion. The problem with the way Trek does battles is that the ship handles most of everything and the crews just sort of sit around looking at the viewscreen.

and OT: who is that in your avatar daedalus?

 

[sunnyside]

One thing about trek ships is the range of their weapons. Phasers are often considered to have a range of one light second. (300,000,000 meters). However I believe the tech manuals have tactical "full impulse" at .25c (though they can go faster if they have to). That means battles would feel "close"

True photon torpedos have a much longer range, but maybe if you fire them off at longer ranges at a prepared ship they'd just get shot down by phaser fire, or evaded by a quick jump to warp speed or something, so you need to be closer.

That said there certainly is more room for relevant tactics even in close combat. I just think it isn't want the writers want to focus on.

 

[Newtype_A]

I'm sure the writers WOULD have focussed on them if they knew how. I don't happen to think "Let's remodulate the main deflector dish to emit a polarized graviton pulse!" falls into the category of Tactics.

 

[Stardate]

Scoudnt it be impossible for let say a Klingon bird a prey, fires a torpedo while chasing Enterprise in warp. Torpedo don't have warp drive do they?. If not wouldn't they just collide back wards and maybe accidentally hit the Klingon ship instead.
I really hope XI movie will have more realistic or new approach for space battles. I do like distant battle scene f.e. i like The Hunt for Red October, Das Boot battle scene.

 

[Newtype_A]

Actually, I would hope that the next trek movie would bring back the concept of starships using ONLY warp engines for combat, making use of the incredible vastness of space and their inherent very high speeds to stay out of each other's weapons range until they have a clear shot.

 

[JuanBolio]

Vejur said:
Torpedo don't have warp drive do they?

Yes, they do. Warp sustainer engines. If they're fired at warp, they stay at warp til they run out of power. It's phasers that have no business being fired at warp.

 

[Stardate]

JuanBolio said:

Vejur said:
Torpedo don't have warp drive do they?

Yes, they do. . If they're fired at warp, they stay at warp til they run out of power. It's phasers that have no business being fired at warp.

Iam not buying this,,Warp sustainer engines´´ never heard off it before. I wont believe that torpedo has more anti-matter resources then starship has. Even this is true that ,,Warp sustainer engines´´ can go to warp it will never match maximum speed of Starship at Warp 6 or 7. It wouldn't matter if torpedo can get to warp 1 or 2 it would still collide backward to Klingon birder prey who are at warp 6 or 7

 

[Newtype_A]

"Warp sustainer engine" is often quoted by trektech guys as evidence that torpedoes have some kind of warp engine. I don't buy it either; a "sustainer" engine in weapon terms is the second stage that a missile (usually a cruise missile) uses to maintain speed to the terminal phase of its attack pattern. The warp sustainer, therefore, is anything that allows it to maintain warp velocity after being fired; could be a miniature warp engine (unlikely) or it could be a suitcase-sized subspace field generator that reduces the torpedo's overall inertia to just about zero and allows the thing to coast for a minute or so before it drops to it's "real" speed of a few hundred meters per second.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I apply the "warp sustainer" concept to the existence of a subspace field generator, but not a subspace field MANIPULATION SYSTEM (aka a "warp engine"). It can take a handed-off warp velocity and keep the object from decaying out to sublight for a period of time... essentially carrying FTL momentum but not able to create any of its own.

Now, Newtype, I read your reply in the other thread... it's worth pointing out that when I refer to "warp momentum" I'm not necessarily talking about classical, Newtonian momentum... just that there's an FTL-related analog which applies in subspace physics. So, to clarify, I'm not talking about carrying "mass by velocity" momentum, I'm talking about something else, but something that is analogous to Newtonian momentum the same way that electrical current can be treated as an analog of water current.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

It's not a whole lot different than the dogfights in Top Gun.. the jets were within a few hundred meters of each other so the camera could get both in the same frame. In reality they would have been at least a mile apart, even for guns. The tomcat was built to use a missile with a 50-mile range.

In navel warfare, the distances are now beyond the horizon.

I'm just finishing Ben Bova's series "The Astroid Wars", the battle depictions in it seem closer to reality. Distances of 1500km, silent, slow pitched with ships having poor maneuverability. Death comes unannounced for the most part. Crewman killed by decompression or beling left to drift in spacesuits.

I'd take drowning on the Hood anyday over a death in the vacuum of space.

 

[Tallguy]

Cary L. Brown said:
I apply the "warp sustainer" concept to the existence of a subspace field generator, but not a subspace field MANIPULATION SYSTEM (aka a "warp engine"). It can take a handed-off warp velocity and keep the object from decaying out to sublight for a period of time... essentially carrying FTL momentum but not able to create any of its own.

That's an interesting idea. It also adds a level of tactics that has never been addressed on screen: You fire at warp 8 you get warp 8 torpedoes.

Myself, I never had a problem with torps having warp engines (they're small enough to put on shuttles with 90% livable space) OR supralight phasers (put them in a warp field like you do with subspace radio).

 

[Tallguy]

I had no idea this thread would last this long. I guess at this point I should re-phrase (especially in light of the Top Gun comment). I knew going in that my favorite Trek battles were all talk, so to speak. "Come about. Full stop. Fire all phasers. Make your maneuvers sharply, Mr. Sulu. All hands brace." Etc.

So, from an FX on-screen perspective:

"Can a 'Realistic' space battle LOOK fun?"

 

[Deks]

It's possible for torpedoes to have their own mini warp drive ...
but I would imagine that a god deal of that drive is complimented with the presence of a subspace field generator that is used to maintain a velocity it's been fired from or emulate at the very least for short amount of time a higher velocity if a ship is moving at a specific warp velocity.
This is why torpedoes have a 'range' ...
If the warp engines on them have been configured to last up to say several million Km, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine mini warp engines to achieve and maintain a high warp velocity for a short amount of time.

Probes are warp capable, capable of functioning for numerous days for surveys and come in torpedo-like sizes.
They are 'longer ranged' mini devices ... so if they can do it, then a torpedo that lasts about 10 to 15 second which is enough to cover a distance of plentiful million Km under high warp burst is a plausible technology.

Also ... one other thing with phasers at warp.
Since phasers do have a range of 300 000 km then a starship at warp would theoretically be able to fire at a target that is at such a distance if a subspace field encompassing the ship or phaser technology itself incorporates the means to fire the phasers under Warp velocities.
A starship DOES generate a warp field.
Perhaps it can be modified to allow phasers to fire at 300 000 km weather a target is in front or behind a Fed ship.

Anyway ... to get back on track ... I think that numerous battles we witnessed on screen would be much more entertaining if we saw phasers being fired at their targets from the maximum allowed range.
Meaning star ships visually wouldn't be near one another ... but the weapons would be equally effective.

A potential enemy such as the Borg or the Breen should have been fired upon from Earth's defenses long before the ships reached Earth.
Heck the same goes for the offensive forces who could have fired at a distance.

 

[Mysterion]

Masao said:
But if you're assuming that "realistic" Trek combat should be more like modern long-range naval missile combat, then I think it can still be fun or interesting. The Hunt for Red October made slow combat with torpedoes and no visual contact seem exciting.

David Gerrold takes the "submarine model" and runs with it in his "Star Wolf" books, which I highly recommend:

Voyage of the Star Wolf
The Middle of Nowhere
Blood and Fire
Starhunt

He comes up with good reasons for having things work the way they do in the stories. It seems more real than a lot of the swooping Star wars stuff, and is a pretty good read.

These were almost the basis of a TV series, and more's the pitty it hasn't happened. Yet, at least.