Right. But then it sank. As a submarine it was a nice spaceship. Glub glub glub
The Pacing of Space Battles: Old vs. New
- Thread starter Stadi
- Start date
Right. But then it sank. As a submarine it was a nice spaceship. Glub glub glub
Hey, you know what other famous movie sub sank? The Red October herself.* Y'know, the one with the Scottish Russian captain.
*officially sank, that is.
that one shank
I give this thread.... one chance in three.
Well, for me, the best new battle is between the Kelvin and the Narada. First of all, it actually shows a ship that is severely outclassed but still is able to figure out a solution but not through technobable.
Secondly, we have a small moment of real physics as a crewmember is pulled in to space and everything goes silent. Incredible moment, as well as raises the stakes for the lives being lost.
Also fun to see the weapons and ship evolution. Definitely demonstrates why Starfleet would want to go bigger, and makes the face off between Enterprise and Narada more intense.
Actually, it is kind of interesting, because very few of the old movies had a battle where we see a villain's ship twice and watch our heroes learn from the previous encounters. The Borg are really the only ones who come to mind, in the films. On TV, well that is too much for me to recall specifics
Secondly, we have a small moment of real physics as a crewmember is pulled in to space and everything goes silent. Incredible moment, as well as raises the stakes for the lives being lost.
Also fun to see the weapons and ship evolution. Definitely demonstrates why Starfleet would want to go bigger, and makes the face off between Enterprise and Narada more intense.
Actually, it is kind of interesting, because very few of the old movies had a battle where we see a villain's ship twice and watch our heroes learn from the previous encounters. The Borg are really the only ones who come to mind, in the films. On TV, well that is too much for me to recall specifics
It's interesting how the Prime Universe and Alternate Reality Starfleets approached the problem of vastly superior foes, actually. They went in different directions, with the Defiant being smaller and more agile while the Vengeance went way bigger.
The Defiant is definitely an opposite reaction, to be sure, but the sheer scale difference between the Kelvin and Narada probably dictated that bigger was better, and seemed to be Star Trek's pattern for the longest time. Constitution class had 400+ crew, Galaxy class had a 1000+, etc.
Defiant was a reaction towards a different kind of threat. Still an odd reaction, in my opinion. Maybe alternate Sisko will end up commanding a Vengeance style ship
The Defiant is definitely an opposite reaction, to be sure, but the sheer scale difference between the Kelvin and Narada probably dictated that bigger was better, and seemed to be Star Trek's pattern for the longest time. Constitution class had 400+ crew, Galaxy class had a 1000+, etc.
Defiant was a reaction towards a different kind of threat. Still an odd reaction, in my opinion. Maybe alternate Sisko will end up commanding a Vengeance style ship
Seeing as how the Defiant-class was made to fight the Borg, Starfleet couldn't make anything even close to the size or firepower of a Cube, so I suppose the opposite reaction was the one that made the most sense for Sisko and his team of engineers.
The Defiant is definitely an opposite reaction, to be sure, but the sheer scale difference between the Kelvin and Narada probably dictated that bigger was better, and seemed to be Star Trek's pattern for the longest time. Constitution class had 400+ crew, Galaxy class had a 1000+, etc.
Defiant was a reaction towards a different kind of threat. Still an odd reaction, in my opinion. Maybe alternate Sisko will end up commanding a Vengeance style ship
Seeing as how the Defiant-class was made to fight the Borg, Starfleet couldn't make anything even close to the size or firepower of a Cube, so I suppose the opposite reaction was the one that made the most sense for Sisko and his team of engineers.
Yeah, in that case smaller and more maneuverable would probably be the goal.
However, an aspect of the Vengeance, and one of the things I have seen with some fan made Abrams ships, is the idea that fighters would come back in vogue, as the larger ships could serve as carriers.
I think that Balance of Terror and Wrath of Khan are examples of the way Star Trek battles are supposed to be. The 'Star Wars style' action was apparent in a lot of DS9 and in First Contact. I think either of those can fit into the Trek universe easily but that they had reasons to pan out that way. The majority of combat can be compared more to WW2 Tank combat or submarine combat than anything, so I agree with a lot of the original post. I like the action best when it involves a lot of maneuver between foes that are far out of visual range from each other and where the actual shooting is more of a climax to a contest of maneuvers. Running battles are not feasible because of the power of the weapons involved (remember that Nuclear missiles are a tertiary weapon). A running battle akin to 18th century naval war would simply be unfeasible. If they make it play out like that in the newer movies, it doesn't make the movies bad. It is kind of disappointing to think that we may not see the kind of classic battles again, but that doesn't take away from how I look at classic Trek.
Weapons in Trek are not magic BBs: bigger ships have bigger weapons and a large array of them, so much that smaller ships are best relegated to smaller tasks.
Weapons in Trek are not magic BBs: bigger ships have bigger weapons and a large array of them, so much that smaller ships are best relegated to smaller tasks.
I agree to your larger point that Trek weapons are not BBs and that Trek has often shown that bigger is better. 1701-D is bigger than the A and the E is bigger still, etc. The Defiant is kind of against that standard and is one of the reasons I never really liked it. It went against the grain, but worked for its purpose of being a warship designed to take punishment.
Fighters and small craft do not have to be used in a BSG or Star Wars-esque dogfights, though that can be one possibility. I have seen different science fiction use shuttles and fighters to breach defenses of larger ships and land boarding parties.
I think that fighters could be done, but need to be balanced with the limits of being small. Small craft should be used more for colony support, ship repair and emergency situations. Fighters can provide the added flexibility of being highly maneuverable as well as combat capable. It is ridiculous to think that the only type of ship that Starfleet has besides giant starships are shuttles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_5m94iN0Lg
I don't mind the idea of fighters, boarding ships, battle robots, or any of that. I think it should just be kept in perspective. I wouldn't want to see a fighter pilot mafia with all powerful fighter ships. Even in WW2, fighter craft were limited in what they could actually do. I like Star Wars recreating WW2 in space but I think the longer it goes on, the less people actually get it. It's stuck in a rut where new ideas seem silly but copying the old ones seems derivative. It became a bloated monstrosity where it is difficult to appeal outside of its own universe. I don't envy the writers of the next series.
In any sort of space combat, there should be different classifications of ships with different purposes. It would be a poor use of manpower and materiel to go all big. I always looked at the Galaxy class as being superbly armed so that it can carry out missions on its own in unknown space, but without escorts they would make for bigger targets when in larger battles. Another benefit of smaller ships is that they give command opportunities for the lower ranks.
I like the idea of fighters being used for planetary and station defense. Either one of those would have powerful enough weapons to keep the bigger ships at standoff, so it would fall to smaller sub-light craft for assaults.
One of the problems I had with DS9 was that it wasn't really a battle station. It was converted to one, sure, but it was in a poor position to defend.
In any sort of space combat, there should be different classifications of ships with different purposes. It would be a poor use of manpower and materiel to go all big. I always looked at the Galaxy class as being superbly armed so that it can carry out missions on its own in unknown space, but without escorts they would make for bigger targets when in larger battles. Another benefit of smaller ships is that they give command opportunities for the lower ranks.
I like the idea of fighters being used for planetary and station defense. Either one of those would have powerful enough weapons to keep the bigger ships at standoff, so it would fall to smaller sub-light craft for assaults.
One of the problems I had with DS9 was that it wasn't really a battle station. It was converted to one, sure, but it was in a poor position to defend.
Well, DS9 starting out as a mining station does little to support the idea of a battle station. Starfleet would have been wiser to scrap it and use the raw materials to build from the dust up.
As for fighters, what Trek did was rely too heavily upon the idea of a limited number of classes of ships to really fill out a fleet. I think that Franz Josephs' concepts in the Star Fleet Technical Manual really point towards a fully fleshed out fleet, with different roles being served by different ships.
TNG attempted that, but reused the Excelsior and Miranda/Reliant/Soyuz, and only after Best of Both Worlds do we start seeing more and more classes of ships being brought out.
But, we never see a carrier class in the sense of being dedicated to fighter operations. The Akira was, supposedly, but that is only BTS info and not shown on screen. So, Starfleet's fleet action always felt like it relied too heavily on one class of ship.
All that to say, my biggest frustration is that there are not multiple ships doing multiple jobs but one ship doing ALL jobs. That isn't to say that a starship, designed to scan and operate in deep space, can't be set up to work in combat, to transport materials and other actions, but it seems rather one sided, to me.
And I agree that fighters can support colonies or stations and in fact could have been a principle aspect of DS9, instead of the runabouts. But, that is a quibble.
I find that fleets that work really well in fiction is one that feels like a well rounded fleet, just like a modern military. There is a great blog called "Future War Stories", I believe, and analyzes science fiction military fiction from the stand point of functionality. Starship Troopers, the film, gets pretty well hazed because it has infantry and starships and no in-between. Here is an article regarding the term "cruiser" both from a wet navy standpoint and in s/f: http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2013/12/ships-of-line-heavy-cruisers.html
Ugh, this post is getting longer than I meant it to, but it think the idea of a one-size-fits-all ship can be reexamined in the nu-Trek. One aspect that I liked about Trek 09 was the fact that the task force sent to Vulcan was comprised of several different ships. That makes more sense to me.
Somene keeps pointing out to me that fighters and carrier in space make absolutely no sense. Something about the idea of them being in the same medium (space) means it is a pointless thing when you have ships that can do all of that better and safer already. That point of view takes that the only reason there are aircraft and aircraft carriers is because it is two different mediums (air and water) were the airplace can do things ships cannot, because ships can't fly in the air.
Also something about faster than light travel makes fighters pointless if the ship can just warp away while the fighters would logically be short range if they need a carrier.
Basically, why spend money/resources and manpower on fighters and a dedicated carrier when a starship will do all than better, I believe was the arguement I got every time starfighters come up in any sort of space thing.
Also something about faster than light travel makes fighters pointless if the ship can just warp away while the fighters would logically be short range if they need a carrier.
Basically, why spend money/resources and manpower on fighters and a dedicated carrier when a starship will do all than better, I believe was the arguement I got every time starfighters come up in any sort of space thing.
Trek has never really excelled at depicting space combat, except for 'Balance of Terror.' At least that tried to show the massive distances involved in ship-to-ship combat at reasonable percentages of light speed.
In the arena of exciting and visceral, nothing beats the flak-shielded, fire-spitting Galactica as she circled a crippled Cylon Basestar, delivering massive broadsides while her fighter craft zipped around intercepting missiles and stopping bomber attacks. It's as if the VFX crew played some of the more intense missions in TIE Fighter.
In the arena of exciting and visceral, nothing beats the flak-shielded, fire-spitting Galactica as she circled a crippled Cylon Basestar, delivering massive broadsides while her fighter craft zipped around intercepting missiles and stopping bomber attacks. It's as if the VFX crew played some of the more intense missions in TIE Fighter.
Fighters aren't undoable in a sci fi setting. I think if someone finally makes a movie about a war within one solar system it would be a great move.
Battlestar Galactica did a good job emphasizing fighters because the technology of that story is deliberately non-advanced.
Even in Star Wars, the original, it was as if fighters were only one of many things they brought to the table. All of those guns on the Death Star were for defense against bigger ships of the line, and even the rebels were incredulous at the idea of using "stunt fighters." I did like how they had both fighters and dedicated fighter-bombers (presumably a Y-Wing could do damage against a Star Destroyer while X-Wings would be for its fighter escort), but the series never really followed up on that on screen.
Star Fleet Battles has warp capable fighters and carriers. I think the player opinion on them is pretty mixed. I'm not really much of a fan myself, unless they are used in moderation. I think it's better to have them more as nation specific, sort of like how the Dominion had a lot of small fighter craft, but only because they had the vast resources and saw their crews as expendable.
About the Cruisers - the article seems pretty accurate in its description of cruisers in Trek, at least. Since they mentioned Yesterday's Enterprise, I'll also quote Capt Picard's own log, in which he refers to the Galaxy class as a Battleship. This was probably done just for the sake of narrative - in a 20 year war they don't think of them as generic starships but as ships of war, and presumably they are armed more heavily. Using SFB as a measuring scale - because, unlike Trek and its various writers, the game has to maintain continuity - the Galaxy class fits the specs of a Battleship in size and in armament (specifically having massive photon torpedo arrays, even in the ship's rear aspect).
I think the Constitution Class being a cruiser makes a lot of sense. It is moderately powerful but not so small that it can't perform a variety of missions.
As for Starship Troopers, it's best to look at the movie as a parody. The books have a much more advanced technology and there is a three way standoff between races. Actually if you've ever played Starcraft, it's obvious that the three races there were directly inspired by the book.
For ground forces though, I have to go with the Bolo books as having the overall best representation. What infantry does exist are pretty much naked without power suits. The Bolo tanks themselves are incredibly powerful and, when being transported in space, actually have firepower comparable to a Battlecruiser in that universe (so a Battleship without all of the armor and survivability). It is reasonable to believe that they could even hold off a planetary bombardment, and this actually happens a few times in the various books.
Battlestar Galactica did a good job emphasizing fighters because the technology of that story is deliberately non-advanced.
Even in Star Wars, the original, it was as if fighters were only one of many things they brought to the table. All of those guns on the Death Star were for defense against bigger ships of the line, and even the rebels were incredulous at the idea of using "stunt fighters." I did like how they had both fighters and dedicated fighter-bombers (presumably a Y-Wing could do damage against a Star Destroyer while X-Wings would be for its fighter escort), but the series never really followed up on that on screen.
Star Fleet Battles has warp capable fighters and carriers. I think the player opinion on them is pretty mixed. I'm not really much of a fan myself, unless they are used in moderation. I think it's better to have them more as nation specific, sort of like how the Dominion had a lot of small fighter craft, but only because they had the vast resources and saw their crews as expendable.
About the Cruisers - the article seems pretty accurate in its description of cruisers in Trek, at least. Since they mentioned Yesterday's Enterprise, I'll also quote Capt Picard's own log, in which he refers to the Galaxy class as a Battleship. This was probably done just for the sake of narrative - in a 20 year war they don't think of them as generic starships but as ships of war, and presumably they are armed more heavily. Using SFB as a measuring scale - because, unlike Trek and its various writers, the game has to maintain continuity - the Galaxy class fits the specs of a Battleship in size and in armament (specifically having massive photon torpedo arrays, even in the ship's rear aspect).
I think the Constitution Class being a cruiser makes a lot of sense. It is moderately powerful but not so small that it can't perform a variety of missions.
As for Starship Troopers, it's best to look at the movie as a parody. The books have a much more advanced technology and there is a three way standoff between races. Actually if you've ever played Starcraft, it's obvious that the three races there were directly inspired by the book.
For ground forces though, I have to go with the Bolo books as having the overall best representation. What infantry does exist are pretty much naked without power suits. The Bolo tanks themselves are incredibly powerful and, when being transported in space, actually have firepower comparable to a Battlecruiser in that universe (so a Battleship without all of the armor and survivability). It is reasonable to believe that they could even hold off a planetary bombardment, and this actually happens a few times in the various books.
I agree and I disagree on that point. First of all, in a real world scenario, space combat will be very, very different from most combat styles we currently have.
In the realm of Trek, though, I think fighters have a role, if a more diminished one. I think part of my idea is that they can be used for work has been outlined before, and in small combat, where they can be deployed right next to the enemy ship and avoid some of the bigger phaser emitters on the ships.
Regardless of that, I think it's safe to assume that smaller craft (Frigate and below) should be shown as having specialized tasks and not normally a key component of battles between ships of the line. This applies in all eras of war, from the days of the Galley even into WW2. There actually were smaller ships in use in the Classical era, but the major battles were between ships of the line.
The WW2 analogy doesn't work for Trek because ships speed isn't limited by their mass. Quite the opposite, really. This is expressed pretty clearly across the board, even with the incoherence that comes from having dozens of writers using a loose standard. It stands to reason that any ship with enough power to propel itself at warp speed does not have to be made slower. The cost comes in maneuverability, if anything. Unlike in WW2, which sort of follows a rock-paper-scissors pattern, there aren't the equivalent of torpedo armed Destroyers going in at 30+ knots against lumbering battleships that can't hit small targets. In that war, it basically came down to this: Destroyers and Torpedo boats (to an extent) could get good effects on Battleships because of their speed and torpedo armament, while Battleships couldn't always hit small targets and their shells had a chance of passing through without detonating. Cruisers (with medium guns) could easily take out destroyers and smaller ships because they didn't have that handicap, but they were sitting ducks against big guns and their weapons were ineffective against armor (like on Battleships). Aircraft trump everything because of their speed and ability to move in three dimensions, but this is negated for obvious reasons.
A large ship in Trek can carry as many precision or specialty weapons as its frame and power source allows it to, and energy weapons aren't limited by the same factors which made heavy guns less useful against destroyers.
I think a better analogy to space combat would be tank battles in North Africa. There is no way that space fleets could form a continuous line of resistance like on the Eastern Front, so the relatively small size of the North Africa battles makes a good parallel to the size of space and the forces available. It also makes sense in that a lot of the battles were either focused on the enemy forces themselves or on key ports. This is analogous to how wars in space would be fought: Key stations, planets, and natural phenomena would be the equivalent of major cities and natural defensive positions, so the fighting would be more congested there. As for the vast open desert, commanders would rely on compasses and stellar navigation, hoping to outmaneuver the enemy or to move to better strategic positions from which to attack key positions. The taking of physical ground was almost irrelevant, as it would be in the vastness of space.
The combat itself would also somewhat mirror North African tank battles. Tanks could see their opponents long before they could hit them, and they could hit them long before they were in any kind of range like you see in a lot of movies and videogames. This is pretty much exactly how space battles are carried out in old Trek and in a lot of science fiction. This doesn't mean that they won't ever close the distance and rely on the kind of knife fight scenarios that are prevalent in the newer movies, just that it is only one aspect of a much larger tactical scenario. So again, there is a lot of buildup to the fight and the close in actions are not always guaranteed and normally climactic when they do occur. I'd use this analogy over submarine warfare or a Jutland-Tsushima because it does allow for the kind of close in action that would never occur between Dreadnoughts, but they both share one big similarity: both rely heavily on maneuvering and timing, which doesn't get properly expressed on the big screen.
The WW2 analogy doesn't work for Trek because ships speed isn't limited by their mass. Quite the opposite, really. This is expressed pretty clearly across the board, even with the incoherence that comes from having dozens of writers using a loose standard. It stands to reason that any ship with enough power to propel itself at warp speed does not have to be made slower. The cost comes in maneuverability, if anything. Unlike in WW2, which sort of follows a rock-paper-scissors pattern, there aren't the equivalent of torpedo armed Destroyers going in at 30+ knots against lumbering battleships that can't hit small targets. In that war, it basically came down to this: Destroyers and Torpedo boats (to an extent) could get good effects on Battleships because of their speed and torpedo armament, while Battleships couldn't always hit small targets and their shells had a chance of passing through without detonating. Cruisers (with medium guns) could easily take out destroyers and smaller ships because they didn't have that handicap, but they were sitting ducks against big guns and their weapons were ineffective against armor (like on Battleships). Aircraft trump everything because of their speed and ability to move in three dimensions, but this is negated for obvious reasons.
A large ship in Trek can carry as many precision or specialty weapons as its frame and power source allows it to, and energy weapons aren't limited by the same factors which made heavy guns less useful against destroyers.
I think a better analogy to space combat would be tank battles in North Africa. There is no way that space fleets could form a continuous line of resistance like on the Eastern Front, so the relatively small size of the North Africa battles makes a good parallel to the size of space and the forces available. It also makes sense in that a lot of the battles were either focused on the enemy forces themselves or on key ports. This is analogous to how wars in space would be fought: Key stations, planets, and natural phenomena would be the equivalent of major cities and natural defensive positions, so the fighting would be more congested there. As for the vast open desert, commanders would rely on compasses and stellar navigation, hoping to outmaneuver the enemy or to move to better strategic positions from which to attack key positions. The taking of physical ground was almost irrelevant, as it would be in the vastness of space.
The combat itself would also somewhat mirror North African tank battles. Tanks could see their opponents long before they could hit them, and they could hit them long before they were in any kind of range like you see in a lot of movies and videogames. This is pretty much exactly how space battles are carried out in old Trek and in a lot of science fiction. This doesn't mean that they won't ever close the distance and rely on the kind of knife fight scenarios that are prevalent in the newer movies, just that it is only one aspect of a much larger tactical scenario. So again, there is a lot of buildup to the fight and the close in actions are not always guaranteed and normally climactic when they do occur. I'd use this analogy over submarine warfare or a Jutland-Tsushima because it does allow for the kind of close in action that would never occur between Dreadnoughts, but they both share one big similarity: both rely heavily on maneuvering and timing, which doesn't get properly expressed on the big screen.
I agree that space combat is a difficult aspect to really think about, because so often it is viewed in 2D, like naval combat. And, your tank analogy, though appropriate, and make sense from a tactics point of view, the aspect of being able to move in 3D and not on a plane, should be kept in mind.
In that aspect, having fighters can be an advantage, in terms of a fast attack cruiser dropping from warp and deploying fighters to get very close to the enemy ship. But, this is a discussion of specific tactics and not the overall presentation of space combat. Sorry, I get lost in the details sometimes.
I think we can agree that fighters in Trek would be more limited to specialized tasks, as has been mentioned. I just would like to see them being used more than just ferrying tasks
In that aspect, having fighters can be an advantage, in terms of a fast attack cruiser dropping from warp and deploying fighters to get very close to the enemy ship. But, this is a discussion of specific tactics and not the overall presentation of space combat. Sorry, I get lost in the details sometimes.
I think we can agree that fighters in Trek would be more limited to specialized tasks, as has been mentioned. I just would like to see them being used more than just ferrying tasks
Similar threads
