Worlds of Design: The Problem with Space Navies, Part 2

In space, no one can hear your beam.

How realistic are your space navies?

  • Very Realistic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

interstellar-1951609_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
I confess that I am a big fan of naval history (the topic of my long ago doctoral dissertation is “Aircraft and the Royal Navy 1908 to 1919”), so I have some bias. Certainly if you work at it, you can deliberately make up science-fiction settings where ground forces and space fighters make sense. Glen Cook (known especially for the Black Company books) wrote a science fiction series (The Starfishers Trilogy) where he crafted the setting to enable spaceships to operate analogously to WW II submarines! You can do that kind of thing for fighters and aircraft carriers, if you really try.

Picking up where we left off, here’s three more issues to consider when launching your space armada.

Automation​

Automated aerial adjuncts to modern fighters are part of all plans for real-world sixth generation fighters. How well this will work out is unknown, but in the long run we may have fighters that have no crew, unlike the starfighters of science fiction. In effect, a starfighter is just a big, guided missile with good onboard intelligence.

Jack Campbell in his novels of the “Lost Fleet” presents a scenario of an automated fleet going rogue that represents the fear anyone ought to have of providing broad autonomy to artificial intelligence (think Terminator movies). Yet where automation can be used at less-than-human-intelligence, it will be. You won’t have giant warships with tens of thousands of crew because so much will be automated.

Boarding and Ramming​

Given that space is BIG, and that weapons tend to become more destructive over time, boarding is pretty unlikely. You can arrange a setting specifically to enable this (perhaps through Star-Trek like “transporters”). But in any likely situation, no boarding.

Historically, boarding action depended on the efficacy of whatever counted as “guns” on warships. When rowed ancient galleys had no “guns” but arrows or the occasional ballista/catapult, ramming was often preferred. But most of the time battles came down to boarding, a sort of land battle at sea. When artillery became more destructive in the Age of Sail, boarding was an activity after the enemy had surrendered, owing to artillery damage. Pirates relied on boarding because they didn’t have much artillery, but neither did their victims – and the pirates made sure to have a lot more men in their typically small, fast, shallow-draft ships.

Ramming was necessary when it was virtually the only way that a ship could damage another. But in outer space why would you ram the enemy when you can nail them with a big missile and avoid damage to your ship? Quite apart from the difficulty of hitting an enemy ship (again, space is BIG). Ramming scored hits at sea because water ships are hard to maneuver at the best of times, and all actions were at close quarters. Spaceships will be more maneuverable and combat ranges will likely be very far.

Bigger is Not Better​

Science fiction is littered with “10 mile long spaceships” and other monstrosities. Yes, bigger can be better up to a point - the point at which you’re putting too many of your eggs in one basket and too much of your effort into defending your very large ships. Moreover, very large ships would normally cost more to move around in terms of energy and other supplies. And if you have too few ships, you cannot cover all your responsibilities. If starfighters are a viable danger for large ships, then having a few large ships is less wise than having more but smaller ships. It’s another case where the “rule of cool” may take precedence, that is, super large ships are cool. (Let’s not even talk about the Death Stars.)

Any mobile platform like a tank or plane or (space)ship is a compromise amongst mobility, offensive capability, and defensibility/survivability. At some point ships that are too big (or too small) won’t compromise well. Ships should be large enough to serve their missions, and no larger.

Games these days are a compromise between realism and what looks cool (on screen and in other media). Game designers and world builders do well to consider both.

Your Turn: How realistic are your space navies?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
The space navy game I've run was the Royal Navy of 2100 in GURPS Transhuman Space. Ships range in size from large spacesuits up to 10,000 or so tons, there is no interstellar travel but there is widespread biotechnology and strong AI. There are no "space fighters" although there are lots of drones, of varying levels of intelligence. There isn't a war between nation-states going on, although there are leftovers from one, and criminal and terrorist groups with access to ships.

It's more like the navy of the Pax Britannica than WWII. Frigates and cruisers can operate independently for long periods.
 

I'm missing the option: "Depends on the story/design..."

There are all kinds of fantasy sci-fi settings I like, for all kinds of reasons. From the Expanse to Farscape, from Renegade Legion to Warhammer 40k, from Honor Harrington to Altered Carbon. Sometimes I love the starship designs, sometimes I love the setting, sometimes I love the story that's being told. It is rare to all three converge, and especially consistently.
 

There also seems to be a lot of wholesale writing off of the enemy in the essays. As if having the power to nuke by button would be used wantonly. Its true artillery became a primary mode of war between nation's navies, but there was still plenty of civilian interaction in which opening fire on them would be unthinkable. I think the idea that life is cheap needs to be examined. Its hard to comprehend intelligent life and assume some war between humans and another species would happen. Perhaps, in an all out existential war between species would reach such a callous disregard for life, or perhaps necessity for survival? More likely war between human nations would result in missile scuttle type actions, but I believe boarding to prevent loss of life (and save valuable space craft) would be executed more frequently even in the advent of space artillery.
 

Voted for option 5: all the cool from the sci-fi media, with the caveat that if « cool for this sci-fi media » means « semi-realistic », than semi realistic it must be. If laws of physics need to be ignored, than we ignore the laws of physics, etc.

In other words, the setting or fiction world imposes its preference on how realistic or not space navies operate.

That’s also why I don’t like « one system to rule them all » approach in RPG: the rules need to be able to support the fiction.
 

Honestly I don't think we can say anything plausible about what space combat will look like. All the "realistic" scenarios take technologies we have now (missiles, guns, drones, lasers) and kind of extrapolate them out, then wave their hands to get fast travel.

But warfare has been changed severely by new technology. Flight didn't exist until it did. Lasers were unknown until they weren't. Likewise guided missiles or AI powered drones. Could Napoleon have envisioned warfare 200 years in the future?

That's even less distance we're talking about and I think none of us have a clue.

Verisimilitude is much more important than realism. I'd like the combat to have been thought through and self consistent on its own terms. As long as that holds, anything goes.
 


My space navy would be heavily influenced by a combination of Space 1889 and Silverhawks (alien gangsters driving convertible roadsters in space), so I'm going with Not worried about realism.
 

Perhaps, in an all out existential war between species would reach such a callous disregard for life, or perhaps necessity for survival?
Isn't any war a war for survival? And what about all the human on human wars over the ages, even pretty recently all sides had a pretty callous regard for human life. No nation will state that publicly, but the actions speak volumes... It's not as if when we hit actual space travel, we'll be an enlightened bunch. Especially not when decision makers tend to be political operators and naval command are political assignments...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top