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
A classic.

This is another reason why I love the way ship encounters are presented in the Expanse. A ship using thrust to turn 90 degrees will actually keep flying sideways in the same direction until its main drive gains enough momentum to start propelling it in the new direction, and even then the ship will initially be moving diagonally relative to its facing. So not only is a ship's facing in space completely random, but also the direction of its travel might or might not match that facing.
I was asked once if the cgi was wrong because Expanse ships often “flew backwards” I had to explain breaking burns to them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Another thought I had about space navies.

Physics are going to play such a huge role. ... Basically, all this has to be hammered out at the outset.
Yup. The most satisfactory interstellar game I've played had a custom FTL system, described here. The index to all the campaign's pages is here. Be warned that a guiding principle was "This is not Star Trek." If something seemed like Star Trek, it was changed.
I was asked once if the cgi was wrong because Expanse ships often “flew backwards” I had to explain braking burns to them.
As I have said many times, "Anything you think you've learned about science. technology or medicine from Hollywood is wrong. They are reliable at that, because the real stuff doesn't conform to dramatic needs, so they change it."
 

Ever since I read Ian Banks' The Culture novels, I view navies as AI ships (Minds) with range so long and predictability assessment so refined that, the enemy fleet is utterly destroyed, even if they try to react to weapons launched days ago.
 

Yup. The most satisfactory interstellar game I've played had a custom FTL system, described here. The index to all the campaign's pages is here. Be warned that a guiding principle was "This is not Star Trek." If something seemed like Star Trek, it was changed.

As I have said many times, "Anything you think you've learned about science. technology or medicine from Hollywood is wrong. They are reliable at that, because the real stuff doesn't conform to dramatic needs, so they change it."

That Jump systems reminds me of the system used by Jerry Pournelle in his CoDominium series.
 

That Jump systems reminds me of the system used by Jerry Pournelle in his CoDominium series.
If that's the same as in The Mote in God's Eye, it is similar, but the GM did not want to place jump points for convenience of plotting. He was using the Hipparcos dataset for star positions, and could generate jump point positions from that.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top