# My Rantings On Sci Fi Space Combat



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

Decided to my make my own sort of rant on everything i take issue with, with most of the sci fi trends i have seen etc.      As a disclaimer i will be mainly comapring it to U.K military doctrine, secondly to the U.S's.   (i know most about both of them, and i know compartively little to the rest of the worlds)


Right im going to start this with PPE.  (personal protective equipment)

As far as i know for royal navy doctrine, they have put a large enthisis on fire prevention mesures on ships, more so than apprantly other countries have done.     Granted every country has the standard plenty of hoses and fire prevention equipment on board, and has a trained firefighting team for it.       But the Royal navy does a 1 week fire safety course, provides flash suits (preventive mesure for munitions), and has oxygen hoods and the like everywhere.    Along with what is a global standard of fire teams.  


So i see in sci fi, ther being comaprively little space PPE, in terms of basically no personal space suits, no communal emrgrency exposure suits, masks etc.  Granted some have done it better than others, and i have seen a game give everyone oxygen tanks (and pending server, exposure suits)   and there are meant to be sufficent life boats for X amount of the crew/passangers, and also enough flotation devices. 


So, why in the modenrn world and right now everyone recognised fire as the greatest danger to a modern ship, but we wont in the future recognise fire and exposure as the second greatest to space craft?    When we give people floation devices so they can stay floating in water if they fall off a deck etc and also exposure suits for the cold waters.    Space is objectively more hostile than the oceans as we can least float ontop and still breath in oceans.       If the depicted enviroment is FTL travel, advanced ships etc, you would expect some form of cost effective PPE measures for ships more than life pods.  (some dont have them, or have them in terrible places)



Second is depicted combat, granted this is more down to doctrine dispute that happens in real life as well.  It does largely depend on what you want a military force for, if its for war, you will make diffrent choices to if you want it for law enforcmeent etc, generally speaking there is a mixture of the two, as most countries need warships and patrol ships. 

The best example i have, no idea if its true or not, was when one of the monarchs spent the royal navies money on several first rate ships for warfare and to impress other nations and to fight other fleets, rather than putting money into ships to patrol english waters and keep pirates etc out, which apprantly lead to some coastal villages and towns being raided and becoming ghost towns overnight due to slavers.     (hyberbole im pretty sure, but it makes the point)


As for other doctrine issues, WW2 had the aircraft carrier vs battlehship.  The franchise that annoys me the most in this regard is star wars.   Mainly because the empires fleet is made for war, and is sort of based on WW2 tactics.  Instead of patrol ships when they have no enemies, or explained enemies in the films to need a load of capital ships for fighting capital ships for, they needed patrol ships for fighting pirates and criminals.

that is the big crutch as the rebels use mainly sub ship craft and didnt start off with many capital ships etc.   Is it meant to come off as imperial incompotence or was it a over sight for writing?   along with the lack of point defence.


I recall adromeda (the one made by the creator of star trek) haveing so-so decent ships in it.  they had some ships which could carry X amount of Boats (what i will call vessels that come from a ship, or other paltform) in it which would serve as, both a screen and patrol craft, and strike craft, they were also caapble of being flown remotely, or were autonomous.  (truely autonomous i belive, as a AI controlled them)


The second one i like for at least so -so realstic space doctrine is Babalyon 5, as they have Boats for patrolling, which also served as strike craft and screens, and every ship apprantly carried at least some and every station for security did.    And they are depcited as being used for patrols to intercept pirates and find enemies.


Now star trek away teams annoy me, i will let you guess why they annoy me on a realism stance.    Anyway i think that hits the high notes and cites some of the series i have seen, anyone else have similar issue with some sci fi and things that just irk you?

also this is not a exansive list of my annoyances, just some high notes and as title says focused on warfare.


----------



## pdg (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> i will be mainly comapring it to U.K military doctrine, secondly to the U.S's. (i know most about both of them, and i know comaprtively little to the rest of the worlds)



I'd like to know where you obtained the knowledge - from this post it's woefully incomplete and apparently based on films.



Rat said:


> Now star trek away teams annoy me, i will let you guess why they annoy me on a realism stance.



You've said this post is based on warfare.

Starfleet is not a military force, it's scientific, diplomatic and exploratory.

Therefore, they would only do things like carrying the minimum amount of weaponry.

And after scans of the surface shows nothing environmental of danger, PPE can be largely disregarded as the transporters are effective biological filters.

Also, things like the ship's captain leading an away team is a contravention of Starfleet regulations (section 12), which is roundly ignored by a succession of captains.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

pdg said:


> I'd like to know where you obtained the knowledge - from this post it's woefully incomplete and apparently based on films.



this is a rant so its going to be ranty.  But i put at the end its not a exaustive list of what annoys me in sci fi warfare , just high notes and based on what i have wached and rememeber.         My military knowledge, mainly comes from intrest and is from pretty much all type of media.  From TV shows/doccumentires, to feature elngth doccuemnaties, to books.  Both from offical governemnt sources and private, and then the ramblings you can find of soldiers and officers.

I primarily prefer U.K doctrine as, since i live in the U.K i get more exposure to it, U.S is just by merit of me being a english speaker and the domiance it has influence wise on enlish speaking countries.        But a hypothetical scenrio here, if you looked into a ASW ship,t hat was commsioned and designed to counter soviet subamrines, that might then lead you to look into soviet subamrines and their doctrine.   Kind of like how everyone gets "the germans were a unstoppabled mechanised force" for WW2, just down to universal intrest in German WW2 military doctrine.  Or how soviet WW2 doctrine is just put down to sucide charges by conscripts etc.        (trends are changing, but these are just largely exergerated examples)

You also if you like collecting these things, have to decide ona  peroid you want to main, and a country you want to main.



pdg said:


> Starfleet is not a military force, it's scientific, diplomatic and exploratory.



We can argue that point all day, but its job is also security. It at least has some paramilitary responsilbity to it.   The lack of PPE does come into play, and for other factions than just star fleet.

The main annoyance and what stems it for star trek is the one episode in NTG where they send down a "heavily armed away team" and its 4 people, and one of them just has a pahse rifle instead of pistol, no armour or anything.    Exposed bridges, no seatbelts, not enough seats with seatbelts.  You would think after the third or tenth time of a red shirt flying over banister in the bridge they would install something.    Or the lack of at least some form of futuristic plate carrier for phasers or disruptors etc.


Im more willing to forgive star trek as it at least aided in founding the genre, or bringing it to TV, and the rorignal series is quite old and i dont think got a lot of budget for some of its choices.   (im not going to complain about alien plants being hands for example, hillarious, but not fair)    Like fair enough if they cant afford it, but it still annoys me.


Also dont expect too much structure, it is a rant and a openly stated rant.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> My military knowledge, mainly comes from intrest and is from pretty much all type of media.




So you haven't actually served in HM Forces? I have as has my OH and his brother.
I've worked with the RN, RM, as well as the Army. I learned from working closely with the real thing not from books or even television series, that's verging into the realms of Walting.

As with all *fiction*, one suspends belief when watching it, endless picking at it and pointing out perceived flaws just spoils the stories.

If you were ranting about documentaries etc it would be different but really you need to lighten up, sit back and just enjoy the stories.


----------



## pdg (Jan 31, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I've worked with the RN, RM, as well as the Army. I learned from working closely with the real thing not from books or even television series, that's verging into the realms of Walting



I've worked with and for the army in a CS capacity, and I had training within the CS arm of the RAF (and have since done unrelated works in a number of facilities).

I've also read books and watched films 

None of that qualifies me to speak as to procedure or methodology - except for the areas I've experienced, and then only at those times...



Tez3 said:


> As with all *fiction*, one suspends belief when watching it, endless picking at it and pointing out perceived flaws just spoils the stories



The problem with finding flaws in fiction is that it's fictional.

The person who made it up may have had different ideas to you, so perceived flaws may be mistakes, oversights, or may be intentional.

Or maybe it really just doesn't matter in the context of the story.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2020)

pdg said:


> I've also read books and watched film




We have a firm rule in our house, we don't watch war films together, he can watch them on his own then I don't have to listen to the stream of comments where he's criticising everything.  And I don't have to keep saying 'calm down dear, it's only a film'.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> So you haven't actually served in HM Forces? I have as has my OH and his brother.
> I've worked with the RN, RM, as well as the Army. I learned from working closely with the real thing not from books or even television series, that's verging into the realms of Walting.
> 
> As with all *fiction*, one suspends belief when watching it, endless picking at it and pointing out perceived flaws just spoils the stories.
> ...



Neither have many historians, many of which are respected on the peroid they write in etc.  and various other people.  you dont really need it to touch on broad doctrine in a peroid.      I will confess, i do know for WW2, than modern doctrine though, not to say i dont know some modern doctrine but WW2 ground is what i know the most about.       (dont mistake this for, i am a military expert, i was just relaying i do use primary and secondary sources, and they vary in quality, that doesnt mean all of them are wrong, or right, and its partly authors opinion for secondary)

And its not remotely close to walting, this is closer to somone calling somone a walt because they are wearing MTP.  There are broader political reasons behind this and the like, but forum rules, so i cant discuss them.           But you will find either the manfucaturor of a ship give its sort of role and non classified information out, or the military, or both.   The military in a democracy also has to justify its budget and need for things, to non subject matter experts, as does pretty much every department.  (i think i can get away with that, i really dont want this locked)

You do suspend your beleif, but only so far. Sci-fi is more bound to reality than pure fantasy is, they usually need some form of mystic enabler, or a few. eg, FTL, laser weapons.  But belive me there are some i cant watch without screaming at them. (Oh no im getting the walking dead flashbacks.)     To which i just turn them off, they are just too filled with tropes and the like for me to enjoy, or fall apart from as much realism as i can enjoy.   Now i do stick on a martial arts film now and then, and fully epect people to go flying in the traditional hong kong film way of doing things.   I would not enjoy that in a film based in WW2 however. Not really relivent as thats more genre diffrences and why you would watch them and like them.  

And it is a rant, i could post a review of why i dislike XYZ and it be more of a legitimate critique on the mediums.       Plus in this sort of rant, i have cited some that have done it at least pretty decently in some respects.   Plus if it was a proper review, it would be worse as i would have to be more crtiical over EVERYTHING to do with said production.   From the acting, to cinemtography, to writing to music.      


But i neither want this to turn into the commander in cheifs forum, nor a film/TV show review, but stick to being a rant, and for people to post trends and the like that annoys them in sci fi space warfare.     (and definately not start nerd wars)  


Addendum:  I also havent used correct terms for media in this, just insert them in as appriapte.   ie "mystic enabler" can be interprited as a hard/soft "magic" system.  Hard being it sticks to prefounded rules for something existing, soft is it doesnt.      I have obviously placed myself as enjoying military sci fi, and it being bound to a list of rules as close to reality as you can follow, more than the opposite.   

Addendum 2: Forgive some spelling mistakes, i dont have spell checking software and some elude me.  

Addendum 3: In case you havent realised, this is a rant.     This is the fifth time of me writing this.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 31, 2020)

Wow, who would of thought, you dont have to wear a high viz jacket or steel toe caps in space. And I thought I was bored waiting for my seeds to grow.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

pdg said:


> The problem with finding flaws in fiction is that it's fictional.
> 
> The person who made it up may have had different ideas to you, so perceived flaws may be mistakes, oversights, or may be intentional.
> 
> Or maybe it really just doesn't matter in the context of the story.



i would, in a more accurate review of something break it down more into:  Logic of the medium, writing issues and contiunity issues.   And just plain mistakes.

Ie, if you have established the world as following the laws of physics and you defy them without a explination, thats just bad writing and being a mistake on the part of physics.  (if the definace is based on ignorance on how it works)

If you how ever make a hard magic system, and need to basically conjure up some magic means of doing it ie FTl, then its more forgivable so long as FTL follows the rules you have set for it.         Hard pressed to find something in sci fi that doesnt have that, unless it uses current day weapons or systems, just applied to space.      (but then you can make the setting early space travel, or space empire)   As stated above, i very much prefer set rules that they cant break for things.


Better example, there is some butchery of biology in the AVP films.   (or first one) one of the actors says something has bones and is related to a scorpian.   (scorpians wont have bones if they have exoskelton)      Or its soemthing like that, i dont recall the exact wording, that is just down right wrong.    That is unforgivable in any medium.     Unless the chracter is meant to be stupid or something.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Wow, who would of thought, you dont have to wear a high viz jacket or steel toe caps in space. And I thought I was bored waiting for my seeds to grow.




You think you can escape the PT belt that easily?  Oh boy are you in for a surprize.  








Edit:  i found this meme as well:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> Neither have many historians, many of which are respected on the peroid they write in




They are academics focussing on facts, you are ranting about fictional series, films and books.



Rat said:


> To which i just turn them off,




Most of us watch/read things that we enjoy when it's fiction and documentaries if we want to be informed. Ranting about fiction is a totally pointless exercise and a complete waste of time. The only reason to have a rant is if the fiction writers were purporting their fictions to be true life or actually factual.




Rat said:


> Ie, if you have established the world as following the laws of physics and you defy them without a explination, thats just bad writing and being a mistake on the part of physics. (if the definace is based on ignorance on how it works)



I really don't care, tell me why I should? It doesn't ruin my enjoyment. I enjoy opera, a few years ago I went to watch La Boheme, the leading lady is meant to be young, waif-like and suffering from TB, the singer however was middle aged, rather large and very healthy but had a beautiful voice, should I have demanded my money back because she wasn't thin and suffering from TB? it didn't spoil my enjoyment even when she 'collapsed' with a thump on the stage floor. If according to your rant she should be lifelike she should actually be dead, it's the suspension of belief that gives us the enjoyment.


----------



## pdg (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> Better example, there is some butchery of biology in the AVP films. (or first one) one of the actors says something has bones and is related to a scorpian. (scorpians wont have bones if they have exoskelton) Or its soemthing like that, i dont recall the exact wording, that is just down right wrong. That is unforgivable in any medium. Unless the chracter is meant to be stupid or something.



From a biological standpoint something can be related to something else and share no common features, or things can share many common features but have no close relationship at all.

For instance, humans share a decent proportion of DNA with a banana.

Ergo, we are related to bananas.

We are more closely related to scorpions, although there is the internal skeletal structure v exoskeleton.

"Related to" generally refers to having a common ancestry, and it's pretty much a case of how far back you want to go before claiming the relationship has no meaning.

Or it could be the group of animals/things - these groups were established long before genetic testing was a thing and is based mainly on visible features.

So things like arachnids (to which scorpions belong) have members that aren't closely genetically related, which share more with members of other groups.


And there's another issue with picking faults - you need make sure you have sufficient knowledge to claim something is "downright wrong".


----------



## pdg (Jan 31, 2020)

Oh, there's also the distance from the observer to the observee to consider.

A fictional silicon based life form could legitimately look at humans and bananas and say they're related - because they're much closer to each other than either are to the observer, and share the same "code base".


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 31, 2020)

Shaking Star Trek GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> They are academics focussing on facts, you are ranting about fictional series, films and books.



The facts dont change is the point.  The subject doesnt really matter much, given plenty of people, have dragged "experts" into discuss realism for fictional series etc.



Tez3 said:


> Most of us watch/read things that we enjoy when it's fiction and documentaries if we want to be informed. Ranting about fiction is a totally pointless exercise and a complete waste of time. The only reason to have a rant is if the fiction writers were purporting their fictions to be true life or actually factual.



Not related to the post i made, well one point isnt as much.          There is reason to rant about fiction if its hisotrical as it could be portraying the life in said peroid as wrong.     It could be a fictional town/kingdom but if its in a set time peroid, and set geographical location, then it needs to obey that in some degree.

Second is if they elgitimately get things wrong, or they make no sense in the logic of the medium.    eg my poor physics example, and my biology one.  that is just wrong, doesnt matter where it is put.   

I can also put a similar point here about, why would you come onto a thread title "ranting about fiction", if you didnt want to see such a rant?



Tez3 said:


> I really don't care, tell me why I should? It doesn't ruin my enjoyment. I enjoy opera, a few years ago I went to watch La Boheme, the leading lady is meant to be young, waif-like and suffering from TB, the singer however was middle aged, rather large and very healthy but had a beautiful voice, should I have demanded my money back because she wasn't thin and suffering from TB? it didn't spoil my enjoyment even when she 'collapsed' with a thump on the stage floor. If according to your rant she should be lifelike she should actually be dead, it's the suspension of belief that gives us the enjoyment.



It ruins mine, and is poor story telling is why you should care.  Its not a good thing they do it, its a sign of overlooking or poor writing.    The diffrence in opera and film are very apprant, and stage shows in general, as you meant to imagine XYZ, films are meant to show you XYZ.   Likewise books tell you XYZ.   (film is used for visual media, and includes TV shows, liekwise for the other examples)


Please inform me as to why it should be considered good or acceptable, for say a actor to have a beard, then none, then a 5o clock shadow, then a beard again, then none.  in one scene?   (that is a example, its a example of poor cinimetography)      There is a reason why they sign contacts telling actors they need to keep within X appearance.       this would be a subject of mockery if you did it by a critic let alone a rant and not a proper critique.  




There is just bad, then bad but meant to be bad, then shouldnt happen.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

pdg said:


> From a biological standpoint something can be related to something else and share no common features, or things can share many common features but have no close relationship at all.
> 
> For instance, humans share a decent proportion of DNA with a banana.
> 
> ...




The rough point of the example was, the usage of the term exoskelaton was incompatible with bones.     there are other things that crop up like that.   i think in either juriassic park or world, they mis use hermeradite for A sexual, or the reverse.           You could be very generous for the first example and view it like that.       But there is still no excusing the mis use of bones and exoskeleton.        (on memeory it might be diffrent, but i dont remmeber the exact wording)






pdg said:


> And there's another issue with picking faults - you need make sure you have sufficient knowledge to claim something is "downright wrong".



If i dont know it/am concerned i usually double check it via google.        Like im going to go look up that scene right now and see what the exact wording is as it is now really annoying me.

edit: i am now regretting that descion as it seems like its going to take a while to find that scene, that or i need to look upa  review that i know has said scene in it.


----------



## pdg (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> There is reason to rant about fiction if its hisotrical as it could be portraying the life in said peroid as wrong. It could be a fictional town/kingdom but if its in a set time peroid, and set geographical location, then it needs to obey that in some degree



Not at all, because fiction.

Say there's a setting in Victorian England, where someone discovers how to construct a laser and destroys the moon. This attracts the attention of an alien race, who are repelled by (a time traveling) Sir Galahad wielding a scaled down version of the same laser.

Historically incorrect, but fiction. So it's fine.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 31, 2020)

How much coffee have you two drank?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> I can also put a similar point here about, why would you come onto a thread title "ranting about fiction", if you didnt want to see such a rant?




I like seeing people do a Basil Fawlty.


Okay how many books/screenplay/plays have you written? It's all very well ranting but it's just hot air (which is why it amuses me) unless you have done better. I don't mind most things in fiction because I can't do any better myself, if an author has taken the time to write a book, I will read it, reading is a passion of mine, and I won't criticise, who am I too?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Okay how many books/screenplay/plays have you written? It's all very well ranting but it's just hot air (which is why it amuses me) unless you have done better. I don't mind most things in fiction because I can't do any better myself, if an author has taken the time to write a book, I will read it, reading is a passion of mine, and I won't criticise, who am I too?



By that merit, every critic has to have done what they are criticising.   thats a slippery slope.              Just because you cant do any better or XYZ, doesnt mean the item is the das captial of its genre/medium.  Can you do CGI, and does that play any relivence into stating its bad? or it looks bad?     And i do plan on doing something for military sci fi some day, so we shall put it to the test.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 31, 2020)

pdg said:


> Historically incorrect, but fiction. So it's fine.



No it isnt, you are conflating fantasy with fiction.   The setting would be in victorian england, so the fashion and trends etc should be the same.    I will allow you, if you explain how said laser is created to introduce it in your story, same with the aliens.  the two areas you have to play around with there are the aliens and the laser and its effects.   You cant then have every victorian englishman start doing things that are not vicorian english or act like its a normal thing to be attacked by aliens etc.   You dont have free reign to do what you like with everything because it a fictious story, the story is, the place and time peroid are not.     ie you cant have all the victorian englishmen walk around in tracksuits.     it will cease to be victorian england, and a fantasy england.  


Also the problem is deeper than you think, every piece of fiction goes towards impression of the peroid, see the medievil peroid and how the bulk of media depicts it as a filthy ceasepool where everyone is covered in muck and are morons.      This has happened in many peroids and inaccurate deepictions go to spreading myths on it.      Other issue there, plate armour mobility and people wearing plate getting killed via slashing to it, so many other tropes for inaccurcies, those just came to my head.   

Its not like if you make a compeltely fantasy world, you will be using a real kingdom that existed, and placing it in a peroid of its history, you have very little in the way of experientation with said kingdom.     if you want to make up a fictional kingdom fine, a fictional world fine, that would give you more liberty to play around with.   If you want to introduce dragons to medievil england, fine, but that doesnt mean every englishman magically gets AK47's.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2020)

Rat said:


> No it isnt, you are conflating fantasy with fiction.




Seriously? you think fantasy isn't fiction? I think next you will be telling us Corrie is a documentary


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 1, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Seriously? you think fantasy isn't fiction? I think next you will be telling us Corrie is a documentary



Not what i wrote.      Fantasy is fiction, not all fiction is fantasy.             I have all ready explained that point.

if you dont get it, you just dont get it. (some people dont get it)     simply put, if you use a real place, in a real time peroid, you have less freedom to do what you wish, you have more if its a fictious place, or time peroid. (pending context), and ultimate freedom is your own world/universe.  You still cant randomly have gravity not exist for no reason if you establish it as following the laws of physics.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Rat said:


> Not what i wrote.      Fantasy is fiction, not all fiction is fantasy.             I have all ready explained that point.
> 
> if you dont get it, you just dont get it. (some people dont get it)




Oh dear.


----------



## pdg (Feb 1, 2020)

Rat said:


> Not what i wrote.      Fantasy is fiction, not all fiction is fantasy.             I have all ready explained that point.
> 
> if you dont get it, you just dont get it. (some people dont get it)     simply put, if you use a real place, in a real time peroid, you have less freedom to do what you wish, you have more if its a fictious place, or time peroid. (pending context), and ultimate freedom is your own world/universe.  You still cant randomly have gravity not exist for no reason if you establish it as following the laws of physics.



Well, I have to disagree.

Because it's fiction - i.e. it's entirely made up - it's totally up to the author how historically accurate it is. They can choose to make up a story about one particular person's life in a specific time period and use historical data to attempt to convey how life was, or they can have cavemen on hoverboards with absolutely no explanation if they feel like it.

If reference is made to actual events, then it's usually best to be accurate with those - but even then it's not compulsory. Because fiction.


What you're apparently doing is interpreting "dramatisation based on real events" as the basis of fiction, with "fantasy" being an offshoot - when in fact both are simply subsets of the overall term "fiction" and there's absolutely no rule that says you aren't allowed a fantasy sci-fi period drama no matter how historically inaccurate it may be.

And with the physics thing - again, fiction.

A story can be established where gravity works exactly within the actual laws of physics, except that oranges have a baseline of 13.7metres from ground level - if you let go of an orange it will drop or rise to that height and stay there.

No need to explain why, because fiction.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Fantasy and fiction...………… neither are real.


----------



## Razznik (Feb 18, 2021)

> Now star trek away teams annoy me, i will let you guess why they annoy me on a realism stance.


Yes totally it's so unrealistic (the plot sucks too)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2021)

pdg said:


> Well, I have to disagree.
> 
> Because it's fiction - i.e. it's entirely made up - it's totally up to the author how historically accurate it is. They can choose to make up a story about one particular person's life in a specific time period and use historical data to attempt to convey how life was, or they can have cavemen on hoverboards with absolutely no explanation if they feel like it.
> 
> ...



Good fiction will explain why. Good world building in fiction is generally considered important

Hence why people still read Tolkien.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

pdg said:


> I'd like to know where you obtained the knowledge - from this post it's woefully incomplete and apparently based on films.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Though I did always marvel that they didn't either contract or spread some kind of pandemic to the locals, even if the atmosphere was compatible.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 19, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Good fiction will explain why. Good world building in fiction is generally considered important
> 
> Hence why people still read Tolkien.



I agree, mostly... but explaining isn't always needed. I think _The Expanse_ is good fiction. But although they actually do the science pretty well, they make no effort to explain everything. The ring, for example. The attitude is "it's alien technology and we have no idea how it works".



Steve said:


> Though I did always marvel that they didn't either contract or spread some kind of pandemic to the locals, even if the atmosphere was compatible.



One possibility here is that the biochemistry doesn't match. When _War of the Worlds_ was written, the people of Earth were saved because a simple cold virus was lethal to the Martians. But why would an earth pathogen infect beings with such markedly different biochemistry?
Dogs don't get COVID 19. Why? Because during infection, the virus attacks a protein called Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2. And a dog has a slightly different ACE2. A tiny difference is all it takes. 

The thing that always bothered me was all the interspecies sex.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> One possibility here is that the biochemistry doesn't match. When _War of the Worlds_ was written, the people of Earth were saved because a simple cold virus was lethal to the Martians. But why would an earth pathogen infect beings with such markedly different biochemistry?
> Dogs don't get COVID 19. Why? Because during infection, the virus attacks a protein called Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2. And a dog has a slightly different ACE2. A tiny difference is all it takes.
> 
> The thing that always bothered me was all the interspecies sex.


Regarding the biochemistry, I asked my daughter who has a degree in biochemistry.  I'll share what she says, if anything.

Regarding dogs, etc, they can get it:  COVID-19 and Your Health.

And we get viruses from animals, as well. Particularly when they can carry them, without becoming super ill.  That's how we got COVID19 in the first place: Zoonotic Diseases | One Health | CDC

Your explanation above seems to support my point, which is that it's possible that Kirk or Spock or the expendable security guy would either catch something from the locals that is for them mostly or entirely benign, or spread something to them.

Think Europeans bringing influenza to the Native Americans... or bats bringing us Covid19, or apes bringing us HIV.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 19, 2021)

Steve said:


> Regarding the biochemistry, I asked my daughter who has a degree in biochemistry.  I'll share what she says, if anything.
> 
> Regarding dogs, etc, they can get it:  COVID-19 and Your Health.



Ok, I'll clarify. They can get it, but they cannot give it to us, nor does it really make them sick. 



> And we get viruses from animals, as well. Particularly when they can carry them, without becoming super ill.  That's how we got COVID19 in the first place: Zoonotic Diseases | One Health | CDC



I didn't say no animals ever had a bug that humans could get. I said there are bugs that infect people that do not infect animals. And those are creatures with whom we share an awful lot of DNA. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that our bugs won't bother a creature with zero shared DNA.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Ok, I'll clarify. They can get it, but they cannot give it to us, nor does it really make them sick.


Or they might get it.  Or we might give it to them.  What I said was I am surprised they never contracted some disease from or spread some disease to the locals.   





> I didn't say no animals ever had a bug that humans could get. I said there are bugs that infect people that do not infect animals. And those are creatures with whom we share an awful lot of DNA. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that our bugs won't bother a creature with zero shared DNA.


LOL.  You're being obtuse.  You actually did say that no animals had bugs that humans can get... in this post.  You say, "It's entirely reasonable to think that our bugs won't bother a creature with zero shared DNA."  And you're using dogs and COVID as your rationale.  Are you posting tongue in cheek?  I'm going to presume so.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

In similar news, my wife, who is a huge nerd, reminded me that many episode of Star Trek and TTNG started with the crew contracting an exotic alien disease of some kind or another.


----------



## jobo (Feb 19, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I agree, mostly... but explaining isn't always needed. I think _The Expanse_ is good fiction. But although they actually do the science pretty well, they make no effort to explain everything. The ring, for example. The attitude is "it's alien technology and we have no idea how it works".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how do you know that Martian have remarkably different bio chemistry ?

the fact that there are, as yet, no known Martian seems to make that difficult to know, even more as the book doesn't identify which pathogen lead to their demise, its hard to know if an unknow bug would kill an unknow alien with unknow bio chemistry

id put my money on them having an under cooked bat for lunch


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I agree, mostly... but explaining isn't always needed. I think _The Expanse_ is good fiction. But although they actually do the science pretty well, they make no effort to explain everything. The ring, for example. The attitude is "it's alien technology and we have no idea how it works".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Definitely people will make leaps for the sake of narrative. And I think space combat would realistically look rather dull.


But I think the fun of world building is to look at how a world would work if........


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Ok, I'll clarify. They can get it, but they cannot give it to us, nor does it really make them sick.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say no animals ever had a bug that humans could get. I said there are bugs that infect people that do not infect animals. And those are creatures with whom we share an awful lot of DNA. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that our bugs won't bother a creature with zero shared DNA.



Or the Martins were originally human.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2021)

Steve said:


> Regarding the biochemistry, I asked my daughter who has a degree in biochemistry.  I'll share what she says, if anything.
> 
> Regarding dogs, etc, they can get it:  COVID-19 and Your Health.
> 
> ...



Yeah we have issues with hendra virus which is bats to horses to people or something.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2021)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear.



Yeah. So if I throw you an apple while we are riding on my magical war unicorn. Is that action fantasy?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 20, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. So if I throw you an apple while we are riding on my magical war unicorn. Is that action fantasy?



Only if I catch the apple.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 20, 2021)

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comm...w_oc/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 21, 2021)

Christ this got necored.


Just for record, sci fi is sub divided into the "hard" and "soft" "magic systems".  That meaning sci fi tends to follow the same things magic does in fiction. Although a true sci fi should be a hard system as you cant just click away how the universe works when you feel like it. (the thing that usually breaks sci fi is the FTL drive, as that pretty much needs to click away how the universe works and since its impossible(currently) you cant explain it or you cant really explain it well) 

Thats if i havent forgetten what the magic systems are. 

Anyway, near future concepts and tech can be done well, the more futuristic the more theorical the study is thus the more questions there are as opposed to answrs.  Look at automation before automation was the norm or could be done to the level we have it now.


I also always thought the point of the war of the worlds diseases was they can kill everything and adapt to kill anything.  There are plenty that dont effect people but do animals or muiltiple diffrent types of animals including people.  At least they didnt cop out with the magic space shield but just exteremey good armour. (which is probbly because he didnt think of it that and you need a space shield to suspend your disbeleif a APFSDS fired from a 120mm cannon cant penertrate a tripod)  And its entirely possible their medicine sucks as its a seperate field to physics study.   Like we still die from infectious diseases and have fairly decent overall technology and its a constant evolitonary battle to kill of microbes and their constantly evoling forms.


Addendum:  Now the term science fantasy exists, i would support re classifying some tradtionally called sci fis as that.    Some sci fis really are jsut a fantasy set in space/the future.

Addendum 2: And no i am not going to rehash the argument that just because you brand it as "Fiction" or "fantasy" you can do what ever and break your worlds pre established rules without a decent enough not cop out explination.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 21, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Definitely people will make leaps for the sake of narrative. And I think space combat would realistically look rather dull.
> 
> 
> But I think the fun of world building is to look at how a world would work if........



Missile based combat now days looks pretty dull*, i blame people not able to build tension through not seeing things explode.    Like you can build tension with counter missile batteries firing and missiles being fired.    thats part of the fun in some submarine based games, the tension built by not seeing anything and only the submarine.  (needing to surface to use periscope etc)   Play silent huter realstically and tell me it doesnt have tension if a destroyer is chasing after you dropping charges on you. 

It would be a more testiment to good atmosphere if you mange to build a good  tension and you only see the interor of a space craft and radar blips of another ship. 

*at least if not done right or you trationally view tradtionally combat as exiting.

i also partly blame this on no real government liking to talk about or release in detail how well their missiles do and counter missile defences and the intricate workings of them.    Like the M1 Abrhams and Chalalnger 2 armour is classified so if they are in any game  you dont have the data to simulate their armour.  (one of the diffrnces between commercial and government contracted things, restricted data can be used in a govenrment contracted one or programmed in, where as they arent going to let you re lease a game using sensitive data)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 21, 2021)

Rat said:


> Missile based combat now days looks pretty dull*, i blame people not able to build tension through not seeing things explode.    Like you can build tension with counter missile batteries firing and missiles being fired.    thats part of the fun in some submarine based games, the tension built by not seeing anything and only the submarine.  (needing to surface to use periscope etc)   Play silent huter realstically and tell me it doesnt have tension if a destroyer is chasing after you dropping charges on you.
> 
> It would be a more testiment to good atmosphere if you mange to build a good  tension and you only see the interor of a space craft and radar blips of another ship.
> 
> ...



I am more of a star wars guy than star treck. Give me a horse chase any day over a submarine battle.


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2021)

Rat said:


> Christ this got necored.
> 
> 
> Just for record, sci fi is sub divided into the "hard" and "soft" "magic systems".  That meaning sci fi tends to follow the same things magic does in fiction. Although a true sci fi should be a hard system as you cant just click away how the universe works when you feel like it. (the thing that usually breaks sci fi is the FTL drive, as that pretty much needs to click away how the universe works and since its impossible(currently) you cant explain it or you cant really explain it well)
> ...


faster than light isnt impossible, the universe is exspanding faster than the speed of light,

a large % of the speed of light is very doable, in a few generations if the political will was there to fund it.

its slowing down at the other end thats tricky

but the real issue with interstellar,  / inter galactic travel, is time dilatation ,

that is that times moves faster for the people on earth than it does for the travelers, by the time you get back everyone you knew is dead.

a quick trip to andromeda,  and back would eqate to about 5 million years on earth,  youl be lucky if the place isnt ruled by clever ants,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 21, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I am more of a star wars guy than star treck. Give me a horse chase any day over a submarine battle.



Its probably because i go twards more suspense orientated things, like i prefer psyhcological horror over the blood and guts kind.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 22, 2021)

Rat said:


> So, why in the modenrn world and right now everyone recognised fire as the greatest danger to a modern ship, but we wont in the future recognise fire and exposure as the second greatest to space craft?


Fire isn't as big as a threat to a futuristic spaceship for two main reasons. The first being most spaceships depicted in scifi are able to decompress various compartments of a ship which would neutralize fire. The other reason being many scifi ship designs limit the amount of combustible materials onboard a ship.



Rat said:


> When we give people floation devices so they can stay floating in water if they fall off a deck etc and also exposure suits for the cold waters. Space is objectively more hostile than the oceans as we can least float ontop and still breath in oceans. If the depicted enviroment is FTL travel, advanced ships etc, you would expect some form of cost effective PPE measures for ships more than life pods. (some dont have them, or have them in terrible places)


Naval ships have an open deck which they can fall off of, but a spaceship has no equivalent(excluding an Imperial Light Cruiser). The likelihood of an astronaut falling out of the ship is much lower for there are more failings that must take place for a spaceship's compartment to be opened to space.



Rat said:


> The franchise that annoys me the most in this regard is star wars. Mainly because the empires fleet is made for war, and is sort of based on WW2 tactics. Instead of patrol ships when they have no enemies, or explained enemies in the films to need a load of capital ships for fighting capital ships for, they needed patrol ships for fighting pirates and criminals.


The Tarkin Doctrine explains this in the Star Wars universe. The Empire has a "Rule By Fear" approach to their fleet/military. This is the same reason TIE fighters don't have shields. They rather have more fighters to intimidate the enemy opposed to have a balance between quantity and quality.



Rat said:


> along with the lack of point defence.


The Tarkin Doctrine also covers this as well. Also keep in mind that the Empire didn't have the greatest military minds, excluding Grand Admiral Thrawn, but even Thrawn didn't think nor fight like an Imperial.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2021)

Anarax said:


> Fire isn't as big as a threat to a futuristic spaceship for two main reasons. The first being most spaceships depicted in scifi are able to decompress various compartments of a ship which would neutralize fire. The other reason being many scifi ship designs limit the amount of combustible materials onboard a ship.



Any system to put out a fire would fall under FPE, and i would argue the decompression system may be the worse and relies on compartments(somethign also missing or not given enough attention to).  But you still need adequate PPE for the sitaution so if you make a system where you deompress a segment to put out a fire the crew needs to still have vaacume suits and oxygen tanks on hand for the duration.   I dont think i have seen any that has people with on hand Breathing aperatus (shall be written as BA from now on) or pressure suits.    Closest i have seen is for the expanse is suiting up for combat duration. (and yes its fine for some really poor ship and a captain that doesnt care and is under no legal obgligation to probide it not to, it wouldnt for a prestigious and depicted contempary navy to or flag ships from their nations, its normally not out of legal action you provide PPE to people anyway its for their own safety)

A system of deploying Co2 or something like that would probbly work better than venting your atmosphere to the void.  Electrical fires would probbly still be pretty big threat for obvious reasons. 




Anarax said:


> Naval ships have an open deck which they can fall off of, but a spaceship has no equivalent(excluding an Imperial Light Cruiser). The likelihood of an astronaut falling out of the ship is much lower for there are more failings that must take place for a spaceship's compartment to be opened to space.



That would have been an example of appropriate PPE for a situation, the equivlent would be not having adequate fire prevention equipment on a warship.  (which we all know by now is a very bad idea and fire can sink any ship)    If in the situation of general space threat and combat duties, it would be holes being put in the ship by another one or by general debris in space.   Or if you ever need to quickly vacate the craft for what ever reason.    Say bailing in a long term suit is that crafts escape plan as opposed to a dedicated life craft.  (still a better idea but that could work if they wernt invented for setting yet or as a back up if the pods disabled)






Anarax said:


> The Tarkin Doctrine explains this in the Star Wars universe. The Empire has a "Rule By Fear" approach to their fleet/military. This is the same reason TIE fighters don't have shields. They rather have more fighters to intimidate the enemy opposed to have a balance between quantity and quality.



I dont think they explain that in the films, but they still dont do anything 3D in the films as far as i know barring the fighter sized space craft.   that would be a discussion for another day.  the usage of point defence should have been rolled out the moment half their navy keeps getting sunk by small craft. 


Fundementally my issue is if you look into contempary navies and health and safety regulations you can figure out what would work.   The writers i have seen havent looked into contempary equipment or regulations.  (i can forgive maybe with advisor and pending navy from 1950-1980's pending what it is specfically)

In my breif look for flash gear and smoke hoods for the royal navy i have found out the first modern smoke hood was patented in 1912 and flash gear was issued from the battle of Jutland on.    I dont know if smoke hoods were common on royal navy ships pre Falklands war, but they definately were after due to things that burn toxic burning toxic and killing several people. (they were rolled out in many other navies after that a well or when they were allowed to access the information)  Logic would dictate if things that burn with toxic fumes start to burn you need BA, you can at least somewhat deal with non toxic smoke without them. 

Id consider being spaced the space equilvent of falling overboard and is such a  obvious hazard that prority would be given to PPE for it as fire is allready covered.  100% covered know, you would be deemed sub par and a sub par design if it is forgotten.    the main issue in reality is largely training as opposed to equipment for navies, i dont really know dates that well but definately by WW2 there was a definitive standard for PPE equipment wise globally and you generally had to meet it if you didnt want outdated ships, training was the main issue.  Like IJN ships had equal damage control equipment but worse damage control doctrine to USN ships. 


Sort of takes me out of it and makes me slightly disapointed they dont include the nuance and mundande activities and overlooked things. (given overlooking damage control is why many ships have been sunk) would be nice for overlooked things not to be overlooked.   I do also overlook some mundane things but its not helped by more depictions overlooking it than not, i dont exactly have to perform DC on a sinking warship under fire that often for the naunces to be drilled in my head, or crawl out of a burning building.    It is very much true if you get told something enough times its true irrelivent if it is.   (shown is to be synonomous with told here)   Id argubly state for things that can save lives its best to drill people in correct doctrine for it than to slowly erode their knowledge on the subject they were taught.  Rantings for another day anyway this has gone on long enough. 

Addendum: excuse any spelling mistakes i proof read it a little and some may have escaped my examination


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2021)

yak sao said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comm...w_oc/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share



Just watched, thats apt.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 23, 2021)

Rat said:


> But you still need adequate PPE for the sitaution so if you make a system where you deompress a segment to put out a fire the crew needs to still have vaacume suits and oxygen tanks on hand for the duration.


The compartments to decompress are evacuated beforehand



Rat said:


> If in the situation of general space threat and combat duties, it would be holes being put in the ship by another one or by general debris in space. Or if you ever need to quickly vacate the craft for what ever reason. Say bailing in a long term suit is that crafts escape plan as opposed to a dedicated life craft. (still a better idea but that could work if they wernt invented for setting yet or as a back up if the pods disabled)


If we deconstruct what PPE is it helps us see what can be used in its place, or how the very definition of PPE changes. For example, Star Trek vessels aren't worried about PPE concerning mirco-fractures for they have forcefields. The main deflector is also responsible to deflecting various hazards as well.    



Rat said:


> I dont think they explain that in the films,


That's a major point of this conversation, there is so much information in the Star Wars expanded Universe that explains most if not all of what we're talking about.



Rat said:


> they still dont do anything 3D in the films as far as i know barring the fighter sized space craft. that would be a discussion for another day.


I see your point, but it's still three-dimensional combat. The opening of Revenge of the Sith is a great example of 3D combat. Star trek also has numerous examples as well.



Rat said:


> the usage of point defence should have been rolled out the moment half their navy keeps getting sunk by small craft.


Half their fleet is a little high of an estimation. Point-defense was there during the age of the Republic, but the Empire has a different approach to combat than the Republic did. Fear and intimidation is the Empire's approach to combat, thus their vessel's design changes to suite that approach. Wanting to outgun, outnumber and overpower your opponent with sheer firepower isn't going to produce the most balanced ship design.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 26, 2021)

Anarax said:


> The compartments to decompress are evacuated beforehand



if they can be and some people wont be left in them. And if its a appriate response to a small fire that can be put out with hand held devices or portable ones in a important area you need to keep running and could if you rolled out BA and FPE.




Anarax said:


> If we deconstruct what PPE is it helps us see what can be used in its place, or how the very definition of PPE changes. For example, Star Trek vessels aren't worried about PPE concerning mirco-fractures for they have forcefields. The main deflector is also responsible to deflecting various hazards as well.



Yet they dont have seats for everyone nor seatbelts on the seats which would be PPE.   (and thats why everyone gets ejected)   and i think in greter star trek lore sections of ships etc have been vented to space and there is no redundency if the force fields fail.   This still plays into the lack of armour they wear for anything even  just bump helmets if they cant make anything to stop the pahsers etc.   You can descontruct some and the need for it, but there are still the need for backups and they are alcking in other fundemental constant issues.   (like they can still get stabbed or shot by a combatant, trip, get their eye poked out by a tree when walkign through it bang their head agaisnt something or a joint so fourth)




Anarax said:


> That's a major point of this conversation, there is so much information in the Star Wars expanded Universe that explains most if not all of what we're talking about.


If i recall expanded has been ruled as not cannon now or selectively cannon, i dont really wan tto get into semantics lore arguments.  but you can really only take whats been done in the films to assess the films.




Anarax said:


> I see your point, but it's still three-dimensional combat. The opening of Revenge of the Sith is a great example of 3D combat. Star trek also has numerous examples as well.


Star treks done it more if i recall, it was more directed at star wars doing it in a limited fashion in films.       Star trek has a tendancy to do it with small vessels though until i think DS9.   At least shown anyway.   If i recall DS9 since its more combat based has a lot of the main ships inverting around each other etc.

Just looked up the opening i wouldnt call it such, you see all the capital ships in level with each other and the smaller craft in 3D, you dont ever really see a capital ship move from one level to another or angle itself.   They just appear in that level and stay there unless they get shot and fall. (somehow)   I dont think the later star wars films do it diffrently either.     It would also show a issue with the deisgn of no directional thrusters.  Or bring up the magic engines issue.




Anarax said:


> Half their fleet is a little high of an estimation. Point-defense was there during the age of the Republic, but the Empire has a different approach to combat than the Republic did. Fear and intimidation is the Empire's approach to combat, thus their vessel's design changes to suite that approach. Wanting to outgun, outnumber and overpower your opponent with sheer firepower isn't going to produce the most balanced ship design.



Seems like its more of a giant ex Machina honestly.  Its not that hard to shove  PD on ships and if you look at WW2 as the war went on retro fits shoved more and more AA on ships. (to the extent some didnt have the crew capacity to actually hold the extra men needed for the AA batteries to be manned)  thats how much enthisise they put on it.  Among changes in what weapons were used for the role near constantly.   And even if tehy couldnt would a roll out in specfic ships for the purpose make more sense?   Or shove a destroyer or two as escorting vessles to deal with it.  i dont think you really see the smaller ships in the films either.

And what good is outgunning somone if your ship is built to fight a capital ship soley and your enemy doesnt have them (or in comprative numbers)as you own most of the know galexy and are mainly polciing it with said vessels.   ( i could get a contigent for a outsider invasion but thats EU and outside scope of films)  You see the issue histrocally of a navy dumping its budget into fighting another one lead to increases in piracy and crimianlity in the waters.   you cant police your waters with a aircraft carrier. Its not made for it, its made to transport and deploy aircraft.     And in more dated terms you cant with a first rate, its made to fight anoher ship of the line not some Sloop.

I cant really suspend disbelief that the umpeeth ship got destroyed over a glaring and obvious weakness the umpteeth time thats fairly easy to fix in retrospect.  dont even get me started of giant exposed bridges as well.   Its something like 10,000 or more men dead with each ship destroyed as well. (i think the crew compliment is more) Still a lot of men to go with one ship even if you own the known galaxy.

Addednum:  I think i covered everything.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 26, 2021)

Rat said:


> if they can be and some people wont be left in them. And if its a appriate response to a small fire that can be put out with hand held devices or portable ones in a important area you need to keep running and could if you rolled out BA and FPE.



You were talking about major fires before, in the co text of shipwide threats. Decompression is still a highly-efficient method.



Rat said:


> Yet they dont have seats for everyone nor seatbelts on the seats which would be PPE. (and thats why everyone gets ejected) and i think in greter star trek lore sections of ships etc have been vented to space and there is no redundency if the force fields fail.


Inertial dampeners. They also have seatbelts in the new star trek movies.



Rat said:


> If i recall expanded has been ruled as not cannon now or selectively cannon


Incorrect, non-canon categorized as "Legends, it's clearly defined what is and isn't.



Rat said:


> i dont really wan tto get into semantics lore arguments.


Who's arguing? We're exchanging ideas and outlooks. However, I think there's a lot of Star Wars lore that answers many of these questions.



Rat said:


> but you can really only take whats been done in the films to assess the films.


No you don't, the films are a small piece of the story. The expanded universe has been used as the groundwork for the Mandalorian and other characterizations as well. The EU is just as valid as the movies.



Rat said:


> Just looked up the opening i wouldnt call it such, you see all the capital ships in level with each other and the smaller craft in 3D, you dont ever really see a capital ship move from one level to another or angle itself. They just appear in that level and stay there unless they get shot


So you have to see the ship move for it to be categorized as 3D? They're positioned 3 dimensionally and are engaging 3 dimensionally. It's still 3 dimensional.



Rat said:


> And what good is outgunning somone if your ship is built to fight a capital ship


It's the Empires approach, they use different strategies/tactics, that's what causes their ship designs to be unbalanced.



Rat said:


> you cant police your waters with a aircraft carrier. Its not made for it, its made to transport and deploy aircraft. And in more dated terms you cant with a first rate, its made to fight anoher ship of the line not some Sloop.


It's a different universe, different time, different species and it's in space. There are going to be different methods.



Rat said:


> I cant really suspend disbelief that the umpeeth ship got destroyed over a glaring and obvious weakness the umpteeth time thats fairly easy to fix in retrospect. dont even get me started of giant exposed bridges as well. Its something like 10,000 or more men dead with each ship destroyed as well. (i think the crew compliment is more) Still a lot of men to go with one ship even if you own the known galaxy.



Their ships have weakness, yes. We agree on that, but every design has weaknesses.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2021)

Rat said:


> if they can be and some people wont be left in them. And if its a appriate response to a small fire that can be put out with hand held devices or portable ones in a important area you need to keep running and could if you rolled out BA and FPE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Star trek also has a massive nerd base that spends a lot of time explaining how whatever works. 

So we could just google trek force shield and get a lot of made up information about them.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 27, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Star trek also has a massive nerd base that spends a lot of time explaining how whatever works.
> 
> So we could just google trek force shield and get a lot of made up information about them.



I mean fiction and fantasy in general just gets the "magic" excuse for everything, basically exusing bad writing, plot holes etc and not well thought out concepts.     Unless something is explained diffrent its meant to be a anaolog to the world.  in other words unless you explain why these people can fly or disobey the laws of gravity they should be.    Because apparnty if you slap fantasy on it nothing has to make sense anymore or be bound by any sort of logic or reason, contuality or structure. (thats surrelaism and another topic for another day)

the obvious really theoratical **** in sci fi is the folly of it, i forget the fancy wording but its the "it just works" part of it.  But only the things in that catogory get that excuse, a convetional firearm being desinged so poorly it wouldnt function doesnt get coverd by it.   I neve rreally like non stringent rules for the magic devices in media anyway it just breeds ex machinas.   Maybe you shouldnt write a charcter into a situation they cant get out of realstically in the world or without breaking the rules of the world.  Or without some crap appearing out of nowhere.  


I swear there is a fancy word for a magic device in fantasy/fiction.  You in some settings need some engine or something that cant really be explained that just has to work, as expalined before for sci fi thats normally FTL.   In some fantasy world it might by why X thing gives who ever magic or has magical properties. 

Addendun: God every time somone gets insta incapcitated indefinately from a stun gun or taser annoys me to hell.  Stun gun wouldnt do anything, taser wouldnt be long lasting only duration of the shock.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 27, 2021)

Rat said:


> I mean fiction and fantasy in general just gets the "magic" excuse for everything, basically exusing bad writing, plot holes etc and not well thought out concepts.     Unless something is explained diffrent its meant to be a anaolog to the world.  in other words unless you explain why these people can fly or disobey the laws of gravity they should be.    Because apparnty if you slap fantasy on it nothing has to make sense anymore or be bound by any sort of logic or reason, contuality or structure. (thats surrelaism and another topic for another day)
> 
> the obvious really theoratical **** in sci fi is the folly of it, i forget the fancy wording but its the "it just works" part of it.  But only the things in that catogory get that excuse, a convetional firearm being desinged so poorly it wouldnt function doesnt get coverd by it.   I neve rreally like non stringent rules for the magic devices in media anyway it just breeds ex machinas.   Maybe you shouldnt write a charcter into a situation they cant get out of realstically in the world or without breaking the rules of the world.  Or without some crap appearing out of nowhere.
> 
> ...



Phasers on stun apparently don't work like tazers.

Well according to this random guy.





The stun effect of a phaser would be much more serious than people give it credit for. If I wanted to kill you I could shoot you anywhere with the phaser and drop you. Then walk over and finish you off. I barely have to aim the thing.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 27, 2021)

Rat said:


> I mean fiction and fantasy in general just gets the "magic" excuse for everything, basically exusing bad writing, plot holes etc and not well thought out concepts.     Unless something is explained diffrent its meant to be a anaolog to the world.  in other words unless you explain why these people can fly or disobey the laws of gravity they should be.    Because apparnty if you slap fantasy on it nothing has to make sense anymore or be bound by any sort of logic or reason, contuality or structure. (thats surrelaism and another topic for another day)
> 
> the obvious really theoratical **** in sci fi is the folly of it, i forget the fancy wording but its the "it just works" part of it.  But only the things in that catogory get that excuse, a convetional firearm being desinged so poorly it wouldnt function doesnt get coverd by it.   I neve rreally like non stringent rules for the magic devices in media anyway it just breeds ex machinas.   Maybe you shouldnt write a charcter into a situation they cant get out of realstically in the world or without breaking the rules of the world.  Or without some crap appearing out of nowhere.
> 
> ...


True for fantasy, not for sci fi. There's people figuring out exactly how everything in sci fi work, and going to 'magic' is a major no-no.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2021)

Rat said:


> I swear there is a fancy word for a magic device in fantasy/fiction. You in some settings need some engine or something that cant really be explained that just has to work,



Yeah.

Quantum.


----------



## jobo (Feb 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Quantum.


the answer to the currently insurmountable problems with space travel will certainly be found in quantum mechanics if those answers do indeed exist at all

as above traveling interstella distances is possible just return journeys are impossible, so they are only one way trips, that is either they take several human life times just to get to something near by, so your relying on space babies to finish the journey or if a high % of light speed is achievable, time dilation means everyone you knew is dead, in fact 100s /thousands of years have gone and  the whole cavillation has past

and the rather thorny issue of artificial gravity, which sci fi generally just invents as its necessary for the plot, gluing yourself magnetically to the floor as in the expanse will stop you floating about but will do nothing for the physical degeneration you suffer, spending even a month on the ISS leads to assort of physical problems

so your left with drums that spin, constant acceleration of 9 m/s/s or sorting out the quantum nature of gravity, which they currently don't understand at all, in fact they dont know if it is quantum and if it isnt they understand it even less than they thought they did


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 28, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> True for fantasy, not for sci fi. There's people figuring out exactly how everything in sci fi work, and going to 'magic' is a major no-no.



There is normally something in it which falls under it.  Similar rules apply for fantasy and sci fi though.   Although like i said true sci fi would have as much as can be explained explained and follow  its rules stringently.    (still the FTL drive is normally the magic element to it)





drop bear said:


> Phasers on stun apparently don't work like tazers.
> 
> Well according to this random guy.
> 
> ...



Space Elf magic, thats how you explain that.   I kind of dont understand why they dont just issue them out on perma stun then or locked to stun, in star tek some factions have weapons that can only kill.


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2021)

Just so I'm keeping up here.  Do you guys think star wars is fantasy or science fiction?  Star Trek?


----------



## jobo (Feb 28, 2021)

Steve said:


> Just so I'm keeping up here.  Do you guys think star wars is fantasy or science fiction?  Star Trek?


fantasy sci fi.

that is its fiction but the science is fantasy


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2021)

Rat said:


> There is normally something in it which falls under it.  Similar rules apply for fantasy and sci fi though.   Although like i said true sci fi would have as much as can be explained explained and follow  its rules stringently.    (still the FTL drive is normally the magic element to it)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Might still need to cut through a wall or heat a rock.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2021)

Steve said:


> Just so I'm keeping up here.  Do you guys think star wars is fantasy or science fiction?  Star Trek?



You could argue star wars with its wizards and magic swords as fantasy.


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> You could argue star wars with its wizards and magic swords as fantasy.


That's what I was thinking.  And then the bombs that drop in outer space, the force, midichlorians and such don't wreck the story.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2021)

Steve said:


> That's what I was thinking.  And then the bombs that drop in outer space, the force, midichlorians and such don't wreck the story.



Actually star trek has interventionist gods. Which is a classic fantasy trope as well.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Actually star trek has interventionist gods. Which is a classic fantasy trope as well.


There is a convincing theory that the Q Continuum's power is technology-based opposed to divinely-based. Regardless, there are other beings in the Star Trek universe that have cosmic/fantasy like powers.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Mar 1, 2021)

Id consider them both science fantasy at this rate.   Star trek just gets fame because it sort of normalised the genre.   Doesnt mean its any good, i cant really re watch it.   (and i didnt even watch the orginal, i cant really rewatch any of them)  Although its series based i always just shoved this as a mixture of orginal and next generation.  Not DS9 Voyger, enterprise etc. 

I cant really watch star wars, at least the first 6 films are  tolerable though, the ad infantium incompotence of enemies i cant enjoy anymore. (and lets be fair you just watch hong kog films to see people fly about punching and kicking each other with various levels of gore)


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Mar 1, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Might still need to cut through a wall or heat a rock.



You can do that on stun, presumably it still heats it up. it will jus take longer pending on what type of stone it is. (and if you are heating it up it doesnt matter so much)


----------

