My Rantings On Sci Fi Space Combat

[Punchy]

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

 

[Deleted member 39746]

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]

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]

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)

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

 

[jobo]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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)

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]

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

Just watched, thats apt.

 

[Anarax]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.




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)



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.



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.




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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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)

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.

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]

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