My Rantings On Sci Fi Space Combat

[Deleted member 39746]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Shaking Star Trek GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

[Deleted member 39746]

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.

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?

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]

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".

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)

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]

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]

How much coffee have you two drank?

 

[Tez3]

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]

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.