posted
The way ship-to-ship combat has been portrayed in recent Star Trek really bugs me. I know it's cool to see starships wheel about like fighter planes, fire phaser and torps at point blank ranges, and fly through clouds of debris, but should combat be like this?
1. With the speed of weaponry and of ships, you'd think that combatants would always be very far apart, at least 1 light second (300,000 km) away. I like how combat was usually shown on TOS. Ships usually were out of eyeball range, such that two ships were rarely seen in the same shot. Ships fired on each other at ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers. In TNG, DS9, and Voyager, on the other hand, ships are usually only a few ship-lengths apart, blasting away at point blank range. Are weapons so poorly targeted and so much weaker than shields that the only chance of causing damage is by firing at a range of a few hundred meters?
2. Speed of ships. Why does combat always seem to taking place at about 100 miles per hour? I know that fighter planes able to fly mach 2.5 dogfight at less than mach 1. This is a function of weapons range and targeting ability. Do starships have a similar problem? To me this is something like having fighter planes taxiing around on a tarmac, chasing each other and throwing grenades. I can understand why combat in orbit or around a space station might be slow, but what about combat in deep space? You'd think that ships would want to go as fast as they can to avoid being hit.
3. Is this what the viewer wants? Are viewers so conditioned from watching Star Wars movies that they expect ship to ship combat to be like a WWII fighter plane movie? Would fans find more realistic combat boring? Is what is shown really what the producers think is happening or is it only a visual style, an artistic representation of combat in which speeds are made to appear lower and ranges are made to appear closer for our benefit?
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
I agree, it's ridiculous. The thing is that most audiences don't know the difference. Most people don't concern themselves with "minor technicalities" such as ship ranges, and the TV producers are clued into this. They know that less realistic, flashier combat scenes will catch the eye of about 90% of the audience, and to hell with those of us that would like to see a realistic situation. It's all about numbers, dumb it down for the masses.
What makes it worse is that tactical officers can often be heard to say something like "Klingon Bird of Prey 1000km to starboard", and we are promptly shown a point blank flyby, which further insults our intelligence.
------------------ "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams
posted
It all started with the Wrath of Khan. Due to the nature of Khan's ambush plan - he didn't open fire until the vessels were very close.
When the next movies and series began, the directors simply carried on from here - seeing it as an established precendent - instead of the exception it really was - and ignoring the more "factual" battles from TOS.
------------------ Faster than light - no left or right.
posted
Define realistic. I mean, if we wanted to go all out we probably wouldn't see starships at all. Just planets flinging chunks of matter at each other at relativistic velocities and waiting several centuries.
However, to quantify the issue, which would you rather play: Independance War or TIE Fighter? I'm not sure, myself.
posted
I mean "realistic" within the Star Trek universe. In this universe we have multithousand-ton (even multimillion-ton) starships capable of travelling at hundreds or thousands times the speed of light. They carry weapons much more powerful than what we have today that can also travel at or beyond light speed. Yet, battles in Star Trek are fought with ships blasting away at each other from ranges of a few hundred meters. When ships pass each other, they seem to be traveling even slower than cars! This combat resembles that of old-time sailing ships more than even fighter plane combat. So, even within the admittedly unrealistic Star Trek universe, combat doesn't make sense.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
In partial defense of the "dogfight" way of fighting, both the Defiant's and the bird of prey's main weapons have very short duration, so they need to be closer.
In my opinion, the defiant-fights (rescuing Dukat, Tom Riker, "Shattered Mirror") are the most exciting battles of Trek. They use interesting and good maneuvers "one hit could finish us. -Let's not get hit then!" Or the cool observations in Defiant's first encounter. "The Jem 'Hadar will come in slower this time".
These ARE the things we want to hear from battles, that they do care what happens, not just "Fight commencing! We fight for five more minutes, then we win!", and all is well again. Same with "The die is cast", we want to see what's going on, not just "bridge-view", with a few rumbles and sparks signalling that they got hit...
posted
Granted, it might be a challenge to make long distance starship combat look "edge of the seat" exciting but I'm sure it could be done.
Considering the ships are hundreds of metres in length with hundreds of people on board, it seems a bit silly to have dogfights. The earlier analogy of sailships describes it perfectly, but instead of inaccurate cannons, the weapons involved are precision phasers and photon torpedoes, to which a starship's evasive manouevres should present little difficulty.
------------------ "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams
posted
It is unrealistic for the larger ships -- Galor, Galaxy, etc. -- to dogfight ...
But Klingon BOPs, Jem'Hadar fighters, and the Defiant seem to be built for fast manuverability and dogfighting, frankly. I don't understand the beef about their fighting styles.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** Card-Carrying Member of the FlareAPAO *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
posted
I think it's also unrealistic for small ships to dogfight at the ranges shown on TV. These ships are following each other at just a few ship lengths and appear to be traveling very very slowly, much more slowly than fighter planes. If these ships are capable of travelling at the warp speed or at high sublight speeds, why do they slow down to the speed of a Toyota to fight? If they don't slow down and are travelling at high sublight speeds, why are they so close together?
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
While (as I far as I care) sublight "dogfighting" is an acceptable use of artistic license to make the show more exciting, I think saying the starships are moving as fast as a Toyota is a bit unfair.
1) In many shots the "camera" could be "tracking" in the same direction as the subject ship, albeit at a slightly lower speed. Obviously this is the case when we see a ship pass by at warp or impulse, as it lumbers by far more slowly than the ship "should" be going.
2)Even in the DS9 battles where ships have passed by one another going in opposite directions, the ships are still doing at least 200-300 m/s, based on how quickly they travel a distance equal to the ship's length. That's about 1000 km/h. I don't know many Toyotas that can do that.
------------------ "And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking." -DT on arguing with Omega, April 30
posted
There are aspects of Star Trek that I find fault with, and this is not one of them.
Ship combat in space is based on our interpretation of the natural laws of the universe and has no precedent in our society. So, I feel the space battles in Star Trek are a speculation of what could happen.
And the only fault I find with the battles is the presence of sound in space. There is a proven fact that there is no sound in space. Other than that, I am content with the battles.
posted
Tom: The example of ships passing is a case where the too-low speeds are most apparent. Three hundred meters per second or 1000 kph is only 1/1,000,000 of light speed, which is pretty damn slow for a ship capable of warp speed. My comparison with a Toyota was going a bit far, but the speed of 1000 kph you suggest is only an order of maghitude above the speed of a Toyota but is 6 orders of magnitude below light speed! I just can't understand why ships capable of such high speeds would slow down so much and make themselves so vulnerable to opposing fire.
And the distances (a few ship lengths) at which they are following (to allow both ships in the same frame) seems way to close. If they are actually travelling high percentages of c, then only a slight decrease in speed or turning of the lead ship would send the following ship crashing into its rear. Even if they are travelling 1000 kph (which I think is ridiculously slow), the tight maneuvers they seem to making would be unlikely and the following distance is still too close. I don't think that real jet fighter follow each other so closely Another thing to think about is the blast radius of an exploding warp core: you'd think that anything within a few hundred (or thousand?) meters wouldbe consumed.
This close-range dogfighting paradigm doesn't really fit space combat. But I guess we're stuck with it. Like military commanders who are always preparing to fight the last war, we are still fixated on the idea of fighter planes, but this time in space. In the late 1800s, the form of combat thought to be most likely in the future was between gigantic "land leviathans" or "air leviathans," which were basically dreadnoughts (battleships) bristling with guns but transformed into tracked armoured vehicles or airships. Early science fiction stories also featured similar combat in space between giant spaceships.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
In TNG, the first and second episodes, there was a Warp speed battle. However, it seemed like the Enterprise couldn't really do any evasive moves. It seemed like no course change could occur without pulling out of warp. I wonder if that could have had an edge in the current battle tactics used.
Another thing from those episodes is when the Enterprise had to go Warp 8 in the opposite direction, they just activated Warp drive a bit, and that really increased there ability to move. So, maybe the ships are fighting, sometimes, more like fighters because they are using their warp fields to give them an edge. Of course, with any improvement like that, the enemy might have a counter for it. If they do, then the ships could be reduced to a slower mode of combat. Also, in order to run, they have to be facing where they want to go, then hit Warp.
I know this is a far fetched idea, but in the versions of Star Trek I saw, the ships generally followed this rule.
Also, in the movie First Contact, the Borg ship (I hope) didn't proceed to Earth at impulse power when it was engaged in battle. So, that indicates that Warp speed battles still occur, just not within Solar Systems, places with gravity fields, etc. It would be a bit more interesting to see a few more Warp Battles in Star Trek (The Borg cube, chased by about 100 or so ships, firing at it. The joy of Warp, bad evasive action! Would be interesting. )
I'm not sure, myself.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
