Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think you lot are missing the point of these types of movies. They arnt meant to exact, or even very scientific. They are meant to make people excited, and enjoy the movie. Doing things to exact specifications usually bores the average person. Yea sure, if they did the Republic Army correctly, there would of been a mega feth ton of troopers, and a mega feth ton of everything else, and the battles would of taken 20 minutes to go 20 yards, because there would be to many people to kill on screen.

It works in the reverse too though, most "Historic" movies have to bump up numbers and visuals to make it look exciting. For example, in the movie Troy, when they Greeks were coming to the beaches of Troy, they originally had about the same number of ships, and history suggest they had, but the problem was, once spread across the screen, it looked like 20 ships instead, so they added a mega feth ton of ships to make it looks good.


Really, when it comes to movies or games, who gives a gak if its bang on accurate? Id rather it be fun and engaging then "Oh hey............thats actually the correct way it would happen yanno.................................... *other movie goer* Oh yea?.................................................................*back to me* ............................yup................................."

Casualty reports for the Earth-Minbari War were at something along the lines of 250,000 humans dead. It's implied that they're being completely decimated, but the death toll is really relatively low. Same goes for the total bombardment of Narn. I think at one point in the series its reported that only 60,000 or something died. Unless Narn had a really low population, a lot more would've died in the bombing.

Amaya wrote:Casualty reports for the Earth-Minbari War were at something along the lines of 250,000 humans dead. It's implied that they're being completely decimated, but the death toll is really relatively low. Same goes for the total bombardment of Narn. I think at one point in the series its reported that only 60,000 or something died. Unless Narn had a really low population, a lot more would've died in the bombing.

where are you getting that?

At a certain point, scale gets to a size where the human mind can no longer relate to it, hence robbing it of emotional value in entertainment.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Casualty reports for the Earth-Minbari War were at something along the lines of 250,000 humans dead. It's implied that they're being completely decimated, but the death toll is really relatively low. Same goes for the total bombardment of Narn. I think at one point in the series its reported that only 60,000 or something died. Unless Narn had a really low population, a lot more would've died in the bombing.

where are you getting that?

And Now For a Word episode 15, season 2

Agreed that is painfully low (Narn side). I could see 250,000 as a major blow to a navy, but thats low too if you're bringing counting infantry and such. I am assuming they are involved too with all the Garibaldi tales.

Star Wars?!!

It would be easier to get rescources, through methods such as asteroid mining. So The size of the navies aren't really a problem in my regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:What you're talking about is "Space opera".

It isn't supposed to be realistic. Space is just used for an exciting background, much like heroic science fantasy.

There are actually quite a few realistic space operas. Alistair reynolds's Revelation Space universe is one example.

No doubt books could be done better. But no-one is going watch a space battle taking place hundreds of kilometers apart where the ships aren't even visible to each other.

Seriously, realism does not translate to all mediums in all instances.

Also, a modern day army takes like 10 support personnel to put one Grunt on the front lines, and that's to project that grunt a few hundred miles. Now you want the ability to project that grunt across the universe? Yeah, it's probably going to take a few more than 10 support people.

The navies would probably be massive compared to the actual ground forces. You don't really need as many ground troops when you threaten or outright decimate continents with a few space ships.

And do you really expect authors/directors/writers to take the time and research necessary to make a 'realistic' space opera when they can do less and still get the Smiths to pay $12 a head at the box office?

Someone is over thinking this.

I think having a grounded, 'realistic' discussion about space warfare in the future is one thing, but then to criticize entertainers over their lack of realism and scale is a bit silly.

Easy E wrote:At a certain point, scale gets to a size where the human mind can no longer relate to it, hence robbing it of emotional value in entertainment.

Agreed. You tell someone that the Oort Cloud is X billions of miles away, and they glaze over. Thats why you see science shows saying "We are in Detroit and this golf ball is the Sun, then this grain of sand IE the Earth, is 25 yards away, so the Oort Cloud is in Italy"


Kindda puts it into perspective

Ouze wrote:Battletech fails pretty bad at this in most respects, so far as have super-futuristic artillery that has a range of a couple of hundred yards and a travel time that would indicate they are moving at half the speed of a paintball.

Not to mention the old 3025 era fluff that has single lances of `Mechs (4) garrisoning entire planets.

4 `Mechs wouldn't be enough to tackle a large scale planetary rebellion let alone an invading military force, but it works perfectly if you want to have a lance on lance battle to decide the fate of a world.

Also, Battletech armor plating is amazing. Seriously, that gak is downright magical.

For a sense of scale, in WWII the US Military had a total of 16 million men and women in uniform.


2 million clone troopers for the whole galaxy is a pittance.

SickSix wrote:No doubt books could be done better. But no-one is going watch a space battle taking place hundreds of kilometers apart where the ships aren't even visible to each other.

Thats rather easy to answer, Space Combat is going to be all about signal battles like Titan Warfare. Space battles are going to be hundreds of thousands of miles apart but big ships equals big guns. So focus on whats going on on the bridges of the ships and the impacting hits on different ships.

I am shure a good director could pull it off with some equal good editing.

Also, Battletech armor plating is amazing. Seriously, that gak is downright magical.

Battletech has it like Gundam. They've weaponized plot armor, where weapons only deal damage when the story demands it

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

SickSix wrote:No doubt books could be done better. But no-one is going watch a space battle taking place hundreds of kilometers apart where the ships aren't even visible to each other.

Thats rather easy to answer, Space Combat is going to be all about signal battles like Titan Warfare. Space battles are going to be hundreds of thousands of miles apart but big ships equals big guns. So focus on whats going on on the bridges of the ships and the impacting hits on different ships.

I am shure a good director could pull it off with some equal good editing.

Do you think fighters would be of any value?

GalacticDefender wrote:It would be easier to get rescources, through methods such as asteroid mining. So The size of the navies aren't really a problem in my regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:What you're talking about is "Space opera".

It isn't supposed to be realistic. Space is just used for an exciting background, much like heroic science fantasy.

There are actually quite a few realistic space operas. Alistair reynolds's Revelation Space universe is one example.

Space Opera does not mean unrealistic, it's just that space operas tend to be unrealistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera

Star Wars is clearly a space opera in scale and is clearly unrealistic.

That probably has something to do with Space Opera's being another phrase for "fantasy in space"

I think a decent series of books that you'd like would be The Lost Fleet. It deals with interstellar dinstances pretty well - there's a lag in communications between ships due to the distances between them (ranging from seconds to hours), light works realistically in that, depending on how far away the enemy fleet is, you actually see what they were doing minutes or hours ago unless you're relatively 'close' and 'combat' involves formations of ships passing by each other so quickly that computers have to be used since humans are simply too slow. Fighters are never used, and smaller ships like destroyers and light cruiser get regularly chewed up/destroyed.

You still see Marines in use, but really only when an installation/ship needs to be taken/investigated. Most of the time the ships use giant metal rods that they can fire from half a star system away. Ships usually dodge them with ease, but against satellite bases, orbital guns and planets it's like using nuclear weapons without the fallout.

Amaya wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

SickSix wrote:No doubt books could be done better. But no-one is going watch a space battle taking place hundreds of kilometers apart where the ships aren't even visible to each other.

Thats rather easy to answer, Space Combat is going to be all about signal battles like Titan Warfare. Space battles are going to be hundreds of thousands of miles apart but big ships equals big guns. So focus on whats going on on the bridges of the ships and the impacting hits on different ships.

I am shure a good director could pull it off with some equal good editing.

Do you think fighters would be of any value?

See thats why I am not a movie director =o]

Only if they have the unobtainium power to actually cover those distances. I guess it would also depend on the universe, are there like millions of fleets of ships out there or are there not a lot? Are the ships mechanical or biological like the nids and invid? Fighters would be great for something like hive fleets or invid where taking losses is not that big of a deal if the end reward outways the loss in resources.

Then again I am just a geek on a keyboard so what do I know really?

Although the fluff is very inconsistant and often completely contradictory; 40k seems to have part of the scale down right. In some cases it may even be too big; which is the opposite problem

When it comes to the scale of space navies though, there's very little we have factually to base it on; because we (as a race) have never achieved it before. We have our water-based navies, and very limited spaceflight, and so assumptions can be made based upon those two; but there isn't really anything else we can compare. Any kind of science fiction dealing with these issues will have a healthy amount of assumptions and handwavium because there is so little actual reference. Whilst one ship may be sufficient for a water-based navy to, I don't know, land some troops and provide limited support. It will be very different in space due to the distances and complications involved, but since a water-based navy is the only real reference a science fiction writer has; thats what they will use.

A lot depends on the assumptions you make about the future universe.

For example it's often said that why bother having ground troops when you can just nuke a planet from orbit.

The obvious reason is that the planet has resources you want, which are less useful after having been nuked.

Thus, you need to send down troops.

One of my favorite "lack of scale" problems from sci-fi comes from BSG.

When the cylons first show up on New Caprica, they explain how they had no idea where the humans were hiding and only found them because they saw a nuclear explosion, which took place a year ago. But, that means they were only a light year away, which means that not only were they already super close, they were in the same solar system after a chase partway through a galaxy!

That's like you on the run from the cops, and they chase you all the way across Europe. But, then you manage to hide in the kitchen of a house with them in the living room. That, apparently, is a totally safe position and they'll never find you.

Kilkrazy wrote:A lot depends on the assumptions you make about the future universe.

For example it's often said that why bother having ground troops when you can just nuke a planet from orbit.

The obvious reason is that the planet has resources you want, which are less useful after having been nuked.

Thus, you need to send down troops.

Heh, that's one of the key elements for my scifi setting.

There is a limited number of habitable planets and usable resources. As such, it goes against common sense (and galactic military law) to ever use WMDs against a planet or in situations where fallout could potentially survive atmospheric entry from ship to ship combat. Infantry is required to secure planets.

Ground soldiers are also important for enforcing and pacifying civilian populations, guarding important ground/orbital stations, manning defences etc.

Also, assuming that there are rival, warring factions, there would be a need for at least a small ground force to capture/disable/destroy/etc installations held by the enemy that cannot be done using ships alone.