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.

Not much of a starwars fans other than the original films but, I'm wondering who came up with the port and starboard firing battleships (in space for any more smart arses). I would assume it was 40k, as only the later star wars films had those. I know there is tonnes of star wars lore, anyone know who came first or if it was even another source?

Real naval ships.

BFG is real-world sailing ships in space, so BFG copies the real-life broadside weapons of those ships.

Drager wrote:
Real naval ships.

That was lame.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Drager wrote:
Real naval ships.

That was lame.

But also true.

Heck I recall an old space film (humans Vs cat people I think) that was live action where the ships fired torpedoes either side where the launchers would rotate to fire left and right as required. Basically it recreates the sea battles in space.

In addition 3D movement is hard - heck even Star Trek you'll notice most ships meet each other "head on" at the same angle, same orientation. You never see a Romulan Warbird pointing its nose at the top/bottom of another ship. In something like Battlefleet or indeed any other 2D game its, again, repeated. BFG with the Imperials took it to the extreme end with rank after rank of guns to fire; but yes its basically copy-catting old ships of war with their side batteries of cannon

If your a traveling forward and can shoot forward, that makes more sence with faster things. Faster movement, faster shoting. Like a helicopter or a plane.

With boats that are big and slow, with a long reload time, there is an argument fiering from the side. You can sett yourself up in a position where you circle them and keep them in wiev while they can not shoot backwards.

 Niiai wrote:
If your a traveling forward and can shoot forward, that makes more sence with faster things. Faster movement, faster shoting. Like a helicopter or a plane.

With boats that are big and slow, with a long reload time, there is an argument fiering from the side. You can sett yourself up in a position where you circle them and keep them in wiev while they can not shoot backwards.

Also you can stack far more guns along a battleships sides because in space 3 dimensions doesn't really matter at all so it would make sense to stack them along a long hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Drager wrote:
Real naval ships.

That was lame.

But also true.

Heck I recall an old space film (humans Vs cat people I think) that was live action where the ships fired torpedoes either side where the launchers would rotate to fire left and right as required. Basically it recreates the sea battles in space.

In addition 3D movement is hard - heck even Star Trek you'll notice most ships meet each other "head on" at the same angle, same orientation. You never see a Romulan Warbird pointing its nose at the top/bottom of another ship. In something like Battlefleet or indeed any other 2D game its, again, repeated. BFG with the Imperials took it to the extreme end with rank after rank of guns to fire; but yes its basically copy-catting old ships of war with their side batteries of cannon

That it is true is self evident, he was trying to be a smart arse, but anyone reading the post would realise what I was talking about.

3D movement is not hard in space, look what NASA accomplishes, all their vectors and trajectories are well calculated before they thrust their engines and I'm sure the Imperium have far better experience at it, also its far easier, especially considering the amount of time ships have to maneuver; navel battles in space last hours if not days. It can take multiple hours for a single pass of two ships. They have all the time in the world to calculate these moves.

It’s not that combat in 3D is hard, just more math and angles. In deep space, it’s all relative anyway.

It’s 3D game mechanics that are rough. Generally the effort you get from adding that extra level of realism and complexity just ends up bogging down the game and not actually making it much more fun. Which is why almost all space combat games are 2D

except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

Starblazers/Space Battleship Yamato had port and starboard guns in the 70's. I can't think of anything earlier.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

There is no 'who used this first in sci-fi.'

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

There is no 'who used this first in sci-fi.'

There has to be a first. Finding the first, however, is impractical and a doomed venture to begin with.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Not much of a starwars fans other than the original films but, I'm wondering who came up with the port and starboard firing battleships (in space for any more smart arses). I would assume it was 40k, as only the later star wars films had those. I know there is tonnes of star wars lore, anyone know who came first or if it was even another source?

Star Destroyers in SW had port/starboard weapons in Episodes IV-VI (1977-1983) in movies & lore of the time. Battlestar Galactica in 1979. Space Battleship Yamato in 1974/75. And probably any # of examples from sci-fi novels, comics, & films from the 30s-onward.

And then along comes the 40k universe in '87. So 40k is well & truly late to the port/starboard party.

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s not that combat in 3D is hard, just more math and angles. In deep space, it’s all relative anyway.

It’s 3D game mechanics that are rough. Generally the effort you get from adding that extra level of realism and complexity just ends up bogging down the game and not actually making it much more fun. Which is why almost all space combat games are 2D

The old joke about how come in Star Trek, how comes ships always are on the same level and orientated with the same direction of 'up.' In terms of games, a big part of the problem is that on a physical table with models, having a meaningful vertical distance that doesn't interfere with moving ships around and past each other is difficult and fiddly.

The reason why the initial question is a stupid one and there is no real answer is because unless you have a perfectly spherical warship, you are always going to have a port side and a starboard side, a fore and an aft,, and for space faring ships, a topside and a belly. So the first time someone anywhere wrote about an armed space warship, you would've had port and starboard firing armament.

I'm vaguely reminded of one of the dumbest threads I ever saw on the Port Maw BFG board back in the day. Some dude was REALLY invested in pushing his houserule that ships should get to fire both port and starboard armament at the same target, because the game was set in space, so the ship could get spin around and fire both sides at the same target in a firing phase. Because if there's one thing that battleships and other big ass space craft in the setting is known for, it's being able to spin like a drill, pirouette like a ballerina, and go all death-blossom with all their guns.

The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell has a really nice.representation of space.combat at relativistic speeds and solar system scales. Deals with 3D issues and ultra high closing speeds.

The first person who imagined a space battleship with two 'broad sides', I presume. You can fit more guns on a long side. There should be dorsal and ventral batteries, too. Because 3D 'n' stuff.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

There is no 'who used this first in sci-fi.'

There has to be a first. Finding the first, however, is impractical and a doomed venture to begin with.

Agreed, the OP is a pointless question BECAUSE it's so clearly directly derived from naval combat. There's probably books from decades before Rogue Trader that describe space combat in similar ways to this, but there's so much fiction out there that finding trivial like this is practically impossible.

 Stux wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

There is no 'who used this first in sci-fi.'

There has to be a first. Finding the first, however, is impractical and a doomed venture to begin with.

Agreed, the OP is a pointless question BECAUSE it's so clearly directly derived from naval combat. There's probably books from decades before Rogue Trader that describe space combat in similar ways to this, but there's so much fiction out there that finding trivial like this is practically impossible.

Even a lot of old sci fi art just has ships made to fly in space. Its sorta so common, that i am not even sure when i first see it.

It would be easier to look for who first used _3D_oriented space combat.

I’ve been into wargames since the 70’s, and have not seen a 3D space combat tabletop rule set.

Fiction wise, I think the ‘Lensman’ series had spherical ships, but can’t remember if the combat described was 3D.

I'm pretty sure Edison's Conquest of Mars had such ships in 1898.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm pretty sure Edison's Conquest of Mars had such ships in 1898.

yeah space ships that are just "flying ships" is a reaaaaaaaaaaly old trope/

Yeah there's a lot of very early/classic space exploration where the ships are very much like real world ships in space - a bit like that Treasure Island animation that was made a shortwhile back (I think by Disney).



Also don't forget writing is like science, there very rarely is just one genius. In reality you get waves of understanding and fashions that pass through because multiple people will be inspired by and latch onto the same core concepts around the same sort of time. Even if they don't know each other they will pull together similar ideas. So you might well never find one single source that "started it" because not only will that source have other sources that inspired them, but another person a world away might have used the same theme.


Even the mighty Tolkien, who is oft noted as one of the great inspirations of our age in terms of fantasy, has his own inspirations and was not the only writer to do as he did.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except his point was valid, 99% of alll space naval action tends to take from surface naval action Star Wars and BFG both have their big banks of guns for the same reason a callback to old style. this ioos a trope in sci-fi space combat as old as the hills, eneugh so that it was outright teased in Wraith of Khan "he's thinking 2 dimensionally"

No it wasn't valid, we all know I was talking about the first to use the idea in space not original sea ships and he knew that.

I didn't know you meant that. I thought you were genuinely curious as to where the inspiration came from. Not everyone knows about real world ships of the relevant era. With the new caveat your question doesn't make much sense as others have said.

The way the original post is phrased, it comes off much like how some people wonder why 40k is ripping off Starcraft. It seems that a lot of people want to attribute 40k, or Star Wars for that matter, with a lot more original ideas because it is the earliest sci-fi they are familiar with. The actual truth is both universes are far more based on earlier ideas. No shame in that, 'There's nothing new under the sun' and such.

The issue I have is one of scale. The OP is talking about sources only some decades old could be the progenitor of the idea when it is likely more than a century old maybe even a couple centuries (or even 1000s of year depending how much the idea needs to be tied to sci-fi).

Think of this way. Space is a big open area filled with practically nothing but ether between the stars and planets. So long distances of wide open areas basically. Sounds an awfully like like sea travel would be the closest similar method of conveyance that would exist in the 19th or earlier century. So just to give the audience, or the author themselves, some sort of frame of reference it makes sense to base space/ether travel on sea vessels. And if a witter was going to include space battles they would obviously be based on the current (as in 19th century or earlier) naval battle techniques.

So I would probably start with the earliest sci-fi writing as start to locating this trope. By even mentioning IP that is 'only' 40 year old you are probably off by several times the age of those IPs. This idea is certainly more than a 100 years old. It probably becomes more of an issue of deciding what is sci-fi more at that point because there is probably some Greek/Roman, Chinese, viking, etc. epic with flying ships battling in the stars could probably meet most of what the OP is looking for without the trappings modern audiences would call sci-fi.

Here's something interesting. Look up 'Lightenings Viii' by Seamus Heaney. The poem talks about how the Annals of the Four Masters detail the monks at Clonmacnoise describing a ship's anchor descending from the heavens and getting caught on the monastery's church. A man descended from the ship and with the monks' help, freed the anchor and the ship sailed away into the clouds. For reference, Clonmacnoise was an active monastery from 544 - 1568. So the idea of a 'space ship' probably goes back to medieval times.

Star Wars battles more or less copy warfare from WW2 pacific, StarTrek from WW2 Atlantic theatre

BFG was designed as Skagerrak in Space

40k was late to the party of copy&paste navy battles in space

Than the design of space battleship is off most of time anyway as the most effective design would be a cube or sphere (Perry Rhodan says hello)

 kodos wrote:

Than the design of space battleship is off most of time anyway as the most effective design would be a cube or sphere (Perry Rhodan says hello)

Is that for general space faring though? Would it still hold true for space combat?

Genuine question, I'm wondering if combat is a more nuanced situation, where minimising silhouette from the front might be advantageous.

EDIT: Thinking about this more, it likely massively depends on how the weapons and targeting function in this scenario!

With regards to the question of naval architecture, mounting your batteries in broadsides isn't actually a bad idea.

Early on in the history of naval warfare, guns had poor accuracy and low effect, so more guns generally equaled better ships. You can't mount 150 guns in turrets, and you want to bring as much firepower to bear as you can.

The increase in weapon power, accuracy, and range necessitated a new approach to the warship design. The guns are too large and too heavy to mount in broadside batteries, and need to be mounted in revolving turrets so that the ship could use them in most directions without needing to have a second set of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Star Wars battles more or less copy warfare from WW2 pacific, StarTrek from WW2 Atlantic theatre

BFG was designed as Skagerrak in Space

40k was late to the party of copy&paste navy battles in space

Than the design of space battleship is off most of time anyway as the most effective design would be a cube or sphere (Perry Rhodan says hello)

I would argue with this. I think a flattened pyramid would be the most effective design.

A cube or sphere necessitates half or more of your batteries being out of engagement arc at any given time. Sizing is driven by weapon and drive system requirements; most everything else fits in between.

A flattened pyramid could engage with all batteries forward, no batteries aft, and 1/4 to 1/2 batteries to any given side. A flattened shape reduces its profile to incoming fire.

 Overread wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Drager wrote:
Real naval ships.

That was lame.

But also true.

Heck I recall an old space film (humans Vs cat people I think) that was live action where the ships fired torpedoes either side where the launchers would rotate to fire left and right as required. Basically it recreates the sea battles in space.

In addition 3D movement is hard - heck even Star Trek you'll notice most ships meet each other "head on" at the same angle, same orientation. You never see a Romulan Warbird pointing its nose at the top/bottom of another ship. In something like Battlefleet or indeed any other 2D game its, again, repeated. BFG with the Imperials took it to the extreme end with rank after rank of guns to fire; but yes its basically copy-catting old ships of war with their side batteries of cannon

That was "Wing Commander" with Freddie Prince Jr. That came out around 1999 or 2000 but the video game it was based on was like a decade earlier. Those cats were Kilrathi if my nerd brain remembers correctly.