Sigma
Inactive Member
After two (!!) years on SARP, I have come to a single conclusion about how starship combat is portrayed in our role play. That is: everyone has their own style and no one follows the actual guide on the wiki written by God knows who. Not saying that's a bad thing. We all know that this is a website that caters to the individual writer's various stylistic quirks.
I cannot claim to have read many plots' threads and become an expert on each GM or player's expectation of starship combat. To make up for that, I'm going to share the various approaches I take to writing starship combat and hope someone else shares theirs as well so that we might all learn something from each other.
1) The Star Wars Method: I love Star Wars and the ship battles are always fun to watch. But they're horribly dumb to write. From my understanding, Star Wars ship combat takes place at relatively low sublight speeds at visual range. Space being as vast as it is, that basically means you have to get really really REALLY close to your enemy. Weapons in the setting are also super short-ranged. The Death Star probably fired the longest shot in any of the films. And aimed fire is ... not very well aimed. Ships don't maneuver, they just fly towards each other, firing badly as they go.
An excellent example of someone using this method is the Mass Effect 3 ending fleet battle when the two sides are closing. Despite the countless reminders about how you gotta aim your guns properly, a lot of those opening shots tend to miss that front rank of Reaper ships. And not because of jamming or anything. After all, those kinetic rounds were just going in a direct line from their origin, which means that those dumb warships were just pointed at the wrong bloody angle.
Speaking of weapons, I note that Star Wars weapons tend to be energy based while missiles come in a distant second. Most warships don't have large magazines full of missiles. They just have a lot of laser guns. SARP differs with a broad range of weaponry from guided missiles, plasma, laser, aether, and good ol' railguns to name a few. Hence, our combat would be far less "simple" than the style pioneered by George.
Visually, it's a good style cos it puts us in a position to view the action. In SARP terms, I consider it to be the "melee" part of starship combat when both fleets have just gotten too entangled and are going at it ship to ship without any formations. At that point, it's every ship fending for itself first consider the ranges.
The David Weber Approach: I don't know if everyone knows who David Weber is but I think he's actually more fun to read than Jack Campbell. More of the latter author later. Weber has written a prolific amount. I've only read three of his series (and only completed one thus far). His most space centric series (that I've read) is definitely the Honor Harrington series of novels, based around a female sci-fi version of Horatio Hornblower.
Ships are sleek and designed with a missile heavy armament. And he favors broadside combat, partly to equate with the 19th century ships of the line that Mr. Hornblower partook in. But he does feature laser weaponry as both main and CIWS armaments since he does acknowledge that missiles cannot be used through out a long battle since they are large and take up lots of space. After several exchanges, both sides will have to close and finish each other off with lasers making things more tense.
While Weber does involve a fair amount science in his novels, they relate more to how ships work than the hows and why of a ship's maneuvering or firing of its weapons. He leaves that more to the reader's suspension of disbelief. I find it makes for a more dramatic read because it allows him to drag these combats over the span of hours.
This is the style I try to emulate most in my writing starship combat because it is fun. I don't want to worry about the physics of things so much as whether that idea makes for a good story. I'm not saying neglect the physics but I don't choose to emphasize it.
He does focus a little bit too much on the "how many missiles each side fired" mathematics a bit too much but, no writer is perfect for everyone. Which brings me to the last type which influences me.
The Jack Campbell Doctrine: For those of you who don't know, Jack Campbell (a pen name) has penned a very engrossing sci-fi naval series called, The Lost Fleet. CadetNewb and I are big fans of it and his writing is really good.
Combat in Campbell's universe is both long and short. It is long in that the battlefields are large and the ships take a long time to traverse them (much like Weber's vision). But when the sides clash, that particular fight ends within a minute or so as the ships fire at each as they approach, then fire as they pass and then they're way past each other. This basically means that computers do all of the aiming, diminishing the human element somewhat from the combat. It also makes things a little less dramatic because it means less writing is devoted to how the combat works and more is given to how the strategy of each battle and its maneuvers go.
But it is useful to note that Campbell heavily emphasizes the maneuvering of ships rather than just straight on bludgeoning attacks the way we see in Star Wars. It shows an intelligent and well thought out method of realistic space combat, albeit one a little too firmly grounded in reality and slowness that I enjoy writing about. I do enjoy how he describes the maneuvers and purposes of each ship, though he remains very vague about the details of each ship (sizes, total armament, crew sizes, etc.)
Another interesting point is that he has the most varied arsenal I've seen so far. Missiles, lasers, railguns and a super short range positron gun that pretty much is a one-hit KO if you can get into such short range. His combat works like Weber's but favors the prow over the broadside. Ships rush at each other so broadsides aren't as important to him and if you can point your front at an enemy's broadside, you're in the advantage while the opposite is true for Weber. Missiles have the longest range, then come lasers, then the shotgun-like railguns and finally that hold-out positron cannon in case nobody was paying attention to you.
As I mentioned, I don't enjoy the combat quite as much Weber's work but the characters are just as enjoyable. So, that's where I'm coming from with my writing for Starship Combat. Anyone else have anything interesting to share?
I cannot claim to have read many plots' threads and become an expert on each GM or player's expectation of starship combat. To make up for that, I'm going to share the various approaches I take to writing starship combat and hope someone else shares theirs as well so that we might all learn something from each other.
1) The Star Wars Method: I love Star Wars and the ship battles are always fun to watch. But they're horribly dumb to write. From my understanding, Star Wars ship combat takes place at relatively low sublight speeds at visual range. Space being as vast as it is, that basically means you have to get really really REALLY close to your enemy. Weapons in the setting are also super short-ranged. The Death Star probably fired the longest shot in any of the films. And aimed fire is ... not very well aimed. Ships don't maneuver, they just fly towards each other, firing badly as they go.
An excellent example of someone using this method is the Mass Effect 3 ending fleet battle when the two sides are closing. Despite the countless reminders about how you gotta aim your guns properly, a lot of those opening shots tend to miss that front rank of Reaper ships. And not because of jamming or anything. After all, those kinetic rounds were just going in a direct line from their origin, which means that those dumb warships were just pointed at the wrong bloody angle.
Speaking of weapons, I note that Star Wars weapons tend to be energy based while missiles come in a distant second. Most warships don't have large magazines full of missiles. They just have a lot of laser guns. SARP differs with a broad range of weaponry from guided missiles, plasma, laser, aether, and good ol' railguns to name a few. Hence, our combat would be far less "simple" than the style pioneered by George.
Visually, it's a good style cos it puts us in a position to view the action. In SARP terms, I consider it to be the "melee" part of starship combat when both fleets have just gotten too entangled and are going at it ship to ship without any formations. At that point, it's every ship fending for itself first consider the ranges.
The David Weber Approach: I don't know if everyone knows who David Weber is but I think he's actually more fun to read than Jack Campbell. More of the latter author later. Weber has written a prolific amount. I've only read three of his series (and only completed one thus far). His most space centric series (that I've read) is definitely the Honor Harrington series of novels, based around a female sci-fi version of Horatio Hornblower.
Ships are sleek and designed with a missile heavy armament. And he favors broadside combat, partly to equate with the 19th century ships of the line that Mr. Hornblower partook in. But he does feature laser weaponry as both main and CIWS armaments since he does acknowledge that missiles cannot be used through out a long battle since they are large and take up lots of space. After several exchanges, both sides will have to close and finish each other off with lasers making things more tense.
While Weber does involve a fair amount science in his novels, they relate more to how ships work than the hows and why of a ship's maneuvering or firing of its weapons. He leaves that more to the reader's suspension of disbelief. I find it makes for a more dramatic read because it allows him to drag these combats over the span of hours.
This is the style I try to emulate most in my writing starship combat because it is fun. I don't want to worry about the physics of things so much as whether that idea makes for a good story. I'm not saying neglect the physics but I don't choose to emphasize it.
He does focus a little bit too much on the "how many missiles each side fired" mathematics a bit too much but, no writer is perfect for everyone. Which brings me to the last type which influences me.
The Jack Campbell Doctrine: For those of you who don't know, Jack Campbell (a pen name) has penned a very engrossing sci-fi naval series called, The Lost Fleet. CadetNewb and I are big fans of it and his writing is really good.
Combat in Campbell's universe is both long and short. It is long in that the battlefields are large and the ships take a long time to traverse them (much like Weber's vision). But when the sides clash, that particular fight ends within a minute or so as the ships fire at each as they approach, then fire as they pass and then they're way past each other. This basically means that computers do all of the aiming, diminishing the human element somewhat from the combat. It also makes things a little less dramatic because it means less writing is devoted to how the combat works and more is given to how the strategy of each battle and its maneuvers go.
But it is useful to note that Campbell heavily emphasizes the maneuvering of ships rather than just straight on bludgeoning attacks the way we see in Star Wars. It shows an intelligent and well thought out method of realistic space combat, albeit one a little too firmly grounded in reality and slowness that I enjoy writing about. I do enjoy how he describes the maneuvers and purposes of each ship, though he remains very vague about the details of each ship (sizes, total armament, crew sizes, etc.)
Another interesting point is that he has the most varied arsenal I've seen so far. Missiles, lasers, railguns and a super short range positron gun that pretty much is a one-hit KO if you can get into such short range. His combat works like Weber's but favors the prow over the broadside. Ships rush at each other so broadsides aren't as important to him and if you can point your front at an enemy's broadside, you're in the advantage while the opposite is true for Weber. Missiles have the longest range, then come lasers, then the shotgun-like railguns and finally that hold-out positron cannon in case nobody was paying attention to you.
As I mentioned, I don't enjoy the combat quite as much Weber's work but the characters are just as enjoyable. So, that's where I'm coming from with my writing for Starship Combat. Anyone else have anything interesting to share?
