Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

There are lots of ways to solve this problem. You don't necessarily need literal nanomachines; a self-replicating Von Neumann probe can be as large as it needs for the job. For example, a popular proposal to build a Dyson Swarm around our sun involves sending a robotic factory to Mercury and having it disassemble the planet over a few decades.

Let's say I'm an alien empire looking to expand. I don't have FTL and there's no expectation of that happening any time in the next few centuries. I would start by surveying nearby star systems for potential planets using some combination of light-sail probes and gravitational lens telescopes.

Once I find some likely candidates, I launch robotic terraformers to them, programmed to take whatever resources are there and convert them into more of itself, with the goal of reworking the planet's biosphere into one suitable for my species. They would send periodic reports back on their status. Obviously, I'd test them first in my own system.

After a few hundred or thousand years of that, my colonization fleets are prepared, in their generation ships, to make the crossing. They arrive to find paradise waiting.

Once you get to that kind of high scifi that your building Dyson Swarms I sincerely wonder why you would opt for continued physical existance at all.

Surely you could make digital worlds at that point and do most of your existance in them while the external structure is taken care of by machinery.

...

Which is basically the plot of dysonsphere program come to think of it, so other then unrealistic designs I feel that has the core concept of an interstellar civilization down.

I wouldn't say that Dyson Swarms are quite at the same tech level as Jupiter Brains, but haven't we just spent a lot of time talking about why we can't count on any particular psychology among aliens? Just because they could turn inward and spend billions of years in artificial worlds doesn't mean they necessarily will or must.

All it takes is one civilization to decide to expand (and succeed at it) to populate the entire galaxy, and this could happen on a time scale of a hundred thousand to a few million years, a blink of the eye in the history of the universe.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 28th 2024 at 2:37:21 PM

I guess that is fair, but its still one of my favorite proposed solution to the Fermi paradox, that such a conclusion is pretty universal, and the civilizations that have hit that point have uploaded themself, then gone dark waiting for the universe to cool down and optimize superconductor construction more.

Since well, once you upload, you really don't have to concern yourself with normal time-spans any more, and such a hibernation is also pretty feasible.

Just for post clarity here, I mean favorite in "One I really like and can see" not "One I think is most likely", I do think there are more likely answers, I just think its a very interesting one that makes some amount of sense.

Well, sure, it's one viable answer to the Fermi Paradox. It does lead to some unfavorable outcomes, though, at least as far as I'm concerned. It means we should expect never to leave this solar system and to go extinct when the Sun stops providing energy. It means that consciousness will not survive the stellariferous era of the universe. That's not what science fiction promised.

Edit: I want to see galaxy-spanning empires and civilizations lasting trillions of years, sucking energy from black holes. And by "see", I don't expect that I will be alive for it. I suppose I want to believe that it will happen.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 28th 2024 at 2:51:33 PM

Ah yes, the Schlock Mercenary method, Matryoshka brains. Where all the species that could have dominated the Galaxy uploaded themselves into giant ships the size of Jupiter and uploaded themselves. And then proceeded to hide because there was something far worse waiting for them and they didn't want to be found.

Even extracting energy from a blackhole has its limits since it requires dropping mass on it and it would still require spending mass in the process.

But then, this would be so far in the future that humanity might go the way of AllTomorrows and be irrecognizable by then.

Edited by AngelusNox on Feb 28th 2024 at 11:42:02 AM

Been on the road for a few days, so apologies if this has been covered, but going back to the topic of the V-style peaceful invasion-through-fake-friendship. It's worth noting that this is a plot point in a couple of episodes of Stargate SG-1 with an advanced alien race that does this to planets of Transplanted Humans they find. Offer them an alliance typically based on technological uplift (and, IIRC, an offer of defense against the openly-malevolent Goa'uld) and then discretely sterilize most of the population while offering them advanced (real) medical cures to most ailments.

What's fun, is that in more recent iterations of Star Trek (mostly from Deep Space Nine and onwards), the Federation is occasionally accused of something like this by distrusting aliens, whether they be less-powerful races that have to be more mindful of colonial ambitions from more powerful factions (the Bajorans and Ferengi) or distrustful major powers who see the Federation as a dangerous rival (the Klingons). At one point in Star Trek: Picard, an ex-Borg talks about how the Romulans have taken in many of the ex-Borg and offered them (real and much needed) medical and social assistance being freed of Borg implants and rehabilitated, while at the same time very much subjecting them to Romulan authority and control, essentially trading a Borg Queen for a Romulan one.

The great irony of the Picard example is that the ex-Borg are being victimized by the Romulan Free State because the Romulans are much more willing and able to provide them the support and help they need than the Federation is, due in part to how most Federation citizens view the Borg (and by extension, the ex-Borg who are in fact also victims of the Borg) after multiple Borg attacks on the Federation.

Don't forget that Klingon in Discovery who believes that the Federation's cultural assimilation of member species is still conquest by another name.

It's true: the best way to conquer other civilizations is to have them join you voluntarily. Go Federation!

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 29th 2024 at 10:46:30 AM

I'm reminded of an episode of TNG where they cover first contact from the alien perspective, and they ask Picard what will happen if they're asked to leave and never return. Picard smartly says what they'd do, leave and never return. Nothing further, no "oh you'll miss out on this" or anything, just straight up "We'll respect your wishes".

And even DS9 covered the "assimilation" of the Federation by pointing out how insidious they are with their friendly method of contact. More and more you start to like it, and soon you're wanting to ally with them because of it.

Let's be honest here: these complaints are coming from civilizations like the Klingons and Cardassians, whose preferred method of empire-building is the old-fashioned conquest and enslavement. So they don't exactly have the moral high ground.

The Federation has hit on an ingenious method of getting people to like you: be nice to them and respect their culture.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 29th 2024 at 11:08:04 AM

Don't forget the Romulans, they're entire thing is working out ways to try and sneak Federation ships into their borders to legally torture them. That happened so many times in TNG where they tried fucking with other societies to get a leg up on the Federation.

My favorite one was when Picard then revealed he had 3 Klingon ships on standby and asked the Romulan Jackass "Shall we die together?"

You just know the Klingons were whooping it up in their vessels at that line.

Isn't it because the Romulans had a hostile first contact that firmly planted Dark Forest sensibilities in their minds?

For all purposes Romulans are the same as Vulcans, so their whole xenophobia is on them being major jackasses.

Wasn’t there an episode of TNG where the biological differences between Romulan and Vulcan were pointed out? The one where a Romulan ship had a crash on a planet in/near the neutral zone and the Enterprise arrived first and ended up with Geordi stuck down on the place without a working visor?

The thing is, I don't think Garak or Quark ever claimed to have the moral high ground when they talked about the Federation's form of assimilation. Both men would scoff at the concept of desiring morale high ground when it is much more honest to just state that they seek what they are seeking: The security of the Cardassian State (Garak) and profit (Quark). And in that same discussion, they point out that the Federation is honestly the best bet in the game for both of them.

The fact that the Cardassian Regime's efforts to do so result in their military being destroyed and their homeworld first occupied then left a devastated ruin is an irony that Garak is entirely too aware of.

T'Kuvma (the Klingon guy) did claim to have the moral high ground, but he ends up getting killed in a duel and then replaced by Kol, a much more morally flexible Klingon who is more than willing to invoke T'Kuvma's name and beliefs for his own much more pragmatic interests.

Edited by AFP on Mar 1st 2024 at 4:52:55 AM

I saw the video on Spacedock about frigates, and it got me wondering if people have a kind of "standard" perception of what classes are. Do people have specific ideas? is it based on vibes? are there certain capacities you think a class should have?

I would expect spaceships to be roughly classed according to basic capabilities.

Corvette: similar to the sea, the smallest proper warship possible (so not a capsule or anything). Probably either exceptionally rare as a true ship, or extremely common as a type of semi-expendable drone ship (in combination with a carrier)

Cruiser: large independent muli-role warship.

Carrier: Ship whose main function is to store smaller ships, who fulfill the main purpose.

Battleship: dedicated warship, primarily a mobile weapon. Your strongest weapon + reactor+engine, its main function is to destroy enemy spaceships.

Destoyers and frigates are a bit weird in this context, since they would mostly be the same kind of ship. I would argue Frigates would primarily be *defensive* escorts equipped with anti-missile missiles, lasers optimized for defensive purposes, kinetic CIWS, etc etc. Destroyers would primarily be *offensive* escorts intended to actually destroy targets (and thus anti-ship missiles and lasers optimized to destroy enemy warships, etc).

I would note here that size is largely irrelevant here except for a corvette. Mass is the main convern for spaceships, but volume isn't. Sure structural mass correlates with size, but many components will have radically different densities (e.g. nuclear reactors, nuclear engines etc are very dense. maintenance spaces, workshops, or habitation space is not). A carrier would probably be very large because it's mostly low-density spaceship storage, but a battleship by no means has to be that big. Frigates and Destroyers would probably be very similarly sized but with very different loadouts and thus purposes.

Even on the ocean, ship classifications are somewhat arbitrary, for example, the US Navy had to reclassify their destroyers as cruisers and frigates as destroyers because people were freaking out, claiming that the US had less cruisers than the USSR. The Soviets called their aircraft carrier an 'aviation cruiser' because cruisers were the limit that were allowed to pass through Istanbul. Japan's self-defense force calls their helicopter carriers (which can be modified to carry F-35Bs) 'helicopter destroyers.'

If I were to classify ships:

• Corvettes and light frigates are used to patrol areas near planets. They do not have the capability for interstellar travel.

• Destroyers are for ship-to-ship combat in deep space.

• Cruisers and battleships are multirole ships that can do both ship-to-ship and ship-to-surface combat. They will also have advanced C4I equipment

• Landing craft can survive atmospheric reentry and land and take off from planetary surfaces. Some might have wings for powered flight. They will be light, with heat shields, and have high-thrust engines.

• Carriers would be closer to LHDs, which are designed to carry landing craft.

• Maybe have equivalents of Littoral Combat Ships that are specialized in ship-to-ground combat?

And yes, mass does matter because of the rocket equation. The larger the mass, the more fuel you need unless you have a propulsion system that makes mass irrelevant.

True, but that made me all the more curious if there are specific things people associate with spaceship classes.

Like, what is it about a spaceship that makes someone go "that's a destroyer" or "that's a corvette".

Or unless your ships are built in orbit and are not landing-capable.

I classify my ships in my ‘verses along 3 or 4 lines.

• Frigate/Corvette: Smallest true warship. Atmosphere and space capable. FTL capability. Meant to be a “numbers” ship like a navy destroyer historically.
• Destroyer: A sometimes occurring smaller warship. Bigger than a Frigate but with similar albeit typically more armament. Not common. Sometimes used as distinguishing for larger classes of Frigate.
• Cruiser: Main line combatant ship. Not as numerous as Frigates but far more powerful. Operate independently or in battlegroups. Firepower rivals Assault Carriers but no need for hangar or force deployment functions.
• Assault Carrier: Typically command ships of battlegroups or even fleets. Functions as The Battlestar. Space fighters and ground forces deploy from here during initial operations in and around a planet. But can pack a wallop in ship to ship combat. Fewest in number but often the strongest ship.

Occasional alternate names may be used. Transports are usually dedicated to that role and thus not under consideration for these designations.

My understanding of classifications was admittedly warped by early exposure to Homeworld, which uses massed frigates as the main attack element backed by a small handful of destroyers and the occasional cruiser.

Contrast that with Mass Effect, where destroyers do not exist at all due to cruisers taking their doctrinal role of main attack element while frigates are more of a harasser/flanker force.

A lot of naval classification is a bit arbitrary. One fun thing I like about Babylon 5 is that each major faction uses an entirely different set of names for their ships. Most of the alien faction shave some form of "Cruiser" for their heaviest capital ships, but the heaviest human capital ships are "Destroyers."

Here's my list for a hypothetical navy I might create. The definitions are a mix of size and specialized purpose:

Corvette - small patrol ship, maybe non-FTL. Compare to a gunboat or a torpedo boat in a blue water navy.

Frigate - larger patrol ship/escort. Not typically designed for long solo voyages.

Cruiser - a general-purpose warship, capable of operating as part of a fleet or striking out on its own, can be used for patrol, escort, or seeking out and destroying enemy ships/assets. Variations based on size/firepower/armor may include Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battlecruiser, etc.

Dreadnought/Battleship - A true capital ship. Large, capable, and heavily armed, often fights as part of a large massed force. Feel free to modify based on size, emphasized capabilities, etc. (historically, this included Superdreadnoughts, Standard Battleships, Pocket Battleships, and Fast Battleships)

Carrier/Tender - A ship dedicated to the launch, recovery, and basing of smaller craft. A Carrier has dedicated internal hangar space, while a Tender may be more limited, with ships docking or just loitering nearby while support is rendered. Size may vary from something like an Escort Carrier (typically on the smaller end) to something truly massive (capable of docking larger ships, a mobile base, possibly the primary means of FTL for most ships)

Destroyer - This is where I start to have fun. In modern naval parlance, a destroyer is basically a cruiser in all but name, but historically they were typically escorts designed to destroy enemy craft threatening their charge (originally torpedo boats, but eventually submarines, airplanes, and enemy capital ships) In my universe, a Destroyer would be a warship equipped with some out-sized weapon system like a big beam cannon or mass driver or a rack of very large missiles, making them a threat to even the largest warships. This would be a modifier for other types of ships, like a Destroyer Frigate or a Destroyer Dreadnought.

Edited by AFP on Mar 20th 2024 at 2:57:41 AM

Actually this is a fun thought, you could communicate some interesting culture/politics/doctrine ideas with what various people in your setting call things.

For example, a species with a more small-ship doctrine may have various levels of destroyer whereas a capital-ship doctrine may have many kinds of Cruiser but only one type of destroyer. Or certain classes are absent entirely.