Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

And then add some more political quirks, like, a civilization that pretends to be pacifist calls their death star a 'spherical destroyer,' or a faction controlling the entrance to a hyperspace wormhole limiting passage to cruisers and below, causing another faction to call their carrier a 'drone cruiser,' etc...

"This is the commander of the Annihilator Destroyer class SES Democratic Bringer of Death, we come in peace!"

Edited by AngelusNox on Mar 21st 2024 at 7:01:31 AM

Meanwhile they're all really the same sort of ships, more or less, just named differently.

As I remember, TOS-era Star Trek classified everything as a light (Constitution-class) or heavy (Excelsior-class) cruiser, only pulling out escort (Defiant-class) and dreadnought (Sovereign-class) as official designations after Wolf 359.

Frankly, we only have to look at the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It's actually bigger than the Atlanta class light cruisers from WW 2 which raises all kinds of questions of what a Destroyer really is.

Or the Ticonderoga class cruisers which seem to be cruisers In Name Only. They’re all but identically armed compared to the Arleigh Burkes, punch well below their classification in terms of heavy armaments (certainly well below a Slava class cruiser or a Kirov), don’t ever operate in a cruiser role and they’re built on what are essentially slightly bigger destroyer hulls.

Really makes you wonder if the navies of the future be they at sea or in space will simply homogenize their ship types as much as possible or if we’ll see a resurgence of more specialized types or specific roles.

Ooh, I could annoy some people by arguing that a DDG or a CG are just over-glorified torpedo boats. That's a flawed comparison though, because torpedoes are technically a type of sea mine, which is entirely different from missiles, which are technically a form of artillery.

Personaly I would rather argue that modern destroyers are just renamed cruisers, rather then argue that the Tico is a destroyer....

Modern destroyers come in at a weight class comparable to some WWII heavy cruisers, and you can make the reasonable argument this is due to an increase in capacity that necicitates an increase in size..... but you know what else was more capable then a WWII destroyer.... a cruiser.

We have basicly just scale creeped the size class up a notch.

Any way to answer the actual question, ships in my setting get the dividing line between destroyer and cruiser over if there capable of entering an atmosphere or not.

Destroyers = Yes, though most will need a refuel before lift off and after entering orbit.
Cruisers = They can skim pretty low, but if they land they aren't taking back off again... think skipping a stone.
Capitals = Don't even try.

Edited by Imca on Mar 22nd 2024 at 10:17:47 PM

Alternatively, cruisers need external propulsion assistance (ie. attached boosters) to get back up in space.

Fictional example: Salamis-class.

Weight creep/scale creep like that is just going to happen. A lot of WW 2 era destroyers easily outweighed and outgunned old pre-WW 1 protected and armored cruisers but were employed as destroyers.

Just like how amphibious assault ships like an LHA or LHD outweigh earlier aircraft carriers but are not pure aircraft carriers.

I’d imagine space navies will suffer the same thing. Early generation spacecraft would be amazingly lightweight and low power compared to the stuff an interstellar empire would have a century or two later even if the two eras are employed in the same role.

Good old Salamis Class, a venerable workhorse ship that still saw use towards the late end of the UC.

Named most sinkable warship by Zeonic Weekly for 7 issues running.

It must’ve done something right though. The Feddies kept on making and using them throughout the war and even kept some on long after it ended.

It's down to depiction in media, it's a similar thing to the Federation General Machine/Gundam Mass production/Grunt Machine/Etc. In that by all means it is a straightforward practical machine made by a solid industrial base with good technologies and proven techniques in universe, but nobody ever gets to see that because we have to see the antagonists being competent so that the lead can look even more amazing as a result.

By all measures the GM is the workhorse of the Federation and was still in production even into the late UC with very little retrofitting, by all means it is a good machine for war. It's just nobody ever sees that because we have to see Zeon/Neo-Zeon/Zanscare/Etc body them so the Gundam looks even more impressive as a result.

The show is called Mobile Suit Gundam, not Space Battleship Salamis.

Kind of reminds me of an interesting thing that came up in a history of WWII naval combat: It's Common Knowledge that WWII proved to the US that battleships were helpless against airpower, but through the entirety of the conflict the US lost a grand whopping total of two battleships, both at Pearl Harbor.

For all combatants in WWII, Wikipedia says 16 battleships out of 102 battleships of all types were destroyed or crippled by air attack (3 more were lost to submarines)

Also, irrelevant but mildly interesting, 5 of those 102 battleships were in South American navies (none sunk in the war, meaning Brazil's navy had a nigh-unmatched combat record)

Edited by AFP on Mar 25th 2024 at 7:02:15 AM

To be fair, USN Battleships had a shitload of AA guns post Pearl Harbor.

Just looking at the number of 20mm and 40mm guns and then the radar directed 127mm proxy fused shells meant that anything trying to get close would be under abnormal amounts of gunfire.

then you have the Atlanta Class that had only 5 inch guns and a lot of them, which bitch slapped the Japanese planes pretty damn hard.

TBH i always understood it more as a "they saw the way the wind was blowing".

Considering the number of battleship on battleship fights in WW 2 can be counted on one hand, it was more lack of opportunity of any other kind of loss than by way of airplane or submarine.

And battleship Hiei had the dishonor of losing a gun duel to “lesser” cruisers in the South Pacific.

What would the tactical implications of Space Wizards be?

Depends on their scope and power. Magic can easily veer into Fantastic Nuke territory. I think Mai-Otome is a good case of the higher end of that kind of power and it's tactical implications, while Star Wars covers the lower end.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Apr 1st 2024 at 7:35:02 AM

Also commonality of magic in terms of how many people can do it. In Star Wars the users of the Force both Jedi and Sith are really few in number compared to the millions to billions of others who are not able.

This means that even relatively “weak” Force users are a veritable One-Man Army compared to everyday people who are not.

At one point a relative handful of Jedi were all the police/military force the Galactic Republic needed to solve problems after all.

The thing about Space Magic is that it breaks "the rules" by definition, so as an author you can have it do whatever you want. Your only constraints are imagination and how much you want to limit your characters so they face actual challenges.

The most highly regarded stories featuring Space Magic don't use it as a crutch for the plot but instead as a way to create obstacles for characters to overcome. Example: Luke's confrontation with Palpatine in ROTJ isn't about which of them can Space Magic the hardest, but about whose moral point of view is stronger.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 1st 2024 at 12:06:33 PM

Yea it doesn't help that the tactical implications of wizards on space combat ranges somewhere between "could help fix some subsystems" to "could wipe entire fleets out of existence with a wave of their hand, teleport across the galaxy or even universes, and conjure eldritch space beings to ride into battle".

Basically, the only correct answer to the question is "yes there will be tactical implications".

Basically set the rules for your space wizards and then worry about how they change things.

Actually, I'd say that's backwards, at least in some cases. Speculative Fiction is about coming up with an idea and then imagining what effects it might have. Space Opera is about telling stories and filling in the blanks to justify them.

When writing, remember that you are telling a story first and foremost. Your setting, including its Space Magic, need to support said story. If you come up with the phlebotinum and then have to tie its arms and legs down in order to build a story around it, it will be readily apparent to your audience.