Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Analysis / SpaceFighter

Go To

Apr 8th 2015 at 10:26:06 AM •••

I see not just planets, but all other types of celestials to be a good justification for fighters.

No cover, no hiding place, no horizont, entirely true in deep space, not if you want to capture something. If you want to capture an asteroid mine for example, mobile defender units can move behind the asteroid, or even hide in a shaft, missiles are a waste against them. Fighters can attack behind cover, and one dont have to bring the big ones close - the later sacrificies the advantage of superior laser range, and make the big ships also quite vulnerable.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 8th 2015 at 1:16:04 PM •••

You can put this argument on the page, you know...

Apr 9th 2015 at 7:25:32 AM •••

Sorry, i'm new. I have added my arguments to the page.

Jan 25th 2014 at 2:16:32 AM •••

I'm cutting "Stability" because let's be honest, if the real-world navies didn't see any stability problems with their battleships and other capships, why should it suddenly be an issue INSPACE?

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 25th 2014 at 4:59:59 AM •••

Actually, navies can have stability problems with their ships; the Swedish Vasa sank in part because of a stability problem. Also, water does habe friction to slow down certain oscillations; space doesn't.

Jan 17th 2014 at 2:48:44 PM •••

Nothing constructive, just wooooow. *high-pitched-noises*

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report