But if you're just looking for what kind of "space battles" I like, isn't Star Wars full of both kinds of space battles? Big leviathan ships, and nimble fighters?
Anyway I guess I can't say which is more fun to watch. Both are fun. Probably why I like Galactica when they do space battles (although they have utterly bizarre battle tactics, that's just Hollywood for you).
I very much prefer smaller ships in dogfights. Even (especially?) if they break all the space flying rules (banking turns, noisy explosions). Some capital ship warfare is ok, but big overpowered leviathans have all the non-excitement of a slap fight. Yes, Star Wars has some of this, but in general their capital ship weaponry didn't scale up relative to their small ships. With the exception of the Death Star with a big, planet-vaporizing cannon, capital ships just didn't have appreciably more punch than the fighters they carried.
Star Trek does toe a nice line in the middle, as their ships tend to ride the difference between fighters and capital ships. Fast and relatively maneuverable, yet possessing ship destroying weaponry.
I'm not big into battles, either way, but I'll bet I can define the differing preferences easily enough. Small-unit battles let the characters shine (especially when your megapowerful empire seems to design every single freakin' facility with a key weakness that a single protagonist can take out in a single climactic shot). Capital ship battles let the tactics shine. So if you watch for characters, you'll mostly prefer the small unit battles. If you watch for the grand interplay of events on a really big stage, you'll prefer the capital battles.
I love cap ship battles. I think there's just more drama. Outside you see two leviathans pounding away at one another while inside you see the orderly chaos that reigns.
And there's just something great about seeing the CO barking orders, trying to keep his boat in the fight, and seeing his crew do their damnedest to get the job done.
Starfighters going at it is cool, yes, but you know that the guy commanding that cap ship has a whole lot more to worry about.
This reminds me of a scene on Babylon 5. You have Sheridan and Delenn on a Whitestar and you got Sheridan directing this massive battle via a holographic display that hovers around him. It was like watching a conductor lead his orchestra in a grand opus of valor and heroism! Bloody fantastic.
Speaking strictly about Space Opera, I like to use the Robotech example. Lots of fighters and such but the real action is the enormous pummeling that the big ships deal out and take.
Meanwhile, the fighters are mostly shooting at other fighters and trying to prevent that all important shot on the incredibly exposed bridge of the ship.
Actually, Martin, a well-written scene for a capital ship can be character-driven, since in the real world a very large number of the sailors/spacers would be involved with things like damage control. Lots of opportunity for individual challenge and response.
In fact, BSG displayed an excellent example in the pilot, if memory serves. There was a chance that a fire in a particular section would break out into the rest of the ship, likely destroying her. Colonel Tigh ordered the section sealed off, while Galen wants to rescue his damage control party first. Excellent scene, especially since it signalled the emotional return of Tigh.
If you can track down a copy, try to find Two-Ocean War by S. E. Morison, It's a condensation of his official history of the US Navy during WW2, and includes several action in which Morison participated. I especially recommend his chapters on the Battle of Midway and Leyte Gulf. Just those two actions should give any decent writer all sorts ideas from the real world for individual character scenes.
In fact, one of my favorite quotes (from the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where destroyer escorts and escort carriers took on battlships and cruisers), where one sailor called out "all right, boys, we're sucking them into 40mm range!"
True story. :)
Actually, the battles shown on all the series/universes mentioned are horrible, in terms of physics; some worse than others.
In fact, none of the shows in question can seriously considered genuine science fiction, by any stretch of the imagination. They are (as Andrew implied) "space opera," the futuristic equivalent of horse opera. Or in the case of ST:TNG and/or B5, just soap opera. ;)
BSG demonstrated an excllent bad example in the season 3 finale: after the last jump, all ships -including Galactica- lost power. They even used that hoary old ST:TOS line about losing auxiliary power, with only batteries left. Argh.
Now. First of all, the first exterior shot we see are ships starting to tumble out of control. Anyone with even a high-school sophomore knowledge of physics will remember Newton's First Law of Motion:
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
As these ships had just lost power, and were in a vacuum, there was no force acting on them!
Second, even though they are only on "battery power," they still had artificial gravity! Do I really need to explain the fatuity of this scene? This sort of foolishness goes on all the time on so-called TV and cinema "science fiction."
While I don't expect them to get things perfect, it would be nice if they remained somewhere remotely near the vicinity of the laws of physics...
Space is really extremely large, and people have a tendency to not want to be within firing range of evildo... sorry, friends we haven't apoligized to yet.
So, space-based battleships, if there are any will be really far away from each other and sending fighters to attack would be like sending a fleet of motorized inflatable rafts from Hawaii to the Persian Guld to take on the on an Aircraft Carrier.
They'd run out of gas somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
Casey, I'm a fan of old naval battles from the age of sail. I know they can be character driven. Any given participant in the battle is a character, after all, and can be fodder for a good story.
And small unit battles can be tactically complex. Certainly they are in the real world, so the fictional ones don't have to be yet another variation on drop the torpedo down the vent.
But I think that the general lines I drew are generally true, and Andrew's exploring reasons for general preferences. In a small unit story, it's easier to set things up so that the protagonist's climactic battle wins the day. In a capital story, it's easier to set things up so that massive reinforcements, a surprise outmaneuver, or the destruction of a key ship turn the tide.
I'm in Category 2. Fighter battles can be interesting to watch but most of the time they don't make a whole lot of sense. Except for the desperate attack on the obligatory Achilles' Heel, the fighters themselves almost never do much damage to the capital ships. So you mostly get swarms of fighters blowing each other up, racking up the body count and accomplishing almost nothing. It's just a prelude until the big ships get into position to trade phasers/turbolasers/nukes.
Notably in BSG the fighters are deployed mostly against ground targets, as scouts, and as protection for the unarmed civilian vessels that are part of the fleet. Which is pretty much how aircraft on real carriers are used. That makes more sense to me.
I'm in Category 2. Fighter battles can be interesting to watch but most of the time they don't make a whole lot of sense. Except for the desperate attack on the obligatory Achilles' Heel, the fighters themselves almost never do much damage to the capital ships. So you mostly get swarms of fighters blowing each other up, racking up the body count and accomplishing almost nothing. It's just a prelude until the big ships get into position to trade phasers/turbolasers/nukes.
Hmm, real life, this is not true. A single F-14 could sink destroyers or cruisers. Perhaps even bigger ships. There is a reason most current navies are so concerned with air and sub surface superiority: While capital ships can project great power, they are very vulnerable due to their size and complexity. And they cost a LOT of $$$ to build, repair and crew.
In that vein, many of the battles become rock-paper-scissors, of using your strengths against their weaknesses (stategy). Tactics usualy only become determinative when the opponents are sufficiently evenly matched that mistakes cause enough damage that it can turn the tide of the war.
For example, from a WWII example, it really didn't matter to Japan in 1944 whether we fought air to surface or surface to surface or air to air battles, the Japanese were in serious trouble. Superior tactics wasn't going to alter the stategic situation, and often couldn't even decide the local battle.
So in most of those battles, what we see are the reflections of the combatant's competances. They take to battle what they are good at, or what they believe the enemy is bad at.
Clearly, for a BSG scenario, the good guys will have limited capital ships, and will have to make do with smaller, more versatile fighters. For the Cylons, this would not be cost effective. With sufficient industry, it is better to make the capital ships. Similarly, in Star Wars.
Depends on my mood on the day I'm watching, whether I like 1 or 2.
Category 1 (not a hurricane) is good when I feel like an underdog, and I want some personal validation. "Yes, the plucky fighter can take on the big bully and win!"
Category 2 is what I like when I'm in the mood for a big frosted cake, or a steak dinner with all the trimmings. Very filling, and after it's done I set back and say "Aahh, now that was drama. Brain overclocked, time to rest now."
Each different series of Star Trek had its own balance, if I remember correctly.
TOS had more capital battles, possibly because the models were more impressive on screen than shuttlecraft.
TNG had even bigger capital battles, witness how big the ships got (Borg cubes, anyone?). A few shuttlecraft, and the Defiant showed up for Wolf 359.
DS9 had more of Category 2, but some big capital ships were there in the Dominion.
Voyager had more Category 2, with the Delta Flyer, etc.
I didn't watch all of Enterprise, but it seemed to have an even mix.
I like both, actually. You get to see the capital ships pounding away at each other and at large objectives, sort of a big-picture thing, while the smaller ships might be accomplishing smaller objectives.
In terms of sci-fi/space opera, the best I can think of would be a couple huge Star Destroyer types waling at each other with the cannons. Meanwhile, one of the capital ships launches a small, heavily armored shuttle escorted by fighters. Aboard the shuttle, a crack squad of space marines, including a preacher, a Texan, an android, and a tough-as-nails woman await the order to board the other side's cruiser and capture its bridge.
And because they are a preacher, a Texan, and android, and a tough-as-nails woman, you know they're going to succeed. Or, at least, it's going to be very exciting.
Also, I'm convinced that every space opera military unit should have a bumbling kid along for the ride. 'Cuz the bumbling kid always succeeds in the end.
You forgot class 3....Massive Capitol ships pounding each other to dust using unimaginable weapons...while dancing around like small nimble fighters (See 'Doc Smith'). ;)
Work your way thru the Honor Harrington series. Something for everyone. Capital ships pounding each other, Light Attack Craft nimbling about, and plenty plenty plenty of character. And best of all it's text and not film.
Maybe, maybe not. Weber worked out a set of technologies, as rules to work to, and they determine everything thereafter. Without the wedge, tactics, but not strategies, would change a lot.
Jerry Kindall gets mega geek-points for his excellent "no prize" explanation for BSG's alleged artificial gravity! :)
Martin and Kristian make some excellent points; I feel compelled to observe that it (generally) took far more effort to defeat a capital ship back then. I cite the Bismark as evidence. ;)
I like Jon Saul's quick'n'dirty review of Star Trek's various scenarios. I'll even include a gratuitious mention of the original Starfleet Battles (the paper &pencil table-top version, not the real-time computer version). Mucho fun for the naval enthusiasts. Really. If you like old-school table-top-style simulations, you'll love the original Starfleet Battles. Be the first to plot three D-7 Battlecruisers against a Starbase!
You can even include TOS classics like the Doomsday machine. I once tried a "solo" scenario: me (in a destroyer) against the planet eater. I decided to lead with a Kzinti-style "leap and scream" attack, which lasted all of three impulses... Splash one DD. Heh.
The game can be played on standard hex tabletop forms, or with miniatures.
Ok. Enough of that! :)
JonD deserves massive UBER-geek points for referencing the father of modern space opera, EE "Doc" Smith!
Triticale, jlb, and Kevin lead the way to enlightenment, as they explore the idea that technology determines possibilities. In other words, you can't have torpedo bombers without torpedoes. And you can't threaten capital ships unless the small boys can carry big loads. Up until the mid-1930s, capital ships really didn't need to worry too much about the small boys (fighters/bombers).
I still say Star Wars "tech" is pathetic, and that it's due to George Lucas' stupidity. What kind of fracking idiot specifies (or approves) the equivalent of flying BB/CV's that (apparently) STILL use the guns from the USS Iowa!? Look at SW: episode 6. You see recoil, and the guns actually eject cartridge cases!! Christ on a fracking crutch.
Star Trek, on the other hand, leaned towards capital ship action. I hate to say it {g}, but Starfleet Battles introduced excellent simulation rules regarding the use of shuttles with single-shot photon torpedo launchers. This was the start of fighters in the ST universe. In the SFB context, it usually takes multiple near-simultaneous hits to do significant damage, which tends to follow the WW2 historical example.
Star Wars, on the other hand, tends to "superiority" fighters, along the lines of the Hellcat or the Corsair; primarily a fighter craft with the secondary capability of carrying weapons stores. If you look at the historical record, most WW2 Navy aviators were better at air combat than sinking ships. Again, this is analogous to the Star Wars paradigm.
One of the very few Star Trek epidoes to reflect even semi-realistic tactics was Wrath of Khan; wherein a 21-century genius went up against James T. Kirk. Perspicacious watchers will immedately discern a similarity to the classic submarine drama The Enemy Below. Spock realizes that Khan unconciously leans towards two-dimensional tactics, which the three-dimensionally-aware Kirk eventually exploits.
To be honest, the last three Star Wars movies (episodes 1-3) never demonstrate any ship-to-ship tactics worth a damn. The ludicrous opening to Revenge of the Sith is, alas, about as good as it gets in Lucas-land. You have to go back to the original trilogy for any decent fodder, and one feels compelled to throw out Empire Strikes Back, as it is (gasp!) mostly character-driven. :)
This leaves episodes 4 and 6, both of which use the "small band of plucky/fiesty rebels against the overpowering forces of Whatever" model. Both times the teeny little alfabet-wing fighters go up against the HUGE Imperial ships (normally a suicide mission) and both times they enjoy the rare opportunity of knowing the exact location &characteristics of the enemy's Achillies Heel. The plucky rebels then blow up the Death Star (twice!) and save the day.
Sorry, guys, but the movies as shown are the negation of anything resembling space tactics, although an intelligent third party could adduce useful "ground rules" for that universe. Which is what I think Andrew was originally thinking about, so I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum. :))
I guess, for me, the answer would have to be: it depends... On some decent base rules for how space warfare works in a given universe.
Yes, I know, I've mentioned it before, but that's one of the great attractions of Star Fleet Battles. The physics and ground rules are laid out in simulations/wargaming form.
For example, SFB posits "gatling" point-defense phasers. These are fairly conservative in tech projection, with a trade-off between long range damage for a higher firing frequency. Think of them as the phaser equivalent of the Phalanx. :) Point being that such weapons (again this is one of the great points of SFB; much of the development was executed by military-historically-literate gamers) tend to eat fighters which come into tactically useful ranges. The Soviet Union faced the same problem when trying to get anti-ship missles withing range of US carriers.
When you have capital ships with matter/anti-matter reactors, M/A-M photon torpedoes, and high-energy long-range phasers, the fighters come out on the short end of the stick. They just don't have the power reserves to unilaterally defeat ST-style capital ships.
That's not to say fighters are irrelevant in the ST:SFB universe. Rather, they are effective in the context of a useful combined-arms doctrine. Quelle surprise! Heh.
It really depends on the technology of the universe in question, something that Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica all have (generally) made a point of avoiding during their episodes.
I like both, but then again, I've always loved ships and navies. There is room for both in a story.
Years ago my favorite game was Star Fleet Battles, and in it you had (eventually) the great dreadnoughts, sleek cruisers, nimble destroyers and frigates, swift fast patrol ships, and darting fighters; and even the humble minesweepers and freighters.
Each type has a role to play and is supreme in its particular environment.
(But I still love the battle fleets - dreadnoughts, heavy and light cruisers, and their screen of destroyers. Sometimes you need the 'big hammer'; sometimes the stiletto.)
Casey: As a fellow naval geek let me recommend Below Decks. I can't remember the officer's name who wrote it, but it was set on a British destroyer in the Med during WW2, HMS Skye (not the real name). A fascinating tale of the battles and eventual loss of a small fleet unit. A true story, with names changed.
Then there is Clear the Deck by Dan Gallery, the commander of the Guadalcanal hunter-killer group that captured U-505. A good tale, "Heigh-ho Pillsbury! Ride 'im, cowboy!"
And Casey, I still have some where the very battered box with the "Bellflower" cover art. :)
I designed my own heavy cruiser with 12 phaser-1 - six fx and six rx, and four phaser-3 ls and four rs. A very tough opponent with all that reserve power for maneuver and temporary shielding. What she couldn't close she could get away from.
Of course, SFB fighters, even the Federation A-10 and F-14 were not comparable to a modern aircraft in ratio to a ship with regard to speed (w/o warp packs - a Lyran invention) or in ordance capacity/capability. What they could do was erode a target's defense and provide a mobile defense for bases and planets, and destroy/hamper plasma torpedoes and drones.
Now, a pack of PFs could do a serious one-shot attack on a cruiser, economically patrol an area, and keep an attacking force at a distance from a capital ship.
3.31.2007 2:31pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
But if you're just looking for what kind of "space battles" I like, isn't Star Wars full of both kinds of space battles? Big leviathan ships, and nimble fighters?
Anyway I guess I can't say which is more fun to watch. Both are fun. Probably why I like Galactica when they do space battles (although they have utterly bizarre battle tactics, that's just Hollywood for you).
Star Trek does toe a nice line in the middle, as their ships tend to ride the difference between fighters and capital ships. Fast and relatively maneuverable, yet possessing ship destroying weaponry.
And there's just something great about seeing the CO barking orders, trying to keep his boat in the fight, and seeing his crew do their damnedest to get the job done.
Starfighters going at it is cool, yes, but you know that the guy commanding that cap ship has a whole lot more to worry about.
This reminds me of a scene on Babylon 5. You have Sheridan and Delenn on a Whitestar and you got Sheridan directing this massive battle via a holographic display that hovers around him. It was like watching a conductor lead his orchestra in a grand opus of valor and heroism! Bloody fantastic.
Meanwhile, the fighters are mostly shooting at other fighters and trying to prevent that all important shot on the incredibly exposed bridge of the ship.
In fact, BSG displayed an excellent example in the pilot, if memory serves. There was a chance that a fire in a particular section would break out into the rest of the ship, likely destroying her. Colonel Tigh ordered the section sealed off, while Galen wants to rescue his damage control party first. Excellent scene, especially since it signalled the emotional return of Tigh.
If you can track down a copy, try to find Two-Ocean War by S. E. Morison, It's a condensation of his official history of the US Navy during WW2, and includes several action in which Morison participated. I especially recommend his chapters on the Battle of Midway and Leyte Gulf. Just those two actions should give any decent writer all sorts ideas from the real world for individual character scenes.
In fact, one of my favorite quotes (from the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where destroyer escorts and escort carriers took on battlships and cruisers), where one sailor called out "all right, boys, we're sucking them into 40mm range!"
True story. :)
Actually, the battles shown on all the series/universes mentioned are horrible, in terms of physics; some worse than others.
In fact, none of the shows in question can seriously considered genuine science fiction, by any stretch of the imagination. They are (as Andrew implied) "space opera," the futuristic equivalent of horse opera. Or in the case of ST:TNG and/or B5, just soap opera. ;)
BSG demonstrated an excllent bad example in the season 3 finale: after the last jump, all ships -including Galactica- lost power. They even used that hoary old ST:TOS line about losing auxiliary power, with only batteries left. Argh.
Now. First of all, the first exterior shot we see are ships starting to tumble out of control. Anyone with even a high-school sophomore knowledge of physics will remember Newton's First Law of Motion: As these ships had just lost power, and were in a vacuum, there was no force acting on them!
Second, even though they are only on "battery power," they still had artificial gravity! Do I really need to explain the fatuity of this scene? This sort of foolishness goes on all the time on so-called TV and cinema "science fiction."
While I don't expect them to get things perfect, it would be nice if they remained somewhere remotely near the vicinity of the laws of physics...
Why?
Because that is the more likely scenario.
Space is really extremely large, and people have a tendency to not want to be within firing range of evildo... sorry, friends we haven't apoligized to yet.
So, space-based battleships, if there are any will be really far away from each other and sending fighters to attack would be like sending a fleet of motorized inflatable rafts from Hawaii to the Persian Guld to take on the on an Aircraft Carrier.
They'd run out of gas somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
And small unit battles can be tactically complex. Certainly they are in the real world, so the fictional ones don't have to be yet another variation on drop the torpedo down the vent.
But I think that the general lines I drew are generally true, and Andrew's exploring reasons for general preferences. In a small unit story, it's easier to set things up so that the protagonist's climactic battle wins the day. In a capital story, it's easier to set things up so that massive reinforcements, a surprise outmaneuver, or the destruction of a key ship turn the tide.
Notably in BSG the fighters are deployed mostly against ground targets, as scouts, and as protection for the unarmed civilian vessels that are part of the fleet. Which is pretty much how aircraft on real carriers are used. That makes more sense to me.
However like Martin my interests run primarily to the day of surf and sail.
My five favorite Naval combat movies are: Master and Commander, Damn the Defiant, Das Boot, Hunt for Red Oktobre and Sink the Bismark.
So I really enjoy hunter fights and boarding actions too.
But when big ships close and kill, on sea or among the stars, I also really like that kinda thing myself.
I'd like to see submarines in space having a dodge and torpedo fight. That would be cool.
Hmm, real life, this is not true. A single F-14 could sink destroyers or cruisers. Perhaps even bigger ships. There is a reason most current navies are so concerned with air and sub surface superiority: While capital ships can project great power, they are very vulnerable due to their size and complexity. And they cost a LOT of $$$ to build, repair and crew.
In that vein, many of the battles become rock-paper-scissors, of using your strengths against their weaknesses (stategy). Tactics usualy only become determinative when the opponents are sufficiently evenly matched that mistakes cause enough damage that it can turn the tide of the war.
For example, from a WWII example, it really didn't matter to Japan in 1944 whether we fought air to surface or surface to surface or air to air battles, the Japanese were in serious trouble. Superior tactics wasn't going to alter the stategic situation, and often couldn't even decide the local battle.
So in most of those battles, what we see are the reflections of the combatant's competances. They take to battle what they are good at, or what they believe the enemy is bad at.
Clearly, for a BSG scenario, the good guys will have limited capital ships, and will have to make do with smaller, more versatile fighters. For the Cylons, this would not be cost effective. With sufficient industry, it is better to make the capital ships. Similarly, in Star Wars.
Category 1 (not a hurricane) is good when I feel like an underdog, and I want some personal validation. "Yes, the plucky fighter can take on the big bully and win!"
Category 2 is what I like when I'm in the mood for a big frosted cake, or a steak dinner with all the trimmings. Very filling, and after it's done I set back and say "Aahh, now that was drama. Brain overclocked, time to rest now."
Each different series of Star Trek had its own balance, if I remember correctly.
TOS had more capital battles, possibly because the models were more impressive on screen than shuttlecraft.
TNG had even bigger capital battles, witness how big the ships got (Borg cubes, anyone?). A few shuttlecraft, and the Defiant showed up for Wolf 359.
DS9 had more of Category 2, but some big capital ships were there in the Dominion.
Voyager had more Category 2, with the Delta Flyer, etc.
I didn't watch all of Enterprise, but it seemed to have an even mix.
In terms of sci-fi/space opera, the best I can think of would be a couple huge Star Destroyer types waling at each other with the cannons. Meanwhile, one of the capital ships launches a small, heavily armored shuttle escorted by fighters. Aboard the shuttle, a crack squad of space marines, including a preacher, a Texan, an android, and a tough-as-nails woman await the order to board the other side's cruiser and capture its bridge.
And because they are a preacher, a Texan, and android, and a tough-as-nails woman, you know they're going to succeed. Or, at least, it's going to be very exciting.
Also, I'm convinced that every space opera military unit should have a bumbling kid along for the ride. 'Cuz the bumbling kid always succeeds in the end.
--|PW|--
Jerry Kindall gets mega geek-points for his excellent "no prize" explanation for BSG's alleged artificial gravity! :)
Martin and Kristian make some excellent points; I feel compelled to observe that it (generally) took far more effort to defeat a capital ship back then. I cite the Bismark as evidence. ;)
I like Jon Saul's quick'n'dirty review of Star Trek's various scenarios. I'll even include a gratuitious mention of the original Starfleet Battles (the paper &pencil table-top version, not the real-time computer version). Mucho fun for the naval enthusiasts. Really. If you like old-school table-top-style simulations, you'll love the original Starfleet Battles. Be the first to plot three D-7 Battlecruisers against a Starbase!
You can even include TOS classics like the Doomsday machine. I once tried a "solo" scenario: me (in a destroyer) against the planet eater. I decided to lead with a Kzinti-style "leap and scream" attack, which lasted all of three impulses... Splash one DD. Heh.
The game can be played on standard hex tabletop forms, or with miniatures.
Ok. Enough of that! :)
JonD deserves massive UBER-geek points for referencing the father of modern space opera, EE "Doc" Smith!
Triticale, jlb, and Kevin lead the way to enlightenment, as they explore the idea that technology determines possibilities. In other words, you can't have torpedo bombers without torpedoes. And you can't threaten capital ships unless the small boys can carry big loads. Up until the mid-1930s, capital ships really didn't need to worry too much about the small boys (fighters/bombers).
I still say Star Wars "tech" is pathetic, and that it's due to George Lucas' stupidity. What kind of fracking idiot specifies (or approves) the equivalent of flying BB/CV's that (apparently) STILL use the guns from the USS Iowa!? Look at SW: episode 6. You see recoil, and the guns actually eject cartridge cases!! Christ on a fracking crutch.
Star Trek, on the other hand, leaned towards capital ship action. I hate to say it {g}, but Starfleet Battles introduced excellent simulation rules regarding the use of shuttles with single-shot photon torpedo launchers. This was the start of fighters in the ST universe. In the SFB context, it usually takes multiple near-simultaneous hits to do significant damage, which tends to follow the WW2 historical example.
Star Wars, on the other hand, tends to "superiority" fighters, along the lines of the Hellcat or the Corsair; primarily a fighter craft with the secondary capability of carrying weapons stores. If you look at the historical record, most WW2 Navy aviators were better at air combat than sinking ships. Again, this is analogous to the Star Wars paradigm.
One of the very few Star Trek epidoes to reflect even semi-realistic tactics was Wrath of Khan; wherein a 21-century genius went up against James T. Kirk. Perspicacious watchers will immedately discern a similarity to the classic submarine drama The Enemy Below. Spock realizes that Khan unconciously leans towards two-dimensional tactics, which the three-dimensionally-aware Kirk eventually exploits.
To be honest, the last three Star Wars movies (episodes 1-3) never demonstrate any ship-to-ship tactics worth a damn. The ludicrous opening to Revenge of the Sith is, alas, about as good as it gets in Lucas-land. You have to go back to the original trilogy for any decent fodder, and one feels compelled to throw out Empire Strikes Back, as it is (gasp!) mostly character-driven. :)
This leaves episodes 4 and 6, both of which use the "small band of plucky/fiesty rebels against the overpowering forces of Whatever" model. Both times the teeny little alfabet-wing fighters go up against the HUGE Imperial ships (normally a suicide mission) and both times they enjoy the rare opportunity of knowing the exact location &characteristics of the enemy's Achillies Heel. The plucky rebels then blow up the Death Star (twice!) and save the day.
Sorry, guys, but the movies as shown are the negation of anything resembling space tactics, although an intelligent third party could adduce useful "ground rules" for that universe. Which is what I think Andrew was originally thinking about, so I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum. :))
I guess, for me, the answer would have to be: it depends... On some decent base rules for how space warfare works in a given universe.
Yes, I know, I've mentioned it before, but that's one of the great attractions of Star Fleet Battles. The physics and ground rules are laid out in simulations/wargaming form.
For example, SFB posits "gatling" point-defense phasers. These are fairly conservative in tech projection, with a trade-off between long range damage for a higher firing frequency. Think of them as the phaser equivalent of the Phalanx. :) Point being that such weapons (again this is one of the great points of SFB; much of the development was executed by military-historically-literate gamers) tend to eat fighters which come into tactically useful ranges. The Soviet Union faced the same problem when trying to get anti-ship missles withing range of US carriers.
When you have capital ships with matter/anti-matter reactors, M/A-M photon torpedoes, and high-energy long-range phasers, the fighters come out on the short end of the stick. They just don't have the power reserves to unilaterally defeat ST-style capital ships.
That's not to say fighters are irrelevant in the ST:SFB universe. Rather, they are effective in the context of a useful combined-arms doctrine. Quelle surprise! Heh.
It really depends on the technology of the universe in question, something that Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica all have (generally) made a point of avoiding during their episodes.
Years ago my favorite game was Star Fleet Battles, and in it you had (eventually) the great dreadnoughts, sleek cruisers, nimble destroyers and frigates, swift fast patrol ships, and darting fighters; and even the humble minesweepers and freighters.
Each type has a role to play and is supreme in its particular environment.
(But I still love the battle fleets - dreadnoughts, heavy and light cruisers, and their screen of destroyers. Sometimes you need the 'big hammer'; sometimes the stiletto.)
Then there is Clear the Deck by Dan Gallery, the commander of the Guadalcanal hunter-killer group that captured U-505. A good tale, "Heigh-ho Pillsbury! Ride 'im, cowboy!"
But don't ever discount the 'Long Lance'.
I designed my own heavy cruiser with 12 phaser-1 - six fx and six rx, and four phaser-3 ls and four rs. A very tough opponent with all that reserve power for maneuver and temporary shielding. What she couldn't close she could get away from.
Of course, SFB fighters, even the Federation A-10 and F-14 were not comparable to a modern aircraft in ratio to a ship with regard to speed (w/o warp packs - a Lyran invention) or in ordance capacity/capability. What they could do was erode a target's defense and provide a mobile defense for bases and planets, and destroy/hamper plasma torpedoes and drones.
Now, a pack of PFs could do a serious one-shot attack on a cruiser, economically patrol an area, and keep an attacking force at a distance from a capital ship.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.