Tuesday, August 7, 2018

My Life in Fandom (and Writing): The Problem With Starships in SF

The Spacedock channel at YouTube put out a video today that's relevant to Star Knight, something I talked about in an early lore post over at the Study a while ago. I will go back through the ships I'd previously designed with this in mind to ensure I have consistency in my lexicon.

This will take a little work on my part, and only a little as I'm already mostly-there, but it wouldn't hurt to go back over my setting notes and see about tweaking what could use it for the purpose of making it clear to my audience that X is X and not Y. At least I know I nailed it with the Gomorrah-class carriers. If you appreciate this conscientiousness from an author, and you haven't already, you can show your support by backing Star Knight here.


  1. Spacedock isn't familiar with navies, I see.

  2. I mean, that isn't what a destroyer is for... A destroyer was originally intended as a "torpedo-boat-destroyer", to protect larger vessels from small torpedo boats. In what I consider to be an unusual moment of consistency in naval terminology, that is still what destroyers are: escorts for protecting big ships from little ones.

    Still, an interesting look at how you CAN organize your terminology, given that space isn't an ocean and a space navy is just going to be borrowing names, rather than copying maritime navies' strategies entirely.

  3. Today's destroyers *are* yesterday's battleships. The displacements are roughly the same, and no one makes cruisers or heavier any more. As for maritime strategies, Mahan and Corbett are even today the starting point for space battle theory.

    My disagreement with Spacedock lies in the fact that great size means greater independence of action, and it is fairly easy to slot types of starships into naval analogues. A cruiser, for instance, was the smallest ship capable of deployment that did not need to be accompanied by logistics ships. A battlecruiser could outgun anything smaller, and outrun anything heavier, etc..

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Destroyers' task is still to protect bigger ships. I didn't say anything about their size, nor their relative firepower in comparison to older ships--merely that their role is the same as it was when they came into use.

      As to cruisers, the fact that no one builds them doesn't say anything about whether the role they play is relevant, or how they relate to other ships of the fleet--I would say it has more to do with the socio-political atmosphere and the successes thus far of the globalist agenda, than their actual irrelevance. Even if cruisers are no longer relevant (I doubt such a claim, but I'm willing to concede it for the sake of argument), there are STILL bigger ships that need protecting: namely, carriers and transports. Thus destroyers can still be destroyers, even if they are no longer as specialized as they once were.

      No one can say what the starting point for space battle theory is--there has never been a space battle. Without any concrete reality on which to base the theory, it isn't theory; it is wild imaginings. Which is, you know, science fiction rather than anything to be taken seriously.

      I stand by my previous comment about Stardock.


Anonymous comments are banned. Pick a name, and "Unknown" (et. al.) doesn't count.