The Truth About Space Combat

Thanks for watching space dorks!

And this is were 40k is ahead of it's time, the battles take place at massive ranges, using titanic shells that are hauled into place by hundreds of people per shell.
Dog fighting in space almost never happens because the smaller space ships (Fighters and Bombers) are meant to deploy from orbit into the atmosphere.

As for boarding, this is near exclusively done by the astartes, who are fired at an enemy ship inside of a torpedo.

Stealth is handled by shutting down as much of the ship as possible (Or warp nonsense), leaving the ships to drift into what in 40k is knife fighting range, but in almost any other universe is impossible long range.

Cost may be a factor that makes small combat space craft "viable". Particularly for non-government actors or free civilians. They'd be limited, more "self defense and evasion" oriented, and bigger than today's air fighters because you need the space for systems. But they'd be "small" for their own era, as military ships would probably be huge.

With enough distance, a "carrier" could maneuver out of the way of incoming physical fire, and at least be moving around to maybe evade some lasers.. Meanwhile the small, harder to target and hit craft, maybe in a large enough swarm that they can't all be targeted fast enough, can close the distance and open fire at a range that cannot be so easily evaded.

That said, drones would be required to make that viable, rather than manned craft.-hey, you hit that point.

And, space pirates could have a great advantage, as ROE could protect them until they close the distance..they'd just have to have a craftier system of getting close. Maybe even something that triggers your ships "emergency broadcast" while venting your atmosphere..take what they want, all while having the story of "we rushed to help them". Criminals always find a way.

I used to like this channel but this video is the epitome of Reddit's most insular, nearbeardiest, fart-huffing circlejerk. And then you have the nerve to go after the low-hanging fruit of attacking Bethesda for checks notes not reinventing the space-trading/adventure genre despite the fact that, as you point out, these tropes are the most popular.

Firstly, you make WAAAAY too many assumptions about space combat a century or two in the future will look like. You have no idea what space combat or technology can/will achieve in the distant future or how it will change the nature of warfare. You may as well be an 18th century intellectual claiming that zeppelins and ironclads are the future.

Your assumptions that guided asteroids are going to be a better weapon than a drone assumes that rocks and drones will achieve similar efficiency, without considering the larger prospect of what happens to a rock-missile that misses its target.

Your assumptions aside, who tf put you in charge of the "We need to Advance Science Fiction" Committee? Because last I checked there is no such thing. And why is it up to Bethesda to satisfy your need for hard science fiction?

Did you ever consider that a hard science fiction game would not be as intuitive or fun? Have you ever tried playing a Newtonian space shooter? Lemme tell you - I have - and they are terrible (Mantis and Elite 2). The only one that came close to doing it justice was Independence War because it was simulating a capital ship, otherwise Newtonian physics are terrible for gameplay. They aren't intuitive or responsive; being able to glide in one direction and shoot in another sounds cool until you realize you're trying to hit a target the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It's an exercise in constantly fighting controls to get your crosshairs on target.

And it's not up to Bethesda to advance the genre or make the hard sci-fi game you think they owe you. I swear, if Todd Howard could walk on water you'd accuse him of not being able to swim. You've been on Reddit or 4chan for far too long that you've lost all perspective of what objectivity looks like.

You think the use of science shields you from criticism because reasons but it does not; your smug use of science is a crutch, used to make you feel intellectually superior instead of a tool to bring one closer to the truth.

you ruined every space game for me thanks

Is “cloaking” a ship even possible? If so then they could sneak up on someone.

one of the most realistic Sci-fi books i've read is To Sleep in a Sea of Stars, by Christopher Paolini

Okay, now you got me curious. How accurate is Kerbal Space Program then?

There would absolutely be piracy, but it would be deception-based instead of ambushes. In The Expanse, the transponders are designed to self-destruct and destroy the ship if they're tampered with (i.e. to change a ships name), and I just realised why watching this video. The show has a ton of little details like that which it shows you, then lets you work it out for yourself. That's a big part of why I love it so much

Its not just Starfield its every space game ever made. The reason is if you make it realistic it will be a snore-fest. The closest would be Expanse in game form but that would have limited marketability because even it would not have mass appeal

Seems like Star Trek is way more realistic than most when it comes to space battles. No little ships, other than shuttles which are not used for combat and using energy shields for defense. lasers/phasers at close range and photon / quantum torpedos for max damage.

If you change your objective to prediction rather than dodging light then you might be able to defend better. I would make a type of defense system that just converted the laser energy to my own uses.

I feel like he was trying to start a flame war with that comment about Galactica being realistic. That show was so dumb, while trying to be smart. Thank you very much I take my WW2 dog fights over this, because than at least I care that it's not realistic, because they are not trying to be.

Elite Dangerous does it fairly well.

Elite Dangerous does it fairly well.

Basically, its worse than Skyrim and the predecessors...
No planets, no space flight, just a weird, annoying cut scenes over and over

So Trek has it closer to right than Star Wars. See, that's what I've been saying all along.

i remember watching "rogue one" and bitching about this. my wife didn't get it.

"We could see the ships coming from a gazillion miles away!"
Except if they're ballistic, and broadcasting nothing towards earth. How many things, how many earth threatening asteroids fly past us in close proximity and astronomers are like "Ope, didn't see that one until it tapped on our shoulders!" Our long range detection tech would have to change significantly to be able to find a capitol ship, let alone a fighter.

Star Wars uses plasma, not lasers. The Expanse does a pretty good job at depicting realistic space travel and combat.