Does warp drive render space warfare obsolete?

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Otherwise you end up with 'speed of plot', which tends to undercut believability pretty quickly.

Speed of plot not only undermines believability, it also robs players of the ability to make strategic choices.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Coinage

Right, that is very common in Sci-fi. However, I was wondering how it would be based on the actual current scientific theories.

The semi-realistic FTL drives requires unrealistic amounts of hyberdense matter (or black holes) or "negative energy" (whatever that is).
The implications of these on a setting make it almost unworkable to have FTL drives, both due to practice limitations and due to people doing stupid things like running black holes into the stars of populated systems.

So if you want to use FTL just make up a set of self-consistent rules for its use.

[shawnhcorey]

All FTL travel is time travel. It also violates both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. So it is not possible in hard science.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Coinage

Okay, so basically I should just make up what I think is necessary for an entertaining setting. I was just hoping for something with some current scientific backing, but that's okay.

(scratches his head) What conceivable scientific backing, current or otherwise, could there possibly be?

But no matter the limitations on such a drive -- not being able to go FTL too close to a planet/sun being common -- I'm minded of a classic military dictum: that with enough force you can blockade an area, bomb an area, blow it to tell, even obliterate it ... but until you stick a pimply 19-year-old with a rifle on top of it, you don't control it.

[Coinage]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

But if you want it to 'feel' believable, you need to decide what it can and can't do and stick with that. Make your fictional tech fairly consistent. That is, if you can warp closer to Earth (or an Earth-like world) than one diameter out, then stick with that, or if you don't, note why it changed and what the change can and can't do.

Otherwise you end up with 'speed of plot', which tends to undercut believability pretty quickly.

Very true. Internally consistency, and having firm laws, is a good idea.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Coinage

Okay, so basically I should just make up what I think is necessary for an entertaining setting. I was just hoping for something with some current scientific backing, but that's okay.

When faced with this decision in my game, I went with a hyperspace solution. Ships could enter and leave hyperspace through specific transition points, but can travel anywhere in hyperspace - transition points aren't linked to each other. Transition points in hyperspace are much closer to each other (think AU instead of light years), so it's possible to cross interstellar distances in reasonable amounts of time without needing multistage spacecraft using huge amounts of reaction mass. Hyperspace isn't a vacuum, so ships can use fluid breathing engines to accelerate continuously, but it's not a vacuum, so ships have a limited maximum speed based on pseudo-fluid dynamics.

On the game design side, my hyperspace implementation does have the advantage of giving natural chokepoints to encourage space battles, and also dilutes the advantage that a large fleet has - when a 1 foot difference in position in hyperspace means an 8 mile difference in position when transiting back to real space, a large fleet is inevitably going to be dispersed.

Hyperspace does break our current understanding of physics, but I consider this similar to the break from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics. Newtonian physics are correct at speeds much less than the speed of light; Einsteinian physics are correct in realspace but don't account for hyperspace. I have some vague hope that my hyperspace implementation doesn't break causality because the hyperspace path is just a shorter path, but I barely comprehend general relativity and working out the implications is beyond me.

[Tinman]

Space combat will never be obsolete as long as any power will want to get to & land on a planet. The fleets may not fight in deep space but the attackers will have to drop out of warp to attack/land on a planet & that's where the battles will be.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

All FTL travel is time travel. It also violates both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. So it is not possible in hard science.

As far as we currently know. That's an important qualifier.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

... but until you stick a pimply 19-year-old with a rifle on top of it, you don't control it.

Right up until some jerk comes by with TWO pimply 19-year-olds...then HE controls it.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Right up until some jerk comes by with TWO pimply 19-year-olds...then HE controls it.

But it's still infantry control. We've had predictions for centuries, with every advancement in weaponry and warfare technology, that this or that would make infantry irrelevant or marginal...and somehow it never happens.