Does /tg/ prefer the Dan Abnett-style of space knife-fighting seen in The Saint, , the super-long range relativistic combat of Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet, the knock-off 18th Century naval warfare of David Weber's Honor Harrington, or the millions of kilometers exchanges for hours of the original BFG sourcebooks?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what style the majority of fa/tg/uys think is the proper way to portray space warfare in the 41st Millennium so that when I write my stories about it people don't bitch about how it's wrong. I already know people will fault me for going with the old-fashioned, circa 2008 descriptions of macrocannon batteries being hundreds of esoteric space weapons grouped up for massive saturation fire rather than the newer depictions where each of the squares on an Imperial cruiser's flank is a single super-massive gun.
I've always been a fan of the rehashed 18th century ship of the line style combat, though the grognard in me has a hard on for the millions of kilometer distance engagements and relativistic engagements.
Up close and personal fits 40K better then the super long distance stuff, imo.
>>44314892
There are different ways of doing this though. Escorts are stated to fight like that, while capital ships fight at long ranges.
The problem is that in-game, Imperial ships really favor long-range combat. Only Space Marines and Tyranids really work at close-ranges. But if you read Dan Abnett, all fights take place within a few hundred KMs or less and ships shoot and die in 30 minutes.
>>44313563
Pre-dreadnought stuff, somewhere between Lissa and Tsushima. Though space Jutland would be fucking awesome.
>>44313563
Read this
http://www.letterstime.com/Dogger_Bank/DB_Story_Page.html
http://www.letterstime.com/Jutland/Jutland_Main_Story_Page.html
And do it in space
>>44315134
>all fights take place within a few hundred KMs or less and ships shoot and die in 30 minutes.
Which fits the setting better than 'I take a shot at the blip on my radar 10 million kms away'.
>>44315284
Long range gunnery duels can be interesting. The focus needs to be on the methodical degradation of the ships.
>>44313563
>Does /tg/ prefer the Dan Abnett-style of space knife-fighting seen in The Saint, , the super-long range relativistic combat of Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet, the knock-off 18th Century naval warfare of David Weber's Honor Harrington, or the millions of kilometers exchanges for hours of the original BFG sourcebooks?
Yes.
Though I thought one of the major merits of BFG was that they DIDN'T specify the ranges, and use 'void units' or whatever- so it's quite possible to interpret it as combat taking place at light-minutes apart.
>>44315199
What is that like?
>>44315284
Well that's how most BFG battles start though. The Imperial Navy has torpedoes for a reason, after all. It's just that usually these long-range weapons aren't enough and so they close the distance, which is the point of the armored prows.
18th-century naval warfare wasn't just yardarm to yardarm. At least, not for the good captains.
>>44315716
I always thought it did take light-minutes apart, but it runs into some confusing things when you've got laser-based macrocannons on escorts, so they shoot at blips far away and hit them within minutes, and others fire railgun-launched projectiles that don't travel at light speed and so will take hours.
There's also a really good space battle in Abnett's Salvation's Reach, which seems to have curved back toward the original rulebook fluff.
>>44315237
>tfw you will never be brought to tears by the 44 lines of Dread Nought My Children
>>44313563
Battles can last hours, and fights take place over hundreds of kilometers to the point that you may not even be able to see the fuckers you're shooting at with the MK1 Eyeball.
Just use BFG the game as a source. Everything that tries to make 40k like star wars is shit.
>>44315716
Yes they specificy the ranges. You can scale of the size of planets in the game. Not to mention that the writers also mention that combat takes place over absurd distances.
>>44313563
BFG core. Save the dramatic close-range stuff for the frigates and fighters.
Granted, there's plenty of scenarios where you'll have close range brawls, but those have more impact when they aren't the standard. Abnett's problem is he tries to write things too.. personal? if that makes sense? He doesn't really convey the scale of the fights well.
>>44317918
Kind of? Aside from the daemonships just cutting an Exorcist Grand Cruiser in half with one shot.
>>44318135
I'd agree with this. I really get pissed at shit like Macragge's Honour.
>We're maintaining visual contact! IN THE WARP!
>Prepare the cannons! They're literally just 8 giant guns on the sides of the battle barge.
>Void shields do nothing at all.
>>44317818
The impression I got was that each 'turn' in BFG was anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours. A macrocannon barrage might be one volley fired and landing, after quite a bit of travel time.
>>44318303
II'd also agree. Unless you're piloting a bomber, you're not going to see the other ship with naked eye. Most of the crew work their fingers to the bones just to get the ship fully operational, no time to even look outside. Even if your ships is boarded, you might see the enemy boarding part, if you're "lucky".
>>44318937
Dan Abnett Macragge's Honour: Macragge's Honour physically attaches itself to Kor Phaeon's ship to board it with Terminators, only for Phaeron to use warp magic to teleport boarders onto the Macragge's Honour. And he is only able to do that because he lured them in close enough to be boarded. It's fucking stupid.
>>44319199
>Macragge's Honour physically attaches itself to Kor Phaeon's ship to board it
Not.. that weird. I mean, ramming is a thing that exists in the setting.
