Oerjan Ohlson wrote:> At least some Drazi ships do similar manoeuvres, and
EarthForce
> heavies seem to do so as well from time to time - though at a much
To which Jared replied:
> This is blatantly not true. In the 1st season episode "A
[ munch more examples ]
Jared is right about the Earthforce ships. There is only one case I can think
of where an EA ship does any kind of tactical manouvering, the Hyperion in "A
Voice in the Wilderness" does make an offscreen "come about" and seems to
approach the enemy ship head on.
In defence of EA, J Michael Straczynski has said online that he envisioned the
battles taking place at long ranges, but for dramatic purposes only the battle
between the Narns and Shadows in "The Long, Twilight Struggle" really shows
the distances.
Plus the EA ships are described in the B5 Wars book as having
all the agility of cast-iron bathtubs, and compared to White
Stars, Minbari, or Shadows, they are. So they probably *are* turning in the B5
scenes, it just isn't detectable by human
eyes in the limited time available :-)
(I've tried designing some Earthforce ships for FT. The Nova
got Thrust-2 only because they do seem able to do a 180
without first coming to a stop, and the Omega Thrust-3 as
supposedly being faster.)
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:> At least some Drazi ships do similar
I think the "for dramatic purposes" bit really hits the nail on the head, and
should remind us all of something very important that many gamers (and
game-writers!) often forget once they get into dissecting the episodes
of a
TV show. Effectively EVERYTHING seen on-screen is for dramatic purposes,
and there is probably (even in a series like B5, let alone any of the Trek
incarnations) very little thought given at any stage to the "realism" aspect.
If the narrative demands that ship A will fire a big red beam and conveniently
knock out ship B's drives while not harming any of it's crew, then that's
exactly what will happen. It really doesn't seem to matter to the writers or
directors that last week that same big red beam vapourised a ship in one shot,
or that next week it'll perhaps have no effect at all.
This makes life very hard for gamers and game-writers; we're trying to
find logic and consistency where there probably was none thought of in the
first place. Yes, we can argue that we're trying to depict what is seen on the
screen, but the problem is that what's seen on the screen in seldom in any way
consistent or logical. Talking about timescale and distance in TV space
battles is probably the most meaningless of all - what we see is
whatever looks best for that particular scene or special effect, and "reality"
will always give way to the needs of the visual impact.
Probably the best we can hope for on the tabletop is something that comes
near the general feel of the battles we see on the screen - which will
seldom match any given specific scene or effect.
OK, I'll get back in the box now.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> Plus the EA ships are described in the B5 Wars book as having
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> In defence of EA, J Michael Straczynski has said online that
I actually have no problem with the way the EA ships move and fight in B5. I
really like the show. I was merely presenting examples to
disprove O.O.'s assertion that large ships perform a Rotate-MD
Burn-Rotate-Fire-Rinse & Repeat cycle.
J
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> If the narrative demands that ship A will fire a big red beam and
There is no beam. We can't afford a beam. Just sound effects.:)
J