>far future setting where humanity has expanded throughout

>>15553575

Why would sea navies exist in a setting where most conflict is going to take place either in space or on land to capture civilian resources? Sea navies exist right now because the oceans are the main gap between powers. It wouldn't be the main gap anymore in an instellar setting; that'd be space. Unless individual planets are broken down in to multiple competing factions a sea navy would be pointless.

>>15553575
what fucking purpose would that serve, how would that ever be an asset at that technological level, unless your magic energy source of choice for the setting is only obtained through deep sea excavation and subs are super important to your conflicts

File: rly makes u think.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>15553597
>>15553607
the sea of space duh

>>15553612
dont crabstick me goofy, they obviously have space fleets in the scenario

>>15553575
>>15553597
>>15553607
I guess it all depends on what their atmospheric flight technology is like. It's possible that traveling by sea would be more efficient in terms of large vessels, but if they have FTL tech I highly doubt that they can't build massive airships more efficiently than sea ships.

Another possibility of using sea vessels is that air vessels might be vulnerable to long range artillery moreso than something on the water.

The only thing I can think of to justify sea based vessels in such a scenario is for planets that are overwhelmingly water and a lack of technology for ships that can indefinitely stay in flight within the atmosphere. Of course, there's also the question of underwater exploration.

It all depends, really.

File: 1476556808725.jpg (41KB, 763x757px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 763x757px

>far future in space
>main combat tool is mecha

File: 1375060241639.png (43KB, 195x193px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 195x193px

>>15553792
>far future space setting
>allowing children and teenagers to pilot expensive military equipment

>>15553792

As much as I love the idea of Children of a Dead Earth, sitting watching ships shoot lasers and kinetics at each other from light-minutes away would be boring as shit in a TV show.

File: legend_of_the_galactic_heroes.jpg (114KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 900x506px

>>15553853
>boring as shit in a TV show

Think again

>>15554263
the fun part of LoGH is the politics, the battles are boring as shit.

>>15553842
>not weaponizing autism

It's almost like you want lose a war.

File: zeta.png (781KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1024x768px

>>15553842
>allowing children and teenagers to pilot expensive military equipment
thats because all of the adult pilots were dead and the children had space autism that gave them super powers

File: 816.gif (168KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 375x375px

>far future setting where humanity has expanded throughout the galaxy
>none or only one other alien species exists

>>15553597
Water worlds where navy is the only police.

>>15554437
highly possible

>>15554263
That is not a TV show, so you'd hardly be proving him wrong even if the battles were super exciting.

File: latest.png (261KB, 627x482px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 627x482px

>>15553575

That depends on the story you're applying it to.

>There's nothing wrong with our fleet capability to operate in all environments whatsoever, from vacuum to lava worlds to sludge lakes to plain old underwater
>But let's built a 21st-century surface boat for a submerged cave mission just because

There's no meaning to having a planetary navy if your space fleet is just as good on, just above, and far under a planet's sea level, as it is off it. Even the excuses of "specialization" and "cut costs" can only carry you so far.

>>15554263
Style over substance, the show.

>>15556225

> Legend of Galactic Heroes
> known or celebrated for its style

File: starship-operators.jpg (272KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x1024px

>>15554541
Ok a proper TV show then

>>15554765
Building that was a mistake

It was better to go the practical way and build those submersible POW's which could launch torpedoes

>Operation Bitter Chocolate English translation never never

File: Desynch.png (914KB, 857x476px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 857x476px

>>15554765
Don't forget operating just fine in a parallel dimensions

>>15553575
Again, but in english.

>>15559020
OP's English is fine. Is 'sea navies' confusing you?

>>15558182
>>Operation Bitter Chocolate English translation never never

There's a group doing this. They've been at it for a while and were pretty nearly done last I checked. I was going to help at one point, but I've had no time.

>>15554541
>>15554313
The battles are some of the best ship battles in all of mecha

>>15556225
What's the matter kiddo, too smart for you? Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of the 3rd grade after all.

>>15554263
I hate to argue, but the combat isn't the selling point of LoGH battles. You get a few clips of Julian and the red head in their fighters that's about it, aside from a few ships dancing into Napoleonic era formations, lights flashing, followed by explosions, then clips of the gore inside the ships. The selling points here isn't the action sequences, its the bridge crews and commanders talking and adjusting. It's Yang's adaptation to the overall picture. It's Bittenfield charging ahead. The direction of the characters not the ships is what makes it work.

>>15558205
>>15558182

It's a real pity since design-wise there isn't anything wrong with it. It's not standout, but it's solidly-built with a nice profile.

In any other series its design would range from respectable fodder(eg. Arpeggio) to a legitimate final opponent (eg. Tactical Roar).

File: 1482945168706.png (211KB, 648x479px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 648x479px

>>15556229
>>15559426
Somebody sounds triggered.

>>15553597

Let's play a game: I have a space fleet, you have a planetary defense force.

Let's go over your options.

Stationary emplacements are the best defended and strongest, but are entirely irrelevant in a setting without a severe attack-defense mismatch: I can shell your bases from orbit until they are destroyed or disabled. You're fighting uphill the whole time.

Ground forces are necessary, but must be dispersed and mobile: They aren't intended to fight your fleet, but to foil invasion.

Air forces are necessary to support these ground forces, but these must distributed as well, and concealed, I don't even need explosives to destroy an airfield from orbit: I can drop a derelict or rock, and it'll be cheaper to build a new airfield than excavate the 100m crater.

Of course, space forces are the best option: You can dictate theater, you've got mobility, you can cover for your other forces, but these forces are expensive and high-tech.

What you really need is craft that can deploy sufficiently massive ordinance, evade structure-targetted weaponry, can be concealed from sensors and are sufficiently distributed like the other PDF forces.

The Boomer Sub rises again, evolved. Supported by inexpensive high-speed destroyers to respond to force concentrations with craft too numerous and agile to expend orbital artillery against. In lieu of more specialized craft, U-boat style vehicles can take advantage of stealth (not to mention the damage mitigation of dozens of meters of seawater)

Obscurity, Mobility, Artillery, in that order. An orbital siege cannot be maintained if you lose a ship every four days to a coordinated attack from undetected contacts which are lost to sensors within hours.

>>15561671
Not that guy, but you're making a lot of assumptions that benefit your side of the argument.

You say that because you're in space, you can just easily shell anything on the surface. But like modern day air power, what if it can be neutralized by artillery emplacements or, in the case of a sci-fi setting, rendered useless by force fields?

Your space forces might not even be able to approach a planetary body that is well fortified. Ultimately, your argument is a fallacy that assumes the best scenario for your side.

Strategy in warfare and the viability of attack is directly based on the capabilities of defense. Everything is completely situational based on the technology available.

Basically, arguing either way is just plain silly because there are no actual ground rules or context for the discussion.

>>15553575
>space fleet and orbital forces
>planet land forces
>planet navy forces
>coordination between them

Too complex

File: paxton_fettel_6anim_gif_clickdont_mind_the_preview_by_agentalpha-d621qj1[1].jpg (297KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1024x768px

>>15553575
>far future setting where humanity has expanded throughout the galaxy
>using humans like today instead of human-commander of drone army like in Supreme Commander

File: heard ya talkin shitoko.jpg (62KB, 180x185px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 180x185px

>near future setting where cyborg girls can look however they want
>thick, luxurious fluffy hair isn't commonplace

>>15564366
>Your space forces might not even be able to approach a planetary body that is well fortified
Not him, but simple kinetic weapons from a space force are always going to be effective, a planet can't dodge after all. Once you get into the fractions of light speed a practical interplanetary/stellar spacecraft would be able to obtain small masses would release tremendous energy. Just a 100 kilogram projectile traveling at .01c would release the energy equivalent of a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead.

File: 1434702640682.jpg (604KB, 1280x1889px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1280x1889px

>game shows promise of cool space travel
>spend 3/4 of the game stuck on a primitive planet

>>15564978
>Not him, but simple kinetic weapons from a space force are always going to be effective
You're talking about a sci-fi setting. They could easily just vaporize it with lasers or lessen its momentum with gravity manipulation technology or any amount of endless bullshit. Not him, but read the fucking post.

>>15565063
I'm not either of you, but "sci-fi setting" doesn't mean "you can wave your hands and do magic", and making assumptions about the level of science-fiction involved just makes you look uninformed. Kinetic kill weapons are a well-studied and classic staple of hard sf, see

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Kinetic_Kill_Weapons

>>15565084
Your entire argument depends on the technology of the setting. So unless you want to cite a specific setting, there's nothing to discuss or analyze.

>>15561671

Let me stop you after the first sentence; why would I be depending on a planet bound force as my primary means of defending a planet in an interstellar setting? Like you say, doing so means always fighting an uphill battle, even if you change that battle to include "stealth" units that are harder to see. Using an orbital fleet of satellites and ships that can move around it while being on a level playing field is much more advantageous. Just because they're expensive doesn't mean that they won't be the primary means of defense.