Which science fiction universe has the worst tactics?

[Srelex]

Bad tactics are common in science fiction, but can often be excused by rule of cool or how entertaining they look. However, which scifi universe has the worst tactics in proportion to its in-universe technological and social development? So, for example, I think there are some future-set mecha anime which fight with melee weapons for little good reason, while some universes that are ostensibly fantasy set have better excuses, if you know what I mean. So, what are your picks?

EDIT:Or, alternately and more simply, what's the worst example of shoddy tactics in scifi you've seen?

[AMT]

Bad tactics are common in science fiction, but can often be excused by rule of cool or how entertaining they look. However, which scifi universe has the worst tactics in proportion to its in-universe technological and social development? So, for example, I think there are some future-set mecha anime which fight with melee weapons for little good reason, while some universes that are ostensibly fantasy set have better excuses, if you know what I mean. So, what are your picks?

EDIT:Or, alternately and more simply, what's the worst example of shoddy tactics in scifi you've seen?

Probably the Emperor's in Return of the Jedi, where the so-called elite legion of stormtroopers is defeated by 4 foot-tall aborginal teddy bears and a unit of rebels on the ground.

[fgalkin]

Star Trek and movie Starship Troopers, probably, althoubh Battletech should also probably get a mention due to the silliness of mechs.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Korgeta]

Bad tactics are common in science fiction, but can often be excused by rule of cool or how entertaining they look. However, which scifi universe has the worst tactics in proportion to its in-universe technological and social development? So, for example, I think there are some future-set mecha anime which fight with melee weapons for little good reason, while some universes that are ostensibly fantasy set have better excuses, if you know what I mean. So, what are your picks?

EDIT:Or, alternately and more simply, what's the worst example of shoddy tactics in scifi you've seen?

Probably the Emperor's in Return of the Jedi, where the so-called elite legion of stormtroopers is defeated by 4 foot-tall aborginal teddy bears and a unit of rebels on the ground.

with Filipino dialogue included (however you work that one out)

Star Trek, Tactics are plot driven, simple as.

Warhammer, tactics doesn't exist either, take away the booms and all the guys in ridiculous layers of armour and you'll see that characters are amassed at random points yelling out orders. The idea of these guys attacking each other with power saws in bloody stupidity given the other is armoured as well, chain saw strikes metal what happens? Er...nothing (bingo!) The design of the ships and other forms of combat look impractical.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Star Trek and movie Starship Troopers, probably, althoubh Battletech should also probably get a mention due to the silliness of mechs.

I give an honorable mention to Narn infantry tactics in Babylon 5, episode Severed Dreams. In Garibaldi's words: "Nuts!". I can't believe JMS defended them by making a comparison to Omaha beach at Normandy. Too bad he didn't realize the huge difference in the tactical situation.

[Korgeta]

Star Trek and movie Starship Troopers, probably, althoubh Battletech should also probably get a mention due to the silliness of mechs.

I give an honorable mention to Narn infantry tactics in Babylon 5, episode Severed Dreams. In Garibaldi's words: "Nuts!". I can't believe JMS defended them by making a comparison to Omaha beach at Normandy. Too bad he didn't realize the huge difference in the tactical situation.

Oh yes send in the narns routine. Saying that the narns had shown in the past to jump in and fight approach, so that tactic wasn't to be entirely unexpected.

[Stravo]

As much as I love WH40K I find their tactics (especially tabletop game-wise) to be downright unbelievable. Any sci-fi verse where melee weapons are a vital part of combat without some hand wavum (a la Dune shields) flies in the face of how warfare has advanced in the last 300 years. Ranges increase all the time to the point where you don't even see your attacker yet routinely they close to melee range where combat is decided. And the melee weapons used are axes and swords - albiet cool versions of axes and swords. Mind you, again, I LOVE the setting so I ignore it but every now and then I just have to wonder where the OTH combat and lethality of weapons 30,000 years ahead of us is.

Star Trek's depiction of combat used to be decent - maybe because many writers in the 60's may have had actual combat experience. Just compare the ground combat in the TOS episode "Arena" to the HORRIFIC assault on AR-646 from DS9. We go from small units tactics trying to outsmart an enemy using long range artillery and spotting to a craptastic neotlithic level of combat tactics with an enemy that doesn't use orbital fire, air support, artillery, etc, instead just chage forward in a human wave assault on a Federation position held for months that never bothered to dig in or build the most rudimentary defensive structures...like maybe a wall. UGH.

[fgalkin]

Star Trek and movie Starship Troopers, probably, althoubh Battletech should also probably get a mention due to the silliness of mechs.

I give an honorable mention to Narn infantry tactics in Babylon 5, episode Severed Dreams. In Garibaldi's words: "Nuts!". I can't believe JMS defended them by making a comparison to Omaha beach at Normandy. Too bad he didn't realize the huge difference in the tactical situation.

To be fair, Narns are always portrayed in the series as ridiculous soldiers, from their harebrained war plans, to things like very rare and expensive warships sacrificing themselves for a freighter full of civillians, to their ground tactics. It's no surprise they lost the war.

However, this actually makes sense given the problems of real-world militaries which have originated as guerilla forces, and shouldn't be held against B5. The other series I mentioned don't have that excuse.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Srelex]

In fairness, the Starship Troopers movie isn't supposed to be taken that seriously (and the book can go screw itself).

[fgalkin]

As much as I love WH40K I find their tactics (especially tabletop game-wise) to be downright unbelievable. Any sci-fi verse where melee weapons are a vital part of combat without some hand wavum (a la Dune shields) flies in the face of how warfare has advanced in the last 300 years. Ranges increase all the time to the point where you don't even see your attacker yet routinely they close to melee range where combat is decided. And the melee weapons used are axes and swords - albiet cool versions of axes and swords. Mind you, again, I LOVE the setting so I ignore it but every now and then I just have to wonder where the OTH combat and lethality of weapons 30,000 years ahead of us is.

This trend depends on the attacker being able to reliably defeat the defender's armor at range. This is true of the real world, however, given the advances of the 41st millenium, where a suit of power armor is able to ignore multiple hits from energy weapons in the multi-MJ range, to say nothing of slug throwers, this is not necessarily the case (meaning that there IS handwavium after all). In fact, for Space Marines, getting up close and personal actually makes sense, given their massive physical superiority, on top of the benefits granted to them by their power armor. It is quite easy to outgun a Space Marine force (and in fact, many armies do), but few armies can stand against them in close combat. I would also like to remind you that many Marines actually use things like drop-pods and APCs to get close to the enemy, rather than merely charging into incoming enemy firepower, and neutralizing their range advantage. There is, of course, the matter of inflexible doctrine and the such, so that suboptimal tactics are being used, but on the whole getting up close makes sense for Marines (just as fighting at range using massive firepower makes sense for the Guard, the Eldar, and the Tau).

Star Trek's depiction of combat used to be decent - maybe because many writers in the 60's may have had actual combat experience. Just compare the ground combat in the TOS episode "Arena" to the HORRIFIC assault on AR-646 from DS9. We go from small units tactics trying to outsmart an enemy using long range artillery and spotting to a craptastic neotlithic level of combat tactics with an enemy that doesn't use orbital fire, air support, artillery, etc, instead just chage forward in a human wave assault on a Federation position held for months that never bothered to dig in or build the most rudimentary defensive structures...like maybe a wall. UGH.

Star Trek's infamous Klingon and Jem'Hadar charges also, unfortunately make sense in-universe, given how they routinely succeed against Feddie personnel. Of course, just how this degeneration came about is another matter entirely, which puts Star Trek way over the edge of suspension of disbelief.

In fairness, the Starship Troopers movie isn't supposed to be taken that seriously (and the book can go screw itself).

Indeed it does, and I like it for this (as the book is utter shite). However, taken at face value, MI tactics are quite shitty.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ford Prefect]

althoubh Battletech should also probably get a mention due to the silliness of mechs.

I don't actually like Battletech, but given that it makes use of combined arms, artillery, air support and so on in tandem, saying they have 'the worst tactics' is bullshit. Equipment isn't the same thing as tactics. While Star Wars isn't exactly a paragon of military brilliance, they're still better than something like Star Trek, despite the preponderance of mecha in Star Wars.

[Batman]

Of those I know movie Starship Troopers easily takes the cake. Armoured vehicles leave alone tanks are for pussies, as are support weapons or artillery. Real soldiers WALK, and face a physically massively more resilient enemy face to face.
'Air support? The last time we used that we annihilated an entire valley full of bugs with no casualties of our own! Where's the fun in that? No more air support! That's an order!'

[Temujin]

Sadly most SciFi universes have pretty shitty tactics, mainly cause the writers either don't know shit about real tactics, or can't be arsed to find out; the plot and/or technology dictates events that would be ludicrous in any realistic scenario; or a lack of imagination of just how technology might change warfare leads the author to essentially write scenes that are based on poor movie and TV examples of past wars.

Star Trek if often lambasted for its generally shitty starship tactics, and even more abysmal ground tactics, but even Star Wars had plenty of lumbering ships firing point blank blank salvos at one another, and their ground tactics, despite their plethora of different weapon systems, could be rather abysmal itself at times.

I honestly think it would be easier to show who actually has competent tactics. For Space combat, I would say Andromeda and TOS, as they often had BOV starship combat relying more on instruments than the Mark I Eyeball.

[Marcus Aurelius]

However, this actually makes sense given the problems of real-world militaries which have originated as guerilla forces, and shouldn't be held against B5. The other series I mentioned don't have that excuse.

Which real-world military forces are you referring to? The Vietminh / North Vietnamese in general did rather well both against the French and the Americans. Vietcong did some serious mistakes like the Tet offensive, but in all fairness the VC at that point was still a guerrilla force that tried to act like a real military and not an established military force that originated as a guerrilla force.

The Taliban were poorly equipped by Western standards, but they still did rather well against the Northern Alliance despite the latter receiving support (albeit fairly modest before 9/11) from Russia. Against the Coalition forces they of course had no chance in symmetric warfare due to massive difference in firepower and technology. A first world army with the same gear would have been defeated in short order as well, although it might have inflicted slightly more casualties to the Coalition.

I honestly think it would be easier to show who actually has competent tactics. For Space combat, I would say Andromeda and TOS, as they often had BOV starship combat relying more on instruments than the Mark I Eyeball.

If those count as competent tactics, then Babylon 5 certainly counts as well at least as far as space combat goes. Reasonable ground tactics are even more difficult to find; Star Wars has some, but also retarded in other scenes. Perhaps something in literary scifi universes... Hyperionverse was not too bad, although the ground combat was not really described in detail (which was just as well, since Hyperion is not military scifi in its core). Cultureverse has only small unit ground combat under special circumstances (pun intented), which is logical considering the power level, and it seems fairly consistent with the universe (i.e. AIs rule and humans are mostly just along for the ride).

[fgalkin]

However, this actually makes sense given the problems of real-world militaries which have originated as guerilla forces, and shouldn't be held against B5. The other series I mentioned don't have that excuse.

Which real-world military forces are you referring to? The Vietminh / North Vietnamese in general did rather well both against the French and the Americans. Vietcong did some serious mistakes like the Tet offensive, but in all fairness the VC at that point was still a guerrilla force that tried to act like a real military and not an established military force that originated as a guerrilla force.

The Taliban were poorly equipped by Western standards, but they still did rather well against the Northern Alliance despite the latter receiving support (albeit fairly modest before 9/11) from Russia. Against the Coalition forces they of course had no chance in symmetric warfare due to massive difference in firepower and technology. A first world army with the same gear would have been defeated in short order as well, although it might have inflicted slightly more casualties to the Coalition.

You misunderstand. Guerrilla forces are able to fight just fine. It's when they become regular armies, but retain elements of their guerrilla past that they run into serious problems, as shown by the cases of the US Army prior to the war of 1812, the Red Army of the 1920s, the IDF, and others. I am not familiar enough with the current Vietnamese military to tell if they should be included on that list as well.

If those count as competent tactics, then Babylon 5 certainly counts as well at least as far as space combat goes. Reasonable ground tactics are even more difficult to find; Star Wars has some, but also retarded in other scenes. Perhaps something in literary scifi universes... Hyperionverse was not too bad, although the ground combat was not really described in detail (which was just as well, since Hyperion is not military scifi in its core). Cultureverse has only small unit ground combat under special circumstances (pun intented), which is logical considering the power level, and it seems fairly consistent with the universe (i.e. AIs rule and humans are mostly just along for the ride).

Weberverse, and Baen universes in general are usually the best in terms of tactics, which makes perfect sense. Except Stirling. God help his Draka series, because nothing on this earth can.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Temujin]

I haven't read the Culture books, but from Board discussions, they do sound more competent. I also agree concerning B5, its one of the things that helped make them stand out when all that was on was abysmal Trek.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You misunderstand. Guerrilla forces are able to fight just fine. It's when they become regular armies, but retain elements of their guerrilla past that they run into serious problems, as shown by the cases of the US Army prior to the war of 1812, the Red Army of the 1920s, the IDF, and others. I am not familiar enough with the current Vietnamese military to tell if they should be included on that list as well.

The Continental army was never just a guerrilla force. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by serious problems? The Red Army managed to win the Russian civil war, but again you probably refer to some other problems? The IDF went from a guerrilla force to a very armor heavy force in two decades, up to a point where they actually did not have enough infantry.

The NVA defeated the ARVN in symmetric warfare and later gave the PLA a bloody nose. Of course there could have been some problems from the guerrilla past, but if there were, they didn't hinder its combat performance.

[fgalkin]

You misunderstand. Guerrilla forces are able to fight just fine. It's when they become regular armies, but retain elements of their guerrilla past that they run into serious problems, as shown by the cases of the US Army prior to the war of 1812, the Red Army of the 1920s, the IDF, and others. I am not familiar enough with the current Vietnamese military to tell if they should be included on that list as well.

The Continental army was never just a guerrilla force. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by serious problems? The Red Army managed to win the Russian civil war, but again you probably refer to some other problems? The IDF went from a guerrilla force to a very armor heavy force in two decades, up to a point where they actually did not have enough infantry.

In the case of the US army, if I am not mistaken, there was a heavy emphasis on militia companies over Army regulars which proved disastrous in the War of 1812, when said militiamen turned and ran. In this case, there was a distrust of a standing army, and an idealization of the citizen soldier.

The Red Army did indeed manage to win the Civil War, and almost won the Polish War, but it's situation was quite unique. However, during the subsequent years, a number of problems came up- they re-introduced a system of ranks, experimented with the different role of political officers in units, as well as try out an assortment of really weird ideas.

The IDF places emphasis on mass conscription of abominable quality (I've known some IDF soldiers personally and have strong, albeit anecdotal evidence of just how bad it is), as well as believing its own propaganda about its uberness.

All in all, I find it plausible that the Narn military would likewise experience problems of the sort. They could, for example, see a professional officer corps as a sign of "centaurism" and insist that the military and civil service be as one (some circumstantial evidence concerning G'Kar seems to support this).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Imperial Overlord]

Weberverse, and Baen universes in general are usually the best in terms of tactics, which makes perfect sense. Except Stirling. God help his Draka series, because nothing on this earth can.

That's not at all fair to Stirling. It's fair to criticize his tech (and I do) but the only book of the Draka series to actually feature much in the way of tactics was Marching Through Georgia and that didn't display massive incompetence. If you're going to bring the tech into, we can dig up Shep's critiques of Posleen verse tactics and weapon development and try to figure out which one sucks more.

As for who actually is the worst, Trek wins. As mentioned, Mechwarrior has 'mechs that work through handwavium and actual combined tactics therefore combined arms tactics with 'mechs is actually sensible in universe. Trek has lots and lots of episodes and enough bad writing in some of those episodes to form a massive catalog of fail.

[Temujin]

In the case of the US army, if I am not mistaken, there was a heavy emphasis on militia companies over Army regulars which proved disastrous in the War of 1812, when said militiamen turned and ran. In this case, there was a distrust of a standing army, and an idealization of the citizen soldier.

The Red Army did indeed manage to win the Civil War, and almost won the Polish War, but it's situation was quite unique. However, during the subsequent years, a number of problems came up- they re-introduced a system of ranks, experimented with the different role of political officers in units, as well as try out an assortment of really weird ideas.

The IDF places emphasis on mass conscription of abominable quality (I've known some IDF soldiers personally and have strong, albeit anecdotal evidence of just how bad it is), as well as believing its own propaganda about its uberness.

All in all, I find it plausible that the Narn military would likewise experience problems of the sort. They could, for example, see a professional officer corps as a sign of "centaurism" and insist that the military and civil service be as one (some circumstantial evidence concerning G'Kar seems to support this).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

That's a pretty interesting take on the Narns, and it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. It always seemed like based on their tech level and presence as one of the big players they should have done better then they did. Instead they seemed like they had the capability to field a large military (probably from left over Centauri infrastructure), but were basically clueless on how to use it.

[adam_grif]

Yeah, definately Starship Troopers. No intermediate weapons between shitty assault rifle and nuclear rocket launcher. And the hilarity of needing a new Skymarshal before somebody thought that maybe, just maybe, they should try air support.

This bothered me, even as a 14 year old. And why no armor? That was because the MI in the books were hypercompetent and supposdely "made armor obsolete", what is the movie's excsuse?

[Stark]

How about Mass Effect? Too stupid to blockade chokepoints, too stupid to get out of the way when a giant spaceship drives through them, and such poor fleet control slow-moving projectiles butcher them even at long visual range.

[Batman]

Yeah, definately Starship Troopers. No intermediate weapons between shitty assault rifle and nuclear rocket launcher. And the hilarity of needing a new Skymarshal before somebody thought that maybe, just maybe, they should try air support.
This bothered me, even as a 14 year old. And why no armor? That was because the MI in the books were hypercompetent and supposdely "made armor obsolete", what is the movie's excsuse?

My pet theory has always been they're actually using the war as a means of curbing overpopulation.

[Night_stalker]

Yeah, definately Starship Troopers. No intermediate weapons between shitty assault rifle and nuclear rocket launcher. And the hilarity of needing a new Skymarshal before somebody thought that maybe, just maybe, they should try air support.

This bothered me, even as a 14 year old. And why no armor? That was because the MI in the books were hypercompetent and supposdely "made armor obsolete", what is the movie's excsuse?

Yeah, I mean even the ORKS have better tactics then the troopers from that horrendous execuse of a film. I mean, no squad based heavy weapons save a mini nuke launcher and a SR used only ONCE, no armored vehicles, no arty, no air support save from 1 scene, no thought given to tactics, and abosolutely not related to the book.

[fgalkin]

Weberverse, and Baen universes in general are usually the best in terms of tactics, which makes perfect sense. Except Stirling. God help his Draka series, because nothing on this earth can.

That's not at all fair to Stirling. It's fair to criticize his tech (and I do) but the only book of the Draka series to actually feature much in the way of tactics was Marching Through Georgia and that didn't display massive incompetence. If you're going to bring the tech into, we can dig up Shep's critiques of Posleen verse tactics and weapon development and try to figure out which one sucks more.

It has the Draka dropping paratroopers in Georgia. That's not exactly bad tactics, but merely extreme stupidity. I was just pointing out that it's an exception from Baen's general level of quality when it comes to things military.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin