>>Well, see, this is why I don't do anything like hard military SF (or,
>>really, hard anything SF). This is why starship fights in UF tend to
>>come off like World War I battleship slugfests in outer space, or at
>>the most modern, WWII fleet engagements. Because that right there,
>>that you just described? Even if it could be made interesting to
>>read, it's be dead boring to write.
>
>>I don't want my space battle scenes to be like that to read or
>>to write, and that's why - and I don't mind admitting it - I
>>deliberately eschew realism in that area. :)
>>
>
>That's a perfectly understandable and reasonable attitude. There are
>very few authors who can pull off modern-style long-distance,
>wait-it-out naval combat. The only ones I can think of off the top of
>my head are Elizabeth Moon and David Weber, and even their battle
>scenes sometimes don't come out as exciting as all that, sometimes.
>Your battle scenes, be they naval or otherwise, come off quite well.

Agreed, and the problem with Weber's stuff is you end up spending a ton of brain bytes trying to visualize it, and for all the talk of velocity vectors and what not...it's more frustrating than exciting, and I am a pretty solid Weber fan. I'd rather NOT see everyone take to writing SCI-FI space battles like they were all "Run Silent, Run Deep" "Das Boot" or "Hunt for Red October" (emphasizing the scary-ass waiting....waiting...OH CRAP factor)...

I'm fine with WWII/Star Wars style space battles from an entertainment standpoint, they simply make for better storytelling, unless you truly are working within a hard science standpoint...and then they're tough to pull off...

"A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan next week" - Gen George S. Patton, Jr.