Would HV ships need an extreme makeover for a TV series?

Michael Everett wrote:I believe that the most important part will be the tactical displays on the Bridge, in the CIC etc. The makers will have to plan out the battles to Expanse+ levels, but much of the actual rendering will not be needed as long as the displays show what is happening in clear graphics (so not Star Trek Picard-type stuff) that can be easily understood even by those with no military experience.

For the space battles, following the missiles may work somewhat, but with the ranges involved, more focus should be placed on the weapon activation (Missiles launches, counter-missile launches, laser clusters firing) with the camera then jumping to the tac-displays to show the results. How the people involved act/react is more interesting than simply following a dozen hunks of energized metal through space.

If it actually happens, it will need a lot of behind-the-scenes work to pull off. The Expanse has shown how it's possible to do good space battles that are coherent and believable, although the tech there is incredibly short-range compared to the Honorverse battles (stealthed micro-meteorites notwithstanding).

And for a battle like Hancock where positioning is key I'd think they could easily add scenes from a pre-combat briefing - the force commander using those tac displays to lay out the plan for their subordinates ahead of time. So for Hancock you could have Sarnow run through the basics of the final plan in a few sentences: lay minefield, engage with towed pods, lure them through the minefield, retreat while remaining just within missile engagement range and keep them chasing us as long as possible. Expect we'll have done as much as we can by this point; after which I'll order the surviving ships to scatter. (And in doing so make alert viewers pick up on the iconography for enemy units, minefields, the base, etc.)

And so during the battle they can quickly cut back to interior scenes where the live tac screens "happen" to be visible as characters give orders or updates on the battle. (And timeskip on scene transitions since you've got a battle that lasted for significantly longer than the length of a TV show - so you can only show the high-points)


You simply don't have to show all the ships maneuvering in their vast formations to get across that it's a battle of positioning and maneuver. Yes, there's something to be said for showing instead of telling. But sometimes a few sentences orient viewers far better than vast amounts of CGI combat.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:I believe that the most important part will be the tactical displays on the Bridge, in the CIC etc. The makers will have to plan out the battles to Expanse+ levels, but much of the actual rendering will not be needed as long as the displays show what is happening in clear graphics (so not Star Trek Picard-type stuff) that can be easily understood even by those with no military experience.

For the space battles, following the missiles may work somewhat, but with the ranges involved, more focus should be placed on the weapon activation (Missiles launches, counter-missile launches, laser clusters firing) with the camera then jumping to the tac-displays to show the results. How the people involved act/react is more interesting than simply following a dozen hunks of energized metal through space.

If it actually happens, it will need a lot of behind-the-scenes work to pull off. The Expanse has shown how it's possible to do good space battles that are coherent and believable, although the tech there is incredibly short-range compared to the Honorverse battles (stealthed micro-meteorites notwithstanding).

And for a battle like Hancock where positioning is key I'd think they could easily add scenes from a pre-combat briefing - the force commander using those tac displays to lay out the plan for their subordinates ahead of time. So for Hancock you could have Sarnow run through the basics of the final plan in a few sentences: lay minefield, engage with towed pods, lure them through the minefield, retreat while remaining just within missile engagement range and keep them chasing us as long as possible. Expect we'll have done as much as we can by this point; after which I'll order the surviving ships to scatter. (And in doing so make alert viewers pick up on the iconography for enemy units, minefields, the base, etc.)

And so during the battle they can quickly cut back to interior scenes where the live tac screens "happen" to be visible as characters give orders or updates on the battle. (And timeskip on scene transitions since you've got a battle that lasted for significantly longer than the length of a TV show - so you can only show the high-points)


You simply don't have to show all the ships maneuvering in their vast formations to get across that it's a battle of positioning and maneuver. Yes, there's something to be said for showing instead of telling. But sometimes a few sentences orient viewers far better than vast amounts of CGI combat.

Use of the Holo tank might be key... Focus on the exterior of the ship in question then pull out... and out... and then the Tac Holo resolves to fill the frame with the crew working it in the CIC, the focus shifts to the next view and zooms in to the other ship.

You couldn't use it a lot... but a handful of times would suffice to show the scale. direct examination of the holo tank during a discussion could be used to convey the tactics and movement.

I'm surprised we're having this discussion again. It feels like a rehash of the Evergreen/Top Cow discussions of 2016-17

Personally I hated what they did to differentiate the ships, weird wings and fins - rear "thrusters". Yes it did differentiate the ships, but I felt the core concepts of the honorverse tech were lost.

Personally, I like the difference in the looks of the Nike and the Nevada class in the graphics at the end of SftS. The Nike looking "modern", clean, and aesthetic; the Nevada looking overly styled and addorned - It reminded me of a 1900 French battleship or a Greek Trireme. Just.... fancy for no reason and outdated. You could tell that the Nike was a Darwinian Killer, while the Nevada was a member of the (yesterday's) White Fleet. The differences were subtle, but still made an impact.

WW2 US and Japanese ships were generally not distinguishable to the casual film-goer. 1980 Soviet and US ships too.

And I seem to remember people doing films without painting the fight decks red.

kzt wrote:WW2 US and Japanese ships were generally not distinguishable to the casual film-goer. 1980 Soviet and US ships too.

And I seem to remember people doing films without painting the fight decks red.

Sine the Japanese Navy hasn't had a carrier since 1945, any live flying for a movie (or tv show) has been done using a US carrier. That could be why they look alike.

Fox2! wrote:

kzt wrote:WW2 US and Japanese ships were generally not distinguishable to the casual film-goer. 1980 Soviet and US ships too.

And I seem to remember people doing films without painting the fight decks red.

Sine the Japanese Navy hasn't had a carrier since 1945, any live flying for a movie (or tv show) has been done using a US carrier. That could be why they look alike.

No, the actual ships look similar to the non-expert.
Both USN and IJN destroyers are grey, they have guns, a superstructure, etc.

Aircraft carriers have these big flat decks with a structure on one side rising up.

There are subtle (and some not so subtle) characteristics of how the IJN and USN built their ships that allow someone who knows what they are looking for to probably ID them, but the actual navies printed up recognition guides full of silhouettes to avoid unfortunate mistakes.

Theemile wrote:I'm surprised we're having this discussion again. It feels like a rehash of the Evergreen/Top Cow discussions of 2016-17

Personally I hated what they did to differentiate the ships, weird wings and fins - rear "thrusters". Yes it did differentiate the ships, but I felt the core concepts of the honorverse tech were lost.

Personally, I like the difference in the looks of the Nike and the Nevada class in the graphics at the end of SftS. The Nike looking "modern", clean, and aesthetic; the Nevada looking overly styled and addorned - It reminded me of a 1900 French battleship or a Greek Trireme. Just.... fancy for no reason and outdated. You could tell that the Nike was a Darwinian Killer, while the Nevada was a member of the (yesterday's) White Fleet. The differences were subtle, but still made an impact.

can those pics still be seen?

isaac_newton wrote:

Theemile wrote:Personally, I like the difference in the looks of the Nike and the Nevada class in the graphics at the end of SftS. The Nike looking "modern", clean, and aesthetic; the Nevada looking overly styled and addorned - It reminded me of a 1900 French battleship or a Greek Trireme. Just.... fancy for no reason and outdated. You could tell that the Nike was a Darwinian Killer, while the Nevada was a member of the (yesterday's) White Fleet. The differences were subtle, but still made an impact.

can those pics still be seen?

Sure - flip to the back of any physical or electronic copy of the book Storm From the Shadows [SftS] to find "Appendix I: Ship Schematics". It's on page 509 of 520 on my .rtf copy.

However now that I go look at them I don't see the ship styles as all that different. HMS Nike, as a BC(L) is a lot larger of course, and SNLS Jean Bart is maybe a bit stubbier, but still pretty similar.

I don't think RFC ever shared those images here though.

isaac_newton wrote:

Theemile wrote:I'm surprised we're having this discussion again. It feels like a rehash of the Evergreen/Top Cow discussions of 2016-17

Personally I hated what they did to differentiate the ships, weird wings and fins - rear "thrusters". Yes it did differentiate the ships, but I felt the core concepts of the honorverse tech were lost.

Personally, I like the difference in the looks of the Nike and the Nevada class in the graphics at the end of SftS. The Nike looking "modern", clean, and aesthetic; the Nevada looking overly styled and addorned - It reminded me of a 1900 French battleship or a Greek Trireme. Just.... fancy for no reason and outdated. You could tell that the Nike was a Darwinian Killer, while the Nevada was a member of the (yesterday's) White Fleet. The differences were subtle, but still made an impact.

can those pics still be seen?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-0OucLLZtgIebOpi7tBzmKjiA1DM7Bdn/view?usp=sharing

The Ships "shapes" are still the same, but there are the subtleties in the design. Throw in a color scheme and actual ginger breading and you can easliy make 1 navy stand out from the rest. Colored gun port lines might be important. (and being an age of sail element.)

A few thoughts here on how to differentiate ships/weapons as well as how to film them.

First, keep the designs as true to House of Steel/Canon as possible. When a fleet is shown in a formation the viewer will be able to see differences in size, shape, and armament. To go along with that, the CGI people should make sure that different weapons have different appearances - that are noticeable to a casual view. Maybe the graser has a smaller, secondary "gun-sight" while the laser does not - or the CM lasers are quad batteries while the CM missiles are quad launchers.

Second, wedges should be faintly visible - when a ship is viewed from the proper angle. Any view of a ship from a 45 degree angle or bigger should have a faint (golden?) wedge visible. This would allow for nice graphics of missiles, debris, or graser fire just disappearing into the wedge.

Third, every weapon should have its own special effect/color. Perhaps the torpedoes could appear as rippling waves/semi-circles of yellow, while graser fire travels at a slower speed and is green. Maybe lasers are blue - and CM lasers are also blue but fainter and much smaller in length. Basically, provide eye candy so when the viewer sees an energy exchange or a missile strike they can see the exchange of fire. Even better - when a missile is destroyed have a directional mini-mushroom cloud erupt with the point of impact being the ground (so viewers can visualize the nuclear weapon).

Fourth, there has to be three* main views of combat. The first should be of the bridge, facing the command deck so the Tac Officer, Ship's Commander, and perhaps other officers can be seen, along with various displays as needed. *There could also be an additional screen showing the Flag Bridge, perhaps in a split screen or filmed so the viewer is watching one character talk to another through a screen and seeing the displays. The second combat view should be views tracking missile salvos. These could be cut scenes, for example you see the Tac Officer mention that the first wave will reach the target in 10 seconds, and the screen jumps to following the missiles as they reach CM range and then explode - with resulting damage. The third view point would be a pulled back view of the fleet, as the ships are rolling wedges, firing missiles, and trying to use CM fire.

Take Flag in Exile - you could watch the commanders plot their approaches from the Bridge(s), and then see that first missile salvo. You could follow that first salvo in and see all of the BBs wrecked, and go back to Honor's Bridge to see them preparing to cut through the Peeps. You could then jump out to a broad screen, showing the two fleets slicing past each other and the flurry of laser/graser first tearing ships apart before the camera goes back to the bridge.

Of course - camera footage would get even better come the Shrike - and the chance to have a version of the classic "starfighter" view.