Best giant space battle series in recent years?

[jollyreaper]

The best one I've read recently is Through Struggle, The Stars. Self-published, trying to be as hard sf as possible. Very enjoyable.

In terms of professional fiction, read the Praxis trilogy. It was diverting. The Lost Fleet was Ringo awful. Fairly burnt out on Honor Harrington.

I've enjoyed Scalzi's Old Man's War series.

So, does anyone have suggestions for good, giant battles space opera?

[Koolaidkirby]

legend of the galactic heroes will always have my favourite giant space battles

[Simon_Jester]

I was actually going to suggest them, if I were sure they counted as "recent." They did start in 1988, after all.

For sheer scale of the action, and for the detail they apply to political motivations and character, it's good. My main complaint is that it abstracts out the idea of combat being in space as such- but arguably that's just as well. It's not about the vacuum, it's about the people. Not spending a huge amount of time inventing artificial space tactics and explaining technology with ten-minute infodumps means more time for that.

[jollyreaper]

I take it we are talking about the novels and not the anime? And there's an English translation now? Cool. Will have to check it out.

[Simon_Jester]

Er, no.

I'm sorry, I didn't think; I'm talking about the cartoons, which are available subtitled. Not the novels.

For novels I'd have to think harder.

[jollyreaper]

I was vague since I said series, did not specify books. I find space combat is seldom ever realistic in visual media and hardly much better in print but it has been done.

[Stark]

How does 'best' giant space battle translate into 'realistic'?

Are you looking for interesting or thought-provoking events, or the longest dry list of events with the largest numbers?

[jollyreaper]

It's subjective. I find realistic more satisfying but have read stuff tending more towards cheese that has also been fun. Dry is never fun.

I remember reading some Steve White stuff yonks ago that was cheesy fun. Much can be forgiven if the story is well-done. Being good and not requiring any forgiveness is even better. But again, one man's hard sf is another man's cheese.

[Stark]

I don't consider hard or not to intrinsically have any value dramatically, so I don't know what you mean.

Can you post a bit of this self published thing you like to give an example of what you're looking for?

[jollyreaper]

http://www.thehumanreach.net/Sample1.htm

The rest of the setting is elaborated on the site.

Hard isn't so much a requirement as consistent worldbuilding. Usually inconsistent worldbuilding goes hand in hand with poor character development. I can enjoy very squishy science if the characters ring true.

[Alkaloid]

I'll be honest, I'm a little leery of this sort of thing normally. I'm fine with sci fi, but the fact that it's mil sci fi, its self published and the reviews I found in place of a plot summary have phrases like 'choose between what is moral and what is necessary' make me think this is going to be some sort of screed about how we need to ethnicly cleanse the Chinese for the good of humanity or something similar. Am I more or less correct, because I'm not against reading it but I'm well over the Baen style political ramblings of fascists in my space ship books.

[Stark]

I'm just not getting how the 'squishy science' impacts on the quality of space battles at all. There's heaps of space explosion prose out there (although I'm not really sure how it can be particularly entertaining) and its probably a better bet to be concerned about the contrived nonsense that dominates the genre than anything else. Oh look pivotal battle turned about by writers fiat, etc.

Is 'character rings true' a euphemism for 'I like the characters'? Because (for instance) LOGH is almost entirely character-driven, but features largely unsympathetic characters.

[jollyreaper]

I'll be honest, I'm a little leery of this sort of thing normally. I'm fine with sci fi, but the fact that it's mil sci fi, its self published and the reviews I found in place of a plot summary have phrases like 'choose between what is moral and what is necessary' make me think this is going to be some sort of screed about how we need to ethnicly cleanse the Chinese for the good of humanity or something similar. Am I more or less correct, because I'm not against reading it but I'm well over the Baen style political ramblings of fascists in my space ship books.

Oh, I hear you about Baen. No, it's more rounded than that. There are no white hats and black hats. About the only real complaint is one character sees more action than would be realistic but its a dramatic necessity to convey info to the reader. The US is a second-rate power and a tag-along participant in this war. There's no take-that jabs against filthy liberals, no oh-yeah ripostes against knuckle-dragging militarists. And the day is not won by square-jawed Americans who outfight the dirty hun or nip or injun or commie rat bastard. There's also no disturbing surprises like a vigorous defense of rape, underage sex, polygamy with young women throwing themselves at the author surrogate, or an open admiration for the effectiveness of fascism politically, economically, and militarily.

It's an honest effort by someone trying to do right by his story. I won't guarantee you'll like it but its better than most anything Baen has published.

[jollyreaper]

I'm just not getting how the 'squishy science' impacts on the quality of space battles at all. There's heaps of space explosion prose out there (although I'm not really sure how it can be particularly entertaining) and its probably a better bet to be concerned about the contrived nonsense that dominates the genre than anything else. Oh look pivotal battle turned about by writers fiat, etc.

Is 'character rings true' a euphemism for 'I like the characters'? Because (for instance) LOGH is almost entirely character-driven, but features largely unsympathetic characters.

That's one of those subjective things. I don't have to want to have a beer with a character, just know what happens next. I want to see them win or see them deservedly lose. Not giving a damn either way is the sign of a bad story.

As for squishy science, that's a personal taste. Some people may not want to read stories that don't pass that strong female character test where there's scenes with only women talking and it's not about men.

[the atom]

How does 'best' giant space battle translate into 'realistic'?

Are you looking for interesting or thought-provoking events, or the longest dry list of events with the largest numbers?

'Interesting' and 'thought provoking' are things that should take the backseat to suspense and/or excitement in any good battle sequence. Seriously, who ever finished reading or watching a battle in an action/military story and said 'wow that just made me really thing about everything, y'know'?

[jollyreaper]

Well, sometimes it works as drama, sometimes it works as pure popcorn fun. Really well-imagined battles can also make you think.

Stories can be enjoyed on multiple levels. There are certainly masterpieces and guilty pleasures to be enjoyed in different ways.

[Stark]

How does 'best' giant space battle translate into 'realistic'?

Are you looking for interesting or thought-provoking events, or the longest dry list of events with the largest numbers?

'Interesting' and 'thought provoking' are things that should take the backseat to suspense and/or excitement in any good battle sequence. Seriously, who ever finished reading or watching a battle in an action/military story and said 'wow that just made me really thing about everything, y'know'?

It's a book. No matter how big you write the word 'boom', tension and excitement can only come from plot and events. Indeed, the entire idea of written battles is just a proxy for dramatic events. Without this context, it's just ADMIRAL FREELANCER SHOT THE MANS AND THEY EXPLODED.

[StarSword]

Kind of an oldie (2000-ish). The Flight Engineer trilogy by S.M. Sterling and James Doohan. Granted, they don't spend nearly as much time on the battles as, say, David Weber, but it's still good.

[jollyreaper]

Never really got into SM. I've seen a lot of arguing back and forth over his draka material, it's either the best thing ever or pseudo-nazi fanwank. Both sides make compelling arguments so its hard to decide whether it should go on the read pile.

I had seen these books when they were released but my experience with Shater's novels made me vow never again to read novels written by/with Trek actors! Maybe I was too hasty?

[darth_timon]

I've thoroughly enjoyed The Lost Fleet saga so far- and that includes the battles- but the characters and settings are wgat intrigue me the most.

Honor Harrington is great. I've just started reading 'A Rising Thunder' and I find myself still enjoying it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Harrington kinda came back to what made it good which was 'GIANT HONKING CARNAGE', and I'm looking forward to the next book in February where the crap really hits the rotor.

[Batman]

Harrington sure had its high points, but the constant infodumps got on my nerves. Yes, I know how how your hyper drive works, and what a grasers are, and about sidewalls and all, because you see, you already explained about them in the last 7 book. In every last one of them, in fact. Same with how the Manties/Havenites are hopelessly advanced of the rest of humanity yet still dwarved against the Solarian League. We know. We got it the first time you told us.

And I'm not sure I am looking forward to the next book(s). We know the Manties will eventually come out ahead, and given the available resource differences between even a full scale Star Empire/Republic alliance and the League, and the facts that not only has the Empire had a lot of their shipbuilding hardware shot out from under them, but they're in a two-front war with the League and the Mesan Alliance, which has some tech advantages over the Manties themselves, I can't see how this is going to work without a lot of handwaving and technology deus-ex-machinas.

[Thanas]

Harrington is the worst character wank ever.

[Batman]

I was talking about the series, not the character, which admittedly managed to be mostly entertaining despite the character. I admittedly liked the Talbott Cluster subset of the series a lot better than the main line in no small part because of no Honor.
And I'm sorry, any character wank you care to mention I counter with Silver Age Clark. Yeah, Honor was bad, but not the worst by a long shot.

[Stark]

Bad characters ruin drama, and without drama 'battles' are just endless streams of repetition.

... the explosions were large! Another explosion happened, and then further away, a series of smaller explosions. There was a tragic explosion nearby, followed rapidly by futile explosions. The explosion-proof fence was covered in explosions both large and small. Finally, there was an explosion, and <boring character> was the winner...

Fucking thrilling. It might sound rude, but people who enjoy stuff like that are just emotionally children and probably unable to engage with anything with actual content more sophisticated than TOUGH GUY PUNCHED THE MAN.

And I'm sorry, any character wank you care to mention I counter with Silver Age Clark. Yeah, Honor was bad, but not the worst by a long shot.

Did you bring this up for a reason beyond your monomania?