system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[General Space Warfare] From what I can tell, most series either choose the battleship model (Star Trek) or the carrier model (Star Wars/Battlestar). What are the advantages and disadvantages of each doctrine?
gpt
I wouldn't say there's an advantage or disadvantage to either doctrine. It's more about what is feasible in the 'meta' of that universe's technologies and culture. Here's some generalization:

**Battleship doctrine (Star Trek, Warhammer 40K):** These universes have higher defensive abilities that scale up effectively. Star Trek defector shields and Warhammer 40K void shield are able to tank weapons are effectively weapons of mass destruction. Depsite both universes having fighter-scaled weapons that are terribly destructive, the defensive technologies on battleships are just too much for fighter sized weapons to overcome, and thus fighters are either non-present (Star Trek) or regulated to secondary roles like torpedo screening (WH40K). Additionally, Star Trek and WH40K sub-light propulsion drives are powerful; ships from both universes can traverse from Pluto to Earth/Holy Terra in hours.

**Carrier doctrine (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica):** Weapon technologies in these universes have effective miniaturization, allowing fighters to carry firepower that far outstrip their weight class. There isn't much that difference in effectiveness between a Tie Fighter's blasters and a Star Destroyer's  turbo-laser. While the turbo-laser's output is much higher than the Tie Fighter's blaster, a single Tie Fighter can still shred a command tower of a capital ship. Also both universe's FTL systems can be outfited on fighters, making long range strikes that can be 100% fighter based. The Resistance was able to destroy the New Order's super weapon with just two dozen fighters and a few infiltrators.