Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010 edited
     
    Title kinda says all.

    I was thinking we could discuss realism on the military aspect in fantasy and SF. Critique stuff related to the subject, recommend relevant books, give advice, etc.

    Apologies if this is in the wrong spot, it was never my intention to spam
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010
     

    Edit your post and change the category to “Writing.” The Impish Writing is for the personal critique threads for those involved.

    Anyway, back on topic. I’ve noticed that with Fantasy writing, the battles tend to be exaggerated a lot. CP is one of many examples, with Roran killing 193 soldiers in one sitting. Just because it’s fantasy, it doesn’t mean you have to go all out just because you can. A lot of writers just throw all realism out and just try to go for the “Cool’” factor.

  1.  
    Ah, okay. There it's done.
  2.  
    Indeed, I've read historical incidents where one soldier, a soldier who had been trained from boyhood IIRC managed to kill twelve enemy troops before they bought him down, and of one french man-at-arms who managed to kill forty peasants before they nailed him. But those men were extremely skilled even for someone like them and they had trained from the time they were kids and probably with the best trainers money could buy.

    I've wondered if perhaps realistic military stuff is actually seen in a bad light like outlines. (They are commonly portrayed as supressing creativity)

    One thing I don't understand is the sheer amount of field battles with thousands of soldiers. In Napoleons day those were fine (although armies still were pretty modest in size) but in the middle ages the soldiers would have preferred to fight with a thick stone wall between them and the enemy, which is still as cool, I mean you have fire, siege engines, attacks, heroic defenses, etc.

    However no european medieval army that I know would have been able to muster anything near the amount that fantasy armies have at hand.
  3.  

    I’m sick of seeing one-man fighters or bombers in military sci-fi. We only have them in the real world because bases tend to be immobile (unless they’re aircraft carriers, which are still confined to the ocean and a 2D plane of movement). When the base IS the attack craft, what’s the point? Outside of books, the only place where I’ve seen this handled remotely well is Star Trek, and the actual combat in that show (and the movies, too) wasn’t exactly up to snuff. (The ships should be firing their phasers at each other from whole AUs away.)

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010 edited
     
    Have you heard of the atomic rocket pages and the rocket-punk manifesto?

    *Goes to find them*

    EDIT: Aha

    http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/
  4.  

    I’ve wondered if perhaps realistic military stuff is actually seen in a bad light like outlines. (They are commonly portrayed as supressing creativity)

    I think the problem you’re referring to is more an idea of excitement. I think that some authors, particularly in the fantasy mode, believe they need to go all out in order for the battle to be interesting to the reader. Actually, I prefer realism, because it doesn’t jerk me out of the narrative (200 men killed by the inexperienced farmer? Really?) Also, I like outlines. :)

  5.  
    I like outlines too, I also like realism.

    Are you available? ; ) Just kidding.
    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010
     

    I think that depends on the weapon that they’re using. I mean, it is possible for a single skilled swordsman can take down many less experienced enemies, but he has to be a whole level above his opponents skillwise, and even then, there are a lot of factors that can make his skill obsolete. The hero may be able to slay one enemy without trouble, but what if he struggles half a second too long dislodging his sword from the deadman’s armor? What if the enemies have a bowman with them? There’s also an upper limit on how many times a human body can raise and lower a sword, meaning that you can’t have a single swordsman holding a chokepoint against 200 enemies cough Brisingr cough.

    And as cool as siege engines are, don’t be like Paolini and include them in field battles. Siege engines are good at knocking down walls, but you can’t really aim them (beyond pointing them in the general direction of whatever you want to hit), making them essentially useless against everything except for large targets that don’t move.

  6.  

    Going off of what Artimaeus mentioned, one thing that annoys me in battles (which props up more in movies and TV than in books, but is still worth pointing out) is that with so many people firing at a small band of people, for example, how do they not get shot? Even if you’re a Jedi or whatever, if there are blaster droids coming at you from BOTH SIDES eventually you’re going to get hit somewhere.

    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010
     

    I’m sick of seeing one-man fighters or bombers in military sci-fi. We only have them in the real world because bases tend to be immobile (unless they’re aircraft carriers, which are still confined to the ocean and a 2D plane of movement). When the base IS the attack craft, what’s the point?

    I always thought one man fighters were useful in naval combat because battle ships and aircraft carriers are essentially glass cannons. Or rather, a single aircraft carrier can project a lot of power, but it can also be crippled or sunk by a coulple of well-aimed torpedos. Small fighters would let you engage your enemy without risking your entire base of operations and your ability to project power in the area. If your Death Star can be blown up by a one-in-a-million shot, it makes sense to hold your Death Star back and engage the rebel fleet with Tie Fighters, no? Of course, this isn’t what the Empire did, but it makes sense in theory, since space is an ocean

  7.  

    I have a question: how likely is it for the two leaders of opposing armies to find each other in battle and have a one-on-one combat?

    I’m asking because I know it’s ridiculously clichéd and unrealistic, but I’m trying to incorporate realism by having combat still go on around them, to the point where they have to fight off other soldiers besides each other and one character gets caught by an arrow. But is it still ridiculous and, if so, how can I avoid this?

  8.  
    It's not that unrealistic there are plenty of accounts leaders such as Alexander, Julius Caesar leading charges and on the eastern roman frontier the battles against the sassanians at least usually opened with a champion riding out and challenging his opposite.

    Hope that helps : )
  9.  
    @Atrimaeus

    The pages I linked to cover the whole space fighter in depth, hope it helps : )
    •  
      CommentAuthorVirgil
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010
     

    The Forever War is a very good piece on futuristic military.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSMARTALIENQT
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2010 edited
     

    @Clib

    Thanks.

    Another question: how much is the average kill rate for a common foot soldier? Like, how many people can a person expect to kill in a head-on, horde-vs.-horde type battle? Going strictly by action movies, I’d say that while few soldiers actually fight each other, they slash as many people as rush by them.

  10.  
    I'll warn you, the AR guy can be a little pessimistic as can RPM guy.

    As for kill rates, I'm not sure, *Goes looking for info*
  11.  

    The thing is, that number has varied greatly over the years, as has the definition of “common foot soldier.” At Agincourt in 1415, the English foot was comprised of 5,000 longbowmen (usually trained peasants) and 1,000 dismounted men-at-arms (professional, heavily armored soldiers, usually knights). 500 years before that, an army’s infantry would be almost entirely peasant levies, with a few exceptions when the cavalry would dismount to fight. 200 years after Agincourt, infantry was mostly comprised of pikemen and musketeers, all of whom were career soldiers.

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2010 edited
     
    IIRC at agincourt the french and english troops were actually around 12,000 men each, the english had a mounted contingent IIRC

    *Goes digging*

    Aha
    http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8622&highlight=agincourt
  12.  

    1. The quote about the English numbers mentions 12,000 men at the start of the campaign, and closer to 9,000 by the time Agincourt happens.

    2. Regardless of the actual numbers, those quotes still mention men-at-arms and longbowmen as comprising the English army, instead of the peasant levies of earlier times or the career soldiers that would come around later.

    3. “Agincourt, A New History” looks interesting and I will look into it further. :)

  13.  

    www.myarmoury.com
    I love that site.

  14.  
    myarmoury is simply for the win.

    There's even a few threads on writing realistic military stuff in fantasy

    Would anyone care to discuss fantastic war machines?
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2010
     

    Like this or like this?

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2010 edited
     
    http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/images/Helepolis.jpg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helepolis
    http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Helepolis.htm


    Or that thing? The greeks built a mecha!

    As for anime mechs the problem with those is the fact that they have a really high profile. You ever notice how low tanks sit? It's to make them smaller targets. So if someone ever made a working battle mech ideally it would be about as tall an Abrams.

    Catapults are fun, I know the romans built a repeating light ballista and in the middle ages they built trebuchets which were basically large immobile slingshots. Some king had one built that had a counter-weight of 9.5 tons and it could have fired a 600 pound stone over a mile.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2010 edited
     
    Oh, and to embed links you have to do "(insert custom text here without brackets)":Url

    Make sure you have Textile selected at the bottom of the post box.
  15.  

    Like this or like this?

    How about this?

  16.  
    I'm sorry, I still figuring out the textile thing. : )
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2010
     

    Oh yes, that will do nicely. Didn’t they prove it possible on Mythbusters, too?

    •  
      CommentAuthorApep
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2010
     

    I think they actually disproved that on Mythbusters. The boat got really, really hot, but it didn’t ignite.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2010
     

    Yeah, and it’s completely impractical, just having the discipline and organization to aim and focus all the mirrors takes a lot.

  17.  

    I think they actually disproved that on Mythbusters. The boat got really, really hot, but it didn’t ignite.

    But Mythbusters does not have the final word on everything. Just because they failed to do it doesn’t make it impossible. There have been many well documented attempts throughout history. If Wikipedia can be believed, in1740 the Comte du Buffon, “using only 48 small mirrors, was able to melt a 3 kilogram tin bottle, and ignite wood from a distance of 46 meters.”

  18.  
    Let's discuss magic and how it would work with realistic warfare, shall we?
  19.  

    It depends on how strong magic is in the story. If it was just the usual fireballs and lightining bolts, things might work out smoothly since they won’t be that different from conventional warfare. But if it’s the “summon something that makes an H-bomb look like a sissy punch” king of magic, you’d have to factor what outside characters would think and whatever sort of politics would develop from the situation. Maybe it would be like another Cold War, except replace nuclear weapons with wizards.

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2010 edited
     
    What you mentioned made me think of this post:
    http://zornhau.livejournal.com/152945.html

    I also did an lj post on the uses of mages military wise. IIRC I did explore using them like you said (As doomsday weapons)