Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
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.
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.)
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. :)
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.
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.
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
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?
The Forever War is a very good piece on futuristic military.
@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.
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.
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. :)
www.myarmoury.com
I love that site.
Like this or like this?
How about this?
Oh yes, that will do nicely. Didn’t they prove it possible on Mythbusters, too?
I think they actually disproved that on Mythbusters. The boat got really, really hot, but it didn’t ignite.
Yeah, and it’s completely impractical, just having the discipline and organization to aim and focus all the mirrors takes a lot.
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.”
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.
1 to 34 of 34