SF Military Tropes

[Stark]

Most don't even confront the fact that it would probably alter the value of skills entirely (even if they're just mental skills as opposed to muscle-memory physical skills).

It's interesting that I've never seen anything that (say) has kids educated at 5 by implanting their education and this creating specific kinds of personalities based on the skills the recieve (rational, irrational, open-minded, inflexible, etc).

[Setzer]

I agree that in most SF there is a lack of specialists and too many go all out with the odds and justify them somehow.

One of the things I did make a point of adding into my sci-fi setting (see sig) is direct information downloads to people's brains. Which is both an easy cop-out for much of this (although there's still training required, specialists definitely still exist, and not every military skill you learn is learnt solely by the brain), and potentially creepy enough for some interesting plot developments.

Of course this also does away with things like "going to school", but that's another subject entirely.

Have any sci-fi authors ever tackled the fact that this technology would have, as an inevitable side-effect, the ability to significantly alter someone's personality?

I think the Dahak series avoided this by having a lot of the learning be subconscious. Basically, you could download info on how to operate a particular machine, but until you needed to use it, you wouldn't really remember how.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also under Hammer's Slammers, the first book I ever bought of the Series was "Warrior" and that particular Tanker, almost out Stubens, Stuebens (to the point of Hammer considering having him executed) Also includes the bit I found out from my Grandpa, about Teeth surviving when nothing else did of the body...)

[Bellosh101]

Speaking of the "wrong kind of experience", that's another good point. What if the last thousand years of Republic ground combat experience was mostly peacekeeping and glorified police work, doing things like riot control? These are alternate scenarios where it might make sense to adopt these "wall of men" strategies. If it's been so long since they faced real massed firepower, they might have completely forgotten why it's so important to spread out.

I think the biggest reason why Republic tactics on Geonosis were so bad were for two reasons:

1. The Jedi had command over the clones, and the Jedi were commanding the clones as if clones fought with swords and shields (as probably what happened back in the New Sith Wars). However, the Jedi of the PT must have never bothered to contemplate a scenario where their military opponents were not Sith armed mainly with lightsabers. Ergo, we saw mass infantry charges from the clonetroopers.

2. The cloners of Kamino (possibly on the orders of Darth Tyrannus) never bothered to train clones as officers above the rank of Commander. No clone admirals, no generals..... nothing. I doubt a clone general would have used mass infantry charges the way Jedi generals did.

[Simon_Jester]

Also under Hammer's Slammers, the first book I ever bought of the Series was "Warrior" and that particular Tanker, almost out Stubens, Stuebens (to the point of Hammer considering having him executed) Also includes the bit I found out from my Grandpa, about Teeth surviving when nothing else did of the body...)

You may be confused. [consults book]

Major Joachim Steuben is a giggly little psychopathic bastard who is entirely too good with a pistol. Colonel Hammer uses him to run his regiment's MP company, because von Steuben scares the hell out of anyone and everyone, but is extremely loyal to Hammer. He is a recurring character

Slick des Grieux is a tanker who keeps getting promoted to sergeant and busted back to the ranks because while he's pure hell on wheels as a tank commander, he can not and will not take orders. Steuben appears at the end of each battle where he disobeys orders, and in two cases nearly shoots him out of hand. Hammer stops him from doing so once (twice? could be someone else who stops him), but does not even consider firing Steuben over the incident, let alone executing him.

Des Grieux appears only in the story The Warrior, where at the end he takes a few teeth as a trophy from a destroyed enemy tank... right before being kicked out of the regiment for disobeying orders.

[Ford Prefect]

Have any sci-fi authors ever tackled the fact that this technology would have, as an inevitable side-effect, the ability to significantly alter someone's personality?

I'm fairly sure that this has probably been covered at some point by someone. Even I've got stuff written about that, and it would be, ah, improper of me to assume that I am at the cutting edge forefront of science fiction writing.

[Teleros]

Have any sci-fi authors ever tackled the fact that this technology would have, as an inevitable side-effect, the ability to significantly alter someone's personality?

Certainly I've considered that, but I can hardly claim to have published much .

Of published works... I think Games Workshop make it pretty clear that being turned into a Space Marine often involves some heavy personality changes (ditto assassins etc), and I think Setzer is right re the Dahak series' treatment of it. Doc Smith kinda dealt with it in the Skylark series, but I think cops out somewhat with Richard Seaton hardly being affected by Dunark's mind (Dunark is, to us, the genocide-happy jingoistic warmongering type - yet after Seaton downloads his entire mind by accident, he still can't bring himself to wipe out the bad guys... ). What else... the Culture certainly has the capability to, but aside from the Grey Area I can't think of any in the setting who do it outside of war time (eg when the Culture "freed" the Idiran central computer or w/e it was that brought an end to the Idiran-Culture War). The Lensmen and Boskonians are also very skilled with editing people's minds either through telepathy or some sort of supercharged psychological techniques, if that counts (although I think the Culture & Lensverse examples are more akin to brainwashing).

Can't think of any others ATM, but I'm sure there must be more - mind-control, mental changes due to substance abuse & brainwashing are both clichés after all, and mind-altering or whatever you want to call it isn't too far from those. George Orwell if he was writing 2984 instead of 1984 would I'm sure have done something like it.

[Edward Yee]

Is the stereotypical badass lonewolf doing better than eight or ten of himself a good one that gets annoying and outright ludicrous at times?

Unrelated to this, but YES, Randy Orton!

Re: absurd kill ratio, the case of Gary Ivan Gordon and Randall Shughart (American MOH recipients in Somalia) is interesting in one of those grim ways.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I agree that in most SF there is a lack of specialists and too many go all out with the odds and justify them somehow.

One of the things I did make a point of adding into my sci-fi setting (see sig) is direct information downloads to people's brains. Which is both an easy cop-out for much of this (although there's still training required, specialists definitely still exist, and not every military skill you learn is learnt solely by the brain), and potentially creepy enough for some interesting plot developments.

Of course this also does away with things like "going to school", but that's another subject entirely.

Have any sci-fi authors ever tackled the fact that this technology would have, as an inevitable side-effect, the ability to significantly alter someone's personality?

I think most of the authors that recognize that tend to focus on the mind altering aspects, so it comes across as mind control technology that, hey, can also download information. Like Spider Robinson's Mindkiller; the mind control part came first, and was the focus of the story. I can think of stories where they downloaded whole personalities to go along with downloaded skill sets..

[Imperial Overlord]

On the subject of PTSD in military sci-fi, David Drake's books, particularly The Sharp End and Red Liners, are probably the best. This is probably because Drake started writing in part to help deal with his PTSD. In the afterward of one of his novel he relates how less than 48 hours after finishing his tour in Vietnam he was sitting in the graduate lounge at Duke University Law School (he had been drafted when Nixon revoked student deferments). Two students were discussing their plans on how to avoid Vietnam. Drake relates that they were good plans and that he knew better than they did how much 'Nam was to avoided if at all possible. At that particularly moment, he felt a nearly overwhelming urge to kill them both. That's when he realized he might not be as okay as he thought he was.

In 40K, the powers that be view the mind altering aspect direct implant training as a bonus. Not only Marines are educated in this manner. The Ad Mech uses variations of this technology extensively and the Inquisition makes use of it as well.

[Stravo]

How about the portrayal of techonology and how it would realistically look and work on the battlefield. Even now in the 21st century a lot of the battles take place sight unseen, by that I mean helicopters and planes are shooting missiles many kilometers away to kill their targets, many enemy troops don't even get to see their attackers. As missile technology gets better, smart weapons become more brilliant and add a healthy dose of really long range weapons like rail guns and orbital energy weapons and you would neve get to see who or what is shooting you.

It seems most combat in Sci Fi is taking place like a WWII movie with people blasting at each other at 20 paces and no air support, no artillary and no over the horizon war fare.

You can say the same about naval engagements. I imagine that a "realistic" space battle would be taking place between two vessels millions of kiolmeters apart and would never even see each other. it would just be blips and icons on a screen and considering the destructive force of energy weapons many ships would be hulled with just a few hits instead of blasting away ay each other for hours.

And in terms of realistic depictions of infantry fighting, if you look at Vietnam era clips and even video from the Battle of Fallujah, soldiers are hiding behind anything they can find and sticking just their guns over the wall or around the corner and firing away, No one is valiantly standing tall and picking his targets.

I know as a writer that these tropes may be tied to simple drama but I also feel that many sci-fi authors don't even get how modern wars are fought to properly portray a future war.

[Stofsk]

Well one side of modern day warfare is like that. The other side is the CQB shit of urban fighting.

[Imperial Overlord]

Stravo, nice to see you again. The better writer's take how the tech works realistically and have it shape how future battles work (or visa versa). David Drake's Hammer Slammer's series centers on super tanks and the tech of the setting is designed to support super tanks as decisive weapons of war. Some other writers can also manage the trick, but others don't have technology or tactics that are credible.

[Ford Prefect]

Hey wow, it's Stravo!

I know as a writer that these tropes may be tied to simple drama but I also feel that many sci-fi authors don't even get how modern wars are fought to properly portray a future war.

Sometimes people just don't really like how it comes across. I remember the developers of the game Supreme Commander say that realistically their aeroplanes would fight each other by rippling off a shitload of missiles tens or hundreds of kilometres apart, but that was boring, so they had them engage in WWII style dogfights because it's stylistically more interesting. The original Mobile Suit Gundam has a lot of its technology base bent towards the effort of making stuff like radar useless, forcing people to rely on lower resolution optical sensors forcing closer range battles, because the director believed it was more dynamic on screen. Admittedly there are going to be plenty of examples of shit which is clearly done because the author or writers are just bad (almost the entire catalogue of Baen military sci-fi for example).

[SylasGaunt]

Though granted with the right writers and such you can have good BVR battles, though mostly it's going over the few in B5 and pretty much every battle in Starship Operators.

It is a lot easier to make things dramatic with the upclose dogfight though..(or take the best of both worlds and go with the route they used in the opening battle from Macross: DYRL- massive missile wave followed by dogfight. )

[Simon_Jester]

Sometimes people just don't really like how it comes across. I remember the developers of the game Supreme Commander say that realistically their aeroplanes would fight each other by rippling off a shitload of missiles tens or hundreds of kilometres apart, but that was boring, so they had them engage in WWII style dogfights because it's stylistically more interesting. The original Mobile Suit Gundam has a lot of its technology base bent towards the effort of making stuff like radar useless, forcing people to rely on lower resolution optical sensors forcing closer range battles, because the director believed it was more dynamic on screen. Admittedly there are going to be plenty of examples of shit which is clearly done because the author or writers are just bad (almost the entire catalogue of Baen military sci-fi for example).

Though their star attraction is Weber, and say what you will about him, you cannot say that he underestimates the range at which starship missile combat takes place...

[Batman]

Actually, you absolutely can. You'd just be WRONG

[Teleros]

How about the portrayal of techonology and how it would realistically look and work on the battlefield. Even now in the 21st century a lot of the battles take place sight unseen, by that I mean helicopters and planes are shooting missiles many kilometers away to kill their targets, many enemy troops don't even get to see their attackers. As missile technology gets better, smart weapons become more brilliant and add a healthy dose of really long range weapons like rail guns and orbital energy weapons and you would neve get to see who or what is shooting you.

Which was sodding annoying to deal with when I was developing the ground forces for my setting. Missile artillery* formations and occupation forces form the bulk of them as a result, especially with orbiting warships just itching to replace any large force with craters.

* This includes Culture knife missile-style micro missiles. Why send troops into a city when you can knife-missile-spam it?

You can say the same about naval engagements. I imagine that a "realistic" space battle would be taking place between two vessels millions of kiolmeters apart and would never even see each other. it would just be blips and icons on a screen and considering the destructive force of energy weapons many ships would be hulled with just a few hits instead of blasting away ay each other for hours.

The Honor Harrington setting does this pretty well IMHO, whatever one may think of the Mary Sue stuff and crazy tech races going on in it. And at least most of the major Star Wars naval engagements have other factors that force a close range confrontation, even if they are rather contrived (eg Death Star flying around the gas giant instead of right on top of the moon).

The trouble of course is when you have to put it on the big screen... there's a reason we have starship porn rather than tactical display porn. Although admittedly you can use displays to add tension & menace, big starships blowing the hell out of each other is more impressive and a lot easier for the director . It'll be interesting to see how JMS handles the Lensman movies he's working on in this regard, because they blow each other up at multi-AU ranges with FTL lasers...

I know as a writer that these tropes may be tied to simple drama but I also feel that many sci-fi authors don't even get how modern wars are fought to properly portray a future war.

I'd replace "many" with "almost all" to be honest.

Actually, you absolutely can. You'd just be WRONG

[Ford Prefect]

Though their star attraction is Weber, and say what you will about him, you cannot say that he underestimates the range at which starship missile combat takes place...

No, I could not, but my final sentence wasn't exclusively referring to engagement range, just general 'shit'.

[Sarevok]

Hey while Webers writting is dull he has an extremely creative imagination. He has some fantastic set of original ideas. Webers problem is that his dialogue, characters and prose is dry and boring. That alone does not justify calling his writting 'shit'.

[MKSheppard]

Why send troops into a city when you can knife-missile-spam it?

That must be damn expensive. Even more so with laser based air defenses.

[Ford Prefect]

Hey while Webers writting is dull he has an extremely creative imagination. He has some fantastic set of original ideas. Webers problem is that his dialogue, characters and prose is dry and boring. That alone does not justify calling his writting 'shit'.

Okay, wow. I meant 'shit' in the colloquial sense, as in referring to generic things, and I never even mentioned Weber in the first place. However, even that wasn't the case, I actually would be justified in calling Weber shit, because he actually is. You actually described a way in which he is a bad writer in your first sentence, and describing what Weber does as original is pretty laughable given that his flagship title is essentially Hornblower in space. However, the topic of this thread has nothing to do with Weber particularly, so it would be preferable if we not go on to actually derail it.

That must be damn expensive. Even more so with laser based air defenses.

It's largely irrelevant, because if you're considering attacking a city with troops, then you clearly have some sort of strategic interest in taking and holding it. I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't actually understand this concept: you don't have to justify using ground troops over just flattening your opponents with a giant ray gun if your objective is to take ground.

[Teleros]

It's largely irrelevant, because if you're considering attacking a city with troops, then you clearly have some sort of strategic interest in taking and holding it. I think a lot of sci-fi fans don't actually understand this concept: you don't have to justify using ground troops over just flattening your opponents with a giant ray gun if your objective is to take ground.

Hence why I wrote "missile artillery formations and occupation forces form the bulk" originally. However, the need for ground-based occupation forces depends a lot on just how capable the warships in question are compared to the (enemy's) people on the ground: if you can trash their armed forces & point a Culture effector at individual rebels' brains whenever trouble starts, then ground pounders become a lot less necessary (unless your ship has to leave or something). The point as I see it of occupation forces is twofold: to maintain order within the occupied territory, and to show that it's your occupied territory. Depending on the technology of the setting, your starships may be able to do that without much in the way of help.

And yes Shep, missile spam (be it micro-missiles or ICBMs) is expensive and pisses off your logistics personnel no end. It is however a reasonably quick, clean & (for your side) safe means of defeating the defenders your orbiting warships couldn't take out due to the threat of collateral damage. To use a WW2 analogy though, you use this to clear Berlin of defenders after having annihilated the bulk of the enemy's forces through orbital bombardment or whatever your preferred method is. Missile spam in a less asymmetric engagement is a lot less effective.

[Shroom Man 777]

What? How can missiles defeat "the defenders your orbiting warships couldn't take out due to the threat of collateral damage"? Unless ships don't have missiles.

And how does this deal with guerilla warfare, which bitches on occupation force logistics for prolonged periods of time? Unless these micro-missiles have awesome Culturized brain-seeking warheads that use active post-electronic post-guidance post-scanned post-arrays to seek post-rebels and post-insurgents to post-strike them with post-shock and post-awe, posthaste? Would these missiles be effective against insurgents in the jungle and/or hiding in cities, without uniforms and blending in with the populace? Do they have post-intelligent post-threat detection system that lets them post-discriminate between rice paddies full of civilians, and rice paddies full of hidden Charlies?

Because, unless your post-missiles are so post-awesome, you're still going to end up sending Vietnam War rejects there to deal with them.

Unless you just want to nuke the planet until it glows in the dark, shoot those people in the dark, and then steal their oil/turn their planet into a parking lot. Then just shooting them from afar with missiles, rather than sending down soldiers to do stuff, would work.

[Marcus Aurelius]

* This includes Culture knife missile-style micro missiles. Why send troops into a city when you can knife-missile-spam it?

They're not Culture-style if you spam with them. Culture knife missile are close combat (by HLI standards) surgical strike weapons and reconnaissance platforms for limited warfare situations and special forces. They act as remote recon and strike platforms for offensive drones. A typical special forces task for knife missiles would be to destroy or disable enemy combat capabilities without emitting much in the process and of course covert recoinnaissance.

Like Shep already pointed out, in an all-out warfare situations knife missiles would be vulnerable without offensive drones to draw enemy fire and act as heavy artillery. There are limits even in Cultureverse on how strong defensive fields you can put in such a small platform; Zakalwe took out a knife missile with an industrial laser that was not much more powerful than what we have today.