SF Military Tropes

[adam_grif]

Being a trope has nothing to do with being true or being false.

trope (plural tropes)

1. A figure of speech, such as a metaphor, in which a word or phrase is used other than in a literal manner.
2. (music) A short cadence at the end of the melody in some early music.
3. (music) A phrase or verse added to the mass when sung by a choir.
4. (Judaism) A cantillation.
5. (literature) Something recurring across a genre or type of literature, such as the ‘mad scientist’ of horror or ‘once upon a time’ as introduction to fairytales. Similar to a cliché, but not necessarily pejorative.

[Elfdart]

If the enemy is used to being able to tell who's who just by looking at the shape of the bootprints, the size may not matter much. There's a very real possibility that they'll just go "whoa, they must have rounded up some really big fuckers in the last draft."

If they were astute enough to notice the treads, then I'll wager they would have noticed larger size and deeper impressions -then put 2 and 2 together. Guerrilla war has a habit of culling out the stupid pretty quickly.

[Night_stalker]

All war does. War is Darwin proven right.

[Ghost Rider]

All war does. War is Darwin proven right.

Right. I mean all the effects that war brings justs culls only the stupid people , and that's evolution.

At least learn what Darwin was talking about before pressing submit, you fucking idiot.

[Mystikal]

Check out the Darwin awards for some more accuracy.

[Ghost Rider]

Check out the Darwin awards for some more accuracy.

I know what they are you fucking twit. Jesus fucking Christ did, either of you idiots ever fucking pass high school biology, or did you just fall asleep and associate some buzzword meanings to the name?

[Night_stalker]

I did pass biology. Darwin defined his survival of the fittest as basically: if you are better adapted to your enviroment, you will survive. If not, you will not survive. I was referring to how the weak, stupid, cowardly and incompetant rarely make it far in war. Those who survive are those who are smart and cautious.

[Ghost Rider]

I did pass biology. Darwin defined his survival of the fittest as basically: if you are better adapted to your enviroment, you will survive. If not, you will not survive. I was referring to how the weak, stupid, cowardly and incompetant rarely make it far in war. Those who survive are those who are smart and cautious.

Better adapted to your local fucking enviroment, dumbfuck. And you don't survive, you have a better chance, dipshit. This better chance may or may not allow you to pass on this trait to your heirs. So again, you read something on cocktail napkin and thought it would be a witty phrase.

And your shit about war? The weak, cowardly and stupid as you put it can easily survive a war just like the strong, brave and smart. By not being at the wrong end of the stick, of whatever stick that may be. You have been reading the thread, you noted the shit about supermen aren't better except in some wank filled fantasy. The fact is war is about destroying the other side with overwhelming force and insuring the cannot do the same to you. It has fuck all nothing to do with Darwin's theories. So again, read before just pressing the submit button on some pearl of wisdom you dug from the depths of your ass.

[Samuel]

War might have been about being stronger when people fought with melee weapons... except that dying from illness is still chance. Or having your comrades hold the line. Or having a commander who isn't an idiot.

[Simon_Jester]

I did pass biology. Darwin defined his survival of the fittest as basically: if you are better adapted to your enviroment, you will survive. If not, you will not survive. I was referring to how the weak, stupid, cowardly and incompetant rarely make it far in war. Those who survive are those who are smart and cautious.

Better adapted to your local fucking enviroment, dumbfuck. And you don't survive, you have a better chance, dipshit. This better chance may or may not allow you to pass on this trait to your heirs. So again, you read something on cocktail napkin and thought it would be a witty phrase.

And your shit about war? The weak, cowardly and stupid as you put it can easily survive a war just like the strong, brave and smart. By not being at the wrong end of the stick, of whatever stick that may be. You have been reading the thread, you noted the shit about supermen aren't better except in some wank filled fantasy. The fact is war is about destroying the other side with overwhelming force and insuring the cannot do the same to you. It has fuck all nothing to do with Darwin's theories. So again, read before just pressing the submit button on some pearl of wisdom you dug from the depths of your ass.

...Eh. I wouldn't say the notion is that completely off base.

I mean, empirically there's a big difference between combat veterans and novices: even if the survivors aren't the smartest or "fittest" ones, most of the survivors are the ones who learn. If you don't learn to duck, you're at a lot more risk. So there's at least some Darwinian selection going on, but like all Darwinian processes it doesn't operate with 100% reliability, and it selects for a very specialized definition of "fit," one where a stupid coward who learns to dive for cover when the mortar bombs come whistling in is more fit than a brilliant hero who doesn't.

And then there's a factor that isn't modeled in Darwin: the combat-successful get promoted. Random Victor Charlie #50295 may well be a complete moron, but his squad leader is a bit less likely to be, and whoever their main tracker is is even less likely to be an idiot when it comes to tracking. So there's a sort of artificial selection paralleling the natural selection: the stupid don't necessarily die, and the smart don't necessarily live, but the capable tend to wind up making the decisions over time if the war runs long enough.

[Elfdart]

I was referring to how the weak, stupid, cowardly and incompetant rarely make it far in war.

Case closed.

[Setzer]

The antagonists not aiming for shit while protagonists are headshotting gods isn't too far fetched. Someone mentioned the Battle of the Black Sea and the Rangers/Delta guys in Somalia. And don't Saudi tankers refuse to use boresights for their tanks because they think Allah will guide their AFPDSs?

I think it applies more to artillery. They just sort of aim it in the general direction of their enemy and assume Allah will handle the rest. It may not be the Saudis, but some Muslim armies.

[Samuel]

And then there's a factor that isn't modeled in Darwin: the combat-successful get promoted.

Which is a horrible method (leadership and skill at arms are two very different things) and why we train our officers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I recall one D-Day movie which mentioned that the 82nd had a whole bunch of mensa IQ types, who were highly trained for infiltration missions, capable of speaking mulitipal languages. Who all got killed wihen their plans were shot down.

[Aaron]

Which is a horrible method (leadership and skill at arms are two very different things) and why we train our officers.

That method only really applies to things at the Section and Platoon level anyways. Once you get up into Company and above, if your OC is engaging in combat then things have gone rather pear shaped.

[Shroom Man 777]

War is hardly the best evolutionary cooking pot when the success and failure and victory and defeat of all manner of battles and wars is not just determined by the individual evolutionary prowess of the combatants, but also shit like logistics and manufacturing capability. Does natural selection now drive humanity away from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of whichever country happens to have more guns/bullets/factories/crap" which has nothing to do at all with intrinsinct biological factors but rather socioeconomic geopolitical... things.

[Teleros]

Which is a horrible method (leadership and skill at arms are two very different things) and why we train our officers.

That method only really applies to things at the Section and Platoon level anyways. Once you get up into Company and above, if your OC is engaging in combat then things have gone rather pear shaped.

I still find myself banging my head against the wall when I see fantasy generals (or rulers) charging in. Hi 40K & Warcraft ...

[Bakustra]

There is also the problem that there is not just one evolutionary pressure that drives humanity forth to becoming a better warmaker. There is one for height, strength, and mass and one for better eyesight and nimbler fingers depending on the era, there is one for smaller, skinnier soldiers that need less calories and therefore can stretch out food supplies, one for smarter soldiers that can strategize better and one for more social soldiers who can lead more effectively (because there are pressures on officers as well), etc., and there is only so much energy available to the human body, and so only one or two of these adaptations could occur at once. Think of this as being like biology's equivalent of physics' Shell Theorem: all the different evolutionary forces essentially cancel each other out.

In addition, none of these forces would be particularly strong in the first place, because warfare generally involves only a small part of the population (the pressures for the civilian populace are similar, but fewer in number and similarly cancel each other out) and is a relatively infrequent event. It also began relatively soon within human history, at least on the scale that would produce selection pressures that would stand out from natural background pressures, and lasts generally too short of a time to really have a major influence.

[Ford Prefect]

I still find myself banging my head against the wall when I see fantasy generals (or rulers) charging in. Hi 40K & Warcraft ...

Why in fantasy, of all things? I'd willing to go out on a limb and suggest that warrior-kings actually existed in human history.

[Teleros]

Why in fantasy, of all things? I'd willing to go out on a limb and suggest that warrior-kings actually existed in human history.

Yeah, but it just seems much too common. Especially in the Warcraft universe, where we have trench warfare (as per 2 old veterans who wander Stormwind in WoW), combined arms tactics (involving warships, men, cavalry, tanks, aircraft, mages, and Light only knows what else), gunpowder, blah blah... but Varian Wrynn still feels the urge to charge in from the front. Who're they going to replace him with* in Stormwind if some random arrow / lightning bolt fries him?

* If it's Garrosh, a Basic Campfire I hope .

[Simon_Jester]

In a lot of fantasy settings, the local equivalent of the crown jewels includes magic weapons so powerful that no random arrow or lightning bolt is at all likely to fry the king.

I mean, let's say you're Arthur, king of England. You've got Excalibur. And (if one digs a little deeper into the Arthurian legend) Excalibur's scabbard, which more or less makes you immune to stab wounds. Why not go wading out into the fray? No one's likely to beat you, and your physical presence on the battlefield is worth a small army by itself.

Besides which, you're a feudal monarch who rules by establishing that he's the most formidable fellow in the land, and you can't maintain effective control of your troops except by staying within shouting distance of them.

It's only when the wars become more modern-ish (as, admittedly, they do in Warcraft) that this becomes questionable.

[Darmalus]

It's only when the wars become more modern-ish (as, admittedly, they do in Warcraft) that this becomes questionable.

To be fair, for all the beginnings of modern technology they have, long range communication seems to be limited to high end spell casters. Most of the messages are passed either in person or handwritten letters.

The only time where command wasn't handed off to a lieutenant of some kind (Saurfang, Garrosh, Saurfang Jr., various base commanders) was in Battle for the Undercity, which seemed to be an immediate response type of situation. The forces to retake the city consisted of the most powerful warriors (faction leaders), their personal guard, and a powerful adventurer (the player) who all happened to be available at the moment.

[Darth Wong]

I did pass biology. Darwin defined his survival of the fittest as basically: if you are better adapted to your enviroment, you will survive. If not, you will not survive. I was referring to how the weak, stupid, cowardly and incompetant rarely make it far in war. Those who survive are those who are smart and cautious.

What the fuck are you talking about? Darwin did not even originally use the phrase "survival of the fittest". He used the phrase "natural selection", which is more about population growth rates than it is about individual survival. Somebody else coined the phrase, which Darwin eventually started using because it spread like wildfire. But he had issues with the phrase, and certainly did not provide an official definition for it.

[Darth Wong]

War is hardly the best evolutionary cooking pot when the success and failure and victory and defeat of all manner of battles and wars is not just determined by the individual evolutionary prowess of the combatants, but also shit like logistics and manufacturing capability. Does natural selection now drive humanity away from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of whichever country happens to have more guns/bullets/factories/crap" which has nothing to do at all with intrinsinct biological factors but rather socioeconomic geopolitical... things.

Actually it does. There is no cosmic justice in natural selection; if one group wipes out another, then natural selection favoured it. It doesn't mean the first group had superior individuals; it might have simply had superior numbers, or some other advantage.

Night_stalker's problem is the assumption that natural selection must invariably select traits that he subjectively finds more desirable, such as strength and intelligence. There is no such rule: evolutionary selection can also select traits we consider undesirable, such as ruthlessness or cowardice.

[Shroom Man 777]

But those advantages don't have anything to do at all with the genetic characteristics of the particular organisms. It's more like how creature A happened to be inhabiting a land rich in food sources, while creature B happened to get wiped out by an asteroid. I guess they can influence evolution because they are more like extrinsic environmental factors, but these are hardly hereditary genetic attributes that get passed down from generation after generation. So they're part of evolution, but just a different part from what Night_stalker thinks?