SF Military Tropes

[Drone]

^^ Thata a good one. In fiction spartan warrior states are considered stronger than industrial nations. Even though in reality the superior production base of an industrialised faction would gurantee its victory.

The only way the less advanced civilization wins in that case is a centralized command structure on the part of the more advanced society, which is destroyed in a quick decapitation strike. That and a weak will to resist on the part of the more advanced nation's people. It'd have to be a perfect storm basically.

[Darth Wong]

^^ Thata a good one. In fiction spartan warrior states are considered stronger than industrial nations. Even though in reality the superior production base of an industrialised faction would gurantee its victory.

The only way the less advanced civilization wins in that case is a centralized command structure on the part of the more advanced society, which is destroyed in a quick decapitation strike. That and a weak will to resist on the part of the more advanced nation's people. It'd have to be a perfect storm basically.

Incorrect. A weaker state can win by sapping the stronger state's morale. This is what the Vietnamese did to the Americans in the Vietnam War. Victory in warfare is not necessarily the destruction of subjugation of one's enemy: it is merely the achievement of your national goals. The North Vietnamese achieved their goals in the Vietnam War, and the Americans did not. No "decapitation strike" against America was necessary.

In fact, a decapitation strike can actually be a really bad idea, because then there's no one on the other side who can order a cessation of hostilities.

[PeZook]

I think Drone was talking about how it's usually done in fiction, rather than what happens in reality.

[Darth Wong]

I think Drone was talking about how it's usually done in fiction, rather than what happens in reality.

Yes, but if it works in reality, then it should work in fiction. Conversely, if it's a poorly thought-out idea in reality, then it's a poorly thought-out idea in fiction. Frankly, Drone's description sounds it comes from someone whose idea of warfare is derived from playing RTS games.

[Drone]

I think Drone was talking about how it's usually done in fiction, rather than what happens in reality.

Yes, but if it works in reality, then it should work in fiction. Conversely, if it's a poorly thought-out idea in reality, then it's a poorly thought-out idea in fiction. Frankly, Drone's description sounds it comes from someone whose idea of warfare is derived from playing RTS games.

Actually I was talking about the only way a less advanced race could win an offensive war. It's really almost impossible unless you have the capacity to throw an endless amount of men at the problem or the tech gap is pretty small, and usually when this type of fight is in fiction the gap is pretty big.

Defensively, you're correct, low intensity fighting is always the way to go, but if you're invading, unless you've somehow got a huge portion of the populace supporting you, there's no way you can really achieve victory like that. Terrorism and an attempt to create local political movements for the overthrow of the government may, but that would require a lot of time, time that usually the less advanced civilization won't have.

My knowledge of warfare is not from RTS playing.

[Sarevok]

It depends on the nature of the enemy. Guerilla warfare would not work against xenocidal aliens. In a total war situation the weaker sides only hope is to prevail in battle through superior planning and luck. Defeating a technologically advanced enemy army by grinding down their moral only applies in conditions unique to late 20th century / early 21st century Earth.

[Darth Wong]

Actually I was talking about the only way a less advanced race could win an offensive war. It's really almost impossible unless you have the capacity to throw an endless amount of men at the problem or the tech gap is pretty small, and usually when this type of fight is in fiction the gap is pretty big.

A) Inferior nation-states don't try to invade superior ones. You're trying to solve a nonexistent problem.
B) You're completely ignoring my point about how the destruction of the superior state's centralized command structure would only make it impossible to negotiate terms.

Defensively, you're correct, low intensity fighting is always the way to go, but if you're invading, unless you've somehow got a huge portion of the populace supporting you, there's no way you can really achieve victory like that. Terrorism and an attempt to create local political movements for the overthrow of the government may, but that would require a lot of time, time that usually the less advanced civilization won't have.

The idea of an inferior state invading a superior one is monumentally stupid on its face. If that's the only situation where your idea is applicable (and I already pointed out another problem with it even in that context), that doesn't help.

My knowledge of warfare is not from RTS playing.

Where's it from?

[PeZook]

A) Inferior nation-states don't try to invade superior ones. You're trying to solve a nonexistent problem.

To be honest, while it doesn't happen now, it's because everyone generally has a decent understanding of enemy capabilities to a certain order of magnitude (ie. the III Reich attacked the Soviet Union, which was pretty much suicidal, but it wasn't obvious at the time).

However, when we talk about science fiction and alien empires, misunderstanding and poor intelligence would be the norm. Naturally, if the aliens turned out to be more advanced than us, the war would turn into a defensive campaign really quickly.

[Drone]

Actually I was talking about the only way a less advanced race could win an offensive war. It's really almost impossible unless you have the capacity to throw an endless amount of men at the problem or the tech gap is pretty small, and usually when this type of fight is in fiction the gap is pretty big.

A) Inferior nation-states don't try to invade superior ones. You're trying to solve a nonexistent problem.
B) You're completely ignoring my point about how the destruction of the superior state's centralized command structure would only make it impossible to negotiate terms.

A) Happens all the time in Sci-fi books. They never really have a chance of winning, unless it's Chaos invading a 40k planet, and then they're usually undone by infighting. You're correct that it doesn't happen in real life, with the possible exception of WW2 because both Japan and Germany never really h much of a chance yet still attacked anyways, I apologize if I was unclear about that.
B) I meant the military command structure. Leaving the civilian one intact to then panic. This has worked pretty much universally through out history. The ones most likely to resist and have the politcal influence to force the fight to continue are removed and a country folds. Again, I suppose I should have made it more clear.

Defensively, you're correct, low intensity fighting is always the way to go, but if you're invading, unless you've somehow got a huge portion of the populace supporting you, there's no way you can really achieve victory like that. Terrorism and an attempt to create local political movements for the overthrow of the government may, but that would require a lot of time, time that usually the less advanced civilization won't have.

The idea of an inferior state invading a superior one is monumentally stupid on its face. If that's the only situation where your idea is applicable (and I already pointed out another problem with it even in that context), that doesn't help.

Yet time and again it happens in Scifi to create a backdrop for a hero's story. Usually you need a 3 to 1 or more advantage in numbers to sucessfully invade anything, yet most wars in books seem to start with nothing close to that. It's usually some megalomaniac that whips his nation into a frenzy or something like that.

My knowledge of warfare is not from RTS playing.

Where's it from?

Over a decade spent in the military and being interested in history since I was little.

[Eviscerator]

Actually I was talking about the only way a less advanced race could win an offensive war. It's really almost impossible unless you have the capacity to throw an endless amount of men at the problem or the tech gap is pretty small, and usually when this type of fight is in fiction the gap is pretty big.

A) Inferior nation-states don't try to invade superior ones. You're trying to solve a nonexistent problem.

How's about the South Ossetia conflict ? Russia, even severely downsized, still outnumbers Georgia by quite a bit

[Sarevok]

How's about the South Ossetia conflict ? Russia, even severely downsized, still outnumbers Georgia by quite a bit

George never declared war on Russia. They either made a stupid mistake shelling the Russian peacekeepers or thought the Russians would not interfere with their operations in the area. Either way they did not even dream of attacking Russia first to secure the region.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yup. Georgia never wanted to invade Russia. They just, uh, fired artillery in a city full of Russian peacekeepers.

[Sarevok]

We may never know why they shelled the Russians. But the point is a tiny ass nation like Georgia never invades a behemoth like Russia. Being a dick is one thing and actually invading Russia is another.

[Eviscerator]

So exactly what were the Georgian MOD thinking when they fired artillery or moved troops in to attack the city ?
Cool, hey let's fire our 155s at this city here with Rooshian troops in it and lets hope that the Kremlin boys are too busy getting boozed up on Stoli and Caviar not to notice?


How about the Chinese border hijinks in the 70s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Sovie ... r_conflict

Granted, its not a full scale invasion, incursion, raid or what have you, but did the PRCs think that the Soviet Union wouldn't give them major butthurt?

[The Yosemite Bear]

how about the Relic of the past outperforming modern equipment, brainbug? (though that's more soft sci-fi, proto-fantasy, and Anime to be exact)

[Artemas]

Where has that occurred? All I can think of is the "desperate heroes use ancient gear and win", and that is more underdog related than "they don't make them like they used to".

[Sarevok]

Where has that occurred? All I can think of is the "desperate heroes use ancient gear and win", and that is more underdog related than "they don't make them like they used to".

Uh the armor of the arbiter in Halo ? It is not only old it was even stated to be inferior. Yet the arbiter pwns everyone with it.

[Ryan Thunder]

Where has that occurred? All I can think of is the "desperate heroes use ancient gear and win", and that is more underdog related than "they don't make them like they used to".

Uh the armor of the arbiter in Halo ? It is not only old it was even stated to be inferior. Yet the arbiter pwns everyone with it.

That was pretty obviously the Arbiter, and not the armour, given its stated capabilities compared to more modern examples.

[Sarevok]

That kind of proves the trope. Named hero with obsolete relic > mooks with state of the art weapons.

[Ryan Thunder]

That kind of proves the trope. Named hero with obsolete relic > mooks with state of the art weapons.

The obsolete relic is an extraneous factor, though. I don't see how it warrants its own trope unless he's winning because he's using old hardware (which pretty obviously isn't the case.)

[Sarevok]

Realistically the arbiter should have gone for the most advanced Elite battlesuit ever with every advancement from cloaks, overshields, jetpacks and so on. It would have helped him on the extremely dangerous path he chose for himself. But no he had to contend with some sacred armor that is very old and backdated.

[open_sketchbook]

The Arbiter is fully expected to die. He is actually SUPPOSED to die, in fact. They are a religious symbol, not a superhero.

[Xon]

Why is there so much discussion of medieval armies? This thread is about science fiction armies, is it not?

A suprising amount of the time it is a palette swap and some word subsitution difference between the two.

Where has that occurred? All I can think of is the "desperate heroes use ancient gear and win", and that is more underdog related than "they don't make them like they used to".

Ever watched a show called Stargate?

These two quotes from a few years back really do sum up the problem;

Anywho, did the anchients actually produce a variety of things, or was their entire economy built around the production and selling of plot devices?

"Like Alcohol, Ancient technology is the source of and solution to all of life's problems.

[Sarevok]

The Arbiter is fully expected to die. He is actually SUPPOSED to die, in fact. They are a religious symbol, not a superhero.

Yeah I know the legacy of the past Arbiters and its a pretty awesome. But I really wish the Arbiter salvaged some equipment on his way. A permanent cloak or a jetpack would have increased his chances of survival greatly.

[takemeout_totheblack]

Ever watched a show called Stargate?

At least it's explained in Stargate that the advanced alien weapons are ineffective and unwieldy terror weapons and the 'primitive' P90s are compact, easy to use, more effective and longer ranged weapons of war.

Jack O'neill: (holding staff weapon) "This is a weapon of terror, it is made to intimidate the enemy. (holds up P90) this is a weapon of war. It is meant to kill the enemy!"

As you may remember when Anubis outfitted his murder troops with rapid-fire bolt cannons they quickly overran pretty much everyone!