The examples are too broad. This is a tool used to disguise Hollywood Tactics. This is a way to tell the audience that the heroes know what they are doing and that they utilize some form of tactics without going into any details because writers don't know how the details actually work. It may look like the heroes are just throwing themselves at the enemy with no real strategy, but it's really Attack Pattern Alpha.
edited 23rd May '12 2:11:04 PM by Fnu
I always thought it was the military equivalent of Technobabble.
Which examples do you think are problematic? I didn't see an issue. It looks like giving simple, standard, non-descriptive names to complicated tactical plans. This shows up in real life in chess, sports and military tactics as a form of jargon to describe common tactics and is used in fiction to show that the group knows what they are doing and has a bunch of plans memorized to deal with various situations.
Is there still work that needs to be done on this one? There doesn't seem to be consensus that there needs to be.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Dragon Writer
"Standardized name for something" is not entirely the same as "Standardized name used to conserve detail" (especially if the author themself doesn't actually know the details) .
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
World's Toughest Milkman
I agree that this sounds like the military equivalent of Technobabble. Say the magic word, and people do the right thing. The description might need some tightening, but I'm not seeing a lot of problem otherwise, unless someone wants to do a wick check.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Maybe Attack Pattern Alpha needs to be further specified. Currently, the main trope page identifies Attack Pattern Alpha as a military tendency to reduce complex maneuvers or plans into a phrase that can be shouted in a fast-paced situation, often in a battle situation where such communication would be necessary. The current definition does not make reference to move patterns in a chess game (which would never be openly mentioned in a serious game unless one opponent is attempting to identify the other's strategy) or game plans (during which, in at least the case of American football, there is a brief moment in which a play can be selected instead of on-the-fly decisions found in military combat).
I would move that non-military examples (at least those which are not in direct imitation of military-style terminology) be moved to a different page or even have a new page made specifically for game-related plays and maneuvers, which seem to be the examples which cause confusion. An alternative is to loosen the current definition to include game strategy and render the trope open to any form of complex maneuvers which has a practical purpose for being reduced to a shorter term.
The "military equivalent of technobabble" stuff makes me wonder - does this trope actually apply if there is something of substance involved?
Stale, with an expired clock and only nine posts in five months? Off to the morgue you go.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Well, according to the description this is about somebody calling out a fancy name, and a group of people or vehicles responding to this by making a complex synchronized maneuver.
However, the examples are all over the place, for instance there's talk of chess analysis, literal instructions for equipment usage, evil plans that happen to have a name, and some general overlap with Calling Your Attacks.
So basically, numerous examples don't match the description. Is the description too narrow, or are the examples too broad, and which of the two should be fixed?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!