Combat-Writing Thread

Thanks very much for the advice! Either bronze or obsidian will work for the spearhead since it'll be ambiguously magical, but I decided on making the spearhead obsidian. Her first human-versus-human fight ends in a one-hit kill, and at first she thinks she was just lucky, but then someone checks the body and realizes that she went right through the sternum instead of just finding a gap in the ribcage. That's sufficiently low-key magic, at least in my opinion.

(The spear was made by the Children of the Forest, for other Game Of Thrones fans. Although I'm heavily considering just making it an original story, since I'm getting fed up with how careful I need to be with my plot tweaks.)

edited 14th Apr '14 12:56:13 PM by Sharysa

Some good information for anyone who wants to write realistic street violence.

Also counts as a bump.

Sorry, but I find that superficial, at least if you're talking realism.

"1. You let your attacker throw the first punch." How do you know if you have to defend yourself if the other guy hasn't attacked you yet? Everyone isn't nice enough to deliver a credible threat first. And there is a word for when someone begins a fight before the other party has attacked them- "Assault". You may win the fight, but when the police show up, you're going to jail. That is, in fact, the reason why dojo's teach their students to wait for other other party to start it- they don't want the liability problems associated with advising their students to break the law.

2 and 3 are good advice. "4. You let your attacker get too close" isn't always realistic- you cant always control how close strangers get to you in public places. What if the other guy started out really close (perhaps the two of you were talking) and then it gradually turned aggressive? At what point do you back off? It isnt always obvious. That said, if you have time and a specific threat, then sure, you want as much space as possible between you- like several miles.

"5. You think that fighting is fair." Again, depends. What if you are fighting your own friend (happens much more often than you might think)? What if it's some sort of street initiation ritual (you dont always get a choice when you participate in these)? Most violent encounters are not between strangers, and are not fought for maximum damage. It's usually more about protecting your rep, and as such "winning" may not even be the point.

6 is nearly always true.

Of course, when writing fiction, you create the universe, including the street culture that exists. You can make it as violent and as nihilist as serves the story purpose. But realistically, fighting is a highly complex social phenomenon, and 6 simple rules are not likely to cover it.

edited 29th Apr '14 11:20:35 AM by demarquis

"Credible threat" isn't the same as "threw the first punch". A guy coming at me with his fists up and cocked may well be a credible threat. I don't have to wait for him to actually swing to feel threatened. And legally, if he hits me, it's battery, not assault. "Assault" is any action that makes me fear for my life, health or safety. Words can be assault.

This isn't technically a writing question, being intended for use in a personal game development project, but this seemed a more appropriate place than the "quickie questions" thread in Yack Fest—if I misjudged in this, then I apologise and am happy to move my question. ^^;

So, this is perhaps a bit of a long shot, but it seems worth checking for possible resources:

Does anyone know of any resources describing the positions of the arm at the starts of various sword-swings, specifically in terms of the orientations of the parts of the arm relative to their "parent" part (wrist in terms of forearm, forearm in terms of upper arm, etc.), and ideally with reference to "slashing" weapons (I'm thinking of curved swords such as scimitars)?

I'm working on a game for which I want to have more freedom in movement of the sword-arm than canned animations seem likely to give. To that end I've been working on the problem myself for a few days; it occurs to me, however, that it's possible that someone has already done this at some stage, and made said information available somewhere.

Oooh, that's looking for rather technical information. There's the Troper Fencing Academy—which is about swordsmanship in general, not just fencing—in Yack Fest; there's a couple of swordsmen there who might be able to help you. In general advice, I'd say: possibly look for modern translations of fechtbuchs, for instance the Bloßfechten for one example.

Ah, thank you. ^_^

I had overlooked the Fencing Academy, having indeed thought that it was specific to fencing—I'll copy my post over there.

As to the Fechtbuchs, I'm not sure that they'll have quite what I want: I'm less looking for the actual poses (although some of those might help) than a set of rules for defining relevant poses given a set of parameters. I'll probably not be attempting to implement all of the various interesting moves that a historical swordsman had available (pommel-strikes, for example), in part simply to keep the system somewhat manageable.

I doubt if you'll find that information pre-compiled. What the fencing books will give you is the information you'll need to compile the list yourself.

Hmm... As I said, it was a bit of a long shot.

I'm not planning on going into the more technical manoeuvres—I'm sticking with slashes at various arm angles, elevations, etc—so I'm fairly happy with my own arm-flailing as a model for now (although I might later look for information on right-handed right-to-left attacks, as those can feel somewhat awkward). The problem is coming up with the relationships, and it seemed worth asking whether someone had done that already before continuing to look for them myself.

Admittedly you already said that the fechtbuchs (and presumably stuff derived from them) would probably not be much help, but have this anyway.

Thank you!

Wow, that's a big page! I'll look through it—there may well be something of use to me. ^_^

No problem whatsoever! Admittedly not all of it's going to be directly relevant - there's a lot of discussion of the inaccuracy of the idea that eastern swordsmanship/blades are inherently superior, amongst other things - but I found it a semi-accessible way to look at European swordsmanship.

Speaking of which, Tropes has a Useful Notes page on that, so if The Arma is proving too dense then you might consider taking a look.

Well, I haven't found anything directly useful, I don't think (although I found something similar, involving dynamics of sword impacts), but it has provided some interesting reading, at the least.

I'll take a look at that Useful Notes page, I believe—thank you. ^_^

No problem whatsoever!

Quick question:

In my setting there are full body cyborgs used by one civilisation's special forces units. Though their exact modifications can vary, as a general rule they're capable of Abnormal Limb Rotation Range, twisting/moving their bodies in a manner that would be physically impossible for a mundane human being^note They have collapsible ribs and a free-floating collar bone, amongst other things, and they also outclass a human physically. Certain cyborgs also have a fine mesh of conductors that can be used to electrocute anyone touching them/standing in very close proximity to them, and some have cloaking devices that work using synthetic chromatophores.

How might they fight A) in hand-to-hand combat and B) in a shootout?

edited 7th May '14 7:18:21 AM by Flanker66

In general it probably wouldn't change much unless their bodies are specifically constructed in a way to incentivize fighting in a non-human fashion over a human one. The extras will help, especially with grappling, throws (or any general redirection of force technique), and locks, but they won't alter its fundamentals as much as make execution simpler and possible from a wider starting range of positions.

As to a shootout; the limitations on good practice there have very little to do with those of the human body, and so it probably won't change things at all.

edited 7th May '14 7:24:24 AM by Night

Sniping would be interesting, especially in mountainous and uneven terrain. Being able to perch in a crack would be great for hiding and waiting for someone. It does make visual spectrum stealth kinda pointless, but if they can't cover up thermal emissions, IR would be the main way of spotting them.

edited 7th May '14 7:29:37 AM by VolatileChills

@Night:

Ah, I see! I think you're right; one idea that did occur to me was using the mesh to set up a strike or disrupt an opponent's ability to counter-attack, but that falls into what you said. Another idea that occured to me was using the abnormal rotation to break the enemy's limbs more easily, though I guess the benefit of that might be questionable.

I wonder if it would reduce the advantages of attacking them from behind, since they can simply rotate limbs to handle a threat rather than being forced to turn around to defend themselves?

@Volatile Chills:

The visual spectrum cloaking is intended for situations where the cyborg cannot afford to be seen - such as infiltrating an enemy base or setting up an ambush. And, of course, one could argue that in order to use IR systems to find the cyborg they would need to know they're there first.

Though the cloaking system itself probably doesn't help with IR systems, I imagine the cybernetics are designed to disperse heat in such a way that their IR signature is significantly reduced/effectively eliminated in certain environmental conditions. But yes, I figure IR systems would become the primary way of detecting them.

I didn't think about how it would make sniping easier, though! It could also allow them to take advantage of things we wouldn't normally consider cover/concealment in a firefight, I guess.

edited 7th May '14 8:06:29 AM by Flanker66

So...I have a problem. I write mainly sciFi military stories and I consider myself relatively decent if not outright pretty good. However...when it comes to battle scenes, I find myself getting to the point too fast, if you know what I mean? Like take a sequence out of Ender's Game if your familiar. When Orson Card can write entire chapters (if not more!) of descriptive space battles, I find myself simply just getting right to the point and skipping over minute details. What Card does in a few chapters I write in two-three FOUR paragraphs tops of varying length I usually cover it up with exposition, dialogue and story, but take that out and there's relatively little words describing firefights, dogfights, space combat etc.

Any tips?

There's a lot of ways to do that. Of course, if you did a simple linear battle report beginning with initial contact and ending with one side bugging out (A leads to B which leads to C), things can be relatively short.

But battles aren't always that simple, especially when you have dozens or hundreds or thousands of combatants. In many cases, there are multiple events going on at the same time, and it's up to you how you want to present them. In addition, what happens during a battle is partly determined by what happens before it. The pre-battle maneuvering—and the exploration of the decisions to take those maneuvers—is as important as the battle itself, and can—and should—be used to be build up tension. Explore that thoroughly. The reconnaissance/counter-recce, positioning, and planning before the main forces get stuck in will, in many cases, play a pivotal role in the battle. So, focus on those. The build-up to battle is as important as what happens when the bullets fly. If it's going to be important, the actual clash itself should be seen as the payoff to a preparatory build-up.

Then, there's the matter of POV shifts. Even if you use third-person limited omniscient storytelling, shifting around as needed to focus on one person or another, or one scene to another, will give readers a sense of the overall flow of the battle. A private's view from the middle of the mud will look different from his company captain's view, which will look different from his regimental colonel's view.

Finally, of course, not every battle needs to take up a lot of description. Instead, how much description a battle merits depends on how heavy of a role it plays in the narrative. A relatively brief description of an exchange of fighting before one side is forced to break off might be enough if it's a side action or a mop-up; on the other hand, a particularly important description could focus on almost every detail and exchange of words. ("Target tank, two o'clock, range 23! Allen, load sabot!" "Up!" "On the way!" "Target! Traverse left, antenna BMP, twelve o'clock. Load HEAT. Range...2250." "Got him—bastard's jinking." "HEAT, up!" "Firing. On the way." "Miss! Gimme another, range now 21." "Up!" "On the waaaaay...") You're essentially using your narration like a director's camera, shifting focus from shot to shot to keep up the pace.

These are just some disjointed notes on the matter, and I'd appreciate it if others chime in. But, branch out a bit and see how other writers do it. Battles aren't standalone; the usual rules of character writing still apply in the middle of the clash.

My gut instinct is that you're being too overview and not enough micro, though I'd need a sample to confirm it.

It depends on how personalized and compressed you need the battle to be, primarily. Some things, like Macross-esque missile storms and artillery barrages, are probably best conveyed by impersonal, distant narration.

Kicking in the door, a dogfight, or simply following the actions of a single ship requires a more personal touch.

Tom Clancy is a good example: some fights in Red Storm Rising are so large they would give Michale Bay the shivers. And they take up only a few paragraphs. Others are detailed due to the POV.

Actually, I had examples from Storm as my go-to example for writing combat scenes. Clancy's got his flaws, but you could do far, far worse than learning from his prose for battles; as a bonus, Storm is a full WWIII scenario, meaning the gloves come off for fights. (My theoretical tank engagement was pulled almost straight from the defense of Bieben.)

It'd definitely be on the recommended reading list anyway.

That example dialogue exchange reminded me of something I wanted some tips/advice on - there's loads of advice for fights against individual people, but what about fights involving vehicles (specifically armoured vehicles or other military vehicles)? As far as I know, no-one's ever really offered advice on that front.

Depends on what kind of vehicles. If you're going to do tank combat, you might as well refer to Clancy, as he's one of the few who's portrayed it well. (Then filter it through a few matches of War Thunder's Realistic or Simulator modes for a more WW 2 experience if you need to.)

If you have a working DOS install somewhere you might get something out of Steel Panthers.

You don't need DOS for that. The latest variants of Steel Panthers run perfectly well on Windows—SPMBT (patched up to v8) and SPWWII (v7).

The main thing in tank combat is that the three or four crew members are essentially specialists in their role; also, at least for Western armies, pairs and platoons form the basic combat elements. I also recommend getting a copy of Armored Cav.

Other rules of vehicle combat...target flank armor whenever you can, fear ATGMs, and watch out for terrain; it's very easy to bog down a 70-ton tank by mistake if you don't know what you're doing. Work in cooperation with infantry unless you want to be ambushed by rockets and missiles. And thermal imaging is a true game-changer; battlefields are smoky places.

edited 1st Jun '14 4:49:13 PM by SabresEdge