Combat-Writing Thread

The giant humanoid opponents aren't exactly huge in terms of size. They're much bigger than the average human, naturally, but their prodigious weight mostly comes from large amounts of muscle and fat, not height.

edited 12th Jul '16 1:25:11 PM by gameknight102xx

A horse is going to have a somewhat different internal set-up from anything humanoid. And a lot can depend on the type of animal, as opposed to just size. There's a few animals—some sharks, for instance—wherein the messages are delivered slowly enough that you can blow its brain out, and the fish will keep swimming based on the last few signals released, despite being brain dead. This is, I'll note, not actually connected to intelligence since, as fish go at least, sharks are relatively bright (something we only found out recently).

Given that this is either sci-fi or fantasy, I'll note that the giant humanoids can be as slow or as fast as the author darn well wants them to be, and if a justification is needed it shouldn't be that hard to come up with.

How would a man armed with a sword and shield fight an opponent armed with a maul?

Note that said opponent is particularly strong, so simply blocking the blows is likely to result in a shattered shield and a broken arm.

Deflect the blows. Rather than taking the hits straight on take them at an angle so they slide and then push them away, leaving the maul user open

If the shield-man is unarmored, simply Deadly Dodging to tire out your enemy isn't a bad idea.

Swords are lighter and easier to manouver than mauls, so voiding or deflecting a few blows and counter-attacking should be a valid tactic.

If you want something more creative, hitting the maul-user with the shield (preferably after dodging a blow) to make it easier to drive the sword straight into a weak spot of their armor (as I assume someone using something as heavy as a maul is going to have some armor).

edited 30th Jul '16 1:19:53 PM by EternaMemoria

Were it me with the sword, it would all come down to timing. I would try to provoke a swing, then step back to dodge it, then step in as it went past so that I'm too close for him to take a second swing. Assuming I succeed in all that, and he doesn't have an additional, shorter weapon, the fight's basically over. Then again, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and all that...

Random thought/tip.

I feel that when writing a fighting scene, especially a large scaled one, it is important to take account the vision that the participants in the scene possess. This is particularly true in more realistic works, because in real life combat situations, fighting under limited vision and information is a very common occurrence.

In medieval warfare, soldiers at the back oftentimes simply couldn't see what the bloody hell is going on at the front. Sometimes it all just boiled down to just going whichever direction everyone else goes. As you can imagine, when this involves a sudden retreat, things can get real messy.

In modern warfare, even though soldiers have much better tools of observations and communications, the average distance of engagement have increased by multiple. As shown in this video, there are times when combatants almost can't tell just where the bloody hell the bullets are coming from.

I feel that understanding these kinds of elements is useful in writing detailed descriptions on frantic and unpredictable atmosphere of battles.

I have a scenario and I'd like to ask you guys if it sounds plausible.

World A is a parallel version of our world. Their have depleted their own resources (water, food, land) and they need more. A key plot point is that several mega-corporations want resources to make profit off of, and they have deep ties to world governments.

They find another world, World B, that has resources, but it is already inhabited. So the leader of the country in which the portal is in (let's call him G) go and try to negotiate for the resources on behalf of the corporations.

However, World B's culture greatly offends G's ideology, and negotiations break down quite badly. The leaders of World B are no longer friendly, and want to cut World A off completely.

The corporations that are after World B's resources consider this unacceptable, and force the situation through their political power. World A invades and situation devolves into all out war.

So, in terms of political motivations, does this make sense? Or would the corporations/governments act differently and find a different solution?

(G is supposed to be an ideological nut-job, so I'm aware that most politicians wouldn't break down negotiations in the first place.)

edited 5th Oct '16 10:29:37 PM by gameknight102xx

How bad are things that A's governments are taking orders from corporations?

If the politicians don't obey the corporations, then the corporations stop "donating" money to their party, meaning said party doesn't get re-elected and they are then replaced by the opposition party (who are funded by those same corporations).

So basically rampant unchecked corruption on a global scale.

edited 5th Oct '16 11:48:02 PM by gameknight102xx

How did politics and legislation collapse so much that such a thing was allowed to happen?

And how can such a country even continue to exist as a relevant military and political power?

World A has mass-media and the like, as it's essentially just a parallel copy of our world.

Political parties all over World A use the mass media to influence the public to vote. Problem is they need money to do that, so they suck up to big corporations. The corporations then give money to their parties in order to purchase said media coverage while under the guise of "donations". Parties that don't suck up aren't given the time of day, so no voters will know who they are and thus not vote for them.

Using this system the multi-national corporations eventually bought most of the political power all over the world. Simultaneously, they have their bought politicians change the laws, making it easier for them to "donate" money, "regulate" television and internet to keep the public ignorant, etc.

edited 6th Oct '16 12:08:07 AM by gameknight102xx

Hell, "World A" describes the situation we have right now. Your scenario sound not only plausible, but inevitable.

Sounds like the world of Syndicate just before the syndicates decided to cut out the middle man.

Yeah, I tried to make it as close to our world as possible.

The original question though, would these corporation, realistically, be willing to start an invasion of World B for their own interests? Or would the cost/other factors mean they would try to find another route instead?

I think World A would first try to use tactics that are more natural to corporations: that is, seeling not a product or service, but the idea that it is necessary. Have they tried to sneak some agents into World B to promote a better image of themselves, or have they done any effort to shift all the blame to World G? And if all fails, have they tried to bribe or blackmail World B's authorities before starting a war?

The thing is, outside of arms dealers and people who wish to divert public attention from their own dirt and lack the resources to do it in another way, very few people manage to actually make a profit out of a war, and starting one will force their consumers to expend more carefully and may even backfire and make the populace in general less complacent. If I was a leader from one of those mega-corps, I'd seriously question if the gains would outweigh the effort, specially if it seemed that victory would only be achieved a few years down the line. Economical and social stability is very valuable to both businessmen and tyrants, and ambition only leads a group so far before some say that good enough is good enough.

After all, one world alone is already a a very big place. Perhaps it would be better to work on the one you already have before spending money on a gamble for another. Plus, maybe they will try to play the waiting game and see if the situation cools down before making a move.

edited 6th Oct '16 1:21:30 PM by EternaMemoria

how can one simply write staff fighting?

So I'm writing a character who loses their hand and decides to replace it with a weapon. What weapon would be a good choice to replace their missing hand?

A flame thrower.

Does the character need to conceal the weapon hand when going out in public? Might want to get a prosthetic that has a weapon inside it. Also useful as a... you know... hand.

Could put a swiss army knife in there, never know when you need to open a beer bottle

What sort of combat does the character get into?

Which hand is that? Character likely wants a small, short offhand melee weapon. A gun would be unlikely, aiming would be difficult.

edited 2nd Dec '16 8:33:37 PM by hellomoto

Speaking of knives, I'm doing some research and I'm having trouble deciding on something. Which machine gun or assault rifle do you all think looks the coolest (and deadliest) with a bayonet attached?

Quick question: Is the explosive impulse of a breaching charge sufficient to kill someone standing on top of one?

Which way is it facing?

It's a silhouette◊ 4-detcord-wrap charge rated for a "high quality solid door" according to FM 3-06.11, with the exposed detcord side up due to needing it to stick to the floor so the intended victim doesn't kick it away the first time.

Would concealing it under something like a doormat affect the blast?