Combat-Writing Thread

edited 26th May '16 6:11:42 PM by hellomoto

Would an underslung rocket launcher be plausible? I'm guessing the biggest problem would be backdraft, but considering the smaller size of the theoretical rocket it might be safer? Or no?

Actually I think we're working on some right now. Called Pike if I remember right.

It's laser designated and requires a second soldier to designate a target though. Don't think it's that much more effective than a normal 40mm grenade from the launcher either.

edited 17th Jun '16 4:03:34 PM by LeGarcon

A question related to a more war-heavy part in one of my books - Caine Dekeren, fresh off a defeat, decides Matthew must pay.

So he grabs up a true companion with teleportation shenanigans, and puts her in one of his more inhumane weapons - an evolution off of the mecha-tanks previously used called a Terror-SLAVE (Specialized Land Air Variance Engagement).

The thing is...I have utterly no idea what to give it, weapons wise.

Caine's idea here is "make it a Chaos Dreadnaught but with some Crown thing that infuses all its weapons with Mana" (if you want a comparison for how this looks, see Berserker's ability).

Caine doesn't have the resources for a more obvious 40k reference - instead its just an ugly, beige-colored giant walking tank with arms, a circular head with about four eyes and a general "heavy weapons" feel.

I don't know guns or military weapons, and I'm aiming to give it modern day weapons with certain dangerous reputations, so as to increase any capabilities via the Mana Infusion. Well, that and Caine's childish enough to just slap on everything with a dangerous / scary reputation and call it a day.

edited 17th Jun '16 11:45:01 PM by NickTheSwing

Dangerous how? To its user or to targets engaged with it?

To targets engaged with it.

So like a random mix of rail guns for armour piercing, machine guns, and grenade launchers for good measure?

Apologies for stalling the thread, but basically yes to those weapons - the Terror-SLAVE was created primarily to be nothing but terrible violence and a walking Sadistic Choice.

Either Matthew breaks his one rule and kills the innocent inside it (Emily), or it goes on killing absolutely everyone. What is more she is the girlfriend to one of the members of the 317th, adding a further layer to the whole thing.

Are you sure it can't be zapped with a sufficiently large or focused EMP?

Bio/chemical are the terrorizing weapons of choice, going all the way back to War of the Worlds.

So I'm writing a fistfight scene set in a back alley. It's three against one. The former is just a bunch of three drunk and rude kids in their late teens and early 20s.

The latter is in late 20s, and has been training to become a MMA fighter since he was 10, but had a traffic accident in high school that gave him a permanent limp in one leg. Although he gave up on his dream of becoming a professional fighter, he still kept on exercising, focusing on his entire body. Now although his limp still persists, his upper body is so strong that he can do 35 pull ups easily and can punch a person's tooth out in one punch. He also has a benefit of being sober.

Now, how would this muscular but limping man can beat three people? A good start would be having him leaning on a wall to support himself as well as to prevent himself from being surrounded.

Get them on the ground as fast as possible, ideally with throws if he knows any. Being drunk, the kids will probably have a hard time getting up, and he can go to town on whoever is left standing up before dealing with the ones on the ground.

I'd probably go with a neck chop to one and a kick to the abdomen with the good leg to the other, then a double punch to the face for the third. Focus on whoever is still standing afterwards. (probably the gut kick.) Break his jaw then again focus on whoever is still standing.

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

Not quite sure if throwing is a viable with only one good leg. If it was just one opponent, he could just throw himself on the guy and to the ground, but that's usually not feasible when there's more than one guy. The other guys might stomp on you. XP

It's probably not very easy to kick someone in the stomach when you have only one good leg. Also, jaw breaking and neck chop would be a bit of Disproportionate Retribution, in the eyes of law enforcement. XP

I have a question about armor and its practicality in certain scenarios.

The setting and battle is in medieval fantasy. Fighter A is a humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds, and is stronger than the average human, but mostly relies on a magical weapon to enhance physical traits like speed, strength and agility. Said weapon also is a polearm, having a long reach to deal with her usual opponents.

Their usual opponent(s) are humanoids that weigh on average anywhere from 500 pounds to 1t, often carry giant weapons that weigh about as much as fighter A, and have enough strength to tear metal armor off with their bare hands.

On the assumption that there is no point in wearing armor, Fighter A usually wears light but sturdy coat of plates to protect from arrows and other projectiles but might as well be paper against direct attacks from said opponents, and an enchanted leather vest for protection against magic.

Would heavier armor do anything to protect Fighter A? Or are they better off just sticking with their current set-up?

edited 8th Jul '16 12:22:19 AM by gameknight102xx

Yeah, 500 hulking giants with strength to tear off metal armor will probably carry weapons that will crush armor and people inside all at once.

By the way, I hope that you don't go all "the giants are large but slow" route. Speed comes from muscles. Killer whales, tigers, bears etc are freaking fast.

There's a point when armor is just too heavy and bulky to be useful. This is one of those times.

Alright, just wanted to confirm, thank you.

Strenght might come from muscles, but the Square-Cube Law is a thing, so even the giants shouldn't be slow as snails, there are reasons for them to not be very agile if they retain a humanlike anatomy.

edited 8th Jul '16 12:16:00 PM by EternaMemoria

If the enemy can tear through the armour as if it isn't there, then no there is no point in wearing the armour.

Depends on the muscle mass. Sufficient muscle can provide enough support to the bones, and honestly, if you are facing an opponent whose size will be subjected to SQ law, your armor won't mean shit anyway.

I'd note that anything that's managed to reach that size despite the square cube law probably has some in-built adaptations to prevent itself from running into those issues.

Also, it depends on environment.

Aquatic mammals can afford to be huge, while insects on earth can't because of their physical structure. Not having bones have their sideeffects.

Compare a human and a mouse for understanding the effect of size on speed. A mouse, reflexes are ridiculous. They can go from zero to max in a split second, have an absolutely ridiculous pace, but a terrible stride length.

They can run about a third as fast as a human.

The same would go the other way for a giant. They will take longer to get up to speed, their attack rate will be slower (but don't get hit), they will take longer to corner, they will take longer to react to stimulus. But longer reach and greater stride means they will reach slightly higher rough terminal speed in swing and run.

edited 9th Jul '16 5:50:03 AM by war877

I agree with all that you said, with a caviat: Would reaction times necessarily be noticably slower in the large humanoid opponents? I agree it would be in the absolute time (nerves can only carry an electrical signal so fast, and the larger opponents have a longer distance for the signal to travel), but would it necessarily have noticeably quicker reaction time? It may just be that I'm slow, but I've ridden full size horses (i.e. taller than me and ten times the weight I'd like to be at), and they seemed to be quicker on the draw than I was.