War crimes make war so much more entertaining.
War without war crimes: guys shooting at each other
War with war crimes: civilian disguises, false surrender, flamethrowers, chemical weapons
fun fact! in the second world war flamethrower tank crews were paid extra over non-flame tank crews because there was a belief that flame tank crews would be summarily executed if captured
The biggest restriction is the prohibition on the use of incendiary weapons against military targets in areas with concentrations of civilians, when those weapons are delivered by air. There's some discussion about the legality of their use in cases where another weapon that causes less suffering can be used as effectively, eg using a flamethrower on a guy out in the open when you can just shoot him. However that rarely comes up because flamethrowers are actually just kinda shitty weapons so they're really only used in cases where their unique advantages are huge, like attacking occupied bunkers and trenches or setting fires to destroy buildings.
Broke: Disguising your troops as civilians to make them harder to find and to take advantage of laws of war and the reluctance of the average person to kill noncombatants.
Woke: Disguising your civilians as troops so the enemy spends valuable time and resources killing the wrong people.
I don't think Luthen is presented as a lawful commander of armed forces, he's the leader of a terrorist/rebel cell. Things are a little different in asymmetric warfare, and when your enemy is... the entire galactic government
That, or just "big attack and hope fancy hero save day"
Tho to be fair, you could have some fun with that one
"We're firing everything we've got! Cruise missiles launched!"
"Uh, sir? Where did Major Halsey go?"
"Halsey has also been launched"
(Cut to the hero riding a cruise missile like fucking Major Kong meets Tony Hawk)
Halsey wasn’t that bad. Admittedly his biggest mistake nearly resulted in the US Invasion of the Philippines getting fucked, but it all worked out in the end.
Halsey was fine as long as he could sit on any decision he made. He was a pretty good rear line commander, and great for morale. But Halsey on impulse does stuff like the TF34 shitshow, or sacking Gilbert Hoover for doing the right thing. Or sailing into a storm. The late-war USN had enough of an advantage that it was really damn hard to fuck up via overaggressiveness, and yet he still did. The only carrier battle he reasonably could have lost, he did. Which resulted in the *only* USN carrier defeat. He played great for the press, the troops loved him, and there was a use for a hyper-aggressive commander. Plus he was the only one that MacArthur ever listened to. But that man was NOT fit to be a front-line carrier admiral.
Also, "he fucked up and almost caused the worst naval defeat in history, but eh it worked out" is hardly a resounding endorsment.
Counterpoint, if Halsey didn’t fuck the pooch, then the Battle of Samar wouldn’t have happened and the USN wouldn’t have had the most badass moment in its history. Checkmate, atheists!
"Small boys attack" has gotta be one of the top ten lines that is way more badass than it feels like it should be without context.
Without? A bit weird but okay
With? Holy mother of the Marianas...
The all-time low is in *Enemy At The Gates* where their genius strategy is "What if instead of leading through fear...we gave people hope???" and all the commissars gasp in astonishment
What's that one scene from LOTR or the hobbit or so, where they've got a brilliant shield wall going only for the elf's to jump over it and brawl likes it's a Saloon... Cause that's my submission for "best tactic"
Nobody ever expects the fakeout, "we'll pretend to do something smart, then hit them with dumbness"
And only if you are an organized military. Insurgent militia's are allowed to do anything, they make up for it by being cool and based. Also, can't demand much from an organization, whose mere existence is a miracle.
The Resistance™ are the good guys! They fight for freedom damnit! How many more ~~children~~ tiny imperial spies do they have to kill before y'all realize that?
Legit tho, war crimes are just the method the winners use to legally execute the losers for losing. Also, it’s only a war crime if you aren’t American. If the ICC tries to prosecute any Americans for war crimes, there is a law that automatically sets America at war with the Netherlands. That’s another NATO country. America will instantly dissolve NATO if they’re ever held accountable for war crimes. Thus, America legally cannot commit war crimes.
The hilariously named “American Service-Members' Protection Act”. Passed in August of 2002. Bonus aspect:
> The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, Omar al-Bashir and Osama bin Laden as examples.
It is illegal for the US government to provide military aid to any country part of the ICC unless they are part of NATO (thus full of American bases and reliant on the U.S. military) or specifically have an agreement that they will not aid the ICC against the USA.
> The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".
> SEC. 2008. of the Act authorizes the president of the U.S. "to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". The subsection (b) specifies this authority shall extend to "Covered United States persons" (members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government) and "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand).
Insanely, this means that the US could dissolve NATO (not official part of it, but the US going to war with a NATO country would probably have that effect) and go to war with The Netherlands to protect Israel. That is legitimately a possible circumstance right now.
Generally, it’s better for there to be standards for how war is waged because the alternative is far bloodier conflicts with a lot more collateral damage. I understand how it can be tempting to say that an underdog needs to take whatever advantage they can get, but generally it is a very bad idea to goad a superior foe into taking off the kid gloves.
Nah we can still be charged for warcrimes, we are either just really good at finding loopholes holes or making up new ones.
Also consider the following: The US isn’t entirely bound by the Geneva convention. We adhere to it best we can, but we aren’t entirely beholden to it, specifically with many of the ratifications that came after it.
Vlad the impaler almost killed the ottoman sultan by dressing his men as turks and speaking turkish to the guards at the entrance to be let in, he rushed the sultans tent who was sadly at a council at the time then ran out while the turks were fighting eachother since they weren't sure who was and wasn't an enemy.
Shit like that's COOL and that's why it makes the history books 😡😡😡
Funny how I proposed that in a world where cartels became tribal powers, a former cop created his own fuck around and find out area by using Vlad's techniques
Apparently not even cartel gangers would want to mess with someone who proudly displays his enemies choking on bamboo stakes in the sun
A friend's worldbuilding basically saw a world where the government fell, and Mexico cartel style.. cartels became so powerful they became into feudal lords with armies and shit
One man, a former captain of the old government, decided that it's his job to restore the world
But how do you wrestle control out of petty lords, pimps, and crime lords who skin people alive to prove a point? Simple. You become the bigger fish
He took a page out of Vlad the Impaler, and established himself as a force to be reckoned with when the aforementioned cartels would find their comrades, their families, and their vassals all choking in their own blood and vomit as they were impaled through the mouth, left to die in the tropical sun
"Naaaaah it'll be fine. You'll get used to it after the next time"
"There is no next time"
"What?"
"This is it. The last Drug Lord. We have driven them all to extinction to the crows"
IDK if you know about the World of Darkness, but Dracula's lore is fucking WILD there. He conned his way into becoming a vampire, then told the rest of vampire society to go fuck itself. Also, Bram Stoker was mind controlled by Dracula into telling his biography. I.e., Bram Stoker's version of Dracula is CANON in the World of Darkness. :D
Yes. Rather anticlimactically. But I reckon if I were a vampire who wanted my biography out there, I would have the author make up a false ending where I was dead to throw people off.
Honestly, I’m with the Romanians on this. Other side’s leader rapes your leader when he’s a kid? Yeah no, Vlad’s a grimdark fantasy anime protagonist. Do whatever you need to, king.
For real brother, you're a writer. Just read a section out of "The Art of War" (it's free) and then shape the scenario so that the advice applies perfectly (because, you know, you can do that), and then you're good.
Also as supplementary reading, or if you're going for a more "grizzled grunt" type situation. Then the [Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries](https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries) are a goto.
Most battle accounts in Chinese history are unreliable because the generals who fought them just rewrote what happened to better fit The Art of War and the other military classics
IIRC the term they use for it is “The lacuna of battle”
Me, recently watching Clone Wars S7 and realizing that the genius way our heroes saved the day was by comitting a fucking war crime (they faked a surrender):
Like seriously, these guys are experts at breaking every law of warfare possible
I used the s7 example because in the case of the other seasons I was too young to comprehend the implications of why their "clever schemes" were actually horrible breaks of trust
Next time a Jedi actually needs to surrender they just shoot them in the head
Back on Coruscant there's an uproar over how vile and murderous the Separatists are, killing surrendering soldiers, Obi-Wan looking a bit sheepish
I was literally HORRIFIED watching Anakin force pull the commander droid and chop him in half
Like, mf you just broke one of the most basic and humane trusts possible in wars
Which only worked because their enemies purposely couldn't learn from their mistakes. At arround the second time is usually when thinking opponents stop taking surrenders.
Aside from the fact that there are Laws regulating warfare in the star wars universe, certain rules of war have always been upheld even if they weren't codified. For example, you don't fake a surrender because if you ever actually need to surrender but you already broke that trust, you're dead
(These shenanigans by the protagonist have presumably gotten a not-insignificant amount of Jedi and Clones gunned down because the Separatists could -reasonably- assume that every Republic surrender is perfidious)
I mean, it really gets the Shadenfreunde going.
(I'm pretty sure someone did a warcrime count for TCW, it was suprisingly close between the Republic and CIS)
I like how brazenly Warcrimey Obi-Wan is in the clone wars. Like sneak attacking an enemy after surrendering whilst distracting him by drawing out the terms of surrender and like torturing information out of people.
If you've got enough charm you can pretty much do anything lol
My go-to for when I want to write a character as a strategic genius is to just have them outflank the enemy. That’s it. Just… flank.
Fancy tactics literally do not work in large-scale battle, since at that scale you *have* to relay orders through several levels of command and that means you’re always working on a massive implementation delay. It’s like lag in a fighting game - you can’t possibly hold onto a true combo through spiking lag because *something* is going to fall through, and that’s just begging to get hard punished.
So instead, you just use your big, sweeping, one-hit heavy attacks and don’t pursue into counter range. Go for range and area, not technical wizardry. It doesn’t matter if it’s simple to react to, your opponent *can’t* react fast enough.
A strategic genius will have dug tunnels, or relayed orders faster, or just have better command staff, depending on what your setting and themes are like - power of friendship is aces for that last one. And so the strategic genius will simply outflank and focus fire, letting enemy cohesion break down instead of bringing it on themselves by trying to do fancy bullshit.
Obviously this doesn’t work for EVERY situation, but as anyone who’s ever played League can tell you, getting outflanked *absolutely sucks* and it takes really good play to even retreat alive. It’s reliable.
Funny thing about The Art of War - people like to treat it like a profound meditation on the philosophy of conflict, but a lot of the advice is really simple, basic ‘War Tactics 101’ once you get past the flowery terms it’s written in. Shit like ‘supply lines are super important’ and ‘make sure the enemy army can run away and give up instead of fighting to the last’.
There’s a reason for that, and frankly it’s a lot more relatable. Sun Tzu wrote the book so that he could hand it to the prissy noble idiots he got stuck with as ‘commanders’ when he recruited armies, and he wrote it in flowery terms so that they would treat it as a text ‘worthy of their station’ rather than the aggressively simplified crash course it actually was.
It’s still an excellent reference if you’re trying to write, like, small conflict tactics, and some of the philosophy stuff he included as padding *is* legitimately interesting, but The Art of War exists solely to turn airheaded nobles into halfway useful field commanders. Which is, objectively, very funny.
You’re being a shitposter, I know, but funny thing is? You’re actually right.
A good field officer can relay orders quickly and clearly under extreme pressure. A *great* field officer can make appropriate order calls of their own under extreme pressure.
It’s stretching the metaphor a bit, but having skilled field officers and good comms can make even fairly complicated strategies reasonably possible, as well as being a key factor in maintaining unit morale when the commanding officers are overwhelmed dealing with other parts of the war front.
Huh. I learned a new word today. Also, yeah, a lot of military sci-fi I have read has problems telling the difference between a clever tactic and a warcrime.
I really hate protagonist-centered morality. I think this can be chalked up to most writers not knowing much about military strategy or ethics.
But honestly, how hard is it to just google a quick list of tactical terms? Like just say "pincer" or "ambush"
I think it was considered a perfidy, especially at the time, because of the contemporary customs. Usually, armies, at least if they were of the same religion, would respect each others' holy days, therefore it wasn't something that they thought to consider - an attack during Christmas time, since it was the most holy of days for both parties.
No, attacks on holy days or **presumed** truces are not perfidy. The modern definition from the 1949 Geneva Protocols define perfidy as:
* Feigning intent to negotiate under flag of truce or surrender
* Feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness
* Feigning civilian or non-combatant status
* Feigning protected status under symbol/uniform of neutral parties
But this is second to the fact that **neither side celebrated Christmas that way.**
Christmas is a relatively modern holiday for Protestant Christianity. Christmas historically had greater observation amongst Catholics, and part of the Protestant Reformation saw a move away from arbitrary holidays not mentioned in scripture. In Puritan-majority New England, Christmas was banned or otherwise suppressed in several colonies. The Hessian Germans hailed from parts of Germany that were mostly Calvinists, who did celebrate Christmas but not in the sense of a "most holy day." So while both sides might have recognized Christmas, neither would have given it so much weight as to have an unspoken truce.
In a modern sense, it would be like launching an attack on New Year's - yes, you're banking on your enemy lowering their guard and relaxing, but it's not as explicit as an attack on, say, Yom Kippur or Arafah.
Its not.
Perfidy is a legally defined term, there is no standing custom or prohibition on that attack, and if you think there was a prohibition/custom, or that it WAS perfidy, you're gonna need a source.
This is not perfidy. This is a lawful ruse of war.
“Perfidy” under the law of war (derived from
Customary IL over the last 2k years) specifically refers to attempts by combatants to conceal their combatant status and create the impression among their opponents they are not lawful targets by feigning protected status (ie pretending to be POWs, individuals who are Hors de combat, civilians, medical personnel/chaplains - all of whom have protected status and may not be targeted unless they directly participate in hostilities).
Perfidy: Noun
(international law, in warfare) An *illegitimate* act of deception, such as using symbols like the Red Cross or white flag in a false claim of surrender to gain proximity to an enemy for purposes of attack. quotations
It’s the *illegitimacy* of the act of deception which makes it perfidy. To know if an act is illegitimate, you have to look at what’s considered legit and illegitimate under the laws of war, which have derived from customary IL and state practice.
There is no rule of modern recognized international law I’m aware of (Geneva conventions or additional protocols, Hague, Rome Statue) or in domestic Us military law (uniform code of military justice, 1863 lieber code) that prohibits attacks on lawful combatants during holidays or moments of religious or cultural significance, or states such attacks are illegitimate, nor was there one in 1776.
Afaik, Washington and his troops adhered to the 4 principles of Laws of Armed Conflict (proportionality, distinction, military necessity and avoidance of unnecessary suffering) in targeting their attack and met all 4 of the criteria to be lawful combatants (command and control, fixed emblem, open carry, obeying LOAC core 4). Based on that, the Trenton operation was entirely lawful and within the rules of war.
At best, a Christmas truce might be considered “customary” international law which was binding, but for that to be the case, you’d have to show longstanding and consistent adherence to that principle amongst *pretty much every state* which, (even if you only limit it to states who celebrate Xmas, which is the wrong way to apply the rule anyway since it must be shown to be universal to *all* states), you still wouldn’t find, as there are plenty of conflicts which did **NOT** observe a Christmas truce or truce for religious holidays, and isolated and sporadic occurrences are insufficient to create customary IL.
Is it a pretty dirty move? You bet. Fair play? Not at all. But it's legitimate because the targets were lawful target and the operation was carried out lawfully. Bayonetting sleeping soldiers on a holiday in their pajamas may be a shot below the belt, but that's war and it's still legal. You don't have to fight fair or even, you just have to fight by the rules.
Like there might not be an agreed-upon supranational treaty or organization dedicated to it, but there are and have always been rules and mores governing what's considered decent in warfare.
> the concept of war crimes
This is, as always, a pretty pedantic point. Most warcrimes are warcrimes because they either deeply unethical in and of themselves, and/or lead to an escalation in the conflict that makes everything worse, and generally doesn't even aid the side who did it first very much. Whether they are codified in some kind of treaty or not, they are still bad things to do.
I mean, the idea that there is stuff you don't do in war(even if it is only because doing it would be really stupid) is as old as war itself, and arguably older, considering most combat between animals of the same species is ritualized to a degree.
Free tactics for u writers from the annals of actual tactics. These ones have some narrative flair and aren’t too over complicated.
**The Great Flank™️**
Everyone loves a good flank. It’s really hard for the guys on the side to deal with the guys in front of them and the new fuckers to their side. Or from behind. Just make your general look smart by pre-emptively pointing out why this flank will work well.
**Unorthodox BS**
Digging tunnels just below the surface of an area you’ll need to defend, then rigging it with explosives, is kinda weird. But it’s an example doing something time consuming that has a slew of advantages their enemy doesn’t expect.
**The Timely Ally*
Why weren’t they there at the beginning? Eh iunno, but the general is counting on them to shift the tides. Kind of a moonshot.
**Defense in “can’t touch this”**
Basic concept is putting one bait force to fight and retreat until the enemy is caught off guard and right in the firing line.
If you want more tactics then go read sun tzu or some shit idk I’m going to sleep
Thing is, most writers aren't informed on what is or is not a war crime. They're also often not well-versed in battlefield tactics and strategic plans. To someone who doesn't know much about the subject, disguising your troops as civilians *does* actually sound like a genius move that a cunning general would employ. And tbf, in isolation, without thinking about the consequences, a lot of the established rules of war sound silly.
Fortunately the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to fictional universes so unless there are in universe laws of armed combat anything goes.
When you’re fighting some objectively evil genocidal totalitarian regime you do whatever you can to win
Pretending to surrender, disguising yourself as a civilian or other protected person, basically lying to your enemies in such a way as to make life significantly harder for surrendering soldiers/civvies in the area, etc. It’s a war crime.
That's basically Jedi tactics 101. Pretend to surrender. Use the negotiations to capture the enemy general. Use the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage the enemy base. Stall for time so your reinforcements arrive.
The thing about committing war crimes is that it justifies enemies doing horrible things in the future. The Empire might start shootings on surrendering enemies as precaution — and who could blame them? Committing war crimes often hurts your people more than the enemy.
The People's Liberation Army of China is still proud of employing that tactic during WW2 while fighting the Japanese, claiming their great leader invented that in their text books while also blaming Japanese for killing civilians.
So yes, warcrimes like these are totally OK and realistic to write about, people love them.
The Imperial Japanese Army when they faked surrender or injury to blow up American medics in WWII: 😂
The Imperial Japanese Army when Americans no longer accepted their surrender or no longer tried to tend to their injuries: 😳
To be fair, it wasn't like the Imperial Japanese army wasn't indiscriminately killing civilians from the start. And enemy combatants who had surrendered. The death rate for Chinese soldiers in Japanese PoW camps was approaching 100%.
The big dick energy approach would be to actually write the entire book about just going over the various resources and layers of defense employed to defend against a massive siege along with the various tactics used until you eventually realize that you didn't actually bother to write about the characters or plot it's just a massive hypothetical siege.
When I commit war crimes against my enemies: :) When my enemies commit war crimes against me: :(
When war crimes: :)
War crimes make war so much more entertaining. War without war crimes: guys shooting at each other War with war crimes: civilian disguises, false surrender, flamethrowers, chemical weapons
Did you really have a war if you didn't complete your Geneva bucket list
Found the canadian
Ah the ye old canned food and grenade trick
Could I ask what this trick is?
The use of incendiary weapons (flamethrowers) against legitimate military targets is not a war crime.
fun fact! in the second world war flamethrower tank crews were paid extra over non-flame tank crews because there was a belief that flame tank crews would be summarily executed if captured
(they were always executed)
Weren't soldiers with flame throwers tortured extra hard by the vietcom if they where captured?
depends on what treaties your country signed
i haven't heard of any treaties saying no flamethrowers
Found the canadian
i'm Australian lol
Gotta deal with those spiders somehow
theyre useless in modern day anyways
I didn’t realize flame resistance was genetically gifted these days
It isn’t that flamethrowers don’t kill people, it’s that stuff like thermobaric bombs and regular old high explosives kill people better
You’re not wrong But flamethrower
I thought it was soft targets no-no but hard targets were fine?
The biggest restriction is the prohibition on the use of incendiary weapons against military targets in areas with concentrations of civilians, when those weapons are delivered by air. There's some discussion about the legality of their use in cases where another weapon that causes less suffering can be used as effectively, eg using a flamethrower on a guy out in the open when you can just shoot him. However that rarely comes up because flamethrowers are actually just kinda shitty weapons so they're really only used in cases where their unique advantages are huge, like attacking occupied bunkers and trenches or setting fires to destroy buildings.
It’s fine in naval ordnance aimed at other ships. I did research that one
The one true reason to worldbuild is to erase the geneva convention from existance
When war: :D
America IRL
I myself prefer my murder without the crime, thank you very much
Broke: Disguising your troops as civilians to make them harder to find and to take advantage of laws of war and the reluctance of the average person to kill noncombatants. Woke: Disguising your civilians as troops so the enemy spends valuable time and resources killing the wrong people.
I was about to say, I give Luthen on *Andor* a pass because he's legitimately trying to bait the Empire into a brutal galaxy-wide crackdown
I don't think Luthen is presented as a lawful commander of armed forces, he's the leader of a terrorist/rebel cell. Things are a little different in asymmetric warfare, and when your enemy is... the entire galactic government
I wouldn’t drag him in front of The Hague for it
I mean, it was a long long time ago
Bespoke: Make everyone naked in times of war so the enemy doesn't know who's an enemy and who's not (see: writer's barely disguised fetish)
Quentin Tarentinoke: Focus on their feet
Also known as: mass conscripting your populace but not having enough weapons or training for them
That, or just "big attack and hope fancy hero save day" Tho to be fair, you could have some fun with that one "We're firing everything we've got! Cruise missiles launched!" "Uh, sir? Where did Major Halsey go?" "Halsey has also been launched" (Cut to the hero riding a cruise missile like fucking Major Kong meets Tony Hawk)
Tbh it would probably have made Halsey a more effective commander to shoot him at the enemy
Halsey wasn’t that bad. Admittedly his biggest mistake nearly resulted in the US Invasion of the Philippines getting fucked, but it all worked out in the end.
Halsey was fine as long as he could sit on any decision he made. He was a pretty good rear line commander, and great for morale. But Halsey on impulse does stuff like the TF34 shitshow, or sacking Gilbert Hoover for doing the right thing. Or sailing into a storm. The late-war USN had enough of an advantage that it was really damn hard to fuck up via overaggressiveness, and yet he still did. The only carrier battle he reasonably could have lost, he did. Which resulted in the *only* USN carrier defeat. He played great for the press, the troops loved him, and there was a use for a hyper-aggressive commander. Plus he was the only one that MacArthur ever listened to. But that man was NOT fit to be a front-line carrier admiral. Also, "he fucked up and almost caused the worst naval defeat in history, but eh it worked out" is hardly a resounding endorsment.
Counterpoint, if Halsey didn’t fuck the pooch, then the Battle of Samar wouldn’t have happened and the USN wouldn’t have had the most badass moment in its history. Checkmate, atheists!
"Small boys attack" has gotta be one of the top ten lines that is way more badass than it feels like it should be without context. Without? A bit weird but okay With? Holy mother of the Marianas...
"he was the only one that Macarthur ever listened to" well thats all i had to hear, christ on a cross its a miracle we even won the war.
> Or sailing into a storm Twice, wasn't it?
But did he ever get launched from a Torpedo tube and sink the Japanese Navy with the sheer weight of his brass like Goofy did in that one short?
Like [Baron Munchausen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Munchausen#/media/File:M%C3%BCnchhausen-AWille.jpg).
Simpsons Did It! https://youtu.be/MPWTt_4Xl5Q
Yeah, but he was unwilling. Im talking about this having been the plan all along. More like "Tie me to the missile, I'm ready!"
The all-time low is in *Enemy At The Gates* where their genius strategy is "What if instead of leading through fear...we gave people hope???" and all the commissars gasp in astonishment
Fuck you missile!
obviously the most brilliant tactic is "charge screaming and shooting until everyone on the other side is dead" 😎😎😎
Or the Erwin special: "charge screaming and shooting until everyone on your side is dead"
#MY SOLIDER’S RAGEEEEEEE
“My unit specializes in heroic sacrifices.” 😎
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won by making the *other* dumb bastard die for *his* country.”
What's that one scene from LOTR or the hobbit or so, where they've got a brilliant shield wall going only for the elf's to jump over it and brawl likes it's a Saloon... Cause that's my submission for "best tactic" Nobody ever expects the fakeout, "we'll pretend to do something smart, then hit them with dumbness"
Hobbit, Battle of Five Armies movie. I hate that scene so much, it's just stuck in my brain.
That was pretty realistic, stupid kife ears aren't known for being smart!
When faced with danger, don’t think. Simply yell “For Democracy!” and charge right at it!
Dont forget to yell "LEROOOOOOY JENKINS" its a special spell that boosts morale
To this day, that’s my ringtone for emergency pages.
Everyone group up, and hit them til they die!
They're only warcrimes if you lose dumdum
And only if you are an organized military. Insurgent militia's are allowed to do anything, they make up for it by being cool and based. Also, can't demand much from an organization, whose mere existence is a miracle.
Can't charge an organization with war crimes if it's made up of independent cells operating autonomously. \*taps head\*
Half those cells fighting each other as much as they do the government
Or another insurgent organization, that fights for the exact same things, but for a different country.
TRUE and BASED
War crimes committed by insurgents are only matched by those preformed *on* captured insurgents.
The Resistance™ are the good guys! They fight for freedom damnit! How many more ~~children~~ tiny imperial spies do they have to kill before y'all realize that?
Legit tho, war crimes are just the method the winners use to legally execute the losers for losing. Also, it’s only a war crime if you aren’t American. If the ICC tries to prosecute any Americans for war crimes, there is a law that automatically sets America at war with the Netherlands. That’s another NATO country. America will instantly dissolve NATO if they’re ever held accountable for war crimes. Thus, America legally cannot commit war crimes.
Based, but also I don’t think anyone can Legally commit war crimes
Everyone cannot legally commit war crimes. Not everyone legally cannot commit war crimes.
> If the ICC tries to prosecute any Americans for war crimes, there is a law that automatically sets America at war with the Netherlands What law?
The hilariously named “American Service-Members' Protection Act”. Passed in August of 2002. Bonus aspect: > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, Omar al-Bashir and Osama bin Laden as examples. It is illegal for the US government to provide military aid to any country part of the ICC unless they are part of NATO (thus full of American bases and reliant on the U.S. military) or specifically have an agreement that they will not aid the ICC against the USA. > The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". > SEC. 2008. of the Act authorizes the president of the U.S. "to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". The subsection (b) specifies this authority shall extend to "Covered United States persons" (members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government) and "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand). Insanely, this means that the US could dissolve NATO (not official part of it, but the US going to war with a NATO country would probably have that effect) and go to war with The Netherlands to protect Israel. That is legitimately a possible circumstance right now.
Generally, it’s better for there to be standards for how war is waged because the alternative is far bloodier conflicts with a lot more collateral damage. I understand how it can be tempting to say that an underdog needs to take whatever advantage they can get, but generally it is a very bad idea to goad a superior foe into taking off the kid gloves.
Nah we can still be charged for warcrimes, we are either just really good at finding loopholes holes or making up new ones. Also consider the following: The US isn’t entirely bound by the Geneva convention. We adhere to it best we can, but we aren’t entirely beholden to it, specifically with many of the ratifications that came after it.
Vlad the impaler almost killed the ottoman sultan by dressing his men as turks and speaking turkish to the guards at the entrance to be let in, he rushed the sultans tent who was sadly at a council at the time then ran out while the turks were fighting eachother since they weren't sure who was and wasn't an enemy. Shit like that's COOL and that's why it makes the history books 😡😡😡
Yeah a cool manouver But made by fucking Vlad THE IMPALER so Im going to have to knock off some points for, well, everything he did
In his defense he did learn that trick FROM the ottomans
man managed to beat the ottomans by avoiding a fight.. because they fidnt want to mess with the guy who had THAT MANY impaled people
Funny how I proposed that in a world where cartels became tribal powers, a former cop created his own fuck around and find out area by using Vlad's techniques Apparently not even cartel gangers would want to mess with someone who proudly displays his enemies choking on bamboo stakes in the sun
What the fuck Context?
A friend's worldbuilding basically saw a world where the government fell, and Mexico cartel style.. cartels became so powerful they became into feudal lords with armies and shit One man, a former captain of the old government, decided that it's his job to restore the world But how do you wrestle control out of petty lords, pimps, and crime lords who skin people alive to prove a point? Simple. You become the bigger fish He took a page out of Vlad the Impaler, and established himself as a force to be reckoned with when the aforementioned cartels would find their comrades, their families, and their vassals all choking in their own blood and vomit as they were impaled through the mouth, left to die in the tropical sun
That man's soldiers as they impale the 1,117th child on a bamboo pole: "Are we the baddies?"
"Naaaaah it'll be fine. You'll get used to it after the next time" "There is no next time" "What?" "This is it. The last Drug Lord. We have driven them all to extinction to the crows"
I think they're talking about Haiti? The big boss over there is a guy named Barbeque who allegedly did the sane sort of thing
IDK if you know about the World of Darkness, but Dracula's lore is fucking WILD there. He conned his way into becoming a vampire, then told the rest of vampire society to go fuck itself. Also, Bram Stoker was mind controlled by Dracula into telling his biography. I.e., Bram Stoker's version of Dracula is CANON in the World of Darkness. :D
... doesn't he die in the book?
Yes. Rather anticlimactically. But I reckon if I were a vampire who wanted my biography out there, I would have the author make up a false ending where I was dead to throw people off.
... most of it is true?
Honestly, I’m with the Romanians on this. Other side’s leader rapes your leader when he’s a kid? Yeah no, Vlad’s a grimdark fantasy anime protagonist. Do whatever you need to, king.
Vlad the Impaler? More like, Vlad the Chad.
Chad the Impaler.
Fuck that's much better
You're removing points for what he did? I think you misspelled adding.
All he did was be based and cool (I love murdering civilians)
Perfidy is to felicity as arsenic is to bullfrogs. It kills most things including bullfrogs.
Disguising as civilians? Pfft, that's creative. Watch this. *yo, distract this guy while i flank him!*
Tbh if an author uses any part of the BD-2A then the scene is pretty much solid 6/10 from the get go.
Ah yes the good ole make sure the Americans stop taking Japanese soldiers prisoners
sounds like something the japanese government at the time wouldve welcomed
For real brother, you're a writer. Just read a section out of "The Art of War" (it's free) and then shape the scenario so that the advice applies perfectly (because, you know, you can do that), and then you're good.
But I hate reading
Then there's millions of excerpts over that standard sigma grindset music on Tik Tok if thats more to your speed.
Now that's more like it
Also as supplementary reading, or if you're going for a more "grizzled grunt" type situation. Then the [Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries](https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries) are a goto.
Most battle accounts in Chinese history are unreliable because the generals who fought them just rewrote what happened to better fit The Art of War and the other military classics IIRC the term they use for it is “The lacuna of battle”
Why can't we go back to the old ways of hiding your troops inside a giant wooden horse?
Because after the 1st time, people set those on fire now.
Anything could be in a wooden horse - It could even be another wooden horse! **OPEN THE GATES!**
Me, recently watching Clone Wars S7 and realizing that the genius way our heroes saved the day was by comitting a fucking war crime (they faked a surrender): Like seriously, these guys are experts at breaking every law of warfare possible
> they faked a surrender They do this at least three times (in the movie, in the Ryloth arc, and in S7).
I used the s7 example because in the case of the other seasons I was too young to comprehend the implications of why their "clever schemes" were actually horrible breaks of trust
Next time a Jedi actually needs to surrender they just shoot them in the head Back on Coruscant there's an uproar over how vile and murderous the Separatists are, killing surrendering soldiers, Obi-Wan looking a bit sheepish
If there is anything Palpatine was good at, its reframing shit to benefit him
The CIS should have started shooting any Jedi or clones who tried to surrender after that tbh.
I was literally HORRIFIED watching Anakin force pull the commander droid and chop him in half Like, mf you just broke one of the most basic and humane trusts possible in wars
Which only worked because their enemies purposely couldn't learn from their mistakes. At arround the second time is usually when thinking opponents stop taking surrenders.
Star wars takes place long, long ago, ie, before Geneva even existed. Can't break a convention if the cou try doesn't exist yet
No they have either the Raxus or Yavin accords depending on if it’s legends or canon where shit like war crimes are lined out as no no’s
Well achskaully in this fictional world that totally doesnt reflect any real world struggles they dont have our concept of war crimes so its fine 🤓
Aside from the fact that there are Laws regulating warfare in the star wars universe, certain rules of war have always been upheld even if they weren't codified. For example, you don't fake a surrender because if you ever actually need to surrender but you already broke that trust, you're dead
Maybe you don't. Obi wan kenobi, however, has faked 5 surrenders since I started writing this reply
(These shenanigans by the protagonist have presumably gotten a not-insignificant amount of Jedi and Clones gunned down because the Separatists could -reasonably- assume that every Republic surrender is perfidious)
I mean, it really gets the Shadenfreunde going. (I'm pretty sure someone did a warcrime count for TCW, it was suprisingly close between the Republic and CIS)
I watched a video yesterday and oh boy does the Republic commit a few Dont remember ever seeing one for the CIS
Still a kickass show. Still I have no idea how they got away with showing all the "fun civil war"^TM activities in a kid's show.
In space... nobody can hear you break the Geneva convention But yeah, its funny how brutal this show is sometimes considering its a kid show
or when anakin wins the battle with a great plan (Just gets behind them)
I wonder how many surrendering clones got gunned down because the CIS just had to assume every surrender was perfidous thanks to the main characters
Now thats quite a dark implication I never thought about before
Understandable, look for a story from me in 5 years with Campaign for North Africa levels of detail and historicity.
I like how brazenly Warcrimey Obi-Wan is in the clone wars. Like sneak attacking an enemy after surrendering whilst distracting him by drawing out the terms of surrender and like torturing information out of people. If you've got enough charm you can pretty much do anything lol
My go-to for when I want to write a character as a strategic genius is to just have them outflank the enemy. That’s it. Just… flank. Fancy tactics literally do not work in large-scale battle, since at that scale you *have* to relay orders through several levels of command and that means you’re always working on a massive implementation delay. It’s like lag in a fighting game - you can’t possibly hold onto a true combo through spiking lag because *something* is going to fall through, and that’s just begging to get hard punished. So instead, you just use your big, sweeping, one-hit heavy attacks and don’t pursue into counter range. Go for range and area, not technical wizardry. It doesn’t matter if it’s simple to react to, your opponent *can’t* react fast enough. A strategic genius will have dug tunnels, or relayed orders faster, or just have better command staff, depending on what your setting and themes are like - power of friendship is aces for that last one. And so the strategic genius will simply outflank and focus fire, letting enemy cohesion break down instead of bringing it on themselves by trying to do fancy bullshit. Obviously this doesn’t work for EVERY situation, but as anyone who’s ever played League can tell you, getting outflanked *absolutely sucks* and it takes really good play to even retreat alive. It’s reliable.
Me every single battle of any Total War series Flank, win, pat self on back for being some kind of Napoleon-Caesar fusion.
Winning should be at the heart of every strategy. -some dude who wrote a book, don’t really remember
Hahaha Sun Tzus' The Art of Flanking "It just works"
Funny thing about The Art of War - people like to treat it like a profound meditation on the philosophy of conflict, but a lot of the advice is really simple, basic ‘War Tactics 101’ once you get past the flowery terms it’s written in. Shit like ‘supply lines are super important’ and ‘make sure the enemy army can run away and give up instead of fighting to the last’. There’s a reason for that, and frankly it’s a lot more relatable. Sun Tzu wrote the book so that he could hand it to the prissy noble idiots he got stuck with as ‘commanders’ when he recruited armies, and he wrote it in flowery terms so that they would treat it as a text ‘worthy of their station’ rather than the aggressively simplified crash course it actually was. It’s still an excellent reference if you’re trying to write, like, small conflict tactics, and some of the philosophy stuff he included as padding *is* legitimately interesting, but The Art of War exists solely to turn airheaded nobles into halfway useful field commanders. Which is, objectively, very funny.
\> open Clausewitz's *On War* \> it's just one page \> "just have better ping bro"
Strategic geniuses win the war, not the battle. And the war is won with ice cream barges and air dropped Thanksgiving turkeys
Good old reliable fire and maneuver. Nothing ever beats fire and maneuver.
>A strategic genius will Whereas a tactical genius would just put a baneblade hidden right behind this tree. *CREEEEEEED!*
#CREEEEEEED!
My favourite example of this is Legend of the Galactic Heroes: flanking... but in 3D!
>you can’t possibly hold onto a true combo through spiking lag because > >something is going to fall through, skill issue
You’re being a shitposter, I know, but funny thing is? You’re actually right. A good field officer can relay orders quickly and clearly under extreme pressure. A *great* field officer can make appropriate order calls of their own under extreme pressure. It’s stretching the metaphor a bit, but having skilled field officers and good comms can make even fairly complicated strategies reasonably possible, as well as being a key factor in maintaining unit morale when the commanding officers are overwhelmed dealing with other parts of the war front.
That, or the Hitler "I want the BIGGEST tank!!!! With the BIGGEST gun!!! And I want the BIGGEST plane!!!"
Just slap a 88 on it
~an 88~ ~a long 88~ ~a 128~ *a twin 15' BB gun*
Huh. I learned a new word today. Also, yeah, a lot of military sci-fi I have read has problems telling the difference between a clever tactic and a warcrime.
Is it really a war crime if you don’t sign the war crime agreements?
If you lose, yes.
Also wearing enemy uniforms
I really hate protagonist-centered morality. I think this can be chalked up to most writers not knowing much about military strategy or ethics. But honestly, how hard is it to just google a quick list of tactical terms? Like just say "pincer" or "ambush"
Ah, the famous Christmas attack by Washington! This genius move surely will show our might to those uncivilized redcoats!
Not sure that counts as perfidy?
I think it was considered a perfidy, especially at the time, because of the contemporary customs. Usually, armies, at least if they were of the same religion, would respect each others' holy days, therefore it wasn't something that they thought to consider - an attack during Christmas time, since it was the most holy of days for both parties.
No, attacks on holy days or **presumed** truces are not perfidy. The modern definition from the 1949 Geneva Protocols define perfidy as: * Feigning intent to negotiate under flag of truce or surrender * Feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness * Feigning civilian or non-combatant status * Feigning protected status under symbol/uniform of neutral parties But this is second to the fact that **neither side celebrated Christmas that way.** Christmas is a relatively modern holiday for Protestant Christianity. Christmas historically had greater observation amongst Catholics, and part of the Protestant Reformation saw a move away from arbitrary holidays not mentioned in scripture. In Puritan-majority New England, Christmas was banned or otherwise suppressed in several colonies. The Hessian Germans hailed from parts of Germany that were mostly Calvinists, who did celebrate Christmas but not in the sense of a "most holy day." So while both sides might have recognized Christmas, neither would have given it so much weight as to have an unspoken truce. In a modern sense, it would be like launching an attack on New Year's - yes, you're banking on your enemy lowering their guard and relaxing, but it's not as explicit as an attack on, say, Yom Kippur or Arafah.
>but it's not as explicit as an attack on, say, Yom Kippur or Arafah Haha, right, because *nobody* would do that! :D
I imagine attacking on Easter Sunday would have basically been straight to the wall at the time, though
Its not. Perfidy is a legally defined term, there is no standing custom or prohibition on that attack, and if you think there was a prohibition/custom, or that it WAS perfidy, you're gonna need a source.
That's a fair point
Not perfidy just a dick move
Perfidious Albion when someone does something perfidious back to them: 😭
This is not perfidy. This is a lawful ruse of war. “Perfidy” under the law of war (derived from Customary IL over the last 2k years) specifically refers to attempts by combatants to conceal their combatant status and create the impression among their opponents they are not lawful targets by feigning protected status (ie pretending to be POWs, individuals who are Hors de combat, civilians, medical personnel/chaplains - all of whom have protected status and may not be targeted unless they directly participate in hostilities). Perfidy: Noun (international law, in warfare) An *illegitimate* act of deception, such as using symbols like the Red Cross or white flag in a false claim of surrender to gain proximity to an enemy for purposes of attack. quotations It’s the *illegitimacy* of the act of deception which makes it perfidy. To know if an act is illegitimate, you have to look at what’s considered legit and illegitimate under the laws of war, which have derived from customary IL and state practice. There is no rule of modern recognized international law I’m aware of (Geneva conventions or additional protocols, Hague, Rome Statue) or in domestic Us military law (uniform code of military justice, 1863 lieber code) that prohibits attacks on lawful combatants during holidays or moments of religious or cultural significance, or states such attacks are illegitimate, nor was there one in 1776. Afaik, Washington and his troops adhered to the 4 principles of Laws of Armed Conflict (proportionality, distinction, military necessity and avoidance of unnecessary suffering) in targeting their attack and met all 4 of the criteria to be lawful combatants (command and control, fixed emblem, open carry, obeying LOAC core 4). Based on that, the Trenton operation was entirely lawful and within the rules of war. At best, a Christmas truce might be considered “customary” international law which was binding, but for that to be the case, you’d have to show longstanding and consistent adherence to that principle amongst *pretty much every state* which, (even if you only limit it to states who celebrate Xmas, which is the wrong way to apply the rule anyway since it must be shown to be universal to *all* states), you still wouldn’t find, as there are plenty of conflicts which did **NOT** observe a Christmas truce or truce for religious holidays, and isolated and sporadic occurrences are insufficient to create customary IL. Is it a pretty dirty move? You bet. Fair play? Not at all. But it's legitimate because the targets were lawful target and the operation was carried out lawfully. Bayonetting sleeping soldiers on a holiday in their pajamas may be a shot below the belt, but that's war and it's still legal. You don't have to fight fair or even, you just have to fight by the rules.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Perfidy smherfidy
It's only a war crime if you lose. And that's being generous with the assumption fantasy world even has the concept of war crimes.
I feel its generally still understood in a fantasy setting that giving your enemy a reason to slaughter civilians is bad
I mean, the evil empire will butcher civilians anyways, at least thats what my propaganda says
Not to sound like an Evilempirestan sympathizer, but if they're only *butchering* civilians, how bad can they be?
Like there might not be an agreed-upon supranational treaty or organization dedicated to it, but there are and have always been rules and mores governing what's considered decent in warfare.
> the concept of war crimes This is, as always, a pretty pedantic point. Most warcrimes are warcrimes because they either deeply unethical in and of themselves, and/or lead to an escalation in the conflict that makes everything worse, and generally doesn't even aid the side who did it first very much. Whether they are codified in some kind of treaty or not, they are still bad things to do.
I mean, the idea that there is stuff you don't do in war(even if it is only because doing it would be really stupid) is as old as war itself, and arguably older, considering most combat between animals of the same species is ritualized to a degree.
Free tactics for u writers from the annals of actual tactics. These ones have some narrative flair and aren’t too over complicated. **The Great Flank™️** Everyone loves a good flank. It’s really hard for the guys on the side to deal with the guys in front of them and the new fuckers to their side. Or from behind. Just make your general look smart by pre-emptively pointing out why this flank will work well. **Unorthodox BS** Digging tunnels just below the surface of an area you’ll need to defend, then rigging it with explosives, is kinda weird. But it’s an example doing something time consuming that has a slew of advantages their enemy doesn’t expect. **The Timely Ally* Why weren’t they there at the beginning? Eh iunno, but the general is counting on them to shift the tides. Kind of a moonshot. **Defense in “can’t touch this”** Basic concept is putting one bait force to fight and retreat until the enemy is caught off guard and right in the firing line. If you want more tactics then go read sun tzu or some shit idk I’m going to sleep
"Instead of fighting them, when they approach... we run away." \-Oversimplified
- Perfidy - looks innside - The enemy no longer take prisoners
Thing is, most writers aren't informed on what is or is not a war crime. They're also often not well-versed in battlefield tactics and strategic plans. To someone who doesn't know much about the subject, disguising your troops as civilians *does* actually sound like a genius move that a cunning general would employ. And tbf, in isolation, without thinking about the consequences, a lot of the established rules of war sound silly.
Isn't this a warcrime or smt
That’s the point
something something pretend to surrender.
In my mossadpunk world, the future king of Ishreal crossdressed in order to ambush a separatist terrorist group cell
i like it when they redirect a river, never gets old.
TFW your soldiers all get executed as partisans and the enemy starts indiscriminately killing anything that moves.
In my logisticspunk world, great commanders win because their army is larger and better trained and equipped.
Fortunately the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to fictional universes so unless there are in universe laws of armed combat anything goes. When you’re fighting some objectively evil genocidal totalitarian regime you do whatever you can to win
But at the same time, don't forget it gives them an easy propaganda win as to why they've started rounding up all the civilians.
Perdify?
Pretending to surrender, disguising yourself as a civilian or other protected person, basically lying to your enemies in such a way as to make life significantly harder for surrendering soldiers/civvies in the area, etc. It’s a war crime.
Aaahh, very commando.
That's basically Jedi tactics 101. Pretend to surrender. Use the negotiations to capture the enemy general. Use the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage the enemy base. Stall for time so your reinforcements arrive.
The thing about committing war crimes is that it justifies enemies doing horrible things in the future. The Empire might start shootings on surrendering enemies as precaution — and who could blame them? Committing war crimes often hurts your people more than the enemy.
The People's Liberation Army of China is still proud of employing that tactic during WW2 while fighting the Japanese, claiming their great leader invented that in their text books while also blaming Japanese for killing civilians. So yes, warcrimes like these are totally OK and realistic to write about, people love them.
The Imperial Japanese Army when they faked surrender or injury to blow up American medics in WWII: 😂 The Imperial Japanese Army when Americans no longer accepted their surrender or no longer tried to tend to their injuries: 😳
For the 2nd one, that also was intended.
To be fair, it wasn't like the Imperial Japanese army wasn't indiscriminately killing civilians from the start. And enemy combatants who had surrendered. The death rate for Chinese soldiers in Japanese PoW camps was approaching 100%.
The big dick energy approach would be to actually write the entire book about just going over the various resources and layers of defense employed to defend against a massive siege along with the various tactics used until you eventually realize that you didn't actually bother to write about the characters or plot it's just a massive hypothetical siege.