Unrealistic Conflicts

[Soviet Heavy]

Star Wars: Clone Wars. You expect to win a war for the ENTIRE GALAXY using 1 MILLION troops fighting using WW2 infantry rush tactics.

Also, you have ships which can decimate entire continents from orbit, and you land troops to take the planet.

On the gaming side: Gears of War.

Why the hell did the Locust even BOTHER to attack the humans? Humans were doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out without Locust intervention for centuries, while the Locust were happily living underground.
So, the Locust get fed up with the humans banging away upstairs, and they decide to evict the new tenants. All they manage is to end up uniting the humans, and getting nearly their entire species pushed to the brink of extinction because they couldn't let the humans kill each other. And that's not even counting the mutant Locust Lambents created by the human's lightmass bombing.

If they had left well enough alone, the Locusts wouldn't be as fucked as they are.

For Avatar: Just set fire to the fucking forest! They're psychically linked to everything on the planet, just put them into shock by burning the whole fucking place.

For Harry Potter: It was a seriously missed opportunity to include Muggles into the fray. In the sixth novel, the Wizard Prim Minister goes to visit Tony Blair and warn him of the coming war. Then, nothing. No mention of any precautions being made by muggles or anyone in the non wizard world. And it was kind of stupid to see Voldemort's take over the world plan limited to Great Britain.

 

[Nickolai77]

Star Wars in general really...i mean, i've seen more tactical sophistication in a children's play fight. But i won't even go into that...

If storm troopers can be clobbered to death with flint axes, why on earth do they bother with blasters and armour at all? Those things squirt of a shot every five seconds, a WW1 infantryman could do better with his bolt-action rifle. And half the time they don't even hit the target!

A small platoon of well-trained and equipped marines could decimate an entire regiment of storm troopers! A well placed MG42 machine gun team could easily rack up a higher kill count than a jedi...an SAS team could take out the deathstar...Out of all the fictional armies i've come across, the storm troopers seem the most hopeless.

 

[Scylla6]

Well a fire spell at a gas station would kill some serious shit, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

Well, not so much...since it took them a great deal of effort and time to bring ONE SPACESHIP worth of marines and equipment there, and then ANOTHER with the main character and replacements on board, they probably don´t have orbital bombardment capabilitys.
And since they actually ARE a mining-corp, I think that they don´t even have the means to do so even if they wanted. Remember that they had to somehow improvise the means to bomb the place to hell in the climax of the movie, with an armed cargo-ship deploying random explosives strapped together as a "bomb"...

That always bugged me. They were a mining ship, either they had enough explosives to blow the crap out of a mountain (which makes their strapped together crap useless) or a laser. Now I live near a quarry, those explosions you can hear from miles away. They are no bigger than your fist. Imagine a bomb designed to rip through a mountain, one the size of a truck. The Navi were pretty much screwed.

 

[johnnyLupine]

Are people actually saying we wouldnt be completly screwed if there were zombies roaming the streets? The undead ive come across in films and games had been created and spread by means of infection, not sure about resident evil i think it was some sort of genetic experiment or something but thats besides the point as genetic modification relies upon altered viral cells and their ability to hijack other cells.

Unless a significant proportion of the golbal population was immune the world as we know it would be doomed. The idea of the walking dead really screws with my head..

I suppose in order to keep with the theme of the post i should write about something about an unrealistc conflict rather than just leave it as post for putting down other peoples ideas. Give me afew hours, ill think of something. You guys can cut to the generic clock face showing the passage of time now, Im going to be a while.




















Any film/game/book in which the underdog actually wins? which is prety much ANY film/game/book. If the antagonist organisation actually had any brains at all theyd use their monoploly properly and just wipe out the small band of heroes, that doesnt mean the plot isnt well written of course, infact if the antagonist was so perfect then the plot would end at page one, not to mention that these enemies tend to be driven by those same qualities that lead to their downfall, they may even see these imperfections as valuble assets instead of something to be fixed..

 

[Tharwen]

Humans vs. Zombies.

They're slow and we have guns. They don't have the slightest chance of winning.
Even mosquitos are more dangerous than zombies.

But the characters written in zombie films are almost always phenomenally stupid. That's where the zombies have the advantage.

 

[New York Patrick]

It would have all been fun and games, until the Japanese Wizards attack the US...

Awww.... this guy...

I see that my reputation precedes me...

 

[Chrinik]

That always bugged me. They were a mining ship, either they had enough explosives to blow the crap out of a mountain (which makes their strapped together crap useless) or a laser. Now I live near a quarry, those explosions you can hear from miles away. They are no bigger than your fist. Imagine a bomb designed to rip through a mountain, one the size of a truck. The Navi were pretty much screwed.

If I remember correctly, the thing they put together was described as pretty strong. And also take into account that Mining Corps get the high Explosives prepacked into several charges of specific strengh...so them strapping together a bunch of those charges makes sense.
And them using it all at ONE TRIBE would have been pretty useless...also they would then have to wait an unknown time for replacement, to continue mining.
Otherwise, James Cameron movie logic...don´t question it, it will hurt your brain XD

 

[andreas3K]

Humans vs. Zombies.

They're slow and we have guns. They don't have the slightest chance of winning.
Even mosquitos are more dangerous than zombies.

if mosquitos turned us into other mosquitos, that is. anyway, im not starting this argument. Human vs Covenenent: they have shields, plasma, and FRIEKIN PLANET DESTROYIN LAZER BEAMS

But zombies have to bite people to zombify them, and they wouldn't even get close if we've got guns.
Mosquitos are small and stealthy and can carry diseases. Also, I'd be damn impressed if I saw a marksman that could shoot a mosquito.

 

[munx13]

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

Orbital bombardment? That's way overboard. Some Vietnam war era jets and napalm strikes would be more then enough...

 

[Saltyk]

I'd like to add to the magic vs tech argument, not just in the Harry Potter universe.

Don't discount magic. Don't forget necromancer spells, teleportation, and mind control. A few wizards armed with this magic would be dangerous in such a battle. By reviving your fallen allies and foes to fight for you again and again. Teleporting a small elite force to deal with the leaders. Or simply controlling the enemy leaders or a group of soldiers.

Would it be enough? Maybe not. But it wouldn't be that one sided, either.

 

[Mathak]

Nuking the HP wizzards might not be the best idea. For starters, they don't have their own country, they just live next to muggles. I have a feeling nuking London might put a bit of a damper on the publics' morale. More remote locations, like Hogwarts, are so enchanted muggles can't find em and they don't appear on maps. Makes em hard to nuke.

Also, one of the more clever wizzards just mc'd the guy near the Big Red Button. That might cause a bit of a dimplomatic incident. China might not take 'A wizzard did it!' as explanation.

 

[supagama]

Humans vs. Zombies.

They're slow and we have guns. They don't have the slightest chance of winning.
Even mosquitos are more dangerous than zombies.

if mosquitos turned us into other mosquitos, that is. anyway, im not starting this argument. Human vs Covenenent: they have shields, plasma, and FRIEKIN PLANET DESTROYIN LAZER BEAMS

But zombies have to bite people to zombify them, and they wouldn't even get close if we've got guns.
Mosquitos are small and stealthy and can carry diseases. Also, I'd be damn impressed if I saw a marksman that could shoot a mosquito.

meh, you seem to forget that zombies can only die from a headshot. plus, id be damn impressed to see a marksman shoot a human in the head while 200 are coming at him and moaning, and he might have to shoot a family member

 

[Talshere]

Humans vs. Zombies.

They're slow and we have guns. They don't have the slightest chance of winning.
Even mosquitos are more dangerous than zombies.

Dude, you need to read "World War Z", it rightly points out that our weapons are designed for terror. A claymore mine deals devastating and terrifying damage to the human body, just as a guns do. But both work on the assumption of dealing damage that would kill a human. We are very fragile, and you shove 3 or 4 1cm objects in the right places and you will render a normal human obsolete, either dead or immobile with pain.

If the loss of a limb is superfluous to you, and you dont feel pain, dont ever require your organs to function, many standard human weapons become obsolete. Your pretty much limited to things like napalm, which still isnt guaranteed.

 

[Daffy F]

Well a fire spell at a gas station would kill some serious shit, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

I daresay a tactical nuclear strike beats a few burning gas stations.

The point is that none of the muggles know that wizards exist, and sure as hell don't understand why these people are dying. It's not an open conflict, they just occasionally torture and kill muggles for fun. Also, if they wanted too, they could control a world leader to attack another country with their nukes. That way, they get to sit back and watch as they destroy each other.

 

[Terminate421]

300 bullies who have fed on nothing but raw fish and bones for 20 years, training with spears and guns of all sorts. With muscles the size of Kenya, hair do the size of the moon and eye balls that shoot lazers.

Versus.

A nerd with a squirt gun.

 

[badgersprite]

On the zombie topic, I find the thing that made the original Romero zombies viable was that it wasn't an infection transmitted by bite. Anyone who died, for any reason, came back as a zombie. The first zombies to arise were already dead. That results in such a huge number of zombies that it's sheer volume that makes it impossible to survive. Anytime you barricade yourself up with food and supplies, if someone just starves to death or dies of a leg clot, they're going to be a zombie.

Ironically, it's the more scientific 'infection' crap that actually makes zombies make less sense. A plague of infection wouldn't spread as fast as the original, 'No more room left in Hell' zombies.

OT: Um, I'm not very good at thinking of one, so I'll just say every sports movie with an underdog and a rich evil team ever made.

 

[Daffy F]

ooh, just remembered something, I once remember having a heated debate with someone as to why Space Marines would have no problem dealing with wizards.. that's something I'd like to see, a super-macho space marine planting a chainsword into that little potter kid, or even better just stepping on him..

Oh no question about it, that would be the easiest fight ever! Especially since the Imperium basicly has it's own form of magic and they can do far more things with it than they can in Harry Potter. Plus they have the technology, tactics, Space Marine chapters, Orders, and sometimes natrual human abilities to counter act Magic.

But scaling things back a bit, even in present day the wizards would be easily outmatched by the humans. The wizard world go to incredible efforts to hide itself from humans out of fear, it's clearly not the humans hiding themselves and protecting themselves from wizards. Humans outnumber the wizards by far. Only a few spells are actually lethal and must be learnt and studied before they can be actually used to any effect. Even with guns, without any physical training you can still pick one up and use it to some limited effect. Plus an assault rifle can have an effective range of 300ft, what's the effective range of a spell?

Who knows? However, you should remember that no-one knows besides the Wizards know that they exist? I fact that a Wizard could control a world leader into attacking another world leader? It wouldn't be too difficult, especially since nobody would believe that magic was behind it.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I'm wondering, I just heard about how in the Harry Potter series, the evil wizards begin attacking the muggles. Fundamentally this seems like a bad idea, given that going to open war with a group that has spent the last century building a stockpile of weapons that could sterilize every continent ten times over with wands that take several seconds to cast something that will kill 1 human. After thinking on this, I figured to make this thread. So my question is this:

Has there ever been a conflict in fiction that was one sided in a way that didn't make sense?

Wizards have much more power than that, their leader can't die unless all the artifacts he's hidden are destroyed in such a way that they can't be fixed by magic (and a decent Reparo spell can still repair something destroyed by a nuclear explosion, by the way). There are shield spells that would be able to defend against bomb and missile attacks, since shield spells like Protego deflect physical stuff as well. So yeah, the defences are okay. Plus, humans aren't going to wipe themselves out for the sake of dealing with a few who can use magic. So yeah. Very one-sided, isn't it?

(note: no it isn't!)

Well a fire spell at a gas station would kill some serious shit, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

The humans were just miners and engineers and stuff, an exploration/resource gathering company. The only soldiers were a private defence group, and didn't have anything. It's actually been explained elsewhere before, and by Word Of God, that they used what they had in the fight. They didn't have orbital bombardment weaponry. And it'll be at least eight years (four years one way, four to get back to Pandora) before humans can get the weaponry to attack again. Which gives the Na'vi time to prepare, or hide. So also, not exactly one-sided.

Maybe in a sequel, then yes. But in the first Avatar film, such tactics weren't even possible, so there's no way you can justify that your argument even makes sense.

How does my argument not make sense? Admittedly, I was unaware of their lack of orbital weapons, and yes it would take them eight years to go get some, but regardless, they'd still win. There is no hiding or preparing for the Na'vi, unless they perfect space travel in four years.

Let's use a historical example, albeit a modified one. WW11 breaks out, Hitler invades Poland. Now, for the sake of example, we're going to say the war stops there, and the US starts building the atomic bomb. Also for the sake of example, we're going to say it takes them eight years. Let's also pretend the bomb has the power to completely destroy Germany.

During these eight years, the Germans don't attack the allies, they don't invade anywhere, they sit on their asses listening to Wagner. After the eight years, the allies fly over, drop the bomb, and Germany as a nation ceases to exist. Who won here? The allies, right?

Now let's pretend that the only a few hundred people were killed when Poland was invaded. Would that make the victory even more one sided?

Let's exit the example and go back the issue. The humans kill, say, 70 Na'vi, not counting the ones at the spirit tree thing. Sound right? The numbers can change if they're wrong.

At the final battle, how many people die? 600? 700? 2,000, tops. Eight years later, which is, admittedly, a while, Pandora is reduced to a pile of smoldering space dust. Millions of Na'vi dead, billions of animals dead. In eight years, the final score card is 2,000 humans dead compared to fucking millions of Na'vi. I don't know about you, but that's sounds to me like a one sided conflict.

 

[Trivun]

Spoiler: Spoilered Snip

I'm wondering, I just heard about how in the Harry Potter series, the evil wizards begin attacking the muggles. Fundamentally this seems like a bad idea, given that going to open war with a group that has spent the last century building a stockpile of weapons that could sterilize every continent ten times over with wands that take several seconds to cast something that will kill 1 human. After thinking on this, I figured to make this thread. So my question is this:

Has there ever been a conflict in fiction that was one sided in a way that didn't make sense?

Wizards have much more power than that, their leader can't die unless all the artifacts he's hidden are destroyed in such a way that they can't be fixed by magic (and a decent Reparo spell can still repair something destroyed by a nuclear explosion, by the way). There are shield spells that would be able to defend against bomb and missile attacks, since shield spells like Protego deflect physical stuff as well. So yeah, the defences are okay. Plus, humans aren't going to wipe themselves out for the sake of dealing with a few who can use magic. So yeah. Very one-sided, isn't it?

(note: no it isn't!)

Well a fire spell at a gas station would kill some serious shit, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

The humans were just miners and engineers and stuff, an exploration/resource gathering company. The only soldiers were a private defence group, and didn't have anything. It's actually been explained elsewhere before, and by Word Of God, that they used what they had in the fight. They didn't have orbital bombardment weaponry. And it'll be at least eight years (four years one way, four to get back to Pandora) before humans can get the weaponry to attack again. Which gives the Na'vi time to prepare, or hide. So also, not exactly one-sided.

Maybe in a sequel, then yes. But in the first Avatar film, such tactics weren't even possible, so there's no way you can justify that your argument even makes sense.

How does my argument not make sense? Admittedly, I was unaware of their lack of orbital weapons, and yes it would take them eight years to go get some, but regardless, they'd still win. There is no hiding or preparing for the Na'vi, unless they perfect space travel in four years.

Let's use a historical example, albeit a modified one. WW11 breaks out, Hitler invades Poland. Now, for the sake of example, we're going to say the war stops there, and the US starts building the atomic bomb. Also for the sake of example, we're going to say it takes them eight years. Let's also pretend the bomb has the power to completely destroy Germany.

During these eight years, the Germans don't attack the allies, they don't invade anywhere, they sit on their asses listening to Wagner. After the eight years, the allies fly over, drop the bomb, and Germany as a nation ceases to exist. Who won here? The allies, right?

Now let's pretend that the only a few hundred people were killed when Poland was invaded. Would that make the victory even more one sided?

Let's exit the example and go back the issue. The humans kill, say, 70 Na'vi, not counting the ones at the spirit tree thing. Sound right? The numbers can change if they're wrong.

At the final battle, how many people die? 600? 700? 2,000, tops. Eight years later, which is, admittedly, a while, Pandora is reduced to a pile of smoldering space dust. Millions of Na'vi dead, billions of animals dead. In eight years, the final score card is 2,000 humans dead compared to fucking millions of Na'vi. I don't know about you, but that's sounds to me like a one sided conflict.

I'm not disputing any of that, in fact I totally agree with you (aside from your WW2 analogy, that one doesn't work purely because eight years of inaction on Germany's part would mean the USA would be breaking almost every war crime law in the book by dropping a nuclear bomb on them without provocation...). The thing is, the original argument was about the story in the film Avatar. That is to say, the first film, whereby my point is correct. I actually addressed the possibility of something you describe happening in a sequel, but not in the first film, which is the point I was trying to make. So I concede your argument makes sense within the fictional universe, but in the first film it makes no sense at all. Hopefully that should clear things up here

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Spoiler: Spoilered Snip

I'm wondering, I just heard about how in the Harry Potter series, the evil wizards begin attacking the muggles. Fundamentally this seems like a bad idea, given that going to open war with a group that has spent the last century building a stockpile of weapons that could sterilize every continent ten times over with wands that take several seconds to cast something that will kill 1 human. After thinking on this, I figured to make this thread. So my question is this:

Has there ever been a conflict in fiction that was one sided in a way that didn't make sense?

Wizards have much more power than that, their leader can't die unless all the artifacts he's hidden are destroyed in such a way that they can't be fixed by magic (and a decent Reparo spell can still repair something destroyed by a nuclear explosion, by the way). There are shield spells that would be able to defend against bomb and missile attacks, since shield spells like Protego deflect physical stuff as well. So yeah, the defences are okay. Plus, humans aren't going to wipe themselves out for the sake of dealing with a few who can use magic. So yeah. Very one-sided, isn't it?

(note: no it isn't!)

Well a fire spell at a gas station would kill some serious shit, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, Avatar. A few hours after the climactic battle the planet would have been orbitally bombarded into a pile of goop ripe for the mining. "Bad" guys take minor losses, Na'vi are extinct.

The humans were just miners and engineers and stuff, an exploration/resource gathering company. The only soldiers were a private defence group, and didn't have anything. It's actually been explained elsewhere before, and by Word Of God, that they used what they had in the fight. They didn't have orbital bombardment weaponry. And it'll be at least eight years (four years one way, four to get back to Pandora) before humans can get the weaponry to attack again. Which gives the Na'vi time to prepare, or hide. So also, not exactly one-sided.

Maybe in a sequel, then yes. But in the first Avatar film, such tactics weren't even possible, so there's no way you can justify that your argument even makes sense.

How does my argument not make sense? Admittedly, I was unaware of their lack of orbital weapons, and yes it would take them eight years to go get some, but regardless, they'd still win. There is no hiding or preparing for the Na'vi, unless they perfect space travel in four years.

Let's use a historical example, albeit a modified one. WW11 breaks out, Hitler invades Poland. Now, for the sake of example, we're going to say the war stops there, and the US starts building the atomic bomb. Also for the sake of example, we're going to say it takes them eight years. Let's also pretend the bomb has the power to completely destroy Germany.

During these eight years, the Germans don't attack the allies, they don't invade anywhere, they sit on their asses listening to Wagner. After the eight years, the allies fly over, drop the bomb, and Germany as a nation ceases to exist. Who won here? The allies, right?

Now let's pretend that the only a few hundred people were killed when Poland was invaded. Would that make the victory even more one sided?

Let's exit the example and go back the issue. The humans kill, say, 70 Na'vi, not counting the ones at the spirit tree thing. Sound right? The numbers can change if they're wrong.

At the final battle, how many people die? 600? 700? 2,000, tops. Eight years later, which is, admittedly, a while, Pandora is reduced to a pile of smoldering space dust. Millions of Na'vi dead, billions of animals dead. In eight years, the final score card is 2,000 humans dead compared to fucking millions of Na'vi. I don't know about you, but that's sounds to me like a one sided conflict.

I'm not disputing any of that, in fact I totally agree with you (aside from your WW2 analogy, that one doesn't work purely because eight years of inaction on Germany's part would mean the USA would be breaking almost every war crime law in the book by dropping a nuclear bomb on them without provocation...). The thing is, the original argument was about the story in the film Avatar. That is to say, the first film, whereby my point is correct. I actually addressed the possibility of something you describe happening in a sequel, but not in the first film, which is the point I was trying to make. So I concede your argument makes sense within the fictional universe, but in the first film it makes no sense at all. Hopefully that should clear things up here

Ah, that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

The WW2 metaphor was kinda crap, but I felt my rant was incomplete without one and I couldn't think of any others.