Vote for Snow by Night on Top Web Comics

Top Web Comics

Vote on TWC for a sneak peek preview!

Upcoming Events

Chapter 15 Page 3

March 29th, 2017

Chapter 15 Page 3

The Kleefish director does not appreciate Sayre’s rules lawyering of the rules of war. As an avid RPG player and game designer, I’ve been on the receiving end of this lots of times. I figured this skill came from wargaming. Wargaming came from the battlefield scenarios taught at military academies. Therefore, a good portion of the 18th century battlefield commanders had a streak of rules lawyer in them. Sayre certainly does.

Ready for some epic flag vs. flag juxtaposition? Julie and Steph were. See for yourself when you vote for Snow by Night on Top Web Comics.



    Give notice of war code of honour …you want to be able to end the war without too much nastiness, and you want to be able to have your current enemy as next ally if required, and you don’t want everyone else to constantly worry about you surprise attacking them next which can hurt in lots of ways.

    A short silly war can be profitable for one side and not that painful for the loser, a long bitter war can mean bankruptcy as both borrow and sell to get mercenaries and other nations help. An arms race on your border with lots of other countries because they fear you will surprise them next can drain the economy badly…


    I so want to learn about this. Not the subject I chose to study for myself. I just want to reap the benefits of everyone’s knowledge.


    Welp, there goes any chance of a peaceful resolution.


      Not necessarily, Philadelphus… There are a lot of strong logistical reasons why Morante would want to keep the port city and harbor intact if at all possible. Sacking the city will cut off their supply route and exit route, being primary among them.
      (doesn’t mean I that I don’t agree with the Keefish Governor though).


    Ahh, the good ‘ole days of declared wars and the pomp’n’circumstance of doing so “properly”. As an American, I don’t have much cultural use or appreciation for the way Europeans handled warfare in previous centuries (line up and shoot each other? no thanks), but even so, under the circumstances, I have to agree with the Kleefish governor. If you want to play by, or at least pretend to play by, the rules of honor, then you should do so unerringly. The whole BYODoW (Bring Your Own Declaration of War) method being employed here by Morante DOES smack of weaselliness. Weaseldom? Weaselisnous?

      The lining up and shooting each other was more a tactical requirement than a cultural nicety. The goal was to cause so much damage in a single blast that it triggered the flight instinct in the opposing brigade. It’s terrifying to see your friends and fellow soldiers ripped apart around you. Your instinct is to find something and hide behind it. Peppering fire at a brigade doesn’t trigger that reaction.

      Also, the muskets at the time had a max effective range of 100 yards. If you let your musketeers fire at will, they tend to shoot early, allowing the opposing side to charge across the distance before you can reload, which takes about 20 seconds for a trained musketeer. (origin of the 100-yard dash, I think). So you spend a lot of time trying to goad the other side into firing early while you approach closer to get a better shot (50 yards is much better).

      Irregular formations definitely have their place in 18th century tactics — in the heavily forested hills of northeastern America, for example. But in a giant field, line infantry will smoke everything except artillery.

        Introverted Chaos

        Yes! All of this. I mean, here in the States our history classes use the hyperbole about the British wearing bright red and marching in a straight line, but we’re also failing to acknowledge that the British conquered half the world with these same open-field tactics.


          It would make no sense for robots, but when utilized by people you need to take morale into account. That open field tactic was likely easier to train into recruits, Myth already mentioned the “firing early” problem and I also think such display of (apparent) bravery might scare lot of enemies.


        Please let me try to clarify, and understand that I do so without any intent to cause irritation.

        I am familiar with everything you detailed (I enjoy studying history and military history in particular, not that you’d know that, of course), and I understand it was a tactical decision as well as a strategic one – win a decisive battle and it can change the face of the war-, but in order for it to be widely utilized (e.g. both sides of the conflict agreeing to use the same tactics) it necessitates the cultural attitude that it is the most viable way to wage war. The feudal system of governance was the foundation for this mindset (caste systems in general), and perhaps the conclusion was unavoidable, but since I do not have the same perspective as someone who lived in Europe during the 17th-19th centuries, I lack appreciation for the entire context that made those tactics the logical choice. I probably should have chosen a different word than “cultural”, perhaps “societal” instead, but my point is that I’ve always considered that style of warfare to be the equivalent of peeling a banana with a sledgehammer; it’ll get the fruit out of the wrapper, but it makes a huge mess of the job.

        Anyway, there are a lot of reasons why warfare in that time period makes sense (it would be a fun, but lengthy conversation), but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. That being said, I enjoy your storytelling & the art a great deal and look forward to seeing how it continues. :)

          No irritation taken on my end. I hope I didn’t cause any in turn. My intent was to show that the tactics of the time were based on logical reasons. It’s totally fair not to like it.

          Since we’re plunging into a fantasy French & Indian War, I’m going to be exploring a lot of tactics of the era. Chapter 17 is one big battle.


      There is a good reason to fight honorably. Basically, it means that both sides will keep thier claws in. Wouldn’t it be more effective for modern military to bomb enemy manufactures, civilians, hospitals, etc? Sure. But that means the enemy will do it to us too, and we don’t want that. That’s why you didn’t see sharpshooters taking out enemy commanders often. Americans did it because we were already rebels, meaning that our treatment could be expected to be less favorable. As such, the gloves came off.


        I suspect the commanders are only one who really don’t want being shot by sharpshooters. The civilians and hospitals makes more sense. And when exactly did military stopped bombing manufactures/factories?


          Yes, the commanders wouldn’t want to be primary targets of sharpshooters, that’s exactly why this is a good example for the reasons and benefits behind those “honorable warfare” customs. I guess this one worked particularly well because it is usually commanders who oder the sharpshooters whom they should target.


    “Here’s a written announcement of our sneak attack.”

    I like the Kleefish guy’s comeback. I also like seeing these characters give serious consideration to standards of gloire, makes an interesting contrast to the last story.




    As a student of war-games, a fellow RPG guy and general history enthusiast I agree with your evaluation of 19th century generals. When it’s in your best interest…make a pretzel of the rules.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.