PDA

View Full Version : Many-Sided War



Mr. Mask
2015-09-11, 04:00 AM
It's popular in games like Warhammer to have total war between many, many factions. Sometimes there are (temporary) alliances, but largely the idea is that the cool units from each faction can fight the ones from any other faction, at most any time. The question I wonder, is how best to justify such a setting, and what examples from history there are to use as guidelines.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-09-11, 04:20 AM
Try to create the biggest clusterchuck you can think of.

Historically often the countries will sort of start drifting into two camps, mostly based on which superpower the smaller countries are currently fighting against. Wikipedia manages to even find two clear sides in the Thirty Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) and the War of Spanish Succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession), but as you can imagine by the number of participants in reality it wasn't nearly as clear as that. Everyone in the end is in it for their own benefit.

The version popular in science fiction is rarer in history. Here there are often several large and powerful factions all fighting on their own side, with no sign of two clear camps. In the real world, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States were not all actively fighting each other at the same time. Truces are signed and sides are picked based upon who each of these powers hate the most.

Still, the only thing needed to get all units fighting all units and get a lot closer to the fictional version is to have these truces and factions switch around enough. In the example of the second world war: imagine that the US invades Russia during the time of the non-aggression pact between them and the Germans. The invasion stops when war breaks out between Russia and Germany, but than when the USSR looks like they'll be getting to Berlin before the Americans do, hostilities pick up again. And then there was Churchill and his plans to start a full-on war against the Soviet block (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable) as soon as Germany was defeated, fought by rearmed German soldiers.

You may need to jazz it up a little bit, but you can get close enough with plenty of realism...

sktarq
2015-09-11, 01:55 PM
When this kind of thing happens in real life it actually doesn't make history or the news much. But the Balkans, Post Soviet Afghanistan, Somalia, and some eras of British, Norse, and Maya history would qualify.

Biggest issue is that no side should be big enough to attract attention from more than a couple enemies at once. Power levels all round have to be pretty even.
Also when the means of controlling one's homeland doesn't translate well into controlling conquered territory. Hmm-that isn't clear so two examples-if internal control of an empire is derived from clan loyalty then areas where that clan isn't dominant will give little support to their conquerers - so that as the empire grow it has to divert an ever growing percentage of its force to maintaining the empire and thus making it easier for a smaller force to step in and wrest any given part away. Example two- in very old mesopotamia priest kings would get other city state rulers to swear vassalage to them through fear and reward but the local ruler had more authority in his city than higher king because the ability of the patron king to project his will was limited. He had to be there -communication and such were not there to maintain his influence without the local authorities cooperation. Thus when a weak king rose to inherit a strong patron throne, when a strong king lost his armies to military defeat etc the vassals would bugger off and since it now made more sense to to try and better themselves and build their own city into a patron would aggressively move against each other.

Another bonus is when prime identifiers do not match conflict identifiers.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-09-11, 06:43 PM
Pretty much any war has more than 2 sides, I don't see what there is to justify. Warhammer has a lot of races but its set in a over-simplified geopolitical situation full of giant empires and small states that don't even get to be real factions. If you want a complicated scenario just add lots of countries to the map. If you want something even more complicated, add different court factions within those countries.

World War 2 had a lot of complicated stuff within the 'axis vs allies' oversimplification. Nobody in that war trusted anyone else.


Wikipedia manages to even find two clear sides in the Thirty Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) and the War of Spanish Succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession), but as you can imagine by the number of participants in reality it wasn't nearly as clear as that.

Those two are pretty simple wars. There were only two serious claimants to the Spanish throne so despite everyone wanting their own thing out of the war they had to fall into two camps. Thirty Years War is only complicated because people keep changing sides, there's always basically two factions because the root of the struggle was pretty simple, it was just exploited by many people with different objectives.

In Europe you had this concept called 'balance of power'. Everyone is everyone's rival, but no one wants to eliminate a rival completely because that will also take out one of their rival's rivals. So its best that any victory will be a minor one and that the status quo will be more or less maintained. Austria and England were allies because they both hated France, but didn't actually help each other because Austria had no interest in England conquering France and becoming an even greater threat and England had no interest in Italy except to stop France getting stronger. The exception to this ended up being Poland, who managed to become a non-rival to everyone thanks to their incompetence so everyone agreed to wipe them out the moment it looked like Poland might be getting back on their feat and able to complicate things.

If you want a really complicated European War, look at the Italian Wars. That was a simple land grab rather than a binary inheritance dispute or an ideological war so there was even more alliance breaking, side changing and reversals of fortune.


The version popular in science fiction is rarer in history. Here there are often several large and powerful factions all fighting on their own side, with no sign of two clear camps. In the real world, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States were not all actively fighting each other at the same time.


WW2 isn't that typical of a historical war. There wasn't actually that many conflicting territorial ambitions there. WW1 was more complicated in that regard since all the powers were expansionist imperial ones.

Pretty much any situation from India's divided history is a better one. There you had hundreds of Kings and Princes who always fell into at least three camps who each had a chance at wiping out the other ones.

Murk
2015-09-12, 05:02 AM
I'd say, give them all reasons to fight everyone.

There's been a lot of talk about balance and diplomacy, because that's how it historically went. You want have all-out wars against everyone by everyone then, though.

There are a few (also historical) situations in which countries or peoples fight everyone. I don't think the Mongols at their early stage of expansion in Europe made any pacts: at the beginning, they just took everything.
So that's reason 1: complete invasion. Have a people who feel superior and just want to invade everyone.

Then there is the already existing Major Power: so strong that all other factions just can't afford to allow them to grow. Both Russia and the Ottomans were once, as far as I know, attacked by almost everyone - not that everyone was then friends, they simply all felt the need to stop these large empires groing even larger.
So that's reason 2: a logical common enemy. Someone so big (or so small) it would be idiotic not to take the advantage of attacking it.

The opposite end works too: a (opressed) people that wants to carve out their own country, and will fight anything and anyone for their independence. If you happen to have an army in what they feel is their land, they will attack it, full-on guerilla.
Reason 3: indiscriminating freedom fight.

Also, in the real world, everyone was human and we all knew each other pretty well. In a fantasy setting, there can be even more xenophobia. Imagine cultures that don't really know each other (Island nations, for example) - you just send an army to a new island, and if there is already someone there, you kill them. The same happens to you. For a lot of cultures, war was the first response to anything, and you needed communication to be able to be friends. Without communication, no friends.
Reason 4: Xenophobia, no communications possible, or unknown territories.

A last one I want to offer is more suited for small population worlds: very, very limited resources. Your clan or family desperately needs water, and there is only one well in this entire desert. You can't ally other clans, because there's simply not enough water to share. The only thing you can do is fight everyone and anything. Even truces won't work, because if you don't get that water now, you'll die.
Reason 5: what you are fighting about is too limited to share with allies.

So, combining these five reasons, we have:
A major superpower that is collapsing under continues attacks: everyone fights it like a vulture, trying to plunder some of it, and fights about the spoils and territories. '
There really is not a lot of food/water/space/magic/technology, so these other nations can't afford to share any of it. Even more, all these nations consist of other races, religions, cultures and languages, so they don't really (want to) understand each other.
On the borders, sick of the constant fighting, is a small abused people that have decided to just take up arms against anyone who crosses their land - which, as we established, everyone does.
And at the same time, a massive overseas army has just dropped of on the shores, ready to conquer everything and anything they see. Everyone who can spare a little fights these guys too.

Seems many-war enough for a setting, eh?

MrZJunior
2015-09-12, 07:27 AM
During the Boxer Rebellion in China there are examples of factions which fought against both the Righteous and Harmonious Fists (AKA the Boxers) and the foreign army sent to crush the rebellion. For example the Qing general Nie Shicheng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nie_Shicheng.)

In fact colonial conflicts might give you some more examples like this, especially where the Europeans are interfering in local politics and end up shooting at both sides.

Shoot Da Moon
2015-09-12, 08:08 PM
I've been working on a campaign revolving around a multi-sided conflict, too. Although, my campaign is not really a proper war, but three different conspiracies/cabals of secret mages in a modern day setting. More like gangs fighting than an actual military conflict.

My campaign involves the PCs being employed as the agents/fixers for an occult conspiracy in a modern secret magic setting. They're in the middle of the onion; working for the shadowy organisation and also trying to find out the truth at the same time. There's also two other occult conspiracies working as rivals to their cabal.

Problem is, I'm not exactly sure what the ultimate truth or goal of these conspiracies should be. Just money and power? Some big esoteric objective that changes the world, to some degree? Suggestions?

Cuaqchi
2015-09-12, 08:29 PM
As stated, it's really not that hard to have more than two sides in a conflict. The best example for our own history of the mess that exists is the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th Century. At the most basic level there were two sides (France & England) but with only a couple exceptions (like Portugal & Naples) every other power was on both sides (or their own side) at least once during the almost 2 decades of fighting.

MrZJunior
2015-09-13, 05:05 AM
Problem is, I'm not exactly sure what the ultimate truth or goal of these conspiracies should be. Just money and power? Some big esoteric objective that changes the world, to some degree? Suggestions?

What if no one remembers why they are fighting, they just are.

Murk
2015-09-13, 05:08 AM
What if no one remembers why they are fighting, they just are.

That's what most gangs do, yeah.

However, I think it was a conspiracy. You can "just fight", without knowing why or who. "Just conspiring" gets a little harder. Just a lot of cloaked figures who whisper silly words each evening, without knowing why?

Closet_Skeleton
2015-09-13, 07:15 PM
Napoleonic Wars were simple in that it was 'everyone vs Napoleon'. The opportunists who occasionally allied with Napoleon were small bit players like Wurtemburg (or fallen great powers like Sweden who might as well have been joke level by that point). A more equal many-sided conflict shouldn't have a single protagonist driving the conflict.

The archetypal three way free for all of course is The Romance of Three Kingdoms.


They're in the middle of the onion; working for the shadowy organisation and also trying to find out the truth at the same time.

I read that as The Onion.:smallredface:

Knaight
2015-09-13, 07:26 PM
There are tons of examples of wars with more than two sides, and even the sort that seem intuitively like they should have just two sides usually don't. Take the crusades, where not only were neither the Christian nor Muslim factions anywhere close to a single unified thing (in terms of alliances, I'm not talking about the religion aspect here due to board rules), it was pretty common for a faction on one of the two "sides" to be fighting another faction on their side with someone on the other side as an ally. At which point it's pretty clear that the two sides model is useless here.

MrZJunior
2015-09-13, 08:49 PM
However, I think it was a conspiracy. You can "just fight", without knowing why or who. "Just conspiring" gets a little harder. Just a lot of cloaked figures who whisper silly words each evening, without knowing why?

The conspiracy has basically turned into just another social club. Like the Freemasons or the VFW.

goto124
2015-09-13, 09:48 PM
Supposedly two sides, but each side is split into another two 'groups' that don't quite agree with each other, whether in method or ideology.

'We should fire flaming catapults at the enemy, and make them fear us!'
'No! We should go behind them and stab them in the back! It's more effective and actually works!'
'Guys why are you arguing among yourselves?'
'We ARE struggling together! I swear!'

Closet_Skeleton
2015-09-14, 03:49 AM
Take the crusades, where not only were neither the Christian nor Muslim factions anywhere close to a single unified thing (in terms of alliances, I'm not talking about the religion aspect here due to board rules), it was pretty common for a faction on one of the two "sides" to be fighting another faction on their side with someone on the other side as an ally. At which point it's pretty clear that the two sides model is useless here.

Depends what you mean. In the actual crusades themselves the Christians were pretty unified. In the era of the Crusader states in the Holy Land where crusading wasn't actually the norm but exceptional behavior then there was a lot of side changing and cases of Muslims and Christians allying.

The most famous crusade is when all the Arabs in the region were united under Saladin so that one doesn't count. The first crusade is literally an extra side coming in to complicate what was already a multi-side civil war among the Turks and Arabs with the Romans/Byzantines still holding on and preparing to counter attack and the Armenians doing their own thing.


The conspiracy has basically turned into just another social club. Like the Freemasons or the VFW.

All secret societies are social clubs. Powerful people stay powerful even if they're just being social and a social club of powerful people is a very dangerous thing. Technically a conspiracy is an actual plan made by a gang, a long lasting secret society might be a hot bed of creating conspiracies but is not in itself one and doesn't have any reason to have conspiracy as its founding interest.



Problem is, I'm not exactly sure what the ultimate truth or goal of these conspiracies should be. Just money and power? Some big esoteric objective that changes the world, to some degree? Suggestions?

If they're truly ancient conspiracies, then the goals of the current members might not be those of the founding ones.

If you're fighting each other, then their goal is to make their own faction the dominant one. The simplest one is "there's a ritual that only one faction can perform so they're fighting to be that one faction". That ties the conflict together and always allows someone else to come in with the 'make sure nobody completes the ritual' option.

Conspiracies are made up of individuals. 20 people can work towards the same goal but have different motivations. Some might just be loyal to their friends, some might have no interest in the final goal but want to have the person who does want it to give them some concession or just be in their debt. Some people might just be dragged along by the power politics because they're wary of falling behind if they get out of the game. Others might have sided with a lesser evil because they had no other option if they wanted to take on their enemies.

The goal will probably just be a Mguffin while the politics are the interesting bit.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-09-14, 07:32 AM
O, I completely forgot, we have a good example of one of these wars running right now. IS is fighting a bunch of people, including the Iraqi government, the Syrian one (Assad), Kurdish rebellion groups like the PKK and several NATO countries, including the US and Turkey. But while the US pretty much supports the Kurdish groups, Turkey bombs them just as hard as they do IS. Diplomats from Turkey and the US try really hard not to mention the issue because it's not worth breaking the NATO alliance over. If you'd try to split the war into two sides both the Kurdish groups and Syria would end up on the NATO side, despite Turkey being actively at war with the Kurdish groups and most of NATO having condemned Assad at one point or another.

PersonMan
2015-09-14, 08:38 AM
One idea that springs to mind:

An ancient empire, ruled by a dynasty whose bloodline commands magical power capable of annihilating even dozens of great mages with ease, stretches over a vast territory. For centuries everything is relatively peaceful - a ritual done at each royal birth ensures that their grand power is not unleashed before their coronation, to keep disputes over the throne from obliterating the land. Now, though, the dynasty has come to an end. Either the new emperor is not of pure enough blood to possess the power, or the force has disappeared altogether. Without the imperial magic, the web of communication keeping the empire centralized falls apart. In order to keep others, who potentially do have the power, from rising up, the emperor has the handful of holy men who know the ritual killed, the knowledge burned.

After a month, the empire is in the following state:

http://i.imgur.com/raSfbj0.jpg

The central, green area is held by those who have remained loyal to the current emperor. In the west, the tribes formerly held together by periodic displays of magical might and a slowly-growing network of fortified towns have broken free of imperial control, with a few holdouts flying the imperial banner over their castles. The orange faction is religious, growing behind a high priest who has proclaimed that the slaughter of the holy order who kept the ancient knowledge is a sign that the current emperor has entirely turned away from the gods (the first being his lack of magical power) - they intend to overthrow him and establish either a theocracy or find a new, suitable emperor (something that will likely split the faction if it becomes victories). Two regions have risen up to proclaim their independence of the Empire, fighting each other over land they both claim and other factions because they all lay claim to their lands. The peninsula of the East is split between two pretenders, Terrin and Altae, the latter of which has a fleet that attacks any not loyal to their empress on the waves.

To the north, a powerful merchant family has seized the opportunity to try and elevate themselves to rulers, legions of mercenary troops solidifying their hold of the region. In the mountainous highlands, a number of local lords have risen up, fighting each other for control and bringing centuries-old clan feuds back to the light of day as excuses to expand their base of power.

Here, pretty much everyone has a reason to fight at least one or two other factions. The tribes will be attacked and possibly raiding everyone bordering them, the kingdoms fight to expand/defend their lands, three factions want to conquer everyone else. Add in foreign powers supplying weakening groups or adding/splitting their own (say Terrin dies, his followers may split between foreign-backed supports of one heir while the rest side with another) and you have a wonderful period of war and instability that (especially with a few territorial changes) lets you keep everyone fighting for ages.