War

"War, what is it good for?"

– Edwin Starr

"Everything!"

– Soldier, replying to the upper question.

War, for some the be-all-end-all of civilizations, the harbinger of death to others. For thousands of years, perhaps even millions, us humans have gone to war for as long as we've been able to create weapons. Whether it be over matters of ideology, natural resources, or territory, men have fought for millennia on end for the betterment of mankind as a whole... or for their own interest.

War has been part of human society for a very long time. So long in fact that we can hardly even pinpoint when did the fashion of bashing someone else with a big pointy stick even started originally. Some even theorized that the practice of warfare is not something proper to humans, but perhaps to animals as well, as our cousins the apes have learned how to manipulate sticks and machetes. Meanwhile, ant colonies have waged a global war since time immemorial. In any case, wars have been omnipresent for a long while. So much so, in fact, that we humans have draw a lot of inspirations for our stories and cultures. War is present in our books, our ancient texts, our games, our movies, our shows, and so on and so forth.

/tg/ relevance

"War in its ensemble is NOT a science, but an art. Strategy, particularly, may indeed be regulated by fixed laws resembling those of the positive sciences, but this is not true of war viewed as a whole."

– Antoine-Henri Jomini in his military treatise, Précis de l’Art de la Guerre (Summary of the Art of War)

Are you seriously asking that question here of all places?

Barring any horror, mystery, civilization-building, RPG, and puzzle tabletop games, you’re more likely than not to find a tabletop game focused on war. Hell, the earliest version of modern tabletop wargaming came from military war games using set miniatures pieces and military unit markers for strategists to sharpen their tactics with wargaming skills. Even their board game relatives of checkers, shogi, chess, and go all have military strategy overtones associated with them. And ironically it’s still a practice that continues to this day despite the proliferation of software simulations and live fire training exercises. Both with hypothetical scenario exercises for governments and think-tanks or private service members finding some peace and quiet from painting miniatures before marching them to war.

War in practice

"Men, steel, money, and bread, are the sinews of war; but of these four, the first two are more necessary, for men and steel find money and bread, but money and bread do not find men and steel."

– Niccolo Machiavelli in his military treatise, Dell'arte della Guerra (The Art of War)

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

– Sun Tzu in his military treatise, 孫子兵法 (The Art of War)

Warfare. A profession for many, an art to some. Wars can be waged by just about anyone, but they cannot be won by everyone. At the end of the day, as long as there's still conflict to be settled, someone is gonna want someone else dead. To maximize the chances of winning, plenty have elaborated plans of actions to conduct war in a proper manner. Any regime that had plenty of men and who knew how to use them made some pretty drastic changes in history, plenty left their mark through sheer force of will... And lethal application of weaponry.

So, you wanna wage a war, son? Or... Well, have some tips to write a good war for your worldbuilding considerations?

First of all; you need to decide what kind of war do you want, and for what purpose. Authors don't bring up wars for the same reason, they can either serve as the primary source of conflict, a means to a greater end, or the consequences of unfortunate situations. You also need to establish the stakes; are people fighting for a greater philosophical cause and for the good of the country, or is it just a matter of natural ressources and successions?

For instance, fantasy tends to invoke that the entire world is at stakes because a dark lord, or a demon, or an order, or anything for that matter, is/are trying to change the way of things. This serves for an effective if manichean way of generating conflict. It's vague enough to have little to no political implications, prefering to rely on philosophy and morality to justify itself. This usually means that the consequences of the war could have an impact on a cosmic scale; as in, the world might literally change depending on who's the victor. This usually ties into the cosmology or the way the whole world function on a magical/literal level. For instance, in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Chaos is the primary opposing force that drives the conflicts present in the Warhammer world, that is due to its destructive nature and its main emphasis on spreading corruption. While it isn't exactly the only antagonistic faction of the game, it remains one of its biggest threats.

If you wish to take a more realistic approach, consider that all wars are always about one thing; a faction can't do something because of another, so it seeks to make it right through the application of violence. Because usually wars intervene when diplomacy becomes useless. Look out for historical examples and read eye-witness accounts of battles, they are very good ressources to write your conflicts. Keep in mind that feuds where one side was clearly in the wrong and the other in the right were spectacularly rare, and that every soldier was a person, not a mindless mook meant to follow the orders of his superiors. Sure, there are examples of tyrants, religious zealots, warmongers and powerhungry buffoons who needlessly wasted lives over petty games of power. But just remember that usually those kinds of wars and conflicts are considered very lackluster in literature and games. Especially game-design. Try to find an appeal in every faction you write, so that your players have an interest in playing them.

Why do we go to war?

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means."

– Carl von Clausewitz in his military treatise, Vom Kriege (On War)

"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make."

– Any ruler worth his crown in History.

BECOZ IT'Z A ZOGGIN' GUD TIME, DATZ WHY!

Okay, seriously, why do we go to war? You might have heard philosophers, politicians, artists, thinkers, or even people on the street saying that war is terrible and should be avoided at all cost. Even military officials highly suggest to not apprehend conflict at all. As it seems that War brings more bad than good. But if that is so obvious, then why do people still to this very day fight to the death? It has been a very frequent subject of debates and researches. Despite the disapproval of war as a concept, it is ever omnipresent in our media and culture. Even games! How many tabletop games do you know are based around the concept of war? Isn't that enough proof that despite the odds, there is an interest in the matter of conflict?

Over the years, many explanations for war were given, but none really serve as a definitive answer.

• Natural resources have been a frequent one in the early days of civilization. The Euphrates river, for example, has been the theater of a metric ton of conflicts and battles over the water the river provided. And given how it was one of the only sources around in Ancient Mesopotamia, you better believe people were going to fight over it. With the first development of agriculture and infrastructures made to circumvent problems created by the river, the disputes lasted until the establishment of the first Akkadian civilization.
  • Later down the line, natural resources kept being a main motivation for war; but instead of it being based on its literal rarity, most cases were economic matters. Say a country is doing a blockade on certain trades and another needs said trades to complete certain megaprojects. In most cases, negotiations were cut short in favor of a simple cut to the throat. In desperate times, men can get very violent. Or repress with a lot of violence.
  • Additionally, said wars can not be just merely for seeking more favorable terms regarding resources, trade access, and political prestige at another’s expense but also conquest and annexation of land and subjugation of people inhabiting it (whether it be for labor, tax sources, or pacification of unruly neighborhoods). Even nomadic migrations of armed displaced people or nomads is a thing as seen with the Mongols, German Barbarian Migrations, the steppe Khanates, and the Sea People.
• Following the "realist" political theories, war is the result of nations trying and failing to produce stability with their neighboring nations by maintaining a balance of military power with each other (while ideally to their mutual benefit, at worst, in their self centered interests); often by using coercive actions to warn neighbors to take their considerations into account when all other options (such as tense diplomatic negotiations, embargoes, tariffs, and blockades) are either nonviable or failed. If that does not work out (say, because one nation is believed to be developing nuclear weapons and we'd rather be the ones holding that particular trigger), war happens to try and balance it out so war can be avoided in the future. This also works with other resources; if a country is in need of water, oil or other necessities, war becomes more likely as their desperation rises (see current east-European/Russian relations).
• If you're an authoritarian regime, war is one of many ways to keep your regime propped up. This serves multiple purposes; it provides the populace with jobs in the form of industry and conscription, it directs people's negative sentiments towards an external foe and away from the state itself, and if the war is successful, gains the state prestige and resources (which are intended to not only offset the cost of the war but also grow the state's overall power). The threat of an external foe also justifies an increase in the state's power, such as cracking down on civil liberties. That being said, if the state is already unstable or overextended and you fail to make any meaningful gains, people will start questioning the legitimacy of the ruling class.
• Ideology may be a major dividing line between two opposing forces; while political ambitions and desire for power usually coincide as motivating factors, a major ideological difference can make it intolerable for two different groups of people to live with each other due to the fundamental incompatibility with their ways of life. This dividing line can be further exacerbated by ongoing bad blood between the two different factions, making long-term reconciliation difficult.
• Sometimes wars are because diplomacy can be a huge clusterfuck. Let's say you're Country A, a mercantile power who has a vested interest in keeping your home region nice and stable and not constantly mired by war. Country B, meanwhile, is a very militaristic power that's looking to increase its power and prestige, potentially by gobbling up smaller countries C, D, and E. Were this to come to pass, not only would you lose many trading partners, but country B would also be in a much bigger position to boss you around, so you form an alliance with C D and E, telling B that if they were to attack any of you, you all go to war with them. Well, B decides to call your bluff and attacks C. If A doesn't go to war with B, then other countries won't want to form any more treaties with A, and B will look for new ways to throw its weight around. This is WWI and the alliance system in a nutshell; while the intention is to prevent war, it has no power if the threat has no follow-through.
• Civil Wars usually start with some segment of the population being upset with who's in charge of the nation, be it an interest group, a socioeconomic class, or a particular head of state. This can take a number of different forms, occasionally multiple of these at once:
  • Rebellion - A group of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and want to set something on fire about it. Rebellions are, if we're defining things for categorization here, mostly just an outlet for pent-up frustration or some unbearable conditions, not a fully formed attempt to establish a new order. You don't need a manifesto, just a brick. They tend to be the prelude to something more serious.
  • Coup d'Etat - The rebel faction wants to replace the current ruler. Generally, this happens as a conspiracy by military officers, government officials, the nobility, or some outside force that's gotten the ear of any of the previous three.
  • Succession Crisis - more common in a Monarchy; if it's unclear on who will be the next ruler, if the heir apparent is deemed unfit to rule, or if the next in line is someone that everyone absolutely can't stand, the different claimants will fight each other for the throne.
  • Secession - The rebel faction wants to splinter away from the country to form their own country. This undermines the authority of the previously united national government, leading to high tensions even if the secession itself is peaceful, and often leads to war afterwards when the seceding party throws the emperor's diplomats out a window, finds a big strong friendly nation with a vested interest in building a canal, or starts a war in a fit of jingoistic arrogance then cries about losing for the next 160 years.
  • Revolution - The rebel faction wants to change the system of government entirely. These are, generally speaking, The Big Ones. Since the concept of a revolution in the modern sense, beginning in the late 18th century, revolutions hardly ever stay in one country. Power bounces around into new and unknown hands, long-established societal norms are challenged openly, and more often than not the neighbors start to get nervous about it and decide to help, quietly or in full force, one side or the other. No matter the outcome of one single revolution, in a world that has grown ever more interconnected, it's bad news for the powerful and unpopular everywhere when the barricades and banners start showing up.
  • Failed State - If the central government fails altogether, local populations will start fighting each other to reestablish a new state; usually with different warlords wanting to eventually defeat the rivals and become the new ruler of the country.
    • Partition - if a country (often a buffer state) between neighbors is unstable to the point of having conflict spill over national borders, then said neighbors may consider such a state as an existential threat and should be split between each other for the sake of keeping their realms in order. Oftentimes, this means mutually agreed annexation of land at the expense of the locals (whether it be via political marriage, puppet states, or plain old forced population transfer).