Figuring out proper military tactics against robots in specific situations on a planet's surface

I've put some illustrative screenshots from the sci-fi series I was talking about. It still collects downvotes, even after I modified the question to focus on specific battle situations.

So what's the problem with it?

  • $\begingroup$ @EnigmaMaitreya I don't know why would asking for viable tactics against specific enemies in specific environments. $\endgroup$ Mar 12, 2017 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ ... idea generation. or story writing. $\endgroup$ Mar 12, 2017 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the pictures: I think the idea of illustrating what you are thinking about is noble, but users may find these pictures distracting, especially seeing that there are quite a lot of them in the question you are referring to. In my opinion we don't need to see how a certain unit-type looks like to think about his combat-abilities on the level you describe them. You could remove them and put a link to them on the section headers for people interested in the specific look. The text alone should be sufficient. $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Mar 12, 2017 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the "off-topic": This questions title now is "Figuring out proper military tactics against robots in a broad variety of situations on a planet's surface". You already imply that it is broad. That doesn't leave a good first impression. Other than that you changed "How to battle these unit types?" to "How to battle these squads?" over the time but it is still "How to battle my imaginary soldiers?". As kingledion said this is broad and opinion-based. You added a few details about your weapons but mainly shuffled the text around. And is there a reason you really need those screenshots? $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Mar 13, 2017 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus "one picture tells a thousand words" $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2017 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ The question you should ask yourself is: "Do I really need a thousand words to make my idea clear?". I want to tell you again that I think you can safely remove the pictures and replace them with links for people who are interested without losing anything. You should try to be as concise as possible. A question is not good if you can't add anything to it, but when you can't remove anything. $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Mar 13, 2017 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus Is it better now? $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2017 at 8:53
  • $\begingroup$ I suggested a bigger edit where I removed all of the pictures and changed some things about the text. Maybe we can go further from there. If you insist on using the pictures you can of course roll back my edit if it gets approved and go back to your revision. $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Mar 13, 2017 at 9:12

1 Answer 1


I find this question has a problem that a lot of war questions have: they ask about what should be done in a conflict situation. This class of WB questions is very difficult to write well.

In combat, both sides will take advantage of everything they can, including thousands of little details that you did not mention. The result is a mighty game of cat and mouse that is very hard to capture in a WB question. They're just too dependent on details. Personally, I haven't seen any questions that have overcome this hurdle.

All that we can give you is generalities. For example, if I were to give you an answer it would be:

  • Urban area: one android with a laser rifle and 6 mooks: Shoot them until they are dead.
  • Urban area: two elite androids, they use one-hit wonder spy bots to locate you. Read up on anti-sniper techniques, then shoot them until they are dead
  • Open area: 5 patrol ships, they might drop octopussies at you. Shoot them with rockets until they are dead. If they drop towers, either shoot them with rockets until they are dead, or don't shoot them (you never specified how well rockets work vs. towers)

To answer any more specifically than that, we'd need to know things like tactics (how do mooks operate in an urban environment?), goals (the goal is not always to kill the enemy), and other details like that. In my opinion, it's really difficult to give enough of that information in a SE Q&A format. It's really better handled as a discussion using a different medium.

One tool you might be able to do is to adapt the question to use historical armies as a basis. If you say "the mooks fight like the Viet Cong," that provides a substantial foundation for answers which lead to completely different answers than if you say "the androids fight like the feudal Japanese" or "The elite androids use tactics similar to the Spetznas." If you told me that "androids use techniques common to special forces," that one sentence tells me more about how to answer than the entirety of the explanation of the offensive and defensive sides of both parties. It tells me I need to worry about them training up locals to fight for them, I need to be aware that they are all well trained, and it gives hints as to how they will operate if they have to actually fight. It also tells me how to start combatting them: I need to get the locals on my side enough to find out where they are, and send in superior firepower, and that I need to plan my attack to limit their ability to vanish.

Do note that making such a change shifts the focus away from arms and armament to tactics. You could, in fact, leave behind the fantasy world and have questions like "I have 2 snipers covering a church I need to control. These snipers have similar training to US snipers, but with weapons that have X Y and Z (perhaps they have different ranges than our real weapons). What tactics might I use?" Then I can bring in content from, say, History Channel documentaries on sniper school where they show the publically releasable portions of the sniper/counter-sniper cat-and-mouse game.

  • $\begingroup$ So write more technological fluff and tactics. It will be done. $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2017 at 22:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .