The AARlander Issue #4: December 2007

[anchor=Dec2007-1]
The sword was not the first weapon created specifically for homicide – the club carries that dubious honour – but it’s without question the most iconic weapon of all. It’s not only the archetypical weapon of war, representing all others, from clubs to nuclear-tipped missiles in figures of speech and thought, it also has become the very incarnation of the warrior codes of old, from the Roman Legions to Samurai of Japan and the Knights of Medieval Europe. It’s THE weapon of legends and sagas, with the bow following a very distant second. While relegated today to mostly ceremonial duties, the sword is undiminished in culture, or in fact, perhaps more popular than ever.

Yet perhaps because of that, swords have been so extensively used, and misused in popular fiction, such as fantasy books, films and RPGs that even within the community of medieval martial arts buffs misconceptions and myths about the swords of history abound.

Popular misconceptions

Some of these false ideas have become so widespread that a “fantasy” history, classification and description of swords could be compiled and recognised as truth by most. Here goes an attempt at just that; please note, hardly a word of it is true.

“The swords of antiquity were crude and short because their metal was so poor, so longer weapons would bend on impact. As a result, the Roman Gladius, for example, was mainly good for thrusting. With improvements in metallurgy swords could be made longer and heavier for causing greater cutting damage. By the middle ages, the normal western sword was the one-handed Broadsword, a broad-bladed heavy weapon for single hand use. There were also longer, single-handed swords called Longswords, and large, incredibly heavy two-handed swords who only the strongest could wield. An in-between type was the Bastard Sword which could be used single- or double handed, although only real beefcakes, such as your typical knight or barbarian had the muscular strength to throw around these heavy brutes with one hand. Overall, western medieval weapons were still crude and unrefined. Their edges were quite blunt, to better withstand the rigours of combat and the still poor metal in them meant they had to be made very heavy. In Japan, by contrast swords were made with far superior skill and better steel and were immeasurably sharper, lighter and better in every way. A good medieval Japanese Katana could would have cut through a European sword like butter. Only by the end of the middle ages had European sword-making and metallurgy progressed far enough that thin light blades like the rapier could be made out of good flexible steel, and since body armour had largely been abandoned with the advent of gunpowder weapons, these completely superseded the broadswords of old after the renaissance.”

The real deal

Of course, the real history of swords requires many volumes to be told, not just a few sentences, and it requires being written by a true scholar and not a happy aficionado like myself. Thus I might well be wrong about a great many things below, but nonetheless, here goes;
Classification of Roman and Medieval Swords

While it is possible to assign type names and periods to swords, an important caveat to remember is that swords in all lengths, sizes and shapes have existed since iron supplanted bronze as the main metal for sword making. There have been finds of great two-handed Germanic swords from Republican Roman times which would not have looked too far out of place in the early Renaissance battlefield.

Single hand swords

While it’s true that the iron or steel at the time was not as good as it would later become, the reason the Romans opted for a short, heavy sword like the Gladius when equipping their Legions is the manner in which they fought, shoulder to shoulder in tight formation. This gave little room for swinging, so a fast stabbing weapon was needed, and the Gladius was just that. All else equal, a longer sword is slower than a short one in the handling, but the Gladius was no flimsy weapon – in loose order or individual fighting it could deliver extremely powerful cuts with lightning speed. It is, in fact heavier than most medieval single hand swords and recent test-cutting have proven that it handily outperforms them in cutting power. The reason the Legions eventually went over to the longer Spatha was probably because with it’s greater length, it was better suited for the Legions primary way of fighting, ie giving greater reach for stabbing, but not better cut performance.

The Spatha and similar weapons remained the typical European swords for the next few centuries, while mounted warriors gained in importance. Fighting from horseback requires longer reach, and while the Spatha was originally a cavalry weapon, better steel and more advanced designs meant longer swords could be made without sacrificing too much handling. After going through some transitional stages (Migration period, Viking), longer single hand swords had evolved by the XI century which are today called Arming Swords or Knightly Swords. With a blade typically between 70 and 80 cm in length and weighing only a little over a kilogram (2 pounds), they were emphatically NOT the “Conan’s Broadsword” monstrosities imagined in fiction. The Arming or Knightly swords remained in use until the XVI century as the sidearm of a nobleman, and would eventually evolve into the cut-and-thrust swords of the late renaissance, and finally into rapiers (the name of which is derived from Spanish “Espada Ropera”, “clothing sword” which is synonymous with “Arming Sword” in the sense of “arming” of getting dressed; like the Arming Sword in later middle ages the Rapier was part of a gentleman’s proper attire). But the Rapier it was NOT a light, nimble weapon. Typically, it was heavier than an Arming Sword with a long, stiff blade and had abominable handling characteristics for anything but thrust and recovery. That was the reason it became popular to use a long dagger, or “Main-gauche” (fr. for Left Hand) to aid in parrying. The mental image most have of the rapier corresponds better with the XVIII century Smallsword, which was shorter, more flexible and lighter than the Rapier.

Two-hand swords

To counter improvements in armour, scaled up versions of Arming Swords for primarily two-handed use appeared by the time of the III Crusade (ca 1200 AD)– these were known as “Swords of War”, but the term has also been applied to the Arming Sword itself so the classification is not clear cut. Especially large swords were known as “Great Swords”, but again that is not a clearly defined class of weapon, rather a description of large individual weapons. To compound the confusion, the Anglo-Saxon word for “Sword of War” sounds a bit like “kregsword” (not sure about spelling), compare to equivalent “Krigsswärd” in modern Swedish, so the “classification” might even be a case of mispronunciation. With blades of up to almost a metre in length, although much larger and heavier than Arming Swords, even a heavy Greatsword would rarely reach two kg in weight.

In the XIII century, longer, thinner swords specifically designed for two-handed use emerged in response to ever improving armour, replacing the Sword of War as main battlefield sword. These were called Longswords, and with their longer grips, it became possible to take advantage of the leverage of a really long blade for delivering devastating cutting blows. A subclass of Longsword was the XV century Bastard Sword, which thanks to a heavily tapered blade (which moves back to point of gravity at a given weight and length) was so agile it could also be used comfortably with one hand. Proper “Twohanders” (often referred to as “Zweihänder”) only appeared during the Renaissance to deal with plate armour, horses and pikemen – not the pikes themselves, as is sometimes thought, but the men wielding them. Heavily armoured soldiers carrying these great swords would brave the wall of pikes to wreak havoc in close. These men received double pay, but I doubt it was because only a select few were strong enough to wield them: even the greatest Twohanders would not weigh much above three kg (excepting ceremonial weapons unsuitable for combat) and could be as light as half of that. Rather, it would take a lot of monetary motivation to make a man try to wade through a forest of pikes trusting his armour to keep him alive until he reached swinging range.

Japanese swords

In Japan, something similar happened – the quite Spatha-like Jian-type swords were replaced by XI century with longer, but curved blades, not straight ones like in Europe. The reason for that might have been better or more ubiquitous European armour, necessitating good thrusting capabilities for finding weak spots. Of these curved blades, the Longsword equivalents were known as Tachi, not Katana, and the Twohander ones as Odachi, not Nodachi. The better known Katana began to replace the Tachi in the XV century and was shorter and straighter, probably for being better suited for dismounted combat. Just as in Europe, by this time pole-armed infantry was beginning to dominate the battlefield and the Samurai in the Sengkou wars increasingly had to fight on foot. The ossification of Japanese culture and warfare after the end of the Sengoku period meant that the Katana never was replaced by a Japanese Rapier-equivalent but was kept in use until the XX century, smoothly transitioning from Samurai battlefield weapon to the role as ceremonial officer’s sidearm of European Cavalry Sabres.

The Real Broadsword

And what of the Broadsword, dreamed of dripping crimson in barbarian fists? There actually was a sword named so – it was an XVIII century short broad-bladed footman’s sidearm (called so because it had a traditional, medieval broad blade in a time when most swords where thin Smallswords). In the sense most people think of it, it never existed or was an Arming Sword.

Edge and Metal

Contrary to a somewhat popular misconception, Ancient and Medieval swords were sharp, even razor sharp. We have seen ossuary evidence of what they could do - the technique of cutting at the legs under the rim of the shield was popular since Viking days, and in the Visby mass grave (XIV century), a skeleton was found which had had BOTH legs severed across the shins with one blow, probably the work of the Sword of War or Longsword of a Danish Knight. There were also split skulls and chopped off limbs, none of which would be possible with a blunt edge. Also, era pictures show Swords of War splitting steel Great Helms. Medieval poetry go to great lengths describing armoured warriors split from shoulder to saddle seat by powerful sword blows - probably an exaggerated claim, but not so much so that it would have been laughed out by the intended audience, knights and noblemen who knew damn well what a Sword of War could and could not do. In sharpness they differed little from Japanese swords of their time, although later Japanese sword smiths with their extraordinary attention to detail achieved even sharper weapons.

As for the relative quality of steel, the problem of combining the properties of steel (hard, brittle) and iron (softer, flexible) began to be addressed by the early Roman period through the introduction pattern welding (i.e. the folding together of different metals to even out their properties) by the Celts in around 300 BC. By 500 AD it was in general use in Europe. This was the same technique used in Japan, although because of the extremely poor quality of iron ore available to Japanese smiths, they had to fold their metal more. The end result was no better, but not worse either than contemporary European swords, a fact that speaks creditably about the skill of Japanese swords smiths, given the poor materials they had to work with. The very best sword steel was known as Damascus or Wootz steel. To this day, the exact technique to produce is unknown, although Indian vanadium-rich iron ore, which ran out around 1700 AD might be part of the explanation.

[anchor=Dec2007-2]

Mod Review: WATKABAOI[/anchor]
by The Swert​

Europa Universalis II is a great game but if you enter the forum you will no doubt soon be told that after playing the original version you should try a mod. The mods allow for increased replayability, variety and, in some cases, accuracy whilst still being based on the familiar EUII engine. Over the years modders have worked on hundreds of mods and they are wide-ranging. There are mods that try to be more historical, some that are fantastic, some that alter the map, some that alter the timeframe and many more. As time has gone however many of these mods have been abandoned and many no longer work with the latest patch, albeit that the patch itself is nearly 3 years old. There are now only 40 or so mods that still work today and of those mods there are even fewer that are still being worked on and updated. The mod I shall review today is one such mod.

The name of the mod is WATKABAOI which stands for World According To Kasperus African Beta Age Of Imperialism which surely must be the longest titled mod around. The mod is the work of mainly one man, cool-toxic who has worked on the mod since before its release in June 2006, which makes it a relatively new mod. The mod can be broken down into three components which are all referred to in the name. The mod originated with the map mod World According To Kasperus by Kasperus to which cool-toxic added his own work. The most significant of these additions are the expansive edits made to Africa. Cool-toxic then combined the new map with Hive’s Age of Imperialism mod to create the scenarios we see today.

The Map

WATKABAOI’s map is definitely one of its main features. Whilst based on the WATK map, cool-toxic has made substantial changes to Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas, and some changes in Europe but the WATK influence is still evident. For those who are unfamiliar with WATK, it adds hundreds of new provinces to the game as well as improving delicacy of the borders and coastlines. The result is much less of that annoying permanent terra incognito across the whole world and more provinces to enjoy. The highlight of the map in comparison to WATK is cool-toxic new Africa. Africa now has no permanent terra incognito at all. Criticism has come in regards to the treatments of certain elements of the European provincial allocation but considering the timeframe of the mod and the ever-changing borders and demographics it is impossible to please everyone and in any case it is a major improvement on the original map.

The Timeframe

The original game lasts for 400 years, from 1419 to 1819. In historical terms, it goes from the closing stages of the hundred year war to the end of the Napoleonic era. WATKABAOI adds to this by the implementation of Age of Imperialism. The extended timeframe is 44% longer from 1337 right through to 1914. This allows the full play of the Hundred Years war as well as continuation through the Industrial Revolution to the start of WW1. The advantage of the longer timeframe is that it gives the opportunity to play one really long game with no need to rush in the final few years to conquer the world. Personally I find 400 years long enough for one nation but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the extended timeframe. For me it gives the opportunity to play as several nations over same the game creating my own ahistoric world. To coincide with the timeframe the technology costs have been altered so that research is still needed right through to 1914. You will also be required to install the unlimited time patch for the mod to work.

The Nations

Given the number of provinces and the more than 500 years of gameplay offered by WATKABAOI one must think there must be dozens more nations to choose from. Unfortunately EUII only allows for maximum of about 340. Therefore, the country allocation has been centralised on Europe. This means that there are less native American tribes, asian nations and revolter states but since most players prefer playing as European nations it seems a valid decision. This doesn’t mean to say that the rest of the world is forgotten. India and South East asia are diverse with choices and if one chooses, the remnants of the Mongol Empire can collapse into smaller states. Also, in light of the many 19th century colonial independence movements across the globe many of the modern American states can break away as well as South Africa and Australia.

The Scenarios

WATKABAOI offers four scenarios: the 1337 Hundred Years War, the 1419 Grand Campaign, the 1492 Age of Exploration and the 1792 Napoleon’s Ambition. The most worked on of these are the 1337 and 1792 scenarios which are based on the equivalent Age of Imperialism scenarios. At the main menu, as you select a scenario, you are also able to select options such as whether to play with an intact Il-Khanate or fragmented successor states which allows you to somewhat customise the scenario yourself. Also of note, in WATKABOI the base trade level is 50% so using merchants is always profitable.

The Gameplay

Playing the game itself is somewhat more tedious than it should be. The Hundred Years War scenario, for example, begins a few months before the war breaks out. If playing as England you start with no ships and are expected to somehow cross the Channel to defend Holland whilst the French tend to invade Flanders early, capturing the CoT and quickly putting you in a losing situation. The Napoleon Scenario , as another player put it, is so “aaar!” From my experience, the game seems to crash every three years or so and even the gameplay between these crashes isn’t great. I advise reading through all the Napoleonic events before playing the scenario or else you’ll just get frustrated. To elaborate why lets explore what happens when you play as France. As the war begins you decide to build more troops only to discover a few weeks later that you get given thousands more anyway meaning you now exceed your maintenance level. Later, as the war progresses, let’s say you capture the minors of Trier, Avignon and Liege. You immediately force-annex them into your country only to find out a few days later an event fires to allows you to inherit them badboy free. There are other events also, such as the Partition of Poland, which sometimes cause agony. The Partition of Poland requires Austria, Prussia and Russia to do their part in the conquest and even if you succeed in capturing your provinces you must wait until the others do so too before the event of inheritance fires. It’s all of these historical but annoying quirks which make playing the game so frustrating. I would love to be able to tell you how the game usually ends up at the end of the game in 1914 but the crashes have overshadowed my interest of playing all the way through.

The Hundred Years War scenario is thankfully far more stable and on the whole well done. Things don’t always go historically, even with the events, and in my mind this adds to the adventure. The scenario would make a good hands-off game as the world looks completely different by 1419 and traditional powerhouses like Austria and France might find themselves struggling; although I haven’t seen that in my experience. The Grand Campaign and Age of Exploration scenarios are much like the originals. There are some new events but most of these cater for the new countries and provinces or are otherwise pretty superfluous as most of the crucial events were incorporated in the original. Having said this, cool-toxic does incorporate both the Hanseatic League and the holy roman Prince-Bishoprics into the game events for which normally appear as soon as you start the game. The effects of the League and Bishoprics though seem minimal and have no affect on strategy. As a final comment it seems as though cool-toxic’s hard work to make a fully playable Africa is quite redundant as only a few nations exist in the inland and most colonists won’t dare touch it due to the fact that some provinces, like in the Sahara, offer no tax value at all. I would like to see an attempt to colonise the world on this map though, that would be a feat worth achieving.

The Graphics

The graphics in WATKABAOI are very good. All the nations have unique flags and shields and new sprites have been made for the units, buildings and resources to better fit the timeframe. Cool-toxic has also included a new loading screen but unfortunately the music is the same. However the alterations to the map have left its mark on the graphics. Some terrain sprites don’t appear in the right locations and some of the unit positions look as though they are in one province when they are in fact in another. Furthermore there are several tiny provinces such as Massa and Ormuz which are almost impossible to click on.

With 7 major versions made since its first release there has never been any question about ongoing development of WATKABAOI. The development has only recently begun to waver as cool-toxic has said he is now happy with the stage it’s at. In conclusion, everything about this mod says big. It is a big endeavour by one man to combine a big map with a big timeframe to create a mod with a big name. As one could understand, with a mod of this magnitude there are bound to still be errors and saving regularly should be advised as insurance against random CTDs. Nonetheless this is a great mod for those who like really grand strategy and have a lot of time on their hands but that doesn’t mean to say that a short game on the mod won’t be fun also. Basically it offers you everything you could ask for and it’s up to you how you play it.

The most recent version is 1.77. Discussion about the mod and the download link can be found here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252750.

[anchor=Dec2007-4]


Hearts of Iron Anthology and its assorted Mods offer gamers the possibility to form the Cabinet that will lead their country for a 30-year wild ride throughout a dangerous and unforgiving History. In addition to the original list of Ministers, it may be interesting to have a quick look at characters who either played a role in their country’s political stage, or stumbled and fell on their journeys along the corridors of power.

Today, I’d like to introduce you to three European characters who, through their actions either open or covert, played a part in shaping up their country, and could even have had a greater impact had things been a little different. Just as they had an influence on Real-Life History, maybe you'll want them to have an influence on your AAR.


André Marty (1886-1956)



Country : France

Role : Minister of Security

Ideology : Stalinist

Personality Trait : Prince of Terror

Loyalty : High

Available dates : 1936-1952

Real-life biography :

Born in south-western France, André Marty soon became acquainted with the Marxist theory of social revolution. Having joined the French Navy as a mechanical engineer before the Great War, he found himself in 1919 part of the French Expeditionary Corps that was sent in Russia to help defeat the Soviets. He instead took part, as a ringleader, in a mutiny aboard the battle cruiser Jean Bart. While the mutiny itself was short-lived, the ensuing trial made Marty a prominent figure in the nascent French Communist Party which split from the Socialist-led Internationale in 1920. Marty joined the Communist Party in 1923 as soon as he was released from prison, and he became a member of the French Assemblée nationale the following year. He campaigned against militarism, was arrested in 1931, and became increasingly involved with the new Moscow-dominated Comintern. In 1936, he joined the International Brigades as Political Commissar, and was noted for his strict adherence to party and military discipline, and also for his disdain of human life, earning the nickname of “Butcher of Albacete”. In the aftermath of the Republican defeat of spring 1939, instead of returning to France, he left for the Soviet Union until 1943, when he was assigned to establish ties between Moscow-dominated Resistance movements and de Gaulle’s Free French movement. He is rumoured to have floated the idea of a Communist takeover of power in 1944 to oust de Gaulle, which was rejected because of lack of support either in France or in Moscow at that time. He remained a Communist Congressman, until he was ousted from the Communist Party in 1952.

Game rationale :

A staunch, almost fanatical Stalinists, André Marty would be one of the key elements of any Communist French government from 1936 to 1952. Had Stalin decided to attempt a Soviet coup in France, using the vast influence Communists enjoyed throughout the country after the Liberation, André Marty would most certainly have been one of the pillars of the Moscow-sponsored government. His role as a Political Commissar in Spain, and his attested bouts of paranoia, would make him a great Minister of Security, with the Prince of Terror trait.

Soviet France would most probably have a high dissent rate, as questions such as private possession of the land would be a hard one to tackle for a Moscow-inspired government in face of a large and capitalistic peasantry. There’s no doubt a Soviet France would be a full-fledged member of the Comintern, granting the USSR full military access, and even possibly existing only as a Soviet puppet (as the French Communist Party was one of the last ones to ever claim a right to differ from what the Kremlin said).


Michael Collins (1890-1922)



Country : Ireland

Role : Head of State / Head of Government

Ideology : Social Democrat

Personality Trait : Die Hard Reformer (HoS), Flamboyant Tough Guy (HoG)

Loyalty : High

Available date : 1936 - 1950


Real-life biography :

Michael Collins was born near Cork, in a family who had already embraced the ideals of an independent Irish Republic. Moving under various influences, notably his father’s and his teacher’s he found himself joining the Irish Republican Brotherhood in 1909, an organization he’d come to play a central role into. As an IRB member, Collins took part in the failed 1916 Easter uprising, in the end of which he was arrested. Escaping the gallows, Collins was sent to Frongoch internment camp by the British, and as often happens in such cases used his jail time to improve his leadership skills and work out the shortcomings of the Irish rebellion. After the 1918 general release of Irish prisoners, Collins and other prominent Sinn Fein members ran for Membership in the British House of Commons, and, despite elected in their native country, refused to take their seat in Westminster and set up an Irish Parliament, the Dail, in Dublin instead. As the British police arrested prominent Sin Fein members, including Eamon de Valera, Collins found himself playing an increasingly vital role in the organization of the Irish independence movement. He organized the movement’s finances, he set up counter-intelligence teams tasked with the assassination of informers and British agents, and he supervised the smuggling of arms and Republicans alike. In 1921, when the British government, exhausted after four years of war and a seemingly irrepressible rebellion in Ireland signalled its desire to negotiate some form of Irish autonomy, de Valera appointed Collins to head the Irish delegation. To some, it was a convenient political manoeuvre to put distance between himself and the necessarily mitigated results of the negotiation ; other see it as a trap to curb down Collin’s influence, which had grown tenfold in the years Collins had been a one-man revolution and a one-man government all by himself. Regardless of the reasons, the end of negotiations and the following Anglo-Irish Treaty signalled the beginning of a growing rift between de Valera and Collins. Collins has obtained autonomy, and de Valera wanted complete independence. The IRA followed de Valera to oppose the treaty, while the Dail and the IRB narrowly approved its ratification. In April 1922, IRA groups rebelled against the authority of Ireland’s Provisional Government, leading Collins to order brutal repression of the mutineers who by that time had occupied various part of the country. Collins was killed in August 1922, during an IRA ambush led against his convoy while he was visiting his native region of Cork to try to deprive the IRA from popular support there.

Game rationale :

I’ve always found Collins’ life was cut short before the man could reveal his true potential as a statesman. Unlike men like de Gaulle, whose life took them from rebellion to a position of power in a matter of decades, giving them enough time to shape up their country and era, Collins’ political life only spans 6 measly years, from the Easter uprising to his untimely death. I think it could be an interesting addition to Ireland’s list of ministers to bring back one of the men who did the most for its independence.

From what can be derived from the Anglo-Irish Treaty and Collins’ own plans to put an end to the 1922 civil war, a Collins-led Ireland would probably still be tied militarily to the United Kingdom, granting military access to UK forces. Dissent would remain significant, to represent the IRA’s continuous opposition to the Treaty. Another option would be to have a De Valera-Collins alliance, with less dissent, and also looser ties to the UK, if any.




Joseph Darnand (1897-1945)



Country : France / Vichy

Role : Minister of Security

Ideology : Paternal Autocrat / Fascist

Personality Trait : Efficient Sociopath

Loyalty : High

Available date : 1941-1964

Real-life biography :

Joseph Darnand was an apprentice carpenter, aged 16, when WWI broke out in 1914. He joined the Army two years later, and in the coming two years showed such an aggressive spirit he was promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer and ended the war the Médaille de Guerre and seven mentions in his regiment’s reports. In one remarkable action, Darnand is said to have infiltrated German positions and to have managed to bring back prisoners, who gave information that proved vital for the Allies to resist the Germans’ 1918 Champagne offensive. In 1939, Darnand joined the Chasseurs Alpins 24th Mountain Infantry regiment, and again his actions earned him a medal, this time the Légion d’Honneur. Captured vby the Germans during the 1940 offensive against France, Darnand managed to escape his Stalag two months later, fleeing to Nice that was part of Vichy France. Seduced by Pétain’s National Revolution, which probably appealed to some of of his long-held bias towards Jews and democracy, Darnand creates in 1941 an organization sending volunteers to fight with the Germans in Russia. In 1942, he created another paramilitary organization, the Service d’Ordre Légionnaire, and offering Vichy and the Germans its assistance in operations against the Allies (who had just invaded North Africa) and against resistance movements in Metropolitan France. In 1943, now a SS-Sturmbahnführer, Darnand becomes Vichy’s head of police and then Secretary of Interior. In this role, Darnand sends his SOL, now transformed into the Milice, in Italy to support Italian Fascists. Fleeing the advance of Allied troops in France, Darnand left France for Nazi Germany and Northern Italy, where he was captured shortly after WW2. He was transferred to French authorities, who sentenced him to death in October, 1945


Game rationale :

Strangely enough, and despite his having filled that exact role, Hearts of Iron 2 does not list Darnand in the possible Ministers neither for France nor for Vichy. Darnand is a good example of a “lost soldier”, who ends up fighting the very regime he initially (and in his case, heroically) defended. To get an idea of the kind of character Darnand was, the Sol he created required its members to take an oath in which they swore to fight “democracy, de Gaulle, Free France, and the Jewish plague”. The participation of the Milice made German anti-Resistance operations all the more efficient, and the role of that organization was particularly significant in the destruction of the Maquis des Glières, where Milice members committed many executions of wounded Resistants.

[anchor=Dec2007-5]

A Matter of Borders​

[/anchor]
by ComradeOm​

Personally I've always placed a high emphasis on the presentation of my AARs and the quality of the images used in them (perhaps because it distracts from the actual writing!). A very simple technique that I've been toying with of late is framing my pictures with an in-game event border. This really adds little to the AAR but is a nice touch to polish up the overall presentation of the piece. It only takes a minute or two to prepare the picture and I do like the result. I see no harm in providing a quick tutorial on this in case anyone is interested. What follows is a quick run through of the procedure used to produce an image like the one below.


As with almost all image editing, this technique requires a graphical programme such as Photoshop or the GIMP. I highly recommend the latter (its free!) and use it for creating most of my AAR images. Most importantly, both these programmes can handle transparencies. For this quick tutorial I'll be using the frame image from Victoria. The principle should be the exact same with other Paradox games.

First of all we have to acquire a copy of the frame to use for our picture. In Victoria we do this by using our graphics programme to open up any one of the event pictures found in the Victoria/gfx/Interface/events folder. For the purpose of this demonstration I'll use image #6930. While I have nothing against Michael Collins he's not really important to us now as we are only interested in the frame.


What we'll do now is cut out the actual picture of Collins et al from the image, thus leaving the frame alone. To do this we first add a transparent layer to the image. This means that after cutting out Collins we'll be left with a blank (ie transparent) space, as opposed to a merely white one. In GIMP this is accomplished by clicking on Layer/Transparency/Add Alpha Channel. We can now use the rectangular selection tool to select the area within the screen and remove it (Ctrl-X).


That is the first part of the procedure done. You now have a template image containing only a Vicky frame. You might want to save this (as a .png or .gif in order to preserve the transparency) for further use. Now it is merely a matter of applying this to your own image.

Thankfully this could not be simpler. It is merely a matter of using the GIMP rectangular selection tool to copy segments of your above frame onto the new image and position them correctly along the border. This is where the transparency proves its worth as only the frame will be imposed on your picture. Your image dimensions will probably differ from Vicky's standard 408x149, so just copy the frame across corner by corner and you can fill in any gaps later. Be aware that Vicky event pictures have a green line through across their bottommost pixel so position the frame so that it is not visible.


And that, as they say, is that. It takes very little time to get used to this technique and, to my mind at least, it’s a nice little way of further integrating your pictures into the AAR. Let me know if you have any problems with this or have found a way to do it in half the time. To finish us off, here's an example I prepared earlier:



















[anchor=Dec2007-6]
Way back in the dim-dark ages of AARland (3 years and one month ago), Alexandru H. wrote an article for the then-magazine The AARland Gazette. Alexandru H. was primarily responsible for the creation of the longest lasting of AARland's magazines, which lasted 7 months and ended on a rather sad note), and did a lot to get it off the ground. His impressive drive got this first great expression of AARland off the ground. Much like the short story and alternative fiction magazines that you can find on the bottom shelf of your local bookstore (somewhere between Vogue and Guns and Ammo), The AArland Gazette was designed to help stimulate the realm of AAR's and create a place for writers, readers and researchers to come together and collaborate.

In the magazine's opening issue, Alexandru H. began the work with an article entitled "A Sense of Community". Although he attributes the concept to another, I will attribute the following line to him; Alexandru begins his article describing the "self-sustainable bee-like colony" that makes up AARland. He introduces us, the salivating masses, to the Gazette by crafting for us a Periclean world of internet democracy. In all he tries to establish a unified realm that does not operate like some giant mechanical clock, but instead a living, breathing organism.

The article premiered with very little fan fare. It issue three, Alexandru returns to the subject of 'what is AARland', this time will the full force of analysis behind him. He strikes out with the intention of not only discussing AARland as an entity, but delving into the why's and how's. In his approach he establishes a general time-line in the history of AARland, and specifically attempts to attribute change to each period. Describing the community as a fragile figure, balanced on the brink of glory and oblivion, Alexandru makes a noted attempt to measure the influences on this time.

While I will not go over the article in great detail, because you can in fact read it for yourself, I will note some interesting factors. Specifically, Alexandru mentions two turning points and focuses rather heavily on the "Great Men" of early AARland. The first "turning point", that being the introduction of EUII, brought with it the creation of the first interactive AAR. Alexandru does an excellent job discussing the reader-writer relationship in regards to this period. The second turning point was the creation of this very community, once again stemming from the "Great man". The article is an excellent attempt at defining how things came to be.

The true importance of this moment in AARland's history cannot be overlooked. Alexandru, in a moment, summarized the growing divide among AARland writers and readers. He establishes, right from the start, two classes of AARists, the "conservatives" and the "evolutionists". This theme does not go away. In May of 2005 issue five premiered, bringing with it another discussion by Alexandru on this topic. "The Defendaars", as he titled the article, discusses not only the problems with AARland, as he saw it, but possible and probably solutions. I think the true key to note in this very well written article is the notable change in tone. No longer is the bright future a near certainty, but now a glimmer, an ember, something that must be worked towards. Nothing is taken for granted in this article.

Alexandru's final article would come in June, after which he would retire from the Gazette (although through the impressive work of Amric, Coz1 and others the Gazette would continue on until February of the next year ending after 26 issues). Gone is the concept of a true togetherness and fondness for community. Suddenly, and rather starkly, Alexandru's work has turned into a criticism of the community. " WritAARs, ReadAARs, MembAARs" is a harsh and unforgiving look at the immediate problem with AARland, which was at the time undergoing the trials of inactivity. While he does offer solutions, a theme for Alexandru's work, he states, right from the start, that community without community service is nothing. It is a sharp turn from the earlier writings.

But the question we must ask is why does this matter? Reviewing the writings of a long retired magazine writer hardly seems like ground breaking stuff. But what Alexandru represented, and the reason I chose to focus on him, is that these articles represent what was, at the time, a very real concern for many of us in the AARland community. A simple perusal of posts at the time, especially in the Gazette discussion thread, and you will very easily see this to be true. Now, my purpose in this article was not to stir up a long dead debate, but instead to highlight and describe a sense of thought and philosophy that existed at the time. My articles in this particular magazine have focused on the history of AARs. And perhaps at no other time was there such a discussion and debate about the meaning of the AAR.

I began my survey with Genesis, and by butchering the Bible have arrived at the Book of Judges. Over the next few months I will continue dissecting and discussing the articles of the Gazette (and later the Advocate) and seeing how and why certain philosophies and ideas came to be shared by the community of writers we call AARland. I encourage all the readers to follow along, you can find the index of The AARland Gazette here. When I complete a 3-4 month look at the writers themselves I will draw my own conclusions based upon the world as we see it today. My attempt is merely as a scholarly view on the change of philosophies that has emerged in the 'modern' AARland, and I hope to enlighten newer readers to the past and remind the old fogies how far we've come.

[anchor=Dec2007-7]

The AARt of Writing - December 2007[/anchor]
by Phoenix Dace and Atlantic Friend​

This is a transcript of a three-way chat between myself - Phoenix Dace,writer of Services For One's Country, In Peace and War Alike, my co-host - Atlantic Friend, writer of Crossfires, a French AAR for HoI2 Doomsday, and our guest - El Pip, writer of – among others - The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR. Atlantic Friend and I decided it would be a good idea to have a four-way discussion each month on writing, and AARs, and put it in the AARLander. Unfortunately, we couldn't make it work with Lordling, who was to be our second guest this month, and so it ended up being a three-way discussion instead. Barring any further obstacles, Lordling should be a guest for the January discussion, since we asked him to take part in this one and a lot of why he could not was our fault.

Each month we hope to feature two different writers, and different topics of discussion, from previous months. This month we only introduced one of our planned topics, but as the discussion spread it ended up encompassing nearly all the others, so we actually did not have to broach our other remaining topics as topics themselves.

Note that the transcript has been edited for readability, but all actual content remains, except for brief discussion about technical errors that occurred a couple times. If you think that the three of us wouldn't actually talk on an instant message program with such perfect spelling and grammar, you just may be right.

Phoenix Dace: So, shall we get started?
El Pip: Let's go.
Atlantic Friend: As some form of introduction, I'd like to say the general idea of this little fireside chat is to broach a number of topics dear to every forum Author
PD: Yes, I suppose an introduction is in order. I'm Phoenix Dace, and I write the HOI2 AAR 'Services For One's Country, In Peace and War Alike'. My
fellow host today is Atlantic Friend, writer of 'Crossfires, a French AAR for HoI2 Doomsday', and our guest is El Pip, writer of too many AARs to count.
AF: It has struck Phoenix and I as a good idea to convene with a few other authors, both emerging or already widely acclaimed (yes, that's you, EP) to discuss the fine art of writing an AAR.
PD: If this works out, we're hoping to have this become a regular feature in the AARLander, where every month we have a discussion with two guests on various topics related to writing in general and AARs in particular.
EP: "Too many to count" Well I think it's three so I'm worried about the standard of the interview.....
PD: Just because we can't count doesn't mean we can't write.
AF: Do not worry, we are outrageous liars.
EP: True, numeracy is over-rated.
PD: 1, 2, many, lots.
EP: Woooo, lets not go that high. I'm not sure I've got that many fingers.
AF: The Detritus School of Accountancy, eh ?
PD: Nah, he could go all the way to many many many. We just get many.
PD: Also, I'm now seeing the word many as manly, and it's getting confusing. I think we should get started before we all go nuts.
AF: To make things simpler, I'll let Phoenix be the moderator and Great Asker of Questions.
PD: So, here's our first topic:
Since a story naturally involves a conflict, and every conflict must have more than one side, it is all too easy to make it seem as if one side (usually that of the narrator) is right and another is wrong. It is natural to give your characters biases, but how do you avoid a bias in the writing itself?
EP: Do you have to avoid bias?
PD: Excellent point.
EP: If you set the objective as unbiased that's different, but you can do a perfectly fine story with the most outrageous bias, slant and down right propaganda as long as you intend to do so and are aware of it
PD: I guess it depends on the viewpoint of the narrator of the story. If it's an omnipresent narrator, it seems wrong to give it a bias - such as if writing a third-person narrative. If writing a history book obviously written by someone from one side, or a first-person narrative, a bias could be seen as part of the story.
PD: For example, in my AAR it's from the point of view of the protagonist, Mark, and so I suppose everything that happens in it has a bias because of that.
AF: I'll be tonight's Great Dissenter, so I'd say yes, we need to avoid the bias - or that at least, the field of Alternate History requires a certain level of objectivity, if only to avoid weakening the plot. As you yourself pointed out in your canonization interview, EP, there is a great peril in making one's favoured faction semi-divine, and having everyone else being dupes or corrupt.
EP: Bias doesn't inherently mean wrong, assuming your aware of it the most likely problem is that you miss out on certain aspects of the story. But such omissions can be covered, by an chapter overtly biased the other way (character reading propaganda for instance).
EP: Or other similar type problems/solutions.
PD: That's true. You could have a bias one way for one part, and a bias another way for another part - for example, you could have different chapters focusing on different characters, so you hear both sides of the same issue, and from someone who truly believes it.
AF: So, you'd favour some subjective bias ? I would have to agree on this point. If the narrator in my story is a man with strong anti-military views, I concur this has to appear not only in the dialogue, but also in the way he sees and describes things.
EP: Precisely, one of my big points is consistency. Not only in plot but how the story is told.
AF: A sacred rule indeed.
PD: At the same time, I'd say you don't want an extreme bias. If you're writing, for instance, a history book, you don't want your writer to actually be demonizing the other side, unless you make it clear that that is what is happening. It would be all too easy to be writing that, even if that is what you intend, and have it come out that you're demonizing them in your writing.
PD: I'd say you want to be sure your readers know that the bias is not yours, but your character's.
AF: One of the advantages I see in putting a lid on author bias is to keep the readers on their toes regarding the plot. I started Crossfires with the idea that a mass right-wing party used the 1934 riots to take control in France, when in RL it brought the Socialists in power. If I portray the Socialists as weak dupes paid by Moscow, then I kinda narrow my choice of options when it comes to reaching a climax, or a turning point.
EP: Weak dupes are capable of incredible things under pressure or prompting. Just look at *Insert relevant political group here*.
EP: Seriously though if your keeping to plausibility and consistency it's hard to portray one group as weak dupes. Unless they are, in which case the first two points would limit your actions anyway.
PD: That's true, and I guess that it could either make readers think something good or something bad - either that the weak dupes aren't so weak after all, or that they've already set their mind against them, so they feel it's not really plausible/good.
PD: Referring to weak dupes doing amazing things, of course.
AF: Absolutely. If I portray all my characters as fairly as possible, without underestimating their different opinions, I can surprise the readers with either my favoured faction making a blunder, or their adversaries coming up with a great idea. I guess that comes to my deeply-ingrained prejudice - or let's say wariness - against heroes.
PD: Having a 'hero' is a dangerous thing. Maybe that should be our next discussion topic.
EP: Heroes have their place, but must not be overused or overhyped. I still maintain one of my favourite scenes to write was having HOI2 ARRland legend (TM) Otto Skorzeny outwitted by King Haakon.
EP: Just to bring him down a peg or seven
AF: What could be more satisfying than humbling the Hero / Villain ?
AF: Not to mention the surprise effect it has on readers.
PD: In my opinion, considering someone to be the 'hero' of a story, or an AAR, is inherently dangerous, because it makes you as a writer (or me, at least) start thinking they're more than they should be. If you start thinking of someone as a hero, they sort of take on an extra quality, that starts setting them above others, when they really shouldn't be.
PD: Heroes are very different from protagonists, and I think we see too much of the first and not enough of the second.
AF: I think too much heroics inevitably dissolve the plot into the ether by removing the element of challenge that is inherent to conflict, that key element of a story.
PD: Exactly. If you have a hero who can solve any conflict, what is the point of writing/reading? It would be like having every story be about James Bond.
AF: But a hero, or a set of main characters are necessary to lead us throughout the story.
PD: See, I wouldn't call the main characters heroes.
EP: Heroes are a lot less effort to write, which probably explains their prevalence. A flawed protagonist, with flaws that actually affect their performance and do lead to mistakes that matter, is much harder to write than the hero with a drink problem or who gets emotional after a mission when it doesn't matter.
PD: That's why I say that heroes are different from protagonists. A protagonist, or a group of main characters, has flaws. When you say 'hero', you imagine the square-jawed, shining smile, golden superman, and there's no way a protagonist should be like that.
AF: That's true. Would you say heroes are a lazy author's best friends ?
EP: Undoubtedly.
PD: Haha, that and spontaneous combustion.
AF: Never forget spontaneous combustion indeed.
EP: And critical mistakes only the hero can see.
PD: Ah yes, let's not forget the classic villain's plot, with a hole so big you could drive a herd of elephants through it, and only the hero notices.
PD: "I am going to keep a three-year-old on staff. If he can find any flaws in any one of my plans, I am going to scrap that plan."
AF: You mean the super-technical knowledge there's no way the reader can get, but which is daily displayed by the detective who knows that butterflies from the Bellarosa Superflenxis only mate from July the 5th to August the 14th ?
PD: That, again, I would say is a characteristic of the 'hero'.
EP: The other problem is, even if the plot is sound, the vilain will hire the "Imperial designer" from Star Wars. You know like one who put a hole down to the reactor in the Emperor's throne room. Muppet.
AF: Yeah, because "it sounded a good idea at the time".
PD: One knack a writer needs to develop is the ability to make a sound plan but still have the protagonist find a hole in it.
PD: Or, rather, make a hole in it.
EP: Or, if your really really brave, no hole and let the bad guys win.
AF: So, EP, you'd agree with Hitchcock when he said "the better the Villain, the better the movie" ?
EP: Yes, a story is only as good as it's villain. Unless you genuinely think the villain/enemy country/whatever can win there's no narrative to hold the interest. Just a series of updates until the 'hero' inevitably wins.
AF: SO true.
PD: Definitely a good point.
AF: The problem sometimes, in movies in particular, is that the author's
laziness kicks in, and a perfectly good and clever Villain suddenly makes things easy for the hero because the author is unable to think of a hole to put in the Death Star.
PD: Essentially, if a writer is lazy, the story can be great, but if eventually the protagonist wins by a deus ex machina of any sort, it's all wasted.
AF: And while it's easy to spot in and make fun of it in a movie, that is a peril that walks with us with every update of an AAR.
EP: No it's far worse for an AAR.
AF: Because we can always have a reader who'll sit up and think "wait a minute, why didn't Von Manstein counter-attack there, with all the forces he has at his disposal ?" or something similar.
PD: That's a good point - we don't get to comment straight to the writers in Hollywood.
AF: And because we're dealing with History, whose plots are usually thicker and more complex than a usual Hollywood movie
AF: Not to mention our readers are History Buffs par nature.
EP: Partly, but also because unless you finish the whole game before you start writing, and who honestly does that, you can find yourself painted in a corner not of your own making. The grand confrontation with Germany/USSR/The evil spy mastermind is a damp squib due to AI bugger up or whatever.
PD: True.
PD: That's why it's easiest to just not have a game behind it at all.
EP: But then it wouldn't be an AAR.
PD: Or to make it so abstracted from the game that you can't tell the difference. Referring to narratives, of course.
AF: Or to allow the story to override the game at some crucial points.
PD: I suppose it depends whether you're putting the story or the game first.
EP: Ohh it has to be the story, if you start putting the game first then your just setting yourself up for a fall.
PD: If you want to dutifully tell everything that happens, you might end up pigeonholed into a situation you'd rather not be in. If you'd rather tell a good story, it might not be accurate, but could work out better.
AF: The Paradox Games offer us the possibility to alter the game considerably, either through modding the initial scenario or via cheat codes. I agree the author should use it - but keeping in mind the mods have to be in favour of the story, not of the country he's playing, or else he's just putting bias into the game system as well.
EP: My only concern would be if your using the game as a "results generator" as I tend to (if only to avoid giving one side too many victories and to give me a rough base line on transit times. Ohh and to keep track of locations of units) then going too far from the game throws that out.
AF: I guess the story itself can be written in such a way to allow a little wriggle room. I had, through various circumstances, to re-start my Crossfires games three times, and the results of the Spanish Civil War were not completely similar in the three instances
AF: I chose to stick with what I had initially written, of course, but I was glad I had remained conveniently vague about some issues, such as the status of Euzkadi, which so far has been the major difference between the initial Crossfires story arc and the current one.
EP: That is why I only use the game for "Strategic" results not how they happened, it tells me operation/campaign 'X' was won or lost. Then I decide how that happened.
AF: I always find it useful to leave a certain possibility open - like, through speculation of a character who can be dead wrong about it, or be proven quite right later. this allows me to deal with some major unknowns in the story.
PD: If you tell everything, you end up with no room left for writing. You have to pick and choose what you say, what you leave wide open, and what holes from that you fill in yourself.
PD: And depending on those proportions, you get some very different stories.
EP: Well I tend to steer clear of characters so less of an issue for me. When I started I wasn't quite as confident so made a decision to stick with historic characters only, barring low level cameos of sub commanders, etc.
EP: If I was starting from scratch tomorrow I may well make a different decision, but I'm committed now.
AF: Plot holes, when they're not a mile wide, can indeed be a useful device - it gives you something to build on later. For instance, in my story the UK government's final stance on Germany and a possible Franco-German war is my biggest plot hole. I have tried to remain as vague as possible as to which way Her Majesty's government will go if, or rather when, the balloon goes up.
AF: That means a lot of unresolved issues now, but also an easier integration of the game results later.
EP: There's a difference between plot holes and just not mentioning something.
PD: Well, when you're writing about a Paradox game, there's no way you can predict the AI. I don't think anyone expects you to, either.
EP: Or alluding to it in vague ways. The plot is perfectly intact it's just the readers can't see it. Or they can see straws in the wind and small differences that, hopefully, in hindsight make sense.
PD: Of course, that doesn't mean you couldn't make it an issue. You could have analysts trying to figure out which way the Brits would go, pointing out pros and cons and so on, so that then you can explain away whichever way the AI does go, or whichever way you decide the Brits should go.
PD: That way you don't end up springing something on your readers at the last minute, or shoehorning the story into somewhere it really shouldn't be.
AF: Yes, you can hide something - especially if you're still yourself in the dark as to what will happen - but you have to throw some information to the readers, who at some point simply want to know the big picture.
PD: This is why I really like writing a spy story - I get to expose everything small piece by small piece, and the big picture unfolds very slowly.
AF: Exactly. That's how I proceed generally with potentially interesting but still developing situations.
EP: I do try and throw in misleading pieces. Partly as a cheap and seedy writers trick. But mostly because real life never throws up all the correct pieces in a near order, there will be conflicting information the protagonists will have to sort through.
AF: That's true. Chaos and mistakes and entropy do play a role. Nobody gets dealt the perfect hand - that could happen in real-life, but it's harder to justify in a book or an AAR.
PD: Well that, again, sort of comes back to the issue of what the protagonist knows - if he knows about the big hole in the plot, there's a problem with your villain. If he just knows everything, you've got a problem with your hero.
AF: And in both cases, your story has a potentially fatal illness.
EP: Unless he 'knows' everything but part of that everything is in fact wrong. Either deliberate misinformation or over-eager incorrect analysis.
PD: I'm more referring to ultimate knowledge, not 'what he knows at the time'. Solipsism can be a useful tool when writing.
AF: What would you say, Pip, has been your most daunting task writing your AARs, story-wise ?
EP: My complete inability to focus on the next update.
EP: I'm always thinking too far ahead about twists or turns in events that haven't even been put in motion yet.
EP: So actually writing the updates to get the words to the same place as my ideas can occasionally feel like a chore not a pleasure.
AF: I guess we all have this feeling from time to time.
AF: Itching to reach that splendid climax we've dreamed up, and instead getting stuck with preliminary moves
PD: I think we do to a certain extent. I often find I think of a great idea, but it doesn't fit in the story right now, so I have to wait about thirty updates before I can use it.
PD: So I end up sleepwalking through whatever I'm writing at that point so I can get ahead to this excellent idea.
PD: Except then, of course, I forget the idea and I'm left with a couple boring updates.
EP: I have a trick for that, I have a vast array of text files full of random ideas for the future.
AF: Ah, the Might-Have-Been's Might-Still-Bes ?
EP: Exactly. Everything from interesting characters to machines to intrigue to vague plot ideas gets jotted down.
PD: My problem is I often have ideas while away from my computer, and I forget them before I get home. I do have some text files, though not as many as would be as useful as I'd like.
AF: So, a little scoop here, where will the Butterfly Effect take us next ?
EP: Well reoccupying the Rhineland is still late. And the 2-26 incident in Japan is also overdue. Ohh and the Spanish Civil War hasn't kicked off yet.
EP: In all those cases the reasons and pressure behind the actions are still present, but the leaders haven't acted yet (for various reasons, not all voluntary). Those pressure still have to be released somehow, somewhere.
AF: What about Mark's adventures, Phoenix ? Where do you plan to take him next ?
PD: Well, obviously he's going to Turkey next. From there, I've got a bit of a surprise. All I'm going to say is it's a surprise to Mark as well as to the readers.
PD: And how about you? Obviously the France election is coming up, but what plans do you have after that?
AF: As long as it isn't one for the author ! Of all three of us, Phoenix, you must be the one who has to face the toughest issues in terms of characterization, as you chose to tell your tale in the 1st-person, with a character clearly identified as the story's hero.
AF: In one word : Münich !
EP: Covers a vast multitude of sins that word.
PD: Ah - protagonist, not hero.

...at this point the discussion rambled far off-topic for a short time and eventually settled on the topic of editing...

PD: And I'm going to edit out my mistake so no one else ever sees it
AF: Editing, yet another useful tool.
EP: Yet a vaguely depressing one.
PD: I've found an easy way to edit.
EP: As much as I know what I've written is rubbish I still don't like wiping it out to start again.
PD: If you write the updates ahead of time, then reread them before you post them, with fresh eyes, it's much much easier.
AF: I used it a lot in the beginning of my AAR, when I realized Paradox listed as living and breathing French ministers and generals who had been dead for quite a few years in 1936
AF: It made some of my updates smell like Voodoo sessions.
PD: Ha - Dawn of the Living French.
AF: Excellent title, I should have stuck with the stiffs and turn Crossfires into a comedy/horror AAR !
PD: Or just slowly change Luxembourg into a survival horror story.
EP: You mock the life giving powers of the Croix de Feu? Merely joining that party or thinking its a good idea can raise you from the dead.
PD: Dawn of the Living Grand Duchess.
AF: Do not tempt me !
PD: Hey, I wouldn't be complaining! At least then you'd update it...
AF: How do you deal, Phoenix, with the necessarily greater characterization of your main protagonist ?
EP: Less of your "Cyclopean interests".
AF: Hey, if Heaven can Wait, so can Luxembourg !
PD: Mark has developed, and continues to develop, in my head. By this point I'm basically just throwing situations at him and seeing how he would deal with them. And of course, he continues to develop, and change. I have plans for how he's going to turn out, they're just unfolding very slowly, because hey - it's only 1937, and if I finish the protagonist's characterization in 1939, what do I do for the rest of the war?
PD: Basically, I just fleshed out Mark as much as I could, and I continue to do so.
EP: It's a good plan, focusing on characters not events. Something I try for - How would the government/country actually react to something rather than what the 'Best' response is. A fully formed protagonist will always do something that surprises the author and leads him away from where he thought he was heading.
PD: One thing I always used to like to say about writing was that you should develop the characters and then let them react to the situations.
AF: Hajji Giray said something on one of the subforums about imagining the conversations your various characters would have if they were sitting at the same table.
AF: I thought it a little odd at first, but it certainly forces the author to focus on the protagonist' personality, and not its heroic function.
EP: You do need a cast of characters though. And fairly well rounded ones at that. Thats aid I can certainly see it's usefulness for an established story.
PD: One thing I remember him mentioning was to write just a whole bunch of dialogue and then assign it to characters after you've written it. In my opinion, I don't know if this would work with already-established characters, but if you wanted to introduce several characters at the same time, it could be a very useful tool to flesh them out for yourself.
AF: For further characterization, we also have models all around us. Our teachers or bosses can provide us with a variety of authority figures, and colleagues, friends, or just people we see can help flesh out a character.
PD: Well, they say to write what you know, so I guess to a certain extent most characters we write are based off someone we know, someone we met once, a stereotype, someone from a movie/book/TV show, someone media personality, etc.
AF: I certainly used characters from books I enjoyed. I guess there's a little of Discworld characters in both my AARs in this respect.
PD: Who hasn't based characters off Discworld personalities?
AF: Sad people who don't have the books at their disposal, I guess.
EP: There are only a limited number of core characters. Almost endless variations of course, but still recognisably that same few core types.
AF: Yes, there are only a few archetypes in a story. Having archetypes is not a problem for an author - turning them into stereotypes is.
EP: Precisely. How your character performs there 'role' in the narrative is as
important, if not more so in some cases, than what that 'role' is.
PD: Excellent point.
AF: That's something we intend to discuss during another session, but do you think readers prefer to be surprised, or to be presented with reassuringly familiar story figures and plots ?
PD: Depends whether your readers enjoy Hollywood movies or not.
EP: Both.
PD: Also, let's not forget we're dealing with the same AARLand that will deify any story featuring Otto Skorzeny.
AF: Note to self : kill Skorzeny whenever possible.
EP: Even when he gets turned into the Six Million Lira Man there are still people who root for him.
PD: I've been tempted to introduce him to Services and then kill him off, just to screw with my readers.
EP: I've killed him, brought him back, killed him again and plan to bring him back again when I do my next "For the Fjords" update.
AF: To sum it up, EP, how do you think characterization of the protagonists can help or hinder a nascent AAR and beginning author ?
AF: Characterization or lack thereof, that is.
EP: Nice simple question there.
AF: I know, I know.
EP: Frankly characterisation is demanding and easy to get wrong. The route I've seen work well most often is to start simple, with a couple of broad traits (one 'good', one 'bad') and build up from there.
EP: I remember an article on sitcoms which is relevant. Assuming you have one main protagonist each of the other characters (or events) should play off and reveal different aspects of that main character. This approach forces you to add depth to a character only as needed and prevents a rush to fill out a character prematurely.
EP: Now that's a simplification and it's only one of many approaches BUT if your a beginning author it's simple and keeps you clear of most of the worst pitfalls.
PD: And on that note we should probably finish up. We've got an hour and a half of discussion, and the sooner we finish, the less I have to edit.
AF: Ah, that's an interesting take, because it's also usually said the Hero (in most tales and stories) should have one trait of each of the other Archetypes.
AF: Yep, great work !
PD: Thanks for joining us, EP! I think we made this a definitely worthy discussion.
EP: Well I do hope to be invited back next time to ramble at length about the topics we never got round to.

If you want to be included in a future session, send a PM to Atlantic Friend or Phoenix Dace. You will need to have an account on MSN Messenger which you are willing to expose to us (don't worry, we won't sell your email to spammers).