How an Actual Human Vs Pony War Would Go

Genre: Comedy* / Human / Alternate Universe
*Mislabeled, would make far more sense if was labeled as 'Random'
Wordcount: 1264

Grammar: 4/10
-While far from the worst I've seen in general the grammar is quite well done and shows some effort.

Characterization: 1/10
-The UN agrees to go to war in ten seconds flat without a single argument.
-Celestia gives no reason for destroying humanity and shows none of her normal planing.
-Shining Armor, one of the few others named in the story does nothing to try and protect his people and instead does almost nothing except requesting permission to flee once most of his army is dead.
-All the humans that appear even if named act as paper cutouts passed off the worst of action movie cliches. Most of all the military tank commander's who declare with childish glee that they want to use the Blitzkrieg, a Nazi Germany reference to a very flawed military strategy.

Use of show canon: 2/10
-Celestia is depicted as the monarch that leads this universes version of Equestria
-Shining Armor appears to be the head of her army or royal guard.
-As this is tagged AU I am not holding the lack of Canon against this story.

Plot consistency: 10/10, minus .5 for each flaw or inconsistency
-The plot is very consistent with itself, but does nothing to win the reader to its plot. Human's murder ponies because murder! Can't mark it down for this none the less.

Use of OCs: 5/10
-No OCs present except for this AU version of Celestia and a few human beings that slaughter another sentient species without a single moment of thought. Very Questionable.

Coherence: 3/10
-Tons of issues with flow, and bad changes of viewpoint both for little to no reason and usually so quickly the reader feels slapped into a wall due to the rapid pace.

Extra: 2/10
-Comedy: 1/5
-The blitzkrieg reference, slightly makes up for its existence by being the only line in the story I found funny.
-Alternate Universe: 1/5
-Almost nothing of the AU is established or even detailed giving nearly no reason for the reader to care about the fact this story is an AU except at the very end when Celestia shows she is able to look into other realities in the Multiverse, were things at last get somewhat interesting but even this aspect is never played with nearly enough to make them exciting.

Total: 27 of 70 38.5% - Rejected.

Penities: -72*
*according to the current formula? Not sure if I'm misunderstanding the current formula.
Gore, death, mutilation: Check
Terrorism: Check
Anti-TCB Fadfic: Check

Final Score*: -45 / 70 - -64.3%
*according to the current formula? Not sure if I'm misunderstanding the current formula.

I included the facets of Characterization and Show Cannon only because the writer gave us so few details about this version of the MLP universe were we are forced to assume that except for Celestia and Shining Armor being drunk or high the whole time, this story is somehow based off the series cannon. Excluding those to factors it would bump this story up to 24/50 or 48% before penitaies or -48 / 50 - -96%

3627859

Grammar: 4/10

Would you mind explaining that and your later comment of it being well thought out? The two seem to contradict each other. It may just be me, but a 4/10 seems to constituent an extremely low amount of correct grammar.

3627859
3627982

Yes. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Unless we're using negative numbers or something?

3627982 its not frustratingly bad or ever present resulting in few enough occasions that the spelling bothered me but it was coear there were issues. Most of all with sentice structure and phrasing. Sorry for any inconveniences I just woke up and went to the bathroom and will be going back to sleep right away so if I need to list specific examples I can and well do so later. Sorry.

And I might be being a little rough on this aspect of the story as I was thinking that a 5/10 would suggest average or less noticable issues with grammar but I am rather bad with grammar myself so maybe im being a good bit too picky?

3627859 This story is awful

3627859
Wait, flawed military strategy?

3628214 Not sleeping worth a shit so short easy answer: it could have been flawless but streched supply lines and exausted men and machines both leave the strategy with failings that someone might be able to abuse. I'm not a military genius or historian but watching ww2 specials make those kinds of details clear. Even if the germans did make insane gains it's not a flawless plan.

3628357
No definitely not flawless, but it's not a very flawed plan either; at least in comparison to other strategies.

Not stopping was the emphasis of Blitzkrieg, which focused the best armored and mechanized infantry units to break through at one point and continue into the rear usually unopposed, while the ground infantry cleared the remaining resistance slowly. Not stopping has become the general military mindset since then, even if it exhausts one's unit, it cripples the enemy and wins the overall victory. As Erwin Rommel summed it up: "Would you rather be tired or dead?" It's the same kind of mentality Patton utilized to sort of reverse-engineer the tactic into a much better form for the U.S., which the Germans, ironically, had difficulty defending against.

But the supplies was a problem, like you said; though it's mostly the German's fault in not organizing a good enough supply movement, wasting it on unnecessary areas, and lacking the necessary equipment to move it. The same kind of problem plagued Patton's drive later in France, though it was also largely of Eisenhower's decision to send supplies elsewhere. Beyond that the Nazis could not gain control of the air, or coordinate movement as well. Supplies is the biggest flaw it contains, but it's still a superior tactic to many other plans.

But even then the Germans got that far by inventing it, and it's been adopted by militaries everywhere who were able to correct such problems. The U.S. military took the strategy and used it a few times; they've even created their own version of it, a sort of evolution of it, which is what is known today as Shock and Awe. A more recent example was during the Gulf War, where the U.S. military was able to utilize it in such an effective way to end the conflict quickly.

So you are very right in that it has these flaws, the only thing being that these are the only flaws. It's concepts, such as maneuver, combined arms, and close air support, are generally seen as necessities across most major militaries today.

I'm not calling you out or saying your stupid or anything, nor am I trying to insult you, I'm just picky about such things; hence the... way to long response.

Now the author on the other hand probably isn't aware of what a Blitzkrieg really is, as in the story it's not portrayed (what little there is) correctly; it's basically just an out of control charge to the story. That really got me, but I felt it was just me being picky again and decided to focus on the larger problems; still, it's not correct.

3628454 very informative! And I've heard the term shock and awe before from us soldiers in movies and tv so i understand / agree were you are coming from. Its kinda sad though cause for me, if he had used shock and awe instead of Blitzkrieg it would have robed the story of the one joke I found somewhat funny (if for the reason it makes the us military look like 15 hear olds trying to act cool in cod or some other military sim) so it's kinda ironic for me that the right term in that situation that would have improved tbe characterization of the military would have robbed this mislabeled comedy of its one joke. I am rambling and should be sleeping. Bye!