Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => CCP Public Library => Topic started by: Hamish Grayson on 17 Mar 2011, 15:32
-
Disclaimer: This could end up being very long winded, have many tangents and be completely irrelevant in TonyG’s Eve.
However, irrelevant as it might be, I’m going to touch on a pet theory of mine regarding Caldari society. My theory is that surviving the Caldari-Gallente war necessitated that the Caldari adopt a Maneuver warfare doctrine. In fact I believe that the tenets of maneuver warfare actually became the foundation of the Caldari State’s society. You see Maneuver warfare isn’t about tactics or techniques – it’s really creating an organizational climate that excels at conflict and applies to all forms of conflict including corporate competition.
Before I continue I will concede two points here; It is highly unlikely that anyone at CCP ever gave the Caldari PF this much thought, and I think the new guard at CCP have decided that the Jovians gave the Caldari the pod during the war after all, and it’s the sole reason for their survival. I disagree with that decision since it makes the conflict less interesting and two out the only three related pieces of PF we had for years stated that the Pod was given to the Caldari after the war was over.
Then again, while it’s unlikely that CCP ever put this much thought into the back ground I do think they pulled heavily from the Finnish and Japanese cultures and histories. The Finnish in particular.
From the CAIN forums:
I'm not knowledgeable in the history of the Finnish though, so someone who has better knowledge of them could add their 0.02 isk to the theory.
Funny you should mention that. There was a relatively little-known (in U.S. at least) so-called "Winter War" between Finland and Soviet Union in Winter of 1939-1940 (twenty years after Finland declared independence from Russia) which has interesting parallels with Caldari-Gallente war. While heavily outnumbered by Russians, Finns managed to inflict very heavy casualties on the attacking forces (largely due to individual markmanship of Finnish soldiers) and seceded only a small parcel of land as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)
Finland went along to develop a rather successful economy (Nokia is but one example). Both recent Finnish and Japanese histories is rather similar in terms of being attacked by a much bigger opponent, and then developing succesful technology-based economy (based on local cultural specifics), eventually rivaling its former foe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare
The Finnish army used maneuver warfare concepts successfully in the Winter War part of the Second World War, in particular at the battle of Suomussalmi where Finnish ski-based troops used superior maneuverability to encircle Soviet infantry and tanks based troops who were forced to use only roads in the thick snow. The Finnish army defeated Soviet opponents more than twice their size and far outgunned, using rapid maneuver to their advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Suomussalmi.E2.80.93Raate_double_operation
The Suomussalmi–Raate was a double operation, which would later be used by military academics as a classic example of what well-led troops and innovative tactics can do against a much larger adversary…. The battle of Raate road, which occurred during the month-long battle of Suomussalmi, resulted in one of the largest losses in the Winter War
It is an interesting co-incidence that there are such similarities between the Winter War and the Gallente-Caldari war, and the name of the town in which the most important battle of that war, Raate, is very similar to the name of the society from which the Caldari descended; the Raata.
It is by no means proof that this incident in the Finns history inspired the original CCP authors when they created the Caldari, but I personally think it did.
TO BE CONTINUED
-
I’m stuck at work until tomorrow evening, so I don’t have access to my library right now. There are some insights into maneuver warfare, it’s history, and how it’s been used in corporate competition in my books that I’d like to share with you guys – but it will have to wait. Until then I will try to provide relevant information to my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare
Methods of war stand on a continuum between maneuver warfare and attrition warfare… Maneuver warfare concepts have historically been stressed by militaries which are smaller, more cohesive, better trained, or more technically able than attrition warfare counterparts. "Tactical Maneuver" is used by maneuver warfare theorists to refer to movement by forces to gain "advantageous position relative to the enemy as opposed to its use in the phrase "maneuver warfare".
Military orthodoxy believes that with some exceptions, most battles between established armies have historically been fought based on an attrition warfare strategy. Closer examination however reveals this view is not universally held, and many military doctrines and cultures are based on replete historical examples of maneuver warfare.
The attritionalists' view of warfare involves moving masses of men and material against enemy strongpoints, with the emphasis on the destruction of the enemy's physical assets - success as measured by enemy troops killed, equipment and infrastructure destroyed, and territory taken and/or occupied. Attrition warfare tends to utilize rigidly centralized command structures that require little or no creativity or initiative from lower-level leadership (also called top-down or "command push" tactics).
Since tempo and initiative are so critical to the success of maneuver warfare, command structures tend to be more decentralized, with more tactical freedom given to lower-level unit leaders. This decentralized command structure allows "on the ground" unit leaders, while still working within the guidelines of commander's overall vision, to exploit enemy weaknesses as they become evident (also called "recon-pull" tactics or directive control).
The point I'd like you to take from this is that if you take a look at any conflict throughout human history were a smaller, less resource rich, and/or less technologically advanced (weaponry) force defeated a larger, richer and/or more advanced force then they you can bet they leaned more heavily toward the maneuver warfare end of the spectrum than their opponent.
During the Caldari-Gallente war the Caldari had a smaller military, a significantly smaller population, a less developed infrastructure, and at that point in time still lagged behind the Gallenteans in technology. Even still, they managed to keep up with the Federals.
-
Taken from the CAIN internal forums circa 2007:
by: Thuul''Khalat on 30/07/2007 08:42:37
A Bloodbath?? Please don't make me laugh.
YES, we bombed Caldari Prime back to the stone-age, after ALL civilians had already been evacuated from the planet. The only ones left were a few military troops. Hardly a massacre, especially compared to your peoples vile attacks on Nouvelle Rouvenor, where hundreds of thousands of innocent Gallente civilians perished, and Admiral Tovil-Toba who crashed a carrier into Gallente Prime, killing thousands upon thousands more innocent Gallente civilians.
Is there any proof one way or the other in prime fiction? I remember reading somewhere about how there used to be more bloodlines than just Civire and Deties, but they were mostly whipped out in the bombing and the survivors intermingled with the two main blood lines until they didn’t exist anymore.
I don't know, but what I do remember is reading that the Gallenteans wiped out 3 Billion people on Caldari Prime, and besides there wouldn't have been a lengthy evacuation campaign to liberate the people on Caldari Prime if it had just been "a few paramilitaries"
Why would they bombard an empty planet, anyways?
The easy answer to why they would bomb an empty planet is to destroy assets – the easy retort to that is why not take them for themselves, but I ‘m pretty sure that isn’t what happened anyway. Can you link to the source were you got the 3 billion from?
No, Thuul''Khalat is incorrect. From "Caldari-Gallente Wars: The Early Days":
The turning point came when Caldari partisans sabotaged the glass dome of the Gallente-inhabited underwater city Nouvelle Rouvenor. [...] the Federation retaliated at once by sending an invasion force down to Caldari Prime and began a systematic orbital bombardment of the planet. Soon, the Caldari population had been driven to the mountains and the forests
Then, from "Caldari-Gallente Wars: The Breakout":
...the Gallente ships orbiting Caldari Prime were large and cumbersome, little more than shooting platforms ideal for orbital bombardment....
few paragraphs later:
Two weeks passed. More than half the Caldari population was still on the planet.
then:
Finally, the Caldari admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba took matters into his own hands. He led the few dozen ships he commanded and jumped to Gallente Prime. ... Admiral Tovil-Toba and his crew sacrificed themselves in order for millions more Caldari to escape.
Only after that:
The week bought by Tovil-Toba and the ensuing confusion following in the wake of the new government gave the Caldari enough time to finish the evacuation of Caldari Prime. Only a small fighting force remained, acting as a guerilla force.
From a plain, straightforward reading of the PF, it is quite clear that Gallente began orbital bombardment first, which drove Caldari into wilderness and then triggered an exodus. Nobody knows how many perished in the initial bombardment, but I would assume the casualty rate would have been quite dramatic.
I am not sure about the bloodlines other than Civire and Deteis, this does not exist in any PF that I am aware of.
From http://www.eve-online.com/background/potw/dec01-01.asp
Runia didn’t know much about the history of the Caldari; she knew that Caldari Prime - the old home of the Caldari - had several continents and that the different Caldari bloodlines came from different continents.
Back in the days when the Caldari still occupied Caldari Prime the difference between the bloodlines was profound, not only in physical appearance, but also culturally. Runia suspected that the beliefs that the Caldari bloodlines were very different from each other stemmed from these facts. But when the Caldari had to leave their home planet and the long and arduous war with the Gallente Federation erupted the Caldari race as a whole was uprooted and thrown into a melting pot were fighting for their survival was all that mattered.
The frantic decades that followed altered the Caldari psyche forever. Traits such as discipline and loyalty came to the forefront and shaped - and continue to shape - Caldari society into something completely new. The corporate state came into being, an all-engulfing machine that both nurtured and dominated its citizens. All the different bloodlines, Deteis and Civire the two largest, were affected by these deep-rooted changes and molded to the norm.
The bolded part is the closest I could come to finding what I was looking for but I’m sure I read something else too. On a side note I believe for Caldari RPers, that paragraph is the jewel of our crown. Combined with information gleaned from other sources it can be concluded that it was Gallente influence that made the Caldari capitalistic. It also implies that during the war, survival was the goal and most people were in the military if not actually active combatants (though I suspect a large majority were) then there were support.
I also suspect that this is were the social contract comes from. It is very much like the way the worlds most elite military group operates and since they survived against the Federation when they were out numbered, and were using (at that time) a more primitive technology, then they had to have been a very elite military.
That way of life had to have been ingrained into every living Caldari other wise they would have lost. The problem with that system though, is that it requires a strong bond with your fellows, a sense of “were are in this together” and it tends to not work so well in very large organizations, because basically more people means more greed and stupidity. With the population explosion that old life style is fading and some facets of Caldari society are becoming oppressive - while the Patriots are concerned with bring back that old social contract which may not be possible.
There is a big difference between lone extremists from Caldari taking it upon themselves to wreak havoc on some Gallenteans, and the Federation government itself sanctioning an official assault on the very Caldari civilization. The Caldari people cannot be held collectively responsible for Nouvelle Rouvenor, whereas the Federation can be held collectively responsible for Caldari Prime.
From Prime Fiction:
Finally, the Caldari admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba took matters into his own hands. He led the few dozen ships he commanded and jumped to Gallente Prime
If I read this correctly, Tovil-Toba took this initiative by himself, while the rest of Caldari Navy was jockeying for position with Gallente ships and Gallente Senate debating what to do. I would fully expect that Tovil-Toba is portrayed in Gallente schoolbooks as a fanatical rogue war criminal.
Also, from another PF quote:
The turmoil in the Federation created by the Hueromont Incident, as the Gallenteans knew it, toppled the government and a new one took over, this one more willing to listen to those wishing for peace.
So, if I read it correctly, Tovil-Toba's sacrifice essentially toppled the fascist government on Gallente Prime, delaying the second, ultimate orbital bombardment that otherwise would wipe out millions of Caldari lives.
Perhaps if you main character is Gallente, you get different version of PF related to Caldari-Gallente war? :wink:
One man's rogue war criminal is another man's hero. I'm guessing when the Caldari government at the time did not condemn the actions of the Admiral [tovil] it became an 'official' act. I'm not sure if the war was going on at the time but if it was then the same would hold true for the 'lone extremists' but to a lesser degree.
I don’t think there was a government during the evacuation. There must have been some kind of democratic/ representative government in place before because they were part of the Federation.
During the evacuation, however, the Navy would have been pretty much the only “Government” left, and it seems like the “colonies” were owned by mega-corporations rather than the government. After all it was the mega corps that had paid for their discovery, and then they paid for the building of the infrastructure.
Imagine a refugee who has just lost every material possession he ever had. He has nothing. He’s stuck inside a cramped ship for weeks or months until he arrives at one of the colonized were everything is owned by a corporation – but this corporation gives him a job, a house and a purpose; a chance to fight back and a chance to survive.
Now imagine one of the executives at the colony; he isn’t a politician he’s doesn’t know how to start up a new government, but he does know how to run a company and he can run that company so that everyone has a place, is safe, is fed, and producing war machines. Besides there isn’t time to build a government from the ground up, the federation will be here tomorrow, and if not then the next day. He has to make sure the people who’ve just come under his care survive, and he has to do it in the most efficient way possible because he has so little to work with and no time.
I doubt very seriously that anyone was going to blame the Admiral.
-
The siege of Caldari Prime remains one of the most oft-talked about RP points between Gallente and Caldari but still one of the most vague.
It's really not clear what the objective of Gallente bombardment was. We know that a fascist government grabbed the power reins or whatever. If the objective was genocide, then that seems a little extreme from what we know of the compassionate Gallente public, though it is possible that this fascist regime did not have the support of the public necessarily.
"Caldari Prime burns, those left behind are choking on the dust and ash that fills the air, and you demand our surrender? Is this a joke? You have only hardened our resolve. Every drop of blood you have taken from us will be repaid -- with interest."
- CEP response to Federation demands for unconditional surrender after initial bombardment of Caldari Prime. CE 23155.1.18
From here, we learn that the Federation demanded a surrender after the bombardment. So perhaps we must break the old sci-fi trope.
Orbital bombardment =/= Genocide
Orbital bombardment = Carpet bombing
That's the issue, I think. There's a natural tendency to associate orbital bombardment with trying to destroy a planet or wipe out a race. We know the Gallente sent in "troops to take control of the planet" in tandem with the bombardment, so it sounds like it as merely something like the firebombing of Leipzig or Dresden or whatever it was, or the dropping of the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; an extremely aggressive and violent campaign to force surrender/capitulation and impose subjugation, not genocide. I'm not sure what the Federation would benefit from that, or why the population would endorse such a thing.
As for the bloodlines thing, I really find that one of the more interesting lines of Caldari PF; it only really ended up being Civire and Deteis because the game limited 2 bloodlines to each race. I thought that was sorta funny, really. "In the future, each and every nation will have 2 ethnic groups", but of course there was groups in the background. From this, we know that every race had multiple ethnicities on their homeworld. Minmatar had 7, Amarr had 3 and Caldari have an undisclosed amount. The Gallenteans likely did have multiple, but probably now are a bunch of mongrels; if they're all cooperative and libertarian, and not putting much stock in ethnic group, they probably bred amongst themselves.
Makes you wonder why Achur wasn't tacked on as the 3rd bloodline as a bizarre bunch of hanger-ons, when we could have had another Caldari Prime bloodline instead. Even today, I wonder why the Civire/Deteis haven't mingled over the generations?
-
I apologize for that huge quote pyramid but I feel that this old conversation hits on some key points to my theory. Mainly the size of the Caldari population and the level of infrastructure the State had at its birth.
- The Caldari were able to evacuate at the very vague rate of “millions” in the third week and this is twice the rate of the first two weeks. Does “millions” mean less or more than ten million? It seems to me that if the authors intended the population of the Caldari State at its foundation to be more than a hundred million, then they would have used ‘hundreds of millions’ or “tens of millions vice ‘millions.’
- Since only ‘millions’ were left alive after three weeks, either the Caldari population was very small to start with or most of the population of Caldari prime died during the bombardment. The New Horizons chronicle mentions that there were other blood lines native to Caldari prime but so few are left alive today, if any, that we don’t get to play them, they aren’t mentioned in missions or item descriptions.
- The Corporate-state came into being only after the Caldari survivors had evacuated Caldari prime. The Government that existed before hand was destroyed by Gallenteans, accept of course what was left of the Navy. This means that the only surviving entities capable of organizing resistance were the remants of the Navy and the Megas. Though at that point they probably weren’t big enough to actually be considered a Megacorp.
-
Even today, I wonder why the Civire/Deteis haven't mingled over the generations?
The tube child ancestry option is only available to the Deteis. It is possible that the majority of the Survivors were Civire and that the Deteis required the tube program to bring their number s up to match the Civire.
Unlike some others I do not think that tube child program involves genetic engineering or even cloning. I think the process involves collecting all of a woman’s eggs, fertilizing them and bring them to term in artificial wombs. I also think that even a eugenics program would have been unwise for the purpose of repopulation. I think that the tube program’s managers would have tried to get as much of what was left of the gene-pool into the next generation as possible.
If the purpose of the Tube program was to save the Deties blood line it would explain there isn’t a lot of mingling.
Of course, the New Horizion chron does say that they just don’t find each other attractive. It could be that straying outside your blood line is a cultural taboo.
-
Of course, the New Horizion chron does say that they just don’t find each other attractive. It could be that straying outside your blood line is a cultural taboo.
If people go with the Japanese thing, that's very likely. Also, if Civire inhabit the worker and lower rungs of Caldari society, and Deteis are the leaders (so managers and executives) than it's likely that they don't mix at all, and the opportunity for marriages and sexual relations is thus significantly reduced because of this.
As for millions being evacuated, if we're talking about a full-scale orbital bombardment, then I wouldn't be surprised if millions died, as it's the whole planet that's being struck. That said, if the Caldari were under the heel of the Gallente, and were Industrial era when they were initially found, I wouldn't put it against the Gallente if they stunted any sort of population explosion. It does make the Gallente seem like a softer version of Amarr though, and my own emotivist opinion is that's a little boring.
-
The siege of Caldari Prime remains one of the most oft-talked about RP points between Gallente and Caldari but still one of the most vague.
It's really not clear what the objective of Gallente bombardment was.
Well, I see one of two objectives:
1). It was the same tactic the US used on Japan. End the war by showing the enemy just how much power you're willing to throw at them, and how disastrous it would be to continue, at the expense of civilian lives. Of course, the difference is, it went in reverse and ended up bolstering the enemy it was meant to demoralize, much like Xerxes' idea to keep King Leonidas' head on a pike.
2). Crush the Caldari at their core by depleting their race's numbers, essentially a controlled genocide, which would assure they wouldn't break from Federation law again once the war was over.
Hard to defend either one, really.
-
Of course, the New Horizion chron does say that they just don’t find each other attractive. It could be that straying outside your blood line is a cultural taboo.
If people go with the Japanese thing, that's very likely. Also, if Civire inhabit the worker and lower rungs of Caldari society, and Deteis are the leaders (so managers and executives) than it's likely that they don't mix at all, and the opportunity for marriages and sexual relations is thus significantly reduced because of this.
I am more and more inclined towards the Finnish influence, who also aren't known to be overly accepting of outsiders.
It does make the Gallente seem like a softer version of Amarr though, and my own emotivist opinion is that's a little boring.
I disagree. One of the early draws for me was that at first glance the Gallenteans appeared to be the Galactic good guys while the Caldari seemed like evil corpratist. Yet a deeper look revealed that the average State citzen probably has a better standard of living than the average Federation citizen and that the Federation Megacorps are larger, older, and more corrupt than State ones. Then there is the fact that Federation is just as much a corprate run state as the State is.
-
Now back to my grand theory. One of the tenets of Maneuver War far is the social contract between the organization's leaders and the rank and file. I'll go more into that later when I can get to my books, but for now I'll share some more post from the CAIN forums that touch on it. Please remember that all of this was written before FW and TEA.
It’s hard to explain without creating an essay so long no one will read, but to survive the war the Caldari HAD to develop a system of maximum efficiency. They were very outnumbered – so much that everyone was “in” the military. If they weren’t an actual fighter jock then they were a fighter tech, worked at a fighter assembly line, a food production facility that fed the troops or fed the people feeding the troops. When you woke up in the morning all your energy went to the war effort and you gladly sacrificed because you knew that the people making the decisions were working to protect you. You trusted their motivations and their competence. If someone was incompetent or couldn’t be trusted then they were removed because without the trust of the people the Federation bombers would be in orbit the next day.
After the war the social system stuck (which is why the Caldari are such a militaristic society) but thanks to tube children the population exploded and without the threat of extinction to provide direction and focus the social contract isn’t so strong any more. If the people don’t give their all, then death won’t rain from above – if someone is incompetent or untrustworthy it’s harder to notice in a bigger population. Also with the big population boom all the mores of the previous generation might not get passed down as well.
This is where the Patriots come in. They want to preserve Caldari culture and strengthen the social contract. They want the leaders to be motivated by the good of their employees (and customers), and to understand that if the companies goals are to protect their employees and provide a better product for the customer then a side effect will be a higher profit margin for the share holders. The employees will work harder and the customer will buy your product over the competition. That is the ultimate corporate model, one used today by the big guys, Toyota first among them and Apple to a point.
A few quotes from PF that I think are relevant here:
http://www.eve-online.com/races/Caldari.asp (http://www.eve-online.com/races/Caldari.asp):
Although this gives the corporations dictatorial powers, they are just as bound by Caldari customs and laws as the individual, and the fierce, continual competition between the corporations ensures a healthy, consumer-based social environment, which benefits everyone.
I think this gives good evidence that Caldari workers, or at least a significant fraction of them, have significant disposable income. After all, somebody has to buy all these consumer goods and services produced by the megacorps, and I seem to recall reading that the State has a trade deficit, so it stands to reason that they're bought internally. Also, the Caldari obsession with gambling and bloodsports also implies a significant number of them have money to burn.
The passage about corporations being bound by Caldari customs is also interesting, because it establishes that the elite do not always operate according to different rules than Caldari society as a whole. In fact, I believe that paragraph refers specifically to the Caldari ideal of putting the good of the whole over the good of the individual (more below).
The Caldari State offers its citizens the best and the worst in living conditions. As long as you keep in line, do your job, uphold the laws and so forth, life can be fairly pleasant and productive. But for those who are not cut out for this strict, disciplined regime life quickly becomes intolerable. They lose their respect, family, status, everything, and the only options left to them are suicide or exile.
It's been quoted before, but I think it's important to restate. Life in the State is not described as cruel or harsh for the average worker who does what's expected of him. Sure, there are plenty of cases of the State sacrificing individual welfare (and even lives) for what it perceives to be the greater good (see The Jovian Wetgrave (http://www.eve-online.com/races/wetgrave/?pp=background,stories), for example), but the State does claim to work for the good of the people as a whole, at least ostensibly (ironically, see The Jovian Wetgrave again, which establishes "All for the Good of Many" as the motto of the Caldari Navy).
I think making the assumption that the megacorps are in it only for themselves or for the bottom line is unwarranted. Sure, they're highly competitive, but, like others have pointed out, that competition is the means by which they create economic efficiency in the State. Now, I agree with Abel about the monopoly on violence, and that the difference between a steward and a tyrant is not fundamental but only a matter of how they choose to exercise their power, but at the same time I think it's clear that the "nobility" of the Caldari State do not exercise their power solely for their own personal good.
Edit: Of course, all this may be moot if CCP and AURORA are determined to take the State in a different direction. The recent news items about the neglected orphans and callous disregard for workers' lives and safety are, in my opinion, simply not compatible with the way the State was originally presented.
-
http://www.eve-chatsubo.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=4122&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Yoshito Sanders came to similar conclusions about a social contract completely independently of me.
The Megacorps are supposed to work for the betterment of the State. They're supposed to make the Caldari economy grow. They're supposed to make the living conditions for all Caldari people better. They're supposed to make it so everyone who is productive is able to do their part to making the State flourish.
Workers promised to be loyal, to do their work diligently, to not question their leaders, to not disobey their commands, to give up themselves for the good of the State. CEOs promised to use their skill to advance the State, to put the good of the State above their own good, to be loyal to their workers, to be honest and honorable in their dealings with everyone, to step aside when they are no longer worthy of running the State.
Throughout history, the system worked. During the Caldari-Gallente War, the CEOs killed during the teamaker ceremony realized their ideals weren't for the best of the State. Rather than abandon their ideals, they honorably took their own lives.
It's an interesting and complex system. And it makes plenty internal sense to me, and this only sheds further light on what's going on.
-
Obviously (being Finnish) I know quite a bit about the Winter War (it is the formative conflict of modern Finland and the cornerstone of Finnish identity for my generation), but I usually tend to want to avoid discussing RL matters in relation to Eve, so lessee..
What I just said, though, is interesting in relation to the Caldari. No doubt the war with the Gallente is THE formative conflict of the State and the key essence of their identity. It seems a bit obvious, but perhaps bears repeating. I don't think if CCP decided that the Caldari should have a similar against the odds victory over the Gallente that the Finns achieved in the Winter War, but the parallel is certainly interesting even if it was not entirely intended.
I've a question for you, though. Are you American and basing your theory on the Marine Corps' adoption of Manuever Warfare? Some might think this question is irrelevant and flame bait, but I disagree vehemently. In discussing setting information, I think it is crucial to understand one's background. For example, to understand my opinions on the Caldari, it is crucial to understand that I am indeed Finnish and will view things through this lens.
And just so I make it clear, I don't ask this to dis the US or the Marine Corps. As much as I may disagree with American policy around the world, I have immense respect for the MC's manuever warfare doctrine. Now with that out of the way, I would say that the Finns didn't really use manuever warfare as understood in modern times and as demonstrated by the current US Marine Corps, for example.
Yes, encirclement was the basis for Russian defeats in their failed invasion, but as often as it was a case of active manuever it was also often a case of uneven Finnish withdrawal in terrain which the Russians did not understand or know well. I don't think this translates very well into space fight mechanics or into Eve game mechanics.
Interestingly btw, I think the tv series "Kill Generation" illustrates some key points of applied manuever warfare on a few different levels : upper officer decisions and their effect on rank and file. Perhaps relevant to your discussion of social contract.
Anyway, just wanted to get those thoughts out of the way! Interesting discussion opener there.
-
Two quick comments:
1) From my understanding the "Caldari Navy" at the outbreak of the Caldari-Gallente War was not in fact a Navy, but a collection of mercenary organizations.
2) Modern Maneuver Warfare (as practiced by the USMC and US Military) is based upon theory established in the 1970s by John Boyd (as Hamish is well aware). This does not mean that previous militaries did not practice it, quite the opposite. Boyd codified methods that successful organizations utilized in the past to great effect.
-
Two quick comments:
1) From my understanding the "Caldari Navy" at the outbreak of the Caldari-Gallente War was not in fact a Navy, but a collection of mercenary organizations.
2) Modern Maneuver Warfare (as practiced by the USMC and US Military) is based upon theory established in the 1970s by John Boyd (as Hamish is well aware). This does not mean that previous militaries did not practice it, quite the opposite. Boyd codified methods that successful organizations utilized in the past to great effect.
Your first point makes sense, but not sure of explicit PF proof. On the second... I'm all over Boyd's ideas. Those very ideas were a total game changer for how I viewed conflict in almost all areas of life.
-
It's nice to have somebody in addition to Dex to talk about Eve and Maneuver warfare.
I've a question for you, though. Are you American and basing your theory on the Marine Corps' adoption of Manuever Warfare? Some might think this question is irrelevant and flame bait, but I disagree vehemently. In discussing setting information, I think it is crucial to understand one's background. For example, to understand my opinions on the Caldari, it is crucial to understand that I am indeed Finnish and will view things through this lens.
Yes, I am an American – but I’m not basing my theory on what the Marine Corps calls Manuever Warfare. I found my way to Maneuver Warfare theory while reading about Japanese business practices, which lead to a few articles on the Deming cycle. One of the articles on Deming cycles mentioned OODA loops, and popping ‘OODA loops’ into the Google machine brought me to an article on Colonel John Boyd. It wasn’t until after devouring everything he had ever written, plus B. H. Liddell Hart’s ‘Strategy’, all of Chet Richards essays many other works that I came across William Lind and his campaign to get the USMC to adopt Maneuver warfare. I think that Mr. Lind himself has an excellent grasp of the theory, and while that the USMC is a superb warfighting organization…that the Crops still doesn’t quite get it.
Yes, encirclement was the basis for Russian defeats in their failed invasion, but as often as it was a case of active manuever it was also often a case of uneven Finnish withdrawal in terrain which the Russians did not understand or know well. I don't think this translates very well into space fight mechanics or into Eve game mechanics.
Bait drakes, encirclement, Fix and flank, Pincer, Flanking, Cheng and Ch’I, Surfaces and Gaps – whatever you want to call it still the same concept. Convincing the enemy FC to keep the bait megathron/scorpion/falcon/Drake etc as primary while you pop his recons, damage dealers or shiny ships is the same thing as encirclement. MW isn’t about physical movements or positions, it’s about making decisions faster than the enemy, anticipating what decisions he is going to make, and keeping his efforts focused on attacking your strong points while you attack his weak points. 'Uneven withdraws' sound like it could be what George Washington often did; use small agile force to make the British stop and engage it while the bulk of his troops either run away from the British blob or move into a better position. The smaller force is the pinning force and the larger force is the flanking force even if they are running away and not actually flanking. Using gate aggression timers or interdictors to flee a larger gang is similar. Or did I misunderstand?
Your first point makes sense, but not sure of explicit PF proof. On the second... I'm all over Boyd's ideas. Those very ideas were a total game changer for how I viewed conflict in almost all areas of life.
Indeed…Patterns of Conflict and Discourse are life changing reads. Have you ever watched the live footage of Boyd on youtube? He was such an inarticulate red neck until he put pen to paper!
-
Also does sacrificing the random dumbass militia pilot who brought a plated and tri-marked Abbadon to the nano shield fleet, so that everyone else can get away or get range count as an uneven withdraw? :P
-
An example of an uneven withdrawal would be the center of a formation collapsing, drawing the enemy to follow. The flanks then conduct the double envelopment. This was standard fare in the Winter War and I'd fault Russian leadership for falling into them over and over again. Then again, their political leadership wanted a quick victory so the pressure was on. It was supposed to be over in two weeks.
Please see here a discussion on the specific Finnish terminology/application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salients,_re-entrants_and_pockets#Motti). Motti would make a great Caldari name, too.
Bait drakes, encirclement, Fix and flank, Pincer, Flanking, Cheng and Ch’I, Surfaces and Gaps – whatever you want to call it still the same concept. Convincing the enemy FC to keep the bait megathron/scorpion/falcon/Drake etc as primary while you pop his recons, damage dealers or shiny ships is the same thing as encirclement. MW isn’t about physical movements or positions, it’s about making decisions faster than the enemy, anticipating what decisions he is going to make, and keeping his efforts focused on attacking your strong points while you attack his weak points. 'Uneven withdraws' sound like it could be what George Washington often did; use small agile force to make the British stop and engage it while the bulk of his troops either run away from the British blob or move into a better position. The smaller force is the pinning force and the larger force is the flanking force even if they are running away and not actually flanking. Using gate aggression timers or interdictors to flee a larger gang is similar. Or did I misunderstand?
I see your point, sure. I especially like you bringing up using gate aggression timers. There's some great "motti"-style applications to be had there.
Let the enemy engage you, then jump through and deal with them piecemeal on the other side. Alternatively, knowing that the enemy will run, you jump your tacklers directly onto the other side, waiting for them to make a run for it. And all those require buy-in from the troops, because sometimes executing those moves means you don't get on the kill mails.
Also does sacrificing the random dumbass militia pilot who brought a plated and tri-marked Abbadon to the nano shield fleet, so that everyone else can get away or get range count as an uneven withdraw? :P
One thing I think Caldari doctrine should eschew is using large bait that dies. While no doubt giving your life for your comrades or corporation is touted as a noble sacrifice in the State, on the larger level their military doesn't have the resources for that. Or at least didn't during the war. Then again, one could argue the Kamikaze case here.. but I don't think the Caldari were ever in quite that type of situation on the whole. Tacklers flying into enemy battleships/carriers to save larger forces though.. why not?
I'd also note that in digging into Finnish military subjects as fuel for Caldari military ideas, I would point out one clear difference which must be accounted for - at least for the modern Caldari military machine (things might've been different during the war). The Caldari have a well developed, serious military machine able to rival any comers. Finnish military is certainly not that so its doctrine will be shaped accordingly.
In a scenario where Finland is invaded, the aim is to make any such attempt as difficult and costly as possible to make the notion politically an undesirable option. You'd rather use diplomatic coercion to get Finland to at least partly acquiesce to your desires rather than waste all the manpower to invade... and for what? We're not exactly abundant in exploitable resources. The Caldari are thinking on a whole different level.
As for why a poster's cultural origins might be important.. for one, and to blatantly generalize for argument's sake here, I find Americans to be very focused on force projection ideas. This is understandable. Not only are they the best at it in the world, but they're also not typically seriously worried about an invasion on home soil. The Caldari mind-set would be vastly different.
-
An example of an uneven withdrawal would be the center of a formation collapsing, drawing the enemy to follow. The flanks then conduct the double envelopment.
Sounds like the battle of Cannae :p Anyway, It's time for me to get some sleep, but will being replying in-depth to your post tomorrow. Great stuff!
-
And all those require buy-in from the troops, because sometimes executing those moves means you don't get on the kill mails.
Biggest problem implementing amongst players; but the Caldari do not have such motivations.
-
Wow. I've found this really interesting... very cool reading, and I've learnt a lot. Just thought I'd flag that.
-
Now, I am not very well aware of the WW II era Red Army tactics in the Winter War, but even when discussing that conflict, it is worth to remember that the "Generic East European country" currently reinforces (according to what we were taught in the Army) the breakthroughs when attacking. That is, if two units are attacked, and one of them is stopped, the Russ- ahem, Yellow Country* unit A2 commander will reinforce the unit that is still attacking. When possible routes are limited, this may lead the advancing force getting into a trap. (This is changing, however. It's already some time since my service, and even back then, the "target unit" we practiced against was being changed from the division-level to a detached motorized brigade.)
For the Caldari, I'd personally think that the German Auftragstaktik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics)) should be studied. The FDF applies similar ideas. The current doctrine is based around "deep leadership", which may or may not be copied from Bernard M. Bass's "transformational leadership" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership)) The implementation varies, there's a joke in FDF where the "old school" instructors giving only lip service to the "deep leadership" principles are practicing "from the deep (where the sun doesn't shine) leadership".
*) Due to historical political reasons, FDF does play blue vs. yellow instead of blue vs. red in war games.
-
Due to historical political reasons, FDF does play blue vs. yellow instead of blue vs. red in war games.
The US utilizes blue vs red for historical reasons as well and from my understanding it is foundational in origin; the Continental Army's regulars wore Blue, while the British Regulars wore Red(coats).
I suspect the Caldari/Gallente utilize a "Green vs ..." in their wargames. Perhaps a Green vs Orange?
-
Now, I am not very well aware of the WW II era Red Army tactics in the Winter War, but even when discussing that conflict, it is worth to remember that the "Generic East European country" currently reinforces (according to what we were taught in the Army) the breakthroughs when attacking. That is, if two units are attacked, and one of them is stopped, the Russ- ahem, Yellow Country* unit A2 commander will reinforce the unit that is still attacking. When possible routes are limited, this may lead the advancing force getting into a trap. (This is changing, however. It's already some time since my service, and even back then, the "target unit" we practiced against was being changed from the division-level to a detached motorized brigade.)
That seems to have been Soviet/Russian military doctrine throughout history. They work on the principle of overwhelming force. It just didn't work in Finland, but it might've been more of a miracle than proof that the doctrine itself is unfeasible. Or a question of a square-peg-in-round-hole type of dilemma with the conditions in Finland being the round hole for the Soviet square peg. Also, as much as the Russians rely on the winter to help them win defensive wars, they certainly got a taste of that in Finland on the other side of the equation.
The same doctrine worked well for them when they came crashing towards Berlin, but the key thing is that after the Winter War the Russians looked hard at their military and made renovations/improvements. Their poor performance in the Winter War may have contributed to German willingness to assault Russia because they got a humiliating beatdown there. But with the updated Red Army after that conflict, the Russians were not the easy pickings they might've looked like.
This actually begs the question that maybe the Gallente military was changed after the Caldari war? Again, I'm not sure the PF really directly supports that, especially with the supposed current poor condition of the Gallente Navy. Alternatively, maybe the renovations failed? Or the Gallente are still in need of those changes, but an unwilling Senate hasn't given them the funds/approvals necessary. Did the Gallente military expect to just roll over the Caldari in the first place?
-
I think Gallente might be green versus sandy brown (if the Navy Issue ships are anything to go by). In the battle of Caldari Prime in 110, I always pictured the Fed soldiers being dressed in white, to contrast with the Caldari's black (I think that's the colour they wore in Cities of Refuge).
The Federation military is a different beast to the Caldari Navy. Being larger, and directly representative of the Federation's government (ie. answers to the President), it's an influence projection tool, whereas the State would use the eight security forces for that. We know that Caldari schools are pure practically-minded, and I explored elsewhere that Federation officers have to be well-rounded, politically and socially minded individuals (what I'm finding out as a student officer for the Royal Navy at least) which could contrast with the Caldari being more outright, purely militaristic.
The Gallentean military also takes part in humanitarian endeavours as well, civil affairs and whatnot. I get the sense the Caldari Navy/Army is purely focused on combat.
That is one thing I'm slowly learning actually. An RN Lt warned me at HMNB Clyde, as we were going to get passes to get to the secure area of the base from the MOD office...
"Okay, these guys are civilians, so they have no sense of humour"
Applying this to EVE, perhaps Gallentean military officers are more relaxed and friendly, with this whole emphasis on "well-rounded individuals", but being able to get into a professional mindset when necessary. This fits in with their luxurious, hedonistic societies. Caldari would be your more "Sir yes sir" bellowing.
I had a drink with the officers of the HMS Vanguard there, in fact. It was laughing and joking, extremely relaxed, and even treatment of the captain (an RN Commander) was the same, except they called him "sir". RN officers call each other by their first names except in the presence of ratings. Even senior ratings, like Chief Petty Officers, tend to be called by their first names by superiors, usually nicknames (Scotty for Scott, Mitch for their surname being Mitchell). The RN is overall much more relaxed than the Nelsonian image people have, especially compared to the draconian British Army and Royal Marines.
Then again, the FNA corp desc was updated on the wiki (and in char gen) to state that "it was draconian even for a military school". So who knows.
EDIT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWQinmBjBk&feature=related A recruitment video for the British Army.
-
Over Christmas vacation in 1987, after Boyd had completed the bulk of his work, I happened upon Tom Peter's Thriving on Chaos. It struck me that Peters could have modeled his organizational climate and culture after Boyd's. Moreover, Peters insisted that his recommendations enabled companies to reach decisions quickly, which was a point Boyd had been briefing around the Pentagon for the last ten years.
I called Boyd and told him that he had to read Peter's book. He did, and that lead him to the Toyota Production System and the works of the creators of that system, particularly Shigeo Shingo and Taiichi Ohno, and to the papers just published by researchers from the International Motor Vehicle Program under way at MIT to see if the Japanese did build better cars cheaper or if they were dumping the at below cost into the US market.
The upshot of all of this was that Boyd concluded that the Toyota Production System was another implementation of the principles he had associated with Blitzkrieg. As odd as this may seem - a doctrine of war and a car manufacturing system turning out to be brothers under the skin - they both use time as their principle strategic device, their organizational climates share several elements, and they both trace back to the school of strategy whose earliest known documentation is Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
My plan in this book is to introduce Boyd's philosophy of conflict, for which I'll use the term "maneuver conflict," by examining how it works in the two primary areas were it has been applies: in armed conflict as maneuver warfare and in manufacturing as the Toyota Production System.
-
After the war, American strategist did get the opportunity to talk with many of the practitioners of Blitzkrieg. Amidst all the war stories, a pattern became clear: The toots of success in 1940 lay in the German system for dealing with people; it was cultural rather than technical. Here I am using 'cultural' in the sense of 'business culture,' not as a national trait. From his conversations with the German generals and his study of their experiences and doctrine, Boyd extracted the four concepts show below.
Einheit: Mutual trust, unity, and cohesion.
Fingerspitzengefuhl: Intuitive feel, especially for complex and potentially chaotic situations.
Auftragstaktik: Mission, generally considered as a contract between superior and subordinate
Schwerpunkt: Any concept that provides focus and direction to the operation
-
Nice two posts there. I would repeat and emphasize the importance of Toyota's business practices. They totally changed how business is managed across the world. They destroyed the American car industry. It's very interesting to see that there's a connection to Boyd, since both Boyd's ideas and Toyota's practices have exploded my worldview each in turn. For those not usually interested in looking at business management, I'd still advice you to have a gander at the Toyota stuff. I don't think I need to re-iterate that you need to study Boyd if you haven't already from all the love he's been getting in this thread.
Fingerspitzengefuhl. What a mouthful. Translates to "näppituntuma" in Finnish, btw (anyone conversant in both Finnish and German, please verify that!). If you wanna succeed, you need guys with a lot of this in your organization.
-
I gotta say, from the perspective of a Gallente RPer, that this thread expands and builds a much more concise view of the likely mindset Caldari people might portray in game.
Specially it answers a very specific questions that has nagged me for years, if the Caldari and Gallente found each other in the same planetary system and choose to cooperate to soar the stars, what created the deep schism that ended in todays geo-political situation and mutual hate?.
Just from reading the above, i found quite believable answers.
-
It's funny, I'd have much more interest in business management than the operational art of war. (Even if that was an awesome game. :yar:)
-
Just thought of the perfect parallel for the Finnish motti in an applied Eve situation.
A juicy bait force jumps present itself, fleeing. The enemy pursues and jumps through a gate (or two) to follow them. Subsequently, forces are re-deployed so that all outbound gates at the pursuit force's current location are covered with sizable counter forces. In this way the enemy force is isolated in locked down systems, eliminating their capacity to function together on the strategic level without running into/through heavy opposition. If all is well, you have carriers on stand-by to reinforce any gate that actually gets attacked. This could also be done as a log-in trap (:P). That's double envelopment and a by-the-book motti for you.
-
Fun fact - I have noticed, in my time in the militias, that there are far more Americans in the Gallente militia, and far more Finns, Norwegians and Eastern Europeans in the Caldari militia. Going from bios and activity times especially.
-
Well... Read the Federation description, hardly a wonder there! :D
Really on topic:
Exceptional read, thank you for the work you've put in!
Having almost finished TEA I can only say: Too bad TonyG didn't bother researching. :s
-
Good exploration in this thread, Hamish.
But I do agree with your disclaimer that CCP didn't base the Caldari fleet designs on this, rather they were the "missile race" and developed backwards from there.
-
Good exploration in this thread, Hamish.
But I do agree with your disclaimer that CCP didn't base the Caldari fleet designs on this, rather they were the "missile race" and developed backwards from there.
I'm not sure if you mean that you don't think CCP put that much thought into the PF, or if you don't think the principles of Maneuver Conflict are applicable to missile ships in Eve. If it's the former, then I'd say you might be right. If it's the latter then I’d say I’ve done a rather poor job of explaining the concept.
Maneuver warfare is not about the tactics or techniques used in employing a specific weapon system. It’s about war-fighting strategy and can be used with if you’re fielding spears, muskets, tanks, nukes or playing chess.
Leon 026 of Veto corp once wrote a guide to flying the crow class interceptor on the now defunct eve-greifer website that was a perfect example of a single pilot using maneuver warfare concepts. The specific tactics have changed due to the micro-warpdrive/ warp disruptor changes – but things like figuring out the other guys exact fit based on his speed alone is still applicable. I may have a surviving copy on a thumb drive somewhere that I’ll share with you if I find it.
While Leon's guide is an example of a single pilot applying the theory (even if he didn’t know it) – what I’m getting at here it's scaled up to organizational level and how doing just that affected Caldari culture. Maneuver warfare It’s about being more agile than your opponent.
In the case of two frigate pilots squaring off, agility in this context is not about which frigate is faster. It’s about which pilot can figure out what he needs to do to beat the other guy first. If a Crow pilot sees that the other guy is in a wolf traveling at 600ms and realizes that it’s fit with an afterburner, plate, ACs, and a scram and thus can easily be kited by his own rocket crow before the other guy realizes that the Caldari guy isn’t a total fucking moron for bringing a Crow into PVP after all then he has moved through the first OODA-loop faster.
I’m not done with this thread, I still have some more things to post. However, I intended to break down each of the tenets of maneuver warfare I listed above, but it's clear now that I need to delve into OODA loops and agility first.
-
The OODA Loop model was developed by Col. John Boyd, USAF (Ret) during the Korean War. It is a concept consisting of the following four actions:
-Observe
-Orient
-Decide
-Act
The premise of the model is that decision-making is the result of rational behavior in which problems are viewed as a cycle of Observation, Orientation (situational awareness), Decision Making, and Action.
An entity (whether an individual or an organization) that can process this cycle more quickly than an opponent can “get inside” the opponent's decision cycle and gain the advantage.
Observation
Scan the environment and gather information from it.
Orientation
Use the information to form a mental image of the circumstances. That is, synthesize the data into information. As more information is received, you "deconstruct" old images and then "create" new images.
Decision
Consider options and select a subsequent course of action.
Action
Carry out the conceived decision. Once the result of the action is observed, you start over. Note that in combat (or competing against the competition), you want to cycle through the four steps faster and better than the enemy, hence, it is a loop.
The loop doesn't mean that individuals or organizations have to observe, orient, decide, and act, in the order as shown in the diagram above. Rather, picture the loop as an interactive web with orientation at the core, as shown in the diagram below. Orientation is how we interpret a situation, based on culture, experience, new information, analysis, synthesis, and heritage
(http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leadership/pics/OODA.png)
-
As a fighter pilot during the Korean conflict, and afterward an instructor at the US Air Force Fighter Weapons School, Boyd wondered why the F-86 `Sabre' had managed to compile a 10:1 victory ratio over the MiG-15 in Korea, despite the fact that the Russian fighter was by most measures the superior plane.
It could fly higher and farther, turn tighter, and climb and accelerate faster than its American opponent. Boyd concluded that the F-86's hydraulic controls, which allowed a pilot to transition more quickly from one manoeuvre to another, also enabled him to neutralize and overcome what should have been the MiG's technical superiority. This conclusion led Boyd in turn to a theory of energy as the crucial factor in aerial combat, a finding that is now the basis of fighter pilot training throughout the world.
It also guided the development of the follow-on McDonnell-Douglas F-15 `Eagle' and especially the small, lightweight, and comparatively inexpensive General Dynamics F-16 `Fighting Falcon', now flown by 25 air forces.
The American pilot also benefited from the F-86's bubble canopy, which gave him greater situational awareness than his adversary. Not only was his aircraft faster to react, but he was better able to see what the other pilot was doing-an advantage that eventually led Boyd to realize that all combat involves a cycle of Observation, Orientation, Decision, and Action.
-
I like that graph visualization, though for reasons unrelated to EVE. :)
-
Observation
Observation is about sensing information about the environment your conflict is taking place in.
For pilots dogfighting over MIG ally during the Korean war the shape of your canapé meant you could either see what the enemy pilot on your six was doing or you couldn’t.
Similarly, while dogfighting outside Jita 4-4 (best place for 1v1s btw) your overview settings, visually looking at the guns on his ship, and the age of the character play a huge part in determining what information you have about your opponents fit and how you will choose to proceed. If one pilot has his overview set up poorly, he’ll be at a disadvantage to one who doesn’t.
In a fleet however; the quality and number of scouts you have, the way in which you communicate with the scout, the orders you give them, and your intelligence channels are the source of information you have about the environment. If you have one scout, you are FCing via text, don’t have access to local intel channels, and don’t give clear tasking to him then you won’t have as much information about the environment as other FCs.
None of these have anything to do with whether you are using missiles or autocannons.
-
-- Disclaimer : The following is an attempted guide to interceptor combat, specifically dogfighting. I wont presume to know everything about it, so I want as much input from other people as possible to compile a fairly effective and efficient 'manual' to give new interceptor dogfighters a general idea to aim for. More complicated maneuvers, fittings etc should be in 202 and not 101. --
- Goal -
Purpose of this interceptor dogfighting manual is to give the student and learner a basic understanding of what it means to dogfight, how to dogfight, and how to prepare oneself for dogfighting maneuvers.
* Dogfighting 101
...will cover domain awareness and initial preperation for dogfighting through the usage of overview settings to understand the enemy maneuvers and decipher opponent attack strategies that are to be countered.
* Dogfighting 202
...will delve more into overall combat strategies, and very general fitting advise to combat the hostile interceptor in a dogfight.
* Dogfighting 303
(coming 'soon') will explore aerial combat maneuvers through usage of feints, and other manually flown combat strategies
-- Dogfighting 101 --
Awareness
Awareness is probably one of the most important part of dogfighting. Without domain awareness, you wont function to the best of your abilities.
Most important rule : Always check your six.
Too many times people are overly concentrated on their prey that they dont check their six, or let alone monitor their overview enough. Happened to me previously where I was too focused on a target, that I didnt noticed the cruiser MWDing behind me. Needlessly to say I got killed quickly. With the way interceptors work, most of the time you'll be looking 180 degrees infront, very rare that you'll be looking behind you unless your target has evaded and attempted to get on your six where you have trouble seeing. Constantly monitoring the overview is essential to surviving.
Distance
Distance, key to survival and actual killing. Without knowing distance you cant operate. Without knowing the distance, you cant accurately fire your weapons for full effect. Without knowing distance, you wont know how to evade, what to evade and when to evade.
Important things to remember, standard web is 10km, medium nos is 12km, and heavy nos is 21-24km. Know your weapons, know the enemy's weapons.
You will need to memorize your ship's equipment, optimal range, max range, minimum range.
You wont have to go as far as to say "max range of enemy crow is 14.8474km", but you will need to know YOUR own engagement, and with a rough idea of the enemy range. Claw standard skills is 4-8km (4 with any ammo, 8 with Barrage) for exmaple, blasteranis is similar at 1-2km, railranis is 8-14km typical range, pulse sader is under 5k, beam sader is 15-20km with aurora S, rocket crow is 13-15km, and typical light missile crow is 30-35km. Know the range of the enemy weapon and learn how to evade and/or get under his guns.
Ship
Like above, knowing the enemy ship, is half the battle. Most ships have typical setups. You wont see a crow with x2 blasters for example, nor will you see a taranis with artillery mounted. Common sense? Perhaps, but you will still need to check the enemy ship if you plan on engaging.
Knowing the enemy ship also brings in possible options of enemy attack patterns. If the guy is a missile crow, he'll try and kite you and lead you into his missiles. If the guy is a blasterranis, he'll try and get right on top of you. Learn the enemy ship and learn possible enemy interceptor strategies (covered later in 202 and 303) to evade and engage the hostile with minimum personal risk.
Target velocity
Overlooked, but THE most important part of interceptor combat. How so? First of all, velocity allows you to know whos faster than who. Velocity is the key to survival in combat, the faster you are, the better you are at dictating speed. Perhaps you are in an AB std missile crow that uses his low velocity to 'bait' the enemy into coming in, velocity still plays a hugely important part.
Velocity will tell you and force you to ask these questions :
- Is he using plates?
- Is he using nanofibers?
- Is he using a t2 or good microwarpdrive?
- Is he using gistii?
- Is he using implants?
- Is he using any of the above?
- Is he using all of the above?
- Or even, are his skills any decent?
5,000m/s.
What does that number tell you? Whats the first thing that you think of?
"Wow thats fast"?
Wrong question.
5,000m/s .... question should be HOW and WHY is he going at that speed?
Instantly that number alone should tell you he is either using a gistii MWD with no implants, or a T2 MWD with implants, or possibly using a mixture of T2 and implants with low skills.
3,200 m/s
What should be the first thing you notice? Relative low speed can mean he's got crappy navigation skills. Perhaps, but more realistically, he's using a 400mm plate with a T1/named MWD. T2 MWD with plate? You're looking at 3,800 - 4,000.
As a rule of thumb, your interceptor velocity should aim for at least 4,000m/s. 4,000m/s is slightly above 'average' interceptor speeds. Gurus that fly at 6,700m/s.... well you should know the answer
Target transversal velocity
This is more important for your survival than actual killing the enemy, while also is important. Low transveral, means larger and bigger guns have more of a chance to hit you.
Ever get told never fly straight towards a battleship? Good reason not to. 0m/s transversal towards a battleship means you'll be one volleyed with little effort if he decides to fire at you. That goes for both moving in and moving out of hostile combat range. Moving to 250km above the fleet in a straight line means you'll be killed. Rather, you'll have to 'spiral' up while keeping high transversal to evade fire. This also includes going in. If the enemy is already engage, then you dont have to worry as much, you should however, if the enemy has a lock on you.
In which case, you'll have to zig-zag towards the enemy at an angle to increase your transversal to 800+ to evade fire properly.
Transversal is life. Get it too low, and you blow up.
Comments, questions, constructive criticism and etc is most welcome. I need more input!
-Leon
-
Observation
For pilots dogfighting over MIG ally during the Korean war the shape of your canapé meant you could either see what the enemy pilot on your six was doing or you couldn’t.
My canapé is shaped like a sword! Om nom garde!
-
(http://jessicaisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/homer_facepalm.jpg)
-
The Science of Never Again (http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=03-dec-02)
"The truce that left Caldari Prime—once the home world for millions of Caldari—legally in the hands of the Gallente Federation was the breaking point"
2003 chronicle, but only reference for exact population.
-
I'm not sure if you mean that you don't think CCP put that much thought into the PF, or if you don't think the principles of Maneuver Conflict are applicable to missile ships in Eve. If it's the former, then I'd say you might be right. If it's the latter then I’d say I’ve done a rather poor job of explaining the concept.
I'm saying they very likely came up with what they would shoot first, then based speed and agility on what they needed to be in order to balance the game. To allow maneuver warfare for the Caldari and Minmatar if you will.
-
You can't "allow" a certain race to use maneuver warfare by make their ships faster and more agile. It has nothing to do with physical speed and agility.