Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hamish Grayson]

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?

[GoGo Yubari]

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. 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?

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.

[Hamish Grayson]

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!

[orange]

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.

[Dex_Kivuli]

Wow. I've found this really interesting... very cool reading, and I've learnt a lot. Just thought I'd flag that.

[Mithfindel]

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) 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) 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.

[orange]

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?

[GoGo Yubari]

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?

[Seriphyn]

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.

[Hamish Grayson]

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. 

[Hamish Grayson]

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

[GoGo Yubari]

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.  

[Alain Colcer]

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.

[Casiella]

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. )

[GoGo Yubari]

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.