Print

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

[Seriphyn]

Another Serithread speculating at various aspects of New Eden...

I'm a big fan of military sci-fi, even if that's mostly restricted to video games. I was reading up about Halo's UNSC, the Halo universe having a particular focus on military aspects. They have a Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army....which is basically just a straight up ripoff of the US military without any thought to be original. It is stated that the UNSC Air Force and Army occupy territory as a 'defensive force'.

So as such I decided to poke around such fiction in EVE. The new Amarr Navy corp desc states how the force stretches back to the original reclaiming on Athra, probably meaning they operated ships and the like. As such, would the modern Amarr Navy continue to operate a maritime component? Would the other faction navies do this? Gallente Prime looks pretty maritime...

I then thought of air forces, and different branches of faction militaries. This article, written by CCP Ginger explores some ideas. The Federation is the only faction that seems to have Marines as a separate branch altogether ("Federation Marines"), while the Caldari follow the more common tradition to have marines as an infantry force within their main Navy body. I was thinking if the Federation is into superficial extravagancies just cause it looks good, then they may operate a "Federation Air Force" that is in charge of atmospheric aircraft, drones and defence satellites...a nice typical waste of taxpayer's money instead of making things cheaper and integrating their role into the Army or Navy. This was more of a 'sake of completion' thing. There is the idea of the "Gallentean armed forces" and "all areas of the armed services". This GFAF may be used to defend lowsec colonies, instead of deploying Navy assets which may be far more expensive.

The Caldari would mostly likely operate air forces as subbranches of their megacorporate militaries, similar to Home Guard Infantry Division and Ishukone Watch Special Forces, as I imagine the CEP don't have a need to independently operate an air force defensively, when such baseline defence would be the responsibility of the megacorps.

Anyway, a mostly inconsequential ramble.

[Boma Airaken]

Very thought inspiring Seri.

Seems to me they would all have atmospheric air forces and so called wet navies as part of planetside police forces. It is hard for me to really see a unified spaceborne military and planetside policing body.

[Ken]

Ground forces in space-heavy sci-fi have always irked me a bit.  I'm a firm adherent to the idea that space superiority (specifically orbital superiority) would decide any such conflict in a setting like EVE.  If they have defenses on the surface that will give your troops difficulty, you lance them from orbit.

Thus, a sci-fi ground force only has one purpose: garrisoning.  They either sit around and keep things in order on your own planets (like cops) or drop down on freshly conquered worlds and instill order in the enemy populace by defeating guerrilla resistance and supporting your proxy regime (notionally like NATO forces in Afghanistan).

As for wet navies, I doubt there would be any reason to develop or deploy a military vehicle that was restricted to water.  Given a sufficient technological level to create FTL starships on the scale of titans, there has got to be a superior all-terrain military vehicle platform that can fly, float, and submerse.  If you've ever seen the move "A.I.", it'd sort of be like the police hovercraft/helicopter/submarine thing they steal away with toward the end of the film.

[Casiella]

I suspect that, in some form or fashion, infantry will always play a role in human warfare. The advent of air and space warfare, including nuclear weaponry, has not changed the fact that taking and holding territory requires boots on the ground.

[Julianus Soter]

A space-bound weapon is a blunt instrument. Any weapon system that can be de-orbited or fired directly to the surface, is large and fast enough to penetrate anti-ballistic defense systems on the surface, and hit a target, will probably also crater most of the surrounding area, if only from the kinetic energy involved.

Planets are a dime a dozen. Populations, infrastructure, industry, culture, those things take time to grow.

Which is, of course, the premise behind Dust 514. Why bother with ground combat if you could just lance everything from orbit? Because the 'soft touch' of combat troops allows acquisition of supplies, labor, factories, and sensitive intelligence. And in the scheme of things, it's very cheap to arm a dude with a gun and some basic comm gear, body armor, and perhaps an APC, compared to kilometer-long battleships piloted by extremely rare demigods.

An airforce would likely be UAV's, commanded by a regional command center. A live human being wouldn't be able to respond rapidly enough to the flow of a modern New Eden battlezone, while moving at supersonic velocities during combat.

[Seriphyn]

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=1371.0

Decided to be creative and invent a Federation Air Force, while keeping it within what we know and what can be expected of them silly Gallente.

[Saxon Hawke]

A space-bound weapon is a blunt instrument. Any weapon system that can be de-orbited or fired directly to the surface, is large and fast enough to penetrate anti-ballistic defense systems on the surface, and hit a target, will probably also crater most of the surrounding area, if only from the kinetic energy involved.

Planets are a dime a dozen. Populations, infrastructure, industry, culture, those things take time to grow.

Which is, of course, the premise behind Dust 514. Why bother with ground combat if you could just lance everything from orbit? Because the 'soft touch' of combat troops allows acquisition of supplies, labor, factories, and sensitive intelligence. And in the scheme of things, it's very cheap to arm a dude with a gun and some basic comm gear, body armor, and perhaps an APC, compared to kilometer-long battleships piloted by extremely rare demigods.

An airforce would likely be UAV's, commanded by a regional command center. A live human being wouldn't be able to respond rapidly enough to the flow of a modern New Eden battlezone, while moving at supersonic velocities during combat.

Julianus and I don't agree on everything, but this is one where we do.

To use a real world example, let's look at Afghanistan and the U.S. operations there. As part of my as a journalist, I had the opportunity to interview a Stealth bomber pilot who flew missions there in the early days of the war. He said within a week and half they had located and destroyed every significant strategic target in the country. For the next two weeks, they hit secondary targets and then they blew up a few targets that may or may or not have been terrorist training camps. And then they were done.

Sure we could have put a few MOABs (Mothers Of All Bombs) on the Stealths and turned the whole place into a dead zone, but that isn't what we were after. After the big "hard" targets were gone, it was the job of the Army and Marines to come in and work on the "soft" targets.

The same would be true of an Eve conflict. Orbital bombardment is a good way to start, but unless you're going for a scorched earth policy, you'll need conventional troops to finish the job.

[Mithfindel]

Also directly referenced in some chrons. There's policing jobs, station security, and the sort of that. Think about the basic role of fortifications - fortifications do not stop invaders (unless the whole place is a fort), but they can tie up forces. Sure, you can blockade the planet from the orbit, but it'll tie to fleet there. You either need to give up taking the planet (if the fleet leaves, the surface forces can be resupplied) or then you need to take control of the most important surface locations.

"Need to take it intact" (Caldari Prime etc.), "need policing" (many Amarr worlds) and "nuke it from the orbit" (Starkmanir Prime, to a degree Eanna) have all been seen in the Prime Fiction.

And oh, on Oceanic planets you'd most certainly need wet navies. Possibly other planets with deep oceans, since makeshift and multi-use craft likely couldn't match the "home advantage" dedicated craft would have. But naturally, this would depend from world to world, no need for a navy on a world with no bodies of open water.

[Ken]

This is a very interesting topic to me, and I'm going to try and refine some of my points in light of everyone's posts thus far.  Please don't take these responses as combative.  I'll simply be trying to provide contrast and expand the discussion.  tl;dr at the bottom of the post

on Oceanic planets you'd most certainly need wet navies...makeshift and multi-use craft likely couldn't match the "home advantage" dedicated craft would have.

Would not a dedicated surface vessel be inferior to a weapons platform that could travel and fight above, on, and below the liquid surface?  It would be like the Hindenburg trying to fight an Apache.

this would depend from world to world, no need for a navy on a world with no bodies of open water.

I believe this reinforces the strategic advantage of developing and fielding one all-environment or multi-use vehicle instead of multiple environment-specific ones.  Orbit-bound fleets need only bring along one division of ground forces equipped with such versatile vehicles rather than separate divisions of land, sea, and air forces. 

Moreover, specialized equipment requires a multiplication of training and support apparatuses whereas a unified platform and force only needs one pipeline for men and materiel.  It would be much easier to pick up a regiment of troops trained on a wet planet and deploy them to an arid one if the equipment they use remains essentially the same.

A space-bound weapon is a blunt instrument. Any weapon system that can be de-orbited or fired directly to the surface, is large and fast enough to penetrate anti-ballistic defense systems on the surface, and hit a target, will probably also crater most of the surrounding area, if only from the kinetic energy involved.

Strategic bombardment needn't necessarily be kinetic bombardment.  You could perhaps penetrate defense systems by saturating them with comparatively low-velocity munitions rather than one non-interceptable high-velocity attack or render defenses useless by entirely non-kinetic means (electronic warfare, EMP, sabotage).  There would certainly be other tools available to achieve the same effect, if desired.

let's look at Afghanistan and the U.S. operations there

Thank you for sharing this, Saxon.  The stealth bomber pilot's story is an excellent illustration of the need for boots on the ground in certain situations.  You cannot win hearts and minds with giant bombs.

Orbital bombardment is a good way to start, but unless you're going for a scorched earth policy, you'll need conventional troops to finish the job.

I agree completely, but I think I define "conventional troops" in this respect differently that most of you might. 

The stealth bomber, with pinpoint guidance from special operations assets, took out all conventional resistance and then some just to be sure.  In sci-fi terms, it functions as the dominant fleet in orbit over a target planet, reducing the enemy's ground defenses before a landing. 

Now, the main body of troops arriving after such bombardment is there for, as Julianus says, the "acquisition of supplies, labor, factories, and sensitive intelligence" and more directly the acquisition of "[p]opulations, infrastructure, industry, culture".  Those things are the real prize.  Yet, counterintuitively, they are not won with tanks and guns.

The true battle in post-invasion Iraq and post-bombardment Afghanistan is/was fought on "human terrain".  The primary forces in such a fight consist of civil affairs, civil engineering, intelligence, and psychological operations forces.  If you can get them to like you enough and cow the loudest of them that resists, guerrilla attack will subside, the people will cooperate with you, and they'll adopt the cultural traits you want them to have.

Unfortunately...

a dude with a gun and some basic comm gear, body armor, and perhaps an APC

...cannot win that fight.

Here's the chron that I think applies most directly to this topic.

The kernel of victory in a war fought on "human terrain" would look like this, a line from that chron, taking place in the narrative of the target population:

In a whisper Jeb asked me whether we were lost, and I didn't know what to tell him. A part of me - the rebellious part, I supposed, though it didn't feel quite so - wanted to say yes. Another, more sensible part suspected that we might have a new world on our hands.

"We might have a new world on our hands."  Tacit realization that perhaps invasion wasn't the end of everything good.  There might be hope or even benefit in adapting and changing to fit in with the invaders.  You get them all (or enough) to think like that, and you create a new subject and/or allied nation out of an enemy.

tl;dr What you need are big guns up top and dropships full of Quafe and exotic dancers.

[Casiella]

While I don't agree with everything he's written, Thomas P.M. Barnett has written extensively on this sort of concept. Ken probably knows more than I do on this (not saying much there, I suppose ) but The Pentagon's New Map presented an interesting military model: the Leviathan (an overwhelmingly powerful force that eliminates the opposition force quickly) and the SysAdmin (building back up a replacement infrastructure and functioning government).

I've oversimplified, of course, but the model matches fairly closely with the ideas in the conduct of the US' recent wars, if not the execution, and certainly with the idea that orbital bombardment alone isn't sufficient to achieve most long-term geopolitical (astropolitical?) objectives.

[Julianus Soter]

It's not a matter of winning hearts and minds. Do you want the robotic infrastructure to produce an infinite stream of weapons, or don't you? Or perhaps a coolant refinery megacomplex. Firing a few shots at a Oxide production plant would probably have some nasty side-effects.

My point regarding dude-with-gun is that a person with a weapon and training to use it is difficult to defeat from a remote distance, when said person and his friends are distributed over a large surface area. Every hour or two a space-bound bombardment platform is spent shooting at humans on the surface of a planet with high-yield weapons is a gift.

An army exerts control and writ of law. An MP can enforce behaviors, and provide coercive force. A nuclear warhead provides consequences. The threat of a nuclear warhead can also influence behaviors. . . but it can't tell you to drive on the left side of the road.

[Ken]

It's not a matter of winning hearts and minds.

It absolutely is.

An army exerts control and writ of law. An MP can enforce behaviors, and provide coercive force.

Unless you have broken the target population's will completely (see Germany after strategic bombing and Japan after nuclear bombing), coercive force will not produce the behavior you want over the long term, if even then.  If you ever plan to go home, you must use persuasive force to make the target population want to do what you want them to do.

My point regarding dude-with-gun is that a person with a weapon and training to use it is difficult to defeat from a remote distance, when said person and his friends are distributed over a large surface area.

It is precisely because this is true that coercive force (that is, classic warfare) will not defeat a dedicated guerrilla enemy.  If you win the hearts and minds, the gentlemen with guns spread out over a large surface area (or among a large population) will no longer want to use their guns against you and may very well apply to use them on your behalf.

[Julianus Soter]

I don't think we're talking about the same things here, ken.

There's defensive applications and offensive applications. An MP is a defensive application, in a territory under 'control'. Commandos would be an offensive application.

The goal of a capsuleer is the acquisition and repurposing of existing assets and resources.

What in there implies a necessity to win the hearts and minds? they only need to have control for a few months to robo-mine the area and then leave. 

Now, large-scale occupations as done by the Empires indicates that standard oppressive tactics and martial law work just fine on a planetary level. Caldari Prime is our main example of this.

As Seriphyn Inhonores presented during the Second Seyllin Conference, rapid-strike invasions of the surface involve superior coordination of ground forces and space-bound assets to control strategic locations, achieve objectives, then leave. This was demostrated in the Elder War.

Therefore, as in real life, a New Eden planet-bound force would be geared for a specific set of objectives, as has already been discussed. Likewise, a 'marine' unit targeting a planet would be organized around a specific combat doctrine for the desired goals.

In both cases, the necessity of flesh and blood troops was brought about by Command's desire to acquire resources, rather than deny them.

A blockade denies resources. A nuke denies resources. A drop ship takes something, and makes it your own.

Hearts and minds are a matter for politicians and Empires to worry about. Each faction has their method.

[Graelyn]

While I don't agree with everything he's written, Thomas P.M. Barnett has written extensively on this sort of concept.

That man is a genius.

I highly recommend anyone to see his TED presentation: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[orange]

On empire Air Forces:  They should not have them.  Independent Air Forces are unique to civilizations fighting conflicts on a single world.  Even as you move to just multiple planetary civilizations in conflict, air power will begin to take a back seat to space power.

I am not saying you will not have aircraft/aerospace craft, far from it, but the strategic roles that lead to an independent Air Force move to a space force while the tactical roles can be consumed back into the forces they support.

We can see this in some respects today with the US Air Force.  It is struggling to find its place in a post-Cold War military, where much of its role is aimed at supporting friendly ground forces and not readying itself to fight the strategic campaigns that gave it independence (see WWII air war in Europe).  Both the Navy and Marines have integrated air components providing tactical support and the Army has a rotatory air force of its own.  Without a "big" strategic enemy, the US Air Force's raison d'etes is gone.