Posted - 2009.05.04 20:24:00 - [31]

 

Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 04/05/2009 20:25:07

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided.

---

Sun Tzu was well known for playing spaceship video games. You just need to throw in a reference to a well known european fascist dictator, and you can achieve Godwins law on the first page.

Edit: too slow, second page already, you could probably make up for it with some space Bushido quotes, and e-honour

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:27:00 - [33]

 

woah woah woah he whipped out sun tzu this has got to be a troll he's acting too much like the stereotypical honor pubbie

abort abort eject from thread eject from thread

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:30:00 - [35]

 

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Edited by: Teki Caldrum on 04/05/2009 20:19:43

Originally by: Snowden Vel

---

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

1.) Attrition.

---

Please take a moment and explain how attrition is not a part of every war.

---

Well, lets first look at what Attrition Warfare is.

Attrition Warfare is: Attrition Warfare is a tactic in which one party in a conflict attempts to wear down the other through use of superior forces in NUMBER. Meaning Quantity.

This will also help you understand:
Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided. In the sense that attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories through manoeuvre, concentration of force, surprise, and the like. On the other hand, a side which perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage in manoeuvre warfare or unit tactics may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages.

---

at⋅tri⋅tion
   /əˈtrɪʃən/ Pronunciation [uh-trish-uhn]
–noun
1. a reduction or decrease in numbers, size, or strength

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:32:00 - [37]

 

Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 04/05/2009 20:33:54
Way to derail your own thread btw

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:34:00 - [39]

 

Edited by: Terror Rising on 04/05/2009 20:36:07

Originally by: The Mittani

---

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Edited by: Teki Caldrum on 04/05/2009 19:25:13

Originally by: Terror Rising

---

Didn't Ken / Bob try and do this once and fail anyway?

---

No, they made a campaign called "MAX" which wasn't about gaining SOV. It was simply about doing MAXimum Damage.

BoB humbly accepted Delve as their home. They had the means to take down more regions, I'm sure.

However, unlike GoonSwarm, they liked to keep enemies. Which, in my opinion, is in good sportsmanship. What is the point of NAPing everyone and gaining complete control.

There will be minimal conflicts. Major power blocks will dictate if you're even *ABLE* to live in 0.0. It's unfair monopolization.

IMHO, it's going to ruin this aspect of the game.

---

someone who is a proud member of goodfellas speaks knowledgeably and accurately about the future course of politics in eve

ahahah tell me another one

---

What is even funnier, I wasn't even talking about "MAX" .. BOB/KEN failed the minute they "Stole Chowdown's Targets" (Molle's words paraphrased) .. Pity those targets shot back .. Ever since then, Bob has lost region after region. Dispute the figures or not, but that is when they were at their height ..

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=473050&page=1

EDITED: Wrong person

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:35:00 - [41]

 

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Well, lets first look at what Attrition Warfare is.

Attrition Warfare is: Attrition Warfare is a tactic in which one party in a conflict attempts to wear down the other through use of superior forces in NUMBER. Meaning Quantity.

This will also help you understand:
Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided. In the sense that attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories through manoeuvre, concentration of force, surprise, and the like. On the other hand, a side which perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage in manoeuvre warfare or unit tactics may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages.

---

In RL, attrition warfare is mainly to be avoided because *oh wonder* soldiers don't magically respawn when they die.

In EVE, the fact that everyone respawns pretty much instantly without significant losses (plus current POS mechanics) make attrition warfare the default situation for any territorial conflict.

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:39:00 - [43]

 

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Originally by: Flinx Evenstar

---

Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 04/05/2009 20:25:07

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided.

---

Sun Tzu was well known for playing spaceship video games. You just need to throw in a reference to a well known european fascist dictator, and you can achieve Godwins law on the first page.

Edit: too slow, second page already, you could probably make up for it with some space Bushido quotes, and e-honour

---

While EVE-online is a spaceship video game. Many IRL naval tactics can still be used within it.

While this is digital make-believe warfare. So are the flight simulators that aviators utilize.

So are the video games four and five star generals use to understand tactics better.

So are games like America's Army that US Soldiers use to understand warfare better.

Digital simulation, while make believe, is an effective way to understand warfare.

Man created war. Man created games that employ war.

It's all the same.

---

because we understand that eve is a spaceship game, goonswarm is a successful spaceholding alliance

because you are desperately trying to apply sun tzu to a spaceship game, you are some guy in goodfellas, one of the most catastrophic failures vomited forth by the GBC vassal system

voluntary participation and no risk of death or bodily injury ruins most of your silly ideas about 'real world' tactics and war advice

why am i even explaining this ugh go back to your sun tzu and your clausewitz and i'll focus on sov claims and towers and jammers and stuff that actually involves eve

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:40:00 - [45]

 

oh that is why i am being mean to the e-honor pubbie, i haven't had a snack in a while so i'm kinda low blood sugar, i get all cranky

time for a chocolate croissant from pret, they're always warm and fresh god damn i love chocolate

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:53:00 - [47]

 

For the sake of moral if nothing else, an enemy alliance with a name that can be mispronounced Can-Suck-You must be kept alive as long as possible.

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:58:00 - [49]

 

Originally by: Shamis Orzoz

---

I hate all you ***gots, and will have no qualms about turning on all our allies as soon as KenDoucheKu is dead.

---

gonna be some ~goodfights~

Posted - 2009.05.04 20:58:00 - [51]

 

Originally by: Elo Behram

---

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

BoB humbly accepted Delve as their home. They had the means to take down more regions, I'm sure.

However, unlike GoonSwarm, they liked to keep enemies. Which, in my opinion, is in good sportsmanship. What is the point of NAPing everyone and gaining complete control.

There will be minimal conflicts. Major power blocks will dictate if you're even *ABLE* to live in 0.0. It's unfair monopolization.

---

---

Clever =p

Posted - 2009.05.04 21:02:00 - [53]

 

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Originally by: Flinx Evenstar

---

Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 04/05/2009 20:25:07

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided.

---

Sun Tzu was well known for playing spaceship video games. You just need to throw in a reference to a well known european fascist dictator, and you can achieve Godwins law on the first page.

Edit: too slow, second page already, you could probably make up for it with some space Bushido quotes, and e-honour

---

While EVE-online is a spaceship video game. Many IRL naval tactics can still be used within it.

While this is digital make-believe warfare. So are the flight simulators that aviators utilize.

So are the video games four and five star generals use to understand tactics better.

So are games like America's Army that US Soldiers use to understand warfare better.

Digital simulation, while make believe, is an effective way to understand warfare.

Man created war. Man created games that employ war.

It's all the same.

---

Yeah Flinx you gay.

In eve when the FC calls: "GIVE 'EM A BROADSIDE" you can do that just like in RL.
Also in RL the FC can call siege green and shoot RL POSes with RL Dreads except Battleships are the ones you siege in RL because they are bigger buy whatev.
Double clicking in space is like exactly like flying in RL.
Americas army, you get to do like pretend medical work which is the exact same as RL medical work.

Its all EXACTLY THE SAME YOU TARD. EVE IS REAL!@!1111

Posted - 2009.05.04 21:13:00 - [55]

 

hes got a point really, i mean what do main 0.0 alliances do now..just kill poses thats it really and thats when the large fleet battles happen, and alot of the time its just waiting about, then big flash DD everyone goes home!..Yes ok ppl do roams but most of the time its killin poses and no time to roam.
Somethings got to be changed, dunno what tho. I still think limiting alliances to the amount of space they can gainwould be better, would encourage more real pvp in 0.0. Would cut down on blobs, just constant pos bashing. You cant add more space cos the napfest will just take it, but more and more ppl are joining and dont have a chance. I cant understand why CCP are not doing anything about it.

Posted - 2009.05.04 21:45:00 - [57]

 

Originally by: triman247

---

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Originally by: Flinx Evenstar

---

Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 04/05/2009 20:25:07

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided.

---

Sun Tzu was well known for playing spaceship video games. You just need to throw in a reference to a well known european fascist dictator, and you can achieve Godwins law on the first page.

Edit: too slow, second page already, you could probably make up for it with some space Bushido quotes, and e-honour

---

While EVE-online is a spaceship video game. Many IRL naval tactics can still be used within it.

While this is digital make-believe warfare. So are the flight simulators that aviators utilize.

So are the video games four and five star generals use to understand tactics better.

So are games like America's Army that US Soldiers use to understand warfare better.

Digital simulation, while make believe, is an effective way to understand warfare.

Man created war. Man created games that employ war.

It's all the same.

---

Yeah Flinx you gay.

In eve when the FC calls: "GIVE 'EM A BROADSIDE" you can do that just like in RL.
Also in RL the FC can call siege green and shoot RL POSes with RL Dreads except Battleships are the ones you siege in RL because they are bigger buy whatev.
Double clicking in space is like exactly like flying in RL.
Americas army, you get to do like pretend medical work which is the exact same as RL medical work.

Its all EXACTLY THE SAME YOU TARD. EVE IS REAL!@!1111

---

You're very simple.

First of all, modern day Navies don't utilize battleships anymore, they don't "broadside" anyone.

However, for some odd reason, they still utilize the same principles as they did when wooden ships existed with cannons.

Maneuvering all falls back to its basic roots. Logistics all fall back to their basic roots.

Tactical awareness, stressed decision making, espionage, all of these factors come from the real world.

After all, it is real people behind the computer screens.

IRL we don't have scouts, I guess.

IRL we don't have naval logistics, I suppose.

Hell, we don't even refit our war planes, ships, or land craft for specific purposes, do we?

What I was getting at is the basic tactics still apply to war in any degree.

Posted - 2009.05.04 21:57:00 - [59]

 

Originally by: Teki Caldrum

---

You're very simple.

First of all, modern day Navies don't utilize battleships anymore, they don't "broadside" anyone.

However, for some odd reason, they still utilize the same principles as they did when wooden ships existed with cannons.

Maneuvering all falls back to its basic roots. Logistics all fall back to their basic roots.

Tactical awareness, stressed decision making, espionage, all of these factors come from the real world.

After all, it is real people behind the computer screens.

IRL we don't have scouts, I guess.

IRL we don't have naval logistics, I suppose.

Hell, we don't even refit our war planes, ships, or land craft for specific purposes, do we?

What I was getting at is the basic tactics still apply to war in any degree.

---

I got news for you buddy, this aint a war, it's just a game. You should probably chillax bro.