David Corbett
   |
Posted - 2005.08.30 04:45:00 -
[1]
Obviously, the following is only my opinion and not anything official or representative of the higher-ups in ASCN: I'm not one of them.
Bantering about kills or victory, however, is rather meaningless. As is quite evident with the stats, ASCN as a whole did lose more isk than MC as a whole. Suggesting otherwise would be stupid. MC has clearly proven itself more than capable of killing the average ship efficiently and without much loss. I believe that is called a tactical victory on an alliance versus alliance level (the average member of MC, as MT pointed out, appears to have lost ships than the average member of ASCN, but only very barely.)
Strategic victory is, in my opinion, based on objectives; and also in this case - and most others - more important. An objective of winning a tactical victory could lead to them being one in the same. MC's objective was to make their client happy and was therefore whatever their client's was; I don't know that - but they say their client was happy, so they have at least, in my opinion, completed their strategic objectives and are therefore at least slightly 'victorious.'
However, ASCN may have had the same objective as any alliance fighting a defensive war versus mercenaries. That is to survive (which we did), to recoup any financial losses (which we did), to deliver some good fighting when possible (which we did), and to continue in our day-to-day operations and complete our projects, such as outposts - we did that as well. In addition, some of our members did learn something about Empire fighting, many of our 0.0 pilots got practice in quick response, and hopefully a good time was had. So perhaps we too are victorious. We're certainly still around, and I'd say we're stronger now than we were at the beginning of the contract; not only did we not lose any corps and probably almost no members, we continue recruiting, practicing, skilling up, and plotting our various evil schemes. So are we not victorious as well as defenders? I couldn't say that, as that's in the eyes of whomever is evaluating. I believe we did. I am much more confident in declaring that we absolutely did not lose.
This may raise the question of whether combat in EVE, with the general nonpermanence of death, is a zero-sum game (i.e. both tie or one wins and one loses.) I do not believe this to be the case: it is likely that both we and the Mercenary Coalition gained from that war.
On the last bit, the lack of battleship deaths on MC's part is really unsurprising. Offensive tactics in EVE are starting to, in my opinion, rely less and less on battleships; I would consider those as invaluable defensively or in ambush or support situations. Ironically battleships are now becoming like support ships, and I'm starting to see a lot more mixed-fleet action than I was used to during the CA-XF war. I can't say anything about the ganking; I was away for a lot of the war and generally avoid Empire whenever possible, preferring to live in 0.0.
Farjung, excellent post. CYVOK likely speaks truly when he says that you have the respect of nearly everyone in ASCN due to your general fearlessness in combat. If all the MC acted as you did, I suspect it'd likely be one of the most respected organizations in EVE (it may be already.)
Perhaps we'll see eachother again after your vacation (or, in 0.0, maybe before). I'd enjoy crossing swords with you again.
|