Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tsavu Irika
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:38:00 -
[1]
Recently, I had been reading a book titled "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", written by Tom Clancy, assisted by General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.)
Clancy quoted Franks in saying, "If you have to fight... Then 100 to nothing is about the right score for the battlefield. Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield."
I believe this statement is written fact - If you're going to win, win. A close game is fine, but not when regarding the men under your command.
What are your thoughts on this, general EVE Populace?
|
Ioci
Gallente Ioci Exploration
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:43:00 -
[2]
It works for a game like football. Not the battlefield. Ok. Eve is a game. It needs balance. So I suppose I agree with you. |
Chirruper
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:47:00 -
[3]
Sun Tzu is turning in his grave. This is not news.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:50:00 -
[4]
Real warfare and real loss of life =! Eve warfare.
Football is a game as Eve is a game with set rules and restrictions to make it so one strategy doesn't pwn all others.
Originally by: MM0RPG EVE Review "if you aren't my friend you are my income."
|
Daerdeae
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:51:00 -
[5]
No, it really isn't news.
Tell the rest of EVE that.
This post was in response to too many people whining about 'unfair' combat practices. If you lose, it's because your opponent had an advantage that you did not. And if you can't match or exceed their advantage in numbers, then learn to use tactics and the like... or, don't do whatever it is you did to get decced in the first place.
The word 'Fair' has no place in a smart battlefield.
EVE is just a game. It is, yes, but...
Some of us really do fight like we mean it. These men under their command are risking their lives and equipment.
And if you can't take it seriously in a game, then why should you in real life?
|
Tsavu Irika
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:52:00 -
[6]
Bah. Stupid character-selector thing.
That was supposed to be posted as Tsavu.
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:55:00 -
[7]
Fair fights are boring to watch.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:22:00 -
[8]
If it was fair, there probably wouldn't even be a fight.
That's why everything should be fair.
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:24:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah If it was fair, there probably wouldn't even be a fight.
That's why everything should be fair.
------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: techzer0
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah If it was fair, there probably wouldn't even be a fight.
That's why everything should be fair.
Yeah laugh about it, but think about it.
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
|
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:31:00 -
[11]
Edited by: techzer0 on 01/03/2008 21:32:01
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Yeah laugh about it, but think about it.
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
You're nuts.
But no really... just no. That's like communism at it's best, and somebody always has to be better ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Adarr
Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:33:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
That would be like putting everyone in the world into a closed room, nutjobs and murderers included, filling the room up to their waists with gasoline, and giving them all matches.
|
Captain Blart
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tsavu Irika Recently, I had been reading a book titled "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", written by Tom Clancy, assisted by General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.)
Clancy quoted Franks in saying, "If you have to fight... Then 100 to nothing is about the right score for the battlefield. Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield."
I believe this statement is written fact - If you're going to win, win. A close game is fine, but not when regarding the men under your command.
What are your thoughts on this, general EVE Populace?
Its not surprising that comes from an american general, their tactic is always the same, outnumber people in number and technology and youre good. If you look at US military since Vietnam, you cant say it serves them well
Now back on topic, if you need to blob people , you can find all the excuses you want, it does not matter really, its just because you re not confident in your own abilities, you suck at pvp, you have no balls. Its one of these or maybe 2 of these 3 or all of it. Of course, nobody likes to admit that.
|
Daerdeae
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:49:00 -
[14]
I disagree. Blob tactics are stupid and mindless. They are formed of a lack of individual skill.
What I meant was that if you were going to have a 50/50 chance of winning a fight, would you do it? Or would you scrap for every advantage at your disposal?
My corporation has previously been outnumbered, and still emerged victorious, due to skill over numbers.
If you're going to fight, stack every possible advantage in your favor, because 50/50 is NOT a chance I would happily take.
|
Firkragg
PREDATORS OF DESTRUCTION
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Adarr
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
That would be like putting everyone in the world into a closed room, nutjobs and murderers included, filling the room up to their waists with gasoline, and giving them all matches.
You totally jsut gave me an idea for a reality tv show.
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:58:00 -
[16]
I find that combat in Eve can be downright hard, and I don't mean hard as in "You need a lot of skill to kill the opponent", but more like "It is almost mathematically impossible to cause enough damage to kill a single opponent". A fair one on one fight can go on indefinately with some ship combinations. I've been grumpy a few times about being ganged up on by 5 people or more before but I understand that this is the norm, not so much because people are cowards, but because they know they need all those ships to disable and kill a single ship with any efficiency. This is especially true for piracy, a lone pirate will see many more potential victims fleeing than a small gang that can cover a much larger part of the system and catch their prey. In most PVP scenarios the redundancy of several ships is necessary, as small gangs will suffer more when they lose a ship or two. Outnumbering the opponent is an excellent way to give yourself an edge and stack odds in your favour.
To engage in a fight where you're likely to lose, say 50% chance of losing, is foolish. You don't win skirmishes by throwing men into near certain death, and you don't win in Eve PVP by engaging in fair fights. You need to overpower your enemy, otherwise you're just gambling and hoping to win. I perfectly understand the frustration of being killed by a much stronger enemy, or being killed when you're not even interested in fighting, but I think that in all forms of competition you should do what you can to stack odds in your favour. You don't need to take it to the extremes in Eve and other games as this is about friendly competition, but you should never hand over advantages to your opponent either. _______ Griefing is to ruin a friendly game, which Eve is not. |
Djinn Phluxx
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:04:00 -
[17]
In the Marine Corps we learn that there's no such thing as a fair fight. If you and a person you know to be honorable agree to something, then by all means have at it.
If it's more than a simple sparring match to test ability, then you should do what it takes to win. Whatever it takes. In Eve, that means getting 5 other guys to help you camp a gate because you're too much of a wuss to do it on your own. It means logging out when you've jumped through a gate and find 6 people sitting there, waiting for you to uncloak.
It means doing anything and everything that's not been explicitly labeled an exploit to minimize your loss and/or maximize your gain.
As it should be.
|
Jaabaa Prime
Minmatar Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Daerdeae .... closet stuff ....
Originally by: Tsavu Irika Bah. Stupid character-selector thing.
That was supposed to be posted as Tsavu.
Admital.
If combat was ever "fair" then there would never ever be a war.
So keep philosophy in the bag that its stored in and deal with the consequences --
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Chirruper Sun Tzu is turning in his grave. This is not news.
pretty much this
|
Corstaad
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:35:00 -
[20]
Its not surprising that comes from an american general, their tactic is always the same, outnumber people in number and technology and youre good. If you look at US military since Vietnam, you cant say it serves them well
Now back on topic, if you need to blob people , you can find all the excuses you want, it does not matter really, its just because you re not confident in your own abilities, you suck at pvp, you have no balls. Its one of these or maybe 2 of these 3 or all of it. Of course, nobody likes to admit that.
You really shouldn't use forums if your going to post crap like that.
|
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:42:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Ulstan on 01/03/2008 22:44:40
Quote: Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield
And as EVE is a game that people play for fun rather than a real life battlefield, fair fights are not only good but to be encouraged.
People don't go fight in wars for fun.
Quote: Its not surprising that comes from an american general, their tactic is always the same, outnumber people in number and technology
As far as outnumbering goes, you're thinking of the Russians. European and American forces have rarely massively outnumbered their foes.
Maintaining a steep technological advantage, however, is definitely their style.
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ulstan
As far as outnumbering goes, you're thinking of the Russians. European and American forces have rarely massively outnumbered their foes.
Would you please enlighted me as to when "Russians" took part in any mid-to-large scale offensive (as in, not defending their own lives and country, like in WW I and II) operation last time ?
I mean, it's all good, but I'm pretty damn sure it was in the 19th century.
|
Gunzoid
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Firkragg
Originally by: Adarr
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
That would be like putting everyone in the world into a closed room, nutjobs and murderers included, filling the room up to their waists with gasoline, and giving them all matches.
You totally jsut gave me an idea for a reality tv show.
To bad it will probably only have 1 episode.
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:01:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 01/03/2008 22:44:40
Quote: Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield
And as EVE is a game that people play for fun rather than a real life battlefield, fair fights are not only good but to be encouraged. [...]
This would be true if all Eve PVP was 1on1 duels with people you know. Most PVP in Eve is about conquest and annihilating the opposition however, much like actual warfare. _______ Griefing is to ruin a friendly game, which Eve is not. |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:28:00 -
[25]
War is about survival, EVE is about fun, not necessarily a valid point in this universe.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:39:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Gunzoid
Originally by: Firkragg
Originally by: Adarr That would be like putting everyone in the world into a closed room, nutjobs and murderers included, filling the room up to their waists with gasoline, and giving them all matches.
You totally jsut gave me an idea for a reality tv show.
To bad it will probably only have 1 episode.
You could always keep adding new people.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Siege
Minmatar Siegecraft Bounty Hunting
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:56:00 -
[27]
While technically correct, the whole "Bring a bigger blob" statement manages to avoid all the subtlety that comes from the original concept. The core concept that everybody from Sun Tzu, Lee, Rommel, Patton, Lettow, and particularly Guderian would laugh at the simplicity of the statement. The true concept is not "Bring More Men", but to apply your own strengths effectively against the weakness of the enemy.
Scoring a numerical superiority on a battlefield isn't about having a bigger army. It's about concentrating your resources and maneuvering so that you have overwhelming force at the point of your attack. If your going to fight, do as much as you possibly can to guarantee victory.
------ begin signature -----
Little known Eve fact, The original race names were: Amarr Empire, Caldar Empire, Minmatar Republic, The Jovians, and The Remanaquie Federation. |
Spenz
Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 00:02:00 -
[28]
If people are whining about it (and this IS a whine thread, don't try to disguise it), then blob tactics must be working more often than not.
A working tactic creates tears from its victims. This thread is full of its victims.
If I had an Alt I would probably post with it... |
Pantaloon McPants
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 00:03:00 -
[29]
Well it makes sense, unless your a Spartan. If i had a six pack like those guys id be running into 300,000+ crazy Persians no problems.
|
TimMc
Gallente Vidar Fierd Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 00:13:00 -
[30]
Unfair fights win wars.
Fair fights challenge and provide entertainment for both sides.
But seriously, who doesn't want to win?
|
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 02:23:00 -
[31]
Argh, I read a thread about a real life comparison, again.
___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters |
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 02:50:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah If it was fair, there probably wouldn't even be a fight.
That's why everything should be fair.
that's terribly naive...lol
fights are driven by need, not by perceptions of force balance.
Try again, but this time look at history first, okay?
Originally by: Mangala Solaris
EVE really doesnt have set goals, its a freeform sandbox - yes a sandbox with kids that occasionally take a dump in it, but a sandbox never the less.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 02:54:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Ulstan on 02/03/2008 02:55:05
Quote: Would you please enlighted me as to when "Russians" took part in any mid-to-large scale offensive (as in, not defending their own lives and country, like in WW I and II) operation last time ?
I mean, it's all good, but I'm pretty damn sure it was in the 19th century.
The only excuse for such abject ignorance is that you were either cyrogenically frozen for the entire 20th century, or else are a product of the abysmal American Education system.
Do the words 'Afghanistan' and 'Chechnya' mean anything to you?
Also, I'm sure the USSR was defending their own country when they backstabbed Poland in 1939.
|
Mara Noan
Illuminati Inc. Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 03:01:00 -
[34]
"Your job is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his."
"Common sense, it's not that common."
|
Reilly Jax
Amarr Freespace Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 03:49:00 -
[35]
I have always been a firm believer that you win or loose the battle long before you fight it.
Along those lines I'd say that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something terribly wrong.
In real world warfare, where death has its obvios penalties, the above is paramount.
In EVE it seems the above is true as well.
I would say its argueable though, If a game is meant to be fun... it certainly is NOT fun getting out blobbed 10-1 simply because the corp/alliance has a stronger timezone representation then you.
In EVE the big will always be stronger then the small. The small dont have the advantages the small do in the real world... big = slow, Small = fast, big = exposed, small = hidden.
As such, most engagments will be descided not by skill or eqiupment... it will always (almost always anyhow) be descided by numbers. I would say the above is untrue only where there is a enourmous disparity of skill and equipment between two parties.
My 2 isk about it
|
Paeniteo
Synthetic Frontiers
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 07:11:00 -
[36]
I personally think there's no place for honor in Eve. Pull hair, kick groins, throw dirt in people's eyes. Honor is nothing more than a social construct and an isk sink.
But then I'm not exactly the greatest PvP'er around
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 10:16:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ulstan
The only excuse for such abject ignorance is that you were either cyrogenically frozen for the entire 20th century, or else are a product of the abysmal American Education system.
Do the words 'Afghanistan' and 'Chechnya' mean anything to you?
Also, I'm sure the USSR was defending their own country when they backstabbed Poland in 1939.
Are you trying to hint at Russians "outnumbering" someone during these conflicts while "having weaker tech base" ? (Cause that is what you claim to be "Russian strategy".)
|
Chirruper
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:13:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Siege
Scoring a numerical superiority on a battlefield isn't about having a bigger army. It's about concentrating your resources and maneuvering so that you have overwhelming force at the point of your attack. If your going to fight, do as much as you possibly can to guarantee victory.
Quit giving away our secrets to these simpletons. If fair/unfair is as far as they have thought about strategy, they will never reach our level of transcendent ass-kicking.
|
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:24:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tsavu Irika Recently, I had been reading a book titled "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", written by Tom Clancy, assisted by General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.)
Clancy quoted Franks in saying, "If you have to fight... Then 100 to nothing is about the right score for the battlefield. Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield."
I believe this statement is written fact - If you're going to win, win. A close game is fine, but not when regarding the men under your command.
What are your thoughts on this, general EVE Populace?
Totally disagree. The source your quoting is talking about real lives being lost. In a game, if your that averse to losing/dying, the best strategy is not to play the game at all, how much fun does that sound?
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Culdees
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:45:00 -
[40]
russians always had the brute force approach. high tech was not their strong point. the yanks were high tech low losses due to the nature of conducting a war within a democracy. unless attacked, a democracy will rarely support a war for very long.
this is russia-
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ram/russia/fussrpoland1919.htm
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ram/russia/index.htm
you notice how well mutual assured destruction works.
this is the problem with pvp in eve, the loss is too high, so it doesnt happen without numbers.
being a GAME as mentioned many times in this thread, the idea is not to care too much about the pieces, only the players. however eve tends to force people to make sure they outnumber or massively outgun a player before engaging in pvp. blob.
|
|
Dai Nau
Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:46:00 -
[41]
because america likes a winner
thread over
|
Amon Nagira
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:51:00 -
[42]
Tsavu, are you drunk or something? We tend to be like the most blobbed corp EVER in our wars, what even raised this question? :D
|
ShardowRhino
Caldari The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:01:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Originally by: techzer0
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah If it was fair, there probably wouldn't even be a fight.
That's why everything should be fair.
Yeah laugh about it, but think about it.
The only thing that real life stuff like Iraq thought us, is that if a country does NOT posess WMD, it will eventually get attacked by agressors like the United States.
Thus, free WMD for everyone for world peace.
FAIL!!!!!!! Iraq got invaded because it was believed to have them(most likely shipped out just before). we knew ****** had no problem using them in the iranians or his own people. If ****** had them and we ,the U.S., did not have better ,more destructive weapons then ****** would have used them.
please read about what your going to yap about before trying to speak about it. thanks.
|
ShardowRhino
Caldari The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:03:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 02/03/2008 02:55:05
Quote: Would you please enlighted me as to when "Russians" took part in any mid-to-large scale offensive (as in, not defending their own lives and country, like in WW I and II) operation last time ?
I mean, it's all good, but I'm pretty damn sure it was in the 19th century.
The only excuse for such abject ignorance is that you were either cyrogenically frozen for the entire 20th century, or else are a product of the abysmal American Education system.
Do the words 'Afghanistan' and 'Chechnya' mean anything to you?
Also, I'm sure the USSR was defending their own country when they backstabbed Poland in 1939.
hey dont be a noob and blame his ignorance on our education system. theres no excuse for such bs. :/
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:04:00 -
[45]
Actually Clancy is just rewriting something that can be read in the Sun Tzu's war treaty and thats not new.
In war all is fair, all methods are valid as long as they garantee you a solid victory, yet, if you read carefully Sun Tzu's aproach is unique as he advocates victory without even having to fight your oponent on the battlefield, its a victory withtout losses so to speak, or in a case of confrontation a victory to be achieved with minimal losses and the encorporation of the foreign state with all its riches into your own for maximum gain.
What limits most people in RL is the stick to the book aproach, there is no book in rl warfare, its a permanent mutating circunstance wich both the general and grunt soldier have to adapt to.
In eve, its a lag, numbers, moralle and propaganda game... with a bit of a prayer for the node to hold. _____________________________________ I pay beer for new sig.
- Sorry for the trouble Mits. |
Reiker Struvian
Caldari Phoenix Aeronautics
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:11:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Vadimik Edited by: Vadimik on 02/03/2008 10:34:58
Originally by: Ulstan
The only excuse for such abject ignorance is that you were either cyrogenically frozen for the entire 20th century, or else are a product of the abysmal American Education system.
Do the words 'Afghanistan' and 'Chechnya' mean anything to you?
Also, I'm sure the USSR was defending their own country when they backstabbed Poland in 1939.
Are you trying to hint at Russians "outnumbering" someone during these conflicts while "having weaker tech base" ? (Cause that is what you claim to be "Russian strategy".)
P.S. 'Chechnya' is a part of Russian Federation. Just, you know, FYI.
LOL AFGHANISTAN.
P.S. Try to answer all the points instead of pickign and choosing the ones you like, otherwise you just end up looking stupid. Just, you know, FYI.
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:54:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Vadimik on 02/03/2008 12:55:33
Originally by: Reiker Struvian
LOL AFGHANISTAN.
P.S. Try to answer all the points instead of pickign and choosing the ones you like, otherwise you just end up looking stupid. Just, you know, FYI.
Ok, facts, I call for you:
Afghanistan 1978 û 1989 About 620,000 soviet soldiers served, 14,453 dead.
Iraq 2003 - present About 300,000 coalition soldiers during invasion, 4,279 dead by now.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how coalition death ratio is so much different from soviet one.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:58:00 -
[48]
Don't try to change the subject, Vadimik.
You're an ignoramus who fails at history. Go back to talking about how the USSR only fought to defend themselves. Then you can go bow 3 times before your picture of Stalin.
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 13:05:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Ulstan Don't try to change the subject, Vadimik.
You're an ignoramus who fails at history. Go back to talking about how the USSR only fought to defend themselves. Then you can go bow 3 times before your picture of Stalin.
You must be joking, I never claimed USSR only fought to defend themselves, nor do I think think they did.
I just said that no offensive operation was based on the "outnumbering" or "casualties disregard".
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 16:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Vadimik
Would you please enlighted me as to when "Russians" took part in any mid-to-large scale offensive (as in, not defending their own lives and country, like in WW I and II) operation last time ?
I mean, it's all good, but I'm pretty damn sure it was in the 19th century.
czechoslovakia, hungary, afghanistan, chechnya come to mind and of course the 19th century is one big orgy of russians attacking their weaker neighbours and increasing the size of mother russia which didn't grow across 11 time zones through successful diplomacy.
|
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 16:41:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Vadimik on 02/03/2008 16:41:40
Originally by: Ehranavaar czechoslovakia, hungary, afghanistan, chechnya come to mind and of course the 19th century is one big orgy of russians attacking their weaker neighbours and increasing the size of mother russia which didn't grow across 11 time zones through successful diplomacy.
Yes, great. Now, fact: non of these were based on the tactic of outnumbering as a mean of winning a battle, nor were carried out with disregard for losses. (In fact, only afghanistan and chechnya included real full-scale warfare.)
And that's what I wanted to stress: the notion of "Russians" using "brute force and sheer numbers" is a bit... outdated. By about a century.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 16:43:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Qui Shon on 02/03/2008 16:44:13
Originally by: ShardowRhino
FAIL!!!!!!! Iraq got invaded because it was believed to have them(most likely shipped out just before). we knew ****** had no problem using them in the iranians or his own people. If ****** had them and we ,the U.S., did not have better ,more destructive weapons then ****** would have used them.
please read about what your going to yap about before trying to speak about it. thanks.
I don't ofte do this because it's rather silly, but here we go anyway.
FAIL!!!!!!oneleleven11! (<-Did I do this right?)
Iraq got invaded because the US wanted a more permanent and stronger powerbase in the middle east, and because they wanted to insure oil would continue to be traded for the the dollar, and not the euro. It doesn't look all that bright for the former, and the latter, well, remains to be seen.
Indeed, as odd as it may sound, only nuclear proliferation has a chance of putting an end to colonialism (if you thought it long gone, think again, it's just changed form.) The potential downside is of course obvious and not so great either. Most probably, not even that will work, and the strong will continue to exploit the weak.
I suspect if this discussion continues this thread will not last long on these boards.
|
Brainless Bimbo
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 16:48:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Vadimik Edited by: Vadimik on 02/03/2008 12:55:33
Originally by: Reiker Struvian
LOL AFGHANISTAN.
P.S. Try to answer all the points instead of pickign and choosing the ones you like, otherwise you just end up looking stupid. Just, you know, FYI.
Ok, facts, I call for you:
Afghanistan 1978 û 1989 About 620,000 soviet soldiers served, 14,453 dead.
Iraq 2003 - present About 300,000 coalition soldiers during invasion, 4,279 dead by now.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how coalition death ratio is so much different from soviet one.
Tut tut, you should have used Vietman as a parallel not Iraq as they were similar conflicts, intervention to support thier prefered politicial flavor, both were defeated by lesser armies. What modern warfare seems to do is actually increase civilian deaths as a ratio to milatry deaths, leaders used to take personal responsibility for thier battle plans as they were present and in harms way, so its natural as eve seems to mirror real life that more unwilling ppl die as that's the way the world is devolving. Eve is in most systems (low/nul sec) NBSI, which is just unthinking kneejerk xenophobic tribal conflict with spaceships and not bows and arrows, the bigger tribe will always crush its smaller rivals first so the more powerfull ones will fear it, they can't have fair fights they need overkill to maintain thier position of power.
|
Wihtgar
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 19:37:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Vadimik
You must be joking, I never claimed USSR only fought to defend themselves, nor do I think think they did.
I just said that no offensive operation was based on the "outnumbering" or "casualties disregard".
You should attempt to familiarize yourself with the Soviet invasion of Finland.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 19:49:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Djinn Phluxx In the Marine Corps we learn that there's no such thing as a fair fight. If you and a person you know to be honorable agree to something, then by all means have at it.
If it's more than a simple sparring match to test ability, then you should do what it takes to win. Whatever it takes. In Eve, that means getting 5 other guys to help you camp a gate because you're too much of a wuss to do it on your own. It means logging out when you've jumped through a gate and find 6 people sitting there, waiting for you to uncloak.
It means doing anything and everything that's not been explicitly labeled an exploit to minimize your loss and/or maximize your gain.
As it should be.
The only problem is that (in most cases) the same people that use this kind of tactics in game are those that then protest in forum against unfair fights, people not coming at their doorstep alone and generally wanting the other player to play "fair" and go for the "duel" against them.
|
ZerKar
Caldari Zen'Tar
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 20:20:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Tsavu Irika Recently, I had been reading a book titled "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", written by Tom Clancy, assisted by General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.)
Clancy quoted Franks in saying, "If you have to fight... Then 100 to nothing is about the right score for the battlefield. Twenty-four to Twenty-one may be okay in the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but not on the Battlefield."
I believe this statement is written fact - If you're going to win, win. A close game is fine, but not when regarding the men under your command.
What are your thoughts on this, general EVE Populace?
That is my general understanding of strategy...Some will be lost as is needed, but those are "acceptable" the vaste majority should not be sacrificed and if you are truly the best then none of yourse must perish. +++++++++++++++ For the LAST time...
Keep your UGLY Typhoon off my SEXY Hurricane |
Siege
Minmatar Siegecraft Bounty Hunting
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 20:34:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Wihtgar
Originally by: Vadimik
You must be joking, I never claimed USSR only fought to defend themselves, nor do I think think they did.
I just said that no offensive operation was based on the "outnumbering" or "casualties disregard".
You should attempt to familiarize yourself with the Soviet invasion of Finland.
Yeah, the Winter War is always a fascinating subject. I never trust any of the statistics that come out of that era and region, but some folks claim that the Russians lost more troops there than the entire population of Finland at the time. The Russo-Japanese war was hardly a "Defensive" operation either, nor was the Russian involvement against Japan in Manchuria in 1945.
You could also put the British campaign in East Africa in WWI as another example of just throwing men at a conflict and getting the worst of it. They held a massive advantage in sheer numbers, but were outmaneuvered and outfought through the whole conflict by the German Shutztruppen.
------ begin signature -----
Little known Eve fact, The original race names were: Amarr Empire, Caldar Empire, Minmatar Republic, The Jovians, and The Remanaquie Federation. |
Reiker Struvian
Caldari Phoenix Aeronautics
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 23:01:00 -
[58]
GJ, I mean, if you don't like the stats from an era, just dismiss them out of hand.
But Vladimik, that's what the whole of Russian policy has been until the end of the Cold War. For the last century? Don't recall the period after the First World War where they tried to invade Poland, and failed miserably because they fought a war of maneouver against Bolshevik peasant hordes? Up until Afghanistan where they again moved in with massive numbers?
Did you take a look at those stats btw? 1 in 43 soviet troops died in Afghanistan. 1 in 70 Coalition troops have died in Iraq. The Iraqi pouplation is also substantially larger than the Afghan one. Russians fighting those with higher tech base hasn't happened since World War II since not even Soviet leaders wanted to bring the world to annihilation.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |