Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 Pages123Next page
 

[Caldari State] State Protectorate conquer Vlillirier

Author
Heiian Conglomerate
#1 - 2016-12-23 16:29:56 UTC
As of the 23rd of December, 118 years since the Yoiul Conference, in what can be described as a monumental effort the combined forces of the State Protectorate have conquered the longest held Federal Defence Union solar system since the declaration of hostilities, Vlillirier.

The following Alliances and Corporations that contributed to this effort shall be listed as follows, in order to recognise their contribution to this achievement:

The Caldari Militia Coalition -

Heiian Conglomerate
Templis CALSF
The Bloc

SQUIDs.
Plexodus with the support of Exodus pilots
Black Shark Cult
And the numerous State Protectorate pilots that answered the call to arms

This victory removes the taint of the State Protectorate's defeats in Aivonen and Okkamon, coupled with the ongoing successes throughout the warzone in the past month. Those defeats have been avenged, casting aside the patronising offer of a 'truce' in exchange for not attacking 'no no' systems in an attempt to cow us into submission. Our work has not yet been concluded, for Eha remains to be liberated as does the rest of the occupied systems in Caldari space, in good time of course.

Nevertheless, whilst the State Protectorate celebrates its victory, we shall act with magnanimity towards the defeated. Baseliner Prisoners of War taken captive throughout the duration of the conflict will be afforded a basic standard of humane treatment throughout their detention until such time as they can be repatriated back to the Federation or to their homes. There will be no reprisals enacted against Federal citizens or corporations endorsed by the Caldari Militia Coalition. Our quarrel is with the Federal Defence Union and their affiliated members, not the civilian population of the Federation.

Let this renewed effort be a call to the Federation and the State. Let us bring about an end this wasteful and pointless conflict, which only serves to increase the already odious death toll, loss of material and ISK investment, and refocus our efforts on rebuilding these regions long plagued by conflict and terror.

For the meantime, the State Protectorate will remain vigilant and steadfast in our duties, with our brave and valiant pilots at the forefront in defending our territories.

For the State.

Edward H. Adams
Commander
Heiian Conglomerate

Edward H. Adams

Commander

Heiian Conglomerate

Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#2 - 2016-12-23 16:48:02 UTC
Congratulations, Commander. And allow me to express my respect for your taking this victory as an opportunity to call for an end, rather than a renewal, of the militia conflict.

"At the end of it all, we have only what we've left in our wake to be remembered by." -Kyoko Ishikari, YC 95 - YC 117

Circle-Of-Two
#3 - 2016-12-23 16:54:22 UTC
LONG LIVE CALDARI
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2016-12-23 17:23:18 UTC
MantelGlobalIndustries wrote:
As of the 23rd of December, 118 years since the Yoiul Conference, in what can be described as a monumental effort the combined forces of the State Protectorate have conquered the longest held Federal Defence Union solar system since the declaration of hostilities, Vlillirier.


I heard the holonet ratings for the sports coverage of the Cal/Gal Warzone were pretty good, too.

Quote:

Let this renewed effort be a call to the Federation and the State. Let us bring about an end this wasteful and pointless conflict, which only serves to increase the already odious death toll, loss of material and ISK investment, and refocus our efforts on rebuilding these regions long plagued by conflict and terror.


Neither the Federation, nor the State, have any interest in ending the fighting. What you see as a pointless conflict, they see as a useful tool for channeling capsuleer efforts, containing the aggression of their most zealous citizenry and military personnel, and let's face it, some really great entertainment for the upper-crust of society back home. You are their dancing monkey, and bloodshed is the tune they call, within a structure for literally endless violence that the Empires and CONCORD established for that express purpose.

I have to ask, though: If you, Commander Adams, consider this a "pointless conflict" amassing an "already odious death toll"... why do you participate in it? If you believe in your cause, how is it pointless? If you don't... then why support it?
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2016-12-23 18:00:00 UTC
This is actually a huge victory and accomplishment. Vlillirier was the longest held system period. In the CEWPA and in nullsec sovreignity no system has been under control of one group as long as Vlillirier at the time of its fall.

Congratulations to the Caldari Militia.

As strength goes.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#6 - 2016-12-23 18:09:07 UTC
This has achieved nothing, will change nothing, and is a dreadful waste of time and human life.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Heiian Conglomerate
#7 - 2016-12-23 18:13:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Neph
Arrendis wrote:
MantelGlobalIndustries wrote:
As of the 23rd of December, 118 years since the Yoiul Conference, in what can be described as a monumental effort the combined forces of the State Protectorate have conquered the longest held Federal Defence Union solar system since the declaration of hostilities, Vlillirier.


I heard the holonet ratings for the sports coverage of the Cal/Gal Warzone were pretty good, too.

Quote:

Let this renewed effort be a call to the Federation and the State. Let us bring about an end this wasteful and pointless conflict, which only serves to increase the already odious death toll, loss of material and ISK investment, and refocus our efforts on rebuilding these regions long plagued by conflict and terror.


Neither the Federation, nor the State, have any interest in ending the fighting. What you see as a pointless conflict, they see as a useful tool for channeling capsuleer efforts, containing the aggression of their most zealous citizenry and military personnel, and let's face it, some really great entertainment for the upper-crust of society back home. You are their dancing monkey, and bloodshed is the tune they call, within a structure for literally endless violence that the Empires and CONCORD established for that express purpose.

I have to ask, though: If you, Commander Adams, consider this a "pointless conflict" amassing an "already odious death toll"... why do you participate in it? If you believe in your cause, how is it pointless? If you don't... then why support it?

FW'S the best place to fly copious proportions of Corms.

~ Gariushi YC110 // Midular YC115 // Yanala YC115 ~

"Orte Jaitovalte sitasuyti ne obuetsa useuut ishu. Ketsiak ishiulyn." -Yakiya Tovil-Toba-taisoka

#8 - 2016-12-23 18:24:16 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
I heard the holonet ratings for the sports coverage of the Cal/Gal Warzone were pretty good, too.

You heard wrong.

Andreus Ixiris wrote:
This has achieved nothing, will change nothing, and is a dreadful waste of time and human life.

On the contrary, that waste of life was the crowning achievement of this spectacular enterprise.

"Blue team score goal. Green team score goal. Players switch shirts. Yay."

RIP YC111-115"The project discarded, its subjects forgotten... thence must the burden be shouldered."

Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#9 - 2016-12-23 19:01:27 UTC
Can someone explain to me the fundamental difference between taking and losing systems in nullsec, as opposed to the warzone? Not the technicalities or means, but rather why it's different... I feel like I'm missing something critical in that apparent differentiation.

"At the end of it all, we have only what we've left in our wake to be remembered by." -Kyoko Ishikari, YC 95 - YC 117

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2016-12-23 19:06:27 UTC
Saya Ishikari wrote:
Can someone explain to me the fundamental difference between taking and losing systems in nullsec, as opposed to the warzone? Not the technicalities or means, but rather why it's different... I feel like I'm missing something critical in that apparent differentiation.

Both are boring exercises in timer-spinning and object-shooting, but one gains you territory you can actually do something useful with, while the other merely changes the colour of a flag.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Mercenary Coalition
#11 - 2016-12-23 19:07:16 UTC
Can build Titans and lure in more hapless baseliner pirates for their bounties in null. Otherwise, the differences are entirely negligible.
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2016-12-23 19:11:46 UTC
Saya Ishikari wrote:
Can someone explain to me the fundamental difference between taking and losing systems in nullsec, as opposed to the warzone? Not the technicalities or means, but rather why it's different... I feel like I'm missing something critical in that apparent differentiation.


Sure: When (for example) Pandemic Horde takes a system, they intend to keep that system until such time as they relocate or they are forced out of that system. The leadership of Horde plans to hold that system until such time as priorities change. The leadership of Pandemic Legion (if Horde is engaged in supporting a PL campaign) intends Horde to hold that system until such time as priorities change. No-one has any illusions about the fact that someone might come along and take it away from them, but the entire chain of command is on the same page.

When the Caldari State takes a system in the warzone, the line pilots take that system with the intention of holding it. The State has no intention of holding it. The State doesn't care. The State is planning on that system being lost, which is why the LP functions in the warzone exist in the state they do. The State, in fact, wants to eventually lose that system. Why? So they can retake it. So they can lose it again.

The upper echelons of leadership on both sides of the war don't want to win. They only want the war to continue, forever.
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2016-12-23 19:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayallah
Saya Ishikari wrote:
Can someone explain to me the fundamental difference between taking and losing systems in nullsec, as opposed to the warzone? Not the technicalities or means, but rather why it's different... I feel like I'm missing something critical in that apparent differentiation.
War in the CEWPA is incredibly limited and regulated. It is more of a war game run by CONCORD than an actual war though people do die and suffer over it the same.

In nullsec, there is almost no regulation at all. Systems are physically taken by force. Planets and infrastructure bombarded, invasion, and all-out warfare in its most uninhibited inside CONCORD's fluid router network. In FW there are limitations on what classes of ships can accomplish what goals, what zones are approved for ground combat and orbital strikes, how long a system must be controlled for before ownership changes.

Because the population of FW is so much lower than nullsec and less force can physically be brought to bear on the actual targets of system takeover (infrastructure, people, resources, celestials.) CEWPA systems are far more stable and more populated than nullsec ones; they are harder to take away and easier to hold.

The various nuances of war over star systems is uber complex and not easily summarized at all but paying attention to the differences in what is considered allowed or a war crime, what CONCORD and the empires physically prevent and the differences in doctrines and cultures between FW space and nullsec are what primarily cause the rest of the differences.

For example, a system held by a FW entity takes many people days to take over. They must conform to CONCORD's rules about what ships can be flown against what targets so they are limited in firepower, they are limited in what targets they can strike which means they are limited for options.

I have taken multiple systems a day all by myself. With a small group of a few pilots, about twenty, We have taken entire regions. This is because I could bring all force I had to bear on any target that presented itself.

This is also why nullsec has greater loss of life and less stability of infrastructure. Which is why many appeal that capuleers should be more regulated.

Arrendis wrote:
The upper echelons of leadership on both sides of the war don't want to win. They only want the war to continue, forever.
I disagree somewhat. Accepting the realities of the impermanence of holding contested territory is not the same as willing it to continue. Of course, there are entities who do want them to continue forever but that I think is aside the point.

As strength goes.

Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#14 - 2016-12-23 19:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Saya Ishikari
Arrendis wrote:
Saya Ishikari wrote:
Can someone explain to me the fundamental difference between taking and losing systems in nullsec, as opposed to the warzone? Not the technicalities or means, but rather why it's different... I feel like I'm missing something critical in that apparent differentiation.


Sure: When (for example) Pandemic Horde takes a system, they intend to keep that system until such time as they relocate or they are forced out of that system. The leadership of Horde plans to hold that system until such time as priorities change. The leadership of Pandemic Legion (if Horde is engaged in supporting a PL campaign) intends Horde to hold that system until such time as priorities change. No-one has any illusions about the fact that someone might come along and take it away from them, but the entire chain of command is on the same page.

When the Caldari State takes a system in the warzone, the line pilots take that system with the intention of holding it. The State has no intention of holding it. The State doesn't care. The State is planning on that system being lost, which is why the LP functions in the warzone exist in the state they do. The State, in fact, wants to eventually lose that system. Why? So they can retake it. So they can lose it again.

The upper echelons of leadership on both sides of the war don't want to win. They only want the war to continue, forever.

So, the result of a conflict of equal to the intent of its participants? That seems a bit of a self-falsifying mechanism, as it would proclaim the losing side in any conflict intended to do just that, which clearly is not the case in every instance. Also, while I believe you entirely on the statement of intent for nullsec entities (you would know better than I), based on the established non sequitur, what is your source on the intent versus the result in the warzone?

Edit: Thank you Ayallah. That's a bit more of what I was getting at, and wanting to hear about.

"At the end of it all, we have only what we've left in our wake to be remembered by." -Kyoko Ishikari, YC 95 - YC 117

Pen Is Out
#15 - 2016-12-23 20:40:13 UTC
The State will come to regret its impetuousness. We will see you in the skies.
Heiian Conglomerate
#16 - 2016-12-23 21:00:10 UTC
I shall not deny that it is convenient for the Empire's to shove all their hotheads and other bloodthirsty types into the Militias to have at each other. However, most that do not heed the call of duty or find themselves frustrated at the lack of 'action' or 'fulfillment' usually end up elsewhere, such as the local pirate groups or ending up in null-security space with one of the Capsuleer organisations that are established out there.

Nonetheless, this conflict is one that I believe can end. The casus belli for the war between the State and the Federation has long since been resolved, there is no need for a limited war to engage between our nations. The Militias need not necessarily be dissolved, at least in the instance of the FDU or the STPRO. The pilots could be redirected elsewhere, particularly towards the growing pirate menace that threaten low-security stability as well as their formation of their nest of vipers in null-security space.

As for the reason why I serve? I serve out of my duty to the State, my corporation and to my comrades that I fight alongside with. My duty is to defend the State is not. The perpetuation of this war is pointless. If it were a conflict that had a feasible ending, we would have concluded it back in YC111 with the Caldari conquest of the warzone. The First Caldari-Gallente War ended due to the actions of a few speaking out and working to bring about an end to hostilities. There is no reason that we cannot at least try to do the same.

Edward H. Adams

Commander

Heiian Conglomerate

Heiian Conglomerate
#17 - 2016-12-23 21:12:34 UTC
Ouso Borghese wrote:
The State will come to regret its impetuousness. We will see you in the skies.


Naturally. We will be there to meet you as always. Shall we leave the cynos at home?

Edward H. Adams

Commander

Heiian Conglomerate

Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2016-12-24 01:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Saya Ishikari wrote:
So, the result of a conflict of equal to the intent of its participants? That seems a bit of a self-falsifying mechanism, as it would proclaim the losing side in any conflict intended to do just that, which clearly is not the case in every instance. Also, while I believe you entirely on the statement of intent for nullsec entities (you would know better than I), based on the established non sequitur, what is your source on the intent versus the result in the warzone?

Edit: Thank you Ayallah. That's a bit more of what I was getting at, and wanting to hear about.


I would say rather that the validity of a campaign is equal to the sincerity of those sending people to die. If the upper levels of the leadership, in this case the State and Federation, do not sincerely intend for a conquest to be lasting, then it's all a lie.

As for the basis of my statement about their intentions: the warzone is established by CONCORD/the DED directives, in accordance with the structure laid out by CONCORD/the DED's ruling council. That council is comprised of a representative of each of the Five Empires. The structure of the Cal/Gal Warzone, like the structure of the Amarr/Minmatar Warzone, is one that cannot actually be won. Take every system for your side. You'll get a medal. And the war will go on. If the State were to hold every system in the warzone for three years, they would still not actually press the Federation to surrender. In short, they would award medals, but would not seek to actually establish victory. They would rather let the violence sanctioned by CONCORD (and by extension, themselves) continue. If the situation were reversed, the Federatin would behave exactly the same way.

It's not a war. It's a war game. A bloodsport.

Ayallah wrote:
I have taken multiple systems a day all by myself. With a small group of a few pilots, about twenty, We have taken entire regions. This is because I could bring all force I had to bear on any target that presented itself.


Except that the final strike on any system in the warzone is done on the IHUB, not on a TCU. What you're talking about is the older TCU systems. IHUBs—again, the target in the warzone—have had a minimum of 48 hours to assault for the last eighteen months, including the need to take the some twenty command nodes, and TCUs enjoy the same protection. Prior to that, the IHUB had two reinforcement cycles with a delay of at least a day each. Any system with a TCU and no IHUB or station safeguarding the TCU, let's face it, was functionally unclaimed. The comparison is decidedly not apt.

Quote:

I disagree somewhat. Accepting the realities of the impermanence of holding contested territory is not the same as willing it to continue. Of course, there are entities who do want them to continue forever but that I think is aside the point.


It's more than 'accepting the realities'. They designed the current warzones and the system CONCORD implemented for them. If they wanted them to stop, all they have to do is pressure CONCORD to restore the old status quo.
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#19 - 2016-12-24 02:17:42 UTC
That makes more sense. Thank you.

"At the end of it all, we have only what we've left in our wake to be remembered by." -Kyoko Ishikari, YC 95 - YC 117

Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2016-12-24 05:42:54 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Except that the final strike on any system in the warzone is done on the IHUB, not on a TCU. What you're talking about is the older TCU systems. IHUBs—again, the target in the warzone—have had a minimum of 48 hours to assault for the last eighteen months, including the need to take the some twenty command nodes, and TCUs enjoy the same protection. Prior to that, the IHUB had two reinforcement cycles with a delay of at least a day each. Any system with a TCU and no IHUB or station safeguarding the TCU, let's face it, was functionally unclaimed. The comparison is decidedly not apt.
No, I am talking about taking Aegis systems.

The reinforcement timers exist on the structures themselves and require no effort at all to wait out. They are simply gaps given to the defender by the designers of the structures, not by the regulation of CONCORD over the battlefield. The actual time to take a system is winning all of the nodes: time spent on entosis. It is a lot in total but can be done all at once and with whatever ship you see fit. An entire region can be steamrolled in a night, meet up for the second timer in a couple of days and then have the entire region. In that time, the same group of people could get one system captured and begin to work on a second.

Undefended It takes minutes to take a freeported station in nullsec and there is no arbitration on how long you must be in a system before dropping a TCU or IHUB to claim sovereignty or expand it. This is how a few people can easily take a lot of space in a very short time. An undefended FW system takes three days if memory serves, regardless of how many complexes you win. Full stop three days of effort waiting for CONCORD mandated complexes to become available and building up enough to win the actual system regardless of what ships you bring or how many people.

If you want to count waiting out a reinforcement timer on a structure into the man hours of taking a system then go ahead; I do other things in that time however.

And comparison not apt? What is that even supposed to mean other than you just want to argue about something I did not say as usual.

As strength goes.

3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump