There’s a difference between looking at something and going “well yeah that’s easy and obvious” and actually doing it. The difference between what to do and HOW to do it is massive, how requires understanding and not just copying the what.
3 Likes
Yes, I discovered this one weird trick that allows me to have limitless success with the war system. And you too can share in this cornucopia of easy kills and fast money! All you have to do is click this link and sign up for my webinar for just 3 low payments of 19.99 billion ISK!
6 Likes
If you can’t think of an example in which an entire country was overrun, including the capital, and yet the populace and the army continued fighting and WON the war - then you aren’t trying. Even one example would refute your thesis, and I can think of several. Perhaps your knowledge of history isn’t as extensive as you imagine, and I am serious when I mention the Dunning-Kruger effect. Some people grossly exaggerate their own competence, generally because their fragile inner ego is afraid to admit doubt or error.
I could cite some examples, but I already did. I wrote a long essay with several examples describing a situation in which a seemingly victorious army succumbed to what you describe as “random skirmishes”, despite extensive territorial occupation. I won’t waste my time teaching history to someone who has such a know-it-all attitude, but I will write you a more complete essay for 5 billion isk. If anyone wants to write me privately and ask for more details, I’m happy to discuss history with people who have a learning attitude, rather than a “I already won the argument, I know I’m right cuz I know more than you” snarky debate style. That’s just not how you win friends and influence people.
I am quite confident that other readers here will readily think of some examples in which a war continued on for quite some time, even after extensive occupation of territory. Once again, I think EvE has become less of a game, because the sandbox which allowed such conflicts has been nerfed and replaced by an automatic unrealistic and arbitrary “win” mechanism involving the destruction of a single space station. That’s neither realistic nor good game mechanics, and since several other people have agreed with me here, I am confident that most reasonable people understand my argument and that it is you who is being wilfully obtuse and refusing to think critically.
I can tell that your goal is merely to be right and win the argument, even going so far as to boast about having already won, but just like wars, arguments are not resolved merely because you claim victory. I know you are wrong, others know you are wrong, and it is up to you to have the intellectual curiosity and honesty to introspectively argue against yourself, and find the flaw in your thinking. I hope you can do that, because I am quite sure you go through life being a know-it-all who tells everyone how it is, without ever taking the time to consider that you might actually be wrong. That’s a really self-defeating attitude, but it’s up to you to change yourself.
If you want someone to teach you history for free, I reccomend Quora, I’m sure if you ask the question there someone will come along and answer it.
6 Likes
Why aren’t you doing it?
Soon™
1 Like
History according to Aiko…
Emperor Claudius : ’ Dear Brit leader. We’d sort of like to add your country to our empire. But we can’t be bothered sending troops and occupying it as the great Greek philosopher Aiko of Olympus said wars aren’t won by conquering territory. So would you jolly good chaps mind just submitting to us and calling your capital Londinium. Kind regards…Claudius ’
Leader of Brits : 'Dear Claudius. What a spiffing idea. That would save a lot of fighting, and we’d all get baths and aquaducts and fancy villas…and a brand new Sotiyo thrown in too. We formally surrender. Please send Destiny of Amarr to be our ruler ’
And they all live happily ever after.
I can see you aren’t trying to think of any counterexamples to your hypothesis. Once again, the basis of the scientific method is to test your theory by observing the facts. Instead of writing snarky little replies, you might try searching Google for evidence which refutes your claim. Nobody can force you to learn or grow as a person.
That’s up to you.
1 Like
Huh ? You were the one making the claim. The vast majority of pages of any history book refute your claim. I’m not even arguing the point as it is on par with 2 + 2 = 4…so it deserves the snarkiest and most jocular responses.
So no…i’m not giving any…erm…territory 
At this point, it is clear you are either being intellectually dishonest (and you know it), or you have a fundamental inability to critically examine your own thoughts.
Er…no…even there I was responding to a claim you made. And my response was factually totally correct. In my world facts win arguments…not ad hominems.
You are just arguing semantics.
You aren’t discussing the facts at all.
Are you unable to think of a single instance in which two countries went to war, one of them lost their territory and capital, and yet the war continued?
Yes or no?
Does the expression ‘vast majority’ translate to your language ? In most languages it does not mean the same as ‘all’.
If you concede this occurs, then you must logically acknowledge that the wardec system does not allow it, even though it is something which could happen. I can see somewhere deep down you recognize your thesis is false, as you were attempting to argue that the wardec system reflects reality and yet you recognize it does not.
If a wardec group has sufificent morale to continue fighting, they should be allowed to do so, even if their wardec headquarters has been destroyed.
Just stop arguing and go make your wardec corporation already. I’ll even put a character in it if you want. You can boss me around.
Well…if I follow your definition of ‘war’ then two drunks fighting in the street on a Saturday night is a war.
You are just being silly now.
I believe you mean Altara is being Cilly
2 Likes
You don’t have to go back as far as the romans to take away a few facts from war. You could take a look at the vietnam war, the one everybody says that America lost. But technically, they just assisted south vietnam and did not lose any territory at all.
Or if you want an interesting example in regards to your discussion, how about the first world war? German Leadership ended up surrendering, but quite a lot of germans felt betrayed by their political leaders, they were seeing themselves on the road to victory. Despite a technical surrender, the people were still ready to fight one of the largest wars in history.
So in that regards, I’d say Aiko is right, it needs more than just taking a few keypoints to “win” a war. While strategically important without a doubt, what drives people to start and stop fighting is equally doubtlessly more complex than border lines on a map.
I can heavily recommend the autobiography of General Schwarzkopf, an American General that served in the vietnam war and later on orchestrated the entire U.S. response against Saddam Hussein. He certainly has some great insights to share on war, morale, strategy and so on, and these are (still) relevant / applicable in our present year.
With mobilized regards
-James Fuchs
2 Likes
Indeed. Fwiw, Sharon’s memoir was surprisingly insightful (same with MacArthur and Khrushchev. I was critical of all three individuals based on how they are often portrayed, but after reading their viewpoint I was impressed and recognized another perspective. The main takeaway is memoirs are sorely undervalued. There’s always stuff in there that just doesn’t appear in the history books.
The example of Germany in the Great War is notable because you have a society which had not yet lost core territory, and yet they surrendered despite being able to continue the war (although defeat was certainly inevitable). There you see once again that social factors were predominant (which was Clausewitz’s point), and the military stood down even though they could have continued the war for at least a year. It would not have been easy for the Allies to cross the Rhine. You also have the example of Russia, which naively declared the fighting to be over in 1917, only for the Germans to insist it wasn’t (which reinforces the point that both sides must agree for a war to actually conclude, and there is no mechanic which automatically ends the conflict).
France and Poland in WW2 are excellent examples of countries which lost significant territory, and on paper were defeated, but continued fighting and were victorious. Eisenhower estimated that the French resistance alone was the equivalent of twenty divisions in 1944. People often wrongly portray the French as weak, and their government certainly was, but the population and part of the military continued fighting long after Paris fell. A similar example is France in 1871. In both cases, the loss of territory did not result in the cessation of hostilities. Vietnam is also a good example, with the lesser known Korean War being even better. At various points, both South and North Korea effectively lost all their territory, and yet the war continued. The loss of territory simply wasn’t decisive, and (as I wrote above) was only relevant in its impact upon the critical factor of morale.
The Boer War is also relevant, as the bitterenders continued fighting long after their territory was occupied. Of course, you might also consider the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq in 2003 is particularly notable, as the government made a decision to not contest the American advance, and (inspired by Vietnam) would wage an insurgency after the occupation. Not only did they not cease hostilities after the loss of territory, but they did not even try to defend their “war HQ”, because they knew the American blob would be overwhelming. Likewise, the Taliban was hardly impressed by the American ability to occupy meaningless victory points.
100%. One of Clausewitz’s principal points, after witnessing the Napoleonic Wars, was that wars are simply not won by the mere occupation of territory. Of course, Napoleon reached Moscow and destroyed the war HQ there, but so what?
Many people have a simplistic gamified concept of war, reflected in videogames by “obtain this many victory points and you automatically win” mechanics. This mechanism is generally used to simulate the impact of morale, abstracting the population with a mathematical model, but EvE is unique in that the players are part of their society, rather than merely guiding it. Morale is real in EvE, and Clausewitizian socio-economic factors appear in a way which other games cannot represent. Unfortunately, EvE has taken away a dynamic complex system, and replaced it with a grossly simplistic model in which you win automatically after capturing a single victory point.
I find social factors to be the most intriguing aspect of EvE, and we thus have (for example) the situation in Delve during the Beeitnam War. I commanded a destroyer flotilla during the battle of Dumbkirk (for which I received a medal), and we were all shocked by the sudden collapse of TAPI. During this war, my Goon pets lost effectively all their territory, and yet they still won because the TAPI plebs became demoralized and abandoned a won position. Such surprising outcomes cannot be modeled by a gamified win/loss system, and only occur because of EvE’s unique nature.
It’s a real loss for EvE, that the Highsec wardec system has been watered down to capture the flag. Although I understand concern about new players being griefed (less common than hysterics claim), it should absolutely be possible for solo and small group players to wage guerilla warfare against nullbears in Highsec (get out!), and it should equally be possible for a group to continue resisting after their structures are destroyed. If the ‘losing’ party in a war isn’t ready to surrender, CCP shouldn’t make that decision for them.
9 Likes
That’s about the most bizarre semantic twisting I’ve seen yet. Aiko claimed that…
It is wholly erroneous to conclude that wars end because of territorial occupation
Yet the wars you mention were lost precisely because of a failure of territorial occupation, which entirely proves the point that territorial occupation is relevant to wars…thus Aiko is wrong. The entire reason WWI dragged on for 4 years was the stagnant front lines and failure to occupy territory. This ultimately led….just as it does in Eve…to a loss by one side due to attrition and failure of political will to go on.
A war clearly has to end at some point. Even the ‘100 years war’ ended eventually. Most wars that drag on for ages end because of a failure to gain complete submission via territorial conquest. You might wish to cite a war that would not have ended sooner had the other side’s territory not been over-run entirely or sooner !
Sheesh…it is so typical of these forums that one can be correct for 57,000 posts yet people still argue.