As you said the area is large, maybe I’m just not hearing the news but I’ve not heard of Matari armed forces landing and gunning down the population of planets in captured systems nor have I heard of large enslavements (if I’m wrong please correct me). So, aside from disruptions in space borne logistics, debris entering the atmospheres, errand bullets/missiles how is this effecting them? If they were harmed something would be done on a mass scale. As far as it seems the inhabitants of the planets are irrelevant to the conflict itself at this point. It really seems like an issue of pride over actual threat. Why is this a concern within the confines of this theater? We aren’t going to supplant the whole population of a planet and make it’s inhabitants non-amarrian/Matari over night.
As far as staging points deep in our territory, ya I can’t say I like that idea.
I hate to say it, but friendly fire and blue on blue combat are an unfortunate part of any warzone. Imperfect information, low security statuses and ineptitude are ripe.
Are they not…? The State occupied the Intaki system and Lai Dai utilized that occupancy to conduct a hostile takeover of the planet, destroying monasteries and medical research facilities through their Onikanabo proxy. It wasn’t until the Federal Defense Union recaptured the system and the Federal Marines stepped in that they were at all halted as the Intaki Militia was not enough to hold Lai Dai Protection back at the time.
I’d imagine the Empire and the Republic warfighters are much more… Indiscriminate, if history is any indicator.
That’s helpful insight, noted and appreciated. I was willing to engage against vastly superior numbers without that issue, with the even more lop-sided ratio and the added confusion caused by a reasonable expectation of militia ‘allies’ opening fire. I was less inclined to take those long shots. It’s not a crippling issue in isolation, it’s just an added headache.
No, but a few years ago there was a campaign by Amarrian hardliners to start enslaving the populations of occupied worlds. Lord Merimeth and Lady Catiz (now Empress Catiz) were some of the parties arguing for it.
And there has been fighting going on on the ground. It’s just typically over military and economic targets. There was a brief period where we were even hiring warclone mercenaries to assist with that, and giving capsuleers in space the authority to provide limited orbital support.
Ethnic intaki being fought over is alot more extreme a situation than what seems to go on in this theater. It truly is heart breaking but it’s a totally different level than the average situation. Such a Hardline approach would cause a massive issue that neither the Republic nor the Empire seem eager to become the aggressor in.
Oh, you still should take your chances, jus remember, trust goes as far as name recognition. If you don’t know them for positive things, be ready for the worst. Glad my advice is seen as helpful.
As a diplomat, I was fascinated by this agreement when it was announced, and it has been interesting to see how the implementation of it has progressed. I can certainly sympathize with many of the sentiments expressed so far in this thread, but I think there are some aspects of the situation that aren’t being represented fairly.
First, I don’t think it is fair to reduce the rationale for this agreement to “getting slightly better fights.” Especially because it ignores the primary stated purpose of the participants themselves, which is to reduce the influence of so called “mission runners” on the warzone. When we talk about “Militia Corruption” it is impossible to ignore the impact that these unscrupulous capsuleers have in both warzones, yet this topic does just that with its criticism. It is a universally known fact that many of the capsuleers contracting for the various Empire militias do so without ever engaging in actual combat with enemy capsuleers. They contribute nothing to the war effort, and instead soak up lucrative security contracts from militia agents, doing only the bare minimum required of them to qualify for lucrative rewards in LP and standings. Spend any time in the warzone at all and you will see them, warping between systems with near robotic coordination in gangs of tactical destroyers, never stopping to assist with combat operations or contribute to system defense. Near criminal neglect from militia recruiters has enabled them to continue these practices with complete freedom, and it is clear from their employment records that many of them simply switch sides as soon as it becomes profitable to do so.
Second, I don’t believe it is fair to compare an honestly negotiated agreement between hostile forces to some kind of conspiracy to betray the civilian populations of the affected systems. Especially not when the very governments who sponsor the CEWAPA conflict have done literally the exact same thing by voluntarily agreeing to subject their territory to this war in the first place. If anything, the argument could be made that a negotiated agreement between the militias with respect to these systems will do more to prevent harm to civilians than the status quo. After all, any atrocities committed by one side in a system under this agreement risk immediate reprisal against their own civilian population. Under the agreement, both sides have an implicit incentive to protect civilian populations in order to maintain the agreement.
Still, there are legitimate criticisms to be made against this agreement. It is far from perfect. However, the criticism I’m seeing here relies more on misinformation than honesty.
It doesn’t. I mentioned militia profiteers in the same breath as the blooder monsters in the warzone.
And the solution to that isn’t selling out your own people in order to make it harder for ‘mission runners,’ who at the very least doing important tasks for their respective militias even if their motives are suspect.
Entering a war and being willing to take the risks associated with losing in an area aren’t the same as purposefully losing.
■■■■■■■■. You even characterized the people doing the missions as less productive because they were not fighting capsuleers. The deal is about making capsuleers fight capsuleers more. That’s what I said.
Except that their assignments are combat operations contracted out to them directly by militia command, and typically involve destroying enemy outposts, commanders, or supply operations…
No, it’s capsuleers who don’t see their operations as “valuable” because they don’t involve shooting at other capsuleers. “Ah, you shoot baseliners, that means you don’t contribute!”
Of course, there is a problem with people manipulating the warzone back and forth for maximum economic profit. But to say mission runners aren’t contributing to combat operations is inaccurate.
You’re not doing any better at honestly responding to my points than you did honestly presenting the motivations of this agreement. Your mention of profiteers was in your introduction, but when you talked about why the agreement was signed you completely ignored it to talk about killmarks.
Because killmarks is what it’s about. The ‘mission runners’ aren’t helping the rest of the populace produce more killmarks, so they’re willingly giving up their own territory in order to force capsuleers to just fight one another.
That’s your opinion. Restating it doesn’t make your argument any stronger. Another opinion, and indeed the stated goal of the signatories of the agreement itself, is to reduce the influence of corrupt and disloyal mission runners on the warzone.
I find it telling that you completely ignored everything I had to say about the potential for this agreement to provide more stability and security for the civilian population of the impacted systems. From where I’m standing, you seem to care more about “winning” the war for the pride of the thing than the results it produces for your people.
What’s the end result of this treaty working as intended? Contracted capsuleers no longer have access to compromised, occupied agents who give them said contracts. Is there an expectation that they will simply abandon the warzone and stop fulfilling these contracts to attack enemy assets? If they do, then what does that leave those who do have a vested stake in the war? Those loyalists who fight for their people and ideologies as opposed to profit?
What do they have to gain besides more killmarks as a result of this?
I have run more than my fair share of these missions. I know just as well as anyone their value to the war effort. When I see a mission runner in a two day old skill injected clone, probably utilizing illegal AI enhancements to coordinate with the three other tactical destroyers in the gang warping through system, and I identify that “person” as failing to contribute to the war effort… I speak with authority. I have roughly a decade of combat and leadership experience in this conflict. I know who is pulling their weight and who isn’t.
I’d rather the whole thing just end with no gains on either side. It’s been ridiculous ever since we took the entire warzone and the war didn’t end. With no way to actually end this damn thing, it’s just an eternal headache for those of us trapped in the struggle.
So don’t pretend to know a damn thing about what I care about.