Sandromin Hes
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
204
   |
Posted - 2012.08.15 23:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ambushes are to weaken forces en route to an objective. They also hit the enemies' ISK amounts, and force EvE players to either pay them for the battle, or fire their mercs. Also, teams won't be even. And another thing to take into consideration is it's possibly for High/Mid-sec. And, the commander stuff only applies to true organized warfare. Guerilla warfare takes small amounts of soldiers who hit 'n run large amounts of soldiers, like in Vietnam. And the 5 to 1 is Sun Tzu's teaching if I'm not mistaken. Warfare has changed since then. The army with better leaders and better gear and better soldiers can take an army out 10 to 1. Thus, Ambushes are a viable combat form, and have a much deeper tactical meaning. |
Sandromin Hes
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 23:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Keep in mind we're immortal. So deaths, slaughter, and such do not account into the aftermath, which is the main thing in account as well. If I lead an ambush, I would focus and destroying anything they used, while telling my troops to waste as little as possible. Thus, I'd have either a Pyrrhic or true victory. Forcing them to lose ISK forces the EvE players to pay more or fire them/let them quit. Because of that, you'd weaken them significantly.
Sun Tzu's Art of War Chapter 3: "Thus, the highest form of of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; (active counter-attack is implied in the original Chinese text) the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; (basically forcing him to have no reinforcements or supply lines) the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; (just what it says) and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."
He also said: "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."- which in Ambush means to destroy their ISK, forcing them to buy more and more until the above had happened (the part with EvE).
And also: Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.
^Implies running down their ISK is a good strategem (through Ambush I suppose)
And again...: It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
^The 2 to 1 is implied to create a diversion with one part, and attack with the other.
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
^The second point applies to those skilled in the art of war (experienced/good leaders). These things are factors to be taken.
And one final thing. Remember the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. 3 Cavalry Battalions landed at the valley, and 5 Vietcong/NVA battalions fought us (not including support functions). Roughly 100 died on our side in the first battle, and on the other side, we estimatedly killed 1200 enemy troops. Odds/numbers can be taken into account, but they do not define a battle, which is much more fluid than on paper. |