Warfare & Tactics

Well... I was trying to draw some parallels to stimulate discussion but I think I'm beaten. :)

T-

I think that if you had asked people to describe tactics in their own words that they find useful or impressive, you would have fostered more discussion.

Speaking of that, I'd like to know what tactics people DO think are useful and/or impressive, and how they have used them or had them used against them, but that might be for another thread.

Oh, are we comparing military strategy epeens? Instead, let's broaden our minds with some real armchair general foo.

You think the invasion-of-everywhere the Goons pulled off is amazing, given their low-skill noob fleet comps? (it is) It's been done. Try taking over China with a bunch of illiterate and unarmed peasants. It ain't pretty, but it can be done. For bonus points, defeat back-to-back superpowers by using these tactics in a mountainous desert (Afghanistan x2) or jungle (Vietnam x2). I bet this stuff works in space too!

Read some Julian Corbett. Naval strategy. Good stuff. The Brits thought he was a poof, but a lot of modern American naval strategy is based on Corbett. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Corbett

Follow Corbett with some Mao, who took Corbett's basic principles and applied them to guerrilla war. (Historical cause-and-effect not verified) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao

And wrap up our little tour with some John Boyd. He started small, with maneuvers, the smallest atom of tactics, but ended up applying the same principles to grand strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

These wikipedia articles are crap, but at least they spell the names correctly so you can find the primary sources.

Corbett, the three-penny tour:
Tactically:

• Disperse your forces when you don't want to fight. Find a safe, cloak up. Maybe log off.
• Concentrate your forces when you do want to fight. Always outnumber your enemy locally. My big blob beats your small blob.
• Never fight your enemy where they are concentrated. That's just dumb. This is more specific than 'fight on your terms.' Your terms are: pick off enemy assets until they can't/won't fight anymore and rage-quit. No epic battles. No glory. (Of course the Brits hated him. What kind of pawncy crap is that? Also, where'd The Empire go? Huh, maybe he's on to something....)
• Total strength isn't that important for these tactics, it's localized strength that matters. This means more combat-effective ships on grid, not in system or available nearby.

Strategically:

• Always have better intel than your enemy. This is more important than numbers or tactics, because this is how you control the flow of battle in a specific engagement AND how you win a war. Who's got the best network of spies and archives of everyone's forums? Yeah: the victors, that's who.
• Always be more maneuverable than your enemy, so you can take advantage of your intel. Fast and blind is still an effective tactic if your goal is to survive, but it won't win fights (see Boyd for more).
• Actual fleet composition doesn't necessarily affect victory. These tactics work well if you don't have the latest generation tech, or are fighting enemies that are more technically advanced. (Of course, you need to accept huge losses if you follow this guideline, and ditch quaint notions of honor or human rights. The Chinese, Afghans, and Vietnamese left mountains of dead on their way to victory and broke every rule you can break. The American navy, on the other hand, took a somewhat different approach: these strategic concepts also work well when you are the most advanced tech. Subs and cruise missles, FTW).
• Don't get bogged down in real estate. It forces you to concentrate defenses and lets your enemy know where you will concentrate. Own a POS? Guess what, that's where the fight will be. And guess who controls when that fight happens? Your enemy. Now, if you own 1,000 POSes, that's another story. *Hat Tip*

Boyd, in a nutshell: "He who can handle the quickest rate of change survives" Unpacked, only slightly:
Better intel alone isn't enough. You need to be able to process it, adjust your tactics, make decisions, and execute faster than your enemy. He worked for the military, so he came up with an acronym for it: the OODA Loop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

Read on and open your mind.

[And no, I'm not an expert either, but if you're going to talk military tactics FOR SPACE at least move into a modern millenium. Sun Tzu lived in a time when nobody could read, communications meant a dude on a horse, and military tech mean "woot: bronze!" Hannibal, who lived only slightly later, lived during the golden age of supercaps: elephants. Seriously?]

I'm probably getting trolled, but anyways .. .

You are making the istake a of confusin "fun" with good tactics/strategy. "Fun" is a challenge, when you have a decent chance of losing. Sports are "fun" because they are fair and generally close to evenly matched. Good tactics and strategy take out the "fun" by helping to ensure that you are rarely in a position to lose. I don't remember who said it, but a good line to think about is:
"The warrior fights the battle in order to win the war. The strategist wins the war, then fights the battle."

In other words, you should have things planned out so that once the battle comes, there is little doubt of the outcome. This is what people are talking about with only concentrating your forces when you want to, not the other guy.

Dead on the money Tjo...there are a lot of ignoramuses posting here that simply
don't have a clue about warfare and think that EVE combat is a special case
with no relation to previous work on strategy and tactics.

-- Haze

yeah, get back to serious bizness, you ignoramussses!

Tjo, I agree completely with the spirit of your post, but I must disagree with the post itself. Knowing what you know, I'd have kept my mouth shut lest you have to fight someone who read your post and gained new tactical insights.

Top notch regardless.