PL Defends ZMV9-A Fortizar in 120B Fight

JMoravia 2018-07-24

In what must be a welcome change of pace from having their supercap fleet logon-trapped in UALX-3, Pandemic Legion forces have successfully defended a Fortizar in ZMV9-A from attacking forces of Legacy Coalition.

PanFam’s attempts to extricate their supercaps by mass petition were rebuffed by CCP, to the point of having one ship moved back to UALX-3 after CCP admitted the petition should not have been granted, so they were certainly going into the battle with major question marks hanging over them.

Significant Loss to Attackers

Efforts to construct a definitive battle report of the situation have been complicated by technical issues affecting zKillboard’s database, but INN has obtained a screenshot of a believed-accurate battle report showing that the Legacy attackers (left side) lost nearly 400 ships, to the tune of nearly 85 billion ISK, while PL and the other defenders (right side) suffered the loss of only 35 billion ISK, saving the Fortizar in the process.  The discerning observer will note, however, that the Northern forces fielded a number of dreadnoughts and force auxiliaries, but no carriers, supercapitals, or titans, which may serve as an indication that they remain logon-trapped in UALX-3.  (Readers may access the zKillboard battle report here, but should be advised that as of the time of this writing there are discrepancies between the pre-database-purge and post-database-purge versions of the report.)

Strategic Implications

ZMV9-A, although in the region of Tenerifis, borders the region of Immensea, which has been the target of Test Alliance Please Ignore expansion in recent months. As part of the current Great Western War, Immensea and surrounding areas make up the Southeastern Front, where PanFam is working to contain TEST expansion. Thus this victory may be considered either a strategic victory or a strategic loss depending on how one chooses to frame the discussion – it is a strategic victory in that it preserves a PanFam Fortizar just outside Legacy-controlled space, giving PanFam a forward operating base from which to continue contesting Legacy’s expansion. However, it is also a strategic loss in that it ties down yet more PanFam assets on the Southeastern Front, when arguably they would be of much more use on the Western Front – a place where the Imperium is currently running roughshod over every feeble obstacle placed in their path. PanFam’s ability to run a rental empire will surely be called into question if their caps and supercaps are on the far end of the universe.

Regardless, the victory will no doubt be spun into PanFam propaganda of the purest sense – look what we can accomplish even without our capital ships! Of course, one should note that PanFam won the ISK fight by a relatively modest 50b, which pales in comparison to the more than 400b differential of the V-JCJS titan dunking linked in the previous paragraph. This was a tactical victory for PanFam; that is beyond question. However, was it a strategic victory, especially when a huge portion of PanFam’s capitals and supercapitals remain logon-trapped under strict Imperial Legacy supervision? This writer simply cannot see how.

Developments to Follow

As always, please regularly refresh INN for updates on the current war. Please note also that this article may be edited at a future date with updated information once the zKillboard database is functioning properly.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your own article to Imperium News here!

Would you like to join the Imperium News staff? Find out how!

Comments

  • Mick

    Are you one of the wikipedia bumkins that fights to keep Pearl Harbour listed as a “strategic defeat” for Japan?

    July 24, 2018 at 4:48 am
    • Rammel Kas Mick

      If you have the time why not submit an opinion piece if your own? Button’s right there y’know?

      July 24, 2018 at 6:52 am
    • anaisanais501 Mick

      Well, I suppose it was a strategic defeat. They went to war with the USA having no knowledge of the huge number of capital ships and carriers on order that the Japanese could never hope to match. By 1944 the US was fielding more ships in its Pacific fleets than all other navies combined, with over 100 carriers!

      July 24, 2018 at 8:57 am
      • BuckStrider anaisanais501

        I think you better read up on your history. The U.S did not have ‘over a 100 carriers’ in WW2. Not even close.

        July 24, 2018 at 10:45 am
        • anaisanais501 BuckStrider

          The USA had 143 carriers including conversions and trainers (i.e. not all Fleet Carriers) completed by the end of the the war.

          Source: Silverstone, U.S. Warships of World War II, Doubleday, 1972

          July 24, 2018 at 12:40 pm
        • Garreth Vlox BuckStrider

          “I think you better read up on your history. ” You should take you own advice even a basic google search gives you the real number of 143 carriers constructed by the end of WWII.

          July 24, 2018 at 6:56 pm
        • I think Buck is focusing on fleet carriers. Far sexier and more important, and there were 28.

          July 25, 2018 at 2:04 pm
      • See, this is conflating the decision to go to war with the actual battle of Pearl Harbour.

        Japan was always going to join the war, the alternative being economic suicide; the method by which they announced it doesn’t make that method a part of the decision. The destruction of France and threat of invasion to Britain were strategically just as critical to the decision as whacking the US’s fleet; both European powers had significant Asian holdings that Japan coveted, and scary big Battleship fleets to prevent Japan taking them.

        Pearl was an incredible tactical and strategic victory for Japan, especially in context of the existing view of naval doctrine at the time, which said battleships win wars, and carriers scout for them. The US was both lucky in that their carriers weren’t home, and that the meta was changing to carriers ruling the seas.

        Still, the loss of those battleships opened the entire pacific theatre to a land invasion – battleships were still key in supporting landing / landed troops – without which Japan could not have occupied most of south eastern Asia.

        Japan was ultimately out for an empire building smash-n-grab, believing that Germany would prevail in Europe (a good bet in December 1941, with German troops shelling Moscow) . Remember Japan also had a long history of war with Russia as well, and Russia appeared about to collapse.

        Had the Germans prevailed in Eastern Europe and forced the British and US to terms, doubtless Japan would have expected to be included in those terms, and their strategic objectives of gaining territory would have been met.

        Ultimately the record winter of 1941 and the battle of Stalingrad both had more impact on the war in the pacific than anything that actually happened in the pacific after Pearl. Japan couldn’t win the war outright, and never expected to be able to; they always needed Germany to win in Europe.

        In any case, back to the point, Pearl was a massive tactical and strategic victory that was pivotal in the occupation of nearly the entirety of south east Asia. Even ignoring that naval doctrine at the time was wrong, battleships still provided unmatched ground support, and complete dominance in this area allowed Japan’s army to achieve what it did in 1942.

        The strategic defeat that turned the pacific sea war back came later at Midway, and surely enough by 1943 the US’s industrial might was finally churning out “Delve hours” worth of carriers and the US could have goon-whelped their way to from sea victory to sea victory screaming “already replaced” to anyone who would listen, but it wasn’t until the battleship hulls were raised and rebuilt that the occupied lands could be liberated.

        July 25, 2018 at 1:57 pm
        • anaisanais501 Mick

          Most of the above is unmitigated bollocks. Because my time is short, I’ll take one thing: Pearl was an incredible tactical and strategic victory for Japan.

          That’s pretty much a “no” isn’t it. The tactical victory was lost because most of the fleet wasn’t in port. It was a strategic failure because Japan went to war with the USA having absolutely no prospect of defeating her. Japan didn’t build a 4 engined bomber (neither did Germany) and had no way of degrading the USA’s industrial base.

          Once war was declared it was only a matter of time before the USA’s preponderance of men and materiel overwhelmed Japan and her allies. Then there’s the technological race, which the USA clearly won.

          July 26, 2018 at 9:53 am
          • You’re an unmitigated clown mate. The decision to go to war and the battle were two different things. Pretending otherwise to claim it was some kind of strategic defeat is absolutely farcical.

            Given the state of research on both sides in 1941, it isn’t at all unlikely that the Germans would have had a deliverable fusion warhead available by 1945 had they subdued Russia in March 1942.

            Quickly, tell me again how it was the delivery of US trucks via Murmansk that won the eastern front, and not the winter of 41/42 and the trading efficiency of the T-42 tank. I need a good laugh, it’s been a bad day.

            July 27, 2018 at 2:17 am
    • J Moravia Mick

      First, thanks as always for reading and commenting. We love all our readers, since without you none of this would be possible!

      Second, let’s talk strategic defeat for a moment. What, precisely, would you say are PL’s strategic objectives in this war? What would you say “winning” looks like in terms of an overall outcome? My analysis is always up for debate, but I see two major objectives, the one in the southeast being to contain Legacy expansion and the one in the west being to keep them and their allies from losing meaningful amounts of territory and/or ISK.

      So, was this Fortizar defense a strategic victory or defeat? On the one hand, it helps tangibly with PL’s southeastern goal of containing TEST. On the other hand, literally the exact same day as this fight went down, PanFam renters No Value and Brothers of Tangra lost over 400b worth of titans, supers, faxes, dreadnoughts, etc., etc in V-JCJS. If PL hadn’t been tied down with this strategic objective, would they have been able to keep their renters from getting dunked so hard in the west? Did PL’s presence at this battle cost them a huge amount of ISK elsewhere? Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t, but if it did, “We won here but it cost us badly somewhere else” is a really great definition for the term “strategic defeat.”

      As I said, the analysis is always up for debate, and I love reading alternate perspectives, so if you see things differently than I do, please feel empowered to comment here (or even do a user-submitted article about it). However, based on the material facts of the situation, I have to disagree with the conclusion that only a “bumkin” [sic] would consider this a strategic defeat.

      Thanks again for your comment and for engaging with the article.
      J

      July 24, 2018 at 9:03 pm
      • Two good articles for the price of one! Awesome, love it! Can we also rename, ‘faxes’ as Foxes? ‘400b worth of titans, supers, foxes, dreadnoughts’, sounds so much better.

        Cheers, B-

        July 25, 2018 at 1:55 am
      • Mick J Moravia

        You are simply grasping at straws attempting to tie this battle to the renter’s getting themselves dunked. The link you are trying to draw would require PL to have otherwise been likely to assist their renters with a flash form save from the nonsense situation they got themselves into. There were other uncommitted allied fleets that weren’t used, and the *actual* strategic defeat of UALX still locking down the PL supers at the time would have played in as well.

        It’s fine to say “well why we got the crap kicked out of us, so did they, and way worse!” but forcibly linking the battles to try and claim the southern battle was also a victory is just silly. The southern strategic objective, low value it might have been, was saved – the beach head fortizar remains, and the meatgrinding of Test continued. The tactical objective, being to have some fun and blow up some content, was an incredible success.

        As well say the north is being “strategically defeated” every time the south doesn’t follow through on keepstar armour timers. An extension of “made you form”. Or even better, find some objective in the north in the hour before downtime today that the imperium clobbered, and call it a strategic loss because the ships involved weren’t at the hell-camp breakout – even though they wouldn’t have been anyway.

        July 25, 2018 at 12:15 pm
        • J Moravia Mick

          It seems self-evident to me that if PL wasn’t fighting a two-front war, all their ships would be concentrated on the other front. The more resources they commit to one front, the fewer there are available for the other front.

          You’re thinking too narrowly. If the Imperium knew that all of PL’s forces (as well as the rest of PanFam and GOTG) were concentrated in the north,do you think the Imperium would have taken such a relatively small (37 dreadnoughts, no supercarriers or titans, only two faxes) force to attack in V-JCJS? The question is not whether any physical ships from ZMV9-A would have been present in V-JCJS; the question is whether their presence on the northern front would have acted as a deterrent. As I keep saying, maybe or maybe not, but it’s hardly “grasping at straws” to point out that PL is fighting a two-front war, losing badly on the western front and possibly enjoying small gains on the southeastern front, and that PL’s choice to commit so heavily to the southeastern front has consequences in terms of deterrent ability and force projection elsewhere.

          I’m glad you commented back, though, and I like the way you think. Would you have any interest in having a real-time discussion about this issue in-game, debating strategy and implications of different battles, and posting the debates as INN articles? I’d be happy to compensate you with half the commission fee that I’d get for writing it. Drop me a line at J Moravia in game if you’re interested and we can talk it over.

          Respectfully yours,
          J

          July 25, 2018 at 1:17 pm
  • Marus

    At least they (PL) can win fights in subcapital ships, something that you can’t really say for the imperium.

    July 24, 2018 at 9:13 am
  • RK

    The title of the article leads you to believe that this is an article about a specific battle, but the content inside is about UALX-3, V-JCJS, the western front and PanFam propaganda with a short mention about a battle happening in the system mentioned in the title.

    Weird.

    July 24, 2018 at 10:53 am
    • Mick RK

      It’s how you cover your side getting the crap kicked out of it but still turn it into propaganda for INN 😉

      July 25, 2018 at 11:28 am
  • Addelee

    Do you have a proper link for the screenshot you posted. It’s tiny

    July 24, 2018 at 4:14 pm
  • phuzz

    The thing is, there’s no way 100% of PL/NC’s super fleet is stuck in UALX-3.
    I doubt it’s even 90% stuck, or even 70%. So the real question is, why aren’t they engaging with the remains of their fleet?
    Are they trying to lure The Imperium/Legacy/etc. into some kind of engagement where they can then drop the rest of their super fleet as a surprise?

    July 25, 2018 at 3:58 pm