Yesterday's post was expected to ruffle some feathers and I had a comment from someone I respect very much that I wanted to pull out into its own mini-post.
Famous Wilhelm Arcturus, aka The Ancient Gaming Noob, posted this comment:
Your hand waving dismissal seems at least as shallow as their acceptance of the sov grind theory.There have been many knock down and drag out wars since Dominion was released. I listed just some recent wars off the top of my head because I'm not aware of an archive of history of sov wars to reference (but if anyone knows of one, please point me to it!). But most wars in Dominion are marked by an initial pitched battle period followed by one side capitulating when they feel the writing is on the wall. The war between the old Northern Coalition and the Droneland Russians went back in forth in Geminate for months before the NC finally broke (I was there!).
Yes, a lot of wars have gone by. The last year alone has seen several wars of conquest. And how many of them were a short, sharp conflict, followed by a cascade fail and an easy sov clean up? That certainly sounds like what happened with White Noise, Raiden, Nulli Secunda, and IRC.
Meanwhile, the war with Northern Coalition, which did not have all that many systems or towers to deal with, dragged on for quite a while, to the point that people were pointing and shouting "Goon Fail!" because the CFC wasn't winning fast enough.
Now, count all the systems and towers that represent the CFC or the HBC, assume neither will be a quick cascade fail, and then go back to your list of wars and tell me how many of them represented those sorts of numbers and that kind of commitment.
Saying structure grinds were not a factor seems as silly as saying that it was the only factor.
Still, your comment seems to imply that "man, we looked bad!" is the thing you want to avoid. I assume that is not what you meant as you go on to talk of commitment. This seems to stem from the thought that total war equals taking every system by hand. I don't buy that.
For one thing, the "total war" directly implies "must grind all the structures" is a fallacy. Typically the grinding of the structures happens after a war if you want to move in, otherwise you get the new tenants to do it. War between the HBC and CFC would probably be a war for ... I dunno, something, maybe e-honour or plain old "gud fites"... but not, most likely, territorial gain. So to say that the numbers of structure hitpoints was crunched and factored into the decision to go to war or not is a smokescreen, one that was developed after the decision was made and has been accepted as fact by a large number of people, especially in the CFC it seems.
Of course, like any good ruse it works so well because it appeals to the individuals' opinions already.
Leadership - "Don't like structure grinds?"
Masses - "Hell no!"
Leadership - "Well, that's why we avoided this war."
Masses - "Good, thank you for looking out for us!"
Now I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I stand by that point: I don't believe structure grinds were a factor for the HBC/CFC leadership clique in deciding whether or not to go to war.