Creative Annihilation

[Ardus]

Stop for a moment and ask yourself the following question: what are the most powerful alliances right now?

There are a variety of possible answers. Many would point to my current abode, the Mushroom Kingdom, for its notorious war abilities and even more impressive political influence. Others would look to sheer destructive might and zero in on Umbrella, an alliance unmatched in the top-tier and efficiency. You might consider the much maligned GOONS given their seeming ability to do things that many alliances wouldn't (or couldn't) "get away with." Step down from the class of "most powerful" to "just plain good" and you might gather around the talented Viridian Entente, FARK, FAN, and NPO.

A common trait in all of these alliances, other than many are clearly in my sphere of bias, is that they are all products of destruction. The Mushroom Kingdom came about as Archon's project in the wake of LUE's demise. Umbrella was born before the smoke had cleared from the defeat of Gen[m]ay. The Viridian Entente famously burned in the Green Civil War and then rallied together in the subsequent Unjust War. GOONS left and GOONS returned, much changed (and much the same). FARK, FAN, and NPO burned in protracted, devastating wars that tested their resolve to exist at all. FAN and NPO each have burned twice, the former enduring the longest and second longest conflicts in history.

Each of these examples, while they may have suffered statistically from devastation and brutality, ultimately benefited from the destruction imposed upon them. The reasons should be self-evident. First, an argument embraced since as long as I can remember, war weeds out the disloyal. Regular war removes cowards and crushing war gets rid of the tenuously dedicated. This can be good for both the alliance and the individuals who surrender: the alliance sheds dead weight and the departed are free to find a group they [i]are[/i] willing to dedicate themselves to or join a neutral alliance where they can be dedicated to stats. Second, devastating defeats tend to grant alliances a new and much needed freedom to pursue drastic change. This is especially evident in alliances that disband and return or give rise to spiritual successors. The Mushroom Kingdom and Umbrella are more controlled and efficient, both publicly and privately, than their ancestors. The Viridian Entente was able to shed numerous detrimental policies through dissolution and recreation. GOONS found new leaders and new members that naturally give rise to considerably different tactics. NPO changed leaders after both of its devastating defeats, giving rise to Dilber and the Pacifican Miracle after GWI and Cortath after Karma (not quite a miracle, but they are back to #2). Third, for those who remain in devastated alliances, the moments of defeat can be a unifying force. NPO famously refers to the First Great War as "The Great Patriotic War". The War of the Coalition provided the Mushroom Kingdom a banner it would carry through to victory in Karma: "Friends > Infra". So on, so forth.

Of course, not all alliances survive or benefit from such brutality. To claim such would be plainly blind to the countless alliances destroyed to never return and those neutered to seemingly permanent irrelevance. However, while their falls may be personally detrimental, their losses become the gains of other groups and seed new alliances who may pursue new ideas beneficial to the community at large. Through destruction comes creation.

Many will also argue that the cruelty of ages past is responsible for the diminished population of the world today. Instead, I would argue that it is the mercy of the post-Karma world that has driven so many into the boundless void. There is little space for new groups and new ideas, for upward movement and mobility, as so many aging groups clog and block the path to glory. With no destruction and only limited creation, the competition for individuals and talent only grows more intense, more difficult, and more futile.

As I conclude, I hope to make one last point clear: this is not a call for a full return to the harshness of the pre-Karma world. The otherworldly pursuit and condemnation of individuals for reasons and through methods wholly detached from our present existence is to be condemned now and forever. Nor do I call for indiscriminate extremity in indemnities and warfare. Rather, I merely hope to point out a few of the positive externalities of our villains of yore and the villains that will no doubt rise for tomorrow.

Out of chaos comes order. Out of failure comes learning.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Ardus

[potato]

While I like the way you think, there are a few exceptions. Most notably Legion who, throughout its entire existence, has almost never been on the winning side of a war, has "disbanded" once and has yet to achieve anything remarkable. Although one would argue surviving is quite a feat, it's barely enough in my books. And, while there's a legitimate sense of pride and cohesion in alliances such as MK or NPO who went through hell and back, Legion remains far from average.

But an interesting read nonetheless.

[Kzoppistan]

It is through adversity that one achieves excellence. It is annihilation of the self that must be before the rebirth can begin. It is being placed in the fiery forge of hardship, struck with the hammer of truth while writhing upon the anvil of experience, that one becomes tempered. Imperfectly cast and the blade is brittle, easily broken. But being led into the hell fires by an experienced hand, ah, now you'll have a tool of perfection.

[quote]Pain is weakness leaving the body.[/quote]

A great post.

[Tautology]

You could say that by giving brutal terms to the defeated, you're doing them a favor - what doesn't kill them will only make them stronger. My concern is that the alliances watching from the sidelines could be traumatized by it.

[mrcalkin]

I agree with a lot of the first post, but as a long-time member of both Genmay and Umbrella, I am obviously a little biased. I think one of the important parts that often is overlooked with regard to Umbrella though is that not all of Genmay was included or even invited to join in either the planning or formation of the alliance. It was mostly the active and dedicated core IRC base and the most prolific and talented contributors to Genmay who were included early on and even early on after formation, only those who were known good members or who were personally known personally (ooc:irl) by members were allowed to join. The process to streamline and improve Umbrella over our predecessor alliance was not entirely natural in that case; we didn't simply wait for those members who were disloyal or not dedicated towards the group to filter themselves out, instead we tried to take an active role in determining who would have a positive impact on the alliance and attempting to not repeat some of the mistakes of Genmay (like letting in anyone sight-unseen). While we were not 100% on the ball with all those who were chosen and let in, I think this practice and the general sense of camaraderie amongst this group born from the months preceding the Unjust War were some of the essential keys to our success.

Basically to sum up what I am trying to get at, I don't think its just the destruction that is important, which you note in your OP for all the cases where victimized alliances faded away rather than re-surge, but a drive born from desire for revenge, desire for community and desire for improvement that can result from being on the business end of a shotgun.

edit:

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1287779313' post='2490771']
You could say that by giving brutal terms to the defeated, you're doing them a favor - what doesn't kill them will only make them stronger. My concern is that the alliances watching from the sidelines could be traumatized by it.
[/quote]

In almost all the "success" cases listed though, the defeated or disbanded alliances chose [b]not[/b] to fulfill any terms, at least at time of disbanding or defeat. In some of the cases, no terms were even given to begin with. I am not sure monetary terms alone do anything but take alliances out of the game for long periods of time in which they can rebuild without the burden of military costs or fear of having to participate in a war. I think they can be strong discouragements for senseless declarations against your alliance from small groups, but at the end of massive wars its basically a security blanket given to the defeated party, that has the side effect of making the defeated party feel like martyrs and give them something to rally around as being unjust or unwarranted.

Edited October 22, 2010 by mrcalkin

[supercoolyellow]

In the early years of CN, it seemed the ticket to success was recruiting a lot of nations, as it only took a bit of growth for them to be relevant. Today, its more about attracting older nations to your alliance, and not really building anything new from new nations. Case in point MK drew from LUE, and now it attracts members from all over CN. Umbrella, the same, but from Genmay. Is it really possible in today's situation that an alliance can be destroyed and a few of its members leave and create something great?

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1287779583' post='2490778']
In the early years of CN, it seemed the ticket to success was recruiting a lot of nations, as it only took a bit of growth for them to be relevant. Today, its more about attracting older nations to your alliance, and not really building anything new from new nations. Case in point MK drew from LUE, and now it attracts members from all over CN. Umbrella, the same, but from Genmay. Is it really possible in today's situation that an alliance can be destroyed and a few of its members leave and create something great?
[/quote]

Again, if you are going to use the example of Umbrella, you have to look at what actually happened. Very few of the experienced members of Genmay ended up in Umbrella. Of our first government (ochocinco, Kevin, and MaoKhan) only Mao had ever been in the government of Genmay, ochocinco had been an outside acquaintance of a Genmay member but never very influential within the alliance, and Kevin had been a virtual unknown prior to the Unjust War. On top of this, fearing retaliation and also in an attempt to make sure our nations were set for the future with regard to trades, we rerolled practically every single one of our nations prior to the formation of Umbrella. It wasn't the fact that we got the older, bigger nations or the most experienced members of Genmay, it was more the product of being lucky and having a subgroup of the alliance that was very tight-knit and a drive to want to make our own path/decisions.

At the time of formation, we saw the Gremlins and TOP as our main inspirations and tried to copy their model closely. I don't know how many times people said we were too late or would never be able to catch up on Infra/tech/warchests/whatever. We realized we were a year or more behind them but we tried different things and gambled (successfully, I might add) a few times on preparation vs growth early on. With the right tactics, drive and the willpower to do things right, I can guarantee another alliance could replicate these successes; you just have to be in for the long haul and not throw your hands up in defeat before you even start.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287780447' post='2490787']
Again, if you are going to use the example of Umbrella, you have to look at what actually happened.[/quote]

Sorry about that, I was working on my post when you submitted yours. didn't see it till after I had posted. Thx for the knowledge btw.

[Earogema]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1287777975' post='2490757']
While I like the way you think, there are a few exceptions. Most notably Legion who, throughout its entire existence, has almost never been on the winning side of a war, has "disbanded" once and has yet to achieve anything remarkable. Although one would argue surviving is quite a feat, it's barely enough in my books. And, while there's a legitimate sense of pride and cohesion in alliances such as MK or NPO who went through hell and back, Legion remains far from average.

But an interesting read nonetheless.
[/quote]
As much as I dislike Legion, they have been around for all that time, and even got sanction again. I mean, they have never ONCE won a war (With the exception of GWI, but they didn't even get anything from that), have been stomped MULTIPLE times, and yet, they have sanction yet again with almost 400 members. It supports his thesis.

Of course, hilariously MHA, the biggest alliance, does not. Go figure.

EDIT: I mean FAN was used as an example in the OP and they haven't done anything other than grow for a while. When is the last time you saw a relevant FAN announcement? If FAN gets props for surviving and growing, I say Legion does too.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Earogema

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1287777975' post='2490757']
While I like the way you think, there are a few exceptions. Most notably Legion who, throughout its entire existence, has almost never been on the winning side of a war, has "disbanded" once and has yet to achieve anything remarkable. Although one would argue surviving is quite a feat, it's barely enough in my books. And, while there's a legitimate sense of pride and cohesion in alliances such as MK or NPO who went through hell and back, Legion remains far from average.

But an interesting read nonetheless.
[/quote]

I'll agree with you on your first point, Ardus' article was very good and I do like the way he thinks. Your other points however are just plain pitiful. What history are you reading where The Legion "has almost never been on the winning side of a war"? Our war record isn't perfect, but neither are any of the alliances that are in the article. Did you also overlook that The Legion and others in Poseidon defeated Vanguard who recently merged into the sacred realm of the Shrooms?

You go on to list our disbandment in your faults for The Legion. That makes me wonder if you even read the article or frankly your own history. MK rose from the ashes of LUE, and should rightfully be commended for their achievement. Even though MK and The Legion followed similar paths in that regard you hold our darkest moment over our head as a badge of shame, while totally ignoring what we've done since. Namely rising to sanction status which was no mean trick after being on the losing side of the last two wars.

You end up by extolling the pride of both your members and NPO, but then claim that Legion pride is lacking. After the disbandment try the Legionnaires who were left had nothing but pride. It was Legion pride that helped them carry on the name and ideals of our alliance after we were nearly destroyed. It was Legion pride that inspired them to rebuild. It was Legion pride that they instilled in those that came after them. I'm one of those Legionnaires and I hold Legion pride dear to my heart, and can assure you that my Legion brothers and sisters do the same.

Even though we're not mentioned The Legion is a fine example of an alliance that's gone through the fire's of Hell and come out stronger.

P.S. Thanks Earogema, but for the record we have won more than one war.

Edited October 22, 2010 by LeonidasRexII

[Earogema]

Also, I should add that while this is relatively true, you can hardly argue that you are doing it to help them, as the amount of damage you are doing is provable, while the amount of "help" you contribute is only a possibility. Not only that, but it smacks of that old age argument "It doesn't matter that I did something horrible, they'll be better for it!" Just admit you're hurting somebody.

There are certain alliances that don't fit the mold. ONOS is gone. The 2nd \m/ isn't as political relevant or powerful. NAAC died. TORN isn't that successful, but they do fine on their own I guess. OV is gone. NATO remains at the relative level that they have been at FOREVER. NADC is a huge shell of what it was.

Finally, some alliances like MHA, Sparta, WTF, and TDO have all never been rolled. All of those have sanction or just need enough members for sanction.

[Earogema]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1287782353' post='2490804']
P.S. Thanks Earogema, but for the record we have won more than one war.
[/quote]
Yeah I know, I forgot. My bad.

I actually forget about UJW a lot these days for some reason.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287779351' post='2490773']
I am not sure monetary terms alone do anything but take alliances out of the game for long periods of time in which they can rebuild without the burden of military costs or fear of having to participate in a war. I think they can be strong discouragements for senseless declarations against your alliance from small groups, but at the end of massive wars its basically a security blanket given to the defeated party, that has the side effect of making the defeated party feel like martyrs and give them something to rally around as being unjust or unwarranted.
[/quote]

You make it sound almost as though being given heavy reps is a good thing.

Go back and read the Trashcat's comments about TDSM8's disbandment, and shortly afterwards. I don't think heavy terms did them much good, and I am sure they are not the only group that considered reps to be a burden. Also, ask NPO how much that "security blanket" was worth during their recent terms. Saying this sort of thing is beneficial to people paying reps is just whitewash.

[Lennox]

More war needs to happen no matter what the cause is, or what the outcome will be. There are VERY few leaders left who have the balls to actively plot and coordinate a war.

[Choson]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1287773843' post='2490736']
GOONS left and GOONS returned, much changed (and much the same).[/quote]
Ardus, I like you, but this statement is false and only feeds those who desperately want to believe it.

Old GOONS didn't "leave". They disbanded.

GOONS 2: Electric Boogaloo was/is never a "return" of Old GOONS members. It's an alliance that happens to share the same name as another. While there are some of us old GOONS members still about, we're in the vast minority when it comes to our total membership.

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1287783786' post='2490815']
More war needs to happen no matter what the cause is, or what the outcome will be. There are VERY few leaders left who have the balls to actively plot and coordinate a war.
[/quote]

I half agree with this. More war needs to happen, but there should be proper CB behind it. Not just because someone wants it to happen.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1287783218' post='2490811']
You make it sound almost as though being given heavy reps is a good thing.

Go back and read the Trashcat's comments about TDSM8's disbandment, and shortly afterwards. I don't think heavy terms did them much good, and I am sure they are not the only group that considered reps to be a burden. Also, ask NPO how much that "security blanket" was worth during their recent terms. Saying this sort of thing is beneficial to people paying reps is just whitewash.
[/quote]

I am of the opinion that heavy tech reps alone don't really do much to punish an alliance, if that is what is intended. They'll slow their growth maybe, but they'll also get the benefit of being "punished" by not keeping nukes (big savings per day to large nations) and getting their tech intake hurt, but also hurting the tech intake of the alliance they are paying reps to (ask any alliance that has organized large tech rep transfers and you'll find out that leaving slots open for weeks/months is common). When it seemed Genmay was going to be given heavy reps or not given reps at all, we made the decision to disband and regroup. I would say that was a much better result than trying to keep a bloated carcass alive.

Now all that said, I and most of my alliance are generally anti-terms in wars that aren't directly against us (we have declined reparations in major wars since the WoTC). Reps in particular would only hurt our tech intake considering our normally high slot-usage. If an alliance hit us, we'd almost certainly have to levy other kinds of terms if we wanted to discourage future opportunists.

I'd also note that the NPO was not attacked since Karma and now occupies the #2 spot in the game. If reparations were intended to hold them down or punish them, it was obviously ineffective in actually effecting the alliance's ability to grow and become powerful.

So its not to say that heavy terms are the way of the future and that we all need to start going around disbanding alliances or whatever, but simply levying huge financial reparations on alliances is, at best, ineffective.

[fluffyewunga]

Getting curbstomped wouldn't affect me or my approach to the game. On an alliance level however it's certainly been the origin of a lot of the longest lasting vendettas of the past. So yes, I do think that extreme struggle can be the making of an alliance, but usually because it creates a cause to rally behind. i.e. striking back at the curbstompers.

On a side issue, Legion are quite right to puff their chests. They've done well for themselves.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287785728' post='2490840']
I'd also note that the NPO was not attacked since Karma and now occupies the #2 spot in the game. If reparations were intended to hold them down or punish them, it was obviously ineffective in actually effecting the alliance's ability to grow and become powerful.

So its not to say that heavy terms are the way of the future and that we all need to start going around disbanding alliances or whatever, but simply levying huge financial reparations on alliances is, at best, ineffective.
[/quote]

Your point about the nukes/navy/etc. saving a defeated alliance money I can agree with. Also I am sure you point about the slot usage are accurate too, but then why do it if it is inefficient for both parties?

NPO was not attacked in war, but suffered large numbers of raids and it is only their sheer size that enabled them to climb to #2; they would have gotten there anyway, and it is quite possible the raids slowed them down some.

I also disagree with your last point, as heavy reps cripples an AA's tech strength, which is a large amount of an AA's military effectiveness. Monetary reps are not overly harmful in and of themselves but they do tie up aid slots quite well. If you want to neuter your opponents for the long term then you hit them with large reps, it seems to be quite effective at doing that.

[ktarthan]

Whether it is rising or falling, change is something that I think of as positive, as long as that change doesn't prevent further change. So, as an extreme example, the planet being destroyed, while still technically a "change", would be a very bad one.

Conflict and non-permanent destruction on the other hand, will tend to breed the good kind of change.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[Xiphosis]

I was discussing a similar concept with Kevan just the other day; that if more people were put to the fire/had their will tested we'd have a better pool of alliances around.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Xiphosis

[Owned-You]

Wise leaders know that war is a tool that is not only destructive but also of growth. In the fires of conflict the strongest alliances have there identities forged through war; and a defeated party in the long-term will often times be better off then a victorious one. Simply due to the victor growing fat and complacent whilst a defeated foe finds himself rebuilding with a purpose and being united in action as opposed to united in apathy that most victorious alliances feel.

[Heft]

This is rather silly. Yes, from time to time alliances can take a difficult conflict and use it to become better, eventually, but to believe that imposed hardship is a naturally good thing smacks of self-justification and rationalization.

For example:
[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1287779313' post='2490771']
You could say that by giving brutal terms to the defeated, you're doing them a favor - what doesn't kill them will only make them stronger. My concern is that the alliances watching from the sidelines could be traumatized by it.
[/quote]

[Alterego]

I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Quite a few of the alliances that came out of the losing side of the UJW ended up formidable alliances because of what followed. Think evolution & survival of the fittest.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Alterego

[Prodigal Moon]

As several have alluded to, I think the cause and effect in the OP are mixed up. It's not necessarily that adversity (in CN) creates strength. It's more that the only ones who are able to bounce back from adversity are those groups who are dedicated and resilient. The majority of alliances that have appeared in CN have disbanded or been absorbed.

(OOC: It's like when people say it's amazing that Earth is perfectly suited to human life, and we happened to appear here of all places. We're only on a planet that's suited for human life *because* this is the only one where we could've existed).

[Branimir]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287780447' post='2490787']At the time of formation, we saw the Gremlins and TOP as our main inspirations and tried to copy their model closely. I don't know how many times people said we were too late or would never be able to catch up on Infra/tech/warchests/whatever. We realized we were a year or more behind them but we tried different things and gambled (successfully, I might add) a few times on preparation vs growth early on. With the right tactics, drive and the willpower to do things right, I can guarantee another alliance could replicate these successes; you just have to be in for the long haul and not throw your hands up in defeat before you even star[/quote]
That is nice story. But arent we forgetting something,...like the most important and key element?

TOP/Gre got burned in devastating wars while you didn't. That is how you make up for gaps in this world. There is no other way. That is how they made those gaps in the first place anyway. Maneuver the seas of politics with grace, and you shall succeed. Yes and drive, willpower, tactics,...yadda yadda,...

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287785728' post='2490840']I'd also note that the NPO was not attacked since Karma and now occupies the #2 spot in the game. If reparations were intended to hold them down or punish them, it was obviously ineffective in actually effecting the alliance's ability to grow and become powerful.[/quote]
Cool story.

And now for what actually happened. World burned in a nuclear holocaust, while we didn't. That is how we are second now. The first? Only big alliance to not actually suffer much from the holocaust. Go figure.

Reps were quite effective. Without them, NPO would be much further away in its strength. Like,...tremendously.

OP was a good story. I enjoyed reading it. But as already Heft hinted it, its just a story nothing more.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Branimir