Jump to content
  • entries
    36
  • comments
    511
  • views
    2,430

Political Ramifications of the Techraid War


Bob Janova

300 views

 Share

Of course, the war is not yet over, but it is reasonable at this time to extrapolate the current state of the war to its reasonable conclusion: a crushing defeat for IRON, more pain for Polaris and most of Purple, and a painful and damaging draw between TOP and C&G. (C&G will probably be able to claim a victory in the end, but both sides are going to lose in that encounter.) So what can we say about the likely shape of the political landscape afterwards?

The first and most obvious outcome will be a grave weakening of Polar's influence. They have already lost their connection to the Superfriends (Ragnarok having cancelled that MDP on Monday), and it seems likely that the Mushroom Kingdom will also cancel on them when the war is over. Greenlanders have been less clear in their intentions, although they are fighting on the C&G side of the war, and even arguably Polar's closest allies in STA are fighting on the other side, although there is little indication that that treaty will go. Polar has already partially lost NSO to the ex-Hegemony side, although their re-entrance to the war on behalf of NSO means that that bond will remain in its current state.

So on a conservative estimate, Polaris will have lost two thirds of the treaties that provide leverage on the emerging Supergrievances power cluster, and around one third of its strength assuming it does not achieve a quick peace. An unfortunate precedent set by this result is that interference in the name of justice is hugely damaging and has you cast as an aggressor, so it is unlikely that Polaris or any other alliance will seriously consider it in future – allowing unjust behaviour to proliferate as long as the bullies have sufficient backing.

A naive assessment of all the mutual destruction would cast the NPO as the winners, and indeed that sentiment is quite common. But I would say that it is not that simple; NPO are not losing strength, true, but the alliances that they would be expected to share a power cluster with (IRON, NATO, TOOL, Purple and perhaps TOP) are all fighting, and all on what is almost certain to be the losing side. Pacifica will come out of terms strong and powerful, but the alliances it could call to its side will be weakened and provide much less protection for her.

One major trend that's become clear in the last two incidents (the New Year non-war and this war) is that C&G and Superfriends are becoming closer. The 'Supergrievances' name, coined for the wartime coalition for the war that didn't happen, fairly describes that section of the web. The obvious impact of a prolonged war with TOP's nukes landing on C&G is to push this relationship strongly in favour of SF. C&G will no longer have the power or influence to maintain its position as a semi-independent centre of power, and the Supergrievances megabloc will be where they'll run to once the damage is done.

On the other side, the main casualty is Citadel, which will almost certainly dissociate entirely afterwards. Having already lost Grämlins in their mass cancellation spree, it now finds itself split between the two sides, with Umbrella, FOK and MHA fighting on the raiding side and TOP on the Polar side. This split, along with the inevitable decrease in TOP's strength, will at the very least render Citadel too small to project power, and more likely see it dissociate entirely, with TOP moving towards IRON and ex-Hegemony, Umbrella and Argent towards Supergrievances and FCC reverting to their previous independence. The Polar centre may also become so weak that it has to turn in with the Hegemony, though Polar's pride is likely to mean that they remain outside the power centres if they can't maintain their own.

Many alliances have found themselves pulled into this war by treaty ties (although few alliances have been legally mandated to enter, MDP level treaties provide strong political pressure to enter on the side of an ally) when they had no interest invested in either side. It is likely that several alliances without a primary bloc will severely rationalise their treaty ties, pursuing a more independent path, so as to avoid this type of situation in future. My own alliance, Viridia, is one of those in this position, along with Sparta, FOK, MHA and IRON – possibly the Citadel alliances as well if that bloc disintegrates.

In conclusion, we'll have a very different looking web at the end of this war. Instead of five discrete power centres, each with similar strength, we'll be left with two main ones (Supergrievances and a reconstituted bloc of Hegemony remnants plus TOP, essentially the Coincidence Coalition from the TPF non-war), plus a weak third centred around a weakened Polar. With most of the Coincidence alliances weakened by war and surrender terms, Supergrievances (with SF in charge) will have the upper hand, but not sufficiently so to be truly a new hegemony. Expect a polarisation of politics into 'them and us', with the third parties (including Polar and the more independently minded alliances) being marginalised if they refuse to choose a side, and possibly a repeat war (similar to GW3) pushed by Supergrievances in order to cement its hegemony and take control of the world.

Of course we must all be vigilant against the emergence of a new all-powerful hegemony, particularly one with some of the alliances that will be prominent within it. This war will not bring us to that point, but the cold war that follows it may well do so if we are not on our guard against it.

 Share

30 Comments


Recommended Comments



Great piece.

As for the new hegemony not being here yet, I am tempted to say this war proves it already is here and has been for some time. A hegemony does not have to consist of a single powerbloc or a few dominant blocs, it can also be a dominant mindset. In this new hegemony, power preservation overrides any consideration of right or wrong, very much like it did with the old hegemony.

In the case of this war, the presence of this new hegemony is what made a great war out of the NpO-\m/ conflict. Few outside of Polar wanted to do anything about the FoA raid due to both indifference and their fear of losing any of their political influence. Those who were most upset by Polar's attack on \m/ were not upset mostly because of any morality claim, they were upset that their emerging powerbase was threatened.

With this impending victory, it will be interesting to see how much time it takes for this cycle to repeat. It would be refreshing to see something other than power politics emerge to break this cycle. I do not know if there is any such thing, but a person can dream. :)

Link to comment

Great piece.

As for the new hegemony not being here yet, I am tempted to say this war proves it already is here and has been for some time. A hegemony does not have to consist of a single powerbloc or a few dominant blocs, it can also be a dominant mindset. In this new hegemony, power preservation overrides any consideration of right or wrong, very much like it did with the old hegemony.

In the case of this war, the presence of this new hegemony is what made a great war out of the NpO-\m/ conflict. Few outside of Polar wanted to do anything about the FoA raid due to both indifference and their fear of losing any of their political influence. Those who were most upset by Polar's attack on \m/ were not upset mostly because of any morality claim, they were upset that their emerging powerbase was threatened.

With this impending victory, it will be interesting to see how much time it takes for this cycle to repeat. It would be refreshing to see something other than power politics emerge to break this cycle. I do not know if there is any such thing, but a person can dream. :)

i have to agree with this right here. SF may not "want" to be the new heg, but fact is, they and CnG have and will most likely continue to allow their allies to abuse others without much retribution beyond a finger shake. We saw it with the Athens/FoB raid in which MK/CnG actively protected Athens/FoB against any possible retaliation. RoK canceled on Polaris but has not canceled on \m/. while the Polaris cancellation is understandable i guess, why not \m/? they were part of the problem and did not do much to avoid war, yet it seems Polaris gets full blame from RoK.

it seems that we will most likely end up right back where we started pre-Karma with SuperGrievances being dominant. a few bully and thug alliances will essentially be allowed to run rampant on who they want, while being protected by alliances like RoK and MK and their respective blocs.

Link to comment

i have to agree with this right here. SF may not "want" to be the new heg, but fact is, they and CnG have and will most likely continue to allow their allies to abuse others without much retribution beyond a finger shake. We saw it with the Athens/FoB raid in which MK/CnG actively protected Athens/FoB against any possible retaliation. RoK canceled on Polaris but has not canceled on \m/. while the Polaris cancellation is understandable i guess, why not \m/? they were part of the problem and did not do much to avoid war, yet it seems Polaris gets full blame from RoK.

it seems that we will most likely end up right back where we started pre-Karma with SuperGrievances being dominant. a few bully and thug alliances will essentially be allowed to run rampant on who they want, while being protected by alliances like RoK and MK and their respective blocs.

RoK was as mad at Polar as it was at \m/ for the start of the war, however the final straw was when Polar declared on a SuperFriends ally of RoK's. That was the final straw. If \m/ had declared war on 2 RoK allies you can be sure that RoK would have dropped \m/ like a bad habit.

But I do agree with your 2nd paragraph, as that has always how it has been. In the Initiative era there were several alliances running rampant with their thuggary and hated moves, protected by the Initiative. After the UjW it was BLEU who performed that role, after the War of the Coalition it was Continuum who performed that roll ...time and time again this has happened, so why would now be any different?

Link to comment

RoK was as mad at Polar as it was at \m/ for the start of the war, however the final straw was when Polar declared on a SuperFriends ally of RoK's. That was the final straw. If \m/ had declared war on 2 RoK allies you can be sure that RoK would have dropped \m/ like a bad habit.

But I do agree with your 2nd paragraph, as that has always how it has been. In the Initiative era there were several alliances running rampant with their thuggary and hated moves, protected by the Initiative. After the UjW it was BLEU who performed that role, after the War of the Coalition it was Continuum who performed that roll ...time and time again this has happened, so why would now be any different?

could have sworn that GOD had declared on NSO.... i mean, why isn't RoK pissed at that? that kinda forced Polaris's hand.

that would be like Polaris crying over IAA hitting Genesis. IAA is allied to Polaris who is allied to Genesis. Genesis hit Nemesis who is allied to IAA. IAA hits Genesis. if Ragnarok does not want their allies hitting their other allies, then RoK needs to make sure that their allies do not hit the allies of their allies. GOD hit NSO and got hit by Polaris. RoK crying over it is just pathetic. the only legitimate bit of that cancellation was Polaris hitting \m/ and even then, that is 50% \m/'s fault for the breakdown or lack of diplomacy.

Link to comment

could have sworn that GOD had declared on NSO.... i mean, why isn't RoK pissed at that? that kinda forced Polaris's hand.

that would be like Polaris crying over IAA hitting Genesis. IAA is allied to Polaris who is allied to Genesis. Genesis hit Nemesis who is allied to IAA. IAA hits Genesis. if Ragnarok does not want their allies hitting their other allies, then RoK needs to make sure that their allies do not hit the allies of their allies. GOD hit NSO and got hit by Polaris. RoK crying over it is just pathetic. the only legitimate bit of that cancellation was Polaris hitting \m/ and even then, that is 50% \m/'s fault for the breakdown or lack of diplomacy.

Learn more of the backroom discussion that occurred before you come in here talking like you know what happened.

Link to comment

Good read Bob, good enough to warrant being posted on the owf ;)

I would disagree with your prediction of Super complaints not becoming hegemonical, though. Most of the past hegemony had been beaten in two straight wars. I think we'll see a lot of those alliances stagnate.

I also disagree with your prediction of Cng becoming less powerful than SF. SF will have more NS, but CnG boasts some of the most active alliances in teh game, and after this war, they'r repuation will continue to increase in my mind.

I also don't see polar having its own power sphere. This war, and the TPF war have shown the multi power sphere model to be a myth. There are just two ends to the treaty web at this point, Polar/STA has so far been in the middle of the sphere, going to whichever side of based on who declares on whom, but I suspect Polar will at least be drawn into the hegemony side of the web after this war.

a question for you Jamova. Do you think we could see the formation of a new bloc on the hegemony side of the web after the war? I find that after the TPF war I could see important moves being made by Super Complaints to strengthen themselves diplomatically as if they were preparing for round two, and I also notice that today the Super Complaints were coordinating by hitting NATO, and obvious move to try to knock an alliance out of the war by forcing them to surrender. The only way to counter, is to have alliances already at war to hit the alliances that declared on NATO. In my mind the hegemony side lacks the coordination that could be provided by a bloc, to counter this move successfully.

Link to comment

I would nuke myself if we became the new hegemmony. There is no new hegemony. The old hegemony is just reforming.

...with TOP moving towards IRON and ex-Hegemony

I really missed the part where they ever moved away from the old hegemony, unless I am supposed to ignore all the Citadel conversations I read and declarations from TOP how they were not a part of Karma and how unhappy they were to be fighting for that side.

Regardless, this world is always better when there are two strong sides so I am actually looking forward to how things shape up again.

Link to comment

Good read.

I would add the NpO lost/will loose their power just because of their own pride and people learned that on TOP side, so it's not so likely that ex-Heg alliances would stand up for NpO again...

But still SFCG vs CC will remain after the war, hopefully with some "SF, please don't betray C&G" :D

Link to comment
It's not Supergrievances Bob. It's SuperComplaints.

Both are in common usage. Supergrievances sounds better to my mind :P

I would nuke myself if we became the new hegemmony. There is no new hegemony. The old hegemony is just reforming.

The 'old hegemony' isn't strong enough to be hegemonic. Supergrievances is. As an embedded alliance you should be in the best position to ensure that abuses of power (like the raids on Ni and FoA) do not occur.

I really missed the part where they ever moved away from the old hegemony

That would be when they left Continuum, and in fact their only treaty with ex-Hegemony has been IRON since Karma. And as you point out, they did fight on the Karma side in the Karma War, though I would consider them to be in neither side politically at that time. Citadel has been an independent power cluster since Karma until Grämlins' exit.

I think you're overestimating SF, I don't think they desire becoming a global hegemony. Not beyond a vocal minority anyways.

Nor did FOK, MHA, Grämlins etc. They maintain allies which appear very interested in making full use of a position of power, and protect them from the consequences of their actions. That's all that's needed for an oppressive hegemony to prosper. I too note that RoK have dropped NpO but not \m/, and although it's possible that \m/ have been told not to raid alliances it seems unlikely as they could have got peace from NpO for agreeing to that in the first place.

I don't think you know us very well Bob....

We'll see. But TOP has chosen to fight on the Coincidence side instead of staying out in the last two major dramas, and this time Umbrella chose to fight on the other side while presumably knowing that TOP would stand with IRON.

Link to comment

Well, apart from the losing side bit I think you're quite correct; the middle and lower tiers are lost to our side, possibly, but the upper tier is still a contest, and IF it is won by our side, your analysis will miss a very crucial element... In some sense, that would render many of your points moot, even though the sheer loss of power below that tier is still going to be a crucial element of the post-war world.

Link to comment

could have sworn that GOD had declared on NSO.... i mean, why isn't RoK pissed at that? that kinda forced Polaris's hand.

that would be like Polaris crying over IAA hitting Genesis. IAA is allied to Polaris who is allied to Genesis. Genesis hit Nemesis who is allied to IAA. IAA hits Genesis. if Ragnarok does not want their allies hitting their other allies, then RoK needs to make sure that their allies do not hit the allies of their allies. GOD hit NSO and got hit by Polaris. RoK crying over it is just pathetic. the only legitimate bit of that cancellation was Polaris hitting \m/ and even then, that is 50% \m/'s fault for the breakdown or lack of diplomacy.

NSO declared first. An indisputable fact that their side of the war is offensive over past actions of another alliance. Any rational person no matter their biases can see that, unless they have major blinders on.

@SG becoming a "hegemony", maybe correct if you look at the dictionary definition, but no I don't think we'll be seeing similar actions (in quantity or quality) to what the old Hegemony (and the losing side of this war) supported and continues to support. I have confidence that SG's victory will prevent further abuses rather than guarantee them, but we all must look out to ensure power does not go to our leaders' heads.

@ "It's SuperComplaints" side: we get to name our side, you worry about yours, thanks :)

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...