Jump to content
  • entries
    36
  • comments
    511
  • views
    2,547

Political Ramifications of the Techraid War


Bob Janova

359 views

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.

30 Comments


Recommended Comments



This is good and very interesting Bob. As for Polaris, I see us, along with our close allies, as independants and I am perfectly okay with this. I would rather be with our closest allies then be meat shields for a bloc.

Link to comment

FOK escalated the war. Only mandatory treaty obligations were PC and RoK. PC joined. RoK was conflicted. The Corporation was optional defense.

Let me redirect you to an earlier comment made by me in de TOP DoW thread.

As far as a new Hegemony...only time will tell. But, I agree with Bob Janova. Athens/FoB and \m/ were let to do as they pleased. Not to mention Athens involvement with bringing down UED, everyone seems to forget that hostile act and zero consequences to Athens.

Correction: Athens/FoB did face consequences, although most of them were made in private. In any case, the flaw in your argument is that Polar did the exact same thing you accuse Athens/FoB and \m/, PC, GOONS of. Show some consistency when arguing.

As far as naming sides, an alliance hopper like YOU Penkala, can't name anything.

This was not necessary.

Link to comment

Let me redirect you to an earlier comment made by me in de TOP DoW thread.

Correction: Athens/FoB did face consequences, although most of them were made in private. In any case, the flaw in your argument is that Polar did the exact same thing you accuse Athens/FoB and \m/, PC, GOONS of. Show some consistency when arguing.

This was not necessary.

Your link...yeah, no dont agree with you still. No DoW on PC. FOK came in by optional aggression. PC went in by mutual defense with \m/, RoK was conflicted, and The Corp had optional defense. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, Athens/FoB did pay reps. Care to answer the consequences they got for their involvement with bringing down UED, you seem to just conveniently ignore that one.

Polar did what?! Not the same thing at all, nice try though.

Link to comment

Your link...yeah, no dont agree with you still. No DoW on PC. FOK came in by optional aggression. PC went in by mutual defense with \m/, RoK was conflicted, and The Corp had optional defense. We'll have to agree to disagree.

E-lawyering is so 2009...

The point was that Polar started an agressive war, and that even without treaty obligations, the \m/ side was fighting a defensive war.

Yes, Athens/FoB did pay reps. Care to answer the consequences they got for their involvement with bringing down UED, you seem to just conveniently ignore that one.

No I don't care about UED. (Might want to refresh my memory, since I do not recall anything of importance.)

Polar did what?! Not the same thing at all, nice try though.

Ofcourse not, Polar didn't declare on an alliance that was more than half their strength...

Go fool someone else.

Link to comment
Polar did the exact same thing you accuse Athens/FoB and \m/, PC, GOONS of

This is just not true. Attacking an aggressive raiding alliance for the good of the community is not the exact same thing as aggressively raiding an alliance. You may not like what Polar did, but it certainly was not the same thing.

E-lawyering is so 2009...

The point was that Polar started an agressive war, and that even without treaty obligations, the \m/ side was fighting a defensive war.

E-lawyering when convenient ... your side has now activated 'defence treaties' based on the e-lawyering of C&G not being militarily involved, so your opinion is obviously not widely shared within your coalition. To be honest I have never seen a war where jumping in without an obligation to any alliance on the side on which you jump in is not considered aggressive escalation.

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...