I’m generally not the kind of person that makes my views public. I tend to focus on the internal aspect of my alliance and building appropriate friend relationships outside to ensure we are in a strong standing both alone and with allies around us. I decided to throw out some concerns that I’ve had building though as we continue down a new era of Cybernations: the era of white peace.
White peace has always been around in the world as stated by dozens of the oldest members of Cybernations, however the practice has become
more and more widespread since the Karma war.
“White peace” however seems to have gone and changed the attitudes and actions of both sides of the war. There have been examples of alliances from the losing side attempting to dictate terms, as well as the idea of how and when reps are appropriate.
The terms to the entire Purple sphere war (Valhalla, BAPS, Invicta, Molon Labe, etc.) have two conditions:
1. Admit defeat
2. Agree to not re-enter the war
These terms have repeatedly been offered whenever a Government official from one of the aforementioned alliances has approached us for the possibility of an end to hostilities, yet have been turned away for being too harsh.
In our war with the Purple sphere, it is clear that there are several alliances on both sides that have built themselves for the preparation of eternal war. Yet even in those alliances, there are several members who are not for various reasons, whether it is because they came from another alliance recently, have been missing trades, or simply disobeyed orders and dug into their warchest for infra/wonder purchases. There are plenty of alliances not prepared for an eternal war at all. At what point do alliance leaders stop to consider the amount of nations they now have on their way to deletion? How long do you fight to defend your pride at the cost of the general membership? I bring this up after the slew of blog entries I’ve seen about tips on being a great leader. Now I don’t state I am the judge on who is and isn’t, but it seems taking pride in bill lock and deletion before surrender seems ridiculous.
There seems to be a popular idea going around the world that reps are appropriate when attacked by a pre-emptive assault, but not when an alliance is simply following its treaties. Considering every war has a strong potential for a global war, regardless of who attacks who, this doesn’t sound like it’s the best solution in my opinion.
For example just look at the conflict at hand: TOP and gang declared on the Complaints and Grievances Union in a pre-emptive assault. Therefore the alliances in CnG are mentioned as the only ones deserving of reparations. Yet how many alliances did they bring in through chain after chain of treaties in their direct or indirect defense? It’s clear that every global war will have two coalitions and two sides quickly after the initial declarations are made. Each of these alliances throws their members into the fight and generally loses just as much as the initial alliances declared upon. How, when all of this wraps up, could it be expected that TOP and gang surrenders to CnG and pays reps to them and the rest of the alliances on their side grow back on their own?
We need to live by the old standards where every alliance that surrenders pays reparations, no one pays reparations, or the alliances paying reparations pay it to all of the alliances involved in this conflict from start to finish. This is by no means something against our friends and brothers at CnG (we are have treaties with both Athens and Federation of Buccaneers, and consider Mushroom Kingdom as friends as well), but a serious question as to how the future of reps plan to go. We are in a time when a number of us have lost to the same people we are fighting, some more so than others (yes, we were allied to several Hegemony at our creation), and in turn don’t want to be “evil” and beat our opponents when they are down with reps hindering their growth.
So where do we go from here? How can some alliances fighting for a side get reps, and others who have fought as long and as hard not receive reps? Why not eliminate the idea of reps altogether? My personal opinion is that there is no need for reps. My fun in this game is war, and the less reps, the less surrender terms, the faster alliances can recover, rinse and repeat for another global war. Many thanks to Valhalla, BAPS, Invicta, and Molon Labe for some good wars so far, and UCN for the war in progress. Polar, glad to see you are meeting your justice. It's not the last time you have seen us.
Either way, this was just a mind dump of mine on a cold, windy Tuesday afternoon. Thanks for the read.
Note: These thoughts are mine and mine only; while I may be the leader of an alliance I am a servant for my alliance and will always put my time towards satisfying their demands.