Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    7
  • comments
    128
  • views
    4,674

Future warfare

Sign in to follow this  
R3nowned

168 views

From what we've seen recently with the NEW-DF war, it is highly likely that wars from now will be on a far smaller scale than what has been seen in the past. The phenomenon of global wars will slowly become history. Conflicts will slowly die out until CN reaches a critical point where there are so few people around, that people will finally truly no longer care about their stats. Then it will become a state similar to what we see on Tournament Edition.

In other words, all this e-lawyering bullcrap is slowly killing CN. It began with treaties to have an excuse to fight with an alliance you like. It is ending with people wiggling out of treaty obligations to keep other alliances close.

The requirement for a CB is another one of these e-lawyering !@#$%^&*. If you don't like an alliance, go war them. That's what the war screen is there for. This scenario, however, won't exist until the abolishment of treaties.

Unfortunately for all of us, this culture is so ingrained, that it is nearly impossible to change. Change is coming, however, as we can see when the Gramlins went paperless, and with FAN not resigning any treaties (as far as I know). Hopefully, it will continue to become a popular move to make.

With all this e-lawyering though, for now, wars are likely to be smaller, and occur far less frequently.

Sign in to follow this  


19 Comments


Recommended Comments

To summarize:

1. People didn't feel like supporting a so-so cause

2. There will never be a large war again

Makes perfect sense to me.

Side note: Many would argue this war started because one alliance didn't like another.

Share this comment


Link to comment

There will always be another large war down the line. The current hegemony is doing everything in it's power to prevent itself from splitting, but it is inevitable.

People have said there would never be another global war since GWIII.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Side note: Many would argue this war started because one alliance didn't like another.

It did, actually, NEW hated DF.

Also, agreed with R3owned's view, cut the e-lawyering crap, and fight. (this goes to both sides)

Share this comment


Link to comment

If this war had non hegemony alliances at its core the hegemony would have rolled with or without treaties and a cb. Dont kid yourself this is the future, it was just the wrong part of the treaty web for the so called great powers.

Share this comment


Link to comment

If this war had non hegemony alliances at its core the hegemony would have rolled with or without treaties and a cb. Dont kid yourself this is the future, it was just the wrong part of the treaty web for the so called great powers.

What I said completely went over your head. Re-read, digest, and come back with a different answer.

What I wrote also tackled the issue of a hegemony, why there is a hegemony, and why there always will be a hegemony as long as treaties still exist.

Share this comment


Link to comment

What I said completely went over your head. Re-read, digest, and come back with a different answer.

What I wrote also tackled the issue of a hegemony, why there is a hegemony, and why there always will be a hegemony as long as treaties still exist.

You didnt mention hegemony or anything like it once. Your post was more to do with treaties in general, e-lawyering in general and didnt mention one group or another beyond the two paperless alliances & the DF/NEW fight.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You didnt mention hegemony or anything like it once. Your post was more to do with treaties in general, e-lawyering in general and didnt mention one group or another beyond the two paperless alliances & the DF/NEW fight.

I suppose I shouldn't expect people to read, interpret and come to conclusions by themselves eh?

Share this comment


Link to comment

People lack ambition these days. They're content to hold on to the little power/influence that they accumulate, and they'd rather keep things as the same as possible when it comes to enemies and sides, and very few alliances are afforded the opportunity to live down their past/show that they can change.

There are no clear cut individual leaders anymore, there's no single person with such drive and ambition as to be the unquestioned leader of an alliance/coalition, the way the likes of ivan/dilber/moo/bilrow once were. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it's not really a good thing, that's for sure.

Also, no one has any imagination. No one is willing to think outside the box and try to do things their own way, mostly because people just jump down your throat for daring to be different around here.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I suppose I shouldn't expect people to read, interpret and come to conclusions by themselves eh?

I made my conclusion and you gave me crap for reaching a different conclusion to the one you intended because you left it open to peoples individual interpretations. Funny that :rolleyes:

Share this comment


Link to comment
Conflicts will slowly die out until CN reaches a critical point where there are so few people around, that people will finally truly no longer care about their stats. Then it will become a state similar to what we see on Tournament Edition.

There's one major difference from what you see in TE. In TE, everyone stops caring about their stats at the end of the round. In SE, some people will get bored of stats, others won't. You'll see more and more rogues, but that's all they'll be - rogues. Some people are still going to care about their stats more than others.

As you can see with the NEW-DF war there's a lot of people ghosting one side or the other, mainly very high NS nations who've accomplished everything and have multibillion dollar warchests. I'd predict future rogues to be vigilantes or ghosts fighting for any cause.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The issue with the latest war was the the CB was 'solid' and no one was angry enough to get themselves rolled to support it. This is almost unheard of in CN and will probably not happen again for some time.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Off you go then, OP.

I am a product of this culture. I do not know how to change it, or if I even want to change. Such is the way that I was brought into CN politics.

I see the problems we have, and the roots of the problems. I see very different problems with other nation sims.

Other games have problems of people coming into the game. The player base is very loyal, but there are very few new players. With CN, there are many people coming to the game everyday. These people, however, find CN to stifling. There is very little room to move here. You can't prosper without joining an alliance. In other games, nations can reach very high up in the ranks without joining an alliance, if only they put a little extra effort in.

This isn't blaming raiding. This is blaming the general attitude of the players that have been here 2, 3, 4 or perhaps even close to 5 years. Especially the ones that have been around longer, as they were (and are still [sadly]) the ones responsible for our culture today. Nations can't do anything but join an alliance and become a mindless foot soldier. There's no freedom to "go it alone" without getting crushed within the first day you come out of peace mode.

I think it was the to the detriment of CN the day treaties were first signed, and that was the point of my OP. Treaties have led to CN developing huge alliances, alliance coalitions and large wars at the start where there were few alliances, but with the hundreds of alliances today, people can't move a step without getting rolled. Fear is a large motivator. Too large. Because of that motivation, more and more defense treaties are signed. Because of that motivation, people are afraid to start wars. Because of that motivation, people leave CN.

Alas, all I see are problems, not ideas on how to fix it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This war didn't take off because it was retarded in concept. iFok and PC eLawyered their way out of it to prevent a clusterfcuk on their side of the web, FEAR and some from the other side of the web decided to honour their treaties, but the wider portion of that side of the web said ain't no way I am gonna burn for NEW doing something dumb.......and that was that.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Personally, I like Tournament Edition so IF things became a little closer to that on SE, I'd live. I don't expect it, however. Most people on SE are interested in making sure the majority of effort they placed in building their nation is not "lost" - so bring them close enough to bill/lock and you'll get a surrender. There are exceptions, but those are exceptions for a reason. I don't necessarily blame people either. I like my collection of wonders, personally :P

I agree change will happen as well, but it always does. I don't expect the making of treaties to end. Maybe some alliances will re-evaluate the ones they have and/or at what level. If part of the aftermath of the war is that Optional treaties gain respect, I will be pleased. It takes care of the trying to e-lawyer out of a treaty obligation problem rather nicely and is not as an extreme move as (officially - and I say that for a reason) not having any treaties. It both a) lets the world know that alliance A and B have a relationship (so don't cry about "oh I didn't know you had allies" when the allies want to help in a war situation) but b) provides an easy way to say "well, you were dumb so no - we're not losing our infra to help you get out of it." There's an idea on how to "fix it" by the way. :P One I and other people have mentioned now and then.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Alas, all I see are problems, not ideas on how to fix it.

A lot of people seem to agree with you on the problems part, if the number of suggestions that have been made are any indication. :P Not all of them are good but some of them do address the fear part(the two defensive war slots one comes to mind).

Share this comment


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...