Reverend Ryan's Blog

MK more or less voluntarily gave up their hegemony in October when they did their treaty wipe thing. Before that they had treaties with Pandora's Box (wasn't formed yet but they would have had three), Superfriends, CnG (obviously), and other groups like AZTEC and Polar/STA. That kind of treaty spread is the most important hallmark of a hegemonic force in my opinion. But since then, MK's ties are concentrated to just CnG and PB. If you add other alliances, the treaty spread gets wider but really by the time you've linked together all the alliances necessary to make one big smothering hegemonic force, there are too many alliances behind the driver's wheel to even justify calling it a hegemony.

What? The pretty much re-signed every important treaty except Polaris and STA. Then formed DH with two members of PB. MK's move shifted the treaty web for Polar and STA by isolating them, but not for themselves in any signifigant fashion. Not to mention the fact that they added TOP which put them a chain away from IRON and all that brings. So really right now they are tied directly to PB, CnG and are 1 chain away from SF, Duckroll and Dos.

You're forgetting GOD, Ragnarok, and NV.

You would need competence to even have a chance at taking this hegemony down. A slim chance.

This makes me certain that our Reich will last a thousand years.

The "1 chain away" argument is a pretty laughable one. With that logic, a couple dozen alliances could qualify for the position of hegemon. Hell, when I was in \m/ we were "1 chain away" from a laundry list of major alliances including MK, the New Polar Order, Superfriends, Athens, Umbrella, FOK and VE. You can't just make a conclusion that you'd like to believe and then point at treaty links as evidence. Those treaty links go both ways. These things have more depth than you're giving them. Of course that would shatter your preconceptions so let's not talk about that.

You're forgetting GOD, Ragnarok, and NV.

Don't forget Genesis too!

This looks like it was written directly from Moralist Handbook 101. The whole idea that all wars should be done without reparations is pretty dumb, to say the least. If we all fought wars without any sort of consequence, there would be no political change in war, nor motivation to get revenge. Revenge is a great thing to motivate an alliance, I think.

As for declining membership, no sort of "political change" is going to increase membership. This game has lasted for 5 years, which is very impressive. People move on after they're tired with a game. It's life. If that wasn't the case, we'd all still be playing the original Heroes of Might & Magic with no desire to move on to a new game that's added any sort of depth.

You begin well enough, but immediately lose all credibility when you defend the pre-Karma Echelon.

Pre-Karma, Echelon was a group of backstabbing slime. You are correct, however, when you say that they should not have been given harsh reparations. No, they should have been compelled to disband, their members hunted to extinction and their lands salted in order to ensure their demise for all time.

You begin well enough, but immediately lose all credibility when you defend the pre-Karma Echelon.Pre-Karma, Echelon was a group of backstabbing slime. You are correct, however, when you say that they should not have been given harsh reparations. No, they should have been compelled to disband, their members hunted to extinction and their lands salted in order to ensure their demise for all time.

Welcome to the Hegemony multipolar group of alliances.

The most telling sign of the general hypocrisy surrounding the myth of "Karma" lies in 1.e. Here, we see an alliance that was attacked once for their past transgressions, and most of the world agreed with the war. Following that war, there was a re-declaration of war on the same alliance, essentially for the same past transgressions with the pure intent of destroying the victimized alliance. Then, once the victimized alliance tries to save the few numbers it has left in the shelter of peace mode, the aggressor alliances become furiously bloodthirsty for the very statistics being sheltered, and demands their release as a means of peace, thus giving the victimized alliance the choice of either being hopelessly destroyed in an unfair fight, or face prolonged war.

This has happened twice in Cybernations history. Can anyone in the class name the two?

The "1 chain away" argument is a pretty laughable one. With that logic, a couple dozen alliances could qualify for the position of hegemon. Hell, when I was in \m/ we were "1 chain away" from a laundry list of major alliances including MK, the New Polar Order, Superfriends, Athens, Umbrella, FOK and VE. You can't just make a conclusion that you'd like to believe and then point at treaty links as evidence. Those treaty links go both ways. These things have more depth than you're giving them. Of course that would shatter your preconceptions so let's not talk about that.

The one chain applies perfectly, because all those alliances roll as a group time after time. RoK got a toe out of line this war because they chose to honor a treaty and it pretty much resulted in SF abandoning them and them losing their other allies on the Hegmony side of the web.

I would like to see a world so evenly balanced that nobody can dominate it.

The idea of having one side dominating anything is detrimental to the game, the dominating side ends up getting bored when they have one curb-stomp after another and nothing to challenge them and they leave to find excitement elsewhere. And the dominated side gets fed up with being curb-stomped repeatedly and ends up leaving to find somewhere they can have a fair go.

In all my time in CN I have found the most excitement and interest was in the times when nobody could say "try and stop us" knowing that nobody could. When there is a chance that someone can win even a small victory there is always that goal that can drive people to achieve it. But when the situation is hopeless and there is no chance of even a small victory people will not try and end up becoming bored and the game will stagnate.

But I know this is a hopeless dream, it has been tried many times (or at least I think it has) and has failed.

If Polar became the new dominant force the world would die faster.

Wouldn't that be a good thing then? The world dies and we find better things to do.

Polar for hegemony!

....what if Sparta or MHA became the dominant power?

This is by far the best post you've ever made. Well done.

I would like to see a world so evenly balanced that nobody can dominate it.The idea of having one side dominating anything is detrimental to the game, the dominating side ends up getting bored when they have one curb-stomp after another and nothing to challenge them and they leave to find excitement elsewhere. And the dominated side gets fed up with being curb-stomped repeatedly and ends up leaving to find somewhere they can have a fair go. In all my time in CN I have found the most excitement and interest was in the times when nobody could say "try and stop us" knowing that nobody could. When there is a chance that someone can win even a small victory there is always that goal that can drive people to achieve it. But when the situation is hopeless and there is no chance of even a small victory people will not try and end up becoming bored and the game will stagnate.But I know this is a hopeless dream, it has been tried many times (or at least I think it has) and has failed.

Name one time in your career this has happened

Tears shed for Echelon's sake.

Huh, you see something new every day.

You know what? If long wars are such a bother, then the solution is easy. The loser should surrender (unconditionally) more quickly.

-Craig

Haha...you spent a lot of time and effort writing the OP.

You know what? If long wars are such a bother, then the solution is easy. The loser should surrender (unconditionally) more quickly.-Craig

The "losers" often don't like to surrender when the "victors" presented them with not-so-reasonable surrender terms.

Would you rather surrender after one day of fighting and pay $10 billion and 10,000 tech over a crappy CB, or fight longer and show the "victors" that you deserve lighter terms. In fact, didn't your allies also fought for long periods of times instead of surrendering quickly, especially FAN?

Bend over or fight, seems that you prefer to bend over.

EDIT: I seriously hope that isn't your alliance's policy. Surrender or run as soon as crap hits the ceiling. It really makes your alliance trustworthy.

/sarcasm

Nice to see this got a lot of responses.

Haha...you spent a lot of time and effort writing the OP.

On and off for 45 minutes...so no