Rush Sykes' Blog

Don't really know if it is lack of CBs either. More like lack of balls to declare a war or cancel some treaties.

CBs do not tie your hands, your treaty web ties your hands.

Yup - tell you what - EVERY alliance (and I do mean every one) - take all your mandatory military treaties of any type and at least "downgrade" them to optional. Then slowly we will start seeing a war here and a war there, and assuming it doesn't turn into a curb stomp of whoever started it - everyone will get more war, they will last shorter periods of time and what happens after in terms of peace arrangements will simply depend on what the winning alliance wants and what the losing alliance is willing to sacrifice.

CBs do not tie your hands, your treaty web ties your hands.

Yup - tell you what - EVERY alliance (and I do mean every one) - take all your mandatory military treaties of any type and at least "downgrade" them to optional. Then slowly we will start seeing a war here and a war there, and assuming it doesn't turn into a curb stomp of whoever started it - everyone will get more war, they will last shorter periods of time and what happens after in terms of peace arrangements will simply depend on what the winning alliance wants and what the losing alliance is willing to sacrifice.

I feel that the "optional" treaty is a ridiculous construct that is absurd on its face, invented to solve an equally ridiculous problem: that somehow people need a signed piece of paper in order to legitimize their participation in any given war.

People will always behave like people, so you can't really blame human nature... Game design must take its share of the blame. There is simply no way for a statistically inferior force to fight effectively... There is no brilliant strategy that allows an outgunned group to score any measurable victory. There will never be a "Cornwallis-surrenders-to-Washington" moment because the game isn't coded to make such a thing possible.

People lust for war, they lust for winning war, and they lust to appear as the righteous or honorable party. When those three factors align, you have a curbstomp.

Also, I'm rambling.

-Craig

should be more like TE where you declare on someone cuz u feel like it. Things would be more fun, more enemies would be taken out

Rush,

You warmonger!

Love,

Cyfe

The winning side CAN'T be picked if you are the one being curbstomped.

Then your fate is pretty much sealed the second the attackers decide on having the war.

I agree planet bob is dieing but not because of having to come up with CBs to have wars.

It is ridiculously easy to come up with a CB, you can accuse the other side of planning an attack, of spying , of any one of a dozen 'offenses' that require 'punishment'. Or you can stage a sting operation where you establish a shell alliance that can offer to sell information about your alliance to the alliance you wish to declare war on then 'discover' this and declare war on them for spying if they show even the slightest interest in the info.

It is dieing because there has not been a real war since anyone can remember. There has been plenty of challengeless curbstomps, but no real war where the defenders have actually had a chance of winning.

If you're the 12th strongest alliance in a game of well over 100 alliances and feel as though your hands are tied, then there's not much anyone can do for you. Seriously. Stop relying on everyone else for your amusement and make some yourself. This is a game meant to be played for fun; if you're not having fun, change something and play a little differently.

The problem with wars is when they end, every alliance decides to make titles like "Peace in our time!" and "More peace in our time!" and "Peace in our time!" again. I hate that.

The problem with wars is when they end, every alliance decides to make titles like "Peace in our time!" and "More peace in our time!" and "Peace in our time!" again. I hate that.

OOC: Check out Neville Chamberlain's biography on Wikipedia and you will gain an appreciation of the ironic humor of that quote.

Heh. When we attack someone "because we don't like them", we get railed on because "we're big meanies evil dudes". Or something. But I do like some comments here.

I feel that the "optional" treaty is a ridiculous construct that is absurd on its face, invented to solve an equally ridiculous problem: that somehow people need a signed piece of paper in order to legitimize their participation in any given war. -Craig

If your point is that having to have a treaty to get involved in a war is ridiculous generally, I'm with you there.

Between the two, it's at least arguable that mandatory treaties are more ridiculous than optional ones - because you are not only signing one but you are also telling everyone that yes - absolutely, if they attack your treaty partner than you will return fire. So, in other words - IF someone is actually going to out and out make a surprise attack (which is unlikely with the current politics), instead of just attacking the other alliance, in order to take advantage of surprise and the benefits of a quad attack - they should attack yours too. Optional, on the other hand - no one respects so you're probably safe - exactly because no one takes them serious.

However - the powers that be (and you're closer to being one than I am Craig) say alliances MUST have treaties - otherwise everyone yells and screams and (most likely) will gang up on the alliance who gets involved in a fight without a "basis" - and, well - no one likes to be on the wrong end of a curb stomp.

So - optional treaties it is

The problem with wars is when they end, every alliance decides to make titles like "Peace in our time!" and "More peace in our time!" and "Peace in our time!" again. I hate that.

OOC: Check out Neville Chamberlain's biography on Wikipedia and you will gain an appreciation of the ironic humor of that quote.

We get it. That doesn't mean it's still funny.

However - the powers that be (and you're closer to being one than I am Craig) say alliances MUST have treaties - otherwise everyone yells and screams and (most likely) will gang up on the alliance who gets involved in a fight without a "basis" - and, well - no one likes to be on the wrong end of a curb stomp.So - optional treaties it is

The entire political universe of CN is a giant, all-encompassing positive feedback loop. No one controls anything; they just scream into the microphone and add their voice to the exponentially-growing cacophony. No one can control the chaos.

-Craig

You're a Trium in TLR yes? Why don't you declare on someone? Spice things up a bit.

I hereby declare war on high prices.

I hereby declare war on foreign oil...

Awww man.. my Jets are crashing... what'd I do wrong?

Then those in power should do something, rather than complain. I'm sure that's been said at least 5 times above me but your entire blog/argument looks like a childish way of putting the blame on others again.

It is dieing because there has not been a real war since anyone can remember. There has been plenty of challengeless curbstomps, but no real war where the defenders have actually had a chance of winning.

I might challenge you to amend that to saying there's hardly ever been a real war, in that case. Even in the earliest days there were more curbstomps than real wars, by that definition. Take Legion/NPO vs NAAC for example.

-Drac

You're a Trium in TLR yes? Why don't you declare on someone? Spice things up a bit.

Without a CB? His allies r not approve.

speak... for yourself...

When anyone does something, with or without 'good enough' reason as determined by the community -- everyone else whinges and decries X's actions.

Then those in power should do something, rather than complain. I'm sure that's been said at least 5 times above me but your entire blog/argument looks like a childish way of putting the blame on others again.

How about you comment on what he's saying rather than attacking the person? Rush is high gov't in TLR and was high gov't in Athens. Anyone with half a brain knows he has done his part into spicing things up.

Sounds just like londo's rant during his thriller movement...

Games in which wars are started over nothing are much less interesting than this one.

And yeah, considering that your alliance has nestled in the core of the treaty-based power structure that dissuades anything from happening since Karma, I'm not sure you're really in a position to complain about it.

Here we go again, another discussion from the guys on top about how everyone else is killing the game. I never knew all you lulzers were such scholars.And, once again, the discussion centers around everything except the real problem, clumsily dancing right next to the real causes in a bad attempt to avoid the B-word. Blame.

... sit here with our hands tied waiting...

True enough, but once again the mark is missed. This continual march against ideals broadly attributable to that catch-all term moralism is really rather tiresome at this point. CBs do not tie your hands, your treaty web ties your hands. It is not a need for CBs that has put in place MDP after MDP after MDP between SF, C&G, XX, PB, and DH. It isn't "need for CBs" that put an ODOAP in place between Mjolnir and PB the day after Mj was signed and heralded as a new center separated from the rest.Like alcoholics in denial, your game as you want it played won't happen until you surrender to the truth and stop looking everywhere but the mirror for the causes and the solutions.

Everyone is too afraid to hurt their friends feelings. All the treaties aren't necessarily a bad thing if you actually take a stand to one side or the other, but every time one alliance wants to hurt someone inside the power structure (which seems to keep growing and growing) all the others continuously tell that alliance not to. Someone needs to start thinking a little more political and hurt some feelings.

Then those in power should do something, rather than complain. I'm sure that's been said at least 5 times above me but your entire blog/argument looks like a childish way of putting the blame on others again.

How about you comment on what he's saying rather than attacking the person? Rush is high gov't in TLR and was high gov't in Athens. Anyone with half a brain knows he has done his part into spicing things up.

Attacking the person? I criticised the blog. I happen to respect Rush, and most of Athens; but if anyone at all is going to make a blog about complaining, I expec them to follow up on it rather than blaming others.