Jump to content
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    498
  • views
    24,441

CBs in CN.


Omniscient1

542 views

So after NG's recent attack on SOS, I'm beginning to wonder if this is how the majority of CN wars will be kicked off from now on.

In the past, the CN community would look for legitimate reasons to start wars. Two sides would position themselves on the treaty web; usually, the larger side would then find some reason to declare on the smaller side and the war would start. These days CBs are harder to find. I would say partly because behavior that causes CBs is largely discouraged.

When Polar hit \m/ back in bi-Polar, although I didn't like Polar's attack I thought it was a good idea on the gameplay level. Someone with power was finally actually "doing something" about it. However, we can all see how that turned out for Polar. Some of that has to do with the way Polar conducted that war, but still now people are even less likely to "do something about it".

Spying used to be the classic CB that was almost always air tight, but these days that has changed. Spying is really a high risk/low reward operation, because you can usually get the info you want from the rumor mill anyway. Everyone out there wants to talk. It's just a matter of talking enough to get what you want.

Tech raids going wrong are usually solved peacefully (due to everyone being allied to everyone). In a slim case where they aren't it's usually the alliances with power who are tech raiding. Therefore, the war probably won't start. Rivalries from outside of CN, over OOC actions, and PZIng are highly discourage by the community to erupt in war. When we take away all those mentioned above, what are we left with as a CB? Do we have to now resort to the "I don't like you" CB to get war?

The most common complaint about using this type of CB (besides the basic political complaints about abuse of power) is that they add nothing to the politics of the game. In the past, I might have agreed with that statement, but these days alliances don't care about CBs anyway. You can absolutely hate the CB used and still roll with whoever your treaty partner is, because of the whole "friends > infra" philosophy. The XX crowd seemed to have done this last war.

In this most recent case of NG vs. SOS brigade, it's pretty obvious that both alliances have legitimate grudges against one another. Although, I personally would have rather them just swung it out when those grudges first appeared (treaty web be damned) at the very least this is a war started because of built up grudges over time. If we have to use the "because I want to" CB, I believe as a community this is probably the most responsible way to use it. We either need to do that, rethink what is a proper CB, or stop solving so many wars.

Not having war at all will likely stagnate our politics just as much as going to war for absolutely no reason at all.

27 Comments


Recommended Comments



I think he was referring to Chron's bizarre comment Omni. \m/ did indeed exist in BiPolar and they were the people Polar hit first, sparking off the whole war. The reason the war is called BiPolar is that when TOP hit C&G, NpO immediately peaced out with \m/ two minutes later and hit TOP shortly afterwards.

Link to comment

Kalasin is correct. Bi-Polar was split in two parts. First where Polar initiated the attack on \m/ which lead iFOK, FOK and PC to declare on Polaris and the second where Polar peaced out the front as soon as TOP went in on their side, backstabbed TOP and joined the opposing side.

Link to comment

As a player I don't like CBs that don't have a story/narration about them. They can even be completely made up - which makes for interesting fights and e-lawyering all over the forums, by the way - but they need to be a consistent, reasonably articulate narration.

Wars for the sake of it are good in war simulators, which CN is not. This is a political simulator and if you remove the politics it becomes as dull as the war sub-system - which is very boring in itself.

The problem I have with NG's CB on SOS is that the DoW OP is obscure to poor non-SLCBese-speaking me. I am afraid I didn't pay much attention to either SOS and SLCB, thus I don't really understand what the enmity is about. Anyway I don't really blame NG as it's more a problem on my side that anything else - at least the information is probably available somewhere, or I could bother to ask kriek or someone else about it (again I didn't pay much attention to SOS and SLCB and I don't think I am going to really be interested now).

DH's "Everything. Must. Die." was IMHO worse as (IIRC) the DoW OP briefly mentioned some "possible" reasons for war without really telling anything about them, and ended with a sort of "we don't like you" statement, which was an extremely poor and non-entertaining reason/story to go to war "for". As a player and a popcorn-eater I was truly disappointed.

About "valid" CBs - the more general topic of this blog entry - my personal take is that original quality CBs would most be welcome.

The real underlying CB of almost every global war is raw power: you go to war either to maintain or to get a position of predominance. This could actually be an acceptable "manifest" CB (which strangely hasn't been widely used until now), or people could use plants/double agents to spark something, etc. To me it doesn't really matter the nature of the reason, but rather the quality and depth of the narration about it.

In this framework CBs like "I hate you", "you suck", "I don't like your theme", "just because" etc. - while at least consistent and simple to understand - are way too simplistic to be good, and (if people will insist on them too many times) they would in the end make the political game too repetitive and boring to be bearable anymore.

Examples of "good narrations" (off the top of my head):

NPO vs GATO CB (GATO preparing a first strike out of fear of the NPO coming for them).

NpO vs NADC (spy ops against Polaris nukes, which IIRC weren't [all] due to NADC).

Karma (...).

VE vs NpO (Lennox/Dajobo, spy etc.).

NG vs SOS (enmity with some events attached to it, I suppose).

Legion vs Tetris and allies (spy/OWF posting).

6 millions dollars war.

NpO vs \m/ (for raiding? attacktorate? oh my memory insults [thanks KW]).

TOP vs C&G (pre-empting an attack perceived as imminent).

Link to comment

NpO vs \m/ was for \m/ mouthing off in their IRC chan to the leader of NpO. Something about racist comments etc... mind you they had little issues before that hense why grub was in the channel but in the end I think that was what caused the war.

Link to comment

A CB is important, but for me intentions are also important. Pingu and Sardonic, for example, expressed surprise that I wasn't railing against NG's attack, but I don't see it as a case of no CB. The SOS and the turds in NG have had a lot of problems going back months, and NG decided to go to war over it. Contrary to some who are saying that NG attacked SOS for no reason, they've got legit issues between them even if there wasn't a single catalyst that led to the DoW.

More important now is how NG plans to go about the war and more specifically the end of the war. If they start asking for money/tech, or really any kind of terms beyond the most basic, then it's an issue, because SOS hasn't done anything to NG to justify any of that; the war is enough.

Link to comment

I've said it many times but I still don't see that big of a problem with what most call "a CB less war". A casus belli is the reason you are going to war: it doesn't have to be "valid" by any standard. It is the reason X alliance is going to war against Y alliance. Merely an explanation. It doesn't have to be a good reason.

With that said, everything CB used boils down to "we don't like you". The rest is just flowery words and images to rally people to their side. In each and every single war ever started, cooler heads and a bit of diplomacy could have prevented the conflict. To use jerdge's example of "valid CBs": if NPO and GATO had gotten along together, if NpO and NADC had talked about it more, if VE and NpO had explained each other's side of the story, if NpO and \m/ had let their egos aside... there would have been no war. Ever.

"We don't like you" is a good a CB as it gets.

Link to comment

I've said it many times but I still don't see that big of a problem with what most call a CB less war. A casus belli is the reason you are going to war: it doesn't have to be "valid by any standard.

I disagree with your statement. Here is why.

Casus Belli = "a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

A nation/alliance can war for no reason or a unjust reason - yes. However that is NOT the same as having a real Casus Belli. A casus belli is not necessarily the reason one goes to war, it's one's official justification for going to war. To "justify" something requires one's reason to be, at least arguablly, "Just" (aka: as in the "legally" and/or ethically correct position - being on the side of Justice).

Link to comment

Very good While Chocolate, I've thought about pointing that facet of the definition out in the past but always figured it wasn't worth it. On that note though, I've never seen a war without a CB in all of my time here (well, except maybe the KoN attack but I guess that was a raid, whatever). There has been, and always must be, some semblance of cause for war, if not it kind of defeats the purpose of the game. Now, if any of you are thinking 'well what about NG hitting SOS!!@! That has no cause!!!', there is a little back story that you should consider, since the cause here isen't 'I dont like you'. SOS almost incited two global wars by poking the occupants of what's now known as Non Grata, for literally no other reason then they are an alliance of drama queens. Those incidents and the surrounding events probably should have gone to war at that time, but there were many overriding concerns that needed to be dealt, so priorities prevailed. SOS lived on, comfortable in its ability to poke and run back to RIA, until such a time when RIA was finally sick of it. Once they were, NG acted on a justification that had been sitting in their back pocket for quite some time, nothing more. They still have a justification, just because it's old doesn't make it any less valid.

There is a correlation though between the importance of the event and the strength/pertinence of the justification. While a justification like the one with SOS is certainly valid, its not important enough to complicate life to a severe extent/cause a global war/etc. Rather, its just enough for a pet project but not much more. On the other end of the spectrum, your not going to see this type of justification for a war that could have global implications. Since those are events of dire importance which impact the whole, not just the few, the cause must have more weight and be in succinct accordance with the traditional justifications we apply to such situations. That hasn't changed and I don't think it ever will.

Link to comment
In the past, the CN community would look for legitimate reasons to start wars. Two sides would position themselves on the treaty web; usually, the larger side would then find some reason to declare on the smaller side and the war would start. These days CBs are harder to find. I would say partly because behavior that causes CBs is largely discouraged.

When in the past was this?

Very few of the major wars started since I joined have had a CB. Karma had a really dumb CB.

UJW actually did have a proper CB, raiding of an MDP partner.

If you think Bipolar had a CB, you're in a dreamland though.

Link to comment
In the past, the CN community would look for legitimate reasons to start wars. Two sides would position themselves on the treaty web; usually, the larger side would then find some reason to declare on the smaller side and the war would start. These days CBs are harder to find. I would say partly because behavior that causes CBs is largely discouraged.

When in the past was this?

Very few of the major wars started since I joined have had a CB. Karma had a really dumb CB.

UJW actually did have a proper CB, raiding of an MDP partner.

If you think Bipolar had a CB, you're in a dreamland though.

What? Karma was one of the most clear-CBs I've ever seen. Not the specific issue regarding TORN and OV, but rather the events of the past few months/years leading up to the war were more than enough justification for the curbstomp and subsequent isolation of Pacifica and their close allies.

Link to comment

In years past people use to wrap up their desire to go to war with a bunch of !@#$%^&* that everyone knew was !@#$%^&*. Five years later people don't bother wrapping it up in BS. Pretty simple stuff, imho.

Link to comment

There's a distinct lack of stubborn chumps leading alliances these days, we'd have a lot more wars if there were more.

Maybe so, but that probably all leads back to stubborn leaders being discouraged in the game. I mean look what is happening to Xiph. I guess it's possible to make the case about Grub being the same way. (or others I'm sure I'm missing). Go do something stubborn, Sardonic. :P

Link to comment
In the past, the CN community would look for legitimate reasons to start wars. Two sides would position themselves on the treaty web; usually, the larger side would then find some reason to declare on the smaller side and the war would start. These days CBs are harder to find. I would say partly because behavior that causes CBs is largely discouraged.
When in the past was this?Very few of the major wars started since I joined have had a CB. Karma had a really dumb CB.UJW actually did have a proper CB, raiding of an MDP partner.If you think Bipolar had a CB, you're in a dreamland though.
What? Karma was one of the most clear-CBs I've ever seen. Not the specific issue regarding TORN and OV, but rather the events of the past few months/years leading up to the war were more than enough justification for the curbstomp and subsequent isolation of Pacifica and their close allies.

Err, Pacifica declared war in Karma. Not you guys ;)

Link to comment
"We don't like you" is a good a CB as it gets.

It might be a good CB but it makes for a bad story. It's not "illegitimate" but it leads to simplified politics - or rather, to the denial of politics - thus it's a poor way of playing a political simulator.

Then again everyone play this game as they see fit and that's fine.

Link to comment

With that said, everything CB used boils down to "we don't like you". The rest is just flowery words and images to rally people to their side.

I must respectfully disagree, having myself been at war against people whom I did like, but for other reasons were on opposing sides of an issue being resolved via conflict.

Link to comment

There's a distinct lack of stubborn chumps leading alliances these days, we'd have a lot more wars if there were more.

I find myself agreeing with Sardonic here. Theres alot of "oh god what will the outcome be" that goes around. A great example is the weaboo wars (sos v nso) IAA got involved and didnt want to escalate it due to not knowing where things would fall post war.

Alliances build and build and talk big game but when the rubber meets the road look at how many will back down(Hey look! i get to laugh at Invicta again! HA! HA! Oh! and Polar)

Link to comment
I've said it many times but I still don't see that big of a problem with what most call a CB less war. A casus belli is the reason you are going to war: it doesn't have to be "valid by any standard.
I disagree with your statement. Here is why. Casus Belli = "a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belliA nation/alliance can war for no reason or a unjust reason - yes. However that is NOT the same as having a real Casus Belli. A casus belli is not necessarily the reason one goes to war, it's one's official justification for going to war. To "justify" something requires one's reason to be, at least arguablly, "Just" (aka: as in the "legally" and/or ethically correct position - being on the side of Justice).

The problem lies with what you think is just. It will change from one person to another.

With that said, everything CB used boils down to "we don't like you". The rest is just flowery words and images to rally people to their side.
I must respectfully disagree, having myself been at war against people whom I did like, but for other reasons were on opposing sides of an issue being resolved via conflict.

Did you kick off the war? Where you high gov't and/or the head honcho in charge of launching the war? I'm taking about the initial DoWs here, not the counters of counters of counters of counters of counters.

Link to comment

The problem lies with what you think is just. It will change from one person to another.

It can change from person to person. It also often changes based on one's position in the debate. Lets just be honest for a second - ANY alliance that attacks MY alliance is WRONG - period. I don't care if I said it was fine in some war not involving me previous and I don't care what their CB happens to be. :P

It can also change based on which alliances are on the top of the power structure and what policies they attempt to impose (almost always successfully, except for a few "die hard" types) on everyone else.

However, this ins't a problem. This is politics. Those in power define societies rules. There are different types of power - including the ability to convince others that your position is the more "Just" position than the other guys. And this fact, imo is what makes CN worth it. Why fight so hard (be it military or debates about what "Justice" is) to get "on top" if one can't determine the social rules? That's the real prize.

Link to comment
There's a distinct lack of stubborn chumps leading alliances these days, we'd have a lot more wars if there were more.
I find myself agreeing with Sardonic here. Theres alot of "oh god what will the outcome be" that goes around. A great example is the weaboo wars (sos v nso) IAA got involved and didnt want to escalate it due to not knowing where things would fall post war. Alliances build and build and talk big game but when the rubber meets the road look at how many will back down(Hey look! i get to laugh at Invicta again! HA! HA! Oh! and Polar)

Actually Wicked that's kind of wrong. Although I've seen several situations in which people shy away from wars, because of what you've mentioned (Potter Gate being a good example). The weaboo war didn't kick off, because IAA knew they could get a better war not too far down the line.

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...