Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    27
  • views
    2,434

The changing face of Planet Bob

Stewie

1,453 views

Ladies, Gentlemen, Trolls, Neutrals, GodTier, n00btier.

I come today to put a few thoughts together about the structure of Bob, a little bit of how this is now being re-engineered by certain alliances and how the face of bob may look in the future.

This links into the discussion occuring here : http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/119383-a-proposed-change-to-the-war-range-for-the-top-250500/

I'm someone who has run/been gov in alliances with upper tiers, mid tiers and lower tiers (BF1, LXXQTJMN & Non Grata). We also had a few super-upper tier nations at various points as well.

Up until equilibrium alliances fighting side by side usually had similar nation structure, a few big guys, a few really big guys and then standard alliance bottom tiers and mid tiers.

During the build up to equilibrium nations who were friends were being told that they may have to fight each other because of some idiot with a smaller nation (let's be honest that's what people were being told). Nations left because they did not want to smash into friends to suit someone else's ego trip of running a coalition.

Up until that point the majority of wars had a meaning. Wars now are just dog-piles without any meaning apart from you might be a threat in the future so we're going to crush you now. This type of behaviour angered our super upper tier who didn't hate certain alliances of note we were being linked towards hitting because they remember them as good raiding partners, this changed NG's point of view at least and they started holding the "we will only hit who activates our MD treaties" party line as it would ensure the alliance stuck together.

Post war certain nations left because DBDC became a real thing and they realised they had more freedom independent than as a part of a larger alliance.

So here we are... Nations have clustered together in the god tier together above a certain range to ensure that they are stable and defended if someone actually came to try and take them on.

This ensures 2 fold - 1 that they can not be used by "lesser men" as weapons of war in fights that they themselves do not believe in and 2, developing a community of nations where they support and defend each other if under attack.

They have left behind the ranges which they can't support (sub 100k ns) and grouped into, what many business departments would call, a cell. This cell then integrates into other alliances through treaties and defends/attacks because of that.

The quandary we face now therefore, is whether this is the structure alliances will begin moving towards in the future. Similar to how Umbrella and PC used to mainly have higher NS nations in their main AA. Will alliances focus on elite, or mid-tier natures rather than spending the resources building up to the upper tier again. Will the alliance structure now change as more nations become aware of their own fragility at certain ranges from defense by the alliances they are part of.

Are alliances as a concept now, inaccurate?

1Figure1.gif

Will alliances move away from a single monolithic structure towards more compartmentalised structures which the formation of DBDC seems to indicate?

Has CN finally started going through another evolution? Just as we evolved from colour politics to alliance politics, are we now going to enter a more organic political landscape where nations, not alliances, start having alliances and treaties within their own ranges to fight single nations/characters they have beef with on planet bob?

Personally if this was the way the game moves towards I would be all for it as it would mean there would be many small scale wars occurring on bob, rather than the current global annihilation wars.



27 Comments


Recommended Comments



Up until that point the majority of wars had a meaning. Wars now are just dog-piles without any meaning apart from you might be a threat in the future so we're going to crush you now.

I reject that that's a new concept. Dogpiles based on "get them before they get you" are as old as cybernations.

So here we are... Nations have clustered together in the god tier together above a certain range to ensure that they are stable and defended if someone actually came to try and take them on.

Citadel was an early attempt at pretty much the same thing,although Citadel was too big to keep it going indefinately. DBDC being so small (in terms of membership, not nation size) could play in their favour, provided they avoid the usual pitfalls of CN organisations. i.e. internal strife.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This is a good analysis. I would like to think of this as the ultimate evolution of Gerontocracy. The Gerontocrats now do not need alliances to control the rest of bob who cannot ever threaten them. Through their sheer material power they can demand and shape the world without any politics.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Will alliances move away from a single monolithic structure towards more compartmentalised structures which the formation of DBDC seems to indicate?

No.

Share this comment


Link to comment

No.

Quite simply evolve or die Hereno.

If alliances don't want to change their structure towards a more organic matrix then they are viable to suffer from attack from god tier alliances (Rosular Kingdom & DBDC), wonder heavy midtiers, such as FARK or the Non Grata which is likely to emerge post war, or wonder heavy lower tiers - GOONS.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's not wholly a new idea. A few of the alliances that came out of the old independent circuit -- BN, Sandwich Confederacy, Avalon -- did much the same thing, aiming to have the bulk of their nations in a fairly tight NS band, while building a metric arseload of military wonders to outclass other nations in range.

That had a couple of problems, though. One, if your allies' strength lies in different bands, you cannot effectively assist one another; combined, you can duplicate the coverage that a generic AA could (potentially with a bit more bite) but if countering in your allies' defense you can't peel off attackers and thus make staggering difficult and whatnot. Second, the advantage of being a bulky mid-tier AA generally only lasts for a couple rounds; after that, you're either getting top tier nations who have all the toys that you do, but warchests that've had the luxury of 10k+ infra collections for the last millennium, while you've been slumming it at half that in order to tech up without inflating your range, and/or you're getting your front teeth handed to you in a mason jar by ZIed tech piles because you've intentionally forwent buying maximum tech...which is what the aforementioned alliances did, to greater and lesser extents, until concluding that it caused more problems than it provided answers.

If you could do it on a (large) bloc level, where you had a good chunk of a future date coalition working off the same gameplan, it might be doable. Working with less than a few hundred nations, though, and you're at the mercy of forces beyond you.

Share this comment


Link to comment

DBDC is an outlier, albeit a really awesome one to watch operate. Like Caladin said, I don't think you can get a large enough concentration of strength in any other NS range but the god tier to make it work like DBDC does.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Chaining in alliances has been normal long before this war. Kind of getting tired of that party line being thrown around. There was a reason why MnDoAPs starting becoming the norm. Chaining in was becoming normal so treaties evolved that allowed an alliance to forego a chain in if they did not want to.

I also agree with the premise that the vast majority of wars centered around "you are a potential threat, you will be eliminated" reason. The UjW is a perfect example of this.

Also, DBDC has treaties ties as is evidenced by this war. They are purposefully engaging in the coalition opposite of NG. To an extent, they are doing the same thing as they would have done if they stayed in NG, Basically listening to an "idiot with a small nation".

Sure, they are avoiding hitting certain nations but overall, they have hit any nation above a certain NS on the opposing side. As it stands, there is nothing different being done in this war even with the inclusion of DBDC.

Now, if DBDC just hit whoever, regardless of coalition side, then yes, that would be different.

So evolution? No. More of the same just in a slightly different style.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm someone who has run/been gov in alliances with upper tiers, mid tiers and lower tiers......................

....................Up until that point the majority of wars had a meaning. Wars now are just dog-piles without any meaning apart from you might be a threat in the future so we're going to crush you now.

Lmao, you "were in government" , but didn't realize that wars are just "dogpiles without any meaning" until now? You've got to be !@#$ting me. Those big ole boogie monsters in XX/SF rings a familiar bell to me. Sorry bud, I had to stop reading at this point. You've still got a lot to learn about Cybernations.

It's funny to see NG is collectively in the state of harsh realization I was in about two years ago, when Umbrella told us TOP asked them to hit FARK.

I was pretty indifferent to all non-allies before that war, but now I literally do despise pretty much every alliance out there that's not directly allied to me. NG "hated" everyone before they got rolled, but now you'll have a real reason to hate alliances. I expect it's going to change how you do politics. ;)

The coalition asked NG to get away from MK/TOP last war and you refused. You became a linchpin of the war, and in doing so set up your own demise this war. I want to feel sympathy for you, but I can't. You've been your own undoing. Imo, there's bigger fish to fry in this world, but alliances aren't going to save you from yourself.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Chaining in alliances has been normal long before this war. Kind of getting tired of that party line being thrown around. There was a reason why MnDoAPs starting becoming the norm. Chaining in was becoming normal so treaties evolved that allowed an alliance to forego a chain in if they did not want to.

I also agree with the premise that the vast majority of wars centered around "you are a potential threat, you will be eliminated" reason. The UjW is a perfect example of this.

Also, DBDC has treaties ties as is evidenced by this war. They are purposefully engaging in the coalition opposite of NG. To an extent, they are doing the same thing as they would have done if they stayed in NG, Basically listening to an "idiot with a small nation".

Sure, they are avoiding hitting certain nations but overall, they have hit any nation above a certain NS on the opposing side. As it stands, there is nothing different being done in this war even with the inclusion of DBDC.

Now, if DBDC just hit whoever, regardless of coalition side, then yes, that would be different.

So evolution? No. More of the same just in a slightly different style.

I rather like this assessment. We never claimed not to have friends, though, and inevitably those friends will reside in some alliance or another. We've stayed true to our belief of not fighting wars we don't support for the sake of another's contrived agenda. That will continue to be our guiding principle into the next era of battle, but we'd be foolish to think we can take on all of planet bob by ourselves, fun as it sounds.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think that this is a good analysis, and CN mechanics have probably generated a new feature, which is an "unbeatable" (i.e. "too costly to roll") very small group.

Liking it to Citadel, and specifically to The Gremlins, is correct, as those structures had the same goal of "self determination" through political independence (read: "we can't get rolled that easily"), achieved by building superior stats. The difference is that Citadel was larger, in terms of nation count, and thus more unstable, and Gre fell prey to apathy and to Ramirus Maximus's political insanity. Which probably means that the wrong leadership is the most immediate threat to DBDC (not having a structure can work only to a certain extent, as someone will still have to make some decisions, and no structure means also no safeguards). The best asset in this sense is probably the activity on part of DBDC's veterans.

I anyway find this analysis a bit lacking on the "political" side of things. Grouping most of the active players with terrific stats is not easy to do and keeping them together may prove to be difficult: being "outside" of politics, but politically and military active, means not having a safety net while still having enemies. People may at some point become wary of such an "unchecked" independent power, which "arbitrarily" punishes top tiers, and unite/make plans to undermine/co-opt it.

In a sense, DBDC is neutral and can thus also be compared to OBR (or to WTF/GPA's top tiers), but without the benefits associated with peaceful neutrality... It will be interesting to see where they'll be in six or twelve months from now.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Gramlins were the precursor to the current DBDC. In my opinion they could have exacted whatever political goals they wanted if they were just somewhat bigger, NS-wise.

I've long feared that internal civil war inside DBDC would be our greatest threat, and we are not without structure. We are however fairly like-minded in our play styles so it's easy to move in more or less one direction.

As to whether others will follow in the structure set forth by OBR and DBDC I doubt it, except in the form of a temporary anti DBDC coalition designed to eliminate us once and for all.

But it won't be successful.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Those big ole boogie monsters in XX/SF rings a familiar bell to me.

So you support the war on the NSO "threat" but thing the one (Grudge) on the very more realistic SF threat was !@#$%^&*? XX was only a target of that war by their own choice to include RnR without having them pull away from SF. XX was simply too big to allow to exist as an extension of SF, especially as SF was gunning for allies of quite a few big players at the time.

e: whoops sorry Stewie for getting off-track, it's only relevant to a portion of your blog :(

Share this comment


Link to comment

I reject that that's a new concept. Dogpiles based on "get them before they get you" are as old as cybernations.

During NpO/BLEU's age of power 10v1 dogpiles were routine, and 1V was that way as well. But post-Karma 10v1 dogpiles didn't come back until Derp Rush did the 30v2 thing and this war has featured some 10+v1 as well.

Not to mention the last two wars have featured more 5+ chained oA's than ever before. In the past oA's were normal, but not 5, 6+ chained oAs we have now.

To address what Stewie said. I would say that great wars are devolving into coalition > alliance treaties. We already see that Val/IRON have ignored individutal treaties for their coaltion. I wouldn't be surprised to see temp. coalition treaties that superceed all individual ones to avoid the PR fallout that Val/IRON created by not honoring treaties.

I do think the idea of clustering NS ranges is an old idea. DBDC is just doing it better than anyone has done it before.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'd be really surprised if coalition "loyalty" grew as a result of these past few wars, or if anyone didn't see right through any temporary treaty sophistry. The PR lost by people pulling those sorts of moves in the past few wars would have been lost exactly the same if there was a magical piece of paper lending legitimacy to them.

People could try I guess, but there's enough egotistical hipsterism working against it in this day and age that I doubt it would take hold with enough major players to make it cohesive.

Share this comment


Link to comment
This is a good analysis. I would like to think of this as the ultimate evolution of Gerontocracy. The Gerontocrats now do not need alliances to control the rest of bob who cannot ever threaten them. Through their sheer material power they can demand and shape the world without any politics.

There you go again with your Gerontocrat crap. You have no idea what you're talking about.

As for the OP, no. This would essentially end the game.

(Besides, that sounds insanely boring.)

Share this comment


Link to comment

I rather like this assessment. We never claimed not to have friends, though, and inevitably those friends will reside in some alliance or another. We've stayed true to our belief of not fighting wars we don't support for the sake of another's contrived agenda. That will continue to be our guiding principle into the next era of battle, but we'd be foolish to think we can take on all of planet bob by ourselves, fun as it sounds.

Oh I know mate. I know. I was replying more to Stewie and his rather rose-colored glasses.

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...