Before we begin this segment, I'd like to to present a video highlighting the strength of will of the coalition:
Recently I was fortunate enough to run into Chimaera at the Museum of the Imperial Assault Alliance in Yerushalayim. The nuclear warfare had taken it's effect on the Capitol, but of course the museum still stood. Chimaera and I both carry the status of Imperator Emeritus, although we shared different reasons to be there: whereas I visited to honor the IAA I had joined six years ago that day, Chimaera was apparently headed to a secret war meeting under the museum. It felt like old times to run into Chimaera, and I quickly proposed an interview.
It's a pleasure and an honor sitting next to you yet again Chimaera, even if it is just for this interview. I know firsthand that your services to this coalition are unnumbered, and yet the world may never thank you for your hard work. How different is it to help lead a coalition, rather than just govern an alliance?
Well, Tywin, it's a pleasure to speak to you again as well. An alliance, as a general rule, is a group of individuals with one overarching goal. Sure, there are some smaller machinations and plans in place amongst the individuals, but it is NOTHING like trying to help arrange and lead a coalition - the best way to describe coalition warfare is to imagine two large men trying to herd cats in the general vicinity of the other large man, except the cats have grenades strapped to them. There are so many covert (and overt, in modern Bob's case) political desires for each alliance you have to take into consideration - the whole thing is rather exhausting.
Could you provide an example of such a stressful situation for our viewers?
The most notable example of this, this war, was one alliance begging for a particular target. They were assigned that target, and then the night of decided not to hit said target. Now, they'll tell you it's because they didn't want to oA in, but I don't for a second believe that. You don't sign onto a coalition war thinking you're going to be using nothing but MDPs.
Ah, I remember when that happened. It's always disappointing when someone backs out from a commitment. Indeed, there were many disappointments on the path to victory. Halfhearted commitments, coalition withdrawals, and the usual unpredictable chaos of war. Were you ever caught by surprise? Was there any point where you doubted that victory could be achieved?
The only thing that surprised me about this war was how unbelievably BLATANT certain alliances were in attempting to backstab people. No-nuke agreements, plans (and leaked screenshots) indicating preparations to go BiPolar on the coalition, refusing to play by gameplans they'd already signed off on - in wars past, leaders kept that sort of skullduggery under wraps. I think its presence in the light during this war speaks to the general decline of leader (and member) quality in this game.
As our viewers know, NPO is effectively stalling peace talks. Some have predicted this war now lasting through June, and siege warfare tends to be strenuous on logistics. Should the enemy refuse to yield, do you think the coalition is solid enough to contain the enemy for half a year or longer?
At some point, war becomes massively unprofitable for both sides - what we're betting on is that the terms we've offered will be more amenable to the opposition than the continued obliteration of their allies and their lower tiers. I do not think this war will drag on much longer - either Pacifica will come to the table and negotiate (rather than the stonewalling and outright refusal to parlay we've seen thus far) or they will continue to be engulfed in the fires of war. This is not Equilibrium. Our resolve will not break simply because it takes a few weeks longer than planned.
On that note, what do you think were the primary military objective(s) of this war? Which enemy alliance has performed the most effectively under the circumstances? Least effectively?
The primary military objective, from MI6's standpoint, was to showcase ourselves as a premier military alliance at our tier. We feel like we've done that - we effectively blunted the early Pacifica attack on our Paradoxian allies and have dealt more damage per capita than any alliance on our side (and it really isn't even close). It was a bit of a coming-out party - most alliances' first wars are far from perfect, but I am quite proud of how we've performed overall. As to the coalition's primary objective, well, I'd say it was returning the game to a state of parity. There's 3 or 4 loosely affiliated spheres now, each of which could be the dominant power in CN should the winds of war blow their way. I think that's a vastly more exciting state of politics than a larger dominant force.
Despite the taunts of the enemy, NpO and TOP seems to have synergy and really work well together. It seems to me that relations within the coalition will solidify in the wake of this war and cement into something stronger. What do you think?
I believe you're implying a bloc status there, Tywin, and to me that just seems folly. Blocs are good for one thing, and one thing only - becoming a target. TOP and Polaris are both better off working together and being solid allies to one another than in planting their roots together. Blocs are too inflexible, too rigid a structure, too unable to change as politics necessitate. The only constant in Bob is that dominant blocs fall. I would rather not be party to my own downfall.
Well, I'd love to ask you more questions Chimaera, but unfortunately we're out of time. Thank you for taking the time and joining us today for this interview.
My pleasure Tywin.
Up next, more on Non Grata's massive membership decline... and later, talking points will discuss the political highlights of the weekend.