Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    218
  • views
    14,365

The World That Ye Hath Created: A Study in Irony

HM Solomon I

557 views

DBDC has many relationships with many alliances, many of which have significant upper tiers. The alliances best in a position to destroy DBDC are also unlikely to do so because of these connections. However they all have something in common: most view DBDC as a partner of necessity to keep their upper tiers safe so they can focus on other threats and keep aid flowing. However, they all share a common interest, being significant upper tier forces, in preventing DBDC from becoming too much to manage. More importantly, DBDC needs to raid in the upper tier to survive but most of the nations in their range are in alliances with whom they share a connection or are in neutral alliances and are too strong to attack. Eventually they will be forced to attack those nations in the non-neutral alliances with whom they have a relationship of one kind or another, and those alliances may feel they share a common interest in destroying this threat.

Even if they don't, DBDC has to raid to survive and thrive but also has to keep connections with those that most pose a threat to them. This is a very tenuous situation as is a string under tension, one prick of a pin and it will snap. DBDC could avoid this by gradually reducing the number of those connections keeping just enough others on their side to avoid destruction while neutralizing the threat posed by those they drop. However, a sudden blow against too many of them will likely prove disastrous. This is an incredibly fine balancing act, one unlikely to be executed successfully. The fact is that too many things can go wrong, and when so many things can go wrong, something probably will go wrong. Given this, I find it likely that DBDC will not survive for as long as many think. But there is a caveat to this prediction: if DBDC changes their game such that it no longer needs to raid to keep thriving, none of the other problems will exist in a state of tension and the alliance's situation will stabilize.

Let me close by stating that this is just my view of the current situation, and is not intended to represent the views of my alliance or anyone else. More importantly, I'm not necessarily hoping any of this will come to pass (though it'd probably be fun if it did because, well, war :D ), but looking at things it seems likely that it will.



13 Comments


Recommended Comments

If we had to raid to survive, that might all make sense but we don't have to raid to survive. There are also plenty of non-allied upper tier targets for us to attack if we felt the need to raid. Our "situation" has been more than stable for a while.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I never said you have to raid to survive, I said you have raid to survive and thrive. Or more accurately, I said that in the intro paragraph, but when I went into more detail, I clarified.

And when I said "connections" I meant more than just official (even non-disclosed) treaties, I was also referring to connections that are less formal (i.e., not written down or even formally agreed to, but that nonetheless exist in implicit understandings), given that DBDC often tends to go that route.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think they're thriving just fine even without raiding. I don't know the exact nature of their arrangement with their satellite alliances, but a constant flow of incoming tech will get you 21,600 in a year. It would be interesting quantify how many non-DBDC-allied, non-neutral nations are in range, and to what degree if they're keeping pace or falling behind.

If they're keeping pace (which is unlikely), and at least equal in number, then I guess the relative advantage for DBDC would be shrinking over time. That is, for the weaker party, I imagine it's more favorable to fight at 30k tech vs. 50k tech, than 10k tech vs. 30k tech. I could be wrong though.

I think a more likely scenario is that DBDC is outpacing the remaining non-friendly, non-neutral nations in their range, and continuing to make progress in allying those who do remain. I don't see their position as precarious at all, but rather consolidating for the time being. Of course, sometimes when an alliance has such an over-consoldiated position of strength (e.g., NPO pre-Karma) they naturally become the focal point of anyone who'd like to shake things up or achieve power for themselves. The game can only tolerate a clear leader for so long. But I think we're a long ways off from that kind of backlash.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I assume Solomon is referring to the niche which DBDC caters to. Up to now nations have joined them for fun and glory, facilitated by a ready supply of war, and if opportunities for war subside then the novelty of being a DBDC member might also subside. Or so the theory goes.

But, I think at this point they have developed enough of their own culture to exist on something other than just war if they choose to do so. Apparently they have to some extent.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I assume Solomon is referring to the niche which DBDC caters to. Up to now nations have joined them for fun and glory, facilitated by a ready supply of war, and if opportunities for war subside then the novelty of being a DBDC member might also subside. Or so the theory goes.

But, I think at this point they have developed enough of their own culture to exist on something other than just war if they choose to do so. Apparently they have to some extent.

That all may be true, but besides the recruiting niche that they occupy, there's also the fact that they have more land, by a long way, than any other alliance in the game including all the sanctioned alliances (yes, even GPA and WTF). Much of their growth besides recruiting has been fueled by this land, as they certainly don't have anywhere near the most tech or infra among alliances. It is economically infeasible to get large quantities of land any other way besides raiding, so, assuming they want to continue to remain land heavy and grow, they'll likely need to continue raiding whether they are supposedly stable or not.

Share this comment


Link to comment

A decent analysis made by HM Solomon I. Unfortunately, most of the article is either: misleading or inaccurate but the author is not in any way affiliated to the Doomsphere so I get the point of not being able to have access to quality information.

Share this comment


Link to comment

DBDC is ebil. Trust me, I have first hand experience. White Chocolate once logged onto IRC and didn't say hello to me until she said hello to everyone else in the channel.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I rather enjoyed reading this analysis, but it seems outdated. Our situation, as TB alluded, is quite stable. We have a solid NS base, not unconquerable, but substantially larger than our imaginary opposition. We have been for some time quite aware of the political landscape, and notably the scenarios that would lead to our demise. It's in every AA's best interest to keep itself protected from imminent demise, and we have many defenses to that.

I disagree with your premise that we need to constantly raid to stay ahead of our competition. Our raids have been done with just as much intent of destruction as they were to grow our nations in a land sense. This leads me to conclude that your analysis is quite astute, but just somewhat uninformed and too narrow in its scope.

The dismantling of our allies as you allude is not a feasible FA plan in any sense. Even among non-allied alliances there is considerable common opposition to us just from our blatant disregard of the 'old rules' and 'traditions'. If we were to set a precedent of dropping our allies and then subsequently attacking them for no other reason than cannibalism, we would lose a tremendous amount of credibility and respect across the board.

Though we are more free to act outside of our treaty web than most any other alliance out there, that doesn't afford us the ability to act like brute morons with no plan. We know what we're doing, and we'll be just fine.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well I definitely disagree on the raiding issue, as whether you're doing it to acquire land or to maintain dominance in the super tier (by keeping others down), either way it seems as though it's necessary. Since you are all in the super tier, maintaining dominance in that tier would seem to be necessary for your collective security. It's not as if you have a tier spread akin to "traditional" alliances which affords you risk mitigation, if you don't maintain sufficient power projection in the super tier, you wouldn't be in a very good position.

The FA plan, as you put it, wasn't really meant as an actionable plan, it was entirely a thought exercise on my part to see if, assuming the rest of my post was sound (which it may or may not be, but the assumption was merely a tool of logic), then what would a logically possible outcome be that would rectify the problems pointed to in the above. It didn't assume any other material conditions other than the ones in the blog article.

Share this comment


Link to comment

In fairness to the Doombirds WC is exceptionally cruel. More than likely they don't even realize she is controlling them.

It's actually very clear who is the power behind Jeff Winger. You all are just not looking apparently. I'll give you a hint - look at CubaQuerida's signature (if you dare - she may work her magic on you too). As for me, I'm just as bewitched as any other Doombird.

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...