Jump to content
  • entries
    5
  • comments
    252
  • views
    5,704

Red Sphere Invaders: You're Doing It Wrong


Eretz Yisrael

453 views

And today we see another attempt by hostiles to invade the sovereign territory of the New Pacific Order, and what a lame attempt it is too. Federation of Imperial Red Empires? Absurd grammar aside, it seems that the founder just wanted a cool name and mashed together four words that would form the acronym FIRE. Is this the grand humanitarian effort coming to save the Red Sphere? A Red Cross with one member and FIRE, the totally amazing and super cool alliance with that unique name and that special "Fire Lord" as their leader.

I've really got to wonder what's more important to the unaligned nations in the Red Sphere - more lunatics with potentially more trades (cause they won't have their trades set up already, right?), or guaranteed protection from tech raiders that's been effectively going on since we implemented the Revenge Doctrine.

Dang, tough choice.

18 Comments


Recommended Comments

I consider the recent failed attempts to violate the Moldavi Doctrine as being somewhat amusing. You'd think they could get enough nations together to actually violate the doctrine first before announcing their intent to. :)

Link to comment
Red is not your sovereign territory, it has been held under occupation by military force, and now you are going to have to learn to play with the other children.

Oh yes. NPO are the evil indigenous occupiers, so embrace the invading colonists who have come to this "virgin" land to civilize it from the ways of these uncivilized natives!

What was right yesterday is wrong today and right tomorrow; but keep on ignoring the lessons of history. I'll make sure to remind you when you complain about the historical treatment of the "Scramble for Red".

Link to comment

You are not indigenous; in fact you invaded from another game! Just because you've held others out of Red by force for a long time doesn't mean you have a right to do so when you no longer have the force.

Link to comment

We've been on Red the longest, far longer than most alliances have even existed. If any alliance could be called indigenous to a color sphere, it would be us (besides perhaps GATO, Legion, or IRON). All other major alliances govern their color spheres, they simply do it within the framework of blocs rather than by themselves like NPO and GOONS1.

The Moldavi Doctrine is to ensure that the Pacific maintains the same level of color sphere control as any other alliance, the only difference being that we avoid the fractious politics of multi-alliance spheres and thus are better equipped to protect unaligned Reds (via R. Doctrine), maintain a stable and peaceful sphere for trading, and more fully protect OUR SOVEREIGNTY - our political and economic safety.

What are alliances for if not mutual protection? It's clear that major alliances need to control senate seats (directly or indirectly via allies, like Gramlins) to ensure the economic safety of their members. Why do you, all of you attacking the Pacific governance of Red, insist on assailing the one color sphere that does things differently? There are twelve (12) other trading spheres... if you do not like how the Pacific runs Red, absolutely no one is stopping your alliance from joining another color.

It all comes down to hatred and jealousy really. Your hatred of the NPO automatically triggers you to hate our alternative method of color governance, the system that gives us a level of protection that no other alliance has within their sphere. You seek to injure the Pacific's power in Red because you are at war with us and seek to destabilize our power. You want to see Pacifica reduced to the same level that you are all in, forced to share power and unable to really have full protection within our color sphere.

I don't blame you for it, but it's pathetic (and a little amusing) to see you try and pretend like you are grand and gracious liberators.

Link to comment

Arguing 'we've been here for a long time' to counter 'it doesn't matter if you've been there for a long time' isn't very effective.

I also find it rather amusing that you try to argue that Moldavi is good because of Revenge. You had Moldavi for a long, long time before you gave anything back to Red, as well as enabling your allies to destroy similar schemes in other colours. There is nothing stopping you maintaining Revenge protection, or even sharing that with other Red alliances, even with Moldavi dropped or ineffective.

Link to comment

Well, nothing, that is, except the fact that the largest non-NPO "red" alliance is actually an Aqua colony.

Bob, he's not using "indigenous" to mean "not an invasion alliance from another game or forum." He wouldn't have cited GOONS, one of the largest invasion alliances, otherwise. He's using it to mean "has traditionally belonged to a sphere." In other words, the ODN is indigenous to Orange, despite having come from another game.

Not every major alliance controls its sphere though. Purple is a place where we collectively control it, and Aqua, Orange and Blue are all fairly disunited.

Link to comment
Arguing 'we've been here for a long time' to counter 'it doesn't matter if you've been there for a long time' isn't very effective.

Well, I suppose that is a matter of perspective then. We, like most other major alliances, take pride in the color sphere that we have governed (for 3 years now) and in our eyes we have every right to maintain our economic safety. The creation of Polar pre-GWI was seen as the ultimate form of Pacific imperialism for a long time, yet here Karma is instituting a puppet alliance in Red for the exact same reasons. And people think CN has really changed :rolleyes:.

I also find it rather amusing that you try to argue that Moldavi is good because of Revenge. You had Moldavi for a long, long time before you gave anything back to Red, as well as enabling your allies to destroy similar schemes in other colours. There is nothing stopping you maintaining Revenge protection, or even sharing that with other Red alliances, even with Moldavi dropped or ineffective.

Part of the reason Moldavi Doctrine is good, especially for the Red team, is because it allows us to protect Red. That is not the only reason. Once again, the main reason why M. Doctrine is a positive institution is because it provides a higher level of economic safety for our alliance community. EVERY alliance wants to create a stable trading environment for its members, are all claims on Senate seats by blocs or alliances 'military occupations'?

We did not enable our allies to destroy Y#5 or Goonland Security, those alliances crafted their own fate. In fact, I remember a lot of hailing and support for both attempts on our part before all the drama.

The fact that we enforce a greater level of control does not change the act or method of control itself. Same actions, different reactions. One set of standards for the Pacific, another for all other alliances. I suppose that is the nature of anti-Order rationalizations... shrouding self-interested motivations with hypocrisy and faux moralizing.

@ Haflinger: Well every alliance, at least any alliance worth worrying about, wants to control a senate seat - directly, or indirectly.

Link to comment

Moldavi actually hurts your economic security by driving out potential alliances that would have a solid interest in stability on the sphere. Vox Populi couldn't have done what it did on red on aqua or orange because aqua, black, orange and others have multiple large alliances that could and would come together to drive out such an invasion force and collectively could create a higher barrier to enter the Senate both NS and vote wise than NPO could have done when Vox invaded. Aqua, black, and orange also have twice as many nations offering twice as many trade opportunities.

Link to comment

Vox tried to invade Purple too; we stopped them, but had they put the same amount of effort that they did into their Red campaign, they probably would have gotten a senator and gotten to sanction chefjoe again. :)

Link to comment

Azaghul is right, trying to maintain a one alliance Senate actually hurts you in the face of a determined enemy. Karma could easily get a Red Senator if they wanted to play dirty, for example. Vox did so and maintained it for two cycles. New Reverie managed it twice. How many times have Aqua alliances faced a sanction war in their own colour?

We did not enable our allies to destroy Y#5 or Goonland Security

I was thinking more of Church of Maroon and CNARF, actually. Oh, and NONE. And Bilrow wanted to go after CTC as well.

are all claims on Senate seats by blocs or alliances 'military occupations'?

You'll see from my history (well you would if you actually knew who you were talking to instead of assuming I am an anti-NPO drone) that I have always argued for free colours and taken issue with all forms of colour imperialism. You may recall my alliance being one of the loudest about Dilrow, for example. But the fact is that a Senate-grab is a much lower level of imperialism than keeping other alliances out altogether.

And finally, looks like Moo agrees with me anyway ;) leaving this propaganda thread looking distinctly silly.

Link to comment

All my comments on the Moldavi Doctrine are to be considered past tense, for obvious reasons. Now that we have been defeated, clearly we must accept the mainstream method of color dominance. That's cool, we're not 24m NS anymore anyways. Either way, Moldavi Doctrine served us well for 3 years and nothing will change that.

A few senate grabs that died once their stupid propaganda games died were really nothing to worry about. Dilrow IS a good example though of why it was smart for us to avoid dealing with other alliances in our color though. Especially during WUT times and the multi-polar world. CNARF and NONE... you've got to be kidding me.

As for free colors... go ahead and create free colors yourself. I'm sure TOP would love that.

Link to comment

I think you're really not getting the point. Just because it served you well does not mean that it was good. Wiping out everyone else in CN would serve us well but I don't think we should do it.

I have been a strong pusher behind a free Green and one of the reasons we moved to Aqua was because of its freedom. I would prefer to see a free Orange too, but the Orange alliances are happy with the current system, and anyone is free to move to Orange, so it is not a big issue – unlike Red until today, where even moving there got you in a defensive war.

Link to comment

As I said previously, it's a matter of perspective. The fact that the Moldavi Doctrine gave Pacificans greater economic safety (and in my unofficial opinion it did) means that it was good for us, and in this case, that is all that matters. If Red were the only color and we were preventing people from creating other alliances at all... that would be wrong. The fact that there are 11 other colors to choose from, many with great and very welcoming communities, means that all the Moldavi Doctrine did was prevent other alliances from taking the Red Senate.

The only thing that we were oppressing was other alliances that wanted a Senate seat so they could have more political clout. From our perspective, at the time the Doctrine was active, that was against our economic interests and therefore prevented it from happening. To be honest, good and bad have very little to do with this situation. Like it or not, but Senates are first and foremost military tools - is it right for some alliances to have nukes and others not to?

Also, I don't believe that a color sphere with no set rules on governance is a "free" one. Without clear standards all you get is 'largest alliance wins'.

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...