Näktergal

It's generally a truism that a political movement defining itself by its opposition to an existing power or structure tends to fall apart once that structure or power no longer exists to oppose. So the real question is, does the current "movement" represent something which has its own goals, ideals, and concepts that will remain long after this war ends? Or is it merely a direct response to the existing power structure, and will begin to crumble shortly after the enemy does? IS there a "hegemony of the masses"? Or simply an oppressed underclass striking back at what it perceives to be its oppressors, using ideology as a weapon, but defining itself solely by its opposition to the enemy? Will the general sense of good-will and camaraderie that seems to exist on the Karma side remain after the war (assuming they win!), leading to an entirely new era of peace, love, and understanding? Or will the winners be falling over each other to place the knife in their allies' spines as fast as possible, hoping to claim one of the spots at the top that have been vacated? ARE we looking at a complete paradigm shift? Or is it ultimately going to become a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? And if the NPO and their allies win, will they learn a lesson from the revolt against them, and change their general policy to one that provokes less hostility and anger? Or will they become even more draconian in their desire for revenge, and to guarantee no one can ever threaten their rule again? I don't have an answer to those questions. But I definitely think it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks and months.

The easier answer is that "the other side" is ALWAYS dishonorable, evil, and vile. They go around shooting nuns and kicking babies while seeking to spread their tyranny across the face of the globe. Meanwhile, "the good guys" are heroic defenders of Truth, Justice, and the CN Way, who stand against evil in all its forms, drawing a line in the sand and saying THE BUCK STOPS HERE. In betweeen fighting the forces of evil, the heroes also take time out to donate to charity, find homes for orphans, and otherwise just act like stellar awesome people. And which side is "good" and which side is "evil" depends entirely on which side YOU are on. No matter WHAT you do, no matter how honorable or dishonorable, it's going to be praised by your allies and utterly mocked by your enemies. This happens EVERY WAR. It's even more amusing when you notice that whenever some alliance that is getting BASHED by the enemy either pulls out of the war or switches sides, you'll hear everyone who has just spent days talking about how they have **** for honor or how they leave their allies out in the cold or are otherwise the lowest scum in the game are suddenly being praised by those same people for making the honorable choice, or for showing their great wisdom, or for making the hard but necessary choices. We always knew you could do it! Meanwhile, the alliances that have been preaching brotherhood and friendship and man, these guys are awesome in every thread are now suddenly talking about how they always knew they could never trust you, how you've yet again proved your lack of honor, how you're easily-led fools, etc. The chest pounding is the same every single war - which is part of why I sort of stopped listening to it (let alone participating in it!) years ago. Personally, I think there are cool people on both sides of the war, there are cool alliances on both sides of the war, and this entire mess is nothing more than an expression of CN's need to fight a major war every few months. Though, considering where I wound up on the field, I think I'm supposed to point out now how Karma are the paragons of justice in a world that cries out for it while the Hegemony are the evil Lords of Darkness who seek to plunge the world into a hellish nightmare of chaos and damnation. So, you know, pretend I just did that.

I've actually hit 1000 when Infra jumping in the past.

This is both true, and misleading. Multipolarity, with a lack of central powers to influence conflicts, does tend to lead to more wars. But those wars will almost certainly be far smaller in scale, and far less likely to drag innocent victims into it. Bipolarity may reduce the number of smaller wars, but it also guarantees that the same pressure that leads to those sorts of wars in the first place will continue to build, generating political hostility, and eventually exploding with far greater force. This is basically why CN has evolved into the model where you either have a massive war where everyone and their cousin is fighting, or curbstomps where a dozen guys kick the teeth out of someone for looking at them funny. Multipolarity would almost certainly produce more wars. Bipolarity tends to produce worse ones. RL wars also give the victors a much greater share of resources and rewards than CN wars do, thus creating far more incentive in the face of potential retaliation. CN wars tend to be fought over personal animosity or for revenge far more than RL wars tend to be. Sadly, this is true. The nature of the game, and the people in it, is towards a gathering of forces over time, creating the very bipolar/unipolar scenario we're discussing. Often, it's a case of fear - "If I don't join this larger bloc to protect myself, my potential enemies will join a bloc and use their greater numbers to destroy me." Absolutely true in all respects. A bipolar world tends to be much better for everyone who isn't part of the poles, and to some degree, for those who are part of the weaker pole. A unipolar world tends to support everyone who is a part of that pole... assuming they don't turn on each other from lack of external threat. I'd also agree with Vlad, in the sense that a unipolar world, by its very nature, generates the pressures and stresses that lead to the formation of a second pole. I'm not sure that I'd agree that every Great War must end with said bipolar world collapsing back into a unipolar state (either with the same pole triumphant or a new pole taking its place), if only because it's clearly possible that a pole defined entirely in opposition to another pole may not survive as a cohesive entity more than 20 minutes after the end of the fight... but I do agree that, as that pole falls to pieces (effectively creating a multipolar world), it's only a short matter of time before the world begins to factionalize and polarize again, whether along similar lines or entirely new ones. I definitely think the game may be revitalized if the political scene gets a facelift, and the NPO gets to ride in the backseat for a while (assuming their enemies don't kick them out of the car altogether). But whatever poles arise in their wake could wind up being far, far worse. If nothing else, it makes for interesting viewing!

It would be interesting to see what happens if the war ends with the NPO on the ground and half of the Karma alliances willing to back off and offer peace while the other half want nothing more than to issue the most vindictive surrender terms CN has ever seen and basically keep the NPO under eternal ZI to prevent it from ever rising again. Might even lead to a situation where the Karma alliances turn on each other, with some fighting to keep the NPO under the lash while the others support a more lenient penalty. And, of course, if that sort of thing happens, it would almost certainly give the NPO all the breathing room they need to recover and rebuild, while weakening their enemies for potential future revenge (shades of GWI). On the other hand, if the end of the war results in a crew of bloodthirsty ravagers who plan to savage the NPO while the other faction simply steps back and washes their hands of the whole thing, it would likely be much harder for the NPO. At least until most of their enemies eventually get bored and give up. Of course, all of this assumes that the NPO loses the war, and loses it bad enough that the other side can AFFORD to offer anything other than a white peace.

Maybe the desire to "win" in a game that has no real ending is part of the problem with CN politics in general.

Crush seduced me into TAB. And then, just like a man, left for MHA shortly thereafter. If not for my new sense of loyalty to TAB, my old sense of loyalty to the FCC would probably pull me back, though.

No, you're not allowed to vote. ~thwaps~

Love you too, Doitzel. It's telling that the Initiative basically had to turn on itself and have a civil war before falling apart, but Continuum has been slowly rotting away for months now. While it might seem like it to people on the outside, the alliances that jumped ship recently were NOT acting on a spur of the moment decision. I think the aftermath of this war is going to be very fertile ground for new blocs and coalitions. How many of them manage to last more than a few months before falling apart or being absorbed into something bigger is another question entirely. And whether or not the NPO can work magic again if they lose this war is a question I'm not even prepared to guess at.

Damn it, you guys. You're completely shattering my world-view. What's next, OBR cancelling the Writ and coming ou... ohh. Well, at least we're on the same side, anyway. Hail and whatnot. In that case, this is the first Great War - the FCC's been around for all of them, and have never been motivated to fight in any of them. So, either this is the most dramatic war in the history of CN, or the Grämlins just rock so hard that even the FCC cannot resist their charms. (or, you know, the FCC finally got rid of their most annoying pacifist ) Hey, what's wrong with being the first alliance in the game to think billion dollar warchests were a good idea?

I'd have to agree that unipolarity isn't good for the game. For that matter, I'd say that bipolarity isn't good for the game either, but it's better than the alternative. If anything, I'd say the best possible scenario is one in which there are multiple powerful blocs, all distinct and separate, meaning that any given war or political conflict is more likely to be weighed on its own merits than simply siding with your allies even if what they're doing is cruel, unfair, unprovoked, and somewhat childish. In a game where there are dozens of different smaller power centers, each one has to behave itself more, since overly arrogant or aggressive behavior will be enough to turn multiple enemies against you. But at the same time, polite, intelligent, and honorable behavior would almost certainly lead rivals to leave you alone, because you're far from the worst possible threat out there (and they might be attacked by their own enemies while they waste their strength against you). In short, the more poles there are, the more "Right Makes Might", rather than the reverse. That being said, I don't ever see that happening. It's human nature to seek allies, and it's been proven to be good tactics in CN to form coalitions and blocs with strong alliances, so we're likely to continue to see the various powers joining forces to keep kicking the little guy, whoever manages to claim the top spot to do everything they can to hold onto it, and a general divide into the Haves and the Have Nots (or perhaps worse, into the Haves, and the people the Haves abuse to keep them from ever being strong enough to present a challenge). So that sort of multipolar world can only really exist at the beginning (before people figure out what works best, and start "playing to win"), or in times of dramatic upheaval (odds are a number of strong, individualistic blocs are going to come out of this war, no matter who wins). But that, soon enough, those individual power blocs will begin to coalesce into larger and larger collectives, until we're back to a bipolar or unipolar world. People always complain about how the NPO and its closest allies operated when they were at the top, but honestly, can we really say that other alliances wouldn't have been just as bad? I certainly wouldn't have trusted the GOONS in that position. I'd even have trouble trusting a group like LUE with that power, and I liked LUE. There are a lot of other alliances I'd root for as underdogs, but be terrified of if they were top dog. Power corrupts, and any alliance that has the skill to take the top spot and the desire to keep it may find themselves willing to compromise their honor if that's what it takes to stay strong. Especially if they made enemies on the way up, because they don't want to have to face them on the way back down. So, does the weakening of the NPO and IRON (along with Continuum) mean an inevitable return to true multipolar politics? I doubt it. At best, it probably leads us back to another Cold War situation with two sides constantly trying to rebuild and forge new poltical ties faster than the enemy. At worst, it simply trades one unipolar scenario for another (or maintains the status quo but weakens every possible military threat and leads to greater political strength on the part of the winner).

I think it's worth noting that the political situation of mid-'09 is not the same as the political situation of late-'06 (and god I feel old now). The NPO and NpO were able to rebuild so rapidly after GWI not JUST because of the strength of their internal organization (though that certainly played a role), but also because they had some phenomenal individuals involved in their leadership, making things happen. And because the world as a whole basically ignored them for a while, assuming they couldn't recover. But now? Everyone knows that sort of recovery is possible, so people will be far more aware of rapid rebuilding and a flurry of treaties as a threat. A lot of the "old heroes" of the Orders have either moved on or stopped playing - does the new guard have the same charisma and determination necessary to pull back from the brink? Plus, in the wake of GWI, the enemy (the CoaLUEtion) was already falling apart before the war was even over, meaning the NPO had the opportunity to rebuild during a time of relative chaos (and ultimately, to forge alliances with former enemies while picking off potential threats). But when the current war ends, odds are at least SOME fairly powerful coalitions and blocs are going to remain intact - and potentially make rebuilding political ties that much harder for the NPO and their allies. The NPO found it very easy to sign treaties and form massive blocs when they were still seen as being "the winning side" - the bandwagon mentality doesn't just apply in wartime. But if they lose, will they find it as easy to sway some of the larger alliances back to their side? Note that I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm not even saying the Hegemony will lose the war. But I am suggesting that conditions are significantly different now, both internal and external, to make any prediction of events based on past behavior to be spurious at best.

Personally, I think the idea would be if CN had 2437 alliances, and only defensive pacts. Then again, I'm one of those sick people who thinks CN would be better off more as a political/economic simulator then as a war game where people have to fight over who has the biggest ePeen every few months.

As far as I can tell, out of the 15 Citadel-centric anarchies, only 3-4 of them were actually accomplished by NAAC nations.

Lies. The FCC was always here. There was never a time before the flag and charter existed. The FCC is eternal.

Heh - I was going to mention this, too. Except I noticed the "This solider purchase will put your solider efficiency above 80% of your citizen population making your people unhappy" message coming up when I hit "Confirm Transaction" on the buying screen, and after checking 30 seconds ago, that one still hasn't been fixed. I'm assuming you totally forgot about that one, if only because it's not directly obvious. EDIT: Oh, and incidentally, I just noticed that "soldier" is spelled wrong in the above warning I C&Ped directly from the game.

Heh. Don't worry about it - as far as I can tell, after a certain point, every nation in the game is going to break Google Maps anyway. Look at my map - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=26862 (I was going to post pics, but Imageshack has apparently chosen today to be stupid). The only level where it actually seems to be making the proper circle is when the zoom is at the point where the map key shows 500 mi/kh (and even then, you can only see a tiny bit of the circle at the corners. Once you zoom out more, the circle disappears completely (at 1000 mi/kh), comes back as two little dashes directly north and south of center (at 2000 mi/kh), and as the same two dashes, only shifted a bit to the east (at the 2000 mi/5000 kh level). I've got a 3500 mile diameter, and I haven't seen a nice circle for ages. As far as I can tell, the game does the same thing to everyone somewhere between 2000-3000 miles wide. I never really went out of my way to look for the precise point when it breaks, though.

1) You actually have no idea whether or not some of the people here already give to charities they believe in. As hard as it may be to believe, not everyone who donates is going to gloat about it. It's entirely possible that some of the people who donate to CN also donate to causes they believe in. 2) Contrary to what Sally Struthers tells us, sending a few dollars to impoverished nations will not help them to live happy and healthy lives in the long-term, because the problem isn't simply lack of funds, but systemic flaws in their governmental and economic situation. It's been estimated that more than half (at the very least) the aid sent to various groups in Africa never actually gets to the people. Understandably, this discourages many people from donating anything in the first place. 3) Many charities are so inefficient, a fair share of the money you donate winds up going to support the charity's own system, employees, and operations. There are some charities out there that will absorb as much as 80% of what they take in. Understandably, this also discourages many people from donating anything in the first place. 4) Aside from donations made to CN, the very electricity we're using right now to go online and play as well as the Internet connection we're paying for to get here costs money that we could easily donate to charities. Where do you draw the line? As others have suggested, money donated to CN can be compared to other entertainment expenses, which hardly makes it as frivilous as it seems as first. The sheer fact that you're able to post this at all implies you're no better than the people you're effectively criticizing.

To be honest, I was wondering something like this myself recently. If two nations in the same alliance want to fight (be it a "duel", or "training exercises", or internal problems, or whatever), and are actually attacking each other (rather than just declaring and sitting there to fill war slots), does that count as being a "valid" use of the war system? Or would that still be considered cheating even though both sides are taking damage?

You're kind of missing the point. He's not complaining that his citizens want another type of government, or asking what he should do about it. He's saying he finds it amusing that his people approve of Monarchy, but simultaneously don't want a royal family (which is what Monarchy IS). Basically, it's just pointing out how awkward and contradictory the wording is, which is a side-effect of having Monarchy as your government when your people want a Republic.

Gross Income: Slightly more than $8 million Daily Bills: Slightly less than $3 million Net Income: Slightly more than $5 million Daily Infra: Haven't bought Infra in months, but I COULD buy 36 levels a day if I did. Efficiency: 156