Jump to content

Ogaden

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,215

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Ogaden

  1. Ogaden
    I feel the need to comment on this issue due to this possibly being the most egregious case of treaty chess I have seen in some time.
    Treaty chess is the cynical exploitation of treaties built around trust, common interest and friendship between two or more alliances in order to negate the ability of an alliance to receive assistance from their allies. This can take two forms:
    1) Chain-baiting.
    Chain-baiting is the result of an alliance having a treaty or treaties that make it extremely inconvenient to directly attack, thus triggering all manner of defensive treaties. The treaty-chess player instructs an alliance or alliances to attack the desired targets less well connected allies in order to compel the target alliance to "take the bait" and attack the bait alliance. Due to agreements made prior to the war, this relieves obligations of defense due to non-chaining clauses, opposing coalitions, or whatnot.
    2) Treaty Conflicts.
    The second and more commonly used exploitation of treaties in treaty chess is to get alliances to counter or attack a target alliance where the attacking alliance has treaties which are also held by the target alliance, therefore making it impossible for the target alliance's allies to defend them without violating their treaty with the attacking alliance.
    The first instance I find more acceptable than the second, as the target in the first instance, their allies should recognize what is going on and defend their ally regardless. The second instance I have long considered to be an abuse, and alliances should not agree to be used in that way.
    The rationale for treaty chess and the arguments as to why treaty chess is ok that I have heard largely involve the treaty web, and how offensive action is inherently more difficult than defensive action (due to there being a hell of a lot more mutual defense clauses than optional aggression clauses) but ultimately treaty chess involves exploiting the ties that bind alliances together for cynical ends. This goes both ways. Not defending an ally because they are obvious bait does not diminish the fact that they are still your ally, and they signed their treaty in good faith with you.
    Treaty chess is the ultimate dehumanizing element of coalition warfare, it reduces your alliance down to a NS value and a treaty list. Alliances that do not contest being exploited or sacrificed for treaty chess abandon their sovereignty in exchange for better odds for "the coalition", but where will the coalition be when the war is over? Your coalition partner today ordering you to hit your ally's ally instead of defending your own ally is your enemy tomorrow, who rejoices at your diminished state, fewer allies, and damaged credibility.
  2. Ogaden

    Might Makes Right?

    By Ogaden,

    This phrase, "Might Makes Right" I have been seeing this a lot lately, used to criticize both coalitions. The Doom Squad coalition using the phrase to morally criticize the Disorder War, and the Polar coalition using the phrase to criticize the actions of alliances such as the Doombirds who attack people several times smaller than they are on a regular basis.
    The problem is, might does make right. It is not a pithy phrase, we live in a brutal world where the law of the jungle reigns supreme. The only reason there is any peace or safety for anyone in this world is the various consequences that would be inflicted upon a nation that "went rogue" and attacked a protected nation.
    Ultimately, the issue is sovereignty. Sovereignty is not an inherent value in an alliance, despite the fact that social norms would dictate that alliances should be viewed as sovereign entities. In my own view, an alliance is not sovereign unless it can defend itself (maybe not win, but defend itself) when attacked, has complete control over their own foreign policy and vigorously defends both when challenged. If an alliance fails to defend its members from attack or allows their foreign policy to be dictated by a third party, they cease to be sovereign as they have surrendered their sovereignty.
    Too many alliances take their sovereignty for granted. They surrender their foreign policy to an ally or powerful blocmate, they do nothing when attacked by powerful rogues and cower in the corner. Take back your sovereignty, stop being so complacent and scared.
  3. Ogaden
    CN is a classic Darwinian environment, where you either adapt to the environment and carve out an ecological niche, or you are ground into hamburger in short order. That's not to say that it is a rigid and unchanging environment, indeed one thing CN has going for it is constant revolution against the established order. Whether it be from boredom, desire for revenge, paranoia about impending revenge, fear and loathing, drugs and alcohol or even by accident, the status who is constantly being tossed into the woodchipper and buried out back in black plastic bags.
    I personally see 5 factors at play that work to make CN the place that it is, and once you understand how these factors play out, the bizarre turns in CN almost seem to make sense, almost. They are not negative and indeed all play into CN's political dynamism.
    1: Tribalism
    CN is also a classic tribal society. Most of the grudges people carry and alliances people hate have little reason to do so beyond the fact that they are "their enemies". Because it's a tribal and not logical society, all of that tribes "greater tribe" (sphere, bloc, blob of allies, what have you) all decide to adopt the grudge as well because "Tribe before brain". People will be hostile to people just because of what alliance they're in, even if they just met.
    2: Tall Poppy Syndrome
    Either due to envy, avarice, fear and loathing, paranoia, or again drugs and alcohol, alliances and individuals who are noteworthy, powerful or "in power" in the hegemonic sense, end up on various people's "lists" for individuals or alliances they need to "deal with". The obsession with DBDC currently is a classic example of this phenomenon. Tall poppy syndrome is a neverending and self-perpetuating process as the very act of removing a mighty, hegemonic or extraordinary alliance requires an equally herculean coalition with similarly extraordinary alliances, who then become the new tall poppies.
    3: Boredom
    The grease of diplomacy, war and collapse. Boredom is the great motivator and the cull that ends our nations when it reaches a crisis point. Boredom can bring people to do things they wouldn't do in this game even if they were drunk, especially with leaders who have impulse control issues. Boredom compels people to leave stagnant alliances, to found new initiatives, to try new things and innovate. Our eternal struggle against being bored we will ultimately never win, but the journey is what is important.
    4: Immortality
    Our nations cannot die until we decide they do, and even then, with rule changes they won't even die THEN. We continue on forever, slowly accumulating cynicism and land growth. We remember the good old days, the bad old days, the indifferent old days, the days we wish we could forget and the days we can't quite remember. Grudges of yesteryear for people to bring up tomorrow in an argument over something only you still remember. It's the equivalent of if George Washington was still alive and still pissed off at Benedict Arnold for switching sides 230 years ago.
    5: Ambition
    CN is a game where an ambitious leader can forge a grand vision, and due to a combination of boredom, drugs and alcohol, apathy and tribalism, vast armies will follow their, occasionally delusional or stupid grand design. It is a fabulous environment to be a Machiavellian genius or a tinpot Napoleon. Anyone who isn't a complete moron with a hint of ambition and relatively active can rise to high leadership and embark on their quest to leave their mark on the world.
    These factors all blend together to constantly leave the political environment of CN, even in its most calcified state, fundamentally unstable and gloriously shaky. It's like we're all living in a 19th century South American dictatorship and there's a coup every 3 months or so.
  4. Ogaden
    For those alliances who have been in the unique position of having the Sword of Damocles above their heads, it is an interesting experience. Knowing your doom is sealed and the barbarians are at the gates, the fix is in, your goose is cooked, and the question becomes not if or how your doom will be realized, but when.
    I have had an especially personal connection with the Sword of Damocles upon the great world of Bob. The Sword of Damocles is a good old friend of mine who has hovered over my head since I arrived on this world, and decided to join NPO right as everyone on earth had decided they should be destroyed.
    After I left for RIA, from there the Sword swung around quite a bit, from the BiPolar war, briefly swung away from us only to point straight at us after we pissed off everyone on Bob in the wake of PB/NpO. Above our heads, for the next two years, the Sword would remain, to occasionally drop down and rend our flesh. It became almost a character of our being, a constant of the world was that we would get rolled, we would fight like madmen and bleed everywhere, but that sword wasn't going anywhere.
    Then all of a sudden, it was gone. It was like someone had snuck in at night and stolen it, and I suppose in a way that is what happened. After years of guerrilla war with not so much peace treaties as ceasefires, things had shifted. The Sword of Damocles hovered over the heads of others.
    I know though, that the Sword of Damocles will return one day, it always does. Be you not arrogant in your manner nor secure in your fortress of treaties, for no man is immune to the whims of fate.
×
×
  • Create New...