Zangmonkey

Minimize losses while also carrying out successful attacks? Sir, I call that "the goal in every war, ever"

I'm not going to deny that I was engaging in limited wars to gain XP. I'm asking where the line is to be drawn to differentiate this. As I said before, this is something which we were previously allowed to do.

In the system, as currently implemented, everybody is incentivized to be in a constant state of war.

Research is needed to understand the impact on generals, the cost of gaining XP, and the ease and likelihood of their assassination. If the rules were clarified into "you must launch CM's, and you must do destructive spy ops" that would be fine by me... I would still do it because I have money to burn and XP to gain.... but potentially banning due to warns because people are doing [b]something they had previously been allowed to do[/b] is unnerving.

What is confusing to me about this policy is that this "new feature" has effectively disabled things we had previously been permitted to do. As such, this "addition" to the gameplay has restricted what constitutes legitimate play... We now have less game to play than before... I just don't get it. Perhaps if the implementation details of this new feature aren't well understood then it should be relegated to TE only until it can be added as an *extension* of gameplay rather than a contraction. :(

Plenty of wargames have occurred for years which did not pursue the goal of "as much damage without the use of nukes." What was your specific criteria for reporting, since you seemed readily willing and able to identify "XP Farming?" In fact, from what I can tell of this recent round of warns, some wars were removed in which the participants were launching attacks. The possibility that such wars may be violations is ambiguous and frightening.... even in larger or peripheral "real" wars or "duels" between nations it seems that we may inadvertently run afoul of some unwritten rule. So it seems to me like enforcement of this new policy is predicated on whether or not the two warring parties are engaging each other with the entirety of their might. This is terra nova, and I think we all need to understand the limits and implications of the change. Arbitrarily issuing violations because players are exploring a brand new game dynamic is an unsettling precedent. If the intention for "earning" XP was different then let's understand the intention and discuss a better method of its allocation.... So, really, the same question stands; because it's certainly reasonable for a war to take place in which aircraft and ground attacks aren't made (because wins are improbable, or too risky) and it's certainly reasonable for navy attacks to be slowed because of the expense of ships plus the daily limit on purchases and operations. So what's the metric here? Whether or not the participants are lobbing CM's? Because, even then, I don't really understand the goal.... If we were told that wargames are ok as long as you're launching CM's plenty of people would still do it for XP Farming.... Billionaires are quite likely to take the infra damage and convert their dongs into XP.

And army only gives XP if your attack is successful.... So there are existing limits to the XP system already aimed at reducing XP for "low risk" action.... but that doesn't answer the question about the extent of war games and research.

As a recent recipient of a warning for "XP Farming" I am seeking clarification on what level (if any) of wargames are going to be permitted? Typically when people engage in war games their intention is *not* the same as it would be in a "real" war... War games tend not to involve nukes, for example. So a certain overlap inherently exists between wargames and "XP Farming" and I think the extend should be clarified. If we accept that no other "slot filling"- type violations are occurring. what, if any, war actions are permitted? May two participants exchange naval battles? May two participants exchange aircraft dogfights? May two participants exchange spy operations? If the answer to any or all of these is "no"; to what extend will "research" action be permitted? For example, Statistics collection on spy-op effectiveness involves repeated spy action (to record the range of result) which may occur without any formal war declaration. Likewise, aircraft or naval data to determine likelihood of loss and/or damage.

I'm not really concerned with GRL, though it's certainly a small part to consider. Mostly I'm concerned with the fact that alliances at war are instrumental in the trade stability of the sphere and, in fact, this is the aim of a senator: trade stability. It extends, then, that a senator interested in the preservation of the sphere ought also to be interested in the perseverance of nations within the sphere. Sanctions empower the elected representatives of the sphere to act in the interest of all members of the sphere. Sometimes this may require them to constrain some constituents. Drawn-out war drains nations into extinction, and here's a poem I wrote about it: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the sphere, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Digiterra is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

For example, the slot-filling of rogue nations....

In what ways does that differ from a nuclear war on the sphere?

I've never really understood why sanctions weren't considered valid war tactics. If it is determined that a war action jeopardizes the safety of the sphere I would think sanctions are justified. If you disagree, senators are subject to a vote.

I wasn't in Umbrella at the time, I was a Gremlin. We stood by and let GPA get slaughtered because we were weak-willed. I don't see the relevance. The point was more about treaty webs, obligations and justifications for action.

Wasn't NATO?

Umbrella entrenched their predicament through our own pretense but AI and DR had no intent to muffle the drums of war.