Jump to content

keeology

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,069

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by keeology

  2. The Zigur

    Posted

    Junka you have a way with words, i'll give you that i've always admire your way with words. but basically you disbanded an alliance cause you didnt like its leader good job (insert thumbs up) pat yourself on the back. Although I should of listen to Flubb and Yoso and went with the coup those were good times

  5. Lord Hitchcock

    Posted

    This is one of the reasons I like you, Lord Hitchcock, you ask questions that most "newer" nations have but never ask in public and therefore rarely get a variety of good answers needed to understand. I joined in June 2008 and after two full years of witnessing the "cycle of violence" that happens on Planet Bob, I started looking for the answer to this as well.

    Here is what I've found.

    The reasons can be put into three categories:

    A. Strategic. In other words, that which is most helpful for "winning" (i.e. being the hegemony) the game. This includes things like enough time to rebuild, time for the "behind the scenes" politics to be sorted out, and also (because it is a part of "making your case" in order to gain military and economic support for your side) when the side in the winning position has a "casus belli" (meaning a "justification for war") that the people needed to back them will accept. In other words, when one side or the other has enough strength/backing to be sure of a "win."

    B. Real Life: When do the "powers that be" all have time. It seems odd, I know, but entire wars have been avoided or at least postponed because one leader of a necessary alliance had something more important in real life to do. Also, this is major wars tend to start and/or end around around major holidays.

    C. "Tradition" and/or Habit: If it has worked for most people in the past, why change it? This is also affected by A and B (above) - it takes less time to do the same thing over and over each year than to actually plan something new and different AND it is a formula that if successfully repeated maintains the power for those who have it.

    Knowing this, what next? Simple - if you want something changed then what you have to do is find a reason to change it that benefits/is argued in terms of benefiting one of the above. Then you will be far more likely to have success. On the other hand, avoid arguments that go against the above and/or argue against changes that you don't like by stating how they go against any of the above.

    pretty much this and what letum said. wars back in 2006,2007 ect ect..... happened more often and were shorter. Now what we have in todays CN is mega nations who would literally take months if not years to really beat down. Personally I think more shorter wars would bring more life back in this game.

  6. The Zigur

    Posted

    Lol SNX took a plunge because it was democratic and it had conflicting cultures inside of it. The merger should never have happened as each alliance's culture beforehand was not one which would mix well with another. LoSS and NSF were not mixing cultures with MCXA and some GDA people. With all of those things combined, things went downhill. The ministries were no issue at all, as they were the only thing not a direct result of any democratic election (in some ways yes but in other ways no).

    it failed cause inactivity and people not wanting to step up and run the alliance. as well people refusing to change or conform for the better of the alliance. So we got rolled and then just spiraled into oblivion. Now Tywins writings are interesting and have merit its so time consuming and a little back handed to some

×
×
  • Create New...