Jump to content

Icewolf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,113

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Icewolf

  1. Icewolf

    A Comment on Anger

    By Icewolf,

    Recently I have been noticing that a great many of my acquaintances seem to spend a lot of time being angry. Angry at politics. Angry at bad drivers. Angry at their jobs. Angry with themselves. In the more extreme versions I know some people who seem to just never stop being angry to the point that it sucks the joy out of their life. People who quite literally hate their jobs (understandably so generally) and then spend hours and hours telling everyone so.
    And I will admit there was a point in my life a while ago when I spent a great deal of time being angry. And eventually I stopped-mostly because my life got better but also because I was able to remove many of the anger causing influences from it.
    But around me a great many people seem to spend a lot of time being very angry. Angry at politicians. Anger at drivers who nearly knock them off their bike. Anger at customers that treat them badly. Anger at the fact they are unemployed, anger at the great overriding system that leaves them unemployed. Anger at the Governments welfare reforms etc.
    I am sure we have all seen a great many of us have felt this anger and watched friends fall victim to it.
    Not only am I glad that I have managed to avoid these feelings, I have realised something else about this. This anger is incredibly self-centred and arrogant. Whilst at the same time being pointless and destructive.
    Take a person who works in a dead end service job with awful customers. They may well spend a great deal of time being angry about their job. They may feel a sense of righteousness and express that through their anger. They may well feel that the world is unfair.
    However, what actually does it achieve and change? If a customer !@#$%*ed them out for putting insufficient pickles on a sandwich, there are two possibilities. Either that customer is a bad person and genuinely doesn't care how you feel, in which case your anger won't hurt them, or they snapped at a bad moment and now feel bad, in which case your anger doesn't make them feel any better or worse. Your boss treats you badly...do they care you are angry? Do they care you hate your job? Will their treatment change because you are angry?
    The arrogance is that you believe how you feel changes the world. t doesn't. The world does not care how a person feels. It changes nothing. The self-destructiveness is that you make yourself hurt, and more importantly, the few that do care about you will also hurt as you project that anger onto those around you. The boss that screws you over doesn't care you are angry. The friends and family around you do are and they are the ones that you hurt.
    Harsh as it is, how you feel and think does not change the world one iota. How you act does. And acting angry generally does not change the world for the better. If you hate your job, bringing the hate home won't make it better. Hanging it by the door and finding something to find joy in, and doing something positive will. Hate how society treats the unfortunate? Rather than ranting at home all night (as I have witnessed people do) go out and make their lives better!
    I guess what I really want to say is that you cannot will the world into a better place. So stop making yourself miserable trying, and do something to make it better.
  2. Icewolf

    The new wonders

    By Icewolf,

    So it appears that we have some new wonders introduced into this game.

    Federal Reserve - $100,000,000 + (Nation Strength * 1,000) - Increases the number of banks that can be purchased +3. Requires Stock Market

    So the first of them, the Federal Reserve. Now what I find interesting here is the price scale. It would cost me 120 million. A nation at 600 thousand NS would have to pay 700 million. I suspect this is some attempt to counter the fact that this wonder is massively massively powerful. Three banks is 21% of base income. That is quite a long way above what any other wonder effectively does. Even the Great Monument with 5 additional happiness doesn't quite cut that. For my nation it is 7x the effect at 4x the cost than a stock market.
    In terms of game improvement, I don't think it will help that much. Money is not an issue in this game in my opinion, beyond the slight possibility that some people have too much of it.Most nations in the top 40% can afford this without draining a warchest though. Those it will really help are those knocked down and yet to rebuild but still with plenty of cash. I will definitely purchase this wonder as soon as the current cycle in my nation ends.
    Interceptor Missile System (IMS) - $50,000,000 - Thwarts Cruise Missile Attacks, 50% of the time (removes 1 attackers CM strike chance for that day). Requires 5,000 technology and a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
    Interesting one. For a nation with 5000 tech 50 million to stop 50% of CMs is definitely worthwhile. I am concerned however that this does detract from gameplay. One nice thing about CMs is that a dogpiled nation unable to launch GAs, unable to lauch air attacks, with depleted nuclear stocks can still do something to return fire. It ensures that the attacker will take some cost. Reducing that is not in my opinion a good thing. I will not buy this as I do not have that much tech.
    Superior Logistical Support - $80,000,000 - Provides supplies more efficiently to your nation's military. Reduces Aircraft and Naval Maintenance Cost by -10% and Tank Maintenance Cost by -5%. Increases attacking and defending ground battle strength +10%. Requires Pentagon
    For a lot of nations I suspect that the tank maintenance and aircraft costs are not their primary concern in warfare. It might make the warchest last a bit longer, but when you have a daily nuking this really doesn't matter. And at the lower levels spies are the main warchest factor, not upkeep. Overall the wonder seems to be a bit of "a little bit extra" as in opposite tone to the Federal Reserve, it is three times the cost and half the impact of the Pentagon. Probably not high on the purchase list as we are not even out of this war.

    Foreign Naval Base - $200,000,000 - Allows +2 naval vessels to be purchased per day (+1 in Peace Mode) and also allows +1 naval deployment per day. Requires 20,000 infrastructure.

    Even more so than the IMS, this is a big boys only wonder. Top 200 nations only. ~1/8th of the number that can buy the IMS. However it does seem to give a fairly heavy boost to that nation. Only issue might be if those nations get knocked down (as some have as little as 5000 tech) they go down with a fairly heavy naval firepower boost. But otherwise I don't see this having a massive impact as so few nations will have it.
    Overall...I feel fairly meh about them. None of them I really feel is bringing anything that feels new, and in 120 days time (or 60 days and $60 time) nations will run out of them again.
    EDIT: For clarification, this was written before the final version of the wonders, which are not identical to the descriptions above.
  3. Icewolf
    Cybernations is a world with many complex dynamics. One of the more interesting things is how players engage in self regulation-they have established a system of rules as to how alliances may conduct themselves. A common standard has been established, which can be referred to as the norms of the world.
    Effectively, we reach the point were even if you have no knowledge of the rulers of an alliance, you can assume that they will act in a certain way because they are playing by the same guidelines as you-you need a reason to declare war, treaties will favor defense over offence, alliances have the right to expect to be free from aggression etc etc. More interestingly increasingly these develop to such things as, alliances outside the core political reasons for a war get white peace, alliances will chain into wars because their friends are in them not because they are involved in the reasons, war slots of rogues belong to the defender etc etc.
    Some of these make sense. Aggression is considered bad and normally punished. It is considered bad form to attack small alliances, even if you have the military capacity to do so. The community tends to impose limits on behavior. The simple reason for this is that no one wants to live in a world were bad things are done to them, so they make sure that nothing too bad happens to other people.
    It is for this reason that reperations are not enforced anymore. People know that the merry go round of politics is such that there may come a time when they are losing a war. In fact it is a very high likely-hood that that time will come. So if you have the norm of reperations, you will have to pay them.
    This is quite different to the past when New Pacific Order were at their Zenith. They did not play with the assumption that they would lose. So reperations were a good thing as far as they were concerned a world with reperations as the norm weakened their opponents, increased fear of them, and generally supported their role.
    I am sure that to many of you the above is not controversial. Cats hunt mice, mice eat cheese, non-core alliances get white peace after a respectable period of time.
    Why am I bringing this up then? Well effectively it has created a world of caged sheep. People have decided to follow a strict set of actions because its the "norm" and do not consider if this is actually to their advantage or not.
    I am sure we are all familiar with the modern pattern of war. Wait for the chain to reach you, hope that you are on the winning side, fight just long enough to feel you have done your bit, if you are losing either by turtling like a little !@#$%*, or waiting until you are knocked down far enough to win everything, sue for peace, and claim that as you did not technically "surrender" your military was exonerated. No point in fighting too hard as that just weakens you for next time where for sure you will get to go after your true objectives (read you hope that random luck brings your opponent to a place in the chain were you can hit them).
    Why do this? Well its fairly simple. The World turns. One day it may turn on you. One day you may find it advantageous to be in a situations were it is expected that after the "reasonable time" has elapsed you can walk away, and you find it advantageous that people will chain into whatever stupid thing you did this time, when your attempt at being "smart" at politics ended with a firecracker rammed were the sun shineth not. Because then those that chained in for friendship reasons, with whom the enemy does not really want to fight, can be used as chips to lighten your peace negotiations.
    The problem with this? Well firstly it guarantees irrelevance. Whilst you and your alliance obey the normative rules they will never really lose, but you can be damn sure they will never win either. If you follow them you are predictable, and if you are predictable you are controllable. Much as dislike them, how much would Doombird be cared about if they obeyed the norms of cybernations? How powerful would NPO have been back in the day had they followed the rules they said applied to others? How many powerhouses existed by following the same basic rules?
    So either stick to an OWF praise for chaining in for a friend of a friend and fighting just enough to reach a "respectable" white peace or actually go out and carve a destiny. Your choice.
  4. Icewolf
    So for the month of October I forsook alcohol as part of a charity event. Essentially a sponsored giving up alcohol. For disclosures sake a generally drink about 10 units of alcohol a week and rarely get intoxicated.
    I learned a great deal during this event. It is not the first time I have ceased drinking for a fixed period, a few years ago I gave up alcohol during lent. However this is the first time I have really thought about what I was doing and I reached some startling conclusions.
    Firstly, many many people have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I am not talking about being alcoholics, but viewing it in a way that is not necessarily good. A lot of people made comments along the lines of "I could never do that." A very surprising number. Comments on the facebook page of the event included lines about substituting other things such as food for alcohol, or counting down the days to go until they could drink again.
    All of this is disturbing because if alcohol is something you feel you need, you probably have a problem.
    Secondly, people want you to be drunk. I was at a conference last week and my alcohol free time expired on the 2nd to last day. During the week at least 20 or 30 people promised to get me drunk on that day. I didn't have to buy a drink for the remainder of the week. Apparently I absolutely had to get drunk. As it happens I didn't get intoxicated until I was handed a wine bottle that I assumed contained wine. So I drank as though it was wine. Turns out Czech home brewed moonshine is far more intoxicating than wine.
    Thirdly, I was surprised by how little it altered my behavior. Without alcohol I still accepted the challenge to walk in six inch heels (guys, man to man, be aware how painful this is and do not try it), I still pretended to arrest someone dressed as a pirate, and a few other things not to be posted here. Parties were still fun and insane-and it didn't matter what state you were in.
    Fourthly, I was surprised at how easy it was. People kept saying how hard it must be and it really really was not. I just didn't drink-simple. The only alcohol I really missed was the mulled wine I normally start making at this time of year. And that is more to do with the cinnamon/sugar laden hot drink aspect, which was made up for my hot apple juice with cinnamon.
    But mostly I learned about my own relationship with alcohol and reached the conclusion that this was not really a challenge because I didn't have to decide not to drink. Drinking alcohol is not my default setting, I always make the choice to drink rather than deciding not to drink.
    In conclusion, it was a worthwhile activity in its own right. And I would encourage others to do the same. Be it for lent or for Charity, just spend a month without alcohol (obvious longer for lent) and see what conclusions you reach.
  5. Icewolf
    For those of you that are Science fiction fans, you may have comes across the Foundation series by Issac Asimov. This series is premised on the idea of Psychohistory, a fictional branch of science in which statistical analysis can be used to predict Human behavior. Not the behavior of an individual, but of a large crowd. The parallel is of modelling a gas-a single atom is very hard to predict. A billion atoms can be predicted relatively easily. Therefore the future of a billion human beings can be predicted more easily than the future of one.
    Clearly this is a fiction as far as Humanity is concerned. However part of me wonders if this could be considered pheasible in the realm of cybernations? After all-we are far more basic than a Human Being. Our nations have two ways to interact-war or trade. Our relationships are very clearly defined. We have alliance membership. We have Treaties that all fit a similar template.
    I do not have the knowledge to know if this is possible or the statistical ability to carry it out even if it is. I am not suggesting that it is true. I am merely wondering about the possibility that it could be true.
  6. Icewolf
    The OWF is about spin. We all know this. Every post is a delicately spun web written in beautiful owfish. Having spent more time than is healthy reading this, I have decided to construct a translation guide. None of this is aimed at any one person (translation: No one get angry please). It is all supposed to be tongue in cheek (Translation: Please don't quote this at me if I say any of this on the OWF)
    We wish them well-We wish they would fall down a well, preferably with dragons at the bottom
    This should have been resolved privately-This screw up is too embarassing for us to have on the OWF
    I heard about this weeks ago-A rumor went round IRC after the one person I know who goes on CNtel came online
    Peacemode is for cowards-This is the first time I have had the upper hand in war and I hate that I can't fight more
    Peacemode is a strategy-Our upper tier is too busy stat hugging or too inactive to fight
    I have an army of 17 nations-I have an army of two nations that will mutiny immediately after this announcement
    I really like your new government-I recognise some members of your new government
    Unexpected-Your OPSEC is at least good enough this didn't make it to CNtel before the announcement.
    Well fought-There is no personal dislike here right? Right? Please don't come for us when you get the upper hand.
    Disbanding alliances would be good for gameplay-Disbanding my rivals would be good for my ego
    You are an irrelevance-This is something relevant people say right? Right? WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO ME?
    I am winning all my wars-I seek out the most inactive nations to fight to hide from the fact my coalition is losing.
    Politics is dead in this game-I am not good enough at politics to be allowed in government discussions
    We play this game for the politics not the community-Our allies are too inactive to have a community
    We play for the community not for politics-Please stop mocking the way we lose every war
    Quality over Quantity-Our nations suck just as much as yours, but there are less of them so its not embarrassing for us to take damage right?
    We have inflicted more damage on you despite you outnumbering us-My lack of knowledge of game mechanics will become apparent in my lack of performance in war.
    I thank you for fighting with honor-I thank you for lining all your nations up outside of peacemode
    We harbor no ill will towards you-We don't have enough firepower to get you....yet.
    Thats all for now, please feel free to add your own-Please don't mock me in the comments
  7. Icewolf
    So this is about the treaty web and the fact that so many alliances have conflicting treaties. Which people complain about. A lot. If you are not aware of this, welcome to the OWF, I hope your first time is not too traumatising.
    The thing is, everyone has either very very few treaties or treaties that might seem to clash. Yet lots of people bemoan the twisted nature of the web and the insane complex tangle that can now only be expressed in 3D.
    However, it continues. In every war there have been alliances that are caught on both sides. Some of these are old treaties that no longer reflect the political landscape, and some are signed with both sides knowing damn well they will be on opposite sides in the future.
    The key point though is why? Why does everyone do this? Well, I regard this as painfully simple. I will refer to events in Ender's Shadow (never quite got round to reading Ender's game shhhh). Warning, spoilers below.
    When Ender is first made a Captain in the team as they play on the space station he radically changes the strategy for fighting. And they are devastatingly effective. And Bean reflects on this he realises that this is because the accepted doctrine of fighting is a a guaranteed draw. To change and attempt something different risks defeat and a slide down the leaderboard.
    Well, the same applies here. Some alliances have figured out that clashing treaties, provided it is properly managed, is a way to play the game that gives them a moderate amount of success. The ability to have a broad spectrum of allies means any challenger must have a broad spectrum of allies as well. If you play in the same way, you are guaranteed a draw, in that you hope to get as many wins and defeats as anyone else and remain roughly speaking where you are.
    However, if you were to aggressively change, and go against the grain, you would find yourself fighting as a minority of one. If it succeeded you would be victorious and dominant. If you failed...well there is a long road to climb back up for those that lose in this game.
    Ultimately, the tangled treaty web may or may not be the best way to play this game. But unless you are able to be 100% sure that a new stratagem is the way forward, you will not take that risk. This is not the Game of Thrones were you play to win or die. This is the Game of Webs, where you play to survive or die.
  8. Icewolf

    The alliance charter

    By Icewolf,

    So I've spent some time think about alliance charters. They seem to be around a lot, and are generally considered vital to what people consider "an alliance." Yet at the same time they rarely seem to make much headway in the world and for the most part we don't really think of them.
    Ultimately, they seem to be a strange document. They are considered to define an alliance. They determine if it is democratic. They determine who makes decisions. In some cases, they are used to define who else should be regarded as an alliance (GOONS is a good example of this). For some, such as the LSF, they are pivotal in defining the character of the alliance in the way that they dictate decisions be made.
    And yet, at the same time, they do surprisingly little. If you have an MDP with another alliance, the fact that they change their charter does not change the status of the MDP. The fact that they have to vote to go to war does not change the fact you will regard them as being in breach if they do not follow you to war. The inner workings of an alliance are not of relevance when you go and demand compensation for the fact that a member has just attacked you.
    I do not think that a charter and the alliance are the same thing. You can change a charter and the alliance remains. If IRON were to become a democracy tomorrow, it would not change the fact that it is still IRON and is a continuous entity that existed yesterday.
    Ultimately, I think the charter has nothing to do with the alliance. I think it is a contract between members as to how they will act. It is not their contract with the alliance as an abstract and the alliance is not tied to it. It does have an impact on how the alliance acts, but only because it controls the members and they control the alliance. It does not directly control the alliance.
    That said, it is still important to have a good charter. By good I do not mean it must have a certain form of decision making or rights and duties. It must however be clear and unambiguous. It should make it clear how decisions are made. But most importantly, it should make it clear how items which are not in the charter are decided and dealt with, as ultimately this is also part of the member compact that exists in every alliance.
  9. Icewolf
    We have seen an attempt at Sparta. We have seen an attempt at GPF. We have seen what may or may not have been one at BFF. This has been a month of coups. A series of aggressive and determined attempts to change the leadership of alliances.
    This blog is not endorsing this method of government change. It will not take responsibility for such efforts or the penalties handed down on those attempted. It is merely looking at the theoretical elements as to how it will take place.
    First we must consider what a coup d'etat is. According to "Coup d'etat, A Practical Handbook" by E Luttark it is an takeover of a government by a part of that government. This book also sets out a number of factors relating to a coup, some of which can be considered in the realm of cybernations.
    So what do we need? A number of features can be identified for a successful operation. The alliance needs a certain structure. The politics of an alliance need to be in a certain position and the instigator needs to have certain resources at his disposal.
    I will begin by briefly considering each aspect in the cybernations context.
    The structure of the alliance.
    Essentially it needs to have a powerful and centralised government. LSF could not be subject to a coup as there is nothing to take over. The structure also needs to be based around on the idea that the government has power because it is the government rather than the government has power because it is legitimate. So the International or any other alliance with regular elections and referendums will be unlikely to be subject to a coup. That is not to say a democratic alliance could not have a government change in this way, but instead that it will be harder if the people of the alliance strongly regard the leaders power as coming from democratic mandate.
    It also needs a powerful central body. Alliances ruled by committee (such as IRON where the Presidents formal power is basically a chairman of the council-not to say that he does not have large informal power) or a federal structure with very independent departments will be quite hard to takeover as well (for reasons that will be discussed later). A Triumvirate structure in the CN world may well be a good candidate for a coup because of very concentrated power base and acceptance that they hold total power that tends to (not universally) follow.
    Why is this necassary? Essentially a coup is about grabbing power. Power is easier to take hold of if it is narrowly concentrated LSF cannot be coupled because the power rests with the entire alliance. The International with its referendums on major issues also vests a lot of power with the members. Getting hold of that power will be hard.
    The condition of the alliance
    This ties into the above somewhat. I mentioned the need for a government to govern by its status rather than a legitimacy or mandate claim. Obviously the government needs to be unpopular. However there needs to be an extra essence to this. It has to be unpopular and the members not capable of seeing a way to remove it. A democratic alliance with regular elections is therefore harder to coup as the elections give the government power. However it is not impossible. An alliance with many elected posts and few willing candidates could see an elite group always holding seats with no real choice. An alliance with long governmental terms and a narrow election victory could also be subject to takeover.
    An undemocractic government is also not necessarily subject to a coup risk. A government that is careful to include the members in its planning and discuss and get feedback will generally be harder to take over as it will begin to have a allure of legitimacy attached to its persons rather than offices. However a government that ignores or does not seek member opinion will be at risk if the right situation arises.
    The resources of the instigator
    CN differs a lot from the outside world in that military might cannot determine internal political matters. That does not meant that the military of an alliance is not important, but it does mean it has a different role to play. So our coups will be political rather than military. An outed leader might be ZIed or a failed rebel nuked but the image of troops marching into the capital will not happen.
    Obviously forum admin access is critical. Without this there can be no rapid takeover of an alliance. New forums are a possibility, but generally the time it takes to register people and the fact that the old government has all the pomp and splendor of its old forums and instant communication with the remaining members would render that very dangerous for the new government. So this generally means that the instigator must be a member of the government or have friends with admin access. One target here could be an old root admin retired from politics but willing to back a new order.
    Of course a new government could run to new forums and can reestablish the alliance. If they are supported enough then they are likely to be successful so admin access alone is not enough.
    There are two departments present in every alliance that I think are ideally suited to the role of a coup. The military and the recruitment corps. Other departments may exist and may have roles to play and it will depend on the alliance. However the key factors that aid these departments being useful are;
    1) often they are personal heavy. The need for effective military co-ordination means a large number of officers are normally present compared to diplomats or trade circle managers. Likewise recruiting often required a large manpower base to be effective.
    2) They have experience in rapid and mass communication to the entire alliance. Announcing that you are the new government and getting a rapid first impression out will be vital.
    The large number of personal means people regularly in contact with their commanders on alliance matters so you have a better idea of who will support them. These people will be useful to give an initial overwhelming backing of support. Further, the power of these departments could be used against an instigator so by having at least their top brass on your side can neutralise their power Messages sent out saying "don't do anything, wait and see, we are negotiating," will stall a counter action by these members and give the coup time to solidify itself.
    Of course outsiders could theoretically perform the coup with the help of one insider with forum access. The issue is that the workers in the government structure will be used to others orders and will look to them first. So a completely outsider takeover (retired root admin and friends) will struggle to implant themselves in the shoes of departed ministers unless the government has a very concentrated power structure with few lower levels (maybe one minister and one deputy run the entire military).
    Now of course none of this tells you how to actually perform a coup (although it drops some hints). It merely suggests why they are so unsuccessful as these are the basic conditions that must be met before an attempt can even be made. There are many other variables that can cause a coup to fail. This is just the basics.
    Also to reiterate this is purely academic and should not be tried at home. Consequences of failure will likely be ZI, EZI, ridicule on the OWF, loss of reputation and perma pariah status.
  10. Icewolf

    The twisted webs we weave

    By Icewolf,

    Why then is there a constant battle over the meaning of defence?
    Because it does matter. In this world of war and turmoil people must still seem legitimate. And in this world legitimate and lawful action has begun to share the meaning of the word defence. Why? Well that is obvious. There are almost no mandatory aggression treaties left. All mandatory obligations that exist are defensive. So fighting on the defence makes us more likely to be defended.
    This has grown and grown and today we see the total extreme of this when the New Sith Order engaging in conflict on the basis of a legitimate and widely recognised Causus Belli feels the need to frame the war as a defensive one. This is despite there being no mandatory defence clause in any treaty held by Kaskus and a large number of very powerful alliance that would bail out the New Sith Order if they were to face any aggression from another.
    I find this strange. Often the wars that are regarded as most legitimate are the ones most regarded as legitimate actions. The declaration on NpO a year ago was regarded by many as a legitimate action. It was not a defensive one. IRON's declaration of war on LSF was not a defensive war. However it was a legitimate action. NSO declaring war on Kaskus was legitimate. However for some reason they now feel the need to frame it as a defensive war.
    We can also see examples of very aggressive wars framed as defensive wars. This is especially so when they are not legitimate. The Dave War began with MK claiming to be acting in defence. GOONS often claims to be fighting in defence under its claim to be fighting rogue unaligned nations rather than small alliances.
    What is the result? We have changed the meaning of the word legitimate so that people now believe that as soon as a war is defensive it is legitimate and we seem to have allowed the concept of a just war become secondary to this. In some ways this is good. It prevents mindless aggression. It keeps war relatively at bay. However it also serves as a paralysis. An alliance with an honest and good cause will struggle to overcome the barrier that the treaty structure creates, whereas one with a weak cause but a nominal military offense against them (however twisted) may feel itself safe.
    This tangled web we weave has made legitimacy a second place concept. And now we must live with that.
×
×
  • Create New...