Jump to content

Icewolf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,113

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Icewolf

  1. Winner12345

    Posted

    The real life UN couldn't be copied into CN. The very first line of Article 1(1) is "to maintain international peace...."

    Not happening in a game were people want war.

    Not to say CNs history does not have large scale treaty organisations. The think of the children treaty for example. You might count GPA's declaration of Neutrality (I said MIGHT). There are also probably areas were if people didn't feel it to be a waste of time such treaties could be drawn up. There are fairly common standards for treatment of POW, treatment of tech trades and treatment of rogues. There are also standards for use of embassies and ambassadors. However no one would sign such a treaty because they would find it restrictive to their freedom of action or claim it makes no difference, or both.

  2. Winner12345

    Posted

    What is this America of which you speak? Who is Mitt Romney?

    If you try and mix real life politics with in game RP you will have a very bad time. Especially if you base your politics of national politics rather than international ideas (as the few alliance that do, NoR, LSF, International etc) do. And even those alliances do badly from an ingame RP perspective as they tend to get themselves trashed. You cannot be socially conservative in this game, or have an economic viewpoint because those do not exist.

    Your politics will have to swing on how you regard your treatment of other nations, other alliances, and how they treat other nations and alliances.

  3. jerdge

    Posted

    In my short time here I think I have seen the valid/invalid CB play an important role in the way people act and what people do. The trouble is you have to be patient to see it. The way I see it can be crudely described as follows;

    Every alliance in the game has a certain amount of points. These points are added to by its popularity, treaty partners, its own power etc. They are lost due to unpopularity, unreliable partners and poor ability to fight war. To win a war those at the top need to have more points than those at the bottom to beat them.

    If an unpopular CB is used it reduces the number of points that alliance has. It loses popularity, it reduces the chance of future treaties, and it weakens the loyalty of that alliances treaty partners. Alternatively, those that have a popular CB will gain points in terms of popularity and treaties.

    The crux of the matter is that a weak CB is mostly used to achieve a planned aim, and only those with a lot of points are able to carry out such plans. So the lost points don't lead to a defeat, it merely lowers the alliance in the theoretical points standing. However, eventually, the lost points will make it vulnerable to defeat. The bad CB won't cost the alliance the war it is fighting. It is what may cost it the next war however.

    A case in point is the GOONS Kaskus war. GOONS certainly lost a lot of points in that war in terms of popularity, respect and possibly loyalty. Kaskus certainly gained them in terms of respect. Does this means GOONS could be defeated in the war? No. Does it make it more vulnerable to future attack? It may well do.

  6. HeroofTime55

    Posted

    I think the federal prosecutors shot themselves in the foot my taking down a site the day after the worlds attention was drawn to it.

    It shows two things.

    1-what can be lost by removing all content from a site, so IP infringing and non-infringing vanishing together

    2-Demonstrating that there are already powers in place for law enforcement agencies to act (across half the world, the arrests were in New Zealand), so why do we need new laws?

×
×
  • Create New...