Power Center Comparisons

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307486786' post='2726399']
The only visibile result you'd have with a conflict involving the GPA would probably be that a lot of semi-active players would delete, bringing their nations and their resources into nothingness.
[/quote]


That's really pathetic and pitiful when you think about it.

I don't understand why GPA hasn't ditched the neutral act already.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Zoomzoomzoom

[jerdge]

We could debate the issue for ages, but at the end GPA-ers just don't like war. Some are or can be competent at it, but even these just can't be bothered if they can spend their time with something else.

It's pathetic only if you think that there's only one way to play the game. I rather think that there's room for everybody.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307488389' post='2726420']
We could debate the issue for ages, but at the end GPA-ers just don't like war. Some are or can be competent at it, but even these just can't be bothered if they can spend their time with something else.

It's pathetic only if you think that there's only one way to play the game. I rather think that there's room for everybody.
[/quote]

At this point in the game, no I don't think there's room for neutrality. It adds absolutely nothing to this game. You yourself claimed members would probably delete if they were attacked. Then why play the game at all? Change their ideology, reinvigorate some passion in these disillusioned souls.

Members in GPA can do everything they currently can while at the same time involving themselves in the treaty web. It might even spark some internal activity and interest.

[jerdge]

Zoomzoomzoom, it might help if you accepted the idea that your one is not the only valid opinion on what adds value to the game [i]tout court[/i] and/or to the individual game each of us plays.

Nation building is IMHO the biggest part of the game in terms of time consumption, complexity and challenge and I fully understand that many people enjoy it rather than the war mechanics (which I personally find quite repetitive and boring). I imagine that many GPA members which are hardcore on nation building would just go inactive and delete, were they hit hard by war, because they would not see much fun in spending the next year just to go back to their current nation development. That's what I think happened with the so called "Woodstock Massacre", and I'd expect it to happen again in similar circumstances.

Although there are pacifists (even) in CN and some of them indeed are in the GPA, it's not much a matter of ideology but rather a matter of what a certain share of people enjoy (or don't enjoy) doing in a game like CN. Now I don't claim that your opinion on war being essential and funny is objectively wrong: that's just your cup of tea and I am fine with that.
Maybe you'd quit, were you forced to play without war for one year or more and against your will, thus you can probably understand that people which don't like war mechanics (and the stress a properly managed war can put on one's daily schedule, I might add - some people are very busy IRL!) and which only like peaceful nation building, would/could quit, were they forced to give up developing their nation for a long time.

All of this said, this topic isn't about the nature of the GPA. I'll be happy to continue this discussion via PM if you wish to.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1307489851' post='2726437']
At this point in the game, no I don't think there's room for neutrality. It adds absolutely nothing to this game.
[/quote]

Not really true. While GPA itself does sit there quietly, a lot of their members may not. It only pulls in those who don't wish to fight wars. There are many people, who, tired of losing a year of infra to wars, would just delete, but instead choose to join a neutral alliance. Similarly, there are people in neutral alliances who get sick of the neutrality and join an active one like NPO, NpO, VE and add a 100k NS nation to whichever alliance they join. While GPA can't drop that neutrality thing, their members can and some do.

GPA is that quiet kid who sits reading a book at the playground. They may enjoy watching other kids play with each other, but they've got the right to do nothing. They do temp trade and build rings, and IMO, that's a good enough addition to the game.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1307489851' post='2726437']
At this point in the game, no I don't think there's room for neutrality.[/quote]

Then man up and declare on them if you're so repulsed by neutrality. There's no law against it. Other than the law of consequences.

Otherwise, I don't see any point in debating other people's game time preferences.



Anyway, nice chart, interesting changes are illuminated by this handy cross reference.

[Azaghul]

GPA serves a vital purposes as a haven for those who want to grow their nations in peace and escape the system of alliance politics and wars. By joining an alliance that is explicitly neutral and peaceful, they keep their pacifism from affecting other alliances. I just wish more people who don't wish to fight wars would join neutral alliances, rather than neutering the offensive and fighting spirit of non-neutral alliances.

If people want to play that way, I don't see any reason not to let them. When I first started playing, I joined GPA because I didn't know anything about the politics of the game or the alliances, and wanted to join an alliance where I could grow without being caught in wars that I knew nothing about and learn about the game. I eventually joined a non-neutral alliance, MK has a lot of ex-GPAers in our ranks, including 3 out of the top 5 in our milcom.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Azaghul

[Ardus]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1307660735' post='2728208']
MK has a lot of ex-GPAers in our ranks, [b]including 3 out of the top 5 in our milcom.[/b]
[/quote]

Oh God, what have I done?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307672573' post='2728353']Oh God, what have I done?[/quote]
Neutral Menace(tm)

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307672573' post='2728353']
Oh God, what have I done?
[/quote]

Brb raiding MK.

[Kryievla]

Nice work. I especially like the NS breakdown.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1307660735' post='2728208']
MK has a lot of ex-GPAers in our ranks, including 3 out of the top 5 in our milcom.
[/quote]
ex-GPA army represent.

As far as I know, we're still the #1 destination for ex-GPA members

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307715750' post='2728607']Neutral Menace(tm)[/quote]
Dirty stat-whoring neutrals sneaking up the ranks. They're everywhere.

[eyriq]

The only problem with neutrality is that in a naturally competitive environment you can only creep up the rankings so far before political realities drag you back down. Which I'm sure is part of the logic behind WTF breaking up their AA to avoid sanction and other ranking honors that are coveted by political movers. I wonder if the evidenced mult-polarity from this Power Center Comparison can even provide an environment for a Neutral to attain the number 1 rank in the game and keep it through continued neutrality. I doubt it.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1307725120' post='2728686']
The only problem with neutrality is that in a naturally competitive environment you can only creep up the rankings so far before political realities drag you back down. Which I'm sure is part of the logic behind WTF breaking up their AA to avoid sanction and other ranking honors that are coveted by political movers. I wonder if the evidenced mult-polarity from this Power Center Comparison can even provide an environment for a Neutral to attain the number 1 rank in the game and keep it through continued neutrality. I doubt it.
[/quote]
Supplying there are a significant number of factions below I would expect it to be sustainable. If WTF for example were to combine, grow, and seize the top rank it would require a significant coalition to pull them down without damaging their own top ranks to the level they themselves turn vulnerable. The threshold is moved even further with the danger an opposing group could actively enter the war on the other side. To that effect large neutral alliances are vulnerable only if they are perceived as unwilling to fight a prolonged defensive war, or if there is only one unquestionable power center. Both of which are believable scenarios.

So there is definitely danger to a neutral holding the top spot but I would expect it to decrease with an increasing number of factions, rather than the opposite. That's my take on it at least.

[D34th]

My only problem with GPA neutrality is that is a passive neutrality instead of an armed one, like Sweden in Cold War. The only thing who protect GPA against an attack is the CN community standards who respect neutrality but that can change anytime in future.

Edited June 10, 2011 by D34th

[Hyperion321]

Neutrals have been killed over their alliance rank before. Wouldn't be surprised if it ever happens again.

[Feanor Noldorin]

You can't really hate the GPA for being neutral because the vast majority of alliances in this world can be considered neutral because they all lack any political ambition. The only reason most people get involved in wars is because they have pieces of e-paper that tell them to.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1307739039' post='2728780']
Neutrals have been killed over their alliance rank before. Wouldn't be surprised if it ever happens again.
[/quote]
Given the current political climate, I don't see it as too likely. A couple of years down the future, maybe, but not in the foreseeable future.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307740801' post='2728797']
You can't really hate the GPA for being neutral because the vast majority of alliances in this world can be considered neutral because they all lack any political ambition. The only reason most people get involved in wars is because they have pieces of e-paper that tell them to.
[/quote]
Preach it.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1307739039' post='2728780']
Neutrals have been killed over their alliance rank before. Wouldn't be surprised if it ever happens again.
[/quote]

I would be pretty surprised. Go ask VE what they'd do if GPA is ever hit again. I'm pretty sure they've been pretty vocal about how they view GPA. Considering they're one of the most connected alliances in the game today I doubt anyone tries it.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307740801' post='2728797']
You can't really hate the GPA for being neutral because the vast majority of alliances in this world can be considered neutral because they all lack any political ambition. The only reason most people get involved in wars is because they have pieces of e-paper that tell them to.
[/quote]


Thats very true. You could say that there are neutrals, semi-neutrals (who usually never START wars but may go to war to defend themselves or allies) and War alliances, who have an agenda and usually are "agressors".

IMHO all the stances are justified. You should run an alliance according to what your members want. if they want to be neutral so be it...

Edited June 10, 2011 by King Louis the II

[jerdge]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1307724491' post='2728680']Dirty stat-whoring neutrals sneaking up the ranks. They're everywhere.[/quote]
Brb, establishing a [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91614&view=findpost&p=2438877"]dark age of neutrality[/url]...


[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1307725120' post='2728686']The only problem with neutrality is that in a naturally competitive environment you can only creep up the rankings so far before political realities drag you back down. Which I'm sure is part of the logic behind WTF breaking up their AA to avoid sanction and other ranking honors that are coveted by political movers.[/quote]
I think they just want to be ghosted less.


[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307727140' post='2728702']My only problem with GPA neutrality is that is a passive neutrality instead of an armed one, like Sweden in Cold War. The only thing who protect GPA against an attack is the CN community standards who respect neutrality but that can change anytime in future.[/quote]
Neutral alliances can't compete with the blocs and webs you treaty hoarders constantly build, no matter if their (our) neutrality is passive, active or of any other flavour. Unless maybe someone somehow manages to build a [i]huge[/i] neutral alliance with a few thousands of nations, of which several hundreds can be considered elite nations (tech, WC, wonders).

[Bob Janova]

You don't need to be strong enough to win, just strong enough to do enough damage that it isn't worth attacking you. Grämlins had to have that policy for a while back in the day.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1307743521' post='2728818']
IMHO all the stances are justified. You should run an alliance according to what your members want. if they want to be neutral so be it...
[/quote]
I agree to an extend. The problem is that 90% of alliances all share the same political ambitions which is to do nothing.

[D34th]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1307748862' post='2728863']
You don't need to be strong enough to win, just strong enough to do enough damage that it isn't worth attacking you. Grämlins had to have that policy for a while back in the day.
[/quote]

Exactly. Make any war against you unprofitable and I doubt that people will waste their up tier nations fighting with you.