If people complain so much about the tangled treaty web...

[RandomInterrupt]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314817178' post='2791715']Wasn't the Polar line that you weren't at all defeated when you signed that peace?
[/quote]
I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but Polaris has always considered us as losing GW1, the NoCB war, and the PB-Polar war as indicated on our [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/New_Polar_Order"]wiki entry.[/url]

[Tromp]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314835484' post='2791842']
The fact that being an aggressor has evolved into a long-term unpopular political mode hasn't really changed and has only become more pronounced with the advances of networking and/or fear of large-scale destruction to those who would sit on the sideline.
[/quote]
Agreed, this is much more of an issue then blocs are.

[quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1314836740' post='2791849']
I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but Polaris has always considered us as losing GW1, the NoCB war, and the PB-Polar war as indicated on our [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/New_Polar_Order"]wiki entry.[/url]
[/quote]
Well, I recalled Fallen Fool saying at the time that you guys didn't really want peace but accepted it because PB was insisting on it. Anyway, I wasn't overly serious, hence the smiley.

The point wasn't really important to me. And I probably shouldn't have replied to Death, we got in some stupid argument after that. Lesson learned!

[deSouza]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314835484' post='2791842']
Political acumen has increased and things are the way they are because it suits individuals to do certain things.

Very few alliances want to fight a fair fight, and, those that do are generally in the minority, if not at their membership at their leadership level, and if not there then in the context of the macro-evaluation of the political climate.

It's the same reason you have the generally hyper-active and/or somewhat impulsive low-government always drumming up support for conflict while the upper level government ends up playing role of the old wise man, laying all marginal benefits costs etc to waging war over any given issue. If the positives do not outweigh the negatives, scale s not tipped, war is not sought out. Instead of direct conflict agressor is labled as dangerous, isolated, and the potential victim starts looking for any friends it can find, which it usually can.

Advocating for the removal of politics, or the reversal of it in a political simulator which has generally seen Realism creep into its roots over time is something not irreversible but highly improbable for the aforementioned reason.

People will generally only complain about the political system only when it doesn't suit them, while people will encourage it privately and/or publicly when it does.

It will be interesting to see if numbers continue to drop whether this minority is given more creedence though.
[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314835484' post='2791842']
The fact that being an aggressor has evolved into a long-term unpopular political mode hasn't really changed and has only become more pronounced with the advances of networking and/or fear of large-scale destruction to those who would sit on the sideline.
[/quote]

I think it always was, but before alliances thought they could afford to do it due to deflecting blame and massive accumulation of treaties.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314837349' post='2791859']
Agreed, this is much more of an issue then blocs are.
[/quote]

Well, I would say that Bi-Polar and the treatment of Polaris/TOP's coalition had a major effect on how aggressive attacks are treated. DH's aggressive attack against Pacifica was more akin to the curbstomp aggressive wars experienced under Pax Pacifica, so it only made aggressive attacks look pathetic instead of a viable alternative to stagnation.

Basically, with the way aggressive attacks are treated, the attacks will either be met with huge hostility where if the defender wins; they will crush their enemy harshly and then demand crippling reparations. Or if the attacker wins, it will be due to crushing an alliance(s) that could hardly withstand the aggressors and then demanding crippling reps from the victim.

I would say that the fear of crippling reps, being thoroughly crushed, or both are a major reason why wars are longer in between. It takes a lot longer to rebuild and given the disparity that usually occurs between victor and loser, the loser will usually be hard-pressed to fight a decent war for a while.

As for Impero, I would not call him courageous or some sort of brilliant mastermind. Frankly, he started a war and that is about it. He had a huge amount of NS behind him, so not exactly "ballsy" there. As for the political fallout, I highly doubt that Impero knew that it would occur. Instead, the political fallout was accidental and caused by a series of events, of which only one was the SpyPolar war that Impero started.

So frankly, Impero is neither ballsy or much of a political mastermind and SpyPolar only shows how vindictive and petty Impero is and nothing more.

[RandomInterrupt]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314837349' post='2791859']
Well, I recalled Fallen Fool saying at the time that you guys didn't really want peace but accepted it because PB was insisting on it. Anyway, I wasn't overly serious, hence the smiley.

The point wasn't really important to me. And I probably shouldn't have replied to Death, we got in some stupid argument after that. Lesson learned!
[/quote]
Yeah Polaris was prepared and to fight for a very very long time and were not actually asking for or seeking out peace. But some of our allies were interested in Peace and PB was open to reasonable peace terms so we went through with it. We do consider it a loss, just a loss that wasn't nearly as bad as many predicted/promised.

[Henry Rollins]

If there must be a bloc, make it have a purpose; aka, x bloc is for the Black Team and all of its included alliances must be Black and kick any alliance that isn't Black off of the team.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314836501' post='2791848']
You suggested that digiterra was way more complex than it actually is, and me pointing that out is a contradiction whether you like it or not. This is a moot point by the way.[/quote]
Changing the length of what was said is not contradicting what was said.

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314836501' post='2791848']
And my judgement is that you did (and still do) promote the notion that pacificans eat babies and pax pacifica was an ebil, ebil thing. Even though babies are exquisite.[/quote]
. . . http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97918&view=findpost&p=2608850
It's 2011, deSouza, I stopped whaling on NPO almost 3 years ago.

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314836501' post='2791848']
The practice of rolling people outside your own big, overlapping blocks is what was in question, because it is what motivated the practice of getting as many treaties as possible (for self defense). Not surprisingly, the world still constitutes of a humongous block, except this time the dominant party chooses to use of informal power rather than formal, and prefers to rule via influence rather than formal obligation, yet everyone is still more or less connected, lives in fear of getting the short end of the stick, and the only thing that really changed with karma was the amount of influence various groups had.
[/quote]
This reply is not a reply--you're suddenly arguing as if I have claimed that everything changed after Karma when I have in fact been saying that not much has changed, and that those unchanged behaviors are the same behaviors formed in the pre-Karma era, which is called The Pax Pacifica.

If you can't be bothered to reply to what I'm saying or understand what I'm saying, there's really nowhere for this to go beyond this.

[Dcrews]

It's just one hugh game of chicken. when someone feels like attacking they will. the "sides" are more or less decided. people are now in prep mode. its called the calm before the storm. the longer the calm the bigger the bang. those who are in a position to start a war but is complaining that there are none are hiprocrites. anyones who !@#$%*es about CN being boring because there is no war, i've got one thing to say.

STFU and go do something about it.

[deSouza]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314841394' post='2791882']
If you can't be bothered to reply to what I'm saying or understand what I'm saying, there's really nowhere for this to go beyond this.
[/quote]

Ditto


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314841394' post='2791882']
Changing the length of what was said is not contradicting what was said.
[/quote]

Not length, content.
Complexity makes a difference.


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314841394' post='2791882']
. . . http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97918&view=findpost&p=2608850
It's 2011, deSouza, I stopped whaling on NPO almost 3 years ago.
[/quote]

I'm not saying you are "whaling on NPO".
You never stopped claiming Pax Pacifica was ebil, which is my point.
It wasn't. It was just like today in many aspects, but different in others (different degrees of influence to different people, different practices tolerated and enforced by the status quo).



[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314841394' post='2791882']
This reply is not a reply--you're suddenly arguing as if I have claimed that everything changed after Karma when I have in fact been saying that not much has changed, and that those unchanged behaviors are the same behaviors formed in the pre-Karma era, which is called The Pax Pacifica.
[/quote]


I, on the other hand, have always been saying that those behaviors would not change, not because i'm grumpy, have emotional motivations, like to stand in a corner being autistic, lack understanding of what you are saying or over the political climate, or pretty much any form of attempting to discredit my stance through ad hominems due to no reason whatsoever as our opinions aren't even conflicting, but because I know better.
I also have exposed my point of view in this thread, and I shall do it again, perhaps in a more detailed form.
I believe alliances will act on their own self interest, that it is on their self interest to protect themselves,by tying themselves up with strong enough allies to deter potential aggressors. This is as far as this political simulator goes. Then it enters the part where this is a high school schoolyard. Kids will attempt to have other kids they dislike rolled, and will offer and collect favors to that end. Mostly because they can due to the fact that this is a war game, meaning many people just want to wreck other nations as soon as possible, to the point that they complain about not having wars from time to time. So everyone will try to not be in a situation where they could be the curbstomped side during the next vacation, and treaties, allegiances, campaigns are made to that end. Like a reality show, where people create just enough intrigue not to be the "eliminated one"

CN is a high-school-yard-reality-show-political simulator. You heard it here first.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='dcrews20' timestamp='1314841969' post='2791886']
It's just one hugh game of chicken. when someone feels like attacking they will. the "sides" are more or less decided. people are now in prep mode. its called the calm before the storm. the longer the calm the bigger the bang. those who are in a position to start a war but is complaining that there are none are hiprocrites. anyones who !@#$%*es about CN being boring because there is no war, i've got one thing to say.

STFU and go do something about it.
[/quote]

But good dcrews20, complaining is doing something about it. Futile (and at times often frustrated,) but it in and of itself is an attempt (usually unsuccessfully,) to convince others that what the game needs is more action. When people are bored enough it gains traction, then a couple weeks into the war, most of those who joined the minorities love of war for the sake of it (see: usually painted elaborately by the aggressor(s,) as a Liberalistic maneuver,) either realize they are disadvantaged or that nuclear anarchy ain't no joke.

I disagree. I think the more aggressive parties tend to isolate themselves on their own, it is often the same people who are not satisfied with the current happenings that complain about them, or those that knowingly (bold or otherwise,) engage in efforts despite the potential costs involved.

While some might think there is some sort of "calm," before the storm, one could always claim that and eventually be right when a conflict does happen.

The fact of the matter is that until there is an instance where the cost of war and obligatory fallout is not greater than the desired effect there will simply not be one.

A major one, that is.

If you want more war, I'd suggest working to reduce the costs of it.

Edited September 1, 2011 by IYIyTh

[deSouza]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314843235' post='2791899']
But good dcrews20, complaining is doing something about it. Futile (and at times often frustrated,) but it in and of itself is an attempt (usually unsuccessfully,) to convince others that what the game needs is more action. When people are bored enough it gains traction, then a couple weeks into the war, most of those who joined the minorities love of war for the sake of it (see: usually painted elaborately by the aggressor(s,) as a Liberalistic maneuver,) either realize they are disadvantaged or that nuclear anarchy ain't no joke.

I disagree. I think the more aggressive parties tend to isolate themselves on their own, it is often the same people who are not satisfied with the current happenings that complain about them, or those that knowingly (bold or otherwise,) engage in efforts despite the potential costs involved.

While some might think there is some sort of "calm," before the storm, one could always claim that and eventually be right when a conflict does happen.

The fact of the matter is that until there is an instance where the cost of war and obligatory fallout is not greater than the desired effect there will simply not be one.

A major one, that is.

If you want more war, I'd suggest working to reduce the costs of it.
[/quote]

Timed wars with no reps were a good idea, but [i]for some reason[/i] they didn't become the norm.

[IYIyTh]

That's the nature of an anarchic international system.

People hardly trust eachother, let alone their enemies.

That and that whole "fair-fight," desirability being about the same as wanting to have certain objects shoved so far up, in or around certain areas of the body that they'd never be able to walk again.

Insert Sun-Tzu quote here.

Edited September 1, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314844517' post='2791909']
That's the nature of an anarchic international system.

People hardly trust eachother, let alone their enemies.

That and that whole "fair-fight," desirability being about the same as wanting to have certain objects shoved so far up, in or around certain areas of the body that they'd never be able to walk again.
[/quote]

Ain't that the truth.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314834103' post='2791829']
...second because Global Political Order hasn't changed, the same groups who were in power before VE declare war on NpO are the same who are still in power now(See PB/DH).
[/quote]

In a decisive war, whoever is in power will still remain in power. The difference is really about who's [i]not[/i] in power. Not going to say who, because people take it so personally, but with some power spheres weakened, the rest of the world is free to point their guns onto the second person on their list. PB is no longer in such a dominant position as they held last time, they're still very strong, but not as much as before. Just means that every other power that wasn't involved heavily in the last war, edged a little closer to power.

[janax]

Why the hell would anyone want a fair fight?

The object is to win a war. Giving others a chance hurts the ability to win.

[Haflinger]

This is an OOC forum.

The reason you'd want a fair fight is because the other kind is mind-numbingly dull. When the odds are tilted extremely one way or the other, the wargame becomes roughly about as exciting as playing checkers against yourself.

The only war I actually had a lot of fun fighting in (as a wargame) was Karma, and that was because while we were fighting against the odds the odds weren't so stupidly tilted as to make the whole thing into a pointless accumulation of casualty statistics. (Well I had a lot of fun in Bipolar, but that was for personal reasons that had little to do with the actual fighting.)

[King Wally]

Bloks aren't the problem the problem is that all the Bloks are tangled up with each other on so many levels. Keep the bloks just reduce the side treatys I think.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1314892988' post='2792261']
Why the hell would anyone want a fair fight?

The object is to win a war. Giving others a chance hurts the ability to win.
[/quote]
There's a difference between an even match and a fair fight. The objective of a war might be to win, but the objective of playing CN is to have fun, and there's really nothing fun about a 13:1 war. It's like the last 30 minutes of a game of RISK when you've already won but you have to keep sitting there so you can take over the rest of the map, it's not fun, it's mindnumbing. The fun part of any game is while you're winning but there is a challenge, or when you're not winning but there is a chance you could. The method of CN to skip everything and go right to the last 30 minutes makes it boring for everyone. The result is what you saw in the last war and the GATO-One Vision War: the targets just decided that if it was pointless and boring, then just sit in peacemode for 4 months and not play the game.

[D34th]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1314892988' post='2792261']
Why the hell would anyone want a fair fight?

The object is to win a war. Giving others a chance hurts the ability to win.
[/quote]

And this mentality people, is what bought us to the present situation Ladies and Gentlemen. People so afraid to take risks that they just cuddle with the winner side.

[kerschbs]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314970487' post='2792921']
There's a difference between an even match and a fair fight. The objective of a war might be to win, but the objective of playing CN is to have fun, and there's really nothing fun about a 13:1 war. It's like the last 30 minutes of a game of RISK when you've already won but you have to keep sitting there so you can take over the rest of the map, it's not fun, it's mindnumbing. The fun part of any game is while you're winning but there is a challenge, or when you're not winning but there is a chance you could. The method of CN to skip everything and go right to the last 30 minutes makes it boring for everyone. The result is what you saw in the last war and the GATO-One Vision War: the targets just decided that if it was pointless and boring, then just sit in peacemode for 4 months and not play the game.
[/quote]

Agree with everything you have said here. As a longtime player, gw2-gw3 were fun because they were fairly even (even if I was in GATO each war.) GATO-1v we fought something like 10:1 odds the entire time, and if you remember, peace mode=pzi for our alliance members. A lot of people deleted because of that nonsense and the duration we were kept at war.

Bi-Polar and even the last dust up were both interesting wars, albeit with different results for my alliance (one win, one loss.) At least they were even enough that it kept things interesting.

[Mind the Gap]

Someone should convince the top ten alliances to sign a pact to cut three MDP+ level treaties by the end of the week. It'd be for the good of the game.

[i]That'd be exciting.[/i]

[potato]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314970487' post='2792921']
There's a difference between an even match and a fair fight. The objective of a war might be to win, but the objective of playing CN is to have fun, and there's really nothing fun about a 13:1 war. It's like the last 30 minutes of a game of RISK when you've already won but you have to keep sitting there so you can take over the rest of the map, it's not fun, it's mindnumbing. The fun part of any game is while you're winning but there is a challenge, or when you're not winning but there is a chance you could. The method of CN to skip everything and go right to the last 30 minutes makes it boring for everyone. The result is what you saw in the last war and the GATO-One Vision War: the targets just decided that if it was pointless and boring, then just sit in peacemode for 4 months and not play the game.
[/quote]

In my books, the 30 minutes of boringness are actually the 13:1 wars. The interesting part is all the politicing BEFORE you post a DoW. THAT is the challenge for me. Pressing a bunch of buttons (nukes, CMs, airplanes, GA. Rinse, repeat) is mindnumbing, even if it's 1:1.

Edited September 2, 2011 by potato

[MrMuz]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1314991228' post='2793082']
In my books, the 30 minutes of boringness are actually the 13:1 wars. The interesting part is all the politicing BEFORE you post a DoW. THAT is the challenge for me. Pressing a bunch of buttons (nukes, CMs, airplanes, GA. Rinse, repeat) is mindnumbing, even if it's 1:1.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Even the 1:1 wars themselves are boring after everyone has made their move. The whole fun of the game is in manipulating the politics to get yourself in a good position for the war, then manipulating politics again to get people on your side or at least prevent them from entering the opponent's side. And then the post-war period where everyone makes use of whatever threats/promises they made during the war and cuts treaties or forces reps.

13:1 wars are boring only in that there's no options for the losing or winning party. You're either martyring yourself and cutting your allies free, !@#$%*ing at your allies for not martyring themselves for you, or begging for mercy.

If CN was like chess, wars are the checkmate (although they last a few months). People love wars not because the wars themselves are fun, but because they like seeing their enemies get checkmated after months of work. The spectators love it because two large coalitions hitting each other opens up a power vacuum which they can manipulate.

The boring part is when your opponent just sits there on their turn and refuses to move at all.. unlike chess, CN allows people to skip their turn and those who make the killing move are at a tactical disadvantage. Blocs are like when you set your pieces up well enough to counter any attack, but when both sides do it and refuse to move, the game stagnates.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314970487' post='2792921']
There's a difference between an even match and a fair fight. The objective of a war might be to win, but the objective of playing CN is to have fun, and there's really nothing fun about a 13:1 war. It's like the last 30 minutes of a game of RISK when you've already won but you have to keep sitting there so you can take over the rest of the map, it's not fun, it's mindnumbing. The fun part of any game is while you're winning but there is a challenge, or when you're not winning but there is a chance you could. The method of CN to skip everything and go right to the last 30 minutes makes it boring for everyone. The result is what you saw in the last war and the GATO-One Vision War: the targets just decided that if it was pointless and boring, then just sit in peacemode for 4 months and not play the game.
[/quote]
People need morals and principles. That's the only way for things to be "even." When people jump sides just to get on the winning side, you're right, it will be 13:1 every time. If people stood up for what they believe in, and didn't run because it looks like their friends are getting rolled, you'd get better fights.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314970487' post='2792921']
There's a difference between an even match and a fair fight. The objective of a war might be to win, but the objective of playing CN is to have fun, and there's really nothing fun about a 13:1 war. It's like the last 30 minutes of a game of RISK when you've already won but you have to keep sitting there so you can take over the rest of the map, it's not fun, it's mindnumbing. The fun part of any game is while you're winning but there is a challenge, or when you're not winning but there is a chance you could. The method of CN to skip everything and go right to the last 30 minutes makes it boring for everyone. The result is what you saw in the last war and the GATO-One Vision War: the targets just decided that if it was pointless and boring, then just sit in peacemode for 4 months and not play the game.
[/quote]


I happen to find that part of Risk really fun thank you very much