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

[janax]

[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]

The process of getting the sides to 13-1 is where the interest in. This is a political simulator. THe politics are what should matter. You can't complain people don't play as nations, and then also complain where they act in the best interests of said nations.

Much like any roleplaying game, intentionally handicapping yourself is stupid. It's a poor player who has to set himself up with artificial constraints in order to actually play something.
If you are playing World of Warcraft, you don't intentionally gimp your character to make it more interesting.
When playing a nation simulator, I also don't intentionally gimp my alliance just because some poeple (like polar) are so internationally disliked that any war involving them will be 20-1. My goal as a nation is to protect myself. My goal as an alliance leader is to protect my alliance.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1315067673' post='2793689']
The process of getting the sides to 13-1 is where the interest in. This is a political simulator. THe politics are what should matter. You can't complain people don't play as nations, and then also complain where they act in the best interests of said nations.

Much like any roleplaying game, intentionally handicapping yourself is stupid. It's a poor player who has to set himself up with artificial constraints in order to actually play something.
If you are playing World of Warcraft, you don't intentionally gimp your character to make it more interesting.
When playing a nation simulator, I also don't intentionally gimp my alliance just because some poeple (like polar) are so internationally disliked that any war involving them will be 20-1. My goal as a nation is to protect myself. My goal as an alliance leader is to protect my alliance.
[/quote]
Let's be honest; there is very little politicking involved in the FAs of the vast majority of alliances is neither interesting nor deep. It is a matter of who's-who and huggles. You know that. The idea that any alliance needs more than 3 high-level treaties to "protect" itself is silly and incorrect. The assertion that mutual aggression clauses are protection is fallacious.
The only true protection for any organization in CyberNations is internal ideology and dedication. No one can protect an alliance but itself and no one is responsible for an alliance's protection but itself. The existence of an alliance is a triumph of will, not of battlefields.
The amassing of treaties and allies of incongruent thought to oneself is not a matter of protection, and just so a sparing and thoughtful foreign policy [i]is [/i]a matter of strength and confidence. The idea that alliances in general--and in majority in reality--need to participate in curbstomps as a matter of "protection" is ridiculous, is preposterous. It flies in the face of reality.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Excitement lies in risk.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Schattenmann

[MrMuz]

Nukes are killing the game too. Really. But I won't tell people to suddenly go non-nuclear to save the game, because that gives way too much advantage to the people who don't give a damn. Similarly, you can't really tell people to minimize treaties or whatever. Nobody's going to gimp their odds in a war to help the game unless their odds were already high enough.

If you want a challenge, do it like with any other role playing game. Gimp yourself with artificial restraints. Play the moralist. Play the completely loyal ally.. it doesn't pay off in this game. Join some microalliance; it's a lot harder near the bottom than it is near the top, and more fun on the OOC angle. Or if you want a villain role and need a handicap, roleplay a foolish ideology and follow it strictly - like no nukes, no surrendering, ODP level treaties only, alliance disbandment doctrine, attempt to spread some in-game religion, or pick a target that you hate and stick to it until they disband.

[IYIyTh]

Sometimes all you need to do is have fun and roleplay yourself.

I'm willing to wager around 80-100% of people here do that anyway.

[Ejayrazz]

too many treaties is simply the reasoning as to why we have little to none wars.

[janax]

We have 8 treaties, including our bloc treaty.

4 of them are over 2 years old (3 Citadel holdouts, TOP, Umbrella and FCC) and our oldest treaty with IRON.
Of the non-bloc treaties under 2 years old, 1 is an upgrade of our two protectorates who merged, 1 is an ODP and 1 overlaps with our bloc (HI OMFG).

We don't sway when the wind blows. We try to keep our part of the web clear and keep treaties at a level where they match our politics.

What have you all done to clean it up? I mean, besides complain about it.

[Buzz Lightyear]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315104603' post='2794190']
Let's be honest; there is very little politicking involved in the FAs of the vast majority of alliances is neither interesting nor deep. It is a matter of who's-who and huggles. You know that. The idea that any alliance needs more than 3 high-level treaties to "protect" itself is silly and incorrect. The assertion that mutual aggression clauses are protection is fallacious.
The only true protection for any organization in CyberNations is internal ideology and dedication. No one can protect an alliance but itself and no one is responsible for an alliance's protection but itself. The existence of an alliance is a triumph of will, not of battlefields.
The amassing of treaties and allies of incongruent thought to oneself is not a matter of protection, and just so a sparing and thoughtful foreign policy [i]is [/i]a matter of strength and confidence. The idea that alliances in general--and in majority in reality--need to participate in curbstomps as a matter of "protection" is ridiculous, is preposterous. It flies in the face of reality.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Excitement lies in risk.
[/quote]I agree with your first paragraph

[Dajobo]

The political manoeuvring before a war is where the fun is at, for a lucky minority...
Truly it's great for most of the people commenting in this discussion, because most of us are involved in government so get to be part of it. What about the 95% of CN who aren't?

I really don't think the tangle of the web is an issue and I don't believe it's the reason we have so few wars. I think the ludicrous levelling of harsh reps is. Most alliances aren't scared of losing a war, they are scared of what months spent paying harsh reps will do to them. I think a lot more players have left the game due to that than from Blocs, treaties or the tangled web.

[Buzz Lightyear]

I don't think reps are as big of an issue as ppl say they are. I don't think anyone goes into a war thinking "uh oh I hope we don't lose cuz we don't wanna pay the harsh reps" or "I don't want to fight because of the reps we will get when we lose"

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1315272554' post='2795600']
I don't think reps are as big of an issue as ppl say they are. I don't think anyone goes into a war thinking "uh oh I hope we don't lose cuz we don't wanna pay the harsh reps" or "I don't want to fight because of the reps we will get when we lose"
[/quote]

Now, they don't go into a war thinking that. But the months spent before the war starts, I would imagine they would. Particularly depending on who they want to hit or which side they would most likely be on. For example, I doubt you will get Pacifica or any other Remnant alliance starting an aggressive war because they would most likely be leveled extremely harsh reps. Same could be true for Polaris or NSO. Not to mention, those alliances know who would end up siding against them (DH, PB, PF) and that is some firepower waiting in the wings. DH has already proved it does not care about having a CB or legitimate reason to declare war.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1315272554' post='2795600']
I don't think reps are as big of an issue as ppl say they are.
[/quote]
You've never had to pay an ungodly amount of reps have you?

[D34th]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315283129' post='2795698']
You've never had to pay an ungodly amount of reps have you?
[/quote]

I was going to ask the same thing.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1315265945' post='2795541']
Truly it's great for most of the people commenting in this discussion, because most of us are involved in government so get to be part of it. What about the 95% of CN who aren't?
[/quote]

They're not out of it. It's nice to spectate and comment on it. Gov are like the managers of sports teams, the mostly idle general membership are the fans of the teams.

[Haflinger]

It's not really the reps, although they are a problem. The real problem is the length of the wars.

Fighting a losing war for months on end is ... boring and kinda sad.

[Natan]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315312560' post='2795811']
It's not really the reps, although they are a problem. The real problem is the length of the wars.

Fighting a losing war for months on end is ... boring and kinda sad.
[/quote]

The problem is, with the amount of political capita it costs to start a war, you can't just make it short.

[Systemfailure]

Dear OP: im saving for an MP go cause a ruckus someplace else.

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1315285546' post='2795715']
I was going to ask the same thing.
[/quote]

I was going to ask that too, but you guys beat me to it.

[Baltus]

I don't think reps are as big as they used to be. Though the treaties may get in the way, there are still plenty alliances who you are not treatied to. It's probably the whole "we need a CB" things. Without a CB, I would expect more wars and for shorter time. The whole "preemptive" attack thing needs to stay.

[Haflinger]

Uh, the last war with Doomhouse and NPO didn't have a CB, went on for months, reps went into the billions (again), so I don't know which game you're talking about.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1315265945' post='2795541']
The political manoeuvring before a war is where the fun is at, for a lucky minority...
Truly it's great for most of the people commenting in this discussion, because most of us are involved in government so get to be part of it. What about the 95% of CN who aren't?

I really don't think the tangle of the web is an issue and I don't believe it's the reason we have so few wars. I think the ludicrous levelling of harsh reps is. Most alliances aren't scared of losing a war, they are scared of what months spent paying harsh reps will do to them. I think a lot more players have left the game due to that than from Blocs, treaties or the tangled web.
[/quote]

Those harsh levelling reps like those billions of dollars and technology you are being forced to pay Pandoras Box?

I've been President of Umbrella for a few months now, I've never been in charge of an alliance so involved in the politics of this game so this is all new to me and now I see what all the fuss is about and I will tell you why nothing ever happens in this game (not for lack of trying) It's because trying to make something happen in this game is like trying to herd cats. Everyone has a hundred different opinions of their own, arranging a large-scale massive coalition war (because let's face it, it's impossible to have a small scale war without everyone and their mothers coming out hoping to chain in on the fun) is dependent on so many variables (most of which are entirely out of your control) that it appears to be an utterly futile endeavour with very few benefits in the endgame.

So yes, it's like herding cats. Time consuming, frustrating, seemingly impossible and at the end of it all you've nothing to show for it aside from catching rabies after getting into a fight with one of the other cats about their 'direction'

Edited September 7, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1315405248' post='2796308']
Those harsh levelling reps like those billions of dollars and technology you are being forced to pay Pandoras Box?

I've been President of Umbrella for a few months now, I've never been in charge of an alliance so involved in the politics of this game so this is all new to me and now I see what all the fuss is about and I will tell you why nothing ever happens in this game (not for lack of trying) It's because trying to make something happen in this game is like trying to herd cats. Everyone has a hundred different opinions of their own, arranging a large-scale massive coalition war (because let's face it, it's impossible to have a small scale war without everyone and their mothers coming out hoping to chain in on the fun) is dependent on so many variables (most of which are entirely out of your control) that it appears to be an utterly futile endeavour with very few benefits in the endgame.

So yes, it's like herding cats. Time consuming, frustrating, seemingly impossible and at the end of it all you've nothing to show for it aside from catching rabies after getting into a fight with one of the other cats about their 'direction'
[/quote]

If it is that hard, why bother going coalition? Umbrella has enough large nations and what not to be able to strike out on their own. That is a lot more than most other alliances have. It would take just such a coalition to take on just Umbrella (we saw it with TOP) and if it is as hard as you say to form a coalition, then Umbrella should be able to hit for a bit without much interference.

[JoshuaR]

Because then you only get to have fun once.

[the rebel]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1315443770' post='2796572']
Because then you only get to have fun once.
[/quote]

Or as many times as the leadership desires

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1315391001' post='2796247']
I don't think reps are as big as they used to be. Though the treaties may get in the way, there are still plenty alliances who you are not treatied to. It's probably the whole "we need a CB" things. Without a CB, I would expect more wars and for shorter time. The whole "preemptive" attack thing needs to stay.
[/quote]

At least you "get" it.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315431866' post='2796490']
If it is that hard, why bother going coalition? Umbrella has enough large nations and what not to be able to strike out on their own. That is a lot more than most other alliances have. It would take just such a coalition to take on just Umbrella (we saw it with TOP) and if it is as hard as you say to form a coalition, then Umbrella should be able to hit for a bit without much interference.
[/quote]

Did you completely miss the point of his post or are you being intentionally obtuse? The reason even an alliance like Umbrella couldn't do that is because, like he said, everyone would chain in at the thought of war just to get their fix.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1315496522' post='2796858']
Did you completely miss the point of his post or are you being intentionally obtuse? The reason even an alliance like Umbrella couldn't do that is because, like he said, everyone would chain in at the thought of war just to get their fix.
[/quote]

Did not miss the point, was not being obtuse. I simply said if he hates trying to work up a coalition, then just go to war. He cannot attempt to tell me that DH will not roll out an aggressive war for absolutely no reason, ya'll proven more than capable of doing just that. Not to mention, you obviously did not read what I posted except the first couple of sentences. Read the rest, where I actually stated that it would take a large coalition to take out Umbrella. not to mention, Umbrella does have their own treaties such as DH and PB. So how about you stop being intentionally obtuse mate before you attempt to accuse me of it.

If ya'll despise blocs, then make DH a standalone. Get rid of your treaties that tie DH to PB and PF and CnG and Mjolnir. I am absolutely amused at the fact that MK is directly tied to PF, PB, CnG, and Mj as well as in DH, but that you are complaining about the prevalence of blocs and how the ties between the blocs are destroying chances of wars...

I mean looking at Umbrella's treaties and we have Umbrella in DH and PB as well as tied to CnG, PF, and XX. GOONS is also in DH and PB and helps solidify ties to CnG.

So this puts DH tied to PB, CnG, PF, XX, and Mj. that is 5 blocs that DH is tied too... And you want to complain about how blocs and ties between blocs are screwing up wars... And then you accuse me of being intentionally obtuse... Okay buddy. How about you put your words where your ass is and work on cutting DH's ties to 5 other blocs. Otherwise, don't even attempt to call anyone as being intentionally obtuse without looking at yourself first.