Realpolitik, Modern Warfare, RP, and You

[MaGneT]

Hi everyone. For those of you who don't know me, I'm one of those old-timers who drifts in and out of activity for whatever reason, but when I'm here, I usually have a lot to say. For those of you who do know me, howdy.
I've been watching CN from afar for the past few weeks and I've noticed that while a lot has changed since the last time I regularly checked these boards, just as much remains unchanged. Most notable among the unchanged is the fundamental modus operandi of politicking on CN. Everyone continues to play by, more or less, the same rules. I think the set of unspoken rules that govern the way we play this game are the biggest determining factor in whether or not each of us has fun.

To be clear, I'm not complaining that any group of people is "ruining the game", that "CN is dying because _______" or anything along those lines. I'd simply like to have an OOC discussion with y'all about whether or not these things are true; and, if you think they are, I'd like to ask you if they affect the amount of fun you have when you log in.

1) [b]It's not what you know, what you stand for, or what you believe. [i]It's who you know, who you stand for, and who you believe.[/i][/b] In other words, CyberNations players make political decisions for social reasons more than ideological reasons. The first political decision you make as a player (and for some players, the last) is which alliance you join. There are a few exceptions to this - GPA comes to mind - but, for the most part, people do not even choose an alliance based on any sort of belief on how your nation should be run. In fact, I'm included in this group, as I'm a member of DT mostly because these are the guys I used to play StarCraft with who got me into CN.
Alliances make treaties with one another not because of common belief. After all, most alliances have no beliefs to share with others other than "we want geopolitical power, and we can help each other get there". Other times, treaty partners are chosen purely on "friendship", which means that a political favor was done involving two or more players in the leadership positions of these alliances, or they just like each other from talking on IRC and want to fight together when the time comes.
That brings us to the flip-side of this coin: alliance wars. Why do alliances fight each other? Sometimes there are legitimate grievances - someone's member attacks someone else, the leaderships are stubborn, and a war unfolds. These are usually minor spats and squabbles. Typically, major wars are started for the same reasons that alliances are made. "Killing you will earn me geopolitical power." That, or someone said something you didn't like on IRC once, so you're going to go after them.

2) [b]I don't want to get hurt, [i]I don't even have a stake in this fight[/i][/b]. That's a pretty common refrain you'll hear from most CN players every time "global war" time rolls around. Sometimes you'll hear it from alliance leaders dragged in through long treaty chains to the periphery of someone's petty conflict, but you'll constantly be hearing it from the rank and file alliance member. Considering the fact that no one makes political decisions based on ideas, as I discussed in #1, the average player doesn't care whose friend got attacked by whose enemy this time last year, so now that we've signed some smart treaties this year, we can make them pay. It's just some other guy's affair that you've been dragged into, and it's not even for a cause that's worthwhile.
What kind of warfare can be fought by reluctant generals leading unenthusiastic, disinterested soldiers? Only the kind of warfare that you see today in CN, that is, half-hearted, half-peace-mode semi-combat, in which the primary focus is not destroying an enemy that has gone against what you stand for, but rather, the focus is on minimizing damage so you can be best prepared for your turn on the chopping block. No one wants to risk too much, because there is nothing to risk it for. No one wants to risk risking nothing, however, because appearing weak is the biggest risk of all. In essence, this has made modern warfare in CN little more than a show of bravado rather than the culmination of deep disagreements in a violent pyre.

3) [b]It's just a game, so I'll treat it like one [i]and have no real views[/i][/b]. People have this attitude in shocking consistency throughout CN, and it's, in essence, the anti-RP attitude. The idea is that because CN is a game, it's silly to pretend to have a concrete opinion on the way you play it. In essence, if you're pretending to be a nation ruler, or an alliance member, or an alliance leader, you can't really weigh in on what the right way to do it is - the only way to determine this is who has the biggest guns. Everyone treats CN as a short-term game of risk, when, politically, it is built as more of a long-term RPG.

Do you think these things are true? Problems? Good things?
I'll edit my opinion into a spoiler later, I want to see what you guys (and gals) think.

[supercoolyellow]

This is pretty fantastic Magnet, thanks for posting it. At first glance I agree with a lot of it.

[Lurunin]

A good analysis that I think many people agree with but yet want other people to change the way everything is done rather than contribute to anything themselves.

Disinterest is by far the worst thing that can be done with the politics in CN as well and hell, you often see the by-product of what happens when one alliance interested using politics to its fullest wars against 2-3 alliances at the same time who simply don't care. The ones who don't care will always he the ones rolled, even if they have superior stats, having more friends than the other guy will always help more.

People need to take more chances and expect there always to not only be risks, but also hidden benefits

[Hereno]

I agree with everything you've said but I'd rather see a list of practical solutions than a list of problems.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1338264003' post='2973936']
I agree with everything you've said but I'd rather see a list of practical solutions than a list of problems.
[/quote]
Well, I wanted to see if anyone thought they were even problems, to be honest. Personally, I think they are. I think those 3 things are the reason that I've been inactive for so long - there's nothing to motivate the intrigue, so there is none.

[Monster]

There are practical solutions but due to disinterest in politics, they won't be implemented.

For instance, cutting treaties based on shooting the !@#$ rather than actual commonality in goals/alliance style, meaning "friends" would be split up or an alliance being nice to you in order to use your power to underwrite its military adventures would be seen for what it is.

It's become too easy for a bunch of people to stick around more proactive "cool" types and avoid any real responsibility. The ODN-style of FA, so to speak.

Also being friends with someone shouldn't mean you avoid fighting them ever.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Roquentin

[Adrian LaCroix]

The solution is to find players who will actually play the game (which is to say, they will actually play the role of a nation leader and pretend that they care). Good luck with that.

[Omniscient1]

I think I agree with everything you've written. Although, I didn't expect that coming in here. There are still some groups out there who do have specific ideas, but I think ultimately history has proven that being malleable in foreign policy results in increased power. You can lose a war and say "we never really liked those guys we were fighting with" and being accepted fairly well by the opposite side. Everyone in recent memory who have stood up for a specific belief (TOP, Polar, GOD) were all beaten up.

[Avakael]

A very well thought out post, kudos to you.

[Dochartaigh]

The problem is is that there is no real boogeyman like when NPO played the boogeyman. MK/DH have tried but they have not truly managed to pull it off. When they did just randomly attack alliances, it was NPO or some other alliance(s) that was in fad to be hated. NPO committed attacks against CIS, VE, and GPA when all three of those were not that hated. Hell, even GGA managed to pull off being a boogeyman better than MK/DH have.

There is nothing to fight for because of what you said in #2. Every alliance is working on tying themselves all over the place in order to be able to "pull" in the entire treaty web should they be attacked. All this does is stagnate the web. I remember the days of a north side and south side of the web connected by 1 possibly 2 treaties instead of a north/south/east/west sides connected by dozens of treaties throughout...

[Freddy]

Well written op and I agree it is true for most nations here. As in RL, most rulers don't know how or lack the motivation to make things happen. "some people make things happen, some watch things happen, some wonder what happened". A few rulers of nations, spread out across the cyberverse, set the political stage for action according to their vision. The majority of rulers are content to be pawns in these other men's goals. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It mirrors RL and makes this place palatable to peoples' sensibilities and social expectations. If more rulers here were self directed, rather than externally directed we would call it chaos and anarchy.

The few who excell at making things happen should maybe set goals outside of their norm. The problem with conflict I see is it is based on OOC conflict. Or it's based on stats.

[Dragon]

I think you can take everything from CN and add it to RL. If you can fight on here over stupid things like he owes me tech than you can fight in real life over you owe me a new rake. Face it people CN is a game but can also relate to real life as well. Myself i just kinda set back and see what will happen next wondering who will start the next big war and who will bail out on their friends along with who will hit the top 10 in the alliances over it

[Monster]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1338300458' post='2974049']
Well written op and I agree it is true for most nations here. As in RL, most rulers don't know how or lack the motivation to make things happen. "some people make things happen, some watch things happen, some wonder what happened". A few rulers of nations, spread out across the cyberverse, set the political stage for action according to their vision. The majority of rulers are content to be pawns in these other men's goals. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It mirrors RL and makes this place palatable to peoples' sensibilities and social expectations. If more rulers here were self directed, rather than externally directed we would call it chaos and anarchy.

The few who excell at making things happen should maybe set goals outside of their norm. The problem with conflict I see is it is based on OOC conflict. Or it's based on stats.
[/quote]


It's awful since the point of playing a game isn't to simulate real life, it's to alter the conditions since it's far easier to do. The chaos and anarchy of more ambitious rulers would be a stimulating thing.


You can build an empire out of merging several disliked alliances together and the past only mattering when it is convenient. This isn't possible in real life.

One person can fuel the growth of an entire alliance through micromanagement and after a year or two it'll be fairly large. I guess central planning in general has proven to be successful in CN, which is where it diverges from real life, since the most successful alliances are the ones who tend to have the most control over their members.

[Groucho Marx]

I have (a lack of) values that I stand for. It's why I'm in GOONS and not anywhere else.

[Freddy]

I don't think anyone wants to simulate RL. They just can't help but bring their RL personality here. RPing is tough in this atmosphere, because you unavoidably find yourself in real convos and through that your RL personality generally overshadows your RP.

Ambition should extend beyond stats. Ambition here is a battle of wills. The one with the stronger desire to rule himself and others, generally will.

[Monster]

Not really. It's more that people form RL-style social cliques like in various high school comedies. I would say CN bears a lot of similarity to Mean Girls.

[Freddy]

I think the bulk of this thread supports that statement.

Edit:I was thinking of another thread when I said this, the slot usage one.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Freddy

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1338262355' post='2973919']Alliances make treaties with one another not because of common belief.[/quote]

It's very rare, but some do.

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1338262355' post='2973919']Other times, treaty partners are chosen purely on "friendship", which means that a political favor was done involving two or more players in the leadership positions of these alliances, or they just like each other from talking on IRC and want to fight together when the time comes.[/quote]

Personally, I get closer to people I meet who have similar ideas and although I'll be friendly with lots of people, I don't advocate signing treaties with all of them. Friendship does have an affect on who I will avoid in a fight, but it does not determine who I'll fight on behalf of. It has not happened yet, but I can imagine situations where I'd fight on behalf of a group based not on friendship but on the fact that I feel some wrong has been committed against the group. I also don't think I'm alone in that view, although we're probably a large minority.

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1338262355' post='2973919']That brings us to the flip-side of this coin: alliance wars. Why do alliances fight each other?[/quote]

Tension builds up and people start complaining how boring it is, there's no action, nothing is happening in the world, etc. etc. Eventually (if they want to keep their membership from going stir crazy) alliance leaders start looking for a reason to war. Then, once there is a reason it becomes a matter of trying to determine if one can come out "on top" after because no one wants to be paying reps for the next six months or more. That's even more boring than nothing happening. It's at this point where your point of "what will our alliance gain from it"? in terms of rank and standing takes a role. But if it were JUST about alliance ranking, we'd either all be neutrals and/or there would be many many more alliance mergers happening and we'd have 3 big alliances. Side A, Side B and "the neutrals."

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1338262355' post='2973919']2) [b]I don't want to get hurt, [i]I don't even have a stake in this fight[/i][/b]. That's a pretty common refrain you'll hear from most CN players every time "global war" time rolls around. Sometimes you'll hear it from alliance leaders dragged in through long treaty chains to the periphery of someone's petty conflict, but you'll constantly be hearing it from the rank and file alliance member. Considering the fact that no one makes political decisions based on ideas, as I discussed in #1, the average player doesn't care whose friend got attacked by whose enemy this time last year, so now that we've signed some smart treaties this year, we can make them pay. It's just some other guy's affair that you've been dragged into, and it's not even for a cause that's worthwhile. What kind of warfare can be fought by reluctant generals leading unenthusiastic, disinterested soldiers? Only the kind of warfare that you see today in CN, that is, half-hearted, half-peace-mode semi-combat, in which the primary focus is not destroying an enemy that has gone against what you stand for, but rather, the focus is on minimizing damage so you can be best prepared for your turn on the chopping block. No one wants to risk too much, because there is nothing to risk it for. No one wants to risk risking nothing, however, because appearing weak is the biggest risk of all. In essence, this has made modern warfare in CN little more than a show of bravado rather than the culmination of deep disagreements in a violent pyre.[/quote]

Yes. Nicely said. I'm waiting for the majority of CN to figure this out and start dropping treaties and/or just signing optional ones. It's slowly catching on but will take time, as is usual with cultural changes.

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1338262355' post='2973919']3) [b]It's just a game, so I'll treat it like one [i]and have no real views[/i][/b]. People have this attitude in shocking consistency throughout CN, and it's, in essence, the anti-RP attitude. The idea is that because CN is a game, it's silly to pretend to have a concrete opinion on the way you play it. In essence, if you're pretending to be a nation ruler, or an alliance member, or an alliance leader, you can't really weigh in on what the right way to do it is - the only way to determine this is who has the biggest guns. Everyone treats CN as a short-term game of risk, when, politically, it is built as more of a long-term RPG.[/quote]

I actually think having people take this view is helpful, at least if people are able to look at the long term view, and can encourage role-playing, especially in the "evil" areas. Thank admin for those "evil" people out there, otherwise I'd have nothing to rant against

[Prodigal Moon]

The OP gives a good description of the mindset that makes this game completely lame most of the time to players who want to actually do stuff and have political intrigue. We've tried hard to wake people up from this stupor to little success, so it's hard to give !@#$ at this point. I keep my nation around just in case (not going to throw 2000 days of playing away just like that) but I'm obviously not very optimistic about things.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1338295064' post='2974030']
The problem is is that there is no real boogeyman like when NPO played the boogeyman. MK/DH have tried but they have not truly managed to pull it off. When they did just randomly attack alliances, it was NPO or some other alliance(s) that was in fad to be hated. NPO committed attacks against CIS, VE, and GPA when all three of those were not that hated. Hell, even GGA managed to pull off being a boogeyman better than MK/DH have.
[/quote]
Hey, old friend.
The old times of NPO vs. anti-NPO were good, not because we had poles on our treaty web, so there were defined "sides" at all times, but rather because it was the closest we came to ever being about ideas. Remember, you can have two clearly defined sides and still fight over absolutely nothing meaningful. I'd say the era from the end of GW3 - when Pacifica had assured full domination - until the end of Karma, the two coalitions represented "freedom vs. tyranny". NPO was a proud superpower and tyrant, who claimed to know what was best for the world, and was not afraid to enforce that with an iron fist. They had the guns, the numbers, and the political capital, so they could trample anyone easily. Those who supported Pax Pacifica did not mind the centralized worldwide decision-making process, as it made them safe. In some cases, they even supported it as the right way to go.
Many who stood against NPO and those of her style were the "lulz alliances", look at the Unjust War. There was a group of alliances that acted like a bunch of raiding Huns, simply because they could - and why not? Of course, that didn't fit in with Pax Pacifica, and they were rolled.

Vox Populi, of course, was probably the pinnacle of ideas in CN. There was a legitimate, powerful popular movement on the CN forums of open rebellion against the ruling clique. Players like Doitzel stepped up and denounced why the tyrannical actions of NPO were wrong, and the funny thing was, people agreed. No one liked that innocent alliances like GPA were being stomped simply because they took #1 on the leaderboard, not because it had an effect on their gameplay, but because players truly held ideas about what was right and wrong IC. Players like Schattenmann and Electron Sponge proved that the giant all-powerful beast was lumbering, and could be prodded at. They revealed secrets using spies, and showed that Pax Pacifica wasn't an invincible status quo, but rather something that could be changed if enough hearts and minds were won.

After Karma, unfortunately, these ideas died out in most players, and with the exception of the "moralist vs. anti-moralist" squabbles that precipitated the BiPolar War, we've resumed acting like a bunch of insecure and manipulative Mean Girls (great analogy, Roq).

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1338306778' post='2974076']
I have (a lack of) values that I stand for. It's why I'm in GOONS and not anywhere else.
[/quote]
The thing is, this sort of nihilism is, at least, something to stand for, ironically enough. DH provided one of only two glimmers of intrigue that I've seen since the last embers of Karma were extinguished with their "Everything Must Die" campaign. They got up and said "$%&@ you, $%&@ everything, and we're going to take our guns and go ahead and $%&@ everything." Of course, they didn't end up fully committing to that, and it was as much of a political stunt as anything else is nowadays - but at least it was something.

The other glimmer was when my alliance, DT, got in the whole run-in with CsN during the last war over extorting reps and whatnot. A bunch of us were outraged by what was essentially armed robbery for no good reason at all, and we led a moral crusade, and won the hearts and minds of many. In fact, that's what gave us the moral high ground to roll SF in the last war (unless there's been a war since, I've been pretty inactive). Of course, that, too, was as much of a political stunt as anything else is nowadays, as the leadership of my alliance and bloc didn't have the testicular fortitude to abide by the stand that I led against extorting people. They went ahead and extorted just the same, so that way we could have tech, so as to be prepared for our time on the chopping block, if it ever came.

It's a lack of principle, mostly. People are willing to talk the talk, but no one is willing to walk the walk, and this has caused much of the community to be jaded to the point that many have resigned to simply being cowards who try to scramble to the "right side" at any given opportunity.

Edited May 30, 2012 by MaGneT

[WarriorConcept]

Well written OP. Honestly if you want to have fun however it requires a lot of time to get involved, but once you do you enjoy it plenty. As has been stated plenty of times, you get out of this game what you put in.

[Freddy]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1338332670' post='2974211']
The OP gives a good description of the mindset that makes this game completely lame most of the time to players who want to actually do stuff and have political intrigue. We've tried hard to wake people up from this stupor to little success, so it's hard to give !@#$ at this point. I keep my nation around just in case (not going to throw 2000 days of playing away just like that) but I'm obviously not very
optimistic about things.
[/quote]

You can wake people up to do stuff and political intrigue, but the anonymous herd is not going to wake up for vague stuff and vague political intrigue. you have to call on individuals to do specific actions, if you want others to contribute to your goals.

[Monster]

Like what? I don't really think people are going to listen to directions from someone they don't know anyway. People don't like following instructions, it works better if it's their own idea. I guess "the anonymous herd" in some instances could push for their alliance to leave an MADP bloc or cancel a treaty.

[Icewolf]

One element that I noticed in the last war was a race to be first to peace element. Once one alliance had got peace many others followed very quickly.

I suspect this is because if you are at a war, even if you are winning, you are losing ground against an alliance not at war. Even if you are opposing sides of the war, there is potential for an alliance on the other side to gain ground against you stats wise if they get peace after a month and you are still fighting a month later. They may get less damage (although that depends on the scale of defeat), but they also get a month of non-nuclear anarchy collections, a month of no rebuying navies, planes, troops and tanks everyday, a month of regular tech dealing rather than all slots being used to support other members.

Looking through past wars on the wiki, reperations used to be commonplace. In the last war I think only Polar paid them. Which means mathematically you can lose a war that you clearly one because your rivals peaced out whilst you continued beating down another alliance.

The length of the last war appeared to be defined by the fact that losing quickly is cheaper than winning over a long period.

[Monster]

Other problem: political action is motivated by nothing at the moment except clique politics. Like I usually see "personal vendetta" marked off something not pertinent to politics in general when personal vendettas have fueled the political landscape since the dawn of time and if more people acted on slights and such, it'd be more interesting.

x alliance leader doesn't like alliance leader y and so on.

helen of troy, stuff like that.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Roquentin