On war...

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Bonjour dear reader,

You may guess that I will use this topic to rant on how unfair war is, how unfair CNRP is or how unfair live in general is, I do howver think I leave these topics be. It would not get anything accomplished to do so, therefor, I cut to the point. People always go on about realism. We want people to RP natives, not to import immigrants in millions, we want people to have citizens behave logically, not to just blindly support a foreign regime (apart from when we are the regime, then it's all good) and also in a lot of other points, realism is brought forth. Just now, people discuss the abolishment of the Preplan rule, citing increased realism as a reason to do so. I agree, wars will become more realistic. When wars no longer are closed businesses with special rulesets, but open for all on standard engagement rules, wars will be a lot more complicated and maybe more realistic, but then, I do hard to believe I'd really want that. Why, you may ask, do I want less realism? Let it be known, my personal history is not of great importance here. If I'd be able to prevent myself from getting rolled through the rule, I wonder why for another time, I did not do so. But let's not get caught up in arguments over this. I'm rather fine with fighting a war, if it is a war that is based on a good reason.

But: [i]War in CNRP, in most cases, is not a war based on any credible interest, other than OOC interest or boredom.
[/i]
People just roll each other nowadays in a manner of No U, in a manner that is just completely defying any notion of a possible rational national interest. I just remember wars like Tanis vs Isaac, a true master example of two nations that went to war and that, god be thanked, never kicked off really. War costs ressources, inanimate and human (and at times animals), it is not just some random line when Carl von Clausewitz says: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." I share his thought, because it is what I want to see war as. a means to achieve an objective, by imposing the own will on another party. Not that I say this is the best or most effective way to get things done. It is [b]a[/b] way, not [b]the[/b] way. Now, people may note, it is perfectly in the national interest of, say Athens to want to make France a dependent state (or for Germany, for that matter), and for this reason, claiming some BS and imposing their will on France is very well in their national interest. I agree there.

But: [i]War is a rather ineffective way of getting the affair settled. At least one could try giving it a diplomatic shot. A communique or two, even a summit cost less than a day of shot ammunition.
[/i]
Even fiercely expansionist states, like the British Empire, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany first sent an ultimatum. The only reason to not send one is if there is no hope of them accepting, but then, the ultimatum is still a means to legitimate a war. Of course, noone gives a damn about legitimacy.

The last point and maybe most important point, is, that people may say, War creates tension and causes therefor good RP. May be true,

But: [i]Not in all cases. If I look at the ongoing war in North America, maybe, if I look at Sarahs wars, they caused stories, if I look at most rollings though, I say no.[/i]

And this is in general something that is saddening to see. I saw wars that were just textwalls of orders, maneuvers, spyrolls, technobabble and OOC bickering. I saw people not even bothering to write a new post when attacking someone, but just copying an old post and editing the names. I do not think that by any means this creates good RP. It rather kills good RP, when such people go, attack people actually spending more time RPing civil progress (or regress), internal affairs, character stories etc. Which leads to the question of nations that I actually categorise worse than those 25th day posters (you know, those that post some quick line of meaningless text to stay alive, but otherwise are quiter than the local cemetary). The worst, in my humble opinion, are the people that actually do nothing more than war RP, some pressuring or military build-up. It really is not creating any better RP than a 25th day poster, but actually, it forces others into an arms race and it is most of the time more appreciated by neighbours, if these people would be 25th day posters, because every new post raises just the question of whom they are antagonising now. Even if a war is a sign of activity, I can't say it is of great interest to see how exactly Missile X works to hit Fighter jet Y, if Jet Y had not System Z to prevent that, with tons of OOC rambling on speculative science wether X, Y and Z are actually feasable.

Because if I play CNRP, I want to have a nice time (with maybe a rolling, if I deserved it, or it is done well), but I cannot say, I came here to take a lesson on military technology (which most likely would be better, if I joined the Bundesheer and attempted to get a place at Maria-Theresien Military Acadamy, Vienna), or on clique forming, which is the only other thing one can see, apart from massive textwalls of military action, following some one or two liners of declarations of war. But the unrealism of alliance forming in CNRP, I leave to other people to discuss. Honestly, currently, I'd be better served to play Hearts of Iron III than to be here, given that game has about as much (if not actually less) military focus, but it works on better graphics and it has clear cut game mechanics, that do not need me bickering with someone over my attacks, as they either work or do not.

I do not know what will happen after I click post, but honestly, I don't know if I should care much. I hope for an environment that contains more respect for RPers and nations, I fear that I'll just get rolled a second time, but well. I actually wouldn't even mind if Cent limits my military, which I guess will happen, given I have little intention to go on any offensive anyway. My last war is mostly based on these thoughts, given I feel no reason to fight Cent. Athens would win, better to end it with less dead and as soon as possible, so I can actually end the civil war and do something of some meaning again. Or at least more meaning than this weeks curbstomp. I have no reason to prove myself over trying to fend against the inevitable.

Thus, I wish you a good day,
Adieu,

[i]Evangeline[/i]

[Triyun]

You're imposing your own interpretations of political interest on others. All war on CN RP is based on political interest except for friendly skirmishes. You're just clouded in your own political views to ignore what others percieve as their political interest.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1338908169' post='2977514']
You're imposing your own interpretations of political interest on others. All war on CN RP is based on political interest except for friendly skirmishes. You're just clouded in your own political views to ignore what others percieve as their political interest.
[/quote]
An accusation, a statement, an insult, no argumentation. Didn't expect any more or less from you.

[Triyun]

Not really. Your argument just is entirely based on the idea that you know what is in someones head and thus doesn't require that long a response. I don't believe that you have the capability to know what the perception or power calculus is in the head of any of your adversaries. There is a difference between someone acting in rational self interest, and you agreeing with the conclusion and logic of that. You need to stop being so clouded by your own ideological blinders on this one and simply accept this is how people perceive the world, accept it, and adjust your plans accordingly. You cannot be the thought police.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

There is a difference between power politics of individuals and those of nations. What I see here is the typical hard approach you could expect when you have a bunch of people with some having an inflated ego, with no cost associated to go to war, apart from the time to write a post. It's not the politics of a nation that actually has to pay for armaments procurement costs, has to send its members to fight the wars, has to deal with the logistical strain and everything. Not to even talk on the reason why nations try to keep peace between nuclear capable nations. I may not know everyones personal motives, but I do know that there are enough people who fight wars for their personal motives as RPers, not for any motives their nation would realistically have. And this much is obvious. I'm not the thought police, but I love how you try to devalue my point this much. After all, if you'd stand by your own words... this is how I perceive politics and I wonder why you are so adamant that I impose it on others, when all I did was express it.

[Triyun]

There is a reason why people so oppose a ballistic missile shield IRL. They view it as destabilizing to the peace between nuclear nations. We have a lot of those shields and much smaller arsenals to defeat.

[Markus Wilding]

The problem with your last argument is we're all just one person behind the screen (except for JED/Ty and maybe someone else i've forgotten) controlling a virtual nation. We don't have to consult anyone on what we do...we write about what our characters are going through and we write the responses of our advisers, who, in reality, are simply more characters who are various aspects of our personalities.

So, saying "there's a difference between power politics of individuals and those of nations" holds no water, because we all are [b]one[/b] person RPing a [b]multitude[/b] of characters. What you're saying with this:

[quote]It's not the politics of a nation that actually has to pay for armaments procurement costs, has to send its members to fight the wars, has to deal with the logistical strain and everything[/quote]

directly contradicts your earlier point of

[quote]I'd be better served to play Hearts of Iron III than to be here, given that game has about as much (if not actually less) military focus[/quote]

because if you'd rather play HOI3 than be on here, why are you thinking of logistics and armament costs? Why not save that for the war simulator instead of the nation simulator?

EDIT: Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is what I got from your posts.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Markus Wilding

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1338912193' post='2977555']
The problem with your last argument is we're all just one person behind the screen (except for JED/Ty and maybe someone else i've forgotten) controlling a virtual nation. We don't have to consult anyone on what we do...we write about what our characters are going through and we write the responses of our advisers, who, in reality, are simply more characters who are various aspects of our personalities.

So, saying "there's a difference between power politics of individuals and those of nations" holds no water, because we all are [b]one[/b] person RPing a [b]multitude[/b] of characters. What you're saying with this:



directly contradicts your earlier point of



because if you'd rather play HOI3 than be on here, why are you thinking of logistics and armament costs? Why not save that for the war simulator instead of the nation simulator?

EDIT: Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is what I got from your posts.
[/quote]
Markus, what I meant with the comparison, is that if I want to RP just a country's war aspect, I'd go to HoI. Actually, HoI penalises one with dissent, for declaring a war, if one isn't a totalitarian interventionist hellhole (not that HoI is the perfect reflection of reality though). But in CNRP, there is an RP, meaning Role-play and if it is that I have to RP a nation, I better also RP differing views within the nation. It's a nation, not an anthill. I know, it may be hard, but if everything has to be ogh so realistic, this would be a good beginning. Because, I've really got less to criticise on magic Germans or Italians or for gods sake Inuit showing up outside their normal country, than with the 100% approval rating and extreme hivemind mentality the mixup of OOC personal interest and IC national interest creates.

It is the challenge of a nation RP to reflect the movements of a nation after all. Else, I'd be for just giving every person one character, one weapon that is based on their Nation Strength and make it a giant Battle Royale.

Triyun: It suffices for one 20 Mt ICBM to hit the middle of Tokyo and 20% of the Japanese are dead or injured. With our awesome missile defense, and 25 ICBMs+2 a day with WRC, it's not hard to exceed casualty rates of WWII in a week. And afterwards I want to see the country that just goes on as if nothing had happened. Because even in real life, it's not the fact that a nuclear power has thousands of bombs that causes most of the deterrence, but the fact it has a realistic chance of hitting with at least a few. That there are thousands just makes it more likely to get through, that there is a missile shield in real life is a problem as the missile shield may either have already a hihj enough shoot-down rate, or it sets a precedence.

[Triyun]

I would disagree with your assessment completely. It makes one pause for nuclear war, but in the early days of the Cold War where there was a distinct possibility that the US could wipe out the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal in large measure early on lead to an increase in tensions for nuclear war. There were a number of prominent people who advocated for a first strike up through the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the 1970s it became clear that the Soviets were looking to take a position of building a debilitating first strike. You can act as though the chance for Tokyo to get hit would be a deterrent, and in some cases it would. But it really wouldn't in a lot of other cases. Further your assuming in crisis escalation that both sides would go nuclear right away. I don't think thats a fair assumption in CN RP, or in some IRL scenarios (though in others it is). I'd argue the much bigger deterrence between say China and the US in the Taiwan Crisis (a clear case where the US can decapitate the current land based Chinese strategic arsenal easily), is interdependence economically. I think the MAD example of [i]mutual[/i] assured destruction is really only applicable to US-Russian Relations. Either of those powers could fight and win a nuclear war against any other nuclear power but choose not to, for other reasons (compelling reasons but different reasons).

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Yeah, because we in CNRP know how many nations don't press the red button, if it was not preplanned not to. Also, the red button is a non-option for many, because like in Taiwan, a conventional war remains limited. I'd say if either would outright go for annexing the other, the red button pretty much is going to get pressed. But we in CNRP lead limited wars entirely. Right?

[Triyun]

Even in some total wars some people don't want to RP the penalty for nuclear war if they reroll. Still leads to a same calculus. Happened multiple times, other times against a sustained coalition missile defense shield, the nuclear attacks been ineffective. I just don't think you can compare the deterrent effects nukes have in this game versus IRL. I know from personal experience you can plan a total near conventional war against a number of nuclear armed adversaries and for the most part take very few nuclear hits, mostly concentrated against military targets rather than population centers.

Actually that brings up another point. A large part of nuclear strategy is often hitting military targets rather than civilian ones. With fewer nukes, a lot more of those nukes if used by most sensible commanders are going to be soaked up against major military installations rather than targeting population centers. Not to mention if its a defender on the ground a preferred historical tactic here is the use of nuclear mines to stop zerg rushes.

I'm not saying nuclear war is pretty, I just think that you're putting a calculus on the table that not everyone would subscribe too and may not be the optimal one for prevailing in a conflict.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Triyun

[Evangeline Anovilis]

You know, you still do not address the main point. People argue that the preplan rule penalises the attacker. But really, in a world where a good lot of wars is just created by land hoarders for the sake of land hoarding it I actually see no reason not to penalise attackers into not being able to just press for total annexation. As stated, there are those, who seem to see their sole purpose being to antagonise and spread. War may be nice once in a while. But I see no reason when it's like most wars these days. There is some crappy RP fabricating a casus belli, the war itself is the most boring listing of troop movements ever seen, the outcome is the stomping in of yet another state that may actually have been bothered to think about their internal affairs. Trolling of people, RPing a warmongering megalomaniac or just trying to bring tension into the world. It all has its time and place, but hell, in some cases, I think it has gone too far. Of course there cannot be a peace mode for CNRP (apart from locking, if all is calm and RL is upcoming), but as it is now, where people antagonise the world, with RP that I'd doubt that it could be considered well, it's a nuissance.

It reminds me of the character killing issue and I think if I get rolled, I should have to have the right to get a decent effort be put into making it adequately readable for more than other militarymaniacs that get a hard-on when they hear terms like HDRM, AESA radar or shoot and scoot pattern. This is a goddamn RP, where we should be proudly creating a story in a partly cooperative effort. Not some massive multiplayer grand strategy game where our purpose is to win. I think, one reason we got this massive amount of OOC ranting may be, that this is being neglected to the extreme.

Now, I will also address it: The IC/OOC crossing in the alliance system. You may have mentioned the US-Japanese relations as an example of change in approach, but really... That was after the US could be sure that Japan was broken down to a size that would no longer threat US domination of the Pacific. At the outbreak of WWII, the IJN had 10 aircraft carriers, vs the USN's 7. Now the US has almost a dozen supercarriers, while the Japanese have as pride of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces a helicopter carrier. I think there are more reasons than just a regime change there (not to mention, Showa Tenno is Showa Tenno). and Kankou does have a point, when she criticises that. It is a bit strange that one day Zeonist Grand Papua is considered worthy of getting rolled by Germans that travel around half of the world, then, player chgange and it gets inst-invited into a MDAP bloc. One of many cases. Of course you may try to find some reasoning behind it again, but then, I think people can look at CNRP history and see by themself whether my argument is baseless or not. Inbefore I get once again called the Thought Police.

One may however think, it is quite stupid to argue about wether there is enough IC reason for some alliances or not. Because honestly, in my humble opinion (that I may have without being called names for it), what certain people here are doing is gaming the system. Just like others game the system to abuse the preplan rule, we can be sure, that if an RPer wants a war or alliance, they will fabricate the reasoning for this, if no decent reason is around. Of course, partly it is justified, given we always try to be on good terms with friends and we always are those that influence relationships by RP, fabricating the reasons for practically everything we do, but there are some cases, where I'd say it is not justified, like the insta-drops or -raises to relations after RPer changes that are done by some people here.

[Lestari]

I agree with the majority of the post.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1338930691' post='2977817']
I agree with the majority of the post.
[/quote]
I agree with this post, surprisingly.
And as said in the other thread, everyone's silly.

[Triyun]

We used Imperial Japanese Troops in China and Indochina to maximize our position against communist insurgencies there. Yes we put in Article 9, but we never really forced Japan to abide by it. Its not the US that today is encouraging Japan not to rearm, its domestic politics. We've provided them with ballistic missile defense and will be equipping them with a fifth generation fighter. I don't think the argument that we ensured Japan is feeble before allying them really holds up to vigorous scrutiny. Its a matter of interest. We perceived our interest to be that after Imperial Japan was defeated we did not want the Soviet Union and later Communist China to dominate North East Asia. Therefore we allied with Japan, even if Japanese relations with the Guomindang or South Korea our other two allies weren't the best. National interest superceded other things.

In regards to Papua in my view national interest there also superceded. The previous regimes both the faux Chinese and Zeonists were obviously hostile trying to coopt Tianxia ideology and were obviously hostile. The new group was moderate and offered to allow Tianxia forces in to help win the fight against our enemies. That doesn't mean we see eye to eye on everything but we had a strong strategic alignment and an opportunity to pick up some geopolitical yardage so we did it. It was pretty strongly in our national self interest to do that. Besides with Tianxia troops already in place, ensuring a friendly regime becomes a much easier thing materially speaking.

In regards to acroynms, I was pretty sure a simple google search can find these things. I don't really know what the issue is there. I don't think you can really argue that many military powers these days only do military stuff and never do other types of RP. I just don't think you can, however, you don't have much business dictating to others how their characters behave and then claim nobody can talk to you about how you've had the same monarch in three separate nations in completely different parts of the world. I'm sorry but thats not at all equitable standard. Further if certain nations are politically intolerable, I think its an issue that should be resolved IC. It creates good story.

[Expletive Deleted]

OOC: CNRP. 19th century politics. 20th century tactics. 21st century technology.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I had made a more ellaborative post first, will see how the second attempt goes, after backup killed it.

[quote]The previous regimes both the faux Chinese and Zeonists were obviously hostile trying to coopt Tianxia ideology and were obviously hostile.[/quote]

This sentence I liked the most out of the post. Mainly, because to me, it reflects the treatment of Grand Papua. Grand Papua, as a Socialist and later Zeonist state, I hardly see it being hostile. What I see are two things, Kankou's hostility in OOC interaction towards you and you painting Grand Papua as hostile ICly. From an Ic point of view, the regime in Grand Papua may have changed, but it is hardly to the point to warrant the change in policy, except one knows who RPed the nations. The argument Kankou cooptedyour ideology is what you picked to discredit the Grand Papuan regime as a hostile force in the world, while most they did down there was live in peace, mostly like Lavo does now, just maybe a bit more active. But it is typical for the aforementioned convenient creation of reasons to just roll people one doesn't like OOCly, just as Kankou claims OOC to be an extension of IC by other means, it seems some here see IC as an extension of OOC by other means. That there was someone who arrested akeiko and then claimed to release her should Kankou leave Asia does not help this point.

That you dig out Dalian to attempt to disprove my point is also nice, but please, don't falsify her record. Dalian de Vicidalia was monarch of one country, two if you count her status as vassal of France (which can't be counted really). Her position in Vicidalias nobility, I think is hardly unreasonable, that she became French nobility after France annexed Vicidalia is also a bit hard to claim to be unreasonable, especially given the cultural similarity.On Dalians times in Croatia, I once again bring forth the fact that if we look at who sits on European thrones, how many native houses are there? Oranje-Nassau in England, Bernadotte in Sweden, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha all over Europe, Aosta was the last real Croatian royal dynasty and came from Italy. That an ocean lies between France and Vicidalia does only create a cultural boundary in the heads of people that priorise land masses over cultural boundaries and if I compare it with people following the most wicked ideologies and regimes I've ever seen, then I don't think that Dalian was such a weird case. Not to speak that just as she entered office, Croatia was attacked for entirely different reasons. It was rolled, robbed of its treasury, stripped of its souvereignity, occupied and treated like WWII Japan. I think a certain loyalty does come into existence if you stick through this together. But enough of this, given you obviously feel hurt about a Vicidalian French noble ruling Croatia, given you brought it up, despite the fact that it doesn't really infringe on anyone. Which is also the main difference to what my argument originally was. While people can conveniently ignore who rules that small almost city-state at the Adriatic Sea, it is a bit hard to ignore when someone overflies your territory with 6th generation fighters, bombs the hell out of your nation and rolls the tanks through your fields. The level of infringement between my choice of leader and someones aggressive belligerence is entirely different.

Especially, as it does not just hit politically intolerable states. Grand Papua was a humanitarian crisis, but can you say the same on CANADA? Or Communist Australia? It hits countries not for what they are, but for who they are and this I think is hardly unproblematic. Not to mention, you claim war creates good RP. I disagree. It doesn't. At times it does, like when Sarah attacked Curri. They however, worked something out midway through and created RP around it and also afterwards, till Curry freed himself with a nice RP. It was actually readable. Something most wars are not and most warmongering nations are not best known for their "quality RP".

Because you were so kind to bring forth Dalian de Vicidalia, I shall return the favour and bring as example Tianxia. From what I saw, Tianxian RP is mostly centered around 6 aspects: Social events and RPs with friendly RPers, Challenging Lynneth in space, TSI diplomacy, Antagonising and Pressuring other RPers, Developing military technology, Rolling other RPers. I listed it according to how much story they create. And I have to say, all RP that is actually not just you throwing around hard power is not even happening in Tianxia, but mostly interwoven into other peoples RP initiatives. what actually comes from Tianxia are at best annoying semi-trollish communiques that make me doubt it has great effort but into it, but regularly disrespects people, military build-up and military movements. Tianxia I count to the most disastrous regimes for RP I know. Last thing happening within Tianxia that actually was not just this aforementioned categories was the Emperor and the Katana, which died off and became an arrest for Akeiko. And this is to a large part typical for warmongering nations. If I contrast this with, say Marscurian Siberia, where someone actually works on cultural aspects of a nation, on the economy, on the interaction and everything, I wonder how it could be that it could be taken serious that it was the person behind Tianxia claiming Canada did not RP up to its territory. From what I saw and still see, JED and Ty did and still do more in their own territory than Tianxia, without overstepping their borders, rolling others on a regular basis. If you roll a nation, you roll all RP that could still come from it, you kill of possible stories. If you then, just boringly bomb it to pieces, annex it and one-post integrate the population, to then request it be coloured like the rest of ones Empire, then I wonder if it is morally justified that this was done. I see that at times, people are in conflict over the same spot of land and may want to RP in it. Then I know why it should not be that one can just own it and go to some peace mode to protect it, but if war is just used to crush people RPing without doing much harm to anyone, and afterwards all RP in the area is dead, then I do not think this is right. Maybe, we'd be better off, if some land-hoarders actually tried to RP something civilly within their borders, instead of looking always on what to annex next.

Maybe Tianxia had more internal RP in the past, before I joined. I know, the amount of RP gradually declined over the time I was here, but by now, I see it as pretty dead. Also, given this is an OOC problem, suggesting to solve it ICly is not the right thing to do, in my humble opinion. Especially, as troops are not tied to the quality of RP, but to your nation stats, that can protect the inactivity rather well.

[Isaac MatthewII]

I generally agree with this post, since the Tanis "war?" I have done a lot to try to prevent these types of things.

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1338908169' post='2977514']
You're imposing your own interpretations of political interest on others. All war on CN RP is based on political interest except for friendly skirmishes. You're just clouded in your own political views to ignore what others percieve as their political interest.
[/quote]
Wars in CNRP are sparked by as little things as a ship being sunk. You don't see real life countries attacking each other every time an aggressive move is made.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I should note...Real wars have been started over a ship being sunk...Spanish American war, for example.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339360343' post='2980348']
I should note...Real wars have been started over a ship being sunk...Spanish American war, for example.
[/quote]
Well, it was a warship sunk by what was perceived as a mine at the time.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Just saying, that's actually one of the more reasonable excuses I've seen used for war in this here game.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339360343' post='2980348']
I should note...Real wars have been started over a ship being sunk...Spanish American war, for example.
[/quote]

Well to be fair, modern warfare and politics are a lot different then the warfare and politics of the time.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1339360343' post='2980348']
I should note...Real wars have been started over a ship being sunk...Spanish American war, for example.
[/quote]

Well to be fair, modern warfare and politics are a lot different then the warfare and politics of the time.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1339394533' post='2980652']
Well to be fair, modern warfare and politics are a lot different then the warfare and politics of the time.
[/quote]

Vietnam war as well, and the Maddox didn't even sink.