The history and future of alliance politics

[IYIyTh]

Needs more dynamic rulers.

[D34th]

It doesn't make any rational sense for an alliance to go paperless when it is more beneficial to have paper. Paperless politics is a pipe dream.

 

Tell that to prototype, you know that alliance with who your signed a paperless treaty who doesn't need signatures.

[Prodigal Moon]

Isolation will happen, yes, but I call that progress. It only matters if a major alliance does it. Would anyone attack IRON if they suddenly threw away all of their treaties? Doubtful. But if a micro did it, they'd be in the backalley getting their salad tossed.

 

Pretty much as you said, it goes by who makes what moves. But these days that won't happen.

 

I don't know why people keep perpetuating this idea. CoJ is one of the most polarizing alliances in the game, but for most of our existance we've had no direct ties to larger alliances, and very little back-up in terms of NS. We recently signed with Polaris, but why did we not get singled out and rolled during those years beforehand? Why are relatively small neutrals like Pax Corvus able to survive?

 

The realization that I've come to is that when you remove yourself from the web, you're no longer a part of the zero sum game between the hegemony and the weaker side. Wars in this game are wars of attrition by their fundamental nature. So any resources used up warring an alliance outside of the web is actually wasted in terms of advancing your political position, and leaves you that much weaker relative to the opposing side.

 

Of course, it gets a bit trickier if you still involve yourself in wars without a treaty. Then you risk being viewed as a part of the political balance of power, but without the protection of a power sphere.

 

Bottom line: history has shown that removing oneself from the web actually provides the surest path to uninterrupted growth.

 

Everyone is so stuck on the this binary choice of either A: trying to be on the winning side of the web or B: going completely neutral, that they've overlooked C: being a part of a powerful grouping that isn't part of the web.

 

I've been trying and failing for years to make option C a reality. Just imagine how much more interesting it would be if the current blocs were completely cut off from each other. I think we'd see much more interesting balance of power politics develop as a result. As things stand, if you're connected to the web, you're getting dragged in one way or another, and the side you're going to fall on has already been predetermined by those engineering the situation.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Paperless wouldn't further anything, but stagnation and the occasional curbstomp. We have had some of the closest wars this world has seen in its history and they have happened because people were able to maneuver an existing treaty web that gave them the knowledge of who they could count on if they were able to secure X and Y tie.

 

People go to war because they know they have good odds of winning it. Nobody would risk a war in a paperless world: too much uncertainty. Even with proverbial spies, you'd still have half the world in the dark and that's for the well informed.

 

Plus, you go paperless and I'm afraid half the alliances around here would disappear, with their leaders having nothing to do, now that they cannot sign treaties. 

[Hereno]

Tell that to prototype, you know that alliance with who your signed a paperless treaty who doesn't need signatures.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about; there are no alliances in CN named "Prototype". ;)

[Proest]

Paperless as a united endeavour is not without benefits. And removing your alliance from the web by being as unconnected as possible can work and has for alliances in the past, but for alliances like mine it's just not possible without either sitting in peace mode indefinitely or getting hit repeatedly. That's not to say that we wouldn't have anyone defending us, but generally speaking it wouldn't work to be apart from the web in the way CoJ has been (essentially paperless) unless others did it.

 

Future politics will just be the same as they are now. Just with less people.

[D34th]

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about; there are no alliances in CN named "Prototype". ;)

 

You know what I meant.

And of course there is: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Prototype

[Letterkenny]

You know what I meant.

And of course there is: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Prototype

Actually there are no results... you feeling alright there man?

 

 

Strange how we started from "cancelling all treaties" and we ended with "down with the neutrals" (i.e. with the only people that don't hoard treaties).
Fact is, this game can be played (and is played) in several different ways, and the neutrals just do it their way. The chatting plays a major role in the enjoyment (like with everyone else, I might add) but the pixels have their function too.
You can always attempt to harm their (our) pixels to show that they (we) are "unstrong", by the way.

 

C'mon, seriously? The reason we (or at least I) believe in the dream of a paperless world is because it would promote war and chaos. Obviously this means that "neutral" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Perhaps the neutrals would band together... we'd learn the hippies hoard nuclear power... who knows. But everyone would be fair game.

 

Neutrals are the unstrong, there's no need to prove that. Anyone who steps in the ring is automatically a level above the spectator, which is all the neutrals are.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Letterkenny

[jerdge]

C'mon, seriously? The reason we (or at least I) believe in the dream of a paperless world is because it would promote war and chaos. Obviously this means that "neutral" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Perhaps the neutrals would band together... we'd learn the hippies hoard nuclear power... who knows. But everyone would be fair game.

"Neutral" means "not on anyone else's side". In your scenario everyone would be neutral and neutrality would mean everything.
The idea that, just when everyone else goes neutral, the current neutrals could even just only consider to go the exact opposite way to "band together" is somewhat... sensational.

[hr]

Neutrals are the unstrong, there's no need to prove that. Anyone who steps in the ring is automatically a level above the spectator, which is all the neutrals are.

I don't disagree that the neutrals are "unstrong", if that's the meaning you associate with the (non-) word. And I don't even disagree that the neutrals' military situation has always been, and will always be necessarily precarious and risky.
You were citing "survival", anyway, and while I am sure that a lot of neutral nations would (sadly) disappear in case they (we) were mass attacked, I am also sure that a core would endure. Neutrals emerged in the very first era of CN and they (we) are not going to disappear until the end. Call it strength or not, but certainly it's survival.

[Prodigal Moon]

Actually there are no results... you feeling alright there man?

 

 

C'mon, seriously? The reason we (or at least I) believe in the dream of a paperless world is because it would promote war and chaos. Obviously this means that "neutral" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Perhaps the neutrals would band together... we'd learn the hippies hoard nuclear power... who knows. But everyone would be fair game.

 

Neutrals are the unstrong, there's no need to prove that. Anyone who steps in the ring is automatically a level above the spectator, which is all the neutrals are.

 

I have mixed feelings about neutrality as a gameplay style, but I find it really odd that you would label them "the unstrong" for their lack of participation in web politics. Boring? Maybe. But how is forgoing allies make you weaker than those who surround themselves with defenders? As long as they're out of PM they're still "in the ring" to whomever wants to take a shot at them.

 

As far as hoarding pixels go...there are maybe 5 alliances in this game that have an actual principles/values-based agenda. The rest are just sitting there, waiting for their web ties to pull them into a war for someone else's cause. Half the time those causes are just a grudge that developed the [i]previous[/i] time their ties pulled them into war (e.g., we hate X now because they demanded reps!), and not some fundamental difference. Neutrals have just as much purpose - protecting their members' security and growth - as any of these other alliances. They just cut out all the drama.

 

Personally, I think a bit of drama is what gives purpose to the growth. But it's hard to argue that a prosperous alliances should get wrapped up in mutually destructive drama just for its own sake.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Prodigal Moon