Neo Uruk Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 MACHIAVELLIAN ALLIANCESThese alliances seem to have an "Ends justify the means" vibe. Not saying they aren't good allies -- they are just political players.C&G BlocPaging Schattenmann GOOD GUYSOf course everyone thinks they are good guys, but these alliances tend to have an easygoing, lawful, good-guyness to them. Again, your mileage may vary. And the Good Guys don't seem to win a lot of wars, TBH.PPOCan you keep your personal bias out? The inclusion of C&G under "Machiavellian" and a largely politically inactive and fairly detached alliance into "Good Guys" category just irks me for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) Can you keep your personal bias out? The inclusion of C&G under "Machiavellian" and a largely politically inactive and fairly detached alliance into "Good Guys" category just irks me for some reason. No, I can't keep my personal opinion out. That's why I said "Your mileage may vary," and said others should chime in. "Twas only supposed to be a shotgun view of the CN political landscape. To your criticisms: I would say that, politically active or not, the general feeling is that PPO doesn't cause a lot of grief. They generally jump in for their allies, and have offered protection to some floundering alliances who needed it when they didn't have to. Maybe there's a line of alliances that have a grudge against PPO, but I haven't really seen them. Generally "good guy" behavior. Perhaps "Machiavellian" was the wrong term for a category, as it is a bit of a loaded term. Perhaps "Political Operators" would have been better. C&G was among the best, and it kept them on top for quite awhile. Looks like your mileage varies, Rey. This thread is your golden chance to lay it all out for for the new guy objectively, as only you can. If we could NOT turn this into a C&G or NPO or MK thread, or a who is a shit alliance thread, it would be great -- the OP just asked about the political landscape. Be interesting to see what other people come up with. Edited February 15, 2014 by Walshington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 I'm just saying, classifying your friends as a "good guy" alliance simply because you can is not the best thing. TLR could easily fit the description you gave PPO, just people aren't as widely indifferent about them. Not having people hate you does not mean you are a beacon of light.If you were going to make that the criteria, there were several alliances more deserving than even R&R. Kashmir itself could probably be placed into your "good guy" category; they went to war with Armpit Platoon and (if I recall correctly) gave them protection for a while after.And my list would be "NSO" and "people I hate" as for the political landscape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 At the end of the day, how alliances are perceived, depends on your point of view. The most important thing is not politics (let us be frank, the majority of players do not give a damn about the subject, just the sad few who post here), it is community. Each alliance is its own community and you need to look at the group and decide, do I fit in here and is this the place I call my CN Home. The game itself is as boring as watching paint dry, but if you get into a good community, it becomes a whole new and interesting world. I cannot tell you which is right for you, I do not know you, or what makes you tick. So my only advice is look first for alliances whose theme speaks to you and try them out. You may be lucky and find one the first time, or you may have to look around. Either way, you will get to meet a lot of interesting people. Have fun in your journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pericles8th Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Most alliances are neither good nor evil (or are both) -- they are simply tied into a web of treaties. The typical global war on Planet Bob starts as either an incident (or pre-planned event) between two-four alliances, and everyone else gets dragged in through a Schlieffen-esque series of treaty ties. So two alliances, who have absolutely nothing against each other, may end up fighting each other over a cause neither of them gives two !@#$% about. Really. That's not even a cynic's view -- that is the truth. I fought the Blue Turtle Alliance as a member of Hooligans, and I don't think any of the guys I fought had any better understanding of why I was was fighting them than I did. Which was zero. C'est la guerre. Though not terribly up on CN politics, I can give you a rough idea of the landscape. Others mileage may vary, but here are some examples. Someone chime in if I'm way off base. THE NEUTRALS Don't sign treaties (much), and don't go to war (much) GPA TDO Pax Corvus GOP OBR THE RAIDERS Every world needs villains, and I think these guys would be considered the "black hats" because they have a history of raiding smaller alliances who don't have protection. Many do this, but these are a few alliances most famous for it. GOONs Non Grata Umbrella (actually not sure how much they raid, but they were allies with the other two and tend to get lumped in) DOOMSQUAD CLASSIC BAD GUYS MK NPO Kind of known for their villainy, maybe even reveled in it. MK is gone, however, and NPO has changed I guess. Still, a frequent insult hurled is "___________ is the new NPO." POLITICAL OPERATORS These alliances seem to have an "Ends justify the means" vibe. Not saying they aren't good allies -- they are just political players. TOP IRON C&G Bloc ALLIANCES THAT GENERALLY ENGENDER GOODWILL Of course everyone thinks they are good guys, but these alliances tend to have an easygoing, lawful, good-guyness to them. Again, your mileage may vary. And the Good Guys don't seem to win a lot of wars, TBH. PPO R&R MHA RIA OFF THE TREATY WEB Some alliances deliberately stay off the larger treaty web, but are NOT neutral. Kashmir Kaskus SRA URON As a new guy, and a self professed idealist, I would recommend staying clear of neutrals, bad guys, Political operators and off the treaty web types. Here's where I would go: You want a big, established alliance? R&R You want a smaller, more homey alliance? PPO You want something a little off the beaten path? Kashmir. Read their charter (or whatever they call it). If it's for you, it'll speak to you. You're Indonesian and you want to fight a war every three months? PM me -- have I got the place for you! I think you really can't go wrong with any of those -- read up on them on the wiki. All are active, will help you grow and learn the game, and satisfy your professed idealism. I've fought them all, oddly enough -- maybe that's the best way to get to know someone. Good people. Welcome to CN. EDITED TO CHANGE CATEGORY NAMES SO REY WILL STOP POSTING ITT Well done, it takes guts to post something like this and you wrote it with alot of style. Obviously some of the more bored and lifeless rulers will critique every letter of this post but this guy gives you props for a job well done. I may or may not agree with some of your choices but unitl I (or anyone else for that matter) sits down and creates my own list I'll keep my critisism to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) Are the alliances in this game divided over political issues (democracy vs. totalitarianism, capitalism vs. socialism, what have you)? I can't find manifestos in any single place, so it is hard to tell the political shape of the world. I'm a new and idealistic nation that wants to be on the side of what it thinks of as "good". Alliances here aren't divided over that kind of political issues. Divisions are mostly over old grudges, petty revenge, beating down the competition, abusing the weak, and similar edifying values. There are a few alliances themed around similar values to those you listed. They don't apply them on the international arena, but at least you can roleplay them in the inner life of the alliance. ... Regarding ther internal structure, alliances around here stand at some variable point between the following two extreme archetypes: 1) The Flock of Sheep: An alliance made up mostly of players with little-to-no in-alliance activity. Ruled by a shepherd with some level of delusion of grandeur, assisted by a variable number of shepherd boys and dogs. Most of them tend to have a democratic structure, but it means little: unable to think by themselves, the sheep will vote just as the shepherd says, like in real-world democracies. This archetype tends to be synonymous with big alliance, decadence and poor war performance. But not always. Even sheep can develope an spirit de corps, and some have grown sharp claws. If the flock has an effective goverment structure, their mass tactics can be quite effective. 2) The Band of Brothers: An alliance made up mostly of active players who provide a lot of inner-life to the group, ruled by a primus inter pares. Some are dictatorships, most function as meritocracies, some work as democracies. It doesn't mind, because the players are hasty to express their oppinions, and the smart ruler will take them into account. This archetype tends to be synonymous with small aliance and great war performance. But not always. Some of those groups can develope a "God Complex", and end up as buffons when they finally get what was coming to them. Others may degenerate into death cults, masochisticaly happy to be rolled together all over again until they fade into nothingness. ... Few alliances are perfect examples of one of those archetipes. Even the best bands of brothers will drag along some sheep, and most flocks will have a sizable, active band of brothers running the place. ... Regarding their foreign policy stance, alliances fall within one of the following types: 1) Neutrals. They are above the whims of the political game, and do not get involved. Good if you like to watch the lawn grow, or your alliance just collapsed and you need some vacation time before deciding where to go next. Bad if you want to enjoy the militar and political aspects of the game. 2) Schemers. They are here to "play the game". They seek to dominate Bob politics and be on the winning side of wars - at least, for a while. When on top, they are prone to "might makes right" mentality. When beaten, they are prone to play the moralist card. In any case, they tend to develope Delusions of Grandeur. 3) Raiders. They like to portay themselves as mighty warriors who thrive for combat. Truth is, they are mostly schoolyard bully-wanabbes who like one-sided battles and depise a fair fight. They are prone to develope God Complexes. 4) Bros-before-hoes. These alliances have two main objectives: Survival, and Take as many casualties as possible for their allies. Not necessary in that order of preference. Yep, their objectives are contradictory, but Bob is a complex place. They are prone to degenerate into Death Kults. 5) Rogues. They have taken too much. Bob has broken their minds. They thrive only to break the game, or just go out with a bang. Some of them are able to overcome the illness and became functional members of the community again. Most do not, and fade away into their madness. The good thing is, if you end up in this category, you aren't prone to develope any mental ailment, because you are already crazy. You can only improve! ... And that's basically all you need to know in order to start. If you want to know more, read about "Global Wars" in the Cyber Nations Wiki. Reading the wiki entries of some alliances may help you decide where to go first. But know that you are likely to run through many places before finding your home. PS EDIT: Good work, Walshington. Great read. :) Edited February 15, 2014 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Good guys: Umbrella, International, VE, GOONS, TOP, TOOTR, MHA, MI6, Valhalla. Among alliances in that list, the best place for new players might be VE, GOONS, or MHA. VE is usually a player in the global scale and you'll get nation building, a nice community, and plenty of opportunities for war. GOONS has a great community and a great place to be if you want to try your hand at raiding other nations for spoils at an early age. MHA is themed around the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and is a fun place to be for the community, less war oriented than the other two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 3) Raiders. They like to portay themselves as mighty warriors who thrive for combat. Truth is, they are mostly schoolyard bully-wanabbes who like one-sided battles and depise a fair fight. They are prone to develope God Complexes.To be fair, we only do it to get a good laugh, its fun seeing some cry of something so small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Walshington's post is a great analysis, but I'd like to contribute a very brief breakdown of the major ideologies and philosophies of CN in a more specific manner: Neo-Imperialism: The modern ideology of Pacifica and her foederati allies, Neo-Imperialism is a desire for the power and conquest of Moo-era Pacifican imperialism. NPO is roughly parallel to Rome, and as their Francoist ideals of democratic autocracy were replaced with raw imperialism, control of their empire began to slip through their fingers. Emperor Cortath reformed the Order after the Karma war (it was during his reign I was a proud member), but his successors have slowly placed Pacifica in a reactionary position. Thus the NPO will continue to marginalize themselves until reform is again made. Lulzism and friends vs infra: Together these confused philosophies comprised the previous hegemonic ideology. Championed by the Mushroom Kingdom and CnG, Lulzism lead to global instability. Although Mushroom Kingdom's reign was longer than Pacificas, it was never as complete. Unfortunately, some of the wars waged against NPO has helped shaped Pacifica into a destructive and reactionary imperialist power again despite the reforms of Cortath. With MK gone and CnG rendered irrelevant, this ideological grouping was crippled in the Mushqaeda war which lead directly into the Disorder War. Rational State Actors: Alliances like TOP, Polar and Umbrella are beacons of hope in the dark age aftermath of the Karma War. By championing a rational approach to politics, these alliances helped crush neo-imperialism and render lulzism irrelevant. Under TOP's tutelage, alliances like GOONS are embracing reform. It is quite possible these alliances will lead the world into a new golden age of Order and Stability. Rational State Actors are predictable and careful in words and action, thus producing a stable environment for long term growth and improving the quality of the game. The Revolutionary Order Party advances this ideology on a global scale and are friends to all rational state actors. Doomism: Aptly named doomists like DBDC are the result of flaws in the gaming system. They are roughly similar to the Agent Smiths of the Matrix trilogy, exploiting weaknesses in the system to wield political power. Until the flaws in the game system are fixed, Doomists will continue to champion the idea that the game is slowly dying and we are all approaching our doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) To be fair, we only do it to get a good laugh, its fun seeing some cry of something so small. Note that I did not mention any specific names. I leave that to each one's own mileage. ;) You may also note that I scorned every one of my categories. Mine isn't a rant, but a light-hearted contribution. Edited February 15, 2014 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Well done, it takes guts to post something like this and you wrote it with alot of style. Obviously some of the more bored and lifeless rulers will critique every letter of this post but this guy gives you props for a job well done. I may or may not agree with some of your choices but unitl I (or anyone else for that matter) sits down and creates my own list I'll keep my critisism to myself."You can't criticize art unless you create it yourself" is possibly one of the worst things I've heard. Do you withhold comment when people are constantly playing music you dislike?This is a discussion forum, criticism is supposed to happen. Whether it's constructive or not is up to the person giving input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 To invent ideology where there is none, is to be trapped in your own personal fantasies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.