Jump to content

Complacency


Unknown Smurf
 Share

Recommended Posts

One goal that has remained consistent for every alliance leader across the board, in this realm or another, is the protection of his or her alliance. On Bob, some leaders have done this through conquest, by defeating, or at least shaming & isolating, every potential threat while others have done this by diplomacy and securing their borders with many friends. 

 

By and large we have come to a point where almost every alliance is connected enough where war is "best" avoided or the alliance is irrelevant enough that 'wasting' resources on them is taking away from what you can use on the 'real' threats down the line. But what real threats are there down the line? I mean there is little that we consider CBworthy. Spying is one of the few that has stuck around throughout the years, but in this day and age there is little worth spying on as everyone has become defensive rather than proactive in their foreign policy. Even if one spent the time and energy to get into ones government channels, there is nothing really there worth stealing. That is because we have become complacent and instead of creating a war, we wait for the war to come to us. It makes sense, we have more MDPs than MAPs, and it's in our best interest to be attacked rather than attack. If I were to go into any government channel I would find only defensive plans and I can't attack you just to test your fortifications (even though I want to sometimes). 

 

Where is the passion? Where is the drive to roll X or Y or Z. The want to be the best? Why are you okay playing second fiddle to a superpower? I understand that 90% of people on this planet are reasonable, and it's quite easy to become friendly with almost anyone in any alliance, but just because the two of you are friends, does not mean your alliances cannot be on opposite sides of a war. It doesn't mean you can't actively plot against each other. Instead of huddling up with all your friends who are very good at nation building or diplomacy or whatever passes for skill in this realm, why don't you have a draft? Send one team to one remote corner of the world and the other to another remote corner of the world. A year from now you will give each other a CB, lets see who can win. 

 

Some of you are reading this and thinking, well if I was in charge of my alliance I would do things differently, or if my alliance was in charge, I would do things differently or if my alliance was stronger we would roll dbdc them. Well plot as if you were stronger, play as if you were a superpower, do what you wish to do in your little corner of the world. If someone tries to do something about it, stand up and fight. You may lose a dozen wars, but at least you're doing what you want to do. And maybe, just maybe, it'll inspire some of these older players into ending the complacency.

 

If your friends (allies or members) don't want to do this, maybe it's time to reevaluate your friends. Maybe playing it safe gets you another 10, 20, 50 million NS on your side, but really what is the point of having 50 million NS if you can't use it? 

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's really only about 5 alliances that actually add anything to this game on their own. Now, I understand not everyone has the drive or wants to be a major player, but a little more drive out of everyone would be good.

The problem with this would be that anyone who isn't already on The List would get their ideas shot down fairly quickly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being "on top" doesn't really get you a whole lot of rewards, though you need to put in a sizable chunk of work to stay on top.

 

The risks associated with being knocked to the bottom are fairly large, especially when CN typically has a very long memory.

 

With no one really gunning for each other anymore, and with war being more frowned-upon and damaging than it was years ago, you don't need to give your rivals a knock-out blow to assure your own security anymore.  The risk vs. reward just isn't there for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really that wars are more damaging, it's that they're so darned inconclusive. The difference between winning and losing doesn't exist like it used to. We live in an age where everyone insists that white peace is theirs by right, and by and large, the community accepts that. The best that you can do is actual war damage and that's mitigated by nations on the losing side quickly falling down into the winning side's less well armed, less experienced nations.

The grudges don't exist like they used to because they happened so long ago under such different political and statistical circumstances that they're pointless to work out anymore. After Equilibrium, everyone accepted the alliance build they had when it ended. Very few are trying to improve on it in a meaningful way, because they realize that where they ended up was where they are strongest. The people they don't care for are in another tier and they're in their own tier and any attempts to work it out only see nations that are stranded getting hit while the bulk of the alliances just stare at each other. That's boring as hell.

That gap only increases because the rulers most willing to create drama are the ones that put the least effort into addressing the tier disparity themselves - and this goes for the extreme upper end of the NS ladder as well as the extreme lower end. If we were all trying to grow our nations to take each other on, we'd have something. It's not the wars that were fun for a lot of us, it was the process of growing our alliances to be prepared to win those wars rather than figuring out the best we could do to keep from being swamped in this or that tier. So many alliances aren't even building to do maximum damage to others anymore, they're building to outlast damage being done to them. That's your problem. Find a way to end wars that makes being victorious achievable and have an objective value and you'll have something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really only about 5 alliances that actually add anything to this game on their own. Now, I understand not everyone has the drive or wants to be a major player, but a little more drive out of everyone would be good.

 

This'll be interesting, but...

 

Which 5, would you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quite the opposite. I'm advocating that you go one round of war to stand up for your prinicpals and then sue for peace rather than just not doing anything. 

I support your view on this. Its better to be willing to stand for something and do as much damage as you can throughout the war, rather than be a pushover who people walk all over.

 

When I see Senators of colors voting for measures which hamper the military ability of their color sphere for a month, what comes to mind for me is how do they know there won't be reason for war within that month period? Do they plan to let others walk all over them to avoid war if an issue of conflict does come up or are they confident everyone is so passive these days, nobody starts wars anymore or responds with war when an issue of conflict does arise?

 

A lot of alliances look for every excuse they can think of not to defend an ally when they are being attacked; I view each time an alliance doesn't assist an ally as a missed opportunity for them and when my allies are under attack I see it as an opportunity show how I respond to such situations..

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since crime rate was introduced, I've decided I like my infra.  Screw war, hail infra.  Make land or tech useful in combating crime rate or let me buy yet another billion dollar wonder that helps with it and maybe it's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This'll be interesting, but...

 

Which 5, would you say?

NPO, NG, Polar, NSO, DBDC, maybe FAN every now and then.

 

Although right now there's not much to speak of, so that essentially makes these historical examples more than anything.

 

There just aren't many around who stir the pot enough anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO, NG, Polar, NSO, DBDC, maybe FAN every now and then.

 

Although right now there's not much to speak of, so that essentially makes these historical examples more than anything.

 

There just aren't many around who stir the pot enough anymore.

 

I'd disagree with 4 of those 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO, NG, Polar, NSO, DBDC, maybe FAN every now and then.

 

Although right now there's not much to speak of, so that essentially makes these historical examples more than anything.

 

There just aren't many around who stir the pot enough anymore.

 

I dunno, I think you will have to give examples as to how each stir the pot in their own way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're living in the post-apocalypse.  We are small groups of irradiated survivors living in heavily fortified bunker systems, periodically firing nuclear weapons at rival tribes when they look at us funny.

 

There's nothing left that is worth fighting over, everything has been nuked into oblivion and we don't even expect that what we do build will last longer than the end of the year.  We fight because we are crazy, and feel like it when the tribe two mountains over steals one of our goats.  We all expect to be attacked with utter ruthlessness and unmerciful bombardment, without rules of any kind, so said ruthless destruction makes no difference at all.

 

This is the consequence of creating such a dystopic post apocalyptic world.  People don't fight because there is nothing worth fighting over, and you can't win in modern war, rather one side loses slightly less than the other one.

 

The only winning move in this post apocalyptic world is not to play.

Edited by Ogaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

War only erupts when there is a good reason for it. I stated months ago that the purpose of the last war was to establish an era of Global Stability, and we are all enjoying the outcome of the last war today.

 

I am aware that there are some who were whining about how long the war was then, who are now whining about the long summer we enjoy today. That is unfortunate but irrelevant. With Neo-Imperialism crushed, now is the time to breathe and thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the board. NG isnt making the moves IRON is. NG had a spot awhile ago but now, not so much.

NG actually helped the beginning of IRON getting not-boned happen. IRON is going to overtake them, but I need them to be a consistent player and to not fuck this up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your examples laughable. All the alliances you list are reactionary alliances, not "movers and shakers."

 

I see more from RIOT than any of the alliances you have listed. 

You are telling me those alliances dont run this game? Even if they only run it by reaction, they still run it. Take DBDC for example, when they move, other upper/super tier AAs follow. When NpO signs a treaty other must look for a way to block said treaty. RIOT ,for lack of a better word, are irrelevant. When they move, no one cares. When they sign a treaty, no one will care. When they go to war, all they do is provide popcorn. If they tried to build a coalition, it would be shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...