Jump to content

Wars Ought To Have Meaning


supercoolyellow
 Share

Recommended Posts

We're playing Cyber Nations. We're not playing Farmville; we're not playing Mafia Wars, and we're not playing Clan Of Wars either. We are playing a game that is almost singularly unique. Not for its game play or graphics, but for the community that we have developed, and the norms our community follows. These norms are fluid and have, and should. evolve. However, these norms are what sets us apart and make Cyber Nations a game that many of us have played for years. The norms for alliances, and how they interact create a political climate that is uniquely sophisticated and fun.

 

One of the norms we have used is the CB. It is different from most games because in most games you attack someone simply for the opportunity. They have worse stats and so you attack them. In most games these wars are pointless, and in most games you leave after a month, but here you have probably played for a much longer time. Here there are political ramifications for declaring war, and there are usually very purposeful, threshed out reasons for declaring war. However, this war has brought about the precedent that you don't need a CB to declare war. I do not believe we should let this precedent to hold.

 

For one, it ignores the cost of going to war. There are the statistical costs of war, there is also a political one; but the most important cost is our IRL time. When we fight a war, we allow things like being for an update blitz, or checking our nation several times a day to trump the opportunity to do many other things IRL. When we don't give a reason as to what we are fighting for, players will begin to ask, why are they sacrificing their time to get on re-buy troops and send cruise missiles. Its important to know what we're fighting for. It gives wars in Cyber Nations the meaning that wars in other games do not have.

 

Take a look at the NPO decleration of war on SNX

 

We do not seek revenge or  to mutilate political enemies.


We do not seek any punitive terms, be it on those that supported them on us or or those who did not.

We do not seek to force our opponents into an extended participation, or use it as an opportunity to settle any scores.

We merely seek to bring for our own version of Order, one burnt pixel at a time.

 

 

I certainly hope this is not true. I hope NPO didn't chain together three treaties to attack SNX simply because some one in their coalition asked them to. I hope that internally the members of NPO see this war differently. I hope they see the war as a chance to settle the score with the main alliances in a coalition that formed to roll them a year ago. I hope they see it as a way to get recompense for the alliances that tried to take reparations from them after that war. I was not very active and not paying much attention in Disorder, but from what I have read, some actors wanted reparations from Pacifica last war. Those are great reasons to fight a war, and based off of the industriousness that Pacifica is executing this war with, I think they might know this. However, that is not certain to me as I don't have access to their internal communications.

 

The proponents of a CBless war argue that historically CBs have been ridiculous. Indeed, they are correct. Many of the CBs we have seen are been insincere and sometimes laughable. While Polar are some of the best allies I've had the privilege to work with, take a look at their first deceleration in the Disorder War.

 

 

Many months ago it was bought to my attention that the New Sith Order and Non Grata had commenced building a coalition to attack us.

 

 

 

Literally everyone knows Disorder was not about NSO. For those in the coalition, it was a chance to repay for Pacifica for the way they led the Equilibrium coalition, which caused the Equilibrium war to be a disappointment for those that we're hoping to roll Doom House.

 

Does that mean we are left to have CBs that are insincere, or no CB at all? I don't believe either is correct. Instead, we should evolve in a different way. I call it the honest CB. Instead of cooking up CBs that everyone can see through, we should instead us CBs that are true. Take, for instance, the initial declaration of the Grudge War.

 

 

 

Nearly two years ago, the Order of the Paradox entered in a war to help the New Polar Order. We had their back, and they betrayed us when we went in to fight for them.

 

Everyone knew exactly why that war was being fought, and the reasons TOP and IRON gave, were their clear reasons to fight. This kind of CB should be the norm. These kind of CBs bring meanings to our wars.

 

I would like to point out that one thing that makes an honest CB is the foregoing of timeliness. It should not be some unwritten rule that you have to attack an enemy alliance when they commit a grievance. If you have to take time to build a coalition to obtain victory, you should be able to have that time. Its up to your enemy to try to stop you. Many of our wars are cyclical in that the actions taken in one war, lead to the true grievances in the next. CN would be better if we were honest about this instead of acting like declaring war on an alliance for their actions a year ago is something to be embarrassed about.

 

One disclaimer about this post. This is not an attempt to win PR points for this or to try to win it by OWF posting. This war was lost for my side before the first shot was even fired. It is also not an attempt to paint one alliance as good and the other as bad. This post is to paint a direction that we as a community should take.

Edited by supercoolyellow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's a silly assumption being made in saying this war was fought for no reason. No CB on the initial hit obscures all the political posturing that led to this war for some, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly believe that NPO did have a reason to hit SNX, they hit SNX, because they wanted to get ahead in the war against Polar, they knew SNX would come in, but they also knew how weak SNX was, so attacking SNX gave them the advantage of taking out one of Polar's allies so that they don't surprize them later.

 

Seriously SNX, CANCEL YOUR NpO TREATY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBless wars are honestly a step in the right direction. It makes it so we don't have to do the stupid 3 month dance waiting for a half-baked CB before a war whose outcome was decided months in advance can start. As to your other points, all wars have a purpose- damaging your enemies. Even pointless seeming wars have that as their aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think war should be more personal.  I think there should be genuine dislike of the other side.  That is what kept CN interesting for all the years.  (hear my petulant child voice now)  IRC ruined everything.

 

Everybody knows everybody.  Mostly, OOC, everybody likes, or at least is amicable, to everybody.  Great.  Quit letting that bleed into IC.

 

That's what this game really needs.  More IC seething hatred.  It would solve the problems surrounding the No CB wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would also be nice if you could beat someone up when you've got a beef with them, without the entirety of planet bob getting involved. I sorta prefer even a cooked up CB as opposed to No CB at all. Also, attacking someone with no CB is also a CB, so at least we can keep that in our back pocket once AFT gets back on our feet in about 5 years. You just wait!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody here gives a shit about the ic/ooc divide and, frankly, nobody gives a shit about the game anymore

 

we're only here playing for our friends and so our actual cbs are "alright whatever let's just do this war thing" because that's our actual OOC reasoning which has become our IC reasoning.

 

i prefer the honesty because it makes politics more accessible to the rank-and-file player, but i wish people actually bothered to have IC personas rather than just "RPing" as themselves

 

and if the idea of RP makes you lol then you're part of the problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking for every war to have a relevant CB, you're going to be continually disappointed.  In this game, there's never hardly anything really one alliance or the other do that actually deserve to be attacked for.  The game mechanics doesn't allow for something heinous to really be done for an alliance to say, enough is enough.  Sure, if a team color senator went on a sanction spree on one alliance or the other, or a spy is caught stealing information for another alliance, or even some could say "poaching" members is a plausible reason to go to war (which obviously isn't enough to cause one since MI6 was never declared on for such actions).  The reality is, there's hardly ever a real CB besides just to settle a past grudge, or some bad ending to past relations.  You act as if many of the past wars besides this one really had much of a real reason to start besides one side looking to settle a beef or a good opportunity has shown itself to weaken a possible threat in the future

 

This war, be it no CB or not, is being fought for reasons.  Many on the aggressor side of this war have their many reasons for this war to happen, and the whole "why are we fighting this war," is likely more on the losing side of conflict, not the winning.  You may look at it and ask yourself, why are we fighting this, but others have plenty of reasons to be doing so, be it settling grudges, boredom, etc.  

 

This war began without looking to scrape together some half ass CB to make a reason for it to start.  Is this a bad thing?  Unlike you, I do not see this as a bad thing.  The whole idea you're trying to push would only cause this game to become a bigger bore then what it already has, because waiting on some alliance to do some "grievance" is like watching paint dry, because there's only a few things an alliance can really do to "warrant" an attack by another alliance.  

 

In my eyes, one of those "grievances" could be some alliance just goes and attacks another.  Wouldn't that be a grievance?  So, what DS did was a grievance and gave Invicta's allies a CB to attack in defense.  There's your CB right there.  DS caused a "grievance" and thus this war started.  I have no clue what you expect an alliance to do to another to give them a good reason to attack other then a past beef.  What CB are you looking for to be substantial enough for someone to go to war with them?  Hell, if someone wanted to really start a war, one could purposely get caught spying on another to hope the victim alliance attacks the spying alliance.  But even then, what's the point?  So you go to leaps and bounds to instigate a war on purpose...how is that any different then just saying screw it, lets just declare.

 

If an alliance wants to go to war with an alliance, why go to so much trouble to force a reason for an alliance to attack, instead of just doing it? We're stuck to the confines of the game in what an alliance can do to another besides declare war/attack and !@#$ talking on OWF to instigate it.  War is driven by grudges, and one or a group of alliances seeing an opportunity to strike a enemy and get revenge for some past grudge from years ago that one side felt wronged.   

 

Waiting around, for some reasonable CB on this game to start a war is going to drive people away quicker then it already has.  We're already on a trend of having really only one major war a year because everyone knows if an alliance hit another, especially a larger alliance hitting another, is not just going to stick to just those alliances, but spread out. 

Edited by Rhizoctonia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing front DoWs with the war writ large. Each DoW need not have a meaning, because it's impossible (and pointless) to have a coalition war in which each individual front need have some greater truth attached. That's like looking at an individual piece of a jigsaw puzzle and bemoaning that it's just a few splashes of colour, without recognizing that it's in fact a part of a greater whole. That greater whole is probably Scooby Doo's left leg or something, but the point remains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The insinuation that this war established the precedent for "no CB needed" is so ignorant of reality I would have expected it to have been a Tywin thread.  Some of the first big wars in CN were started for reasons such as "taking our oxygen."  A casus belli literally is just a reason for war.  Who the frack actually cares what it is?  "I don't like you and I want to nuke you until you glow and steal your tech in the dark" is just as valid as "you peed in my friend's kool-aid and need to be punished."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with trying to get everyone to "need a legit CB" for a war is the opportunity for that ship sailed years ago. When more people actively cared about the political environment - and not just having fun - you might have been able to sail that ship. In fact it sailed several times right into torpedoes resulting in a quick sinking. There were days however when people legitimately did care about such things.

 

But now? This is going to fall on the deaf ears of a disinterested and bored population that is lacking any level of caring about such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a silly assumption being made in saying this war was fought for no reason. No CB on the initial hit obscures all the political posturing that led to this war for some, sure.

Please explain - what was the CB? It was nothing more than we don't like Polar - we are going to indirectly chain them in to have a favorable war position. There really wasn't much posturing and very little political build-up.

 

I truly believe that NPO did have a reason to hit SNX, they hit SNX, because they wanted to get ahead in the war against Polar, they knew SNX would come in, but they also knew how weak SNX was, so attacking SNX gave them the advantage of taking out one of Polar's allies so that they don't surprize them later.

 

Seriously SNX, CANCEL YOUR NpO TREATY!

Spoiler: That isn't a CB. Sorry to break it to you but you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

nobody here gives a !@#$ about the ic/ooc divide and, frankly, nobody gives a !@#$ about the game anymore

 

we're only here playing for our friends and so our actual cbs are "alright whatever let's just do this war thing" because that's our actual OOC reasoning which has become our IC reasoning.

 

i prefer the honesty because it makes politics more accessible to the rank-and-file player, but i wish people actually bothered to have IC personas rather than just "RPing" as themselves

 

and if the idea of RP makes you lol then you're part of the problem

I wouldn't say RP is dead. I've role-played multiple characters (Ghost of Sparta, Cole Hamels, Vox Era Starfox, \m/ era Starfox, Polar Starfox) and as a result I've been on every side of the political spectrum. It's quite fun as opposed to those who've stayed the same for 7+ years. I encourage everyone to move around. Staying stagnant results in a loss of motivation and boredom.

 

 

The insinuation that this war established the precedent for "no CB needed" is so ignorant of reality I would have expected it to have been a Tywin thread.  Some of the first big wars in CN were started for reasons such as "taking our oxygen."  A casus belli literally is just a reason for war.  Who the frack actually cares what it is?  "I don't like you and I want to nuke you until you glow and steal your tech in the dark" is just as valid as "you peed in my friend's kool-aid and need to be punished."

When was taking our oxygen used as a CB for one of the Great Wars?

 

And you sir, are part of the problem if that is your stance. Where is the fun if there is no politics? If you just want to beat up on a group with friends for no reason, find some friends and jump on Super Smash Bros. It is much better. This is a political sim.

Edited by Starfox101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking for every war to have a relevant CB, you're going to be continually disappointed.  In this game, there's never hardly anything really one alliance or the other do that actually deserve to be attacked for.  The game mechanics doesn't allow for something heinous to really be done for an alliance to say, enough is enough.  Sure, if a team color senator went on a sanction spree on one alliance or the other, or a spy is caught stealing information for another alliance, or even some could say "poaching" members is a plausible reason to go to war (which obviously isn't enough to cause one since MI6 was never declared on for such actions).  The reality is, there's hardly ever a real CB besides just to settle a past grudge, or some bad ending to past relations.  You act as if many of the past wars besides this one really had much of a real reason to start besides one side looking to settle a beef or a good opportunity has shown itself to weaken a possible threat in the future

 

This war, be it no CB or not, is being fought for reasons.  Many on the aggressor side of this war have their many reasons for this war to happen, and the whole "why are we fighting this war," is likely more on the losing side of conflict, not the winning.  You may look at it and ask yourself, why are we fighting this, but others have plenty of reasons to be doing so, be it settling grudges, boredom, etc.  

 

This war began without looking to scrape together some half ass CB to make a reason for it to start.  Is this a bad thing?  Unlike you, I do not see this as a bad thing.  The whole idea you're trying to push would only cause this game to become a bigger bore then what it already has, because waiting on some alliance to do some "grievance" is like watching paint dry, because there's only a few things an alliance can really do to "warrant" an attack by another alliance.  

 

In my eyes, one of those "grievances" could be some alliance just goes and attacks another.  Wouldn't that be a grievance?  So, what DS did was a grievance and gave Invicta's allies a CB to attack in defense.  There's your CB right there.  DS caused a "grievance" and thus this war started.  I have no clue what you expect an alliance to do to another to give them a good reason to attack other then a past beef.  What CB are you looking for to be substantial enough for someone to go to war with them?  Hell, if someone wanted to really start a war, one could purposely get caught spying on another to hope the victim alliance attacks the spying alliance.  But even then, what's the point?  So you go to leaps and bounds to instigate a war on purpose...how is that any different then just saying screw it, lets just declare.

 

If an alliance wants to go to war with an alliance, why go to so much trouble to force a reason for an alliance to attack, instead of just doing it? We're stuck to the confines of the game in what an alliance can do to another besides declare war/attack and !@#$ talking on OWF to instigate it.  War is driven by grudges, and one or a group of alliances seeing an opportunity to strike a enemy and get revenge for some past grudge from years ago that one side felt wronged.   

 

Waiting around, for some reasonable CB on this game to start a war is going to drive people away quicker then it already has.  We're already on a trend of having really only one major war a year because everyone knows if an alliance hit another, especially a larger alliance hitting another, is not just going to stick to just those alliances, but spread out. 

 

I think you've misunderstood a few of my points, but that could easily be on me for not writing clearly. 

 

1. If you look at the declarations I cited they are all the first or second declaration in a given war. I'm not arguing every alliance, in every front,  needs a good reason to fight, but the alliances that started the war should have a stated reason.

 

2. I agree with you that this war is being fought for many different reasons, but I think there is value in actually stating those reasons.

 

3. In no place have I argued that an alliance scrape together a reason for war, but instead I am arguing that alliances be more direct and sincere about why they are starting war. They should state their true reasons for going to war. Like you said, wars are driven by grudges. If a grudge is the reason for a war, just come right out and say it.That right there should be a good enough CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the notion that you needed an actual real live CB to start a global war hasn't been true for a long time now. The truth of the matter is that people around here quit playing CN with the notion of it being as much a political sim as a war sim ages ago.  The facebookization of CN, combined with stagnant gameplay, the evolution of web based gaming, and a declining playerbase all combined to produced the shambles of a game we play today.  We don't use CBs for the simple reason that most people just don't care that much about what goes on in CN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain - what was the CB? It was nothing more than we don't like Polar - we are going to indirectly chain them in to have a favorable war position. There really wasn't much posturing and very little political build-up.

 

I couldn't speak to everyone's motivations. On our part, this wasn't it. I'd've enjoyed a no political build up scenario to this war though, it would have saved a lot of us a lot of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I couldn't speak to everyone's motivations. On our part, this wasn't it. I'd've enjoyed a no political build up scenario to this war though, it would have saved a lot of us a lot of work.

The only political build-up to this war was DBDC raiding our entire sphere's upper tier while your side applauded and supported it. Other than that, where was the build-up? I mean, there's people attacking Polar over 6 year grudges, currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only political build-up to this war was DBDC raiding our entire sphere's upper tier while your side applauded and supported it. Other than that, where was the build-up? I mean, there's people attacking Polar over 6 year grudges, currently.

 

Not sure if you're being genuine here. This side had to be built. Things happened.

 

I can see how someone in Polar might see everything else as having frozen though.

Edited by Auctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only political build-up to this war was DBDC raiding our entire sphere's upper tier while your side applauded and supported it. Other than that, where was the build-up? I mean, there's people attacking Polar over 6 year grudges, currently.

 

 

One of the things that has vanished as the CN community, along with its attention span, has shrunk are the notion that there are some generally accepted standards we all play by.  That DBDC can do what it does is evidence of that.  Because at the end of the day, most of us are basically sleepwalking through this thing.  Who really cares, on a macro level at least, who does what to whom around here anymore? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want CB then people need to stop signing treaties with everyone no matter the side. The major wars happens and were fun because you had to clear sides with next to no crossover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want CB then people need to stop signing treaties with everyone no matter the side. The major wars happens and were fun because you had to clear sides with next to no crossover.

 

I'm not sure how find the treaty web to affect CBs. Could you explain your reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you've misunderstood a few of my points, but that could easily be on me for not writing clearly. 

 

1. If you look at the declarations I cited they are all the first or second declaration in a given war. I'm not arguing every alliance, in every front,  needs a good reason to fight, but the alliances that started the war should have a stated reason.

 

2. I agree with you that this war is being fought for many different reasons, but I think there is value in actually stating those reasons.

 

3. In no place have I argued that an alliance scrape together a reason for war, but instead I am arguing that alliances be more direct and sincere about why they are starting war. They should state their true reasons for going to war. Like you said, wars are driven by grudges. If a grudge is the reason for a war, just come right out and say it.That right there should be a good enough CB.

 

 

I would agree with this.  Most times, it's pretty evident how things are played out the reasoning one alliance is hitting another, or why certain alliances are on one side or the other, but it's not, as you mentioned, always boldly said.  It's really become how to manipulate the treaty web so that things can fall as one would hope, and looking to find the best entrance which may not be directly hitting the one or multiple "main" targets, but causing the targets to get chained in.  This can be pretty evident by Disorder and the current conflict. Though I think some just wanted something to happen, and willing to fight whoever just to have some excitement.  That comes back to the mess that is the treaty web which is the primary cause of the lack of wars per year, and the reasoning of why the aggressors in wars look for the best strategic entrance into a war in regards to the web and how things will domino, and set it up so the alliances who are really the target to be chained in, and then countered by alliances with a grudge with them.

 

As wes the wise mentioned here, grudges can't be settled between just two alliances killing one another either.  Usually one alliance has a bigger advantage, thus the underdog calls in an ally which gives them the advantage, and then the back and forth happens, and is why there's only one real important war a year, because people know if they look to settle a grudge, it's bound to become something a lot larger and have to plan for the expected counters.  

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...