Jump to content

Wars Ought To Have Meaning


supercoolyellow

Recommended Posts

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


Simple, there are a lot of good reasons to have started this war, but due to starting those wars in such a manner the treaty flow would not necessarily be as favorable to the winning side. Exactly the same reason as to the obscure start to Disorder. Edited by Stanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

I think he might be saying kinda what I was saying. That even if you do have a decent CB there is often little chance of acting on it without getting the entire world involved and probably losing the war anyway. For example, CCC had/has a CB against DBDC. If we tried to act on that CB we'd be creamed, like we are right now, before it even started due to the treaty web. I could be wrong though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, there are a lot of good reasons to have started this war, but due to starting those wars in such a manner the treaty flow would not necessarily be as favorable to the winning side. Exactly the same reason as to the obscure start to Disorder.

 

Yeah this has become particularly evident lately.

 

I think he might be saying kinda what I was saying. That even if you do have a decent CB there is often little chance of acting on it without getting the entire world involved and probably losing the war anyway. For example, CCC had/has a CB against DBDC. If we tried to act on that CB we'd be creamed, like we are right now, before it even started due to the treaty web. I could be wrong though.

 

Careful, saying you have a legitimate grievance against someone and might attack them at a later date is also a CB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've rendered treaties useless on two, almost competing levels.  On the one hand, we treat treaties like Facebook friends, where every casual acquaintance in CN merits a MDP. On the other hand, we manipulate treaties to the point where between ghost declarations and 3 and 4 step chains, any alliance can essentially come i against any other alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah this has become particularly evident lately.

 

 

Careful, saying you have a legitimate grievance against someone and might attack them at a later date is also a CB!

Difference between coalition building and backroom planning and stating you have a legitimate CB.

 

But really though most of us have a legit CB haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, there are a lot of good reasons to have started this war, but due to starting those wars in such a manner the treaty flow would not necessarily be as favorable to the winning side. Exactly the same reason as to the obscure start to Disorder.

 

While that is the reason Polar initially declared on NSO, I'm not sold on the idea that they needed. What could have you all at Pacifica have done differently if Polar had declared on you first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he might be saying kinda what I was saying. That even if you do have a decent CB there is often little chance of acting on it without getting the entire world involved and probably losing the war anyway. For example, CCC had/has a CB against DBDC. If we tried to act on that CB we'd be creamed, like we are right now, before it even started due to the treaty web. I could be wrong though.

 

[spoiler]Shocked-Face.jpg[/spoiler]

 

I'd be very careful about saying something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While that is the reason Polar initially declared on NSO, I'm not sold on the idea that they needed. What could have you all at Pacifica have done differently if Polar had declared on you first?

I'd have to scrape up an old treaty web but I'm sure if they did it that way, there was a reason for it, probably some backroom agreement from the elements that were friendly to us on that side to fully commit.

Compromise is made in all these types of wars, to say that a front CB means that CN is devoid of politics is to miss the actual point of 90% of political interaction in this game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

No problem here. I like it when my wife dresses up like a schoolgirl. A lot.

 

Seriously, though, the OP and many of the comments following are just a bunch of bellyaching. We have had CB-less wars for some time now. Hell, we actually had a "noCB War".

 

The fact is that not every grievance is addressed immediately. I don't know if there should be a time limit on being ticked off with someone, as some seem to imply, but I will agree that hanging on to a grudge for years is both unhealthy and more than a little strange. It says far more about the mental health of the person who can't let go than it does about the original slight. (This will help to explain why I occasionally enjoy feeding the psychoses of those who bear ill-will toward my alliance for something one of its predecessors did six, seven or eight years ago. It's like poking a bear with a stick. Hilarious.)

 

Let me try a legitimate complaint, though.

 

As global wars go, the current one has unfolded more slowly than any other war I've seen. It's actually boring, which is the very last thing wars should be in what is, after all, a game that ought to be played over the long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the points on the OOC/IC divide. The title of this should probably be "CN Should Have Meaning," since you can't really have a meaningful war if you don't invest CN with any meaning in the first place. It's so weird how people are willing to devote hours a day to this nerdiest of nerd games, over the course of years and years, but still want to act like they're too cool to RP a bit. Hardly anyone bothers to be the bad guy or the good guy, or any particular type of character beyond a snarky adolescent internet dude. So when an alliance like DBDC comes along that basically does whatever the hell they want and spits in the face of every community norm that normally tempers our aggression, even the fairly inoffensive alliances like NATO and ODN are still willing to join forces with them*. Hell, GATO is allied to NG. Even in our barely IC world, if there are two alliances that I would pick as opposites, it's GATO and NG. So I would love to ask every alliance: which AA's are you like, and which are you clearly not like, and how so? I don't most of us can really answer those basic questions. [/rant]

 

 

*DS and DBDC are interchangeable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

*eats Hereno*

 

Wars have plenty of meaning. They are the buffet of life.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree. This may sound crazy, but I have respect for Myth in MI6. Yeah, I give them crap, but mainly because they are active and fun.

the problem with cybernations is the yearly world war.

this war was easy, blame everything on tywin.

but its how CN stats operate. Look at Sparta, their king is cowarding in PM to save stats, look at Non Grata, they declared on a defeated AA just for the face time.

The best post of the year was by a guy in SRA who highlighted that they are not locked unto a yearly world war drama because of stats, but rather would fight for loyalty.
lets face it, stats driven alliances suck, they kill new players because they are tech farms..

Have some balls and defend your own beliefs based on circumstances at hand, defend friends with the utmost loyalty. The counting pixels thing has made CN a drag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have burned. I have flown. I have fought in trenches raining in sweat, blood, dust, and radiation, I have soared over them. What is will be, what is will be no more.. and what was will come again. There is no fun in remaining static. Create, destroy, then create again. I loathe those who fear the cycle and relish their pointless mathematically based mediocrity. I LOVE to burn for MY Pacifica. My sweet loving mother who hatched me and raised me 6 long years ago and who trained me into a ruthless warrior and then fed me until I wrecked those brought before me.  I know few like me from other parts of Bob, and it saddens me.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At that time that I joined this world in June of 2008,  the majority of the "common practice" rules ithat are talked about as somehow necessary were already set.  If a nation didn't follow them, the nation leader was considered anywhere from uninformed to a rogue and dealt with accordingly.

 

These unwritten rules include everything from the necessity of joining an alliance to the practice of stating a "valid CB" in public before starting a war.   It didn't matter if I agreed with these unwritten rules or not.  I was never consulted.  Things were "tradition" six years ago.   If I wanted to be a part of this world,  it was necessary (according to the good people who took me under their protection and taught me these things) to follow them.

 

Maybe wars should have more meaning.  How would CN look if they did?  How many would there be in a year, two years, three years - and is that something people want? Would it be better or worse than what we do now and why?

 

Now that I'm in a position where I don't have to follow these "traditional" rules,  I'm going to feel free NOT to limit myself unless and until someone gives me some actual practical reason/explanation as to why it is beneficial to me and/or the community to do so beyond "because it's always been that way" or "it's tradition" or "because 'civilized' alliances do it that way."  All those reasons explain nothing.  It's the diplomatic equivalent to an adult telling a child, "because I'm your parent and I said so."

 

A great deal has changed since 2008.  One would imagine that what is and is not accepted as "common practice" would keep pace.  It has not really happened.  When was the last time this community REALLY questioned how we do what we do and why?  We haven't, we're lazy as a community.

 

I think that is part of the reason why DBDC is far more popular than I would of imagined given that we do, indeed, attack people in alliances is that we are powerful enough to act in ways that no other alliance is able to do at this point.  We are outside a system that the majority of people don't really like for one reason or another.  If you want to get people to agree - explain WHY it's better one way as opposed to another that makes sense to them and if that doesn't work then reconsider the possibility that there may actually be a better way.  Change is often beneficial.

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digiterra has been the same for ages with wars fought on grudges for a simple reason. The leaders are generally the same people. Doesn't matter whether at the front on the official charter or some backroom puppet master. You've got some low NS rerolls leading simply because they are who they are and know the right people. There's monolithic nations sitting in peace mode or beyond most alliances' reach that control wars. Doom is correct in that some members have begun writing treaties between nations and not alliances. Most low ranking members could careless which alliances burn and which don't in their coalition. There's only 2 reason you exist. To build as previously mentioned or to lay waste to other nations. I have never held a position past Minister or Head of ___ department and I believe my reasoning fits what most newer nations or laidback nations follow. As long as we see devotion to a role that has be played out then we charge. Otherwise you end with an alliance or bloc that disbands after a GW or once a few members leave.

Shout out to those who survived a mass exodus or came back.
o/ GOONS
o/ DT
o/ TPF
o/ Valhalla
o/ NoR

Edited by Shifty Stranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would wars with a more traditional CB look any different though? If we take that old school favourite spying as an example, even a war started by a given alliance lifting info from gov forums and whatnot wouldn't look substantially different. Their allies would still come in to defend, if any tried to drop the treaty and not enter they would be lambasted publicly, possibly preempted regardless. Yet surely non-support of the offense is what those aggrieved would hope for rationally. But the considerations of relative power spheres override everything, while that's not necessarily a bad thing it does lead to a specific atmosphere of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a sliding scale to this discussion and applies to everyone and is not limited to this specific conflict. 

 

1. You start with no cb, the loosing side is going to say whoa, cn has lost it's meaning, global war occurs anyway.

2. You start with a meh cb, the loosing side is going to say, whoa, that's bs, cn has lost it's meaning, global war occurs anyway.

3. You start with a solid cb, the loosing side is going to say 'this is just  a ploy/ you've just been waiting for the reason to roll us anyway! why dont you come out and say this plainly, why hide behind the cb!, cn has lost it's meaning ', but the global war will occur anyway.

 

This isnt limited to this war, this has been the case in all previous wars. No one on the smaller side is ever happy about cb/nocb during the conflict. 

 

Different alliances join coalitions and wars for different reasons and 'meanings'. What you think is meaningful for you may not be meaningful for 

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grudges are good even necessary for some, they can give an alliance meaning and purpose. It doesn't have to be the same grudge it doesn't even have to be real. A couple of years ago when LSF was looking very inactive we wheeled out the Kaiser Martens 2012 thing. We had a war. It was fun. Next year we're probably going to have a war with UCR. It'll be fun. No clue what the rest of you people are playing the game for but as long as you keep playing it, it's all good.

 

The treaty web is a pile of old toss though, it gets in the way of a good fight. Every single alliance gets tied into the grudges and ambitions of the alliances currently in power in the respective spheres. Smaller alliances get held back, even if an alliance has no direct connection, has never spoken to the sphere "leaders" they appear in calculations, pressure gets applied. What could be a couple of rounds of war can't happen unless or in case it becomes a flash point to start a wider conflict. This either ruins it or makes it the interesting and complex simulator it is. It's all a matter of (shifiting) perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happened in Dave War, Karma, Bipolar et cetera; almost every global war. It's happening here. If a war is coming, alliances will work to ensure their enemies don't get the jump on them. NpO-SNX and co lost the diplomatic war. NPO and IRON won.

You didn't make it easy for yourself, mind you. SNX gained status it was not prepared for and failed to change itself quickly enough to reinforce its new-found position. Its FA moves were mocked on the OWF for very good reasons; you kept signing with alliances that weren't battle-tested, nor did they have the bulk to either act as a deterrent or be a decent power sponge. You were the low-hanging fruit in NpO's camp, the unpopular fruit. You let Tywin in gov. You were led by scy. Even the MI6-hate was surpassed by the lack of respect you attracted. And you did not do enough to resist that labelling.

You aren't the first mega-merger alliance to lose sanction almost as rapidly as they gained it. Learn from this conflict and put in place the internal structure needed to regain your losses once it has ended. Otherwise, be prepared to watch your strength dwindle till ut matches that of your alliances pre-merger.

Edited by RevolutionaryRebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already said, this war (as those that preceded it) has a purpose, meaning, aim.

 

This OP only boils down to a complaint that in the current conflict those that started it didn't bother to bs to great extent about the trigger (c.b.).

 

That is a simple matter of taste preferences and no substance difference.

Edited by Branimir
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.


×
×
  • Create New...