Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You miss the point. They laugh at people who spend years avoiding war to be "powerful." What is power anyway? Even the most powerful alliances and nations are at the beck and call of the established CN norms and their allies. Once you get to a place of power you spend so much time appeasing others in order to maintain your position that you can never actually live.

The beauty of animalz is that they have absolute freedom. They can do whatever they want, your societal norms be damned.

You kind of answered your own question. Power is, among other things, the ability to create, maintain, and enforce the social norms that you are condemning. Alliances who have built up reputation, military strength, economic power, etc. have the ability to shape these social norms and enforce them.

Due to there being an existing social environment, those who shun it and try to create an alternative would be forced to match the level of various other strength factors (military, economics, etc.) to be able to change the social norms. This isn’t done by initially starting out saying “we are different, we are free” because you’re already telling those enforcing the norms, those who have the power, that you intend to threaten their hold on things. That’s what animalz openly does, and that’s one reason they aren’t taken seriously (that and the fact that of their 22 nations half of them are in anarchy).

 

Animalz have the “freedom” to do whatever they want, but look what that cost them. When they go around using their “absolute freedom” they get put down and have to start all over (or, if peace is declared before that, they start from wherever they ended at). Sir Kindle is a good example. He’s been playing for almost 600 days and his nation is currently under 2,000 strength.
 

If you’re playing just to do whatever and go along for the ride, then yeah, maybe the animalz approach would work. Then again, so would not joining alliance or creating your own and doing whatever you want.

We're probably going to end up talking past each other. It seems you think there is value in affronting the social norms, as if that hurts the establishment or really offends people. If I had any intentions of impacting the social norms, I would take an approach that is more effective. Look up international realism. If you don't play the system's game then you are the one getting played (even if you think you are rebellious or free). Yeah, a large uprising in numbers might work, but again, you have to match the established power on other numbers to make that happen.

 

You must be new here, every alliance gets laughed at on these forums in one way or another and many of the posters in here have had their alliance past or present laughed at.

Welcome to the circus that's officially known as the forums where everyone gets mocked sooner or later :)

Power is subjective my friend and numbers mean nothing unless they can project power and I believe the common term is paper tiger.

I'm growing everyday in the statistic that is most important, that being casualties. :)

Maybe my use of "laughed at" was misunderstood. I didn't mean mocked, because, as you said, everyone gets mocked. I meant not taken seriously. Yes, there are smaller alliances that don't take the others seriously, but that's more of just a front and talk. There's no way it can be backed up in-game, because smaller alliances, until they grow and gain some self-sufficiency, exist at the will (i.e., by the permission) of the larger ones. If a larger alliance wanted a small one gone, it could be done (and yes, they could still exist and rebuild, but that's not my point).
 

You say power is subjective, yet you place importance on a statistic, implying that it isn’t subjective. If power, numbers, etc. are subjective, then to people other than yourself your casualties number doesn’t really mean anything.

 

If one of the top ten alliances decided to declare war on your alliance and ZI all of you (or any other alliance), is that subjective? I'm not claiming an objective value in the game, but I think there is enough common value in certain things in the game that there would be a general agreement that a more productive economy is better than a less productive economy, etc. Even for you, without money to buy troops, you get no increasing casualty rate, and if someone were to keep you at a near ZI level your casualty rate would be much lower than it could be (as compared to growing and then launching armies of higher numbers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL;DR - If you're playing this game you probably have more value placed in the things you claim not to. You can't change the establishment by being a rebel in a small group, with rare exceptions (this game not being one of them), so you might as well play along and shape the game the way you want to see it through those means. Otherwise, you're just in a circle jerk with your few comrades while the world is developing around you.



 

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...