Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is question for all the older people (I'm thinking 2010 or older) or anyone very knowledgeable on this subject. 

 

The question(s)

 

Define "neutral" on Bob, and what exactly makes it bad? 

 

I can think of good applications for neutrality. Like when two allies go to war. But here the word seems synonymous with "those that do nothing ever" at least that's what I've observed. 

 

Is this the case? 

 

What's your take? 

 

-a younger nation 

Edited by Lucius Optimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutrality on here has usually been to avoid intervening in wars/maintain isolationist stance in world affairs. It basically means it's a way to grow unimpeded if people ignore you if there are other sizable political actors. Worked pretty well for GPA with almost 10 years of peace since the Woodstock Massacre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Neutral" simply referred to an alliance with no place on the treaty web. Generally it can be used to refer to alliances with no military treaties (MDP's, oDoAP's, et cetera). However some alliances may have no military treaties per se, but still have those relationships, such as Kashmir, which has as many treaties as GPA, but is not considered neutral.

 

Neutral is usually used to refer to alliances which avoid fighting wars, however this is not always the case, for example I believe GOP declared war on MQ when they attacked TDO, GOP was a neutral alliance, but they felt that an attack on another neutral alliance for no other reason than them being neutral was an attack on their way of life. FAN likewise is not currently recognised as having any treaties and so could technically be called 'neutral', but has launched aggressive wars.

 

The most notable neutrals like WTF and GPA have never engaged in a non-defensive war.

 

Neutral is also sometimes used to describe alliances which are seen as avoiding war, even if they do have treaties, I suppose this is meant to be an insult, but frankly if an alliance with treaties is avoiding wars, then there are better words to demean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two opposing aspects to life on planet bob. The fist being building your nation with infra and tech, the second being going to war and having some of what you built destroyed. Neutrals to me, are nations that wish to engage in half of these activities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, prawncracker said:

There are two opposing aspects to life on planet bob. The fist being building your nation with infra and tech, the second being going to war and having some of what you built destroyed. Neutrals to me, are nations that wish to engage in half of these activities.

 

Each of those are about 10% of the game apiece to me.  80% is the politics* - which neutrals also mostly avoid.

I don't get why they're here, might as well just punch +1 on a calculator to watch the number tick up.

*Not that there are politics anymore

Edited by HeroofTime55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for the absolutist distinction between neutrals and so-called political players. When I was Emperor, I defined my policy as soft-neutral, not out of a desire to "hug infra" (ISX has fought more wars than most), but because I am an advocate of just war theory as well as certain aspects of old school moralism.

 

In alot of ways I think it's better to circle the waggons and work with a limited group of people, rather than engage in behavior I consider morally destructive or even psychopathic at times.

Edited by The Zigur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutrals are like sim city players in a war game....this is a war game after all and if they had 0 military wonders and only kept enough military to stay out of anarchy then it's legit...:D Therefore IMO they are not neutral unless in PM...:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think viewing CN as a wargame is a more recent phenomena and the result of the disintegration of the overall culture of the game. If this is a wargame, it is a very shallow one, in which material victory is determined by a handful of variables, especially two: number of active nations on each side, and age of nations. If you have a force that is numerically superior, and/or consisting of older, richer nations, most of the time the side dominant in those variables will be successful.

 

Back when there was a larger player base, I think there were more people in leadership who saw the game as a social experiment, where we could evaluate the success and failure of various political policies in a manner that was not solely defined by war. We had large, elaborate democracies, we had philosopher kings, we had people actively trying to analyze the meaning of this world.

 

Maybe I am romanticizing the past, but I miss the days when global discussion went beyond "hurr durr, keep talking and I'll attack you" threats from various petty tyrants and never-do-wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. People had more democracies before but gave up on it and no longer set their alliances by democratic or not democratic fairly early on. For the vast majority of players, it's been about war and internal alliance communities. Most people only really showed up during wars, which they also tended to use as drop off points. Maybe for the leaders some were experimenting with systems of government like Gremlins with the rank system, but that had a limited lifespan. You could argue it was about imposing political will through force, but there weren't many ideological battles aside from raiding vs anti-raiding. Most wars were motivated by things relating to  previous wars.  For instance, there were a lot of people who sharpened their knives for Karma because someone did something to their alliance in the past or they were offended by the power projection. I don't really see those ideological struggles rather just people  trying to accrue power or get revenge on those who had it.

 

There were definitely "keep talking and I will roll you" threats back then. Probably on a more significant level than now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I have never been completely in touch with reality. Since my days in Vox Populi, I have always stood more for an ideal than my own personal good. An ideal where freedom-loving nations can stand together and resist tyranny and despotism. The Imperium today, shaped by the wars that sought to exterminate us, appreciates the sacrifice of those who believe in courage, honor, and duty. For those who seek a bastion against tyranny, the Imperium is always recruiting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 3:00 PM, Blackatron said:

Neutral is usually used to refer to alliances which avoid fighting wars, however this is not always the case, for example I believe GOP declared war on MQ when they attacked TDO, GOP was a neutral alliance, but they felt that an attack on another neutral alliance for no other reason than them being neutral was an attack on their way of life.

 

RIP GOP. o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 9:29 PM, Lucius Optimus said:

I'm always up for politics 

let me blow your mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×