thaisport Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 To all alliances and nations of CNte, Though I have been busy recently, I have reviewed many posts and topics and find unrest building in the world of CNte. This Unrest is caused by the very questioning of the premise behind CNte. FARK and Lafayette Escadrille have graciously given their fair ideas and view points as to how to make CNte interesting again. Lafayette Escadrille has pointed out the complex PACTs the the top alliances have with each other (I can't really tech raid myself without worrying about a treaty). As you all know, I always prefer to resolve conflicts and hold myself accountable to being fair, honest, and impartial. This is known by many who have contacted by whether it is in-game or in IRC. With this in mind, I want to propose the following Idea for your review, comments, ideas, and suggestions: Great War III - The Fairest War Ever PREMISE: The Great War III should happen and will happen, however, unlike wars past it will be forged in mutual respect and love of the game. This war is not about tech raids gone bad, small alliances being oppressed, or large nations throwing their weight around. It will be fought because people want to have fun and people want to fight, this was the core premise that CNte was structured upon and this is what we, as members of CNte, will reclaim. Article I. Complex Pact Issue Pacts in CNte have come forth from many reasons, whether it is due to real life friendships or forged out of in-game necessities. MHA alone is probably pact with more than 3/4 of CNte alliances across the board. This become a complex issue when a war game is propose. The ideals of the pact is to protect the interest of all parties involved. For this event, all pacts will supersede the war agreement if and only if a 3rd party not involved in the conflict tried to take advantage of the situation by raiding nations of the GWIII. If such an event happens, it would be expect that the GWIII nations declare peace with each other to attack this disrespecting 3rd party until the issue is resolved. Article II. Ideals The ideas behind this war is based on three word: i. Fun - We are all here to have fun and this war will be nothing less ii. Fairness - All parties involved will be fair about the war. This means not using the war for means to advance ones alliance or using this opportunity to exact revenge or for other purposes other than fun. 3rd parties not involved with the war will not be tolerated. iii. Respect - Disrespect, showboating, or any other egotistical chauvinistic and down right disrespecting one another will not be tolerated. Almost everyone voted that grudges shouldn't be carried over and in this war no prior grudges from within the round will be carried over. Article III. Rules of Engagement Though there are no "rules of engagement" as defined by CNte, with respect to all parties, there will be rules of engagement. a. This war will have 2 sides. For lack of a better name at the time of writing we shall call them A & B b. Both sides will be determine after all alliances involved have signed an accord stating their involvement in the war and their understanding of the rules of engagement. c. Both sides will be divided up fairly so to give each side roughly the same odds as the other (hence one side cannot start with 200 nukes while the other starts with 10) d. There will be no fighting before the schedule date (date is to be determined by alliance leaders) e. All alliance pacts will be put on suspended status unless a 3rd party not involved with the war attacks a member of GWIII,in which case all members of GWIII will be allowed to attack the disrespecting 3rd party. f. The length of the war will be 5 days or otherwise determined by the alliance leaders involved in the war g. ALL reasons for the war will be titled Great War III. h. There are no surrender terms or any other terms. Once the war is over, it is over. Congratulate each other and go have a beer. i. Once the war is over, all pacts return to normal status. *** Please note this is NOT an official document for people to sign, rather for your review *** I hope this is fair for everyone interested in this idea and again this is fully open to suggestions! Thaisport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BastardofGod Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Fairest war ever...possibly? If alliances really take a liking to this...we are down ...if not ..then we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supremacy Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Great Idea, so choose a side and fight for your life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaisport Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Please note that this is not me changing me stance on resolving issues and diplomacy. This is a resolution for the issue that is growing in CNte and at that same time I believe it to be in spirit of the game as well... But then I could be wrong and let me know if I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyAGW Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thaisport, Very good indeed. One item to consider is perhaps extend the war greater than 5 days due to the large amount of nations involved. It's going to take a lot of time and effort just to organize this. May as well let it play out for awhile. Thanks thaisport for this suggestion. Sounds like a lot of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 it is a nifty idea, but how will every member of every alliance be able to uphold "rules of engagement" if not everyone visits these forums. IMHO it could turn into a logistical nightmare. However, if those issues could be resolved, I am all for it. However, I prefer fighting a war when I feel something I hold dear is being threatened, like the community I have with my alliance, instead of just fighting for lulz. I mean, wouldn't that just get old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opuscon Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Whinge or war? any better proposals out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-money Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Careful, with this kind of fair play and fun TE will be more popular than its lame big brother. That game is dead, this idea could revive CN. Fair fun and honor. This rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akealon Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 This proposal seems vaguely familiar... where did I see something like this before....Oh yeah. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius C Nero Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Since when was war ever fair? and what's with the time limit? This is TE, TE was built for war! TE = The shooting gallery. Can we keep it thatway? Edited January 22, 2009 by Emperor Tiberius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Muscarella Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Since when was war ever fair?and what's with the time limit? This is TE, TE was built for war! TE = The shooting gallery. Can we keep it thatway? i've seen this argument before, and i believe it is flawed in an important aspect. the purpose of CN and CN:TE is not war itself, but to gain rank THROUGH war. obviously, this type of war will bring a rise in ranks from whoever is on the more coordinated winning side of things, but just declaring random war on people because the game was "designed" that way is wrong. i am not condoning this idea per se, i just believe it's an outdated form of warfare. still a step forward from all this treatying that has been occurring. so i have to ask... will MHA be involved in any of these plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) 2c and 3a are ridiculous. I think it should just be all out war for the last month of CNTE, for each round. Everyone vs Everyone. 2c interferes with 2a. Edit: There is no reason why it can't be everyone vs everyone outside of the last month, either. The concept of treatying everyone so that your alliance doesn't get destroyed is a CNSE strategy. There are plenty of alliances here who're likely to attack you if you have "too many treaties". Edited January 22, 2009 by Lord of Destruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius C Nero Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 i've seen this argument before, and i believe it is flawed in an important aspect. the purpose of CN and CN:TE is not war itself, but to gain rank THROUGH war. obviously, this type of war will bring a rise in ranks from whoever is on the more coordinated winning side of things, but just declaring random war on people because the game was "designed" that way is wrong.i am not condoning this idea per se, i just believe it's an outdated form of warfare. still a step forward from all this treatying that has been occurring. so i have to ask... will MHA be involved in any of these plans? There ya' go. Not only can one over kill on war, One can also overkill on politics. TE is becoming a political spider web. The big alliances get massive because simply put nobody has the guts to challange them. I remember when IDIOT was small. fledgling, They got so huge because they knew how to balance politics, foreign affairs and war. GDA and MHA are so huge because we know how to balance politics and war, we also know the power and value of allies and coalitions. Any alliance can be a GDA or an MHA, sign some treaties, make some friends. Invest in your alliances Form coalitions, set goals. The sanctioned alliances also have the best Political, military and diplomatic structures in the game. Recruitment is also key. Bring in members numbers = power aswell. I feel every alliance should set goals for what they want to achieve during the round. Every alliance should develope plans before the round starts, Think ahead. Have a game plan when the round starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaisport Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) MHA will be in the fight and most in MHA I've talked to also like the idea. I guess you can say it's a balancing act that I have to do as leader of an alliance. For me personally, I hate wars that are caused by issues stemming from a disagreement, stupid comments, misunderstands, etc. Granted there are politics in CNte (I should know cuz I along with all those leaders of the top 25+ alliances are deep in it through pacts and freindships) but it shouldn't end up like CNs. We already have enough politics in CNs. I could be over thinking this as I actually enjoy the art of diplomacy, but just purely from my observations, people are getting annoyed at how CNte is being played. There are nations I talk to that are in small alliances that have a hard time because they are free reign for raids. On the other end of the spectrum, you have large alliance like MHA and others that play this game on a more political level because the size of our alliances demands so. You can't please everyone in this game. I'm just trying to find the right balance for not just MHA but everyone. I believe that there would be no teams or alliance options if the creators just wanted this to be an open free for all but I bet they didn't expect CNs level of politics either. Anyway, just a reminder to everyone that THIS IS NOT a solid plan. It's just an idea which needs to be refined and developed. I want it to be fun for everyone: large or small alliances, big or small nations alike. Thaisport Edited January 22, 2009 by thaisport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius C Nero Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 MHA will be in the fight and most in MHA I've talked to also like the idea. I guess you can say it's a balancing act that I have to do as leader of an alliance. For me personally, I hate wars that are caused by issues stemming from a disagreement, stupid comments, misunderstands, etc. Granted there are politics in CNte (I should know cuz I along with all those leaders of the top 25+ alliances are deep in it through pacts and freindships) but it shouldn't end up like CNs. We already have enough politics in CNs. I could be over thinking this as I actually enjoy the art of diplomacy, but just purely from my observations, people are getting annoyed at how CNte is being played. There are nations I talk to that are in small alliances that have a hard time because they are free reign for raids. On the other end of the spectrum, you have large alliance like MHA and others that play this game on a more political level because the size of our alliances demands so. You can't please everyone in this game. I'm just trying to find the right balance for not just MHA but everyone. I believe that there would be no teams or alliance options if the creators just wanted this to be an open free for all but I bet they didn't expect CNs level of politics either. Anyway, just a reminder to everyone that THIS IS NOT a solid plan. It's just an idea which needs to be refined and developed. I want it to be fun for everyone: large or small alliances, big or small nations alike. Thaisport Why not make it a death match where nobody would be allowed to leave the battlefield until the war is over? Winner would be determined by remaining land and infra. aswell as number of nukes launched/eaten. Why just 5 days. 7 or 10 days would be more reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaisport Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Here's a little more in depth view about my thoughts and hopefully it can answer questions as to where I am coming from: Like CNs, people have pacts in CNte because everyone wants to position themselves to the top alliance or to set themselves up to have a nation get the #1 ranking for a flag. Most major alliances have many pacts. Speaking for MHA, I can say that 2/3 if not more of the pacts MHA has were not initiated by MHA. If I ran a small alliance I too would want an alliance with any of the top 5 alliances. Now we are to the point where the the pact web is getting very complex. People in general want to win a fight in a curb stomp fashion because people want to make gains without giving up anything. Others would prefer to be in a big alliance and grow in peace and set themselves up for the end game. Some play CNte to practice fighting because they can't in CNs without causing trouble for their alliance. Others still spy on other people forums, ghost, or do other guerrilla tactics to get the upper hand. PACTS give people the best chances to "win." People need to own up to actions. I have upheld the same standard with my guys. I've had a nation attack on a raid and then got nuked. Some wanted us to declare war but I didn't because we were wrong. There is a lot of irony here. I don't think anyone is wrong or maybe everyone is wrong. Fact is we "can't have our cake and eat it too." People have a different idea of what's fair and different ideas of what CNte should be. My proposal idea came from a talk with Elborrador about a month ago. But several small wars and one large war came around that kept things exciting. Now things are quiet and people are antsy. My idea is nothing more than vocalizing what people are looking for and this topic was started to get peoples voices heard. I don't expect to please everyone with this idea. It isn't the point. I just want to bring back fun into this game for everyone and your posting ideas here will hopefully get us into some good fun wars free of BS. With the input everyone has put in so far, I hope we are moving in the right direction. Keeping honest, It's nice to look at the stats when my alliance is doing well. What people don't see is the amount of work that goes into building and running an alliance. I've said it before, the game is played in 90 seconds. It is in the forums, irc chat, organizing people, managing people, writing pacts, solving issues, and in short, interacting with everyone associated with the game is where the game truly lies. It's the community that makes it fun and I believe now that it is up to each of us in the community to make this game fun again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 i think there shouldn't be any alliances at all in CN TE.. alliances and treaties ruined the fun.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Benji Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 i think there shouldn't be any alliances at all in CN TE.. Hey... that's not half a bad idea. No alliances at all would solve so many problems. Then we could have the fun of making treaties with individual people. You could make as many treaties as you like as it wouldn't make too much difference because their are so many other players out there anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docus maximus Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Now things are quiet and people are antsy. So much this! My people are about to impeach my sorry butt if I don't find them a war soon! But we would like to have it be all in fun! I think the "number 1" nation winning a prize is BS! And I think that's a lot of what's stifling everything now. I was more proud of my casualty counts than my nation rank last round! How about we give out trophies for those too?!? That should light a fire under a bunch of people who've been more worried about their precious pixels than having some fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i hate cyber nations Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I still don't understand why so many alliances signed dozens of treaties the first month of the tourney. That is what really slowed down this round, the amount of treaties being signed out of convenience. Any defense pact shouldn't be signed unless you are willing to have your alliance destroyed in order to defend your ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Im curious as to why when we were on the brink of a great war, people wanted us to peace out and not fight cause it would start a great war, and now everyone's geared up ready to go ? We had the groundwork laid out and everyone wanted peace... You gaiz are confusing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout1 Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 maybe it's the limit of choice. If you dont get one all you can do is brace for inpack time to arrange your resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedomvilleAT Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Everyone needs to stop with all these treaties. TPF has over 20 and I'm sure MHA isn't too far from that. How can we play this war game if we have to constantly think about "well i can't fight this guy because he has too many allies" I'll admit to having a few treaties myself but theres a difference between allying close friends and treatying everyone because you think it's cool or will make you win the game. Anyway, my point is..if we didn't have so many "pacts" this wouldn't be an issue and we'd have one hell of a end-of-the-round war. Hopefully an alliance with a lot of treaties will come to their senses soon and realize that they should start a war, not worrying about who they're treatied to. I'm pretty sure if you have 20 treaties...5 or so alliances will stick up for you when you get pounded on and the rest will worry about infra. I've played CN long enough to realize this. Edited January 22, 2009 by FreedomvilleAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I wish to form the third side in this "Gre\a\t W\a\r". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Muscarella Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm pretty sure if you have 20 treaties...5 or so alliances will stick up for you when you get pounded on and the rest will worry about infra. I've played CN long enough to realize this. that is pretty sad if what you said is actually the case. it relieves me that NAAW only makes treaties with trusted friends and alliances with good reputation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts