Jump to content

Formulating the Cycle


Heyman
 Share

Signals  

214 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Forgive my diction present in the Poll. Couldn't quite word it to my liking.

As many of us Vets might have seen: There is a method to the madness.

People of one alliance get restless.

Another starts trolling.

Treaties are canceled without warning, or maybe with a cryptic one.

You get the point. Is there any way to consistently identify and predict a war based on a tried and true equation? If so, what might those variables be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in powerism.

Never heard of it?

Good, cause I just made it up.

Some alliances gain a lot of power and allies, don't know how to handle it, become immoral and pushy with this new found power, then die. They do things they normally wouldn't before, mainly because formerly they didn't possess this "power" starting off, thus they change and their allies become tired of their nonsense and moronic decisions.

Primarily focused on the alliances which formerly were sanctioned and the largest at one point, which have deceased, all this being a very important variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When treaties start to break up, and then the leaders of the alliances say there's not gonna be a war, but don't give reasons for why the treaties are breaking up, usually you can expect a war within the next 6 months at least.

This is pretty dead on.

Generally the step before this is when propaganda begins coming out from either side in order to sway moderates and neutrals into treatying with them.

I'd say we're seeing it now. P:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When treaties start to break up, and then the leaders of the alliances say there's not gonna be a war, but don't give reasons for why the treaties are breaking up, usually you can expect a war within the next 6 months at least.

Good, I'm getting bored.

To the OP, no doubt there are consistent signs that are present before every war but I guess what you're asking is if there is a set of signs that will indicate war is both imminent and inevitable, which I wouldn't necessarily say is the case. A might be a precursor to B, but it doesn't follow that A will certainly lead to B.

Edited by Chairman Cao
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When everyone denies that there will be a war, and talks about how good of relations they have with the alliances they'll inevitable attack later on.

Generally, you just take what alliance leaders say and believe the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CN has just moved into a safe mode, having many treaties and just hoping that is enough of a deterrent. War would have already happened many times, if there were set sides, it's just even if people cancel a treaty they are probably still link in another way through another treaty or can just bandwagon and no one would really say much. CN has strayed away from it's initial war monger approach where you just impose your will and has become more a of a survival through minimal effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically the process goes something like this:

- First, if necessary, friendships between the sides begin to go sour in back channels. This process is invisible to the outside, although it may be brought out by spying. This only applies if the two sides are originally friends, for example in the UjW, but for any war in the current climate I think that would have to be the case.

- Next, there is the emergence of tensions between the groups who are going to be on opposite side. The best example of this would be the build-up to the Unjust War; even though they were well bound together through the treaty web*, the sides were clearly marked on these boards. The GPA war is also a good example of this: suddenly, members of Continuum (mostly NPO and IRON) started being very combative on these boards towards the GPA. At that point, it was fairly obvious that those alliances were gunning for GPA.

We are possibly moving into the beginning of this phase now, with a little 'aggressive posting' between Continuum and Superfriends, although I don't think it is clear cut or on the inevitable road to war yet.

(*: Delta, are you still making a pre-UjW MDP web? That would illustrate this point most excellently :).)

- A few days before, treaties will begin to be cancelled. There may also be obvious line-drawing upgrades, new treaties or downgrades to show which side some alliances which were in the balance will come down on. The 'trolls' will begin to rack up the aggression against 'enemy' alliances.

- Finally, the war will be started. In most cases where the war is balanced, a proxy is used to try to paint the other side as aggressors: Fark in GW2, BotS in the UjW, Hyperion in the Polar/Hyperion war.

E: Not all treaties will be cancelled in step 2. Some will end up being ignored when the war actually starts: for example TOP, NPO and MCXA's membership of the WUT in the UjW, the STA-NPO and Echelon-NpO treaties in the Polar war.

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaties break and form like wildfire. For instance, NpO got abandoned by IRON, NPO (lol hell freezing over) and others. Echelon was pulled out of a hat and added to 1V, and then a flurry of alliances (Rok, RIA, etc) signed treaties with NPO.

All leading to the last big war.

Also, trolling is a pretty big sign. Without trolling and OWF outcry, I don't think the GPA war ever happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically the process goes something like this:

- First, if necessary, friendships between the sides begin to go sour in back channels. This process is invisible to the outside, although it may be brought out by spying. This only applies if the two sides are originally friends, for example in the UjW, but for any war in the current climate I think that would have to be the case.

- Next, there is the emergence of tensions between the groups who are going to be on opposite side. The best example of this would be the build-up to the Unjust War; even though they were well bound together through the treaty web*, the sides were clearly marked on these boards. The GPA war is also a good example of this: suddenly, members of Continuum (mostly NPO and IRON) started being very combative on these boards towards the GPA. At that point, it was fairly obvious that those alliances were gunning for GPA.

We are possibly moving into the beginning of this phase now, with a little 'aggressive posting' between Continuum and Superfriends, although I don't think it is clear cut or on the inevitable road to war yet.

(*: Delta, are you still making a pre-UjW MDP web? That would illustrate this point most excellently :).)

- A few days before, treaties will begin to be cancelled. There may also be obvious line-drawing upgrades, new treaties or downgrades to show which side some alliances which were in the balance will come down on. The 'trolls' will begin to rack up the aggression against 'enemy' alliances.

- Finally, the war will be started. In most cases where the war is balanced, a proxy is used to try to paint the other side as aggressors: Fark in GW2, BotS in the UjW, Hyperion in the Polar/Hyperion war.

E: Not all treaties will be cancelled in step 2. Some will end up being ignored when the war actually starts: for example TOP, NPO and MCXA's membership of the WUT in the UjW, the STA-NPO and Echelon-NpO treaties in the Polar war.

A very good post overall.

But the STA-NPO treaty was preempted by the Mobius Accords in the Polar War. It wasn't ignored; the NPO would have had to break the Mobius Accords, which state in Article III, subsection 6 - "Signatories shall not engage in offensive military action against any alliance which a fellow signatory is obligated by treaty to defend. "

So the NPO couldn't attack any of the OPP alliances. I don't even know who else hit STA in that war but they were probably tied to someone else in tC.

I doubt we'll see any war for about 2 months. I see potential but these things need to stew properly to have an kick to them. Otherwise, it'll be another stomp and it'll ruin any potential war for the summer. Let things happen as they happen. Stop leaking info and let spies or whatever build to where it causes a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Next, there is the emergence of tensions between the groups who are going to be on opposite side. The best example of this would be the build-up to the Unjust War; even though they were well bound together through the treaty web*, the sides were clearly marked on these boards. The GPA war is also a good example of this: suddenly, members of Continuum (mostly NPO and IRON) started being very combative on these boards towards the GPA. At that point, it was fairly obvious that those alliances were gunning for GPA.

We are possibly moving into the beginning of this phase now, with a little 'aggressive posting' between Continuum and Superfriends, although I don't think it is clear cut or on the inevitable road to war yet.

I get the same impression, which is why I don't understand these apparent blunders being committed by the Superfriends. Vox has set it up so that moral high ground can be held against tC, but SF are letting it somewhat slip away with that lottery lolz thread and the KM (not so much though) stuff. This will be my first Great War and I'll probably not even participate, but I'm interested to see how the conflict evolves. Mostly I'm interested to see if the Citidel stays together. That is the crew that I think has the most potency and a terrific identity. It needs to recruit Vanguard and then we could just end the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the same impression, which is why I don't understand these apparent blunders being committed by the Superfriends. Vox has set it up so that moral high ground can be held against tC, but SF are letting it somewhat slip away with that lottery lolz thread and the KM (not so much though) stuff. This will be my first Great War and I'll probably not even participate, but I'm interested to see how the conflict evolves. Mostly I'm interested to see if the Citidel stays together. That is the crew that I think has the most potency and a terrific identity. It needs to recruit Vanguard and then we could just end the game.

I doubt that will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally the first indicator of a major war is the cold war that develops on these forums. Posters get tougher. Trolls get meaner, and sides start to form over the smallest arguments. Not to mention every little issue gets blown way out of proportion to paint eachother in a negative light (KM's thread anyone?)

Soon quips and digs are thrown around like dollar bills at a strip club, and that's when the back channel planning begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(*: Delta, are you still making a pre-UjW MDP web? That would illustrate this point most excellently :).)

I had to put it on hold for a bit because finding all of the background material necessary proved even more time consuming than I anticipcated, but I do still have a fair chunk of the information I need and plan on finishing it in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good post overall.

But the STA-NPO treaty was preempted by the Mobius Accords in the Polar War. It wasn't ignored; the NPO would have had to break the Mobius Accords, which state in Article III, subsection 6 - "Signatories shall not engage in offensive military action against any alliance which a fellow signatory is obligated by treaty to defend. "

I don't know why you use the word 'but'. The MDP was broken to avoid breaking other treaties; it was still broken. (Defending treaty partners who come under direct attack is not offensive action anyway.) You in fact illustrate why so many treaties get ignored: the web is so complex that you find yourself obliged to do two contradictory actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you use the word 'but'. The MDP was broken to avoid breaking other treaties; it was still broken. (Defending treaty partners who come under direct attack is not offensive action anyway.) You in fact illustrate why so many treaties get ignored: the web is so complex that you find yourself obliged to do two contradictory actions.

This is why I always include qualifiers for contradictory obligations in treaties that I write. Unfortunately, I don't always remember to ensure it's there when someone else writes the treaty, but for the most part, I try to make sure it's not an issue I will have to worry about even if the world goes insane. Most people don't seem to realize that a treaty superceded by another treaty is still broken unless the lower treaty has a clause permitting it.

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...