Heyman Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) 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 February 15, 2009 by Chairman Cao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I think the easy answer is yes?? Treaty cancellations have to happen before any large war to kick off. Otherwise we'd just be attacking allies or it would be another stomp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Look at the web, cancellations are a must for a war these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Cancelations of treaties are the big indicators that war can come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) 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 February 15, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 - 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lackistan Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (*: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 that lottery lolz thread Ignoring everything else in your post, that had nothing to do with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Ignoring everything else in your post, that had nothing to do with us. Oh, sorry. I did actually notice you guys (RIA) speaking out against it. It is the Rok connection that threw me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I don't see a war happening ever again. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illustrious Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I don't see a war happening ever again. Ever. Liez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I don't see a war happening ever again. Ever. There will eventually be a Great War that will come to Cybernations to reck havock. The question isn't if it's going to happen but, rather when it will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 There can be signs that a war is likely (like those that Bob Janova describes) but any concrete that one will happen, not so much. Otherwise Gremlins and GGA would have been at it last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.