Dominance

[New Frontier]

While I think it's too early to predict the outcome of this war, I think it is likely (60/40) that Pacifica will lose, and very likely (90/10) that if they did win, they would lose (at least for the time being) the ability to control the Cyberverse in the manner they have done.

So for the sake of the argument, taking as a given that Pacifica will lose dominance post-war, the question I pose to you is thus: Is it possible for anyone to assume the mantle?

Leaving aside the argument of whether or not anyone on the Karma side would have the motive (personally, I say no for the most part, with some exceptions), do any of them have the ability?

For one, NPO assumed dominance in a time period with far less rivals. Coming out of this war we are unlikely to see a bipolar web like we did pre-GPW, but rather a multipolar one. Karma is made up of several groups that are probably going to remain distinct after the war (Citadel, C&G, SF, assorted independents), and the Hegemony will either remain one entity or split into several, based on how extreme the outcome of the war is. It would be much harder for any single alliance to gain dominance with so many different polars in play, and it's worth noting that none of these blocs have a single leader to the extent that tC/WUT did.

Second, if one of the Karma alliances DID decide that they wanted to become the lone world power, once they began they'd receive quite a large outcry because of what they've said in the past regarding the same. As well, now that the Cyberverse has seen what can happen when they unite against an enemy, it is extremely unlikely anyone could act with such impunity for any real amount of time.

Finally, and I think this is the big one, very few of the current world powers have experienced a time when they had to stand truly alone. NPO did in the GPW, and I think that was part of what made them so dominant afterwards. They didn't NEED allies. They wanted them, certainly, but they had gotten where they were on the backs of their own members. None of the other front runners today can really say that. I would argue that NPO fell because they have changed so much from the sleek war machine they were in 2006 into the beast it has become, completely dependent on their web of allies, meatshields and minions that can leave at any time.

So, that said, does anyone here think it is possible for another alliance to assume the mantle of dominance and rule in the manner of NPO? I say no. NPO has ruined that chance for everyone, and that's not a bad thing.

[Trinite]

I generally agree with you.

[Sileath]

Perhaps the spirit of teamwork surrounding the Karma alliances will hold through under the guidance of Archon.

Also, TGR

[Heft]

It's worth noting that the New Pacific Order hasn't been the "lone world power" since GWI. As in the other thread, it's highly likely that, given enough time, a dominant bloc of cooperative alliances will emerge, much in the same vein as the Initiative or Continuum.

[Ejayrazz]

Hopefully not, but the future is too difficult to predict given the circumstances at hand.

I think someone will take it unintentionally, cause those after it intentionally will have a moderately difficult time in doing so.

[Lady Dakota]

Perhaps the spirit of teamwork surrounding the Karma alliances will hold through under the guidance of Archon.

Also, TGR

This is why I fell into the Vox Movement in August, the spirit of teamwork and high hopes were so overwhelming and beautiful at that time. CN needs teamwork again. Hopefully, in the future CN can keep finding the strength to keep banding together when they need to.

[Heft]

Also, if you people really believe there is no one in the Karma bloc looking at this situation and getting ambitious or hungry, then you must be exceptionally naive. Besides, if that were somehow true, I think we would all be very disappointed.

[New Frontier]

It's worth noting that the New Pacific Order hasn't been the "lone world power" since GWI. As in the other thread, it's highly likely that, given enough time, a dominant bloc of cooperative alliances will emerge, much in the same vein as the Initiative or Continuum.

The WUT was very much an NPO dominated bloc, and tC was the same, albeit to a lesser extent due to the personalities involved.

[Heft]

The WUT was very much an NPO dominated bloc, and tC was the same, albeit to a lesser extent due to the personalities involved.

The NPO may have been the single most influential alliance in both those blocs for large chunks of time (though not all the time in either case), but they were still never the single dominant power in the world.

[New Frontier]

Also, if you people really believe there is no one in the Karma bloc looking at this situation and getting ambitious or hungry, then you must be exceptionally naive. Besides, if that were somehow true, I think we would all be very disappointed.

I think the ones most likely to attempt it are also the ones least likely to be able to accomplish it.

[Tromp]

Have to disagree with Heft.

NPO ruled key blocs, it's not only Q.

And it eventually helped creating opposition, because there is no way one can please every ally as much as they had.

[Remaliat]

If alliances had honoured treaties in key wars in the past namely UJW and SPW things would have been alot closer, the New Pacific Order won wars before they even started in the past by ensuring that the actions of that alliance were very well known causing a mass flurry of cancellations on those alliance.

I think we can all agree that a power vacuum will occur after this and it will ultimately lead to an increase in the frequency of wars not the reduction of wars.

[Heft]

I think the ones most likely to attempt it are also the ones least likely to be able to accomplish it.

The ones who don't make some attempt to at least consolidate their position and keep up will be pushed out by those who do. At a certain point it becomes a matter of necessity, a kind of political arms race. I don't think it's likely that we will see any single alliance with that much influence for quite some time, because there are too many potential competitors to work out first, but I suspect there are a few in there who have both the ability and ambition to make a decent attempt at it.

Besides, you are acting like this would be a bad thing. We want people to start acting with that kind of ambition. It is what Karma is fighting for, after all, a more dynamic and competitive world, right? Then it would seem silly to say that we don't want anyone to try for being the most powerful, as that tends to be an excellent motivator for competition and dynamic political landscapes.

[New Frontier]

The ones who don't make some attempt to at least consolidate their position and keep up will be pushed out by those who do. At a certain point it becomes a matter of necessity, a kind of political arms race. I don't think it's likely that we will see any single alliance with that much influence for quite some time, because there are too many potential competitors to work out first, but I suspect there are a few in there who have both the ability and ambition to make a decent attempt at it.

Besides, you are acting like this would be a bad thing. We want people to start acting with that kind of ambition. It is what Karma is fighting for, after all, a more dynamic and competitive world, right? Then it would seem silly to say that we don't want anyone to try for being the most powerful, as that tends to be an excellent motivator for competition and dynamic political landscapes.

I think we mean different things by dominant.

Nearly every alliance wants to become the largest alliance, have the most NS, the most allies, the most members, etc. However, many of these alliances don't desire the sort of dominance that Pacifica has enjoyed, the power that involves bending others to your will.

[Heft]

I think we mean different things by dominant.

Nearly every alliance wants to become the largest alliance, have the most NS, the most allies, the most members, etc. However, many of these alliances don't desire the sort of dominance that Pacifica has enjoyed, the power that involves bending others to your will.

That power is the natural end result of those other desires, and is kind of irremoveable from those goals, as you will have to develop that power to achieve those goals in the first place. Anybody sufficiently motivated to be the strongest, largest, biggest, most awesome, will inevitably need that sort of dominance.

[kSpan]

I say no one should be able to do what they did. No one should have the right to force people out of a certain sphere for no reason. That amount of power shouldn't be had by a single alliance.

Why should someone bend others to their will and threaten them for no good reason. It tantamount to bullying at a international level, and should not be accepted by the denizens of Planet Bob. Maybe a coalition of pissed off alliances to attempt to right those wrongs is what CN needed.

Edited April 25, 2009 by kSpan

[Heft]

I say no one should be able to do what they did. No one should have the right to force people out of a certain sphere for no reason. That amount of power shouldn't be had by a single alliance.

Why? Admittedly, I don't think it's possible at this point for anyone to replicate that specifically, nor do I think it's even desirable (spheres that open themselves up to as many alliances as possible grow bigger and offer more trading opportunities), but I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. If someone is capable of doing that, and for whatever reason feels like trying to go through with it, then sure, whatever. It'd probably create some exciting conflict, at least. Again, it wouldn't really make any sense from a "does this make me stronger?" perspective but lots of people do things that don't make sense to me.

There's nothing wrong with alliances having or attempting to have that much power.

[kSpan]

But like you said letting more nations/alliances can do nothing but help the sphere, then why would, or should a alliances start booting people out. Just to assert ones strength? It would hurt the growth of the sphere and hurt the other alliances and lead to further conflict, that would harm the rest of the sphere by taking away tech deals and the like.

[Heft]

But like you said letting more nations/alliances can do nothing but help the sphere, then why would, or should a alliances start booting people out. Just to assert ones strength? It would hurt the growth of the sphere and hurt the other alliances and lead to further conflict, that would harm the rest of the sphere by taking away tech deals and the like.

It's a bad idea for someone who is trying to strengthen their own position to start conquering their sphere simply from a pragmatic perspective. But there is nothing about it that is inherently wrong or repugnant on any moral level or whatnot. To put it simply, you seem to take issue with acts that you perceive as bullying, and I take issue with acts that I perceive as irrational. Conquering a color sphere happens to fall under both of those. In a more general sense, though, an alliance having the power to bend others to their will and exercising that power is not necessarily wrong; it's what I would expect to happen and it is what drives the politics of this game. So long as those actions remain within the confines of the game (which taking over a sphere would) then there isn't anything wrong with them from an out-of-game viewpoint, and they may actually be desirable.

[Ebony Wings]

I say no one should be able to do what they did. No one should have the right to force people out of a certain sphere for no reason. That amount of power shouldn't be had by a single alliance.

Why should someone bend others to their will and threaten them for no good reason. It tantamount to bullying at a international level, and should not be accepted by the denizens of Planet Bob. Maybe a coalition of pissed off alliances to attempt to right those wrongs is what CN needed.

I think that pushing people out of a particular trading sphere is nowhere near as worrisome as their tendency to push people out of existence in its entirety. Not that I disagree with what you're saying here; the Moldavi Doctrine is not something which should have ever been allowed to pass.

[kSpan]

It's a bad idea for someone who is trying to strengthen their own position to start conquering their sphere simply from a pragmatic perspective. But there is nothing about it that is inherently wrong or repugnant on any moral level or whatnot. To put it simply, you seem to take issue with acts that you perceive as bullying, and I take issue with acts that I perceive as irrational. Conquering a color sphere happens to fall under both of those. In a more general sense, though, an alliance having the power to bend others to their will and exercising that power is not necessarily wrong; it's what I would expect to happen and it is what drives the politics of this game. So long as those actions remain within the confines of the game (which taking over a sphere would) then there isn't anything wrong with them from an out-of-game viewpoint, and they may actually be desirable.

While I agree bending people to your will isn't a bad idea, but I think its morally wrong to do that to other alliances within the game. It takes away the possibility of playing the way you would want to play it. If you could 'corner the market' so to say, and make people boost your economy, then it would have a desirable outcome for you. But would hamper the growth of other nations.

[kSpan]

I think that pushing people out of a particular trading sphere is nowhere near as worrisome as their tendency to push people out of existence in its entirety. Not that I disagree with what you're saying here; the Moldavi Doctrine is not something which should have ever been allowed to pass.

I agree totally.

[New Frontier]

I agree with Heft regarding the whole trade circle thing. However, the reason it makes for interesting conflict is because people like KSpan decide to fight about it.