On blocs...

[Tom Litler]

Many of the Karma followers seem to think that taking out "the Hegemony" or the New Pacific Order will help politics. Let's ignore for a moment the ethics of the Karma alliances and focus on the more general political construct of the world; blocs. With the downfall of the current hyperpowers politics will remain stagnant because wars will no longer be challenging or unpredictable. Because everyone is tied to a bloc, there are two types of wars that are possible; a curbstomp and a global conflict. The only degree of diplomatic skill or prowess required is to the end of isolating an alliance or group to prepare for a curbstomp or otherwise risk starting a global conflict which may begin with an unpredictable outcome but depending on the comparative morale and resolve of both sides, will become apparent within a day's time. Wars are no longer possible on a non-massive scale. There are some exceptions. Some special cases as that of FAN result in a political victory later on despite the nature of the actual conflict being rather one-sided but that extra dimension is as far as war goes in this game.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Now that treaties have little real meaning, the only possible outcome is a curb stomp.

[Tom Litler]

Now that treaties have little real meaning, the only possible outcome is a curb stomp.

Looking at it your way, there's all the more variety. O WAIT

[WingEater]

Many of the Karma followers seem to think that taking out "the Hegemony" or the New Pacific Order will help politics. Let's ignore for a moment the ethics of the Karma alliances and focus on the more general political construct of the world; blocs. With the downfall of the current hyperpowers politics will remain stagnant because wars will no longer be challenging or unpredictable. Because everyone is tied to a bloc, there are two types of wars that are possible; a curbstomp and a global conflict. The only degree of diplomatic skill or prowess required is to the end of isolating an alliance or group to prepare for a curbstomp or otherwise risk starting a global conflict which may begin with an unpredictable outcome but depending on the comparative morale and resolve of both sides, will become apparent within a day's time. Wars are no longer possible on a non-massive scale. There are some exceptions. Some special cases as that of FAN result in a political victory later on despite the nature of the actual conflict being rather one-sided but that extra dimension is as far as war goes in this game.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

If your correct, then I think that is what many want. Unpredictable massive conflicts involving blocs fighting each other. As opposed to several blocs ganging up on an alliance or two.

[Hegemon Rob]

well as we all know this is the result of the MDP web and everyone being connected to each other.

If people want to make this game, I'd suggest stop signing as many treaties as they can(these end up meaning little), and focusing on sigini9ng with true friends.

Perhaps becoming more isolated from the existing all encompassing MDP web(this would require not stepping on anyone's toes, or you'll get curb stomped) and forming a separate MDP one.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Hegemon Rob

[Tom Litler]

If your correct, then I think that is what many want. Unpredictable massive conflicts involving blocs fighting each other. As opposed to several blocs ganging up on an alliance or two.

No, what people usually aim for is for several blocs to gang up on an alliance or two. Sometimes, as in the case of the present war, the results may be unpredictable. Usually, however, people tend to isolate their enemies.

[WcaesarD]

Many of the Karma followers seem to think that taking out "the Hegemony" or the New Pacific Order will help politics. Let's ignore for a moment the ethics of the Karma alliances and focus on the more general political construct of the world; blocs. With the downfall of the current hyperpowers politics will remain stagnant because wars will no longer be challenging or unpredictable. Because everyone is tied to a bloc, there are two types of wars that are possible; a curbstomp and a global conflict. The only degree of diplomatic skill or prowess required is to the end of isolating an alliance or group to prepare for a curbstomp or otherwise risk starting a global conflict which may begin with an unpredictable outcome but depending on the comparative morale and resolve of both sides, will become apparent within a day's time. Wars are no longer possible on a non-massive scale. There are some exceptions. Some special cases as that of FAN result in a political victory later on despite the nature of the actual conflict being rather one-sided but that extra dimension is as far as war goes in this game.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

Your point that wars up to this point have been challenging and unpredictable might be a little flawed, I haven't seen a war that was closer at onset than the Karma war in a long time, and even that may or may not have been close, depending on who you talk to.

I'd guess that in a no longer monopolar world in terms of condensed power, you'll most likely see the same number of conflicts. What people don't seem to understand is that quite often, there is no reason to go to war. Most of the time it's fairly simple to come to a diplomatic solution agreeable to both parties.

[Tom Litler]

Your point that wars up to this point have been challenging and unpredictable might be a little flawed, I haven't seen a war that was closer at onset than the Karma war in a long time, and even that may or may not have been close, depending on who you talk to.

I'd guess that in a no longer monopolar world in terms of condensed power, you'll most likely see the same number of conflicts. What people don't seem to understand is that quite often, there is no reason to go to war. Most of the time it's fairly simple to come to a diplomatic solution agreeable to both parties.

That isn't my point at all. I am trying to say that wars are NOT challenging are ARE predictable.

[WcaesarD]

That isn't my point at all. I am trying to say that wars are NOT challenging are ARE predictable.

My mistake, I read it as though you had said they hadn't been in the past, and they would be now. I see that you meant that war has been pretty all around boring because of the curbstomps.

However, even most of the global wars just eventually turned into curbstomps. Everyone wants to see more war, but I have to say, unless random alliances start taking things a lot more seriously (lol CSB), or manufacturing CB's, it's not going to happen for any reason I can think of.

[enderland]

Many of the Karma followers seem to think that taking out "the Hegemony" or the New Pacific Order will help politics. Let's ignore for a moment the ethics of the Karma alliances and focus on the more general political construct of the world; blocs. With the downfall of the current hyperpowers politics will remain stagnant because wars will no longer be challenging or unpredictable. Because everyone is tied to a bloc, there are two types of wars that are possible; a curbstomp and a global conflict. The only degree of diplomatic skill or prowess required is to the end of isolating an alliance or group to prepare for a curbstomp or otherwise risk starting a global conflict which may begin with an unpredictable outcome but depending on the comparative morale and resolve of both sides, will become apparent within a day's time. Wars are no longer possible on a non-massive scale. There are some exceptions. Some special cases as that of FAN result in a political victory later on despite the nature of the actual conflict being rather one-sided but that extra dimension is as far as war goes in this game.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

You forget that most alliances drop treaties when convienient and protectorates are only "we like you when you don't do dumb stuff."

[Mixoux]

Uh, it's been this way for a while. When it wasn't blocs, it was straight MDPs. Then MDoAPs. Then MADPs and blocs. Now blocs treatying other blocs.

[DerPrinz]

It's not like alliances are going to stop doing this, a lot of treaties makes you look strong and that you have backup if you get attacked.

[Delta1212]

I think you miss the point. Wars are an extension of politics. Sure, by the time one starts, the winner becomes apparent pretty quickly just because of how wars work. Right now, though, you can't really pick out two major groups at random and say "If they go to war in the next few months, this one will definitely win without a doubt." I knew Polar was going to get crushed over six months before the war actually happened. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were actually paying attention knew BLEU was going to lose as soon as they realized they were the opposition to Continuum.

Right now, the really major powers are Citadel, SF and C&G/Frostbite. Pit any two against each other and you can't guarantee you know who would win. You could give odds based on how the war starts and various other factors, but you can't really be sure. It's sort of like this war. Yes, plenty of people had ideas about how things would go, some of which turned out to be more or less accurate, but until the first shot was actually fired, nobody was really positive how everything would play out. Once it did play out, it was almost immediately apparent who had won, but for the last six months or so, that wasn't the case. And that is what made the political build up to the war so fun, and not just for the leadership, but for most of the peanut gallery as well.

[WcaesarD]

I like the idea of each alliance picking one combatant and sending them out on the field to do battle, winner nation's alliance takes all!

[bkphysics]

I think you miss the point. Wars are an extension of politics. Sure, by the time one starts, the winner becomes apparent pretty quickly just because of how wars work. Right now, though, you can't really pick out two major groups at random and say "If they go to war in the next few months, this one will definitely win without a doubt." I knew Polar was going to get crushed over six months before the war actually happened. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were actually paying attention knew BLEU was going to lose as soon as they realized they were the opposition to Continuum.

Right now, the really major powers are Citadel, SF and C&G/Frostbite. Pit any two against each other and you can't guarantee you know who would win. You could give odds based on how the war starts and various other factors, but you can't really be sure. It's sort of like this war. Yes, plenty of people had ideas about how things would go, some of which turned out to be more or less accurate, but until the first shot was actually fired, nobody was really positive how everything would play out. Once it did play out, it was almost immediately apparent who had won, but for the last six months or so, that wasn't the case. And that is what made the political build up to the war so fun, and not just for the leadership, but for most of the peanut gallery as well.

This ^

If you go to war not knowing the outcome, you haven't planned for battle properly or are just being foolhardy. That's always been my thought on the subject. Whether you gain the advantage via political maneuvering, vast firepower, or another method, it is all part of the battle. Wars are not simply fought on the battlefield anymore.

[Tom Litler]

You forget that most alliances drop treaties when convienient and protectorates are only "we like you when you don't do dumb stuff."

By "don't do dumb stuff" you mean "we like you until protecting you actually means taking damage".

[Tom Litler]

Right now, the really major powers are Citadel, SF and C&G/Frostbite. Pit any two against each other and you can't guarantee you know who would win.

I'm pretty sure that none of the above blocs could beat Citadel. Citadel would decimate their top ranks while the bottom would be left untouched because they'd all be out of range of the giant Citadel nations.

[enderland]

By "don't do dumb stuff" you mean "we like you until protecting you actually means taking damage".

Yeah basically.

[KainIIIC]

Well, it's ultimately just an extension of the prisoner's dilemma in a security situation. You could choose to be isolated diplomatically, and then risk getting curbstomped or simply beaten by a bigger alliance or group of alliances, a la GPA or GATO. Or, you could choose to web yourself in a group of treaties, risking that entrance into war will be possible, sometimes on the losing side. There really is no optimal path of least resistance, each choice will have a good share of its pros and cons.

[Neo Uruk]

I'm pretty sure that none of the above blocs could beat Citadel. Citadel would decimate their top ranks while the bottom would be left untouched because they'd all be out of range of the giant Citadel nations.

You have to factor in said major bloc's allies as well.

[Tom Litler]

You have to factor in said major bloc's allies as well.

Not much difference there. Plus, in that case we'd also have to consider alliances jumping on Citadel's bandwagon.

[Tromp]

And it would take a hell of a lot of coordination.

But seriously, I think Delta nailed it. Nothing to add to it.

[Choader]

The Citadel is the only untouchable power left. To say we live in a new multi polar world is misleading, not to mention the massive amount of necessary restructuring needed in the treaty web for any large scale war between the four remaining major blocs.

Various people can piss and moan about the Citadel all they want, but when it comes to rolling them, it could only be done internally.

[WcaesarD]

The Citadel is the only untouchable power left. To say we live in a new multi polar world is misleading, not to mention the massive amount of necessary restructuring needed in the treaty web for any large scale war between the four remaining major blocs.

Various people can piss and moan about the Citadel all they want, but when it comes to rolling them, it could only be done internally.

Well there was clearly a little disagreement within bloc what with the whole OG situation. However, what need does anyone have to attack Citadel? Have they committed some great crime I'm not aware of? Just because a bloc or alliance CAN be destroyed, it doesn't mean that they should be. But the same reason Citadel can't be destroyed by many alliances is the exact reason they aren't quite the power they seem, they have a very small number of lower ranked nations, in a war with certain alliances, they wouldn't have the slots to attack a large % of the population, and then anyone of their larger guys who got knocked down would be swarmed every 7 days until his warchest ran out. It would be an interesting scenario, if it ever happened.

[steodonn]

I think this applys

Winners win and then go to war

Losers go to war and then try win

Or something like that