On blocs...

[Incitatus]

I agree with you 100%

I'm not a huge fan of blocs at all. War-time blocs are alright but blocs ruin many aspects of the game.

[Jipps]

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

Pretty much this. Thanks to our beautiful treaty web, we always know who is going to get rolled as well.

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.

Then you just make a bloc of small nations that Citadel can't hit

[HeinousOne]

Well Tom, I think we are seeing a gradual change in the world. The blocs of the world are now more even and numerous. The world is not going to completely change due to this one war, such things take quite a bit of time and more then one massive conflict.

If your wish is to see a CN where alliances do not come together for mutual protection groups then you probably won't ever get that wish. Let us see how the world shapes up after this war is over before making any declarations of failure though.

[Hasin]

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.

I'm pretty sure a massive coalition could roll us. I don't know which option would be easier though.

[Roosterton]

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.

My opinion, is simply that Cybernations is growing. New Nations, New Alliances, New blocs, and in exchange, bigger wars. Nothing wrong or out of the ordinary with that. Heck, massive wars are fun, anyway.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Roosterton

[President Obama]

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.

I think you're underestimating the strength of a bloc like SF to be honest. SF/Frostbite/CnG could probably beat Citadel in a fight. And those 3 blocs also have more allies than Citadel does at the moment, it wouldn't be easy but it is pretty doable I'd say.