Branimir Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The world does not have to be as it was before. This naivety is not becoming for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The Continuum was not held together by the NPO, it was held together by a mutual desire for security, stability, power, or any other such things, all of which were provided to all of those who participated in and perpetuated it. Alliances and blocs can not stay in isolation in perpetuity, they will inevitably come into contact one way or another. Multipolarity, in the sense of multiple independent and balancing blocs, is not what political realities push people towards. We have seen plenty of leaders of hegemonic powers state openly how at times it was just easier to go along with what the NPO proposed. Sure you can claim that is simply what they say now to try and absolve themselves but come on, it seems very plausible to me if they wanted that security, stability and power. So when those alliances began to question things, all of that began to fade. It becomes a circular path of failure that leaders need to realize has no other ending. It only seems like it is the only possibility because no one is willing to truly stick to a different path long enough to find out if there actually is another way. This naivety is not becoming for you. I can live with that, then again I would have to agree that it is naivety in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 We have seen plenty of leaders of hegemonic powers state openly how at times it was just easier to go along with what the NPO proposed. Sure you can claim that is simply what they say now to try and absolve themselves but come on, it seems very plausible to me if they wanted that security, stability and power. So when those alliances began to question things, all of that began to fade. It becomes a circular path of failure that leaders need to realize has no other ending. It only seems like it is the only possibility because no one is willing to truly stick to a different path long enough to find out if there actually is another way. Even within the Continuum there will multiple poles of power. Certainly some alliances were more dominant than others, and NPO was generally one of them, but it is overly simplistic to believe that the Continuum revolved solely around the NPO. What you bring up are specific instances where the NPO actively sought to make weaker partners do something. In general, yes those partners would have done it as opposition would have been bad. But that doesn't mean that everyone cooperated because the NPO held them together. The hegemony and even just the continuum itself was too large and too diverse for one single entity to so thoroughly dominate. They were akin to a figurehead. The glue that actually brought such a large group together and held it together for so long was a mutual desire for some or all of the benefits everyone gained by helping create and helping continue that group. On the flipside, there was also perhaps an understanding that if they weren't in it, then they were out of it, and being in it gave them access to a huge amount of influence and protection while being out of it left them subject to that influence. So it was both in their interest to join it, and not in their interest to oppose it. You didn't have everyone jumping on board because of suave NPO diplomacy, you had everyone jumping on board because they did a quick political calculation and realized that the benefits of saying "yes" grossly outweighed any other option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Even within the Continuum there will multiple poles of power. Certainly some alliances were more dominant than others, and NPO was generally one of them, but it is overly simplistic to believe that the Continuum revolved solely around the NPO. What you bring up are specific instances where the NPO actively sought to make weaker partners do something. In general, yes those partners would have done it as opposition would have been bad. But that doesn't mean that everyone cooperated because the NPO held them together. The hegemony and even just the continuum itself was too large and too diverse for one single entity to so thoroughly dominate. They were akin to a figurehead. The glue that actually brought such a large group together and held it together for so long was a mutual desire for some or all of the benefits everyone gained by helping create and helping continue that group. On the flipside, there was also perhaps an understanding that if they weren't in it, then they were out of it, and being in it gave them access to a huge amount of influence and protection while being out of it left them subject to that influence. So it was both in their interest to join it, and not in their interest to oppose it. You didn't have everyone jumping on board because of suave NPO diplomacy, you had everyone jumping on board because they did a quick political calculation and realized that the benefits of saying "yes" grossly outweighed any other option. So, what we have here is a multipolar organization with an aim for a world with a single pole? The only difference is the facade put on to allow these multiple poles to control. The one difference is the desire by these powers to control others. It is all dependent upon whether or not the individual Kingdoms wish to present themselves as an Empire in order to control all the other Kingdoms or whether they are each content to protect their own lands and the lands of those they hold most dear. Why they would want to be tied into defending those they dont really like is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) So, what we have here is a multipolar organization with an aim for a world with a single pole? The only difference is the facade put on to allow these multiple poles to control. The one difference is the desire by these powers to control others.It is all dependent upon whether or not the individual Kingdoms wish to present themselves as an Empire in order to control all the other Kingdoms or whether they are each content to protect their own lands and the lands of those they hold most dear. Why they would want to be tied into defending those they dont really like is beyond me. You're more or less correct. The answer to your last question is actually quite simple. 1) They will also be tied to defending you even if they don't really like you and 2) For them to attack you would hurt them, if you provide them with some form of utility. And thus interdependence is born (well maybe not quite that simply, but more or less). Edited July 20, 2009 by Heft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 You're more or less correct. The answer to your last question is actually quite simple. 1) They will also be tied to defending you even if they don't really like you and 2) For them to attack you would hurt them, if you provide them with some form of utility. And thus interdependence is born (well maybe not quite that simply, but more or less). It is a false security when you agree to work with those you do not really care for and that do not really care for you. It is basically like handing over information to your future enemies. Why anyone would wish to do such after seeing the catastrophe that was this war we just experienced is once again beyond me. I don't wish to be part of an alliance that has to defend half or more of the world and I certainly dont want to be lulled to sleep by thinking that over half the world is going to protect me. Look how well that worked out for alliances like TPF? How about Molon Labe? Yeah they had quite a few of their trusted allies stand up for them right? Wrong. What we have learned from multiple instances during this war is that overextending one's self with treaties does not make you more secure but it makes you less secure. It is a false belief that is being propogated still as the only way even though there is resounding recent evidence to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 'Hegemony' was a term that was made up by members of Karma to identify those on the side of the Continuum and 1V and their allies. It seemed to gain acceptance more universally as time went on. However, it wasn't anything that existed prior to the war as a discrete political body. I think the real question is: "will there ever again be an alliance that has the political clout and connections of an NPO? Barring Planet Bob being shut down due to lack of interest some day, the answer is 'yes', if for no other reason but that there is nothing to prevent it within the context of the game. Does that alliance already exist? Perhaps not. You can talk about this or that alliance becoming the "next NPO", but the current political climate doesn't favor it. We are probably in for an extended period, perhaps a year or more, where the nail that sticks out too far "gets the hammer". These are what the Chinese used to refer to as "interesting times" and the outcome has never been more uncertain than right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 It is a false security when you agree to work with those you do not really care for and that do not really care for you. It is basically like handing over information to your future enemies. Why anyone would wish to do such after seeing the catastrophe that was this war we just experienced is once again beyond me. I don't wish to be part of an alliance that has to defend half or more of the world and I certainly dont want to be lulled to sleep by thinking that over half the world is going to protect me.Look how well that worked out for alliances like TPF? How about Molon Labe? Yeah they had quite a few of their trusted allies stand up for them right? Wrong. What we have learned from multiple instances during this war is that overextending one's self with treaties does not make you more secure but it makes you less secure. It is a false belief that is being propogated still as the only way even though there is resounding recent evidence to the contrary. The Continuum failed. Those who put themselves at the top had a long way to fall when the structure collapsed. They may have been more secure if they had smaller more close-minded structures in the sense of not having as much to lose, but they also wouldn't have been able to gain as much, and they wouldn't have ever been as secure as they were with a successful Continuum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The Continuum failed. Those who put themselves at the top had a long way to fall when the structure collapsed. They may have been more secure if they had smaller more close-minded structures in the sense of not having as much to lose, but they also wouldn't have been able to gain as much, and they wouldn't have ever been as secure as they were with a successful Continuum. What exactly did they gain? The enmity of the world? Shadowed figures around every corner waiting for the opportune moment to strike? The internal questioning of which allies would be the ones to first turn on them? The paranoia that came from such power became obvious to all. Who in their right mind would actually want that? It made great storyline to keep people interested and a great challenge will be for people to find a new reason to remain as the old reason of vengeance and toppling the Evil Empire is now over and done. Its almost as if folks need that great evil to struggle against and the constant political game between more equal Houses is just not as appealing. We shall see though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Although I dream of a world wherein there are multiple poles of power, I certainly fear that the preservation instinct will take hold again soon and we shall see a proliferation of treaties that heralds the coming of such a 'new hegemony'. A spot-on post about how fear leads to treaty build-up which leads to hegemonic structures after wars, but one I think would benefit from noting how many of the victors in this war (Frostbite, SF, CnG, and so on) have to an extent already lost everything once. I'm not so sure we fear it as much as we might've beforehand (UJW, Karma War, etc). Certainly a lot of us plunged into this one thinking we were pretty much done for. But yeah, constant vigilance regarding anyone else trying to take the reigns is necessary, but a part of me also doesn't believe there's anyone around atm that could command enough respect, with enough NS and people across the world, to hold on to power for very long. I'm betting plenty will try but they'll either be laughed at, killed, or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahnite Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I don't mean to sound ignorant or anything, but who exactly do you people (the ones asserting that there is a new Hegemony) think are in this "New Regime"?One day it's TOP, the next it's Athens, the next it's SF, and every other day besides that it's Sparta. ... Welcome to Afghanistan circa mid-1990. Warlords vie for power after the Soviets leave. Karma = Mujahideen Electric Sponge = Dostum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Do not forget the Continuum not only ment protection. It did also mean protection for all alliances treatied to the member alliances. So basically a member alliance could not even be pulled into a war via their treaty partners. Vice versa a member alliance also did not have the opportunity to declare war on alliances allied to other member alliances thus preserving peace for a long time. I think this was the reason why the Continuum held out this long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opethian Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 The PPF was behind all of this. This is not the end game, either; may your god(s) have mercy on your souls, good citizens of Planet Bob. p.s. Sharks RULE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 He who battles monsters blah blah blah cliche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Every villain is a misunderstood crusader for justice in their own eyes. Many of the "truths" we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. Will Karma become a hegemony? Who knows? Will Karma be accused of being a hegemony? Defiantly. But this may or may not actually be the case. Edited July 21, 2009 by Prime minister Johns 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.