Color Sphere Unity: Why is political homogeneity so good?

[heggo]

A friendly and huge color sphere = economic advantage, leads to military advantage.

Trades are economic wise the most important aspect in this game for any nation regardless their size. The option to find the perfect trade set for your nation is a huge advantage, it´s just that simple on a huge sphere you have more possible partners, easier finding trades.

With the optimal trade set a young nation grows faster and an old one earns millions more cash per day.

Protecting the wealth of the sphere your alliance resides in is the best legit reason to go to war ever and it´s weird that this aspect of CN is so less used. I can´t remember any bigger war that emerged from that kind of situation.

From a pure logical point of view, alliances that are very close or in a bloc should be per definition on the same color as it makes the most sense. The reality is quite different because of the hegemonial aspect which influences the political and emotional one a lot in addtion people are lazy, selfish and creatures of habit like "Nah, i don´t want to move color because then i need to find new trades that´s annoying"

Although the hegemony over a color is by far overrated many alliances still think that way, it´s really weird that hegemony over a color and senator seats are so important to many. I guess it´s a projection of power they like to have. On the other hand colors are mini CN universes and i guess "ruling" your own little universe if you aren´t a power in the big one is somewhat satisfying.

I agree with this on many a count. Having read your points here (and zig's, the more that I think of it) I've changed my mind to a degree. I can see your point with respect to NAPs (and I've never really had any problems with agreements to not embargo eachother, if they're just that) but I still don't see how any of this defends the folks who use color sphere unity treaties as a means for pulling their sphere into line with their politics.

That said, to Mr. Bob Janova, I was thinking more of BLEU and PEACE type treaties, where there is a defensive clause- be it mandatory or highly encouraged.

Edited August 6, 2009 by heggo

[Haflinger]

That said, to Mr. Bob Janova, I was thinking more of BLEU and PEACE type treaties, where there is a defensive clause- be it mandatory or highly encouraged.

BLEU is gone, and PEACE isn't politically homogenous. We do defend each other, yes, but that's not the same thing.

[astronaut jones]

A lot of times, colour treaties are a means for one alliance to attempt to control their sphere for their own goals, under the guise that their actual goal is "unity" to make their sphere "safer" and "better" or what have you.

Best example would be valhalla with purple (I'll pull out logs of chefjoe if I have to), but I they're not the only ones, so I'm not blaming them or anything. People do what they wanna do, and good for them, but that's usually the main reasoning behind colour unity treaties. One alliance attempting to control the others, though that's not always the case. Of course, everyone is going to come in here and deny it, but really, really.. can you, in all truthfulness?

[heggo]

BLEU is gone, and PEACE isn't politically homogenous. We do defend each other, yes, but that's not the same thing.

I'm aware of BLEU being gone and as for PEACE, I would say that fighting with each other is pretty close to political homogeneity. As close as one can realistically get, anyway.

And astronautjones, somehow I'm not surprised.

[Heft]

A lot of times, colour treaties are a means for one alliance to attempt to control their sphere for their own goals, under the guise that their actual goal is "unity" to make their sphere "safer" and "better" or what have you.

Best example would be valhalla with purple (I'll pull out logs of chefjoe if I have to), but I they're not the only ones, so I'm not blaming them or anything. People do what they wanna do, and good for them, but that's usually the main reasoning behind colour unity treaties. One alliance attempting to control the others, though that's not always the case. Of course, everyone is going to come in here and deny it, but really, really.. can you, in all truthfulness?

In the successful ones, at least, that's almost never the case, if only because for it to be successful it has to grow to a point where no single alliance could control it. If you want to control a sphere you constrict it, you don't encourage more people to come or encourage political diversity (i.e, what most "unity" treaties are for).

[Master Hakai]

Pink, for example, has unity because we have unity. We're all homies, so why not get some strong treaties going? I realize it's different on other spheres, though. That's why I'm not in them.

[Haflinger]

In the successful ones, at least, that's almost never the case, if only because for it to be successful it has to grow to a point where no single alliance could control it. If you want to control a sphere you constrict it, you don't encourage more people to come or encourage political diversity (i.e, what most "unity" treaties are for).

This is pretty much exactly what happened in Purple, which is why we grew.

[Uhtred]

because having your colormates allied to you means that trades won't be broken during a war and you get a senate seat to sanction rogues and such. While a diverse color sphere that has alliance on all ends of the political spectrum means that during war time unless their is some unity already you will inevitably have alliances on the same color fighting and as such after the war hostilities will remain between the alliances that will cut down on the number of potential trading partners to do to unwillingness to trade with a former enemy and may even lead to alliances leaving the color due to the fact that they decide they cannot remain on a color that they have no power in meaning that the color overall is reduced in size and strength.

I disagree with this notion. STA has never truly been allied to another white alliance but we have no issues finding trades with our neighbours on white. In the last three major wars TPF and STA have been on the opposite sides yet we've never once descended to pettiness over trade cooperation nor to sanctioning each other. It just comes down to how spiteful alliances are and whether or not they're prepared to screw themselves over just to drag down a rival. In fact the best trading partner I've ever had was and still is in TPF. Mind you, eventually he cancelled the trade because he was suckered into a trade circle, as such I now note with glee that I have full trades yet his trade circle does not.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Uhtred

[astronaut jones]

This is pretty much exactly what happened in Purple, which is why we grew.

When valhalla and them were starting their prince campaign, it was funny to hear him talk about how legion and the rest of them were essentially puppets and how he and valhalla had all the power on purple, as they basically did as they said, and they'd basically do as valhalla dictated them to do on purple. Things may have changed, but that's how it all started, or why it all started.

lemme dig up the logs, they're kinda old, and I don't remember if they were in query or if they were in a channel, but it was around the time they were courting poison clan to move to purple (which was like.. way early on in it's existence).

[anenu]

I disagree with this notion. STA has never truly been allied to another white alliance but we have no issues finding trades with our neighbours on white. In the last three major wars TPF and STA have been on the opposite sides yet we've never once descended to pettiness over trade cooperation nor to sanctioning each other. It just comes down to how spiteful alliances are and whether or not they're prepared to screw themselves over just to drag down a rival. In fact the best trading partner I've ever had was and still is in TPF. Mind you, eventually he cancelled the trade because he was suckered into a trade circle, as such I now note with glee that I have full trades yet his trade circle does not.

Unless i am mistaken TPF and STA have never actually directly fought each other and as such don't have the normal hostilities that can remain from such a war.

[Uhtred]

Unless i am mistaken TPF and STA have never actually directly fought each other and as such don't have the normal hostilities that can remain from such a war.

No, we haven't. However, although I can't speak for TPF, I can say without doubt that even if we had fought them, STA wouldn't enact any kind of trade embargo against TPF. Having more desirable trades ourselves is more important to us than TPF having less desirable trades, regardless of the circumstances.

A better example than STA and TPF would be the Shark Wars in which STA and WAPA went to war. We haven't enacted any embargoes against WAPA and our members certainly have no issue with offering trades to WAPA nations. And despite not being able to speak on WAPA's behalf I don't believe they have enacted any trade embargoes on us either, I've certainly not heard any complaints from STA members being refused trades from WAPA anyway.

[Steelrat]

As i said that is the crazy, weird aspect in CN. There is so much ruthless powerplay going on, betrayal, foolplay on so many scales and what not and compared to that a trade embargo is still seen as immoral by many. Why? Why is a trade embargo different to a nuclear war. Both are to damage the enemy, both are complete legal strategies. Again here the somewhat crazy concept of sharing a color sphere with your enemy and in contrast to that knowing trades are very important plays a very big role.

Still we haven´t seen any bigger war emerged from that kind of powerplay although we all seem to know that trades are essential.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Steelrat

[Haflinger]

When valhalla and them were starting their prince campaign, it was funny to hear him talk about how legion and the rest of them were essentially puppets and how he and valhalla had all the power on purple, as they basically did as they said, and they'd basically do as valhalla dictated them to do on purple. Things may have changed, but that's how it all started, or why it all started.

lemme dig up the logs, they're kinda old, and I don't remember if they were in query or if they were in a channel, but it was around the time they were courting poison clan to move to purple (which was like.. way early on in it's existence).

Yes, you have a point; however people don't always meet their objectives.

[Magister Agricolarum]

...it was funny to hear him talk about how legion and the rest of them were essentially puppets and how he and valhalla had all the power on purple, as they basically did as they said, and they'd basically do as valhalla dictated them to do on purple. Things may have changed, but that's how it all started, or why it all started.

It came about because the noWedge method of trying to bully and intimidate other purple alliances into compliance was counter-productive. Once noWedge was removed, they had the option of continuing his so-successful method and becoming even more isolated on purple, or of attempting to "unify" the sphere and regain some initiative. Guess which one they chose?

Regardless of the transparent realpolitik behind PEACE's creation (and more on the topic of the OP), PEACE did help to stabilize a once-chaotic and uninviting sphere, particularly by creating a mechanism by which new alliances to the sphere would be welcomed, rather than bullied out of existence. Proof? Until the signing of PEACE, there were four major purple alliances (The Legion (founded 31 January 2006), United Purple Nations (24 January 2007), Valhalla (26 February 2007), and Invicta (28 May 2007)). Yes, there had always been micro-alliances on purple (about 10 at any given time), but their combined membership was never much more than 200. Purple's now the fifth-largest sphere, and has a plethora of mid-sized and small alliances residing on it, all contributing to its ... unique ... culture.

Edit:

Again here the somewhat crazy concept of sharing a color sphere with your enemy and in contrast to that knowing trades are very important plays a very big role.

Still we haven´t seen any bigger war emerged from that kind of powerplay although we all seem to know that trades are essential.

One of Valhalla's original terms to the Legion after Purplegate was for the Legion to relocate to the "No-Color" sphere. To this day, I'm not sure why this was even a term, because the loss of 400+ trades would have been utterly crippling to the entire sphere.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Magister Agricolarum

[Tygaland]

The issue for me is that people have differing views on what constitutes "unity" on a trading sphere.

For some it is a team-wide treaty of levels ranging from a NAP through to MDoAP which would constitute political unity. For others a simple economic agreement is more than enough to promote cooperation within a trading sphere and to promote the sphere as a viable home for alliances starting out or fleeing turmoil in their current team. The latter does not require political or military unity and I think is a more viable option to encourage both cooperation and political diversity on a team.

To me, a lot of people pushing team unity and the accompanying bloc military treaty are doing so to drag an entire team across to their side of the political spectrum. They can do this by targeting key alliances on their team with diplomatic efforts to promote the chances of a treaty, by politically isolating and attempting to drive an alliance from the sphere if they do not conform to the "unity" politics and by seeding the team with protectorates which further pushes any alliances with a differing point of view into the political minority.

To me, the true success of a team is the ability of a team to accept others on their team with a differing political viewpoint while maintaining the economic cooperation required to benefit all members of the team. For all the bickering on the white team over "unity" and the penchant to push military treaties embedded into economic blocs, the team has not resorted to sanction wars and dropping of trades even when members of the white team have found themselves on the opposite sides of a conflict. This suggests to me that political homogeneity is not a prerequisite for a team to carry out its primary role which is providing economic stability and cooperation.

If a team can create a homogeneous political environment then good for them. I just do not feel it is a necessity for a team to function properly economically.

[WalkerNinja]

Instead of another soap-box session, why not engage in a materialist comparison of color spheres with and without unifying structures?

Without doing any real research, it seems clear that nations and alliances on Orange, Blue, Red, and Aqua (spheres with strong traditions of unity) do pretty well.

Maroon, Brown, Pink, Green, and Purple all have problems and nothing comparable to the extended unity of the previously mentioned spheres.

While this doesn't even qualify as proximate cause, the presence of a successful color unity organization (even if, as in the case of red, that organization is a single alliance) positively impacts the material growth and political success of it's constituent members.

[Haflinger]

One of Valhalla's original terms to the Legion after Purplegate was for the Legion to relocate to the "No-Color" sphere. To this day, I'm not sure why this was even a term, because the loss of 400+ trades would have been utterly crippling to the entire sphere.

Remember that at the time, much of Valhalla was not Purple, thanks in part to a Legion policy against trading with them.

The trade blockade against Val also meant that of the ones that were Purple, most would not have been affected by the loss.

[Tygaland]

I seem to recall blue having some issues in the not too distant past.

[Haflinger]

Instead of another soap-box session, why not engage in a materialist comparison of color spheres with and without unifying structures?

Without doing any real research, it seems clear that nations and alliances on Orange, Blue, Red, and Aqua (spheres with strong traditions of unity) do pretty well.

Maroon, Brown, Pink, Green, and Purple all have problems and nothing comparable to the extended unity of the previously mentioned spheres.

While this doesn't even qualify as proximate cause, the presence of a successful color unity organization (even if, as in the case of red, that organization is a single alliance) positively impacts the material growth and political success of it's constituent members.

Wait, you're saying that Aqua is more unified than Purple?

If you believe that, I have some real estate you might be interested in.

[Lord Brendan]

Instead of another soap-box session, why not engage in a materialist comparison of color spheres with and without unifying structures?

Without doing any real research, it seems clear that nations and alliances on Orange, Blue, Red, and Aqua (spheres with strong traditions of unity) do pretty well.

Maroon, Brown, Pink, Green, and Purple all have problems and nothing comparable to the extended unity of the previously mentioned spheres.

While this doesn't even qualify as proximate cause, the presence of a successful color unity organization (even if, as in the case of red, that organization is a single alliance) positively impacts the material growth and political success of it's constituent members.

I'd say that Maroon, Pink and Purple are by far the three most unified spheres.

[heggo]

I'd say that Maroon, Pink and Purple are by far the three most unified spheres.

Wait, you're saying that Aqua is more unified than Purple?

If you believe that, I have some real estate you might be interested in.

This sorta talk is really the main thing I objected to to begin with. High levels of "unity" aren't necessary so long as there is a [ooc]geneva conventions[/ooc] of sorts that makes sure that nobody does anything overly drastic.

[Sylar]

I'd say that Maroon, Pink and Purple are by far the three most unified spheres.

theres a pretty high chance

and unity is important cause last thing you need is a sanction war lol

Edited August 6, 2009 by Sylar

[Starcraftmazter]

It seems that a lot of weight is placed on political color sphere unity these days and, for the life of me, I can't quite understand why.

Yep...that's where I was about 2 years ago. Now I know better.

Given the great amount of effort put into creating color sphere unity pacts, it only follows that effort is also placed into maintaining them, so as to avoid repeating the original effort. In other words, at least some amount of pressure (no doubt, the amount is dependent on the specific sphere in question) is put on alliances to enter into sphere unity treaties, or at least to not come out entirely in opposition to the main unified group. It also follows that if great effort is put into creating sphere unity treaties (and at least some put into maintaining them) people must prize what they get out of them- they must prize political sphere unity.

Why do you assume that every bloc unity treaty is like BLEU? Your assumption is incorrect.

But here's the thing: why is this political homogeneity so great? Why should it be used as a core test of comparison among spheres and why should people be pressured into promoting sphere unity?

It's not. What are you, new or something? I think it's a heck of a lot more important as to which team is more accommodating, friendly, most nations, most organised trade cooperation, etc. And at no stage is there any pressure on anyone to do anything. Those people and alliances who choose to work on sphere unity do so because they want to.

Think of it in terms of diversification. If everyone on a sphere fights on the same side of a war, it's all bully if they win. If they win, the sphere wins. But suppose they lose. Then all alliances on the sphere would lose members and the sphere would suffer much more than if they weren't unified. If a sphere isn't homogeneous, on the other hand, then you are guaranteed that in the event of a major war, at least some alliances will win and some will lose. Because the sphere has diversified its alliance holdings between various political camps, the negative impact on the sphere will be balanced by the positive impact, insulating the sphere from war related decline. In finance terms, the sphere is hedged against major wars.

Yes, let's all disregard all our friends, ideologies and current political connections, and let our politics be dictated by our sphere in such a way that we make an arrangement with another half of the sphere to join two separate sides of the war...

I suppose the other issue folks bring up relates to who gets senate seats. I suppose if a sphere is all friendly and homogeneous, you're guaranteed to have access to the senate. In a world of competition - frightening thought, I know – you might not get a seat. But there's a hidden benefit here. If you had to seriously compete for a senate seat, get out the vote campaigns would have to be ramped up well beyond the somewhat half-hearted current attempts. Ramped up get out the vote campaigns are liable to better engage individual alliance members, perhaps politically engaging some members who otherwise wouldn't be. Perhaps the risk of one such gain is small, but the negative impact to not having a senate seat isn't especially large either. It's also worth noting that intra-sphere competition over senate seats and such things is liable to help prevent stagnancy and complacency – competition which could help to spur alliance growth (thus helping the sphere) and politically engage otherwise more isolated alliances.

This makes very little sense - just thought I'd point that out.

Now, all this isn't to say that political sphere unity should be avoided, necessarily. I imagine cooperation could have some benefits as well. Rather, I believe that the takeaway should be that whether or not a sphere is unified shouldn't be a big deal - much less a serious basis of comparison between color spheres. That alliances shouldn't be pressured into conforming to sphere unity and that, similarly, an alliance shouldn't feel that it'd be sacrilege to come along and break it. Unless I've missed some core set of arguments for sphere unity, and if I have please share them, I don't see any especially good reasons for why color sphere unity ought to be valued so much.

You are talking about this as though anything to do with sphere unity must be a universal truth which must apply to every single alliance, as opposed to each alliance choosing it's own path in it's respective sphere independently. In fact it is the latter.

[Lord Brendan]

This sorta talk is really the main thing I objected to to begin with. High levels of "unity" aren't necessary so long as there is a [ooc]geneva conventions[/ooc] of sorts that makes sure that nobody does anything overly drastic.

True. A sphere-wide NAP is really all you need to make a stable sphere. However, once you're there, why not move to higher level treaties if possible? Your own Team just seems like the most logical place to look for allies.

[Tygaland]

True. A sphere-wide NAP is really all you need to make a stable sphere. However, once you're there, why not move to higher level treaties if possible? Your own Team just seems like the most logical place to look for allies.

You do not need a NAP to make a sphere stable. Non-aggression is a default position between any alliances unless an issue arises to change that. All you need for a sphere is mutual economic cooperation and a pinch of commonsense with regards to sanctions.