Why are wars less and less frequent?

[Gecko]

In the Real World, wars have gone on forever. There have been wars since the dawn of Religion. Basically, it has been "My god told me to kill you", "Oh yeah? My god is better than your god"

Things are starting to settle out, Aethiesm is spreading and people are fighting less and less over religions. Other causes of war can be for territory, or a pre-mature strike on a nation whom was "allegedly" going to attack you.

Cybernations, on the other hand, has never had religion. Instead, we have morality, which in the real world is defined by religion. In the game, we just fight about what is "truly" moral. Land is not a factor in the game. Very few times wars are started because one side thought the other was going to attack them, so they attacked first.

I believe Admin thought of all this, when he made the game and introduced team colors. If I were Admin, I would have been proud of the NPO for dominating a sphere. I think that should be every alliance's goal, some kind of domination. Otherwise, the game will settle down into a peaceful place where any alliance can be founded on any sphere.

Somehow, team colors need to play a bigger factor into wars. Somehow, when a black alliance attacks an aqua alliance, there needs to be something that gets fellow aqua alliances to back up the defender, and fellow black alliances to back up the aggressor. This creates rivalries and schemes for revenge, that make the game so much more interesting. However, I am at a loss to what such a factor would be.

I think team unity treaties are a start. We just need something else... something that says "All purple nations are better than brown nations". Something that can trigger wars between spheres.

Post your thoughts on this, as I have posted mine.

@Mod - I debated between posting this here, and in the Gameplay Discussions subforum, but decided here would be better for the opinion-orientation. If it belongs in the Gameplay Discussions subforum, please move it. Thank you.

[Vilien]

Wars are not less and less frequent. [/thread]

[Gecko]

Wars are not less and less frequent. [/thread]

Go back to the beginning of CN. There were wars constantly. We haven't had a real war now for almost a year. Its quite sad, actually.

[Heft]

This probably belongs in the Suggestion Box (snarky comment regarding the likelihood of a Suggestion being followed through on goes here). But anyway.

So what you're getting at is if there were some kind of common connection between nations on a given sphere that caused all of them to suffer when on was attacked, then it would push for more conflict between spheres....or something. I'm not exactly sure what effects would be had. But it would be interesting, yes. I believe things sort of along these lines have been suggested regarding the GRL before - something about making the GRL on each sphere tied more into the nations being nuked on just that sphere rather than one uniform global GRL.

[Thistledown]

Well, there already is a reason to fight for those on your color sphere- you want those trades. More alliances=more efficient and competitive recruitment=more nations=more trades.

And I would also say to refute your main point that wars in CN are less frequent for exactly the same reason that they are less frequent in RL- not because of moralism or religion in decline but rather because there is so much to lose. Almost any war has the risk of going global, and with increasingly high reps and high NS nations bashing down others a loss is crippling and potentially deadly, meaning you don't want to go in without knowing you win.

Ironically, less harsh terms in Karma could have turned this tide and caused more wars, by saying the war itself is the main punishment- but unfortunately that was not to be, and instead there were more threats of permanent war. Which is sort of sad, really, for the alliances who didn't want that.

And as a side note, if I were in the NPO I would be breathing a sigh of relief that the Moldavi Doctrine was repealed- they don't lose face by repealing it themselves and possibly being portrayed as "weak", but they can finally make red a competitive trading sphere.

[rsoxbronco1]

At the risk of being attacked by an MK lynch mob I'd just like to mention that I launched roughly a dozen nukes in the past month and ate a few too. Wars are out there provided you're cool enough that someone tries to infiltrate you and you find out about it.

[Derwood1]

Too much infra hugging and moralist crying boohoo around here......all fun is canceled dammit!

[Gecko]

If its because wars are so costly then the solution I see is CN modernizing with equipment for larger nations to minimize damage, and technology being even more of a factor when it comes to wars.

[Thistledown]

If its because wars are so costly then the solution I see is CN modernizing with equipment for larger nations to minimize damage, and technology being even more of a factor when it comes to wars.

But see, then wars would just last for about a year to knock down the loser a considerable amount. And then they'd be stuck with tremendous reps for interrupting all that growth time. And really, more harmful than the NS is the afteraffects of losing a GW- loss of political status, loss of nations, and the possibility of losing your gov leadership.

It's not the mechanics, it's the culture.

[fallin]

You have to understand that color unity and color spheres are an ideological goal. Most alliances run their foreign policy either to

1. Ensure security by not getting rolled.

2. Seek domination over other alliances.

The basis of fulfilling these two goals is via friendships that alliances form with each other based on convergent values or interests. However, with the exception of ensuring stable trade circles, there is very little incentive for color to play any major part in CN politics. Alliances get cosy with each other because they like the other party, not because they share a common colour.

[Dementual]

Admin has actually said before that when the game was started, he was expecting teams to unite, and not alliances, to fight over influence.

[The Feather]

It also seems to me that TE has helped to pacify Planet Bob. With an outlet for all our warlike needs, without any real losses occurring, TE has become the place for all the raiders and warmongers to vent their fumes.

[lonewolfe2015]

This probably belongs in the Suggestion Box (snarky comment regarding the likelihood of a Suggestion being followed through on goes here). But anyway.

Nope, they shot down my attempt at increasing sphere importance and relevance to the game that would generate more wars and political swing within spheres... it was something I was proud of making too.

In some ways I do agree with the OP. I'd like to see colors play a more indepth role ingame and not simply as a color with which people can identify you and decide your trade bonus from. But in the same regards I don't want a color to become a bloc basically, which it feels like your vision would lead us.

[Heft]

But see, then wars would just last for about a year to knock down the loser a considerable amount. And then they'd be stuck with tremendous reps for interrupting all that growth time. And really, more harmful than the NS is the afteraffects of losing a GW- loss of political status, loss of nations, and the possibility of losing your gov leadership.

It's not the mechanics, it's the culture.

To be fair, warchests are already leading to that problem. Or, if you do knock someone down a lot, they just bounce right back after the war is over. This is why I hate the imposed necessity of building massive warchests and think that some of the mechanics should be changed to somehow curb that.

[anenu]

If you could gain more power by dominating a color it would be something more people would think of doing. As it is its better to have a unified color so more nations join your color instead of constant infighting driving them away (see green).

Also wars are not lest common. Just look at the list of all the wars.

helpful wiki link here

[fallin]

If you could gain more power by dominating a color it would be something more people would think of doing. As it is its better to have a unified color so more nations join your color instead of constant infighting driving them away (see green).

Also wars are not lest common. Just look at the list of all the wars.

helpful wiki link here

Domination is stagnancy. Having different political factions within the framework of cordial relations work best. Complete domination is stagnation. Complete unity is unachievable. Complete disunity is determental. Staying loosely aligned is ideal.

*cough*Aqua*cough*

Edited January 17, 2010 by fallin

[anenu]

Domination is stagnancy. Having different political factions within the framework of cordial relations work best. Complete domination is stagnation. Complete unity is unachievable. Complete disunity is determental. Staying loosely aligned is ideal.

*cough*Aqua*cough*

Unified or just not killing each other. Either way the color is stable and invites more nations to join.

[Schattenmann]

I read the first paragraph and had to stop til tomorrow. I'm not particularly devout, but I cannot stand ignorance about war and religion.

Yeah, there was no war before religion. This is me scoffing at you.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Schattenmann

[TrilobyteMan]

NPO is under terms.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Probably a bad idea, but it's just the first that came to me. Have the top ranked alliance in each color (an alliance having a defined color if 50%+1 are on the same color) gets +happiness or some fairly significant advantage. However, only nations who were on that AA before they became the top ranked alliance on their color get the bonus to prevent ghosting for benefits.

This would not create team unity, but team disunity. If the benefits were great enough, it could lead to the the top alliances being knocked down more often. This also might create more even teams because a team could move to pink or yellow for the benefits of being #1 in that color.

[Schattenmann]

I read the second paragraph (I guess because I hate myself). Ugh. Yes, as atheism spreads war will become a distant memory. A game played by children but not really known or understood by anyone anymore. People definitely won't go to war over resources like they never did.

[Chocolate Cookies]

The problem with all of a sphere backing up one of their own is that the 2 "sides" existing in Cybernations right now cut spheres like Aqua in half and no one can agree on any kind of treaty or such.

[D34th]

Well I recommend you to read and support my suggestion here

[Esau of Isaac]

In the Real World, wars have gone on forever. There have been wars since the dawn of Religion. Basically, it has been "My god told me to kill you", "Oh yeah? My god is better than your god"

There are records of frequent tribal skirmishes before the dawn of religion. Just saying.

Cybernations, on the other hand, has never had religion. Instead, we have morality, which in the real world is defined by religion.

I'm sorry, what?

In the game, we just fight about what is "truly" moral.

Yeah, like badmouthing over an IRC channel. The real stuff.

[Dochartaigh]

Go back to the beginning of CN. There were wars constantly. We haven't had a real war now for almost a year. Its quite sad, actually.

what? could have sworn the Karma war ended around Aug. 4th with TPF finally signing surrender terms. that is hardly a year ago. before that was SPW/WoTC/NoCB which was around a year prior to Karma.

And I would also say to refute your main point that wars in CN are less frequent for exactly the same reason that they are less frequent in RL- not because of moralism or religion in decline but rather because there is so much to lose. Almost any war has the risk of going global, and with increasingly high reps and high NS nations bashing down others a loss is crippling and potentially deadly, meaning you don't want to go in without knowing you win.

Ironically, less harsh terms in Karma could have turned this tide and caused more wars, by saying the war itself is the main punishment- but unfortunately that was not to be, and instead there were more threats of permanent war. Which is sort of sad, really, for the alliances who didn't want that.

actually, moralism seems to be on the rise in CN. also, the reps have actually decreased for the most part with white peace being more par for course in the Karma war than high reps. i can only recall NPO, TPF, and TSI having to pay reps. i believe there was a couple of more alliances that paid reps but cannot recall them. though most iirc, got white peace.

i also have no clue where these threats of permanent war are coming from. i have not seen that at all.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Dochartaigh