Why are wars less and less frequent?

[flak attack]

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.

Come on man, there's a reason animals don't fight over things many times more often than humans. You don't see mindless ants attacking every foreign thing that comes near their home. It's not like physical conflict is hard coded into the human brain.

Honestly, if you're going to insult my beliefs, at least do it intelligently. The reason people are less willing to go to war is the same as in RL. Nuclear war is devastating, and with the MP and a adequate warchest, nations can fight for months. OP, I could ZI your nation in three days, and there are nations out there that can do over twice the damage than I can. People aren't going to take that kind of damage over trivial matters.

[Kzoppistan]

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.

Er, that was pretty much going to be my reply, too.

And fighting over religion is actually just another conflict for resources. In the case of religion, the fight over ideological dominance, which has tangible benefits.

Come on man, there's a reason animals don't fight over things many times more often than humans. You don't see mindless ants attacking every foreign thing that comes near their home. It's not like physical conflict is hard coded into the human brain.

Are you being facetious and/or ironic? Ants do attack anything that comes close to their home and conflict is hard coded into the human brain.

Honestly, if you're going to insult my beliefs, at least do it intelligently. The reason people are less willing to go to war is the same as in RL. Nuclear war is devastating, and with the MP and a adequate warchest, nations can fight for months. OP, I could ZI your nation in three days, and there are nations out there that can do over twice the damage than I can. People aren't going to take that kind of damage over trivial matters.

True dat.

---

Anyway, since all of the needs of the people are provided for, the profit to expense ratio is not beneficial enough to cause more people to want to go to war.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[flak attack]

Are you being facetious and/or ironic?

Yes. Every post I make drips with sarcasm. Except this one.

[Kzoppistan]

Yes. Every post I make drips with sarcasm. Except this one.

Damn it! Stop doing that! Use an emote or something.

[Tobistus]

I'd say the number 1 reason why wars (especially globa wars) are less frequent now is because of MAD. Essentially, Nations have spent so long getting this strong, that no one wants to risk the loss anymore. You don't want to risk your alliance attacking another alliance because you could totally destroy yourself while destroying theirs as well. Personally, mutally assured destruction would be a good thing to happen to CN... a sort of reboot to all nations NS. However, that won't happen because not every nation is going to fight, or at least, not every nation is going to lose so much NS that they will become half their strength. Someone will gain out a mass war like that.

Also, don't think that the world is a peaceful place right now either. It's just at a tense time where lines are being drawn. Alliances are trying to figure out who's on their side and who's against them and who's with their most likely enemy. This is actually a pretty interesting time where diplomacy is playing a much larger part than it did before. No longer is this game ran by the largest sanctioned alliances but rather, smaller sway and neutral alliances can have a voice in this world and even turn tides.

WWE was something similar to the Cuban Missile crisis. If they didn't stop attacking TPF after the CC declared, there could have been something much more global. We were all ready for a war of the long run. Fortunately for the world's enviroment, however, it didn't happen. So we can all breathe for a few more until something else happens.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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).

You really got green wrong. It was a healthy, vibrant place when "unification" started being pursued. As long as remained healthy and vibrant it resisted all attempts at any meaningful unification. Unification and diaspora came hand in hand, and the win fled (mostly to Aqua.)

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.

A better goal, although you might need to work on the specific proposal for awhile.

[Essenia]

Come on man, there's a reason animals don't fight over things many times more often than humans. You don't see mindless ants attacking every foreign thing that comes near their home. It's not like physical conflict is hard coded into the human brain.

Honestly, if you're going to insult my beliefs, at least do it intelligently. The reason people are less willing to go to war is the same as in RL. Nuclear war is devastating, and with the MP and a adequate warchest, nations can fight for months. OP, I could ZI your nation in three days, and there are nations out there that can do over twice the damage than I can. People aren't going to take that kind of damage over trivial matters.

Current rates of intra-human violence are quite low, both compared to most animals and to "earlier" humans. That doesn't mean religion is a good thing, but the humanity is not all violent when compared other species and to people who lived 5000+ years ago. As time has gone on, humans have gotten more and more peaceful; the illusion of a violent world is created by the massive rise in our standards that has to a considerable degree outpaced the decline in violence. Religion both increases and reduces conflict; on one hand it reduces the number of people who are "the other" (those whose lives have no meaning), but it also increases your dislike for those who are part of "the other" and increases your animosity towards outsiders/non-believers.

[iamthey]

Under the present system sphereism is pretty much limited to the amount of relevance a person subjectively applies to it. There are only two things that matter about a sphere 1) Senate 2) Trades. Overtime the senate has become more and more limited as utilizing it as a weapon have become more and more unacceptable. Alliances have furthermore become far more open about utilizing their senate seats by request of other alliances, and most spheres have moved towards a more democratic paradigm which essentially de-emphasizes the importance of the senate. In other words the senate of today is a fairly weak, and irrelevant body. As for trades nearly every sphere has become a free-trade zone, and generally people trade with about anyone (even their enemies in a war) because trades have such a huge impact on their own economy. In addition trading with 'enemy' nation has always been 'ok' with exception to the occasional rogue, but even then its not AS bad as say aiding a rogue/enemy. Essentially trade stability regardless of formal alliance relations, sphere unity ect has been more or less secured across the world.

That being said FA focus has for a long time shifted away from one's arbitrarily chosen sphere, towards a system based around personal and group relationships (eg treaties and blocs). While there are a few alliances that cling to the aesthetic of 'sphere unity' I don't think it is taken nearly as seriously as in the days of the Modalvi doctrine's creation, or when GOONS did their Goonland Security Act. Even orange which was for the longest time the most stable and organized sphere has become pretty divided. There are a few notable exceptions, purple seems to be pretty united, but I don't see political divides re-aligning according to sphere anytime soon.

I also don't think an IG penalty or reward system would really change that anyway. Most of the upper-upper middle tier nations that run things can take a minor drop/raise in income without even really caring about it. (Especially if there is a reason not to care about it.) So the idea that their decision making would be effected by that in any significant way is unlikely.

Also in RL war hasn't become less frequent at all, the nature of it has simply changed. While I agree with you, for the most part ideology and religion alike have become less and less relevant in terms of justifying war; war today is still very economically and politically oriented. There is no reason for America to invade a European nation (or vise versa) when I can simply create a regional subsidiary of my multinational to go and exploit the resources present there. In the same respect I do not need to invade a european country to extend my political Hegemony when I am in multiple redundant political and economic blocs and completely and utterly economically interrelated. The only nations that really become the subject of resource or political wars in the present day are the third world countries that try to resist western influence, or exist along the periphery and are not part of the international core (and thus are open to exploitation and Hegemony).

Edited January 17, 2010 by iamthey

[Derantol]

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.

I believe that most alliances that fought for longer than a week or two ended up with reps, it's just that NPO got loaded with huge reps and TPF was the last large alliance to leave the war. I know that IRON had to pay reps, and I think MCXA had to as well.

As far as permanent war goes, the only thing I can think of is the idea that NPO was going to be in permanent war? And I only recall that being thrown about the forums by people who couldn't really make that kind of decision. Well, that and TPF staying at war until NPO was out. Aside from those, I'm where you're at.

[Bob Janova]

The OP is wrong in so many ways that I can't really address it. But a quick fact check: major wars in CN

GW1: July 06

GW2: January 07

GW3: March 07

Unjust War: September 07

BLEU War: August 08

Karma War: March-July 09

The pre-GW1 period was different as the game and its history was not mature, so there would have been many 'world wars' that would be laughably small by later standards. But since the community settled, there has been a reasonably even rate of major conflicts.

[Blacky]

It takes longer to rebuild and prep for war and thus as a natural consequence the politics behind wars have adapted accordingly.

[Alterego]

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

Your version of fun is beating on someone weaker than you. Unless the person taking the beating is a masochist then its not fun for both parties. I guarantee if you started attacking alliances bigger than you for fun people would accept it and probably applaud your desire to have fun, but you would rather play it safe and hug your own infra for fear of a beatdown yourself. Alliances like yours are the biggest infra huggers you preach war but not one that will cause you any damage.

[Gecko]

First of all, I want to make something clear. I was comparing RL events to CN events, and in no way meant to step on your religious views, etc.

But in RL, religion defines whats right and whats wrong. "You cant kill that person, you'll go to hell!" "Give to others, god will reward you!"

Because religion does not play a factor in Cyber Nations, whats right and wrong (aka Moralism) is my word versus yours. Examples:

Some say huge reps for NPO are wrong, maybe I say they're right?

Some say raiding a 41 man alliance (Ni!) is wrong, maybe I say it's right?

There's nothing that defines Moralism, besides fear itself. If I say huge reps for NPO are right, someone might give me huge reps. If I say tech raiding a whole alliance is ok, someone might tech raid my alliance. It's all politics, its all supporting something in private and supporting something opposite in public.

[Vilien]

There's nothing that defines Moralism, besides fear itself. If I say huge reps for NPO are right, someone might give me huge reps. If I say tech raiding a whole alliance is ok, someone might tech raid my alliance. It's all politics, its all supporting something in private and supporting something opposite in public.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[Otto Verteidiger]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Dochartaigh]

Current rates of intra-human violence are quite low, both compared to most animals and to "earlier" humans. That doesn't mean religion is a good thing, but the humanity is not all violent when compared other species and to people who lived 5000+ years ago. As time has gone on, humans have gotten more and more peaceful; the illusion of a violent world is created by the massive rise in our standards that has to a considerable degree outpaced the decline in violence. Religion both increases and reduces conflict; on one hand it reduces the number of people who are "the other" (those whose lives have no meaning), but it also increases your dislike for those who are part of "the other" and increases your animosity towards outsiders/non-believers.

i would say this is false. current rates of intra-human violence are not low. even in first world nations such as the US and in Europe. all one needs to do is look at the level of crime to give a good indicator of violence. hell, the US is still involved in two wars.

look at Africa, Middle East, SE Asia/India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, South America, Central America and see all the wars, rebellions, and so on that goes on in those places.

as for religion versus "the others" i would actually say that it is different philosophies that are against one another. religion still goes against other religions (Christian vs Islam for example is prevalent in many nations) not to mention you still have intra-religious conflicts (Catholic vs Protestant or Sunni vs Shiite).

the world is just as violent a place as it was 5000 years ago it is just that the violence is slightly different.

[Thistledown]

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.

I agree that moralism's on the rise, I was just referencing that he thought moralism was in decline and I was saying that wasn't it.

And I would agree that lots of reps were quite generous- but NPO, the mover and shaker of things, had heavy reps including the >1k tech stipulation. Lots of those who just go along with things got off easy- but not the ones who actually started the war. And hence, people don't want to start a war. Not saying NPO doesn't deserve those reps, or that they were necessarily bad considering the fears of GW1 2.0, but they helped to stagnate the game.

And you remember how the entire last war's defense was that they looked like they were in permanent war because they were told NPO wouldn't get peace? Not saying it's rampant, but it's there for the instigators, or as some see them "warmongers".

[Dochartaigh]

I agree that moralism's on the rise, I was just referencing that he thought moralism was in decline and I was saying that wasn't it.

And I would agree that lots of reps were quite generous- but NPO, the mover and shaker of things, had heavy reps including the >1k tech stipulation. Lots of those who just go along with things got off easy- but not the ones who actually started the war. And hence, people don't want to start a war. Not saying NPO doesn't deserve those reps, or that they were necessarily bad considering the fears of GW1 2.0, but they helped to stagnate the game.

And you remember how the entire last war's defense was that they looked like they were in permanent war because they were told NPO wouldn't get peace? Not saying it's rampant, but it's there for the instigators, or as some see them "warmongers".

okay so you were talking about TPF. i thought you were but did not want to go there just in case. TPF put themselves in that position. they rejected peace terms and stayed in the war until NPO got peace. Then when NPO did get peace, they rejected terms that stated they had to pay reps to PC. that is until they accepted said terms where they had to pay reps to PC.

so essentially, TPF was never in an eternal war, ever. they can say all they want but it is simply not true. an eternal war is something like vietFAN where FAN had no choice in the war. if they had come out of PM, they would have been destroyed for an undetermined amount of time by NPO and allies. TPF on the other hand, knew there were terms, and rejected them. thus, the only reason TPF stayed in the war is due solely to themselves and no outside factor.

that is not an eternal war as there are no external factors. all decisions were made by TPF. even the whole "NPO was not at peace" was solely a TPF decision to stay in because NPO was not at peace. TPF chose to stick by their ally (which is honorable) and are now basically degrading any honor they had gained by that action by making it seemed forced on them versus chosen. i still have never seen STA state they were forced to stick by Polaris and their other allies in the SPW and i doubt we ever will. STA knows they chose to stay in the war.

TPF is simply throwing away good PR in an attempt to smear an enemy.

now as for NPO and reps- NPO paid reps not just for starting the war. (remember TORN got off with white peace iirc) NPO got reps for years of mistreating alliances.

i would also say people are more than willing to start a war (look at Athens and co in the Blue Balls War). but it seems harder to find alliances willing to defend their allies.

so the issue is more of the same. people will go to war so long as they know they have backing regardless of whether it is offensive or defensive. if they don't think they have enough support, they bail or wait until they do.

[SiCkO]

but it seems harder to find alliances willing to defend their allies.

so the issue is more of the same. people will go to war so long as they know they have backing regardless of whether it is offensive or defensive. if they don't think they have enough support, they bail or wait until they do.

go attack any of our MDP allies an see what happens

i think TE has lowered the amount of fighting marginally but really the fun of SE is the build up imo.

[Dochartaigh]

go attack any of our MDP allies an see what happens

i think TE has lowered the amount of fighting marginally but really the fun of SE is the build up imo.

i never stated all alliances are like this. just that there are still quite a few who either drag their feet or don't do it at all really.

[Thistledown]

text goes here

I agree that TPF wasn't ever in an eternal war, and they were foolish to do what they did. However, they obviously felt eternal war was threatened, both to themselves and NPO- and much of the community seemed to agree.

As far as reps go- as I said, it's not that NPO doesn't deserve it. I'm simply stating that those heavy punitive reps are part of a pattern where the main players on the losing side are damaged extraordinarily, meaning that people refuse to go into a war they might lose. That could have been changed by not just getting retribution but by perhaps trying to be more generous than the NPO themselves in handing out reps, but with all the different alliances fighting them and all the grudges and fears that was never going to happen.

As far as TORN goes, they stuck around for about a day iirc. They didn't exactly do much damage- far less then Athens and Co. recently.

And if nothing else, the Blue Balls War showed that people will show up for their allies. It may not have seemed like it with the ridiculous waiting, but they came in the end- and then SC left because they weren't sure about being able to win, not because of allies necessarily but because of the numbers at the top being close. And so they left, not because either sides' allies weren't sticking with them but because it was too dangerous to be caught on the losing side.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Thistledown

[Andrew425]

i would say this is false. current rates of intra-human violence are not low. even in first world nations such as the US and in Europe. all one needs to do is look at the level of crime to give a good indicator of violence. hell, the US is still involved in two wars.

look at Africa, Middle East, SE Asia/India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, South America, Central America and see all the wars, rebellions, and so on that goes on in those places.

Are you currently fighting for your life?

The world is a much safer place, the safest it has ever been. The fact that we have reasons to fight besides simple survival is a long way from the animal kingdom.

[Bob Janova]

People in many places are. The world is not a safe place if you live in Baghdad, or Kandahar, or Colombia, or Somalia, or a lot of other places – in many cases much less safe than at other times in the past. You have a very West-centric view if you think it is particularly safe just now.

[mythicknight]

now as for NPO and reps- NPO paid reps not just for starting the war. (remember TORN got off with white peace iirc) NPO got reps for years of mistreating alliances.

Correction; We paid a very small amount of reps to OV. That was about it.

[Bad JuJu]

I believe that admin screwed the pooch by letting the color spheres lose importance.

Here is how to fix it:

1. There should be a Local Radiation in addition to a global radiation. If your next door neighbor is getting nuked then YOUR property values should take a hit. This would make you CARE about who moves in next door and how they act.

2. When you change color spheres you only get to keep 75% of your infrastructure. When you move you can pack up your couch and beer but you CANT take your sidewalks and plumbing with you. This change would make you CARE about the state of your color sphere because you are more likely to stay in it.

As long as you are not tied in ANY WAY to your color sphere then you WONT CARE about your color sphere.

You're welcome.