Big war = big change, (with luck)

[M6 Redneck]

So lots of people are fighting.

As far as I can tell the sides are very similar to the last time lots of people were fighting.

This leads me to think that the next biggie will have similar combatants.

That would become quite stale quite quickly. (As we all know who will win).

Ergo I ask a question.

What would you like to happen in this war to avoid stagnation?

My ideas -

1 Alliances fight till the stoneage reappears, (like a game reset, in terms of losses).
2 Alliances get beat and stage a huge Vietfan like effort.

They represent ongoing war scenarios.
As for a quick peace, (the continuation of the same sides, [how many times can the same war be fought]), I still hope for change.

1 The end of binding treaties.
2 Treaty re-evaluation and lots of cancelling.

Basicaly I long for a chaos in which a single DoW does not bring all and sundry in. Would it not be a better world to play in a world if 2 or 3 or even 34 wars all occured in independance to each other?

M6

[Banksy]

Meh- doesn't sound great tbh. A ton of wars might sound like fun now- but you will get sick of them shortly. Part of what keeps the affairs of planet Bob so interesting is the times of peace in between wars which gives rise to the oh-so-fun art of speculation.

[Epik High]

Stone age. What's the point of the war anyways? Might as well.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='05 February 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1265426091' post='2162729']
Meh- doesn't sound great tbh. A ton of wars might sound like fun now- but you will get sick of them shortly. Part of what keeps the affairs of planet Bob so interesting is the times of peace in between wars which gives rise to the oh-so-fun art of speculation.
[/quote]
And if the same alliances fight each other again and again, speculation will be reserved for those lacking in observational or deductive skills.

[Fernando12]

hmmmm... the big boys get clobbered to the point where my alliance at 440k-ish is a superpower?

who knows what will happen. We can be talking here about a long war and before we are done posting peace breaks out.

maybe some treaty re-evaluations will happen but i think the new treaties that are signed will just create another web.

i think all these wars [b][u]are[/u][/b] independent of each other. people keep referring to the 2 sides. i guarantee if you break down the wars and ask people from each alliance they will tell you they really dont care about whats happening on other fronts, they are focused on winning on the front they entered and when that front closes they will be finished with the war. People talk about the 2 sides as if an alliance they declared on another and defeats them is automatically going to then turn and declare on another alliance because they are part of the "side". NO, when they are done they will be done and out be it in victory or defeat.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Fernando12

[M6 Redneck]

How many CN nations?
How many post on big boards?

Most CNers, at a guess, want war on a small scale with an uncertain outcome.
The political aspect should not create a certain curbstomp but an uncertain environment. Certainty is less than exciting.

M6

[Banksy]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 February 2010 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1265426961' post='2162752']
And if the same alliances fight each other again and again, speculation will be reserved for those lacking in observational or deductive skills.
[/quote]

Very true. However- the present climate with an emerging (eventually) NPO, two remaining large blocs (C&G and SF) and a ton of alliances who are in a defacto "ex-hege" (as much as I dislike that term) mean the 'sides' that emerged during the TPF mess in December will most probably change.

[M6 Redneck]

Can you explain how and why they will change as I do not see it?

M6

[Vilien]

Why do you expect change from a war fought over nothing?

[M6 Redneck]

Because it was fought over nothing.

When alliance members realise they are not in an alliance but a treaty chaining bloc that will fight for a reason they niether care nor know about; perchance they will pressure alliance leaders to be more carful in signing treaties.

M6

PS - I am off to train sheep to growl

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='M6 Redneck' date='06 February 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1265425438' post='2162697']
So lots of people are fighting.

As far as I can tell the sides are very similar to the last time lots of people were fighting.

This leads me to think that the next biggie will have similar combatants.

That would become quite stale quite quickly. (As we all know who will win).

Ergo I ask a question.

What would you like to happen in this war to avoid stagnation?

My ideas -

1 Alliances fight till the stoneage reappears, (like a game reset, in terms of losses).
2 Alliances get beat and stage a huge Vietfan like effort.

They represent ongoing war scenarios.
As for a quick peace, (the continuation of the same sides, [how many times can the same war be fought]), I still hope for change.

1 The end of binding treaties.
2 Treaty re-evaluation and lots of cancelling.

Basicaly I long for a chaos in which a single DoW does not bring all and sundry in. Would it not be a better world to play in a world if 2 or 3 or even 34 wars all occured in independance to each other?

M6
[/quote]
1 Alliances fight till the stoneage reappears, (like a game reset, in terms of losses).
All it will take is one alliance to keep a majority of its nation in peace mode in this scenario for it to achieve dominance in the post war world, so this is unlikely

2 Alliances get beat and stage a huge Vietfan like effort.
Or they scatter and reform under a secret alliance like karma and stage a massive revenge attack months later.

1 The end of binding treaties.
There will still be binding treaties, just not as many of them. The world will become more polarized.

2 Treaty re-evaluation and lots of cancelling.
This much is certain.

[Jens of the desert]

I've actually heard it all before, and this is getting boring now.

[TrilobyteMan]

Don't destroy each other, because then the neutrals win! Wait... That's me... KILL! BURN! DESTROY!

[Sephiroth]

I would like to see alliances put more consideration into who they ally and cancel with those who have conflicting FA.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 February 2010 - 05:41 AM' timestamp='1265452888' post='2164200']I would like to see alliances put more consideration into who they ally and cancel with those who have conflicting FA.[/quote]
Translation: We'd all be better off if people would just willingly go along with whoever the central power wants to isolate and abandon their friends.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 February 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1265462901' post='2164339']
Translation: We'd all be better off if people would just willingly go along with whoever the central power wants to isolate and abandon their friends.
[/quote]
I've never been one to go along with the central power or just go with whatever side is winning, I tend to enjoy a challenge.

What I meant is people should only sign with their friends they aren't willing to let get abandoned and get rid of the ones who are worthless (why have a treaty with someone if they will support someone else over you?)

Not sure where your comment came from or you got that impression...

[Haflinger]

Sorry, Methrage. It's just that every cancellation I've ever seen that used that phrasing, that's what the canceller really meant. "Sorry X, we like you and all, but Hoo/Archon/Londo doesn't so we're out."