Which alliances are the most likely to start the next big war?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1279414609' post='2376494']
Numbers are objective. Emotions are subjective. The web is obviously not a [i]perfect[/i] representation, because it doesn't take into account which treaties are more highly valued - but it [i]is[/i] an [i]objective[/i] representation, and one that is fairly aligned with the actual reality.

If you see any mistakes, please correct them. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Bob_Janova

But you're missing the point. The ex-Hegemony cluster doesn't exist simply because it's visible on the MDP web, it exists because you are a fairly large group that only has treaties with other alliances in your group (barring a few exceptions) and that has fought together in the past three major wars.
[/quote]

Treaties are based on relationships. Relationships are based on emotions. Considering them mere numbers is not objective nor accurate. The only objective analysis of the treaty web possible is the one made taking into consideration the subjectiveness of the treaties. On the grounds of being accurate, I am curious about how much Pygmalion effect plays into it being accurate, probably one day if Xiphosis feels like doing another social experiment we might get to know

Also, you're basing your perception of how ex-Hegemony acts on a distorted perspective which takes into consideration a belief that might not exist any more within ex-Hegemony and which produced the last great war: that they believe it's better to die together now, than later separatly.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Lusitan

[Vladimir]

You have completely missed the point, Lord Brendan. It comes as little surprise to anyone when you point out that the NPO is not in the C&G bloc, nor that there are a handful of other alliances also not in it. But to suggest that this creates something that one can call 'ex-Hegemony', or that as a result we should expect to see some great final battle between them and C&G, is asinine. These alliances don't have a significant amount of strength nor do they form (or want to form) any sort of cohesive entity -- they are just a smattering of alliances sitting on the outskirts of the C&G power structure (some trying to force their way in; some sitting content with isolation). If C&G intend to sit and wait for a great and powerful challenge to arise from this then they better head out and pick up some supplies, because they're going to be waiting a very long time.

[Caleb279]

Assuming that it [i]won't[/i] be NPO and some shenanigans about spying?

[Letum]

You need to be careful with the conclusions you draw from the interpretation of a 3D model.

After all, you can rotate it to this and conclude that NPO is in MK's sphere and there is a divide between SF and CnG! (And there is no conspiracy there, the fact MK has so many ex-NPO people is a coincidence).

[img]http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr81/Kochers08/MDPWeb%202010/Super-Grievances7-4-10.png[/img]

So yeah, an analysis of international politics would be more accurate if based on a logical examination of the overall situation rather than pointing at an image (Though the latter is much simpler for noobs.) But to talk in terms of two competing power structures is somewhat disingenuous; there are actually a number of "groupings", from NPO&co to Polar&Co, CnG, SF, NOIR etc. etc. Certainly, the last few wars have left those who have lost them somewhat more isolated, but that is a factor of the loss itself (such as treaties being cancelled, no new treaties allowed, alliances focusing on rebuilding rather than FA, hard feelings and so on) rather than a factor of some "side" existing.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='17 July 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1279421297' post='2376593']
You have completely missed the point, Lord Brendan. It comes as little surprise to anyone when you point out that the NPO is not in the C&G bloc, nor that there are a handful of other alliances also not in it. But to suggest that this creates something that one can call 'ex-Hegemony', or that as a result we should expect to see some great final battle between them and C&G, is asinine. These alliances don't have a significant amount of strength nor do they form (or want to form) any sort of cohesive entity -- they are just a smattering of alliances sitting on the outskirts of the C&G power structure (some trying to force their way in; some sitting content with isolation). If C&G intend to sit and wait for a great and powerful challenge to arise from this then they better head out and pick up some supplies, because they're going to be waiting a very long time.
[/quote]

Is it merely the name "ex-Hegemony" that you're disputing? Suggest another name if you have a better one. I don't use it to imply that you're close to retaking your position, it's merely the most recognized term for the group I'm referring to. Nobody is saying there's going to be some epic final battle - you are clearly far weaker at this point than SuperGrievances. But you still exist as a distinct power cluster! I don't see how you can dispute this. We're not talking about a "handful" of alliances, we're talking about over 100M strength, nearly a quarter of the whole world!

[quote name='Letum' date='17 July 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1279424437' post='2376633']
You need to be careful with the conclusions you draw from the interpretation of a 3D model.

After all, you can rotate it to this and conclude that NPO is in MK's sphere and there is a divide between SF and CnG! (And there is no conspiracy there, the fact MK has so many ex-NPO people is a coincidence).

[image]

So yeah, an analysis of international politics would be more accurate if based on a logical examination of the overall situation rather than pointing at an image (Though the latter is much simpler for noobs.) But to talk in terms of two competing power structures is somewhat disingenuous; there are actually a number of "groupings", from NPO&co to Polar&Co, CnG, SF, NOIR etc. etc. Certainly, the last few wars have left those who have lost them somewhat more isolated, but that is a factor of the loss itself (such as treaties being cancelled, no new treaties allowed, alliances focusing on rebuilding rather than FA, hard feelings and so on) rather than a factor of some "side" existing.
[/quote]

Again, I'm not drawing conclusions from the model, I'm using the model to demonstrate what I've observed. Certainly the world is not quite so simple as ex-Hegemony vs SuperGrievances. The latter group is actually three fairly distinct clusters (C&G, SF and Polar/STA&co), with many alliances floating at various point in between those groups. But ex-Hegemony is absolutely it's own distinct power cluster. If a global war started tomorrow, I am quite confident that you would all be fighting together, as well as that C&G would be fighting together, SF would be fighting together and NpO and STA would be fighting together. How those four groups would align relative to each other, I cannot say, and it would greatly depend on the circumstances of the war.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1279426791' post='2376656']Is it merely the name "ex-Hegemony" that you're disputing?[/quote]
It is inaccurate. Significant parts of the entity known as former Hegemony are in the new power structure so the term does not include ex Hegemony in its entirety and creates a false image how the part of the ex Hegemony covered by that term--- is the Hegemony that was.

Not only that but further, some of the alliances covered by that term currently were at best highly marginal part of it if that at all, while parts that were at a heart of it are not covered by the term. Most inaccurate and crewed that term is.

Best term used for such alliances are "marginal", as they are outside the main power web.
Also no, I do not believe he is objecting to the name.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1279426791' post='2376656']But you still exist as a distinct power cluster![/quote]
He is objecting to this line of thought, I wager to presume. Cluster would imply some closeness, a grouping in political terminology.
There is no grouping here and hardly great closeness in many cases.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1279426791' post='2376656'] But ex-Hegemony is absolutely it's own distinct power cluster. If a global war started tomorrow, I am quite confident that you would all be fighting together[/quote]
And there is that cluster again. I highly doubt this would be the case, only if you blanket attack every single alliance out of direct contact of the (what I like to also call "sea of dwarfs") CandG/SF power structure.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Branimir' date='18 July 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1279428653' post='2376672']
It is inaccurate. Significant parts of the entity known as former Hegemony are in the new power structure so the term does not include ex Hegemony in its entirety and creates a false image how the part of the ex Hegemony covered by that term--- is the Hegemony that was.

Not only that but further, some of the alliances covered by that term currently were at best highly marginal part of it if that at all, while parts that were at a heart of it are not covered by the term. Most inaccurate and crewed that term is.

Best term used for such alliances are "marginal", as they are outside the main power web.
Also no, I do not believe he is objecting to the name.


He is objecting to this line of thought, I wager to presume. Cluster would imply some closeness, a grouping in political terminology.
There is no grouping here and hardly great closeness in many cases.


And there is that cluster again. I highly doubt this would be the case, only if you blanket attack every single alliance out of direct contact of the (what I like to also call "sea of dwarfs") CandG/SF power structure.
[/quote]

So you believe that something has changed since the start of the last war, and you [i]wouldn't[/i] all fight together now? What's different? I haven't seen any mass treaty cancellations, or many new treaties signed with other groups.

And just some clarification regarding my use of some terms: when I say "Hegemony", I mean the side that fought in Karma, and ex-Hegemony obviously refers to the same group. I'll usually say something like "the Pacifican Hegemony" or "Greater Continuum" when referring to the cluster of alliances that dominated the game in 2008.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1279429097' post='2376673']So you believe that something has changed since the start of the last war, and you [i]wouldn't[/i] all fight together now? What's different? I haven't seen any mass treaty cancellations, or many new treaties signed with other groups.[/quote]
If you are referring to the Grub's war--I didn't fight in it nor did NPO.

If you are referring to the karma war-- some alliances that fought on the recieving end, hardly do share any connection now days.

Conclusion-- there is no need for mass treaty cancellation among the "marginal" alliances, as there are no wide spread treaty connection to begin with. As explained already, but in the end, you believe what you want, its just that unfortunately that belief is halting this political sim to take a step forward as it will eventually have to. New dynamics has to occur, or this game will die.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1279429097' post='2376673']And just some clarification regarding my use of some terms: when I say "Hegemony", I mean the side that fought in Karma, and ex-Hegemony obviously refers to the same group. I'll usually say something like "the Pacifican Hegemony" or "Greater Continuum" when referring to the cluster of alliances that dominated the game in 2008.[/quote]
That seems quite inaccurate. As what karma fought wasn't a Hegemony of any sorts. But you are free to use whatever terminology you see fit, although its kind of,...lol

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Branimir' date='18 July 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1279429580' post='2376679']
If you are referring to the Grub's war--I didn't fight in it nor did NPO.

If you are referring to the karma war-- some alliances that fought on the recieving end, hardly do share any connection now days.

Conclusion-- there is no need for mass treaty cancellation among the "marginal" alliances, as there are no wide spread treaty connection to begin with. As explained already, but in the end, you believe what you want, its just that unfortunately that belief is halting this political sim to take a step forward as it will eventually have to. New dynamics has to occur, or this game will die.


That seems quite inaccurate. As what karma fought wasn't a Hegemony of any sorts. But you are free to use whatever terminology you see fit, although its kind of,...lol
[/quote]

Obviously not, you were under terms. If you had been released from terms at the time and had signed the same treaties that you have now, you would have been on that side of the war. The ex-Hegemony cluster is not entirely dependent on NPO. Pretty much every alliance that fought for Hegemony fought alongside TOP in Bipolar.

NPO's side in the Karma War is pretty much universally referred to as "Hegemony", it's not like I'm just making it up.

I am absolutely [i]not[/i] saying that political interaction should focus on the ex-Hegemony cluster and the rest of us should stick together forever until we've ground you into the dust another half dozen times. I am merely stating that said cluster exists, whether you want to be defined as such or not.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1279429951' post='2376683']Obviously not, you were under terms.[/quote]
If you believe we would fight for that Grub's stunt,...you are mistaken.
If you believe we would join in a retarded preempt attack,...I didn't know you thought of us as so stupid. I know we messed up in the karma war,...but common,....

In a nut shell, that war is a unique event of idiocy all around. Changing anything in that scenario, like free NPO, would probably change enough in the chain of events that we can not really speak as to how things would roll.
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1279429951' post='2376683']I am merely stating that said cluster exists, whether you want to be defined as such or not[/quote]
Well,...it doesn't. What exist is a group of alliances that are isolated and as such marginal of the "sea of dwarfs", but due to the fact that they do not share any significant cohesion or wide spread treaty ties they are mostly just somewhat random and plural collection of alliances that can not be implied to be any kind of power cluster as that means level of inner connection between them that doesn't exist.

They may share the same concern of being rolled. But, that doesn't really make them united as of current. Maybe some time in the future you would have a case for calling this collection of marginal alliances as a cluster, but if they didn't form one already doubt they will. Mostly I am sure, they are just waiting for some new dynamics to occur through which they could leave their vulnerable place. And most probably I am guessing, they will go in separate ways at that point.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Letum' date='18 July 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1279424437' post='2376633']
You need to be careful with the conclusions you draw from the interpretation of a 3D model.

After all, you can rotate it to this and conclude that NPO is in MK's sphere and there is a divide between SF and CnG! (And there is no conspiracy there, the fact MK has so many ex-NPO people is a coincidence).

[img]http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr81/Kochers08/MDPWeb%202010/Super-Grievances7-4-10.png[/img]

So yeah, an analysis of international politics would be more accurate if based on a logical examination of the overall situation rather than pointing at an image (Though the latter is much simpler for noobs.) But to talk in terms of two competing power structures is somewhat disingenuous; there are actually a number of "groupings", from NPO&co to Polar&Co, CnG, SF, NOIR etc. etc. Certainly, the last few wars have left those who have lost them somewhat more isolated, but that is a factor of the loss itself (such as treaties being cancelled, no new treaties allowed, alliances focusing on rebuilding rather than FA, hard feelings and so on) rather than a factor of some "side" existing.
[/quote]


Thank you so much for bringing this up. I constantly get people telling me that GATO doesn't belong to any side of the web because on the pictures of the images we are usually in the middle. I try to explain that where you are in the image doesn't really represent your forum policy.

[Seth Muscarella]

someone probably screwed up the tension number for the Sparta-Athens treaty, because we're looking too far away in that model.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='18 July 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1279433125' post='2376740']
someone probably screwed up the tension number for the Sparta-Athens treaty, because we're looking too far away in that model.
[/quote]
But Athens is best Greece! Much superior to inferior Sparta.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Heft' date='17 July 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1279387502' post='2375970']
The idea that people responding somehow validates you as a leader is remarkably silly, also.
[/quote]
No, it's great logic!

(I get more replies than just about anyone. )

[Letum]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1279429951' post='2376683']
I am merely stating that said cluster exists, whether you want to be defined as such or not.
[/quote]

That grouping of alliances is looser than the entirety of Supercomplaints, which is a fairly big cluster$%&@.

The closest thing you get to a "cluster" is the people with immediate treaty links to NPO, going beyond that you end up with a group that does not really work together, and would fight together more as a result of coincidence rather than being a bloc.

Going so far as to include some of the blue and orange (TOP) team alliances simply because they are "closer" is a big stretch. Mutual isolation does not create a cluster. Taking it up to 100k NS is insane.

I mean, yes, if someone decided to attack one of the big alliances in that area with a CB of "we want to have fun", then you might see 100k NS being mustered to defend them. (And the attacker finding it pretty hard to muster enough with an unpopular CB). But if a CB was actually fairly solid, you'd only get about 40k-ish NS if it is someone in NPO's direct grouping, and more likely down to 20k-ish if it is further off.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Letum

[Vladimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 05:20 AM' timestamp='1279426791' post='2376656']
Is it merely the name "ex-Hegemony" that you're disputing?[/quote]
No. That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no idea how you got that from what I said. But Comrade Letum has made the point far better than I, so I'll simply point you in that direction.

[Heft]

Well, this does certainly showcase the blinders that many people have put on. Just because there are lots of alliances that don't fit neatly into the CnG/SF and related groups doesn't mean that there is one "distinct cluster" that falls outside of that group. This isn't 2008, or 2009. Ex-hegemony is an utterly meaningless term for trying to describe anything in today's world.

[Regent of Omerta]

[quote name='Schad' date='10 July 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1278813174' post='2366455']
Don't care, so long as it isn't over something thoroughly idiotic.
[/quote]
.
Truer words have never been spoken in reference to planet Bob-iterra.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 July 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1279414609' post='2376494']
If you see any mistakes, please correct them. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Bob_Janova
[/quote]

Do you see why it's grossly outdated?

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1279141500' post='2371531']
You can complain all you want, there is no getting around the fact we won. Weather it be by having more allies or fighting better, it comes down to the same thing: We played the game better. There is no other explanation.
[/quote]
You should not run an alliance.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1280428541' post='2394173']
You should not run an alliance.
[/quote]

Seriously, is there really no one better in Sparta to be king?

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1280435091' post='2394302']
Seriously, is there really no one better in Sparta to be king?
[/quote]
There must be some sort of voting process to get into that position...surely?

[Joseph Black]

I don't see a war for a few months, but NPO is getting back up in their tech, so I figure they will be rolled first, after that I see either MHA or TOP getting it next. I think the "pieces" of the old world have to be removed before anything big happens.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1278997529' post='2369041']
[color="#0000FF"]It is pretty much common knowledge at this point that CnG and SF nearly butted heads over several rather silly incidents. I think the fact that the two sides have nearly gone to war a handful of times already since the war does not reinforce the idea that all is well in the paradise you have created. In fact, I think it says quite the contrary. I am not saying you are hostile, or even looking for war with each other. However, SF and CnG are nowhere near as unified as they would like to think. They each have their friends, whom have their loyalty, but they may be tied vaguely. And there are alliances on both sides, GOD for SF and Athens for CnG, that are not exactly peacemongers when it comes to doing their daily business or supporting a friend. SF and CnG may be cooperating, but they are not loyal to each other, and they are not one big happy family. If you think otherwise, then I do suggest you get your head out of the sand.[/color]
[/quote]

SF and C&G are allies of convenience. We'll be very close until we have no common enemy. SF vs C&G is an ex-Hegemony wet dream.

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1279421297' post='2376593']
You have completely missed the point, Lord Brendan. It comes as little surprise to anyone when you point out that the NPO is not in the C&G bloc, nor that there are a handful of other alliances also not in it. But to suggest that this creates something that one can call 'ex-Hegemony', or that as a result we should expect to see some great final battle between them and C&G, is asinine. These alliances don't have a significant amount of strength nor do they form (or want to form) any sort of cohesive entity -- they are just a smattering of alliances sitting on the outskirts of the C&G power structure (some trying to force their way in; some sitting content with isolation). If C&G intend to sit and wait for a great and powerful challenge to arise from this then they better head out and pick up some supplies, because they're going to be waiting a very long time.
[/quote]

Obviously ex-Hegemony doesn't hold any significant political or military power at this moment in time. It can't hope to contend with SF and C&G. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a force within CN, however. It simply applies to a group of alliances who are outside of SG influence, who are largely ex-Hegemony, and largely our enemies.

[Facade]

None of them. They're too afraid to fight for something they believe in unless they have an overwhelming majority.