What will the next war look like?

[kotic]

[quote name='Facade' date='16 July 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1279301896' post='2374702']
I think this scenario should be the most likely. It just will take CN to realize that working together to get rid of some of the boredom is a good thing when you're eliminating alliances that don't do anything. Down with the neutral menace.
[/quote]Thats just rediculous I've made many friends over on neutral AA's they're good people and wish to play the game a certain way. CN NEEDS neutral alliances so that nations may learn the poltical aspect of the game. Hell I got all my diplomatic and leadership skills from a neutral alliance (shout out to GLOP). And I was a better fighter for it when it came time for the karma war. I highly doubt it will be a neutral alliance that starts the next war. Neutral alliances will do anything to stay out of war. I believe they are the most politically stable alliances in CN. A war coming from them Is highly unlikly

[wickedj]

[quote name='Biff Webster' date='17 July 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1279392208' post='2376080']
The neutral hate is funny. Most alliances need protectors, double digit treaties, etc to achieve the same thing they do by themselves.
[/quote]
That worked out well when NPO came a callin'

edit: likewise when TDO was threatening ADI lol

Edited July 17, 2010 by wickedj

[Uralica]

[quote name='wickedj' date='17 July 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1279394585' post='2376120']
edit: likewise when TDO was threatening ADI lol
[/quote]

I recall that. It wasn't particularly neutral of TDO to go as far as they did with that. Plus their response to the NSO fiasco was also the worst out of all the neutrals. I was thinking of the TDO-ADI goings-on when I put this down:

[quote name='Uralica' date='16 July 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1279317599' post='2375030']
Unless one of said neutrals did something legitimately dumb and/or nasty.[/quote]

Just a slight push further and we could have easily had war on our hands there. But anyway, for GPA to get hit again, it's going to have to be out of pure jealousy, and quite frankly, I can't see that happening. They've got their bases covered. Grey Council, while quiet, are at least somewhat respected. WTF... well, I s'pose that depends on how well they reign themselves in. They've let in some pretty big oddballs in the past. (*cough*mellonhead*cough*) I think TDO has wisened up. And GOP is still, I think, a protectorate via UJA, so to do something to them would be to bring about the wrath of VE, among others.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 July 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1279328217' post='2375270']
I agree with the consensus that a Pacifican Revenge! war would have to be in a world without a SF-C&G closeness. I also like the comments about a grudge war breaking out, which could be either from a #3 or #5 situation. And, yes, the tech raid gone wrong would likely be from an alliance that doesn't do it often enough to know how to deal with it diplomatically.

[b]Polaris vs. SF came up, as well. That could be a potential conflict that tears through the heart not only of the SF-C&G bond, but through all major blocs. The fallout from a war like that could lead to some really bad blood that would last for a long time to come.[/b]
[/quote]

I agree completely.

[quote name='OsRavan' date='17 July 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1279381471' post='2375815']
Is it just me or does anyone else sometimes get the vibe that certain people feel like if they can just say 'SF/CnG fight each other!' loudly enough or often enough they can make it happen?
[/quote]

It's even better how the ex-Heg says. "Can't fight us we're not in shape...Looks like you're going to have to fight each other now." Just because you're not in shape doesn't mean you won't get rolled again.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Omniscient1

[Uralica]

Hey, if someone does something stupid enough to legitimately warrant them getting rolled (like be completely uncooperative when one of theirs goes rogue on another entity, or excessively heavy-handed when someone from another entity goes rogue on them, or start a sanction war or something), then they're fair game, ex-Hedgie or not, in shape or out of shape.

Diplomatic fail is the #1 cause of wars on Bob. It doesn't matter whether the diplomatic fail happens because of an incident, or if it [i]is[/i] the incident in and of itself.

[zzzptm]

Maybe the next war will be the "Gonna keep you down!" war... with alliances that don't have enough targets taking on neutrals and micros.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='wickedj' date='17 July 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1279394585' post='2376120']
That worked out well when NPO came a callin'

edit: likewise when TDO was threatening ADI lol[/quote]
I seem to recall when the NPO came calling rather few alliances were safe and the conflicts had quite a bit to do with leadership at that time and how they handled the situation but considering the stats now and their (neutrals in general) numbers in the top ranks I'd say it has worked out. I think it's pretty safe to say they've probably taken less damage and lost less time devoted to growth than the interventionist alliances have.

[Prodigal Moon]

The only realistic scenario for a legit war is for GOONS or \m/ to do something so heinous that they only get a limited degree of chaining support outside of SuperComplaints and the rest of the world unites in opposition.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='16 July 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1279328217' post='2375270']
Polaris vs. SF came up, as well. That could be a potential conflict that tears through the heart not only of the SF-C&G bond, but through all major blocs. The fallout from a war like that could lead to some really bad blood that would last for a long time to come.
[/quote]
I can't see such a war being anything other than a beatdown of Polaris. NpO lost a lot of political capital when it started the most recent war. I just don't see any of its allies who are also tied to SF sticking their neck out of NpO in this situation.

[bigwoody]

Not bad commentary, I have some comments to toss in as usual:

[quote name='zzzptm' date='16 July 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1279297695' post='2374586']
1. [b]Pacifican revenge.[/b] NPO gets its old gang back together and starts gunning for its enemies.
Short term outlook: Not likely. Numbers are not yet on Pacifica's side.
Long term outlook: Very likely. Once C&G/SF splits - or if a resurgent Pacifica makes itself useful in a war resulting from such a split - they have a strong chance at having a large enough bloc to re-establish themselves in an eminent position of world power. NPO would have to be careful to avoid being drawn out by a fake split designed to put it out in the open for another beat-down.[/quote]
While its certainly something NPO would like, they don't now or in the foreseeable future have the firepower for this to be the centerpiece of a major war. Rather, NPO revenge would just be more likely to dictate how they navigate the wars started by others.

[quote]2. [b]C&G/SF split.[/b] The Big One that makes everyone pick a side, for better or for worse.
Short term outlook: Not likely. They all have a sense of humor, so they tend to forgive each others' shortcomings more easily. Although they are a chaotic and informal bloc, they maintain a watchful eye on NPO and its old gang.
Long term outlook: Low likelihood. The split is eventual. All things come to an end. Just ask the signatories of WUT. But would a split necessarily lead immediately to an outbreak of war? I doubt it.[/quote]

A C&G/SF split isn't seen by anyone as some sort of automatic war trigger. Rather, it is an almost required prelude to any major war occurring, unless they together decide they're bored and want some stompy-stompy time. The only time I can think of where a bloc breakup exactly coincided with a war was the Unjust War, an almost direct result of NpO trying to make a power play to come out on top from the WUT tensions of the day. Thus, a C&G/SF split would imply some alliance in one or the other was trying to get ahead of the rest, and none of the alliances there really strike me as ambitious.

[quote]3. [b]Tech raid gone wrong.[/b] A raider hits the wrong AA and his alliance deals with public nukes instead of private channels.
Short term outlook: Moderately likely. Public mood is becoming less tolerant of aggressive actions. Raiding alliances have been warned, but raiders always make mistakes. One of them will result in an alliance going for it and activating its treaties to deal with the raiding AA. The question is this: would the allies of the raiding AA come to its aid if they felt the other alliance was overreacting? If yes, we could see a large war result. There's enough chaining, it could result in eventually growing into one of the above scenarios.
Long term outlook: Even more likely. It's a matter of when, not if.[/quote]
It's pretty likely, yeah, we have near misses for these kinds of things all the time.

[quote]4. [b]Rolling a neutral AA.[/b] There was once an alliance of lambs that took a wombat into their midst. The wombat was on the run from a pack of werewolves, and...
Short term outlook: Not likely. No neutral AA is #1 and large-scale acts of aggression could trigger other AAs into paperless support of the target. Therefore, the neutrals aren't targets.
Long term outlook: Not likely. Unless several major blocs decide to eradicate the Neutral Menace, it ain't gonna happen.
Really long term outlook: Somewhat likely. If we don't have regular wars on Planeta Roberto, people start looking for targets.[/quote]
Can't disagree here, neutral stomping has sometimes been a boredom cure, rare as it really is.

[quote]5. [b]Micro AA war getting out of control.[/b] The 57th Overlanders nearly did it, too!
Short term outlook: Not likely. I say not likely simply because such wars are unpredictable. They're one-in-a-million chances, but they can still happen. When they do, alliances will find the weirdest treaties getting activated.
Long term outlook: Still not likely. Probably because we might actually see fewer small AAs as time goes on, given the general reduction and consolidation of nations on Planeta Roberto.[/quote]
The big shots won't allow themselves to get caught out over a micro-alliance (unless they know they can win). Agreed on the count of this being unlikely.

[Ernsters]

a Micro AA war turning into something big is unlikely, unless of course, their protectorates get involved, in which case, things could escalate fast. Micro AA's also tend to be quick with their trigger fingers, because of their small size they tend to defend themselves with as much brutality as possible (in my experiences anyway). One nation is a lot more important when it's in a Micro AA then when it's in a full AA. It's also harder for Micro AA's to be respected among the other AA's out there.

just my two cents

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' date='17 July 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1279406848' post='2376357']
I can't see such a war being anything other than a beatdown of Polaris. NpO lost a lot of political capital when it started the most recent war. I just don't see any of its allies who are also tied to SF sticking their neck out of NpO in this situation.
[/quote]

I disagree completely. NpO and their allies (STA, UPN, etc) could pull in key CnG members. It would probably be solved diplomatically before war happened, but if Super-Grievances broke up that would be the most plausible scenario in my opinion.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='16 July 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1279297695' post='2374586']

5. [b]Micro AA war getting out of control.[/b] The 57th Overlanders nearly did it, too!
Short term outlook: Not likely. I say not likely simply because such wars are unpredictable. They're one-in-a-million chances, but they can still happen. When they do, alliances will find the weirdest treaties getting activated.
Long term outlook: Still not likely. Probably because we might actually see fewer small AAs as time goes on, given the general reduction and consolidation of nations on Planeta Roberto.

What do you think?
[/quote]

If I had my way 57th War would've got a lot bigger. Instead we let a pack of rat !@#$%^&* go to keep alliances larger and self-appointedly more important than us from having to make the hard decisions real leaders have to make. You're welcome.

Fortunately, Veneke managed to run 57th into the ground and I'm glad to report that forum-hijacking jackal dissolved his nation with a dozen people left on the 57th AA who have all moved on one way or another. CoJ/BC victory.

I put the likelihood of true micro-AA stuff becoming major at highly unlikely. The average micro AA is more likely to get thrown under the bus or told to sit down and shut up by any larger parties than to have someone in their corner that's willing to go to bat when it counts.

[Emporor]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='16 July 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1279297695' post='2374586']
5. [b]Micro AA war getting out of control.[/b] The 57th Overlanders nearly did it, too!
Short term outlook: Not likely. I say not likely simply because such wars are unpredictable. They're one-in-a-million chances, but they can still happen. When they do, alliances will find the weirdest treaties getting activated.
Long term outlook: Still not likely. Probably because we might actually see fewer small AAs as time goes on, given the general reduction and consolidation of nations on Planeta Roberto.
[/quote]

I can totally get behind this one. Over the last few weeks, ICAN has almost went to war a few times.

I can see alliances like ICAN, who don't take crap off anyone, deciding that its best to get physical. I myself usually try to solve all problems diplomatically.. but recently thats getting harder and harder because some micro alliances have no respect at all. They hide behind their protectors thinking that they will be safe... and don't get me wrong, if ICAN goes to war, GATO, our protector will definitely back us up.



Another thing I have encountered over the last few weeks is alliances, such as Athens... Who I have a lot of love and respect for, sticking their noses in business that doesn't concern them. Athens of course isn't the only alliance out there that comes to mind in recent events.

Another thing ICAN has encountered, is raiding.. Yeah, we have the protectorate in the wiki, forums, irc, even in the nation bio, and all ICAN nation flags are set to GATO's official flag... But yet, some alliances think its still a good idea to raid us, so we have set up a new policy of 3x reps. These alliances don't want to pay that amount, but here is my problem... First you attack our nation, send them to anarchy... waste a slot that could have been used for something else paying minor reps, and then waste another slot and time... because we would have to aid that nation more because the raider just payed 1x reps... that doesn't seem right now does it?


Then we have large alliances out there, who want to accuse things on smaller alliances just to be able to roll them.... I mean really? If you are that bored and you want to justify your reasons for war by blaming an alliance for things, the obviously couldn't have done, just to enter a war, then why don't you insert raiding into your charter. I mean, don't oppose something that you want to do yourself... just in a different manner.



That's my opinion.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Cornelius' date='17 July 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1279392035' post='2376079']
You're looking for the long-term then, as IRON hasn't even been able to start its rep payments yet. The conspiracy theorists would say that it was intentional.
[/quote]

http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Independent%20Republic%20of%20Orange%20Nations&anyallexact=exact

Your story, and actual facts, do not match.

[James IV]

I doubt that just because SF and C&G would break up that the war would be even. Alliances jump to the more powerful side, not the one that looks weak from bad PR.

[Daeryon]

The next couple of wars will be curbstomps launched by the powers that be, or small isolated conflicts between none-too-powerful blocs.

There won't be a major war for some time. Major wars happen when you have two sides that are pretty equal, and one finally gets a hand over the other. Right now, no one can challenge the bloc in control of everything.

If I had to guess, I would bet that the next fairly large war will be a curbstomp put on by the powers that be on the first sizable bloc to begin to get to a threatening size. They'll provoke a war on the bloc before they get too big, and knock them back to a completely non-threatening level.

The recent surge of treaty cancellations makes me feel I'm not the only one out there thinking this. Everyone's spending a lot of time trying to remove that target from their backs.

A major war won't happen until either a coalition forms that can honestly compete with they guys in charge, or that coalition splinters, or both.

[Axolotlia]

I have yet to see the option for the return of TOLWYN, and the black crusade, drawing a mass coalition of support to take down NOIR With him.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1280590505' post='2396009']
I have yet to see the option for the return of TOLWYN, and the black crusade, drawing a mass coalition of support to take down NOIR With him.
[/quote]

There is probably a reason you haven't seen that.

[KingEd]

The next war will be in January because I will start it. K Thx Bai Until then, feel free to talk about impossible Wars.

1) NPO isn't stupid.
2) We won't let it happen---we'll roll someone else instead.
3) If Diplomacy Fails (Usually does but that's intentional, not accidental)
4) I actually think the Neutrals are a menace that one day out of Boredom will roll all of us. So Yes, lets roll them and demand smaller reps than Q did of GPA and claim "We're not as bad as them" lol...the thought makes me giggle.
5) Ermm these are very possible but only if the bigger players let it happen. What is the # of possible war outbreaks in the last month or so ? Like 23 ? I'm tired of the "possible war queries"...attack and then solve later.

However;

It doesn't benefit me for SG to break up---I'm enjoying the growth, peace, and control (not mine) way too much.

[Tarikmo]

[quote name='Emporor' timestamp='1279478416' post='2377472']
I can totally get behind this one. Over the last few weeks, ICAN has almost went to war a few times.

I can see alliances like ICAN, who don't take crap off anyone, deciding that its best to get physical. I myself usually try to solve all problems diplomatically.. but recently thats getting harder and harder because some micro alliances have no respect at all. They hide behind their protectors thinking that they will be safe... and don't get me wrong, if ICAN goes to war, GATO, our protector will definitely back us up.



Another thing I have encountered over the last few weeks is alliances, such as Athens... Who I have a lot of love and respect for, sticking their noses in business that doesn't concern them. Athens of course isn't the only alliance out there that comes to mind in recent events.

Another thing ICAN has encountered, is raiding.. Yeah, we have the protectorate in the wiki, forums, irc, even in the nation bio, and all ICAN nation flags are set to GATO's official flag... But yet, some alliances think its still a good idea to raid us, so we have set up a new policy of 3x reps. These alliances don't want to pay that amount, but here is my problem... First you attack our nation, send them to anarchy... waste a slot that could have been used for something else paying minor reps, and then waste another slot and time... because we would have to aid that nation more because the raider just payed 1x reps... that doesn't seem right now does it?


Then we have large alliances out there, who want to accuse things on smaller alliances just to be able to roll them.... I mean really? If you are that bored and you want to justify your reasons for war by blaming an alliance for things, the obviously couldn't have done, just to enter a war, then why don't you insert raiding into your charter. I mean, don't oppose something that you want to do yourself... just in a different manner.



That's my opinion.
[/quote]
I like your style.

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280591442' post='2396017']
There is probably a reason you haven't seen that.
[/quote]

It was a joke geez...

[Emporor]

[quote name='Tarikmo' timestamp='1280593866' post='2396040']
I like your style.
[/quote]

Oh, thanks. I always say what I think and how I feel..

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1280590505' post='2396009']
I have yet to see the option for the return of TOLWYN, and the black crusade, drawing a mass coalition of support to take down NOIR With him.
[/quote]

YES!!!!

I mean, yes that sounds like a likely scenario.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Stefano Palmieri]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1279299069' post='2374618']
What saddens me is there isn't a real possibility of war in a short term outlook.
[/quote]
This pretty much

Well not really, I think Mirreillie was on the track though.