The More You Know!: The Myth of the Ex-Hegemony

[Lord Fingolfin]

[center][img]http://www.mybillq.com/blog/images/themoreyouknow.jpg[/img][/center]

[center]The Myth of the Ex-Hegemony[/center]

Greetings Bobians, I'm here to discuss the current debate over the Ex-Hegemony, and whether it exists as a "power bloc" or "sphere of influence" or not. On one side you have heavyweights such as Vladimir spouting rhetoric stating that the assertion of a cohesive Ex-Hegemony to be ludicrous, while others such as Lord Brendan counter with various points and statistical analysis'. Personally, I was more than happy to eat my popcorn and watch from the sidelines, however, the dialogue that developed later on in the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88833&st=0 ]"Which alliances are the most likely to start the next big war?"[/url] thread, piqued my interest enough to put some effort into research/thinking about the topic to offer my own analysis, as someone who served as a high ranking government member in one of the "Ex-Hegemony"'s largest alliances, and someone who has since helped founded an alliance firmly in the SF-C&G sphere of influence, and who now resides in the RIA, a member of the so-called SuperGrievances.

I'll begin my dissertation by quoting Olaf Styke, King of Sparta, whose post inspired me to begin this thread.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='15 July 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1279233825' post='2373645']
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. It's Darwinism. C&G-SF have found that sticking together and waiting for the enemy to make the first move means they're more likely to win, which is true, the aggressor is at a disadvantage simply because of how treaties work. [b]Now the so called "Ex Heg" alliances are smart cookies, they can come up with a way to balance the terms of the next engagement, and they'll undoubtedly try again[/b], and eventually C&G and SF will break, and there will be a new interregnum in CN, and another group will take it's place. This is how CN works.[/quote]


I'm focusing mainly on the bolded section, wherein you see what seems to be a prevailing attitude, that there is a horde of "Ex-Hegemony alliances" sitting in the dark recesses of Planet Bob waiting and plotting for the day to gain their righteous revenge with NPO as the vanguard. Unfortunately, I'll have to disagree with the prevailing attitude, and regretfully inform the masses that the "Ex-Hegemony" as you know it effectively died in this last war, much like Aegis/The League died after losing both Great War II and Great War III, "Ex-Heg" died after losing both Karma and the BiPolar War.

At the time of the WWE and early Bi-Polar, the connections were loose and fraying, although there certainly still was an attitude of "Us vs. Them" with Ex-Heg trying to overthrow SG. At this point those aforementioned ties are in many cases nonexistent or tenuous at best. Large portions of "Ex-Heg" do not like each other, and have no interest in being tied together to get beat down again. Any observant OWF visitor can view this, with prominent "Ex-Heg" members taking potshots at each other where-ever possible, treaties being cancelled, and harsh words tossed around. Some of these arguments and tensions are longstanding issues that have been around for years, others arose from the conduct of alliances during Karma, while yet others arose out of WWE/BiPolar actions, with claims of back stabbing, cowardice, opportunism, and the like.

"Ex-Heg" is no long a collective political identity, rather they're splintering off to either the SF or C&G area of influence, if you paid attention to the OWF you would notice the "Ex-Heg" treaties being cancelled left and right, and many old school NPO allies now having little love for them, and no interest in tieing themselves to the NPO banner. I'd encourage someone to try to name me an "Ex-Heg" alliance in the top 20 besides the NPO. Perhaps TOOL considering they have a secondhand link to NPO via TPF and they are also tied to FEAR who is in a bloc with two direct NPO MDoAP partners, however, thats a rather tenuous link. The Legion is the only true Ex-Heg top 20 alliance left besides NPO, but with these recent cancellations, it looks like they're off to suck the power teat of someone else, so that could bring their Ex-Heg status to an end soon. In essence, SF and C&G won, congratulations, the larger Superfriends and Complaints and Grievances cluster is utterly unopposed, no I'm not trying to trick you into letting your guard down and getting killer by those evil Ex-Heggers, I'm a member of your new world order, its in my interest to see it continue. To use a Aegis/League example again, you saw ODN and Legion and GATO forming up a large part of the core opposition to WUT, the 2006/2007 equivalent to SuperGrievances, and then just months later in the UJW, you had ODN, Legion, and GATO all fighting on the side of the NPO. History repeats itself, Ex-Hegemony alliances are splintering off to either SF or C&G, notable example, UPN has clearly aligned itself with C&G/Blue 2.0, and other examples will be soon to come.

Many people are probably now stating "But just look at Bob's treaty web! Theres clearly an Ex-Heg side!". Instead of making my own rebuttal for that, I'm going to borrow a very effective one from Letum.

[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).

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

I won't argue that there appears to be a larger Ex-Heg group with limited ties to outside alliances, however, that larger Ex-Heg group has splintered, primarily into four distinct power clusters. TOP/IRON, the Peace and Love Train bloc, Poseidon/Peace, and the Iron Curtain bloc, and each of these blocs respective hanger-ons. I'll now discuss each power cluster independently and give some general predictions based off casual observation of treaties, recent FA moves, grudges, and conversations I've had with various members of each of these mini power clusters.

1. The Order of the Paradox and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, or TOP/IRON for short

As anyone who paid attention to the last war would be able to tell you, TOP/IRON were the core of the "Ex-Heg" side last war, with the war coalition referred to as TIFDTT, prominently featuring the two of them as the first T (TOP) and I (IRON) of that acronym. TOP fought against the Hegemony in Karma, holding little love for much of the Ex-Hegemony, with only their ties to IRON and paranoia regarding C&G tieing them to the Ex-Heg side in WWE/BiPolar. Now with that paranoia satiated, and many of IRON's ties to the former Ex-Hegemony now cancelled, this power cluster of TOP/IRON and their close allies (such as Argent or TORN) is clearly moving away from what was the Ex-Heg, and taking the lions share of its strength and organizational skills with it. With TOP/IRON still under terms for quite some time, you can probably put money on them being neutral in any upcoming summer/fall conflicts, however, further down the line I wouldn't be surprised to see them drift over towards SF, if only due to IRON's R&R tie, and the fact that although C&G-TOP/IRON relations have improved, they still fought a vicious war against each other and I wouldn't expect an IRON-MK MADP anytime soon.

2. Peace and Love Train

Composed of the CCC, Europa, TFD, NADC, UBD, and GUN, this little bloc is primarily located on the blue sphere. With fairly minimal ties to anyone besides themselves, I'd predict them likely moving closer towards the Blue 2.0 sphere and by that association to C&G. Said prediction largely stems from multiple ties to NV, and the recent addition of the CCC who is strongly tied to NpO and GR.

3. Poseidon/Peace

Comprised of Valhalla, BAPS, and Olympus, as well as several smaller purple alliances who are part of the ODP economic bloc. Although there are several indirect ties here to the NPO, as well as a direct one in the form of the Olympus-NPO MDoAP, I'm still skeptical on them holding out as hardcore NPO-ers. If I had to take a guess I'd say moving slightly towards SF, if only because of Val's past SF ties

4. Iron Curtain, comprised of Hydra, NATO, NSO, and FEAR. With two of its four members MDoAP'ed to NPO if you really wanted to you could refer to the Iron Curtain/NPO power base as "Ex-Heg", but it really would be a misnomer. There is a small "NPO and Friends" group that IC could be considered a part of, along with TPF, Legion, and others, but such a group is hardly a threat or potent power on the world stage, no force that will break the SF-C&G power sphere for sure


At some point SF and C&G are going to split, its nigh a certainty, regardless of whether they like each other or not. At some point one of SF's entourage is going to have a problem with someone in C&G's entourage (or maybe even an actual member of SF having a problem with a member of C&G's entourage, and vice versa), and a war is going to break out because of it. Not because SF and C&G dislike each other, although that may happen at some point in time, but because [b]first and foremost[/b] their allegiance is to their respective bloc and friends first, and the other bloc, whether it be SF or C&G depending on whose perspective you're looking from, is second. I highly doubt that it will come down to a direct SF-C&G confrontation, with GOD fighting Athens or something to that extent, relations are to good overall and members of each bloc would tactfully resolve the issue. However, as several incidents over the past months have highlighted, such as Tilton, IAA-GOD, OO-TIO, and others, the potential for such a war to break out is certainly there, and its only a matter of time before another similar incident pops up and someone is a little to trigger happy.

To close my little analysis,

TLDR: There is no cohesive Ex-Hegemony, rather those groups that composed the Ex-Hegemony have splintered off into four distinct clusters, of which some will likely drift towards C&G, others to SF, and others to the NPO. I'd also like to emphasize when I say that IRON/TOP may move towards SF or PnL towards C&G/Blue 2.0, I'm not saying there is going to be a slew of treaties, or that they are going to be joined at the hip, just that in the event of the eventual SF-C&G war, the current minimal connections they have to a respective side would likely draw them in, and that if SF/C&G are clever they will probably endeavor to strengthen existing ties to bring the more competent and palatable "Ex-Heg" alliances to their side.




-LF


Edited for grammar

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[Sandwich Controversy]

A very good post indeed.

[The Syndic]

Nicely thought out and well written.

[King Louis the II]

I think you are discussing semantics. I may be wrong and Olaf can correct me if he wants. I think the "ex-hegemony" meant NPO plus whoever are with them. While many people dislike NPO I think nobody in their right mind will think they are not competent. They are. They will grow again and they will gather new and old friends. It is in NPO very nature to lead and seek power. Moreover, it is natural that after completing their terms they may want to get revenge in the long-term. I think this is what Olaf was talking about.

edit spelling

Edited July 19, 2010 by King Louis the II

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='King Louis the II' date='19 July 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1279559556' post='2378988']
I think you are discussing semantics. I may be wrong and Olaf can correct me if he wants. I think the "ex-hegemony" meant NPO plus whoever are with them. While many people dislike NPO I think nobody in their right mind will think they are not competent. They are. They will grow again and they will gather new and old friends. It is in NPO very nature to lead and seek power. Moreover, it is natural that after completing their terms they may want to get revenge in the long-term. I think this is what Olaf was talking about.

edit spelling
[/quote]

I disagree, when NPO was in power, there were less alliances, and there were more very large alliances. Now a days you can have a million NS alliance with only thirty members, and now there are ten dozen alliances with over 100 million NS. This might seem like a random starting point, but the fact is, that power is so decentralized that one alliance cannot dominate the game alone, and control their own political destiny like the NPO once did. If an alliance comes close, it will not be by the power of their own fighting ability, but rather due to their reputation. MK is likely the most dominating alliance in the game right now, for that reason, they don't have the best size out there, but they have the most respect.

One thing we are seeing is that now people will begin to identify more and more through blocs which are able to assemble enough power to dominate the game as CnG and SF do now. You can't say one or two alliances are dominating CN, but two blocs are. I don't see an alliance ever dominating CN again. Instead alliances and there members will begin to value blocs and identify with them, more and more as we see their value increase.

[Lord Brendan]

A very good read. I'll certainly acknowledge that ex-Hegemony is starting to splinter, but I still think there's enough connections between the subgroups that you can think of them as a single cluster for the time being.

TOP/IRON&co, for example, has several treaties to groups Purple and IC, although they've just canceled their connections to PnL. PnL is probably the most isolated of the four, but even they have a handful of treaties with IC (NATO).

I'm curious as to where you're placing alliances such as Invicta and MCXA.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='19 July 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1279560327' post='2379006']I disagree, when NPO was in power, there were less alliances, and there were more very large alliances. Now a days you can have a million NS alliance with only thirty members, and now there are ten dozen alliances with over 100 million NS. This might seem like a random starting point, but the fact is, that power is so decentralized that one alliance cannot dominate the game alone, and control their own political destiny like the NPO once did. If an alliance comes close, it will not be by the power of their own fighting ability, but rather due to their reputation. MK is likely the most dominating alliance in the game right now, for that reason, they don't have the best size out there, but they have the most respect.[/quote]

Unless you're talking about pre-WUT era, NPO never dominated by themselves. Their individual strength was impressive to be sure (what, 21M at their peak?) but it was never anywhere close to enough to dominate by themselves.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='19 July 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1279560539' post='2379013']

I'm curious as to where you're placing alliances such as Invicta and MCXA.
[/quote]
I was wondering to. I was starting to feel left out

Edited July 19, 2010 by supercoolyellow

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='19 July 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1279560327' post='2379006']
I disagree, when NPO was in power, there were less alliances, and there were more very large alliances. Now a days you can have a million NS alliance with only thirty members, and now there are ten dozen alliances with over 100 million NS. This might seem like a random starting point, but the fact is, that power is so decentralized that one alliance cannot dominate the game alone, and control their own political destiny like the NPO once did. If an alliance comes close, it will not be by the power of their own fighting ability, but rather due to their reputation. MK is likely the most dominating alliance in the game right now, for that reason, they don't have the best size out there, but they have the most respect.

One thing we are seeing is that now people will begin to identify more and more through blocs which are able to assemble enough power to dominate the game as CnG and SF do now. You can't say one or two alliances are dominating CN, but two blocs are. I don't see an alliance ever dominating CN again. Instead alliances and there members will begin to value blocs and identify with them, more and more as we see their value increase.
[/quote]


I did not say that NPO will dominate the game alone. I said that they will grow, and will lead an important bloc, you can call "ex-hegemony" or you can call it "chair" or "the beatles".

[Shinpah]

I would think part of the labeling problem lies simply in the fact that there haven't been distinct actions by the 4 groups you outline in the meantime since the war.

Breaking treaties, sure, but overt political maneuvering, no

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='19 July 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1279560539' post='2379013']

I'm curious as to where you're placing alliances such as Invicta and MCXA.

[/quote]

Invicta most definately gets placed into the NPO and friends camp, as for MCXA it would really depend on the nature of the CB/war I imagine, although I most closely associate them with PnL. One other thing I'd like to add is even though there is a NPO+Friends group left centered around IC, just like the other three power clusters, in the event of a C&G vs. SF war, I'd imagine they would enter in on one side or another to get some revenge against former foes, they're not really a legitimate third front. Either way they go it will be hilarious, NPO fighting on the side of GOD, or NPO fighting on the side of MK, I pray I'm in coalition channels where those interactions take place.

[rabonnobar]

Very good analysis imo. Bravo.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 July 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1279561131' post='2379025']
Invicta most definately gets placed into the NPO and friends camp, as for MCXA it would really depend on the nature of the CB/war I imagine, although I most closely associate them with PnL. One other thing I'd like to add is even though there is a NPO+Friends group left centered around IC, just like the other three power clusters, in the event of a C&G vs. SF war, I'd imagine they would enter in on one side or another to get some revenge against former foes, they're not really a legitimate third front. Either way they go it will be hilarious, NPO fighting on the side of GOD, or NPO fighting on the side of MK, I pray I'm in coalition channels where those interactions take place.
[/quote]
I for one am glad I will not be. Running wars where most people get along is bad enough.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='19 July 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1279561252' post='2379028']
I for one am glad I will not be. Running wars where most people get along is bad enough.
[/quote]

Ha true, enough, although I still got a lot of laughs from STA and Val gov both being in leadership channels for the NPO-\m/ section of the war. Some priceless quotes


[quote name='Shinpah' date='19 July 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1279560796' post='2379017']
I would think part of the labeling problem lies simply in the fact that there haven't been distinct actions by the 4 groups you outline in the meantime since the war.

Breaking treaties, sure, but overt political maneuvering, no
[/quote]

This is true, but the treaty cancellations have to take place before any meaningful maneuvering takes place. For example, many alliances on the SG side of things viewed IRON as a fairly competant alliance, but one that they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot stick due to many of the allies they had, now that many of said allies are gone, the door is open, or at least is unlocked

I feel as though the manuevering is at least starting to take place though, more in back channels obviously, but Q&A's are going on, feelers are being put out. Time will tell, and possible prove me wrong on this whole affair

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[Bob Janova]

An excellent post. I agree that following IRON's move the 'ex-Hegemony power cluster' is now so fractured and diffuse that it doesn't really exist any more. I'm not sure that makes it a myth, just a piece of past history – 'Hegemony' certainly existed in Karma and 'ex-Hegemony' survived pretty much intact from the end of Karma to the TPF war. I'd say that actually it died at the start of the C&G front of Bipolar, with the core of that coalition being IRON (a Hegemony alliance) and TOP (a Karma alliance, kind of).

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 July 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1279561664' post='2379042']
An excellent post. I agree that following IRON's move the 'ex-Hegemony power cluster' is now so fractured and diffuse that it doesn't really exist any more. I'm not sure that makes it a myth, just a piece of past history – 'Hegemony' certainly existed in Karma and 'ex-Hegemony' survived pretty much intact from the end of Karma to the TPF war. I'd say that actually it died at the start of the C&G front of Bipolar, with the core of that coalition being IRON (a Hegemony alliance) and TOP (a Karma alliance, kind of).
[/quote]

True, past history would be a more apt description, however I was more referring to the view propagated that there is still a cohesive Ex-Hegemony, which is at this point and time a myth. As for it dieing at the start of the C&G front, thats an interesting take, one I hadn't though of

[Xiphosis]

While I see where you see the 4 "groups" fracturing, I still concur with Brendan that atm it can be considered one very loose collection, like a crappier version of the League and without the MDP. As I've told some others, as much as I don't think a lot of people on that side of things feel like fighting for NPO a lot of the time it just comes down to "My friends riding off to war, am I going to back him or not?" Regardless of whether or not that friend is essentially fighting for a return of some sort of nu-Q with NPO at the helm.

Until there's a tangible and clear break in the treaties between the four, I'll continue to refer to them collectively as one side of things. You look at even IRON's 6 cancellations and you can say, rightly, that's a pretty big break. On the other hand, they retained NSO, and NSO holds a direct link to NPO. So yeah.

[Scorponok]

The truth is foretold in the OP. Very good post. Very good analysis. Thanks for our mention .

[Vladimir]

Though it brings me no pleasure to suggest that the Order is not in the centre of a great power, this is a good and honest post by Lord Fingolfin. Those who continue to see and refer to an 'Ex-Hegemony', especially in the context of future great wars, are really just seeing what they want to see. It is, of course, never easy to let go of the dichotomy that has defined one's existence for so long -- to remove the 'other' that the self has been defined in contrast to -- but it can only be so long before reality finally overcomes this resistance.

Nevertheless, in the meantime it is an interesting intersection where lack of political understanding and lack of imagination come together, and it is always fascinating to watch the last remaining few scrambling to overcome the cognitive dissonance that posts like this must bring.

[Alterego]

Very impressive analysis.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='19 July 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1279562259' post='2379054']
While I see where you see the 4 "groups" fracturing, I still concur with Brendan that atm it can be considered one very loose collection, like a crappier version of the League and without the MDP. As I've told some others, as much as I don't think a lot of people on that side of things feel like fighting for NPO a lot of the time it just comes down to "My friends riding off to war, am I going to back him or not?" Regardless of whether or not that friend is essentially fighting for a return of some sort of nu-Q with NPO at the helm.

Until there's a tangible and clear break in the treaties between the four, I'll continue to refer to them collectively as one side of things. You look at even IRON's 6 cancellations and you can say, rightly, that's a pretty big break. On the other hand, they retained NSO, and NSO holds a direct link to NPO. So yeah.
[/quote]


Understandable, I also concur that if a war broke out tomorrow with a member of one of these four clusters being attacked, they would likely band together. However, with a war that does not involve a direct assault on either a PnL/TOP&IRON/Posiedon/NPO&Friends cluster member, they could all go either way.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]Understandable, I also concur that if a war broke out tomorrow with a member of one of these four clusters being attacked, they would likely band together. However, with a war that does not involve a direct assault on either a PnL/TOP&IRON/Posiedon/NPO&Friends cluster member, they could all go either way.[/quote]

Which was the expectation, and the hope, after Karma. It was the justification used by many members of that coalition to lay down next to nothing in terms. It wasn't what we saw. They banded together offensively, and I got to be very smug with a lot of people. I should've bet tech.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='19 July 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1279562259' post='2379054']
While I see where you see the 4 "groups" fracturing, I still concur with Brendan that atm it can be considered one very loose collection, like a crappier version of the League and without the MDP. As I've told some others, as much as I don't think a lot of people on that side of things feel like fighting for NPO a lot of the time it just comes down to "My friends riding off to war, am I going to back him or not?" Regardless of whether or not that friend is essentially fighting for a return of some sort of nu-Q with NPO at the helm.

Until there's a tangible and clear break in the treaties between the four, I'll continue to refer to them collectively as one side of things. You look at even IRON's 6 cancellations and you can say, rightly, that's a pretty big break. On the other hand, they retained NSO, and NSO holds a direct link to NPO. So yeah.
[/quote]


[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 July 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1279563334' post='2379079']
Understandable, I also concur that if a war broke out tomorrow with a member of one of these four clusters being attacked, they would likely band together. However, with a war that does not involve a direct assault on either a PnL/TOP&IRON/Posiedon/NPO&Friends cluster member, they could all go either way.
[/quote]

What LF has observed, methinks, is not so much as what the current treaty web, so much as what events have been set into action and where these different alliances are moving. Will they roll together so much in three months time? I doubt it.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='19 July 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1279563447' post='2379084']
Which was the expectation, and the hope, after Karma. It was the justification used by many members of that coalition to lay down next to nothing in terms. It wasn't what we saw. They banded together offensively, and I got to be very smug with a lot of people. I should've bet tech.
[/quote]

True enough, touche Xi

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 July 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1279563617' post='2379091']
True enough, touche Xi
[/quote]

Come to think of it, I wonder if TOP was one of the ones spouting "END THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE!" in Karma. It would cast their preemptive in Bipolar in an entirely hilarious light. Fake morality is a nasty thing to dabble in.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Very good post. I too think ex-Heg can now only refer to past alliances rather than a modern pseudo-bloc. The SG side is one powersphere, divided into two sub-areas of influence. The other side, which doesn't yet have a name (now that "ex-Heg" no longer applies, in my opinion), is really just a loose conglomeration of four different mini-spheres that haven't picked a side in the SG powersphere. They're not much more connected to each other than they are to SF or CnG. I do not think they will pick a side (as in, signing a number of treaties) until after the next major war. The next major war will likely see the entry of at least a couple of the four mini-spheres, but only to take down CnG or SF, whichever seems to have the slight disadvantage at the time. After that, then the mini-spheres who fought on the winning side will probably formalize the relation more solidly with more treaties, rather than just the tenuous, singular treaties they have now.