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

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Lincongrad' date='19 July 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1279570351' post='2379242']
If I remember correctly, Legion at least fought Valhalla and \m/ in support of NpO, in almost direct opposition to NPO.
[/quote]

You remember incorrectly then, since NPO helped NpO in the UJW.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='19 July 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1279592849' post='2379735']
Lord Fingolfin, an excellent piece of writing even if I don't necessarily come to all the conclusions that you do.
[/quote]
Completely agree.

Good to see someone pointing out that the "ex-Hegemony" is now nothing more but a myth. I eagerly await the day most people get out of the old political mindset.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='20 July 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1279603973' post='2380066']
You remember incorrectly then, since NPO helped NpO in the UJW.
[/quote]

They mostly sat on the sidelines and eventually attacked GOLD, who entered later on the UJP side. However, their biggest contribution to the war was clearly their abandoning of their WUT allies in favor of Polaris. Xiph has it correct.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='20 July 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1279603607' post='2380052']
Obviously TOP was on the Karma side, but IRON, Legion, UPN, TPF, Invicta, BAPS, [b]TORN[/b] and other supporting alliances, the [b]core of NPO's allies [u]during[/u] Karma[/b], alligned with TIDTT.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, what? I don't mean to nit pick here, but you causally throw that in as if nothing changed for us during that war.

[Olaf Styke]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='20 July 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1279604496' post='2380085']
I'm sorry, what? I don't mean to nit pick here, but you causally throw that in as if nothing changed for us during that war.
[/quote]

Yes, yes, you withdrew, I know. I'm trying to illustrate a broader point, I'm sorry if my inclusion of TORN among the NPO-aligned beligerents offends you, there is a distinction to be made there, I understand, but I can't be writing 5 page posts denoting the particulars of each alliance's involvement in the war.

...though given how often I'm both accidentally and deliberately misinterpreted, I think I'm probably going to start writing 5 page posts that spell out every tiny detail, because having to hold people's hands and walk them through my arguments is preferable to the amount of retardation that inevitably occurs over what I meant by 'Darwinism' in the context of Cybernations, when everyone should be able to connect the dots.

[Earogema]

I have pretty much just thought of "Ex-heg" as CC- The Coincidence Coalition since the name was coined. Personally, I think it would have been in their favor if they had coined and kept that name.

However I don't get why they feel the need to remove themselves from a label that holds no weight. Just make the change in FA, or just keep the ties. Why anybody would be afraid of an "ex-heg" member is beyond me.

Regardless, there is one point that I agree with in Heft's post- That SuperComplaints as the new hegemony doesn't have the strong ties that we think they do, and thus the labeling of this current hegemony is just as silly.

[NLights]

The term Ex-Hegemony is used by people who want it to exist for their own ends. For the most part, minus a few ties here and there, it fell apart some time ago.

Great post LF.

[Chickenzilla]

The main problem I see is that you think CnG likes UPN.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='20 July 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1279602287' post='2379998']
I believe the point Lord Fingolfin is trying to make is such a group does not exist. It hasn't for quite some time. Even in the past war, the alliances some choose to label as such a group were only a viable counter-power only in the early stages of the war when sides were far messier. Once the NpO flop occurred, there was no contest.
[/quote]
The very fact that we have a 'SuperGrievances' term shows that such a group must exist. There would be no need to define this group if there was no counter. I agree that the proposed counter is weak and diverse, but there is a degree of group identity.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Banksy

[Believland]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='20 July 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1279608009' post='2380190']
The main problem I see is that you think CnG likes UPN.
[/quote]

But one of your members holds a MDoAP? with them...

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 July 2010 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1279609710' post='2380231']
But one of your members holds a MDoAP? with them...
[/quote]

I think if you were sticking UPN anywhere it'd be over on Polar's side of things.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 July 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1279609710' post='2380231']
But one of your members holds a MDoAP? with them...
[/quote]

We don't interfere in each other's Foreign Affairs policy.

[Believland]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='20 July 2010 - 04:58 AM' timestamp='1279616270' post='2380317']
We don't interfere in each other's Foreign Affairs policy.
[/quote]

I'm not saying you do, but saying you hate/dislike them while holding an MDoAP with them is a bit confusing.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 July 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1279616484' post='2380323']
I'm not saying you do, but saying you hate/dislike them while holding an MDoAP with them is a bit confusing.
[/quote]

It would be confusing. If an ODNer was saying it.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='20 July 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1279617336' post='2380335']
It would be confusing. If an ODNer was saying it.
[/quote]
Exactly, I cannot fathom what is so difficult to understand about UPN's connection to only one particular section of CnG.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Cataduanes

[DonVox]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='20 July 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1279608009' post='2380190']
The main problem I see is that you think CnG likes UPN.
[/quote]

The ODN-UPN treaty was signed in early 2009, and has little to do with CnG.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='20 July 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1279603607' post='2380052']
Obviously TOP was on the Karma side, but IRON, Legion, UPN, TPF, Invicta, BAPS, [b]TORN[/b] and other supporting alliances, [b]the core of NPO's allies during Karma,[/b] alligned with TIDTT.
[/quote]
If "starting the war and then betraying NPO on the first day" counts as being a core ally, yeah, you've got a point about TORN.

It's also pretty funny that you think UPN and BAPS are core allies of NPO. Hell, BAPS hasn't ever held an NPO treaty.

[Joe32320]

[quote name='Earogema' date='20 July 2010 - 05:56 AM' timestamp='1279605378' post='2380112']
I have pretty much just thought of "Ex-heg" as CC- The Coincidence Coalition since the name was coined. Personally, I think it would have been in their favor if they had coined and kept that name.

[/quote]


I always liked the "Coincidence Coalition" name, but I think the reason that it wasn't kept was because NpO opened the war, and having not been in the orginal coalition in the TPF War, the name wasn't used in the early days, and the exheg name caught on instead

[LegendoftheSkies]

So where does the inevitable rise of UJP 2.0 come into all of this?

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='19 July 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1279592849' post='2379735']
Lord Fingolfin, an excellent piece of writing even if I don't necessarily come to all the conclusions that you do.
[/quote]

Much appreciated Hal. Any chance we'll get to see your predictions plastered up on the OWF?

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='20 July 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1279603607' post='2380052']
Interesting analysis, Fingolfin. I tend to agree with you in the broader strokes.

Since my comments were apparently part of the inspiration for this little dissertation, I should probably clarify something about what I meant when I referred to 'Ex Heg'. 'Ex Heg', to me, does not signify any particular cohesive entity, rather I use it as a cover-all term for alliances in opposition to SuperGrievances, who contain the greater part of the remaining anti-NPO coalition from Karma. Obviously TOP was on the Karma side, but IRON, Legion, UPN, TPF, Invicta, BAPS, TORN and other supporting alliances, the core of NPO's allies during Karma, alligned with TIDTT. The alliances split virtually the same way in to similar factions to fight UJW2 as they did in Karma, with TOP taking the place of NPO.

Don't read much further than that in to my comparison, or my somewhat erroneous use of the term 'Ex Heg', it's a misnomer. I'm a crotchety old CN veteran, and I harken back to the days of GWII, when The Initiative set out to form the first true Hegemony in Cybernations. Looking back to relative antiquity, in that first true Bloc (I discount NDF, the actual first bloc), you can see, aligned alongside NPO, alot of the same alliances that still cluster together on the opposite side of the web, operating in that same aggressive way that characterized the NPO-dominated coalition, and I see that same relaxed casual attitude that once defined the League and Aegis in SuperGrievances. Sure, many of the old Initiative alliances have disbanded or merged, or been destroyed since, but it's telling that the ones who survived remained largely on the same side; MCXA, TOP, TPF, GGA... Old Viridia, Old \m/, and Old Goons were with them essentially up to their demise, though the new ones generally aren't.

I'm rambling, I suppose my point is that this 'Ex Heg' camp is nebulous, but I use the term to denote one of two sides that have essentially persisted since GWI. One side tends toward an aggressive opportunism, and seems best characterized as tenacious and opportunistic, while the other is generally passive and fairly complacent, electing to respond to rather than initiate conflict. Obviously it's an over-simplification, but it's how I tend to classify things subconsciously, and not without reason. If you look at the two camps histories, especially how they elected to use their unchecked powers during inter-war periods while there was no significant resistance, you'll find that after GWI, Legion, GATO, ODN, LUE etc. essentially laid back and let the world go by, essentially how SuperGrievances is laying back and enjoying a largely threat-free existence now. On the flip side, you have the reign of the Hegemony or Initiative, where they used the brief lack of resistance to crush potential threats, be it from within or without; TI's destruction of FAN, VE, and ONOS.

'Ex Heg' is as much a doctrine or a philosophy as anything.

None the less, I agree with your analysis, I came to much the same conclusions myself. It only remains for either Ex Heg to re-constitute it's self and begin the game anew, or to absorb in to C&G or SF, in which case one will become the new Heg, and one the new... well, whatever you want to call them, really, and the game begins all over again.
[/quote]

I see, well I too agree with some of the broader strokes of your analysis and less so with others, I think that painting the "SG" alliances as virtuous upstanding citizens of Planet Bob while Ex-Heg Remnants are aggrresively opportunistic and power hungry might be a little to black and white, in my opinion there are shades of gray on both sides. In any case, a well reasoned and thought out response to my response to you . Heres to the RIA-Sparta Hegemony continuing unopposed for at least a little while longer

Edited July 20, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 July 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1279628620' post='2380445']
If "starting the war and then betraying NPO on the first day" counts as being a core ally, yeah, you've got a point about TORN.

It's also pretty funny that you think UPN and BAPS are core allies of NPO. Hell, BAPS hasn't ever held an NPO treaty.
[/quote]

It seems you're still obsessed over your fictional story of events. I guess their strings are still snug on you after all. Lucky for us, our friends know better.

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='20 July 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1279603973' post='2380066']
You remember incorrectly then, since NPO helped NpO in the UJW.
[/quote]

Came in here to say this. Eventually it came back at them (both).

Edited July 20, 2010 by mythicknight

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='mythicknight' date='20 July 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1279659259' post='2381242']
Came in here to say this. Eventually it came back at them (both).
[/quote]

Yup. I never forget a transgression.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 July 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1279561131' post='2379025']
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.
[/quote]

You post is interesting and thoughtful LF. I look forward to reading more of your analysis. I am curious though, do you believe that in the event of this hypothetical war, would that fold this group into one of those? More succinctly, do you believe the integrity of those "groups" dies or weakens once they take a side in the next war?

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 July 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1279628620' post='2380445']
If "starting the war and then betraying NPO on the first day" counts as being a core ally, yeah, you've got a point about TORN.
[/quote]

Haf, I know I shouldn't expect anything more than Pacifican talking points from you, but your ability consistently opine on issues of which you lack insight and your subsequent attempt to pass the resulting dribble off as firsthand knowledge is a credit to you and your alliance. Indeed, it is the type of thing which makes "Regnum Invictorum" (or whatever rebranding name you are using now) stand out in my mind. I suppose if I were in your position I would cling to that false narrative as well. After all, it is you who now holds the vaunted title of Pacifican ally. That is typically a vulnerable position to be in, particularly for your back. Have fun with that.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='[b]Cortath[/b]' date='20 July 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1279628620' post='2380445']
If "starting the war and then betraying NPO on the first day" counts as being a core ally, yeah, you've got a point about TORN.
[/quote]

Fixed the quote tag to more correctly indicate who was speaking.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='mythicknight' date='20 July 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1279659259' post='2381242']

Came in here to say this. Eventually it came back at them (both).
[/quote]
So UJP 2.0 is obviously more evil than SG