"The Fear of Being Rolled"

[PotFace]

Here's a great discussion topic that I don't recall ever seeing. The "fear" of getting rolled has a tremendous impact in the way political relations in the cyberverse unfold. How so? And what types of alliances does the abundance or lack thereof create?

While it's clear that different alliances have different viewpoints of war and why we should or should not avoid war, these viewpoints directly affect their political power. An excellent model to use for such analyzation would be the New Pacific Order. The NPO, for years, was in a position of power - so much power, that it had little to no fear of being rolled, and yet at the same time, took many actions that would get most other alliances rolled. Today, after having been rolled in the Karma War, we can see a tremendous change in its foreign affairs policies.

Here's my personal belief (yes, that's a disclaimer):

While we can attribute power more to an alliance's political connections rather than the military strength of an alliance itself, this balance in itself seems to have an effect on whether or not an alliance is willing to march to war. Naturally if your odds of winning are greater, the less likely you are to want to avoid war. This isn't always the case - some alliances are less arrogant than others. But for the most part, alliance size does [i]not[/i] matter.

Having said that, I also happen to believe that alliances who have no fear of being rolled also happen to be alliances that care more about principal and global influence, while at the same time, posing as the greatest liability to their allies (unless of course, their allies have the same mentality). For alliances that [u]do[/u] fear being rolled, I think that they carry the belief (again, for the most part) that growing as large and as strong as possible will gain more political influence - in some cases, even abandoning any and all principals to do so.

What do you think? Who's more respectable? Alliances with the top priority of providing a safe place to grow nations, or alliances that make it a goal to influence the cyberverse at any and all costs? Alliances that fear being rolled, or those that don't?

Edited September 4, 2010 by PotFace

[Marneus Calgar]

Most of the alliances that influence do it in bad ways, such as Tech raiding and causing people to have a fit over what they do.

Providing a safe community to grow your nation is the more respectable.

Most alliances don't [i]fear[/i] being rolled, but that they tread lightly as to not end up in that sort of position.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Davian Thule

[Ghuxalia]

I don't believe in getting rolled. Pixels are pixels. They come and go.

[_GunneR_]

[quote name='Ghuxalia' timestamp='1283570653' post='2441067']
I don't believe in getting rolled. Pixels are pixels. They come and go.
[/quote]
Agreed, but people still want a reason to give up those pixels, sadly no one has an imagination any more. Apparently disagreeing with a nuclear build up isn't worth a war.

[Corinan]

The Sith fear nothing, neighbor!

[James I]

Expect us.

[USMC123]

Tetris does not fear getting rolled. We stand up for our allies and, if we believe ourselves to be in the right, do not capitulate to foreign powers no matter how much larger than us they may be.

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1283569892' post='2441051']
While we can attribute power more to an alliance's political connections rather than the military strength of an alliance itself, this balance in itself seems to have an effect on whether or not an alliance is willing to march to war.
[/quote]

Frankly it really is all about who your friends are. The strength of your alliance is important, but if you have no allies to back you up, your alliance may think twice before it starts pulling its weight around.

[Haflinger]

Alliances were created because nations don't want to face constant war. If everyone really wanted more war, the answer is just abandon alliances.

So a large part of the purpose of an alliance is to prevent war. This is true of every single alliance.

That said. The basic tool of diplomacy nowadays is the MDP agreement. People here seem to be not aware what period of history the MDP dates from; they were most popular in the time preceding World War I, and they had pretty much the same effect in the real world as they do in CN; they set up a web that trapped the Germans.

Why, given all the political arrangements in history to choose from, we've decided to simulate World War I-era politics is a bit of a mystery to me.

[Sabcat]

The validity of the premise that the behaviour of an alliance is based on their fear or not of being rolled hasn't been demonstrated. It appears to me that alliance behaviour and the willingness to got ot war has more to do with the long term aims of the alliance than any fear of being rolled.

[USMC123]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283603322' post='2441290']

Why, given all the political arrangements in history to choose from, we've decided to simulate World War I-era politics is a bit of a mystery to me.
[/quote]

I believe this would most likely stem from the fact MDP type agreements allow for the largest scale wars possible and CN, being a game, can tolerate the commonality of this type of warfare. A nation, or alliance, can be absolutely destroyed and: 1) It doesn't really matter because nothing of real, tangible value is being lost (i.e. people's lives, homes, etc.); and 2) In spite of utter and complete destruction, a given nation can (depending on the pre-war size of the given nation) rebuild itself to it's pre-war strength and size in a few months.

[Hakim]

Your premise is valid and based on realism as a foreign policy making approach. Basically that we live in a multi-polar world where security is the primary interest. A realist would say that every alliance (state) would see another alliance as a security concern based off of there relative strength or military might. They would see treaties as only necessary to promote their own security and create a hegemonic society to counter their greatest security concern.
The security dilemma exists because you can never truly know what the intentions of another alliance actually are, you have to assume that all treaties or BLOCS can and will be broken by another hegemonic society created solely to remove their greatest security concern. A realist also believes that conflict is inevitable but regrettable. A realist will use treaties to position their power base always looking to create a balance of power that either creates a shift n power to their side or one that can effectively negate their perceived threat.
They also believe that all hegemonic groups are bound to fail as each alliance has competing interests and the tie that brought them together is weaker than the interest of self survival.

Which is how we see most rulers in alliances make their decisions and try and posture their power base. They are willing to create treaties and BLOCS to project a greater power as a sum of many parts rather than their own power. But these BLOCS and treaties are only what is expedient at the time. We have seen time and time again the shift of power across BOB as alliances jockey for positions of relative security and power. A good example of a realism approach would have been the Karma bloc who was able to bring together a hegemonic group of alliances to counter the Continuum Hegemony. Those alliances had no real common interests other than to counter the main power and determine a new shift in power. which is why you have seen most alliances who were part of Karma slowly filter away from the overall Karma bloc towards more like minded alliances because the security dilemma no longer exists for them.

There are certain hegemonic groups of alliances who still remain together because they have a perceived security concern.

That is the prism through which a realist would look at politics on BOB.

A person who espouses Liberalism as foreign policy making theory would look at the world through an entirely different prism. They would see treaties and BLOCs as a necessary instrument and that people enter into treaties because they have a set of shared values and interests. They believe in "soft" power vs "hard" power. They believe that diplomacy rather than the threat of war is what governs day to day activities. They believe that the use of soft power can generate peace and that democracies will not go to war with other democracies. Liberalism holds at its core that people who live in the same type of world understand each other and treaty themselves to create peace rather than to project hard power , (threat of war).

I think we see some approaches to this when you have alliances who will sign into economic BLOCs but shy away from direct ties with alliances who are not like minded.

Whatever the approach BOB has made for a very interesting case study in how rulers approach foreign affairs, because regardless of this being just pixels and not blood, people show their thought processes through their actions.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283603322' post='2441290']
Why, given all the political arrangements in history to choose from, we've decided to simulate World War I-era politics is a bit of a mystery to me.
[/quote]


I don't believe we're 'stuck' on WWI, I think the community has been in a constant battle/growth from the bare bones of politics (say... pre-America) to this point where we're about to break out into a "WWII" type situation. We're all prepared for a massive war, we're aligned for a massive war, we're just waiting on the evil figurehead to spark a massive war. (Many have asked for such even) It's quite possible after such a war we'll evolve into an even more common design to the real world and have [i]less[/i] wars due to the high volume of nuclear weaponry at such a time (imagine what one year will do to the volume of nukes) barring a gameplay change from admin.

We're very amazingly simulating real life here quite well. Creating treaties, backroom dealing, building empires and watching them crumble, arguing over stupid politics, stockpiling nuclear weaponry, etc.

[Haflinger]

I'm not sure what this pre-America style of warfare you refer to is. America is a continent and is older than human civilization.

World War I-style warfare is limited actually. The basic problem with it from a wargamer's point of view is that it discriminates heavily against the aggressor, which means that the logical approach for success is to not attack except with overwhelming force.

This is boring; the only reason why total boredom hasn't set in on CN is because as you say nations don't have any RL importance to most of the players, so people are willing to do stuff that in the real world would be considered incredibly stupid.

But frankly, if you want real conflict on a large scale and lots of it, look at 17th-century Europe. No MDPs, just complicated sets of obligations where people pledged parts of their military to the aggressive actions of great powers, and piles of wars.

[Thrash]

I personally don't have a fear of being rolled, but I'm sure everyone will admit that they are afraid of being the reason that gets their alliance rolled (whether the alliance minds being rolled or not).

I think that's why you find diplomacy successful, at least when you're dealing with people with some sort of humility.

[the lizard queen]

I have seen both ends of the spectrum. An alliance that fears war too much gets stagnant. While war does lower statistics, it leads to a greater amount of activity and participation. It brings people out of the woodwork. I have never seen a more active alliance then my current one, and I can say we have no problems with pixel loss. War just makes being on Bob all the more worthwhile. Back collecting does get boring and will eventually lead to inactivity. Security is overrated and there are some of us who'd rather be blowing stuff up.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283610519' post='2441356']
I'm not sure what this pre-America style of warfare you refer to is. America is a continent and is older than human civilization.

World War I-style warfare is limited actually. The basic problem with it from a wargamer's point of view is that it discriminates heavily against the aggressor, which means that the logical approach for success is to not attack except with overwhelming force.

This is boring; the only reason why total boredom hasn't set in on CN is because as you say nations don't have any RL importance to most of the players, so people are willing to do stuff that in the real world would be considered incredibly stupid.

But frankly, if you want real conflict on a large scale and lots of it, look at 17th-century Europe. No MDPs, just complicated sets of obligations where people pledged parts of their military to the aggressive actions of great powers, and piles of wars.
[/quote]

A game that had a political system similar to 17th century Europe? My god, that'd be so amazing I'd probably end up giving up on RL to play it all the time. There are certain in game limitations to how the political game can be played however, CN just lacks the complexity of RL interactions between states to have such an advanced and complex political system. Our medium is fairly simple, so our method of political interaction is fairly simple "Y attacks X, Z attacks Y". But anyways, touch more upon the OP, personally I'm more of a fan of alliances who are reading to fight to back up their beliefs and interests, as well as those of their allies, at moments notice. Example, I hold a deep respect for Poison Clan, both for their actions this last war, and how they were ready to go to bat for \m/ in this last war and were even more forceful in arguing for \m/ and its rights than \m/'s representatives were (from my perspective \m/ was more conciliatory and willing to admit wrongdoing and compromise, while PC was fully supportive of \m/ and felt that STA was completely in the wrong and was ready and willing to roll tanks to back up that opinion, or at least that's what I picked up from the conversation, could have misinterpreted.)

[wickedj]

Heh, it goes back to the tired arguement of "whats a legit CB"

Lets have a global war because RV posts in blue text or because of Altheus' silly and ironic CDT sig or because IRON has one of the worst posters ever or one i know will be popular..roll STA just because theyre STA lol

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1283629920' post='2441643']
Heh, it goes back to the tired arguement of "whats a legit CB"

Lets have a global war because RV posts in blue text or because of Altheus' silly and ironic CDT sig or because IRON has one of the worst posters ever or one i know will be popular..roll STA just because theyre STA lol
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Those are all valid and acceptable CBs so far as I am concerned, and more or less dwindle down to the most basic of all: "I just don't like you." I have no problem with that when its not dressed up. I appreciate honesty, but quite frankly too many people are afraid to go to war for that reason simply because they know they will lose.[/color]

[MrMuz]

Lol, the main point of joining an alliance and signing treaties is to avoid getting rolled. Neutrals are people who are afraid of getting rolled, but don't like mutual treaties or war so much. The military alliances start out wanting to prove that they can roll others, but would also like to avoid getting rolled.

As time passes, everyone becomes just a bit more defensive and cautious. They build a stronger web of treaties, and you'll eventually reach a state where peace is the natural state. PR costs of curbstomps will go up... the Coalition's curbstomp of NSO had a similar effect as USA+Friends attacking Afghanistan.

Until the big alliances become more complacent and arrogant, one group of alliances will maintain power over the rest. Military power isn't judged by an individual power's strength. They're always judged by the power of its allies, and if chained, their allies' allies. NPO has a lot of individual power right now, more than most of SG's individual alliances, but they wouldn't declare on any SG members because SG has much more power when united.

We've just reached modern society's diplomatic technology and we'll have the same kind of peace until we find a form of diplomacy that promotes war. Or an ideology that splits apart entire blocs.

[wickedj]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1283631688' post='2441657']
[color="#0000FF"]Those are all valid and acceptable CBs so far as I am concerned, and more or less dwindle down to the most basic of all: "I just don't like you." I have no problem with that when its not dressed up. I appreciate honesty, but quite frankly too many people are afraid to go to war for that reason simply because they know they will lose.[/color]
[/quote]
Lets look at the past few wars starting with NoCB/WoTC. Depending on which brand of kool-aid you drink the one half was started over EZI..a retarded practice and the other half was "i dont like you"
Karma was started over something both parties admitted was done frequently
last war was "i dont like you" x2

so yeah, need more nuclear warfare and less treaties

[Ernsters]

I don't fear being rolled myself, A) because I know i have all my friends that'll back me up, and B) because I know i can grow my nation right back to its pre-war state. I can't speak for every member of my alliance, but, every member [b]is[/b] obligated to defend his or her fellow member with their nation, and they all signed up for the alliance knowing that. Does that mean they're afraid of getting rolled? I don't think so, some may frown upon the thought of losing their NS, but I would hope that doesn't get in the way of their commitment to each other.

Am I afraid to get rolled defending my allies? No. If my protectorate was attacked by alliances twice it's size, I would lead every member of SJB into battle, knowing full well that we'd most likely end up getting curb stomped.

Do I sign less treaties because I'm not afraid of getting rolled? No I sign treaties because I want the members of Sajasabie to have the fullest protection possible, and Sajasabie wants that for it's allies as well, but we know that won't always be the case. Sooner or later war will break out, and when it does, we'll be fighting along with the rest of our allies.

my two cents.

[wickedj]

[quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1283636902' post='2441729']
I don't fear being rolled myself, A) because I know i have all my friends that'll back me up, and B) because I know i can grow my nation right back to its pre-war state. I can't speak for every member of my alliance, but, every member [b]is[/b] obligated to defend his or her fellow member with their nation, and they all signed up for the alliance knowing that. Does that mean they're afraid of getting rolled? I don't think so, some may frown upon the thought of losing their NS, but I would hope that doesn't get in the way of their commitment to each other.

Am I afraid to get rolled defending my allies? No. If my protectorate was attacked by alliances twice it's size, I would lead every member of SJB into battle, knowing full well that we'd most likely end up getting curb stomped.

Do I sign less treaties because I'm not afraid of getting rolled? No I sign treaties because I want the members of Sajasabie to have the fullest protection possible, and Sajasabie wants that for it's allies as well, but we know that won't always be the case. Sooner or later war will break out, and when it does, we'll be fighting along with the rest of our allies.

my two cents.
[/quote]
This is off topic and i apologize..but...i want to hear someone say "Sajasabie" 3 times fast

[HeroofTime55]

I don't fear getting rolled, it is an inevitable event which I eagerly look forward to. Seriously, I'd have a field day with it.

It is my belief that those most afraid of being rolled are the ones in a spot of power, because getting rolled means that you have lost your power. This is especially true in a world like today, a weak unipolarity consisting of two loosely bonded factions, where one tiny incident can bring the whole thing crashing down. On this end, there is little for us to lose. Not that I've ever been afraid of getting rolled even when I was with "Old Hegemony" at it's height, but it seems to be the general mentality of people in power versus those who are not. Just look at the C&G motto before their rise to influence, "Friends > Infra," and contrast with the paranoia in some elements of the "Old Hegemony" at their height.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1283629166' post='2441633']
A game that had a political system similar to 17th century Europe? My god, that'd be so amazing I'd probably end up giving up on RL to play it all the time. There are certain in game limitations to how the political game can be played however, CN just lacks the complexity of RL interactions between states to have such an advanced and complex political system. Our medium is fairly simple, so our method of political interaction is fairly simple "Y attacks X, Z attacks Y".
[/quote]
Actually, no, not really. We've got this idea that the whole alliance needs to go to war every time that a war is declared, which is the core of the problem. Imagine if MDPs were replaced by treaties that read like "In the event of war, X alliance pledges 22 nations with a total of 400,000 nation strength to the cause of Y alliance. In return for this we receive Z dollars/tech every 30 days."

That'd be like 17th-century Europe.