Oh, hey, NOW we're going to war!

[Augustus Autumn]

My apologies for not addressing these replies more promptly but my time has been limited.

[quote name='Stilcho' timestamp='1287073430' post='2484489']
From my reading of the forums, it seems that the most of the arguing over CB or "playing fair" is done by people who are not involved in the conflict. They can't be swayed or reasoned with because they don't HAVE to be reasonable. They are not the ones actually at war.
[/quote]

Eh, yes and no? There are a lot of bystanders, so unless you're see a major global conflict there tends to be a lot of peanut gallery work going on. And yes, I'm aware that I'm participating in that to some degree.

[quote name='caligula' timestamp='1287083770' post='2484599']
I think you're advocating for a removal of politics from the game.
The way IRON (I won't refer to DAWN, because they had no affect on the entire war whatsoever,) maneuvered was in such a way that they could make the aggressor's look foolish. They had already been decimated, and your analogy is off a tad. In this example IRON's actions resemble resistance movement. Force, while a component (sabotage,) of resistance, is predicated on winning the hearts and minds. FARK would have disbanded during the Holy Farkistan War if it had not persisted, and waited on time to turn against the holy insurrection.

Thus I think your assertion that an alliance should roll over and just take it is wrong in that if there are other options available it would be a crime to not pursue them.
[/quote]

I'm advocating for a more qualitative approach than anything. Rather than scream and yell about the fact that GRE had come after IRON and DAWN, the debate seemed to center around GRE's conditions for ending the war and letting the conflict end. That was the main cause for victory, especially since both IRON and DAWN decided to actually fight the war instead of simply complain.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1287084279' post='2484604']
The war of words is simply another aspect of the war.

Fight in mind and in body.

EDIT: Or rather, with mind and body.
[/quote]

If the words are qualitative, certainly. If you're just whining, you're not fighting.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647']
An opinion (i.e. not a fact) that not everyone else holds. I can see why you hold the position that you do based on your view - it makes since coming from the position that "morality" is "ridiculous." However not everyone leads their nation with the same philosophy. While I agree that arguments about a CB, when they get to the point of arguing "you" and then "no, you" get really old fast, a good CB discussion can be entertaining to at least a good representation of Planet Bob.[/quote]

Certainly, it can be important to someone to have a "valid CB" used against them or whatnot, but the validity of the cause for war doesn't change that the war is on. It's not like the war is a ruling on the field which can be overruled and turned around or repealed like some sort of legislation. Whether or not the cause is valid, the war is still happening. The validity of the CB tends to have real impact in the late-war / post-war state when we often see the setup for the next war coming on. The people who cry about it during the course, especially in the opening phases, should probably be saving their collective breathe for when they can use their words more effectively.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647']
I'm assuming that people who post on OWF also fight. It's not an either or thing.[/quote]

Eh, that's not always the case, and as Stilcho has indicated there's a lot of talking done by those uninvolved.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647']
So, is your OP really about wars for technology (i.e. tech raids) because if so, THAT is a discussion I'm actually rather tired of arguing. I am looking at your argument from the perspective of declared alliance wars. If it's about tech only - I'll just and move on.
[/quote]

No. The debate of tech raids is tired, old and pointless and something I have no intention of entertaining. This sort of thing just turns into more of the GOONS garbage that floats around these days.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958']
See, I disagree. Certainly, the [i]casus belli[/i] has no significance in how the war goes: if you're on the defending side, chances are you're weaker than the offensive side, and are going to be crushed either way. But [i]every[/i] war has two fronts: one is fought with guns on the battlefield, and one is fought with propaganda in the media. And just because you lose a war militarily does not mean you lose it in the minds of those watching.[/quote]

I'll stipulate to the propaganda value of framing the aggressor with having poor reasons, but there's a difference between providing a well-reasoned response and just scrambling hordes of persons into these halls to bay like a mob. There seems to be a persistent need to start up the howling as soon as the declarations hit the floor rather than provide a measured and mature response to developing events.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958']
Mushroom Kingdom proves itself an excellent example of this. Despite militarily losing both Great War IV and the War of the Coalition, it [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/MK#Notes]considers these victories[/url]. Part of this is because, as stated, they managed to survive the wars as an alliance. However, one can look at it another way as well: they were victorious in those wars in terms of the image that those wars helped to paint of their adversaries, which it is by no means a stretch to say culminated in the world turning against the Continuum and One Vision in the Karma War.[/quote]

History being written by the current victors, etc.

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958']
So as much as all the arguing over a [i]casus belli[/i] (or lack thereof) may seem like contentless drivel, it serves a purpose: perhaps not militarily, but it can and does influence how the watching world sees the involved parties.[/quote]

The manner in which the debate goes on is the important bit, which is what I was driving toward. Unfortunately I think I did a poor job of illuminating that point.

[b]Edit:[/b] Incorrect formatting.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Ferrozoica Hive

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1287248315' post='2485950']
You used the IRON/Gramlins war as an example. I'd like to point out that a lot of people who had been selling tech to Gramlins quit selling them tech. And a few people, including myself, changed AA to help fight. Others sent aid. None of that would have happened if it were not for the posts on the OWF.
[/quote]

That had much more to do with what GRE wanted from the peace, not for their reason to get involved in the first place.

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1287280326' post='2486155']
You could always declare war for fun, or for non-conventional reasons. RIA could declare war against sanity, FAN could declare war against neutrality, NPO could declare war against NATO for being in the atlantic instead of the pacific, etc. etc.

War doesn't have to be because "I don't like how you talked to me in this backroom channel and I think my way of being is inherently better than yours, thus you're evil and I'm righteous so my crusade is justified!" War could simply be for whatever reason you want it to be, in whatever context that you wish to define.
[/quote]

Absolutely.

[Qaianna]

Interesting essay, but I have to lean towards the notion that calculated, effective words can have their effect. And not just on neutrals, either.

One aspect of war is, again, psychological. You don't have to destroy pixels if you destroy morale. Granted, a possible side effect may be that you take that enemy out of more than just the war, but it's still a factor in fighting. And, as many previously have pointed out, you do need to plan past the current war--especially if you're losing. And especially if you're winning.

By the way ... regarding the Grand Global Alliance as the 'link' between two sides of the treaty web, were you referring to when it was allied to the Orange Defence Network?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1287463344' post='2487462']
Interesting essay, but I have to lean towards the notion that calculated, effective words can have their effect. And not just on neutrals, either.

One aspect of war is, again, psychological. You don't have to destroy pixels if you destroy morale. Granted, a possible side effect may be that you take that enemy out of more than just the war, but it's still a factor in fighting. And, as many previously have pointed out, you do need to plan past the current war--especially if you're losing. And especially if you're winning.

By the way ... regarding the Grand Global Alliance as the 'link' between two sides of the treaty web, were you referring to when it was allied to the Orange Defence Network?
[/quote]

I can't remember who the actual link was (and I think they actually had more than one, wish I'd saved the old treaty webs), I only remember GGA's place as the only link between the two discreet sides of the web, I'm talking old school Axis of Awesome days, right around the build up for GW2 and after.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1287463344' post='2487462']
Interesting essay, but I have to lean towards the notion that calculated, effective words can have their effect. And not just on neutrals, either.

One aspect of war is, again, psychological. You don't have to destroy pixels if you destroy morale. Granted, a possible side effect may be that you take that enemy out of more than just the war, but it's still a factor in fighting. And, as many previously have pointed out, you do need to plan past the current war--especially if you're losing. And especially if you're winning.
[/quote]

The stated cause, as I've said, can have an effect on the diplomatic approach to warfare. What I've objected to is one side sitting there screaming at the other that their cause is unjust, invalid or whatever. Validity extends exactly as far as the front line and, while in the late-war or post-war phase you can certainly spin the conflict (or attempt to spin it) to suit your needs it doesn't obviate the need to actually fight the war and stop complaining. There's a lot of useless drivel which crops up when a war starts and very little actual discourse which goes on, something which ends up making either or both sides look idiotic.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287536686' post='2488159']
The stated cause, as I've said, can have an effect on the diplomatic approach to warfare. What I've objected to is one side sitting there screaming at the other that their cause is unjust, invalid or whatever. Validity extends exactly as far as the front line and, while in the late-war or post-war phase you can certainly spin the conflict (or attempt to spin it) to suit your needs it doesn't obviate the need to actually fight the war and stop complaining. There's a lot of useless drivel which crops up when a war starts and very little actual discourse which goes on, something which ends up making either or both sides look idiotic.
[/quote]
I'll agree on the useless drivel, although that's also a hazard of peacetime discussions.

On the other fist, since paper bombs do not require as many of your nation's pixels as cruise missiles, why not use them early and often? The problem is, of course, using them strategically and/or tactically, as opposed to carpet-bombing the discussion areas with ... well, you know.

Remember, propaganda spreading and war fighting aren't mutually exclusive.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287530776' post='2488072']
I can't remember who the actual link was (and I think they actually had more than one, wish I'd saved the old treaty webs), I only remember GGA's place as the only link between the two discreet sides of the web, I'm talking old school Axis of Awesome days, right around the build up for GW2 and after.
[/quote]
That's probably what you mean, yeah. The Alliance still had its treaties with both the Network and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations post-Karma.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1287545753' post='2488358']
That's probably what you mean, yeah. The Alliance still had its treaties with both the Network and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations post-Karma.
[/quote]

it was CDS and ODN that GGA had ties to from the south.

[Louisa]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287548996' post='2488433']
it was CDS and ODN that GGA had ties to from the south.
[/quote]

And it was GGA choosing NPO (I think) over CDS that caused such bad feelings back then. Well I was furious, let me tell you!

(No, not really, I was too young to know what was going on. Fun war.)

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Louisa' timestamp='1287552180' post='2488495']
And it was GGA choosing NPO (I think) over CDS that caused such bad feelings back then. Well I was furious, let me tell you!

(No, not really, I was too young to know what was going on. Fun war.)
[/quote]
Could be, I guess. By the time I had any real input on treaties, the Alliance was ... shall we say, on the decline. Who were CDS, again?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1287629597' post='2489246']
Could be, I guess. By the time I had any real input on treaties, the Alliance was ... shall we say, on the decline. Who were CDS, again?
[/quote]

Started as Coalition of Green States, moved to Black and became Coalition of Dark States when the new trading spheres arrived.

[MrMuz]

Another thing is that a poor CB is in fact a CB in itself. Let's say, purely as an example, Sparta attacks Legion for no reason at all. Anyone with a MADP with Sparta, or a MDP+ with Legion have [i]strong[/i] CBs.

But this no CB attack gives anyone with an optional defense treaty with Legion a [i]weak[/i] CB and anyone with an optional aggression treaty or plain MDP/ODP with Sparta would have a [i]weak[/i] CB. There's even a weaker form of treaty - friendship. It's not much different from a signed OADP, but has a similar effect.

Then there's sympathy for someone being attacked for a weak reason. Here's where the tables turn. Everyone who expresses sympathy for Legion getting attacked gets a [i]weak[/i] CB on Sparta. A moralist alliance might have a bit more of a CB. In effect, attacking with a weak CB gives the whole world a weak CB on the aggressor.


But what's the point? As a bit of a simplification...
Anyone with a [i]strong[/i] CB would have to attack - NOT attacking hurts their reputation. Attacking helps their reputation.
The ones with a [i]weak[/i] CB are at an advantage. They can attack and get a bit of a reputation. They can also not attack at all and hug infra.
Those with no CBs lose reputation for attacking and are subject to the same thought process as before. Which may happen in a global war, like IRON/TOP-C&G.


Reputation then has another effect on foreign policy. Someone who's known to be a good ally will have an easy time getting their favored allies in return. Just as well, they'll be able to make friends (unsigned treaties) and be better protected in the future.

Someone who sits around and whines about a poor CB attempts to weaken the reputation of their aggressors. The side effect of this is that you're making yourself look weak. But in some cases, an alliance can only lose, and they sacrifice their pride in a last resort fight to hurt their attackers. If they had a chance of winning, most alliances would focus their efforts on fighting the war, rather than protesting it.


Yeah, in the end it goes around in circles. The only reason to have a valid CB (or try to invalidate a CB) is to have stronger treaties, and the treaties are there just to give everyone a CB. CBs are only a political tool when you deal with the treaty web. That's why people can tech raid without worrying about CBs.

[veracity]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1288702223' post='2499810']
Another thing is that a poor CB is in fact a CB in itself. Let's say, purely as an example, Sparta attacks Legion for no reason at all. Anyone with a MADP with Sparta, or a MDP+ with Legion have [i]strong[/i] CBs.

But this no CB attack gives anyone with an optional defense treaty with Legion a [i]weak[/i] CB and anyone with an optional aggression treaty or plain MDP/ODP with Sparta would have a [i]weak[/i] CB. There's even a weaker form of treaty - friendship. It's not much different from a signed OADP, but has a similar effect.

Then there's sympathy for someone being attacked for a weak reason. Here's where the tables turn. Everyone who expresses sympathy for Legion getting attacked gets a [i]weak[/i] CB on Sparta. A moralist alliance might have a bit more of a CB. In effect, attacking with a weak CB gives the whole world a weak CB on the aggressor.


But what's the point? As a bit of a simplification...
Anyone with a [i]strong[/i] CB would have to attack - NOT attacking hurts their reputation. Attacking helps their reputation.
The ones with a [i]weak[/i] CB are at an advantage. They can attack and get a bit of a reputation. They can also not attack at all and hug infra.
Those with no CBs lose reputation for attacking and are subject to the same thought process as before. Which may happen in a global war, like IRON/TOP-C&G.


Reputation then has another effect on foreign policy. Someone who's known to be a good ally will have an easy time getting their favored allies in return. Just as well, they'll be able to make friends (unsigned treaties) and be better protected in the future.

Someone who sits around and whines about a poor CB attempts to weaken the reputation of their aggressors. The side effect of this is that you're making yourself look weak. But in some cases, an alliance can only lose, and they sacrifice their pride in a last resort fight to hurt their attackers. If they had a chance of winning, most alliances would focus their efforts on fighting the war, rather than protesting it.


Yeah, in the end it goes around in circles. The only reason to have a valid CB (or try to invalidate a CB) is to have stronger treaties, and the treaties are there just to give everyone a CB. CBs are only a political tool when you deal with the treaty web. That's why people can tech raid without worrying about CBs.
[/quote]
couldn't have said it better myself

[Kzoppistan]

A agree with the OP.

While I do think that the validity of the CB is important and how framing that can be used to sway the population as a whole, I find the effect much smaller than people accredit it. Propaganda can only do so much in the face of statistical fact.

I think the best front someone can make when being "unjustly" attacked is to buckle down and start kicking ass. Save the words for later.