A doctrine of war: what Karma should and shouldn't have done.

[Ardus]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1296071799' post='2603112']
Good post.

I'd just like to say that the whole CB issue is a confusing one. And in general CBs take away from the fluidity and fun of this game, including the treaty web. Why do you need a CB on planet bob? And what is a cb? I mean, in my mind, past actions are the ultimate CB. Why does there have to be some spy incident for there to be a cb? Not liking another alliance is enough cb to me. And, in that respect, an MK/NPO war is probably the most well founded war ever in terms of CB.
[/quote]
Casus Belli is a construct that shouldn't be tossed altogether, but like all good rules there are exceptions and vast tracts of uncertainty. What qualifies as an "acceptable" CB? Part of the reason for the growing length between wars are the increasing standards for what meets the unspoken, unwritten qualification; few good wars have been started by an unequivocally valid justification and most of those that have been were the result of large players prodding one another with smaller, peripheral states who, thanks in part to their inexperience, are willing to make the errors necessary for "legitimate" conflict to erupt.

That doesn't however mean CBs are to be disposed of altogether from this point forward. CBs provide vital points of drama, intrigue, haggling, and reasoning to the conflicts that drive the plot of this game. Were all parties to abandon them things would become dull with great haste. The converse is equally true: a game in which the only military conflict pursued is on the basis of "perfect" justification will have no conflict whatsoever. There is a full scale of players and approaches between the two extremes of defense and aggression and a healthy game will enjoy the great variety of that spectrum. In a game such as this it falls to the players to take actions to bring balance to the spectrum.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Ardus

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
[u]Why we play?[/u]

This is another thing that varies quite a bit, but I believe that for a [i]majority[/i] of players, competition, war, and intrigue are what make this game fun. Conflict, both in war and the political intrigue leading up to war, drives this game. Peaceful stagnation, where no one can act against anyone else for fear of being labeled "immoral" and everyone just grows their nations in perpetuity, is boring.

Some players desire to play without having to worry about conflict. Neutral alliances like GPA should exist and be allowed to exist in peace to accommodate them. For me the saddest part about the GPA war was that it forced war on an alliance that existed to avoid war and stay out of the political and war game that the rest of us play with each other. If you join that game by joining a non-neutral alliance, then you should expect war.
[/quote]

I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1296072876' post='2603143']
Casus Belli is a construct that shouldn't be tossed altogether, but like all good rules there are exceptions and vast tracts of uncertainty. What qualifies as an "acceptable" CB? Part of the reason for the growing length between wars are the increasing standards for what meets the unspoken, unwritten qualification; few good wars have been started by an unequivocally valid justification and most of those that have been were the result of large players prodding one another with smaller, peripheral states who, thanks in part to their inexperience, are willing to make the errors necessary for "legitimate" conflict to erupt.

That doesn't however mean CBs are to be disposed of altogether from this point forward. CBs provide vital points of drama, intrigue, haggling, and reasoning to the conflicts that drive the plot of this game. Were all parties to abandon them things would become dull with great haste. The converse is equally true: a game in which the only military conflict pursued is on the basis of "perfect" justification will have no conflict whatsoever. There is a full scale of players and approaches between the two extremes of defense and aggression and a healthy game will enjoy the great variety of that spectrum. In a game such as this it falls to the players to take actions to bring balance to the spectrum.
[/quote]

Good point. Drama, intrigue, haggling. They are all great. I do feel like people are caring too much nowadays about the perfect cb, which there will never be as you say. I remember some of the legendary wars of the past were based merely on forum/irc drama and hatred that showed two sides saw each other as threats. That is the ideal cb to rally allies around. Not manufacturing spying.

[Ardus]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1296072962' post='2603146']
I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else.
[/quote]
Wars and peace go hand in hand. It is not the war that drives people to flee, but the prospect of many months of boredom and unpleasantness in their wake. In a world of rapid development and constant opportunity, the prospect of that post-war stagnation is diminished or vanquished and the exodus is reduced.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296071250' post='2603097']
Umm.. unless there is something I have forgotten, they are the same thing.
[/quote]
EZI doesn't let people reroll. PZI does.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1296072962' post='2603146']
I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else.
[/quote]

You are right a lot of people don't like their nations being destroyed, and this quit during wars. The problem of stagnation is the fact that there isn't enough new blood. The game just isnt growing and it would take a lot of effort by the current community to bring more people in(or new groups). War and peace have nothing to do with the stagnation.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1296070937' post='2603087']
Wow, great piece. This is exactly what I have been thinking.
Also we could have chosen to deploy just 10 alliances on the New Polar Order and take them out without escalating it but were is the fun in that? I am looking forward to a good fight with NpO. It should be a close one.
[/quote]
Where do people keep getting this? The sides are only going to get less even. It's not going to be close unless certain alliances join the NPO side (and those alliances almost certainly won't).

-Bama

[Mathias]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1296073308' post='2603154']
EZI doesn't let people reroll. PZI does.
[/quote]

The distinction only matters to people that are incredibly petty. "Oh we'll let you play again, but ONLY under a new name! It's your NAME that wronged us!" If you're going to let someone play again anyway, why wouldn't you just sentence them to ZI? Why make them go through the hassle of rerolling for resources?

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1296073308' post='2603154']
EZI doesn't let people reroll. PZI does.
[/quote]


Thanks - the answer to the question (officially) is we support neither. So that should conclude that round of questioning.

[TECUMSEH]

[quote]Another one was the intentional unipolarity of that era. Q was a game breaker, it intentionally was a conglomerate of all the major blocks in the game. A way for NPO to have a solid power-structure over almost everyone in CN. This was corrected and is no longer true today.[/quote]

I think many on "my" side of the web would disagree with this. Obviously, there is nothing as formal as Q that dominates the game. But there is, at least IMO, an informal conglomeration that more or less achieves the same ends. The only wars of the post-Karma era have more or less been has been the throttling of those opposed to that conglomeration. Perhaps after this is done -- when opposition has been so thoroughly and completely annihilated that the only thing left to do is fight amongst yourselves, then there will be in-fighting. THAT would interesting. As it is, to some of us, this is nothing more than powers-that-be dropping the hammer once again. And those ends are not substantially different from those of Q.

IMO, for war to be fun and really breath life back into the game, it has to be different; it has to change things. It has to involve some internal machinations that change the existing power structure. Bi-Polar held that promise; or at leas the promise of providing a credible chance at that. This war? This war/these wars are just garden variety thumpings of the "opposition" before the "opposition" possess the power to be a real threat. Ho hum.

That's the view from where I sit, smoldering.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']


[u]How things should be[/u]

We need to keep some of the precedents set in Karma. No more EZI and deliberate attempts to drive opponents from the game. No Q like megablocks. No more community destroying terms.


[/quote]
This is BS. Research will show that a majority of Q including TPF and NPO signed anti EZI/PZI declarations well before karma. Take this off the list of BS you accomplished.

Edited January 26, 2011 by mhawk

[Ardus]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296073722' post='2603164']
The distinction only matters to people that are incredibly petty. "Oh we'll let you play again, but ONLY under a new name! It's your NAME that wronged us!" If you're going to let someone play again anyway, why wouldn't you just sentence them to ZI? Why make them go through the hassle of rerolling for resources?
[/quote]
The distinction only exists because I didn't think I'd get as many people to sign ZIPP otherwise.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1296072962' post='2603146']
I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else.
[/quote]

CN is a PVP game, which astoundingly has a player-created option of avoiding the PVP content (GPA/Neutral alliances) - if 4000+ nations made the choice of joining militarily and politically active alliances and then deleted when both political and military action showed up on their doorstep - I don't see a loss.

I would be willing to bet 90% of the nations that left during Karma had never posted on these forums, joined an IRC channel, or held any sort of position in their alliance. On the other hand, wars make the game fun and interesting for those who choose to actively play it - keeping players who have been here for years involved. This has always been a game run by the vocal and involved majority, and it has never taken kindly to apathy and inaction. The most successful alliances have been and always will be those with high levels of member activity and participation. Alliances which are content to allow nations to join and then never hear from them again are setting themselves up for problems.

So this begs the question; who should the game's environment cater itself too? Those who spend the time every day reading and posting on forums, filling positions in their alliances, chatting on IRC channels, organizing tech deals and doing other in-game tasks... or should make sure the guy who collects taxes every 10-20 days is as happy as possible?

I know my answer.

[Mathias]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296074001' post='2603178']
This is BS. Research will show that a majority of Q including TPF and NPO signed anti EZI/PZI declarations well before karma. Take this off the list of BS you accomplished.
[/quote]

I remember a ZI Peace Pact, but I also remember Andromeda having to take its name off it because Pacifica yelled at them. I also remember NPO was pissed at VE for it.

So what are you talking about? (Note: I may have actually forgotten.)

[Schad]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296072857' post='2603142']
Having been in MK leadership during teh time, I believe you will find (upon actually reading the history) that MKs narrative and the narrative of other "losing-side" alliances was plagued by "give us a chance to play the game" as opposed to "thats immoral".
[/quote]

But it continued straight through the TOP declaration; a quick peek at [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]the DoW[/url] shows absolutely no one in C&G lauding the move for being aggressive and shaking things up...rather, pretty much every post employs the same tropes railed against here.

Perhaps there was a 'come to Jesus' moment thereafter...someone (Ardus, I believe) stated that while they disliked the preemptive attack at the time, they felt in retrospect that TOP's move was forward-thinking. And that's fine, but only if that conversion is permanent; if you ever end up on the receiving end down the road, I think that a good deal of people will have this thread at the ready should the hand-wringing resume.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296074109' post='2603184']
I remember a ZI Peace Pact, but I also remember Andromeda having to take its name off it because Pacifica yelled at them. I also remember NPO was pissed at VE for it.

So what are you talking about? (Note: I may have actually forgotten.)
[/quote]
TPF and NPO announced a policy of no PZI/EZI well before the karma war. There are 2 threads on it in the archives somewhere.

Edited January 26, 2011 by mhawk

[Laslo Kenez]

I see little problem with what you've written, but doubt that this new warlike and more dynamic world will be the actual end result, rendering means justifying ends pointless. I also think the fact that the war declaration doesn't make any of these ideas wholly clear, but cloaks it in the language of a cheap sneak attack instead doesn't look good and will probably create more resistance than being honest about this would have done. If you do achieve it though I'll be happy, so best of luck.

[Dochartaigh]

so you want to create a multi-polar world by smashing all opponents with overwhelming force and instead ensuring the world is uni-polar? okay.... i don't get it but i am sure it must make sense somehow. not to mention Pandora's box is the new Q. it has ties to Doomhouse, CnG, SF,NOIR, and AZTEC. it also has indirect ties to Synergy, Sirius, and most likely other blocs i am too lazy to think of right now. so how is what you are doing any different from then? it isn't. the only difference is that there are a couple of major players (MK, VE, GOD) but all are on the same side which means that despite there being more than 1 top alliance, it is still a unipolar world. and with this war, based off of a very flimsy CB mind you (not the first since Karma ended) it will only become even more unipolar.

so if you don't want a Q like mega-block, then you may want to do something about PB because PB is a Q-like mega-bloc just with fewer alliances, but still PB has their hands in almost every other bloc out there (the only bloc that is directly allied to PB not fighting on PB's side is AZTEC but we have also seen NOIR split and the NOIR bloc used by Sparta to ensure NOIR alliances could not hit Sparta [look at NoR]). This is very much how wars went down under Q until Karma.

as for why Doomhouse hit NPO- so you hit NPO on absolutely no CB at all (this is even worse than your flimsy CB bit under what was wrong back then....) or because they stayed out of the war (umm... to my knowledge NPO is not allied to any alliances that were involved...) either way it is basically not a CB. and you are seriously trying to state things are better under ya'll than under NPO... right. i would say things are basically the same. Only differences are slightly more freedom of speech (frankly, i remember voicing my opinion during that era without any issues except maybe a scolding from my leadership and i remember many others doing the same without being EZIed... there were some but the threads, especially right before and during wars were much more heated then than now) and no EZI.

i still don't agree on there being any kind of actual multi-polar world going on as the only blocs with true freedom are those heavily allied to PB/Doomhouse. Blocs like Synergy and Sirius were under constant threat by PB/Doomhouse (Wasdrogan anyone...) as were independent alliances as can be seen by Polaris (fact that Xiph has stated he had to fight to keep his allies from hitting Polaris over Polars' allies making mistakes...). So please spare me the whole "we are kind, caring, and blah blah blah" bs ya'll keep spewing. PB/Doomhouse- by your own damn admission- have been striving to start a war over any reason and have become pissed when others did not play [i]your[/i] game. so you grew bored and hit NPO. heh. i could have sworn that the NPO were accused of starting wars because they were bored and back then, that was wrong. so now all of a sudden it is okay for you guys to do so? please.

as for wars- umm... maybe if ya'll stopped with the insane reps that take 6 months to a year to pay off, people may be more than willing to oblige you with more wars but the fact is, no one wants to fight a war when they are more than a year behind others. i mean you stated how NPO has not warred in a year and a half but fail to mention the fact that for a year of that NPO was under terms and paying heavy ass reps. many noted that when NPO came out of terms finally, that they would be incapable of warring without being destroyed- now you have Umbrella- an alliance with almost 100k average NS as well as MK- an alliance known for its fighting skills, and FAN and GOONS hitting NPO... right. not a curbstomp at all. the main reason you are fighting NPO is to draw in their allies in order to crush them.

so please get off the pedestal. ya'll just as pathetic as you claimed NPO to be in most areas. the only moral high ground you can claim is no EZI/more freedom of speech. other than that- there is nothing different now than there was then.




also you mentioned moralist trumpeting- well, considering it was MK who started tooting that horn in Karma... and then continued tooting that horn when hit by TOP/et al... i am not quite understanding this

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1296074254' post='2603189']
But it continued straight through the TOP declaration; a quick peek at [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]the DoW[/url] shows absolutely no one in C&G lauding the move for being aggressive and shaking things up...rather, pretty much every post employs the same tropes railed against here.

Perhaps there was a 'come to Jesus' moment thereafter...someone (Ardus, I believe) stated that while they disliked the preemptive attack at the time, they felt in retrospect that TOP's move was forward-thinking. And that's fine, but only if that conversion is permanent; if you ever end up on the receiving end down the road, I think that a good deal of people will have this thread at the ready should the hand-wringing resume.
[/quote]


No, it changed at the TOP DoW. It did not continue through it. From GWII to KARMA it was alliances asking for air to breathe. TOP was the only instance I will recognize as being a moral issue, one that was only immoral by convenience of those attacked - yup, I said it. Retrospectively what TOP did was brilliant and should be applauded. Anyway, things should continue to progress to a state of greater multipolarity/anarchy to really bring some drama back into the game.

Edited January 26, 2011 by tamerlane

[Mathias]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296074358' post='2603192']
TPF and NPO announced a policy of no PZI/EZI well before the karma war. There are 2 threads on it in the archives somewhere.
[/quote]

Define "well before the Karma war." Does that mean after your fate was already sealed? RV mentioned in another thread that he was let off PZI two months before Karma in an attempt to do some damage control, so I find it hard to believe that NPO looked deep into their hearts and ended a practice they (and their allies) had been actively using for years with no ulterior motive.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296074592' post='2603205']
Define "well before the Karma war." Does that mean after your fate was already sealed? RV mentioned in another thread that he was let off PZI two months before Karma in an attempt to do some damage control, so I find it hard to believe that NPO looked deep into their hearts and ended a practice they (and their allies) had been actively using for years with no ulterior motive.
[/quote]
I had discussed this policy with moo for many many months and was there helping him draft the very announcement. You'll also remember when TPF backed up Zenith trying to prevent GOD's desire to pzi kaiser martens. - Sparta cited this incident as one resulting in the cancellation of our treaty due to their closeness with GOD. We were walking the walk well before your friends in Karma.

I don't count months before the war as "our fate was sealed". You'll remember TOP, Sparta, and MHA were still in Q at that time.

Edited January 26, 2011 by mhawk

[Delta1212]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1296072962' post='2603146']
I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else.
[/quote]
About 4,000 nations joined solely for the conflict. I know a lot of people who came back to the game just to fight against/for NPO and a lot of people who left when the war was over because they'd played out their last goal in the game.

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296074702' post='2603208']
I had discussed this policy with moo for many many months and was there helping him draft the very announcement. You'll also remember when TPF backed up Zenith trying to prevent GOD's desire to pzi kaiser martens. - Sparta cited this incident as one resulting in the cancellation of our treaty due to their closeness with GOD. We were walking the walk well before your friends in Karma.

I don't count months before the war as "our fate was sealed". You'll remember TOP, Sparta, and MHA were still in Q at that time.
[/quote]
It's slightly misleading to leave out the part where you took him off your PZI list after having him on for about a year and then backed up Zenith in getting him off GOD's PZI list when it turned out you weren't the only ones who'd had him there and it sort of ruined the gesture. I've never really never understood the "We're so much better than GOD because we helped stop them from PZI'ing someone we'd PZI'd for the previous year" attitude that was prevalent at the time.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Delta1212

[Mathias]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296074702' post='2603208']
I had discussed this policy with moo for many many months and was there helping him draft the very announcement. You'll also remember when TPF backed up Zenith trying to prevent GOD's desire to pzi kaiser martens. We were walking the walk well before your friends in Karma.

I don't count months before the war as "our fate was sealed". You'll remember TOP, Sparta, and MHA were still in Q at that time.
[/quote]

Alright. And as for the GOD comment; GOD (and SF in general) was solidly on your side prior to Karma. You don't get to lump their actions while tied to you in with us as some sign of hypocrisy. Not to mention GOD was still trying to disband people during Karma so I think we can establish a pattern of behavior. They learned it from watching you Dad. They learned it from watching you.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296074567' post='2603202']
No, it changed at the TOP DoW. It did not continue through it. From GWII to KARMA it was alliances asking for air to breathe. TOP was the only instance I will recognize as being a moral issue, one that was only immoral by convenience of those attacked - yup, I said it. Retrospectively what TOP did was brilliant and should be applauded. Anyway, things should continue to progress to a state of greater multipolarity/anarchy to really bring some drama back into the game.
[/quote]

I never wanted to see that thread again. Thank you I think it was rather brilliant as well. Considering what happened there are apologies and reasons all around and less awesomeness. But there was a lot of glory. Unfathomable glory for all sides if NpO hadn't shown to be...well...real dumb.

Edited January 26, 2011 by DogeWilliam

[RandomInterrupt]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
We chose to make the game interesting again. In the past months, MK chose to reshape our treaties in a way that helped make a major war possible. And when our enemies did everything they could to avoid a war, we, Doomhouse collectively, and one could also say VE, refused to let them. We helped put an end to the stagnation. We refused to comply with the moralistic and pacifistic gridlock that was smothering this game. We started to perfect Karma. We made war.[/quote]
MK's actions run counter to much of what you are stating here. The VE vs Polar war was (surprisingly) evenly matched, a feat that hasn't happened in a major war in quite a few years. It was fun. Now that MK has entered, it's pretty much your standard beatdown. So basically MK has taken a situation that was incredibly fun and interesting and turned it into your standard boring war. I am sure you have made the game more interesting for the membership of MK, which is fine as your goal should be to benefit your membership. However most of your post addresses the game as a whole, and I don't believe MK has done anything to benefit anyone outside MK and PB here.