Father Christmas Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) So it seems we are again overtaken by another war about something or other (it's probably about something someone might or might not have done or said to someone else, but frankly who cares, and what difference does it really make?). I've been playing this game for over 3 years and have been involved in any number of wars, sometimes on the "winning" side, sometimes on the "losing" side; and the truth is that none of it has made a blind bit of difference, other than to drive away the players who have their nation wrecked without any understanding of the underlying reasons. Given that at least 66% of the nations on CN didn't even exist 2 years ago, it is obvious that most of these people are fighting a war over something that originated long before they started their nation. So the elite of the game sit there with their established, untouchable nations (often in peace mode while the fighting goes on) and make endless posts on here decrying the other side over imagined slights, or events that happened so long ago that most players have no idea what the "truth" is or why it is still worth arguing over. No doubt some will argue that war makes the game more interesting, but rather than taking this to its logical conclusion and going solo or forming unsupported, unaligned micro alliance, they prefer to organise another curbstomp and destroy a host of nations so they can have their fun. When people say they enjoy war, they actually mean, they enjoy forming an alliance that can't be beaten and ganging up on smaller alliances or the poor unaligned - noone wants to be in a war they can't win. Well, you will see more players leaving again after this war, so you will have less people to enjoy the so-called "politics" of this game (nb politics is more than shouting abuse at the other side; it also isn't really politics when both sides are so codified that there can be no movement). Then again, as only a tiny proportion of people actually participate on this forum you probably won't notice that you're arguing on your own. You'll go back to posting nonsense about how one side or other "rocks" or "sucks" at war and how one bloc or the other is trying to "stop others playing the game". The only people doing this are the regular posters here, the leaders of the major alliances on all sides. There is no negotiation possible when the sides have no aim other than the destruction of the other. Still, some big nations will get bigger on the back of all the reps that someone will end up paying (and the actually payers will be the small nations who probably picked an alliance at random when they started - guess what, they'll get bored and leave the game too). This is how the planet dies, eventually, there will be no more willing soldiers to fight pointless wars on behalf of the respective leaderships...people will realise that there is no hope of ever catching the giants of the game and will lose interest. So, what are the alternatives? A fresh start? Forgive and forget perhaps? Unlikely....we still have people arguing over 4 year old wars that barely anyone remembers. A new way of doing business? Make the senators a kind of supreme council where disputes can be resolved, with their majority decisions upheld by the combined militaries of the nations signed up to the system. Perhaps, but probably against the vested interests of too many who have been here too long and take themselves too seriously. An end to this war with some sort of terms imposed, followed by a few months of peace and then another curbstomp when someone threatens to get too close to parity (or just because people got bored). Most likely. As the song said..."Same as it ever was". And slowly people will drift away.... It goes without saying that these are my views and my views alone; I'm sure I'll either be abused or ignored (I don't have several thousand posts here, so what would I know??) - but I really don't care. (added some breaks as requested!) Edited February 22, 2011 by Father Christmas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerland Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 If nations don't like war they should join a neutral alliance. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Communist. Go join The International. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I do believe that Team Rocket are the way forward in regards to resolving the issues raised by your intriguing speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Neutrality is an option for anyone who wishes to enjoy the economic aspect of the game without fighting. There's nothing shameful in it... If you want to play that way, you have the option. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Speak for yourself. War is good for business around GOONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1298333879' post='2641107'] Speak for yourself. War is good for business around GOONS. [/quote] I agree, war is a fun past-time when taken in moderation, so... when will the next club meeting be for the discussing of political matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 January: Evil Hegemony is stagnating the game, peace is boring and driving people away February: Evil Hegemony is killing the game, war is unfair and driving people away [quote]So the elite of the game sit there with their established, untouchable nations (often in peace mode while the fighting goes on)[/quote] Maybe if both sides were out of peace mode then some of those nations wouldn't be 'untouchable' ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Christmas Posted February 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the economic penalties spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298334872' post='2641126'] To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the economic penalties spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances. [/quote] Building pixels gets boring after a while. War is part of the game for a reason, and it's honestly the only thing keeping quite a few people around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='ty345' timestamp='1298333619' post='2641100'] Communist. Go join The International. [/quote] Wouldn't recommend sending communist to that place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298334872' post='2641126'] To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the economic penalties spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances. [/quote] Change does not come from on high, but when the collective membership of these alliances have had enough. A rise in the micro alliance is a sign of this movement, and a trend that will continue into the for see able future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298334872' post='2641126'] To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the economic penalties spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances. [/quote] This is not the same war at all. It is alot more even than any other war has ever been. There is no curbstomp, just everyone getting beat down, except those nations who have no one to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dy Cazaril Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298334872' post='2641126'] To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the [b]economic penalties[/b] spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances. [/quote] What exactly are the economic penalties of neutrality? [size="1"][i]Edit: Spelling Commissar[/i][/size] Edited February 22, 2011 by dy Cazaril Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I play for warfare. War is the most interesting part of the game because, without it, politics would be meaningless. Also, stomping the former Hegemony another time is quite amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1298338974' post='2641204'] This is not the same war at all. It is alot more even than any other war has ever been. There is no curbstomp, just everyone getting beat down, except those nations who have no one to fight. [/quote] Great War 3 (and maybe Great War 2, I don't remember) was/were much more even. This war is at almost a 2:1 ratio in NS and score, not as large of a curbstomp as usual, but I'd still say a curbstomp. The cowards who bailed from the NpO side the first chance they got are the ones to thank for that. Edit: Looking back the CN wiki page for GW3 made me lol. Initiative Cumulative NS 3/19 34,609,999 Cumulative NS 4/07 35,687,000 Aegis Cumulative NS 3/19/07 32,317,422 Cumulative NS 4/07/07 10,797,000 Edited February 22, 2011 by Shodemofi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Shodemofi' timestamp='1298346938' post='2641340'] Edit: Looking back the CN wiki page for GW3 made me lol. Initiative Cumulative NS 3/19 34,609,999 Cumulative NS 4/07 35,687,000 Aegis Cumulative NS 3/19/07 32,317,422 Cumulative NS 4/07/07 10,797,000 [/quote] Good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Shodemofi' timestamp='1298346938' post='2641340'] Great War 3 (and maybe Great War 2, I don't remember) was/were much more even. This war is at almost a 2:1 ratio in NS and score, not as large of a curbstomp as usual, but I'd still say a curbstomp. The cowards who bailed from the NpO side the first chance they got are the ones to thank for that. Edit: Looking back the CN wiki page for GW3 made me lol. Initiative Cumulative NS 3/19 34,609,999 Cumulative NS 4/07 35,687,000 Aegis Cumulative NS 3/19/07 32,317,422 Cumulative NS 4/07/07 10,797,000 [/quote] Well more even than any wars i was around for (started right after GW3 timeframe, didn't get politically involved till UJW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Santa's right, you guys are thoroughly misreading him, and it's because of guys like him that I love my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Shodemofi' timestamp='1298346938' post='2641340'] Great War 3 (and maybe Great War 2, I don't remember) was/were much more even. This war is at almost a 2:1 ratio in NS and score, not as large of a curbstomp as usual, but I'd still say a curbstomp. The cowards who bailed from the NpO side the first chance they got are the ones to thank for that. Edit: Looking back the CN wiki page for GW3 made me lol. Initiative Cumulative NS 3/19 34,609,999 Cumulative NS 4/07 35,687,000 Aegis Cumulative NS 3/19/07 32,317,422 Cumulative NS 4/07/07 10,797,000 [/quote] The funny thing is that in GW3 this was the cumulative stats for an entire bloc. Now they could easily be the cumulative stats for the upper tier of a single alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zeke+ Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Cumulative war stats never tell the story. When this war ever gets closed and written down it will look like fairly close numbers. It's where those troops are applied that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPhx Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 On a Facebook game I was head of intel for a few wars and one where I had friends on both sides getting pounded (left former because of the side they took in the war and didn't want to be a spy) and sent out messages to alliances on the side I was with asking to not attack those who wanted to stay out. Point is that maybe there could be an option where players who don't want to fight but stay in the alliance could be on the list and not be attacked after promising not to aid the combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1298355445' post='2641487'] On a Facebook game I was head of intel for a few wars and one where I had friends on both sides getting pounded (left former because of the side they took in the war and didn't want to be a spy) and sent out messages to alliances on the side I was with asking to not attack those who wanted to stay out. Point is that maybe there could be an option where players who don't want to fight but stay in the alliance could be on the list and not be attacked after promising not to aid the combatants. [/quote] Except no one wants those sort of people in their alliance. If you aren't willing to fight to defend your alliance, why should they allow you to stay? Not to mention that would be hopelessly complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerland Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298350253' post='2641402'] Santa's right, you guys are thoroughly misreading him, and it's because of guys like him that I love my alliance. [/quote] We're not misreading him. He's complaining about people who don't pay alot of attention to the politics getting dragged into the ramifications of the politics. If they don't like how their leaders are handling the politics they can join another alliance. If they don't like politics they can join GPA or WTF or TDO. They have avenues to fix what they don't like about the game and it's not those who take part in the political game's fault that they don't take them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298333007' post='2641089'] So it seems we are again overtaken by another war about something or other (it's probably about something someone might or might not have done or said to someone else, but frankly who cares, and what difference does it really make?). I've been playing this game for over 3 years and have been involved in any number of wars, sometimes on the "winning" side, sometimes on the "losing" side; and the truth is that none of it has made a blind bit of difference, other than to drive away the players who have their nation wrecked without any understanding of the underlying reasons. Given that at least 66% of the nations on CN didn't even exist 2 years ago, it is obvious that most of these people are fighting a war over something that originated long before they started their nation. So the elite of the game sit there with their established, untouchable nations (often in peace mode while the fighting goes on) and make endless posts on here decrying the other side over imagined slights, or events that happened so long ago that most players have no idea what the "truth" is or why it is still worth arguing over. No doubt some will argue that war makes the game more interesting, but rather than taking this to its logical conclusion and going solo or forming unsupported, unaligned micro alliance, they prefer to organise another curbstomp and destroy a host of nations so they can have their fun. When people say they enjoy war, they actually mean, they enjoy forming an alliance that can't be beaten and ganging up on smaller alliances or the poor unaligned - noone wants to be in a war they can't win. Well, you will see more players leaving again after this war, so you will have less people to enjoy the so-called "politics" of this game (nb politics is more than shouting abuse at the other side; it also isn't really politics when both sides are so codified that there can be no movement). Then again, as only a tiny proportion of people actually participate on this forum you probably won't notice that you're arguing on your own. You'll go back to posting nonsense about how one side or other "rocks" or "sucks" at war and how one bloc or the other is trying to "stop others playing the game". The only people doing this are the regular posters here, the leaders of the major alliances on all sides. There is no negotiation possible when the sides have no aim other than the destruction of the other. Still, some big nations will get bigger on the back of all the reps that someone will end up paying (and the actually payers will be the small nations who probably picked an alliance at random when they started - guess what, they'll get bored and leave the game too). This is how the planet dies, eventually, there will be no more willing soldiers to fight pointless wars on behalf of the respective leaderships...people will realise that there is no hope of ever catching the giants of the game and will lose interest. So, what are the alternatives? A fresh start? Forgive and forget perhaps? Unlikely....we still have people arguing over 4 year old wars that barely anyone remembers. A new way of doing business? Make the senators a kind of supreme council where disputes can be resolved, with their majority decisions upheld by the combined militaries of the nations signed up to the system. Perhaps, but probably against the vested interests of too many who have been here too long and take themselves too seriously. An end to this war with some sort of terms imposed, followed by a few months of peace and then another curbstomp when someone threatens to get too close to parity (or just because people got bored). Most likely. As the song said..."Same as it ever was". And slowly people will drift away.... It goes without saying that these are my views and my views alone; I'm sure I'll either be abused or ignored (I don't have several thousand posts here, so what would I know??) - but I really don't care. [/quote] Spoken like a true Rectum. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone is surprised when you guys are made fun of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.