The Futile War

[Father Christmas]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1298356594' post='2641506']
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]

Thank you for your well thought-out, erudite and comprehensive reply. I assume that you think yourself one of the great wits of your side, for what it's worth, I think you're half right.

This is why there can be no proper politics, it doesn't matter what is said, it only matters who said it and which side they are on. This is why there can't really be any diplomatic progress and why the whole political dimension of the game is so pointless. To those who say nation-building gets boring and see war as the only avenue to maintain interest, try something new...maybe form your own micro and fight without the guardianship of your massive bloc. I remember one of my alliance-mates getting into trouble for simply daring to send financial aid to an unaligned nation being tech-raided. Apparently it is fine to attack a new player and demand tech with menaces, but not to help someone out. I don't want eternal peace, I am certainly no hippy, but I'd like the wars to be about something concrete; to have some meaning beyond a huge curbstomp because the dominant alliance feels threatened by someone else doing nearly as well as them.

[flak attack]

[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]
This war is NOW at a 2:1 ratio. Toward the beginning, it was far more even at earlier points. That 2:1 ratio exists because of damage dealt and surrenders, not because we brought twice as much ns in to start.

Edited February 22, 2011 by flak attack

[jerdge]

[quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298333007' post='2641089'][spoiler]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.[/spoiler][/quote]
You put forward a lot of stuff.

Yes, most players don't know about the "reasons" behind this war, just because most players don't frequent this forum and "picked a random alliance": that means that we could have the best and freshest "CN politics" (which I agree we don't have) and most players wouldn't be able to enjoy it, if/when they get "curbstomped".
Lack of participation on this board is a legitimate behaviour which doesn't mean that one is being abused instead of being allowed to play "nice CN politics", should that one not understand the reasons behind global events. Of course it's the opposite: the lack of participation contributes to make one's CN life "frustrating".

I anyway wholeheartedly agree that CN politics could be better. In one way or the other we rarely (if ever) have even conflicts. In one way or the other the most important among the losers are forced to swallow "terms" that are specifically designed to hamper their post-war recovery; they're politically isolated and made "untouchable"; they are hit "with no reason" - i.e. no reason which is coherent with the "imaginary narration of CN" is provided, or the reasons are lazily "made up" with any readily available material - and this is done with the specific (sometimes expressed) objective to avoid that those capable groups can gain power / become rivals.
All of this is designed to keep quality groups outside the competition, it's aimed at destroying rivals before they can do something and it eventually makes everything less interesting for everybody. Then again sometimes we have something interesting - a shift of power - because not every hegemonistic plan is infallible.
Anyway, what we lack is sportsmanship. Most sportsmanlike people were destroyed long ago, this game isn't really played "as a game".

You don't need to think that everything is lost and that CN can't be interesting, anyway. Not everybody is aligned behind this mentality and one can still have an interesting life in CN. There are non-conformistic groups that don't participate in this. Join them, work with them, give fair gaming a chance.



[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1298356594' post='2641506']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]
This post of yours is just a "witty" [i]ad hominem[/i] without any content. Are you sure that you're happy with it?


[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]typo][/size]

Edited February 22, 2011 by jerdge

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1298361437' post='2641561']
This war is NOW at a 2:1 ratio. Toward the beginning, it was far more even at earlier points. That 2:1 ratio exists because of damage dealt and surrenders, not because we brought twice as much ns in to start.
[/quote]
I agree, that's what the bit about cowards at the end of my post was about.

Edit: To clarify, the cowards refers to the people who surrendered, not to you guys for bringing more NS to the fight.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Shodemofi

[Bones Malone]

[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]

Like someone said earlier (Shodemofi?) nobody wants these people. The alliance is in a time of war and these people can't even be bothered to pick up arms and fight or aid the people actually fighting? Those people aren't even real members anyways and should all be told good luck in finding a new alliance that will take someone that won't even fight for their friends. Think about it: you're supposed to be in the alliance you're in because you're closest to the people there and enjoy it. Why bail on your friends when they need you?

[quote name='Bergerland' timestamp='1298356399' post='2641503']
We're not misreading him. He's complaining about people who don't pay a lot 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]

I agree with this. If someone doesn't like the politics of the game then they should put in some work and help change it to a way that they would like. I think Father Christmas' post is a good start, but if you want to change how things are done then you have to work for it and not sit around and complain about it. People don't like NPO? Oh they started a movement which worked toward defeating them. People are jonesing for a war? Oh look at that VE found a way to start one. You don't like how politics are handled and how it doesn't include people that don't pay attention to them? Then start paying attention to them and try to influence it in the way you want or make it so that the ramifications of the politics can't bother you (neutrality or peace mode seem like the easiest ways). Simple.

[quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298360593' post='2641554']
I remember one of my alliance-mates getting into trouble for simply daring to send financial aid to an unaligned nation being tech-raided. Apparently it is fine to attack a new player and demand tech with menaces, but not to help someone out. I don't want eternal peace, I am certainly no hippy, but I'd like the wars to be about something concrete; to have some meaning beyond a huge curbstomp because the dominant alliance feels threatened by someone else doing nearly as well as them.
[/quote]

If you want deeper meaning in the reasons for most wars you're going to have to look for it yourself. Most wars happen because someone doesn't like somebody else. And then, if you can't find deeper meaning for yourself then you have to make a decision to either go to war anyways to help your friends in your alliance or to sit around at peace and bank or just choose not to contribute. Option three won't make you very popular though, so I wouldn't recommend it. And if you really [i]really[/i] wanted to make sure you don't get dragged into wars that have no meaning for you then I suggest find an alliance with a few very close allies and give that a try. They're more likely to join in a war because they want to and not because they were pulled in by treaty ties. Or found your own alliance and you could run that any way you'd like. That's worked pretty well for me so far.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1298363801' post='2641569']
Anyway, what we lack is sportsmanship. Most sportsmanlike people were destroyed long ago, this game isn't really played "as a game".
[/quote]

It's now only a matter of time before someone counters this argument by saying that they are playing this "as a game" and that you're taking it too seriously with lofty ideals of 'sportsmanship'. But then again that's all been said before. Neither side is right or wrong. It just makes for two ways to play the same game.

[+Zeke+]

[quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298360593' post='2641554']This is why there can be no proper politics, it doesn't matter what is said, it only matters who said it and which side they are on.[/quote]

I have to say that while you were far more polite about it your response amounted to the same. Yes, a troll hit the thread, but CN has never been really "nice" since day one. But your response to the one troll complete ignored quite a few more reasoned responses. You didn't respond to them and were essentially guilty of what you railed against, that being no one listens to what you are saying. I think it stems from the act that while reasoned those responses didn't precisely fit into your desired world view solution to what is bothering you.

You may not like the idea of sides, but you need them in order to generate some kind of friction and eventual war. War is a prime feature of this game. There were many players that seeded the beginnings of CN because they came from another game where true war was not a game feature there. Those people came here because they wanted to add the element of actual war to the geopolitical aspect they liked in the other game. I'd tell you the name of the game, but it is forbidden by forum rule and long standing tradition.

In any case, without sides you merely have a mass scrum. You have TE in long format, essentially. A rat's maze of small predatory wars. No chance for diplomacy to buy you a bit of time to alter future odds. It becomes the pure luck of the draw to survive until you manage to get into the strongest clan, which clan will ultimately have utter and complete sway over the game.

Also, it has been stated above that players who do not want to be in war have a real option that for the most part has been honored for the entire life of the game. True neutral alliances exist and have been largely left alone for many years, which is remarkable given how hard we bash each other here. Almost all leaders have somehow honored that neutral choice. No small feat there, imo.

For the rest of the players, they chose to be in fighting alliances. They have access to OWF and also their alliance forums. With only a modest bit of effort they can become part of the decision makers in just about every alliance out there. After all these years I've seen that to be very true. Any player making an honest extra effort in their alliance usually gets rewarded with promotion and gets to move up the decision tree. They generally don't even need to ask for promotion. If you put in the work usually someone gives you the title a short time later. For the rare times when the player does hit a long term ceiling he has a multitude of alliances to join elsewhere that will be happy to promote him for his efforts.

Now if you are expecting CN to simply let you be part of the larger decision process but you only wish to hide in a corner and stack pixels then you need to crawl out from under your rock more often. CN doesn't come with rights and civil liberties mandated without consent of the "big battalions". CN isn't a democracy with arbitrary protections for each player. You have to earn them and enforce them with your will.

So no, you cannot simply wear the AA of a fighting alliance and expect a voice even though you do not wish to invest the effort. Every one of the senior game leaders have poured thousands of hours of their lives into becoming who they are. Investment equals access and power. That's how real life works for just about everything else too.

Regardless of what some commies say here, this game is as capitalistic as it comes. The currency is time and effort. If you aren't willing to pay then you will get very little.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Father Christmas' timestamp='1298360593' post='2641554']
Thank you for your well thought-out, erudite and comprehensive reply. I assume that you think yourself one of the great wits of your side, for what it's worth, I think you're half right.

This is why there can be no proper politics, it doesn't matter what is said, it only matters who said it and which side they are on. This is why there can't really be any diplomatic progress and why the whole political dimension of the game is so pointless. To those who say nation-building gets boring and see war as the only avenue to maintain interest, try something new...maybe form your own micro and fight without the guardianship of your massive bloc. I remember one of my alliance-mates getting into trouble for simply daring to send financial aid to an unaligned nation being tech-raided. Apparently it is fine to attack a new player and demand tech with menaces, but not to help someone out. I don't want eternal peace, I am certainly no hippy, but I'd like the wars to be about something concrete; to have some meaning beyond a huge curbstomp because the dominant alliance feels threatened by someone else doing nearly as well as them.
[/quote]

And what, exactly, are "proper politics"? No, nobody is going to hinder themselves purposefully so that they can stop winning the game. Nobody plays to lose. Get over it. If you dislike the way things are going, then go form your own alliance with like-minded people. Join an alliance already established and have them seek power for themselves. Give things your own meaning instead of looking for others to do it for you. Start a rebellion and stand up for something, anything. Seriously, anything would be more useful to your cause than sitting around whining about how people keep using the tools at their disposal to beat you in a game. Do you want to win on your own, or do you really just want people to let you win?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Bones Malone' timestamp='1298367083' post='2641576'][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1298363801' post='2641569']Anyway, what we lack is sportsmanship. Most sportsmanlike people were destroyed long ago, this game isn't really played "as a game".[/quote]
It's now only a matter of time before someone counters this argument by saying that they are playing this "as a game" and that you're taking it too seriously with lofty ideals of 'sportsmanship'. But then again that's all been said before. Neither side is right or wrong. It just makes for two ways to play the same game.[/quote]
Don't confuse our role as players with the characters we play. One can be a good sport while Role Playing a completely evil and unethical character but that isn't what I was talking of.
Healthy/good gameplay and sportsmanship go hand in hand: of the "two ways to play the same game" that you mentioned the unfair one is wrong, harmful for the game and for the community of players. One side is right, the other is wrong.

[Rocky Horror]

[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]There are no economic penalties. Only NPO have ever instigated rolling a neutral alliance, and no amount of Worse Than NPO bull can change that. Every dire, whittling piece of whining rhetoric, every cowardly self-preservative action by your upper tiers seems designed to make this game more stagnant, to create greater inequality in nation development and to transparently try and make it look like the CnG-DH-PB axis's fault.

I don't know any other kinds of war, apart from the kind where alliances attack each other using CMs and tanks and things. If you would like to start one, I'd be intrigued!
[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1298354728' post='2641480']
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]I thought your side was going to romp home to victory after 6 months???

[Heft]

Not enough paragraphs. Did not read.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1298370107' post='2641598']
Every dire, whittling piece of whining rhetoric, every cowardly self-preservative action by your upper tiers seems designed to make this game more stagnant, to create greater inequality in nation development and to transparently try and make it look like the CnG-DH-PB axis's fault.
[/quote]

Eh.. everyone knows I'm not a giant fan of NPO, but frankly this is nonsense. Peacemode is a valid tactic for losing wars. Everyone does it. In NPO's position, I would put everyone I could into peacemode. You can call them out about hypocrisy for peacemode jokes (something something vaunted hippy shield something something) but use of peacemode itself is perfectly acceptable. Even if it's bloody annoying for those of us on PB/DH's side.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bergerland' timestamp='1298356399' post='2641503']
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.
[/quote]
No, he's complaining about people who've had nations since 2008 being asked to re-fight wars that were first fought in 2006.

He's right. It's dumb.

The reason we're losing nations is because everyone in charge, i.e. people with big old nations, all want to fight out their old grudges from times that none of the newbies know anything about. I mean we're still fighting VietFAN now, it's stupid.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1298361437' post='2641561']
This war is NOW at a 2:1 ratio. Toward the beginning, it was far more even at earlier points. That 2:1 ratio exists because of damage dealt and surrenders, not because we brought twice as much ns in to start.
[/quote]

Actually...I was beginning to wonder when some of you would figure out that some alliances in this war have been doing a lot of heavy lifting and some who could have pulled a lot more weight, didn't.

Make of it what you will.

[Dibbun]

As everyone else said, there are multiple neutral alliances and there's always peace mode.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Dibbun

[Locke]

FC, you know I love you, but please...more paragraph breaks; have mercy on our eyes.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1298380799' post='2641633']
Eh.. everyone knows I'm not a giant fan of NPO, but frankly this is nonsense. Peacemode is a valid tactic for losing wars. Everyone does it. In NPO's position, I would put everyone I could into peacemode. You can call them out about hypocrisy for peacemode jokes (something something vaunted hippy shield something something) but use of peacemode itself is perfectly acceptable. Even if it's bloody annoying for those of us on PB/DH's side.
[/quote]I know this as well as anyone, but I can't stand the complaints about development disadvantages and huge high tiers from alliances that are unwilling to give or receive any damage in the high tiers, but will keep small nations scrapping among themselves. As far as peace mode jokes go, I don't even feel the need to comment on one side's moral superiority in this respect, their complete misunderstanding of the line between effective winning strategy and damage-minimisation and their (ooc: ToS-breaking) immoral stance on peace in the past.

[Azaghul]

[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]
Neutral alliances [i]can[/i] be attacked but very rarely are. And the probability of it happening again are extremely small as there are many non-neutral alliances and players that wouldn't stand for it.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1298380799' post='2641633']
Eh.. everyone knows I'm not a giant fan of NPO, but frankly this is nonsense. Peacemode is a valid tactic for losing wars. Everyone does it. In NPO's position, I would put everyone I could into peacemode. You can call them out about hypocrisy for peacemode jokes (something something vaunted hippy shield something something) but use of peacemode itself is perfectly acceptable. Even if it's bloody annoying for those of us on PB/DH's side.
[/quote]
If you're saying that everyone in a losing war just tries to get their entire upper tier into peace mode to try to ride out the war, no, everyone doesn't do that. I know that for a fact because we didn't do that in noCB. Except for a small handful of nations (less than 10), everyone fought or was scheduled to fight in MK in noCB, and all our allies had their big nations fight as well.

If you're going to hide all of your big nations in peace mode why even declare war on the pretext of "fighting" and "defending your allies"? Why declare war at all?

[potato]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298388123' post='2641683']
The reason we're losing nations is because everyone in charge, i.e. people with big old nations, all want to fight out their old grudges from times that none of the newbies know anything about. I mean we're still fighting VietFAN now, it's stupid.
[/quote]

No, it's not THE reason. There are many of different reasons ranging from admin not adding anything interesting in years (Battle taunts? Really?) to morons populating the OWF not being able to put up a coherent argument...

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298415822' post='2642039']
If you're saying that everyone in a losing war just tries to get their entire upper tier into peace mode to try to ride out the war, no, everyone doesn't do that. I know that for a fact because we didn't do that in noCB. Except for a small handful of nations (less than 10), everyone fought or was scheduled to fight in MK in noCB, and all our allies had their big nations fight as well.
[/quote]

Actually, as I wrote that post, I thought 'with a couple of exceptions, like MK in No-CB'.

[Subcomandante VL]

[quote name='ty345' timestamp='1298333619' post='2641100']
Communist. Go join The International.


[/quote]
I resent this. Not all of us are communists and we're hardly pacifistic idealists like this guy.

[Heft]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298388123' post='2641683']
No, he's complaining about people who've had nations since 2008 being asked to re-fight wars that were first fought in 2006.

He's right. It's dumb.

The reason we're losing nations is because everyone in charge, i.e. people with big old nations, all want to fight out their old grudges from times that none of the newbies know anything about. I mean we're still fighting VietFAN now, it's stupid.
[/quote]
I read this post because it's short.

Also, it's actually true.

Either people need to stop complaining about how boring the game is, or they need to get over the fact that someone on the internet was mean to them a few years ago. One or the other, guys.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Evil. Forgive? You guys obviously do not understand the enemy. /sarcasm

Edited February 23, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1298433172' post='2642425']
Evil. Forgive? You guys obviously do not understand the enemy. /sarcasm
[/quote][list][*] Thoughts are communicated by using sentences, typically of the form "subject verb object". One abstract and diffuse adjective carries no meaning on its own.
[*] What is evil? What about it makes it evil? The reason people tend not to use words like "evil" in everyday conversation is that it is a difficult concept - without definition it is rhetorically useless. There is no reason why I can't say "ur evil" and have it carry equal validity. The word carries no power on its own.
[*] Sarcasm is a rhetorical device whereby you say the opposite of what you mean. You said exactly what you meant, in what I assume is meant to be a "knowing" tone. That is not what we call sarcasm.
[*] Other than the exemplary number of linguistic travesties detailed above, your post added nothing to the topic. I wonder why you bothered.[/list]

[MrMuz]

OP is true.

But fact is, some of us enjoy that. Yeah, it's a tad repetitive. But so is just about every game out there. History and politics itself is the same thing over and over again. You just learn from your mistakes and make an alliance more suited for war the next time it hits.

People don't [i]really[/i] want war. They just like seeing the results of a war. War highlights everyone's true colors.. you see the backstabbings, the cowards who don't honor treaties, the deserters, curbstompers/preemptive attacks, noble ones who sacrifice themselves for an ally, less noble ones who keep to minimum sacrifice, overrated/underrated alliances, etc. That part is fun, when everyone sits in a circle and discusses 'omg i didn't know they were like that'.

Start of the war is about arguing CBs, trying to pull fence sitters on one side of a coalition or another. Mid in the war, it becomes more of a propaganda stage, trying to wrench surrenders from the other side (what are you fighting for, have you lost enough NS). Late in the game, it becomes an attrition game, trying to see who wears out first, through promises and hope of a better future (we can rebuild, hold on! if we surrender now people will laugh at us!).

War is actually not fun at all in itself, as it puts some psychological tension on all involved. It's fun when you look back or in the future, but not when you're facing it.


And really, most people get excited about war because of the political changes. They like watching their enemies weaken politically. They like seeing a friend take on larger alliances and win. They like the drama that starts out of something. They like seeing their own alliance rise up in the ranks (something the neutrals especially get to enjoy).

The warring itself sucks, aside from proving that you're the better combatant. I do like fighting people 4 on 1 and doing more damage. But the nature of the game being what it is, you run out of infra, warchest, and targets eventually. All you're left with is watching idiots and turtles launching nukes at you, which ruins the whole competitive aspect.

Edited February 23, 2011 by MrMuz

[Nick1a]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298388123' post='2641683']
No, he's complaining about people who've had nations since 2008 being asked to re-fight wars that were first fought in 2006.

He's right. It's dumb.

The reason we're losing nations is because everyone in charge, i.e. people with big old nations, all want to fight out their old grudges from times that none of the newbies know anything about. I mean we're still fighting VietFAN now, it's stupid.
[/quote]

Yet considering his best alternative is to forgive and forget, his post amounts to little more than a 3/4 page 'woe is me'.