Jump to content

The Winter Rose Accords


QueenPhoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

GoG being added to IQ makes no difference. It's not a pick up. They were on our side in the last war. There was no real reason not to let them into IQ.  If IQ expanded further out beyond alliances that were on our side in the last war and became the dominant sphere and that situation persisted then it'd be the type of consolidation I referred to.

Anyway, we're not really going to agree either way, but hope this clears up my position.

It makes a difference adding them, or you wouldn't have done it. :P A reason you may not have let them into IQ is because you spent all that time last war railing against consolidation, and now the "other side" has major alliances dropping out/disbanding, and your response to that.... is to consolidate more, and in a tier where you already have a hegemoney. Well okay. Go ahead. But at this point, it just looks like you're saying "consolidating is bad, unless we're doing it, because our kind of consolidating isn't consolidating... we're being forced!" Same argument works in reverse, unfortunately. And it doesn't look good, when you try to reconcile it with the PR from your side around last war.

I don't think we'll agree, but it does clear things up for me a bit. Do you think you're the underdog? I don't agree, if so: I see it more like a lower tier hegemoney versus an upper tier hegemoney. Your side has better numbers, better growth, and I spent a long time in t$ where we did fun stuff with updeclares. At the alliance level, it's virtually impossible for your alliance to lose in your tier, as things are right now. That's not what an underdog is.

 

Edit holy crap A+ to the mod who made the filter for "hegemoney"

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 5

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roquentin said:

I never complained about it directly, rather there was a lack of ownership and acknowledgement that people were doing it. It was usually the people who didn't acknowledge what they were doing in that regard and had always said they didn't want hegemonies and such but had essentially built one of their own instead. Either such a situation would persist or someone within it would get bored enough to do something about it.   As there were alliances with the energy to split off even if it meant risking a loss, a few of them did so and chose to give up a position of greater security.  The energy is either going to be there or it won't.

However, the point in that post wasn't merely that the top alliances are all allied to each other though, just that bigger alliances being on one side means more NS can be tied together with fewer treaties and having more NS consolidated in fewer alliances makes inter-alliance coordination easier as opposed to a group that has it strength more spread out across alliances. The treaties between alliances tied to the IQ side don't consolidate more of the available nation strength to IQ even though a lot of people have been complaining about them in earnest. At most, it's just a group outside of the traditional winning side that didn't break immediately. The NS and activity isn't in really in IQ's favor no matter how many same side treaties are signed, and there's a higher likelihood of external actors leaning in the other direction when alliances that are now paperless and people with optional ties but traditionally anti-IQ aren't included. As some alliances would have better opportunities doing the opposite of signing more interlocking treaties ie. cancelling like one or two alliances did, it's a testament to the fact that the ones who would be in such a position prefer to stick it out rather than either getting out of the way of the traditional winning side or joining it.

I realize you're trying to get me on some sort of hypocrisy thing since I know who you are, which is why I've given the explanation but I never really denied anything I was doing.The way I do things in a low vitality context is highly different from the way I do things in a relatively high vitality one.

 

I appreciate the your thoughts on it and explanation. I wasn't really trying to be oh look at the hypocrite, more just like "really?" regarding the situation in the other realm. I mean you and I have fought hegemonies together before so I was shocked about decisions in that other realm. Anyways back on topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

It makes a difference adding them, or you wouldn't have done it. :P A reason you may not have let them into IQ is because you spent all that time last war railing against consolidation, and now the "other side" has major alliances dropping out/disbanding, and your response to that.... is to consolidate more, and in a tier where you already have a hegemoney. Well okay. Go ahead. But at this point, it just looks like you're saying "consolidating is bad, unless we're doing it, because our kind of consolidating isn't consolidating... we're being forced!" Same argument works in reverse, unfortunately. And it doesn't look good, when you try to reconcile it with the PR from your side around last war.

I don't think we'll agree, but it does clear things up for me a bit. Do you think you're the underdog? I don't agree, if so: I see it more like a lower tier hegemoney versus an upper tier hegemoney. Your side has better numbers, better growth, and I spent a long time in t$ where we did fun stuff with updeclares. At the alliance level, it's virtually impossible for your alliance to lose in your tier, as things are right now. That's not what an underdog is.

 

Edit holy crap A+ to the mod who made the filter for "hegemoney"

It doesn't make a statistical difference, which is what I meant. To clarify, since there are some misconceptions surrounding it: It's more if someone wants to join the bloc formally, and they're on the same side anyway and our bloc isn't particularly big since it only has 5 alliances with GoG included and only two are particularly high NS, there's no reason not to let them in if the relations are there. Might be an issue if it ended up being a ton more, but that's not likely. We did take into account that it would get some flak, but depriving someone of membership who is tied to IQ anyway to potentially avoid bad PR since minds on IQ were made up anyway wouldn't have shielded IQ from bad PR much. It would have been pretty cynical to do that as well.  As for alliances dropping out and disbanding, one alliance cancelled during the war even. I don't know if anyone has really dropped out and the disbandment was at most a partial one. It didn't tilt the scales definitively in IQ's favor especially when the alliances that dropped out are paperless and not neutral. Going paperless doesn't mean they won't intervene. Kinda wish this had been more of a thing in the GoG topic, but oh well. 

Most people value the upper tier more than the range you say we have coverage in, so they don't favor IQ to win in a hypothetical war and the side that has an upper tier advantage will be considered the more attractive one. At most it might be a tough war for some alliances. In that military simulation article posted recently, it's more about how IQ can "not lose" rather than win.  There are limits to updeclaring. Only a few alliances with O-level or paperless ties would need to intervene to make the situation dicey even at an alliance level and there was recent bolstering of the lower tier on the other side.  It's harder to envision a decisive victory for IQ  with the sides as they stand.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I mean I was trolling lmfao.

But since you want to go there, your side has more nations, more alliances, more nation score and a larger consolidation of a single tier. I hope you don't think you are the underdogs lmfao.

 

 

I blame you for starting Roq up again

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It doesn't make a statistical difference, which is what I meant. To clarify, since there are some misconceptions surrounding it: It's more if someone wants to join the bloc formally, and they're on the same side anyway and our bloc isn't particularly big since it only has 5 alliances with GoG included and only two are particularly high NS, there's no reason not to let them in if the relations are there. Might be an issue if it ended up being a ton more, but that's not likely. We did take into account that it would get some flak, but depriving someone of membership who is tied to IQ anyway to potentially avoid bad PR since minds on IQ were made up anyway wouldn't have shielded IQ from bad PR much. It would have been pretty cynical to do that as well.  As for alliances dropping out and disbanding, one alliance cancelled during the war even. I don't know if anyone has really dropped out and the disbandment was at most a partial one. It didn't tilt the scales definitively in IQ's favor especially when the alliances that dropped out are paperless and not neutral. Going paperless doesn't mean they won't intervene. Kinda wish this had been more of a thing in the GoG topic, but oh well. 

Most people value the upper tier more than the range you say we have coverage in, so they don't favor IQ to win in a hypothetical war and the side that has an upper tier advantage will be considered the more attractive one. At most it might be a tough war for some alliances. In that military simulation article posted recently, it's more about how IQ can "not lose" rather than win.  There are limits to updeclaring. Only a few alliances with O-level or paperless ties would need to intervene to make the situation dicey even at an alliance level and there was recent bolstering of the lower tier on the other side.  It's harder to envision a decisive victory for IQ  with the sides as they stand.

With some perspective, the entry is very much still a matter of consolidation. VE/GoG wasn't considered solidly IQ before the last war and it wasn't until post war that they chose and decided to consolidate their ties in IQ. Yes, that exactly consolidation. Deciding to sign treaties among yourselves while your counterparts disband and go paperless in comparison IS consolidation. I mean, you can say the Mensa disbandment was only partial and a fair chunk of NS went to Guardian, but it doesn't take away from the fact that nations were lost. The work put in by those Mensa nations makes up for their lack of numbers x times over, number that I have to point out are not in the favor of the side they left. Yes, tS is paperless and who is to say they aren't neutral? And even if they have a predisposition, would that be out of the ordinary for anyone? They have their interests they want to protect, doesn't exclude the fact they are under no obligation to assist anyone. Their leaving is of a magnitude that has yet to be matched by an IQ alliance. And that is something you really can't argue away. That isn't even going into the number of consolidating treaties your side have made. I can't even give you the idea that these signings do not mean anything statistically. There were a crap ton of cross ties during the last war, ties that could have gone one way or the other. It made it so making projections and thus ideas of how a war will play out and the basis for which leaders will make their decisions, a bloody mess. Now there is pretty much certainty for a lot more alliances. Leaders can be more confident in their statistical protections. That is a factor that must not be overlooked and its something IQ benefits from disproportionately from with its actual WEB of treaties. 

These treaties while in your opinion does not make a statistical difference,If you take the alliances from both sides during the last war,it does paint a picture into the IQ mindset. That your side is set in your ways and you are not interested in any sort of actual change and you are content with perpetuating the system. 

And lets not forget tier cohesion. IQ benefits disproportionately form that too. You are uncontested in the tiers you occupy. And yes, while there is still an advantage we have my the nature of being more upper tier dominant, that is more than made up with the sheer number of nations you can bring to the table, all range of each other. You cannot argue away that advantage when folks on both sides experienced the "pit". Since the conclusion of the war you've worked diligently to raise the range of the pit, overlapping with a lot of the tiers of strengths your previous opponents enjoyed last war that they will not in a hypothetical future one. Relative to the place both sides were in previous to the last war IQ is pretty much an entirely different animal. No, it does not completely tip the scales, but to admit so would make IQ the dominant spheres which you absolutely will not admit to. 

Now, in my dealings with folks from around the web, Easy Mode folks, Paperless folks, and even IQ folks including yourself, I have heard a cry criticizing the Bipolar system and a dream that something else could be established to take its place. Yet, for all of the rhetoric I have heard about the formation of IQ and what I was meant to achieve, all I have seen is the moves of a traditional revisionist looking to establish their own dominant sphere. These consolidating ties as many would call them only point to the fact that you are only interested internally and hold no interests for truly redefining the game. That is why the to add another IQ member is criticized. Even more so given the rhetoric from IQ and doubly even more so in the face of the decentralization Easy Mode has gone these past months after the war, no matter how small you believe that has been. 

Now, if there was a real idea to break Orbis bipolarism, even for a little while, how would you take it?

Edited by Kayser
  • Upvote 6

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kayser said:

With some perspective, the entry is very much still a matter of consolidation. VE/GoG wasn't considered solidly IQ before the last war and it wasn't until post war that they chose and decided to consolidate their ties in IQ. Yes, that exactly consolidation. Deciding to sign treaties among yourselves while your counterparts disband and go paperless in comparison IS consolidation. I mean, you can say the Mensa disbandment was only partial and a fair chunk of NS went to Guardian, but it doesn't take away from the fact that nations were lost. The work put in by those Mensa nations makes up for their lack of numbers x times over, number that I have to point out are not in the favor of the side they left. Yes, tS is paperless and who is to say they aren't neutral? And even if they have a predisposition, would that be out of the ordinary for anyone? They have their interests they want to protect, doesn't exclude the fact they are under no obligation to assist anyone. Their leaving is of a magnitude that has yet to be matched by an IQ alliance. And that is something you really can't argue away. That isn't even going into the number of consolidating treaties your side have made. I can't even give you the idea that these signings do not mean anything statistically. There were a crap ton of cross ties during the last war, ties that could have gone one way or the other. It made it so making projections and thus ideas of how a war will play out and the basis for which leaders will make their decisions, a bloody mess. Now there is pretty much certainty for a lot more alliances. Leaders can be more confident in their statistical protections. That is a factor that must not be overlooked and its something IQ benefits from disproportionately from with its actual WEB of treaties. 

These treaties while in your opinion does not make a statistical difference,If you take the alliances from both sides during the last war,it does paint a picture into the IQ mindset. That your side is set in your ways and you are not interested in any sort of actual change and you are content with perpetuating the system. 

And lets not forget tier cohesion. IQ benefits disproportionately form that too. You are uncontested in the tiers you occupy. And yes, while there is still an advantage we have my the nature of being more upper tier dominant, that is more than made up with the sheer number of nations you can bring to the table, all range of each other. You cannot argue away that advantage when folks on both sides experienced the "pit". Since the conclusion of the war you've worked diligently to raise the range of the pit, overlapping with a lot of the tiers of strengths your previous opponents enjoyed last war that they will not in a hypothetical future one. Relative to the place both sides were in previous to the last war IQ is pretty much an entirely different animal. No, it does not completely tip the scales, but to admit so would make IQ the dominant spheres which you absolutely will not admit to. 

Now, in my dealings with folks from around the web, Easy Mode folks, Paperless folks, and even IQ folks including yourself, I have heard a cry criticizing the Bipolar system and a dream that something else could be established to take its place. Yet, for all of the rhetoric I have heard about the formation of IQ and what I was meant to achieve, all I have seen is the moves of a traditional revisionist looking to establish their own dominant sphere. These consolidating ties as many would call them only point to the fact that you are only interested internally and hold no interests for truly redefining the game. That is why the to add another IQ member is criticized. Even more so given the rhetoric from IQ and doubly even more so in the face of the decentralization Easy Mode has gone these past months after the war, no matter how small you believe that has been. 

Now, if there was a real idea to break Orbis bipolarism, even for a little while, how would you take it?

With VE, that obscures the fact that they were already going to be on our side since the original coalition talks were regarding them getting hit. They by default were placed on our side because of their bridges to the other side getting burned right before. The point was we had VE in the last war and we didn't win, so this wasn't a pick up. By the time the war happened if people weren't expecting VE to be on our side, I'm not sure if they were paying attention. Minds were made up on VE and VE was already placed on a side by default. Nations were lost, but most of the nations that actually quit were already inactive and not carrying Mensa in the war. If tS and other optional-only alliances have a predisposition and they act on it, then IQ is a definitive disadvantage. Simply not having a paper obligation doesn't mean anything.   If everyone in IQ went paperless and their relations didn't change, it would change nothing. 

You're placing an undue emphasis on treaties when the real issue is allegiances.  A TKR-X treaty ties more strength  together on its own and by all the mutual ties than most IQ ties do.  There's no Pantheon-Guardian or  or TCW-TFP or treaty, but  have no reason to believe they wouldn't be on the same side.  The IQ treaties aren't anything more than just spelling out existing implications. The core alliances in your sphere have a longer history working together and don't know anything else under their current governments, that's not going to change overnight just because someone went paperless. Outliers tend to be more pro- "EMC"(ugh) and more likely to join . There is also a general atmosphere in favor of winners and there has been no other winning coalition in PW history. There isn't a swing alliance that wasn't on the IQ side in the last war that was added to IQ column. Maybe you could make a case for OWR itself, but that's outweighed by the splinter alliances some IQ alliances experienced/attrition and the fact that some chose to exit the side like UPN. It would still be far the easier course of action for the majority of alliances to ditch certain alliances and find better prospects elsewhere. That they haven't chosen to do is more a sign of them being willing to stick it out even though the last war was onerous because they believe in the idea of providing a semblance of balance rather than any desire to become a dominant sphere.

IQ has a greater presence in tiers it didn't contest well in the last war, yes, but that doesn't guarantee a victory nor does it mean IQ is uncontested. It's totally feasible that enough alliances that have much less likelihood of helping IQ would lean towards the "easy mode" direction.  The same downsell stuff people did in the last war would just be repeated with bigger nations and if any wild cards joined in, it'd get really bad for IQ.  There's also the fact that your side plays down any damage taken at the lower levels of insignificant and many in your coalition wouldn't be in range of IQ.  Basically, it's a weird two sided thing: "IQ sucks" but at the same time people don't want to deal with the inconvenience of there being a tier where they don't have an advantage in and don't want to deal with the resistance.

Let's look at what TKR has done since the war: upgraded NK to MD and signed R&R to an MD. Then alliances that were just protectorates upgraded to MDoAP and formed a bloc. Does this not make a difference?

This game has bipolarity as an eventuality since people will automatically pick one of the sides at some point when their hand is forced. Most non-bipolar conflicts have just been curbstomps without outside interference and those would be the likely outcome and usually is the case when small wars happen. The other thing with these inorganic proposals, is there is no way to enforce non-cooperation between alliances especially those where the ties run super deep and have existed for years. It's important to note IQ is still a recent development and was an example of former enemies being willing to work together without any substantial changes in the character of those alliances so they've shown a willingness. If IQ genuinely became a dominant sphere the same type of issues certain alliances had while within the OO/tS sphere would come back to the surface.

I'm not interested in trading bipolarity for a likely eventual unipolarity that would result. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me when there's no assurances or enforcement mechanism.

I appreciate you  taking the time to argue these points even if I disagree, though.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

With VE, that obscures the fact that they were already going to be on our side since the original coalition talks were regarding them getting hit. They by default were placed on our side because of their bridges to the other side getting burned right before. The point was we had VE in the last war and we didn't win, so this wasn't a pick up. By the time the war happened if people weren't expecting VE to be on our side, I'm not sure if they were paying attention. Minds were made up on VE and VE was already placed on a side by default. Nations were lost, but most of the nations that actually quit were already inactive and not carrying Mensa in the war. If tS and other optional-only alliances have a predisposition and they act on it, then IQ is a definitive disadvantage. Simply not having a paper obligation doesn't mean anything.   If everyone in IQ went paperless and their relations didn't change, it would change nothing. 

You're placing an undue emphasis on treaties when the real issue is allegiances.  A TKR-X treaty ties more strength  together on its own and by all the mutual ties than most IQ ties do.  There's no Pantheon-Guardian or  or TCW-TFP or treaty, but  have no reason to believe they wouldn't be on the same side.  The IQ treaties aren't anything more than just spelling out existing implications. The core alliances in your sphere have a longer history working together and don't know anything else under their current governments, that's not going to change overnight just because someone went paperless. Outliers tend to be more pro- "EMC"(ugh) and more likely to join . There is also a general atmosphere in favor of winners and there has been no other winning coalition in PW history. There isn't a swing alliance that wasn't on the IQ side in the last war that was added to IQ column. Maybe you could make a case for OWR itself, but that's outweighed by the splinter alliances some IQ alliances experienced/attrition and the fact that some chose to exit the side like UPN. It would still be far the easier course of action for the majority of alliances to ditch certain alliances and find better prospects elsewhere. That they haven't chosen to do is more a sign of them being willing to stick it out even though the last war was onerous because they believe in the idea of providing a semblance of balance rather than any desire to become a dominant sphere.

IQ has a greater presence in tiers it didn't contest well in the last war, yes, but that doesn't guarantee a victory nor does it mean IQ is uncontested. It's totally feasible that enough alliances that have much less likelihood of helping IQ would lean towards the "easy mode" direction.  The same downsell stuff people did in the last war would just be repeated with bigger nations and if any wild cards joined in, it'd get really bad for IQ.  There's also the fact that your side plays down any damage taken at the lower levels of insignificant and many in your coalition wouldn't be in range of IQ.  Basically, it's a weird two sided thing: "IQ sucks" but at the same time people don't want to deal with the inconvenience of there being a tier where they don't have an advantage in and don't want to deal with the resistance.

Let's look at what TKR has done since the war: upgraded NK to MD and signed R&R to an MD. Then alliances that were just protectorates upgraded to MDoAP and formed a bloc. Does this not make a difference?

This game has bipolarity as an eventuality since people will automatically pick one of the sides at some point when their hand is forced. Most non-bipolar conflicts have just been curbstomps without outside interference and those would be the likely outcome and usually is the case when small wars happen. The other thing with these inorganic proposals, is there is no way to enforce non-cooperation between alliances especially those where the ties run super deep and have existed for years. It's important to note IQ is still a recent development and was an example of former enemies being willing to work together without any substantial changes in the character of those alliances so they've shown a willingness. If IQ genuinely became a dominant sphere the same type of issues certain alliances had while within the OO/tS sphere would come back to the surface.

I'm not interested in trading bipolarity for a likely eventual unipolarity that would result. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me when there's no assurances or enforcement mechanism.

I appreciate you  taking the time to argue these points even if I disagree, though.

Yes, VE by default of some of the context surrounding the last war was on your side and yes you still lost even with that NS on your side. That wasn't my point, my point was by consolidating the way that you did you removed an avenue of politics, that is the potential for VE to be dynamic in their sphere placement by adding them to your bloc. As your side has done for a fair few number of alliances that constitute your sphere. The decidedly polarization signing such a huge number of redundant treaties eliminates any sort of room for dynamism to play out. It creates more certainty and if we look at that level of certainty your side has a heck of a lot more than ours. That advantage translates to the planning of potential hostile encounters and is an advantage your side definitively has. 

I do not know how you can comment on the the likelyhood of a paperless alliance involving themselves in a war without explaining how came to that conclusion. I'd argue and I'm sure some folks would agree with me that at the bear minimum, tS leaving eliminates some situations they'd chose to enter, where otherwise they would have. That is something of a magnitude no one on IQ has had to deal with since the end of the war and its something we have. We don;t have cart blanche support from tS, and neither they from us. They are paperless. I'm sure some folks over on your side can comprehend the idea of former allies breaking their ties and genuinely becoming separated. I'm looking at the folks who were involved with Paragon's separation specifically. Is it really so much of a leap of faith the believe someone at their word when they tell you they are paperless, when in fact a handful of months ago ParaCov was preaching about the very same thing? I recall the discourse during Silent War criticizing Syndisphere for not taking Paracov at their word of separation. I'm pretty sure you were one of them too. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

I don't believe I am placing an undue emphasis or anything. Yeah some folk over hear like to chat with each other and a fair few of us have mutual ties. But many of the relationships you see spelled out in paper are just that, relationships between alliance x and y. The amount of cohesion that is shown in IQ sphere is nowhere near the level we experience over here. Nukebloc and KT don't sit at the same coffee table and have afternoon tea. In comparison, alliances on your side are so closely tied you pretty much breath each other's air. And that level of certainty gives you an advantage. As far as swing alliances go, yeah there hasn't been too much addition to IQ from that was there prewar, but that is only one side of the equation. Your counterparts have arguably lost a crap ton in comparison to where they were during the war. tS gone, CF, gone TC, gone. Mensa, ,parts of it gone. Lets not forget Hogwarts, that alliance that helped us out last war? They have an agreement with a close ally of yours in Lordaeron? I think your statement of swing alliances goes right out the door with that one alone. Ya, YOUR side hasn't gone through much change in terms of names (on the surface), but your side does not exist in a vacuum. OUR side has lost a lot and speaking in relative terms that means IQ HAS gained in comparison to last far from our losses alone. We're not even talking about the growth said alliances have done. 

As far as an argument about wanting to be on the winning side and putting each coalition in the perspective of history. Listen, you and I both know this idea doesn't hold any water at all. I stand in agreement with most of Orbis that SOME sort of change is very much wanted by the vast majority of players. It was a trend that existed ever since and arguably before Papers Please and it has only gathered steam ever since. The desire in the psyche of the players isn't one of conformity to the status quo, its revisionism. A desire to seek something new, to make something new and IQ has proclaimed itself as the champion of this desire for change, for dynamism. THAT is the true trend that players are experiencing now and it plays into your hands not ours as the public's face of revisionism. However, I would like to point out that in contrast to this supposed message of dynamism all that has actually happened is traditional bipolar sphere politics. Nothing has changed. But I am willing to talk about a possible change with anyone who will listen. 

The vast majority of active and able players now lie within IQ's range of nations, which IQ has more of. You have higher tier cohesion and enough active players to make those stats useful. Will we know whether the growth IQ has done since the end of the war is enough to give you a decisive  victory, I concede no one knows for sure. But what I can do is speculate and my reasonable interpretation is (i know the word reasonable is kinda subjective here) you stand at a much better chance than you did previously. Taking into context as everyone should do the changes both sides have made and laying out the respective advantages and disadvantages. Arguments like isn't completely uncontested seem really weak to me, ya, we're not a speed bump in the road and we would still have a fair few nations that remain out of IQ's reach but you're downplaying your strengths hard. Last war NPO was an average what 9-10 city alliance. Now you're an average 13 city alliance. The reach you have easily covers the vast majority of the nations in this game and the water level of the pit puts most alliances well within reaching range of IQ. This is a change of circumstance that no one nor their mother has not taken notice of. You can't really downplay the strategic difference between city 9-10 dominance and city 13. It speaks for itself. 

I wouldn't make this conversation about TKR specifically, but I will address your point nevertheless. I believe what TKR has done has to be taken into the greater context of its sphere. Most conflicts recently have been coalition based so that is the most relevant perspective for this discussion. So, TKR has upgraded an already established long term ally in NK to a MD treaty and we signed RnR along with upgrading longstanding protectorates. We have also lost long term ally tS, powerhouse Mensa, and our upper tier protectorate in GoB. Put that on a NS scale and I'd say, relative to the changes IQ has made, we'd come out in the red. What I'd like to point out is what TKR hasn't done. We haven't signed consolidating treaties within our sphere. We haven't signed Rose to a binding MD treaty, we haven't signed TC, we haven't signed CF. We haven't tried to sign any of the relevant third parties that exist that could tip the balance nor have we tried to coerce any of your allies into defecting from you. We don't feel the need to sign a web of treaties, because that WOULD give the impression that we're trying to double down on this idea of bipolarism and guess what, we're not. I cannot say the same for IQ who have signed a Charlotte's Web of treaties among yourselves since the war ended, which if I may point out to my earlier argument, both gives your an advantage and gives an insight to your state of mind, which is us vs them centric. 

Bipolarity may be an eventuality, but it is not because people automatically pick one side or another. It comes with when one pole gains disproportionate strength so much so that multi-polarity cannot exist. I do not buy that most non bipolar conflicts have been stomps there have been numerous occasions in may similar environments such as this one where multi-polarity has in fact been the most even and hard fought system that was established. No, unipolarity is not an eventuality in the absence of bipolarity, multipolarity can and has existed. These inorganic proposals you say do have a mechanic. It is a self regulating mechanic. An us vs them mentality inherently present in exclusive groups could, would and has served as an able self regulator. The only inorganic part of such proposals would be the initial agreement afterwards politics will take over as usual the only difference being the environment in which it was played. Which I would argue would be a much more enjoyable one to take part in. There seems to be some sort of paranoia regarding the relationship of long term allies and whether alliances would be genuine. Maybe I am too naive, but I believe too much suspicion marks one as untrustworthy themselves. Maybe I can cite some sort of psychologist, but I can tell you this unreasonable suspicion is going to end up as a self fulfilling prophecy if you don't learn to trust every once and a while. 

Eh, I can't buy into the idea of IQ being a recent development. In the context of this game you are already an established sphere. You've been together for the better part of the year at this point. Just because you've only fought one war together does not mean you're a new phenomena. By this point, you're actually old news. And as a concept, I wouldn't put the foundation of my argument against multi-polarity on the idea that IQ, a bloc that has perpetuated the bipolar system established by Syndisphere and ParaCov, still needs time to show us something revolutionary. 

 

Something truly revolutionary would be enacting multipolarity and it is something that can be achieved. It only needs the support of folks who already want it to happen and for those who doubt it to seriously consider it. 

  • Upvote 4

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boi, the massive low pressure shitpost system is starting to clash with the high pressure salt system and seems to be forming a small textwall storm. Folks, we could see this turn into something bigger, possibly a category 5 shitstorm by the weekend.

Id27YMC.gif

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Crossbones said:

Oh boi, the massive low pressure shitpost system is starting to clash with the high pressure salt system and seems to be forming a small textwall storm. Folks, we could see this turn into something bigger, possibly a category 5 shitstorm by the weekend.

Id27YMC.gif

Why do you have to be rude? We're having a legitimate conversation. Your trolling is not appreciated. 

  • Upvote 2

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kayser said:

Yes, VE by default of some of the context surrounding the last war was on your side and yes you still lost even with that NS on your side. That wasn't my point, my point was by consolidating the way that you did you removed an avenue of politics, that is the potential for VE to be dynamic in their sphere placement by adding them to your bloc. As your side has done for a fair few number of alliances that constitute your sphere. The decidedly polarization signing such a huge number of redundant treaties eliminates any sort of room for dynamism to play out. It creates more certainty and if we look at that level of certainty your side has a heck of a lot more than ours. That advantage translates to the planning of potential hostile encounters and is an advantage your side definitively has. 

I do not know how you can comment on the the likelyhood of a paperless alliance involving themselves in a war without explaining how came to that conclusion. I'd argue and I'm sure some folks would agree with me that at the bear minimum, tS leaving eliminates some situations they'd chose to enter, where otherwise they would have. That is something of a magnitude no one on IQ has had to deal with since the end of the war and its something we have. We don;t have cart blanche support from tS, and neither they from us. They are paperless. I'm sure some folks over on your side can comprehend the idea of former allies breaking their ties and genuinely becoming separated. I'm looking at the folks who were involved with Paragon's separation specifically. Is it really so much of a leap of faith the believe someone at their word when they tell you they are paperless, when in fact a handful of months ago ParaCov was preaching about the very same thing? I recall the discourse during Silent War criticizing Syndisphere for not taking Paracov at their word of separation. I'm pretty sure you were one of them too. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

I don't believe I am placing an undue emphasis or anything. Yeah some folk over hear like to chat with each other and a fair few of us have mutual ties. But many of the relationships you see spelled out in paper are just that, relationships between alliance x and y. The amount of cohesion that is shown in IQ sphere is nowhere near the level we experience over here. Nukebloc and KT don't sit at the same coffee table and have afternoon tea. In comparison, alliances on your side are so closely tied you pretty much breath each other's air. And that level of certainty gives you an advantage. As far as swing alliances go, yeah there hasn't been too much addition to IQ from that was there prewar, but that is only one side of the equation. Your counterparts have arguably lost a crap ton in comparison to where they were during the war. tS gone, CF, gone TC, gone. Mensa, ,parts of it gone. Lets not forget Hogwarts, that alliance that helped us out last war? They have an agreement with a close ally of yours in Lordaeron? I think your statement of swing alliances goes right out the door with that one alone. Ya, YOUR side hasn't gone through much change in terms of names (on the surface), but your side does not exist in a vacuum. OUR side has lost a lot and speaking in relative terms that means IQ HAS gained in comparison to last far from our losses alone. We're not even talking about the growth said alliances have done. 

As far as an argument about wanting to be on the winning side and putting each coalition in the perspective of history. Listen, you and I both know this idea doesn't hold any water at all. I stand in agreement with most of Orbis that SOME sort of change is very much wanted by the vast majority of players. It was a trend that existed ever since and arguably before Papers Please and it has only gathered steam ever since. The desire in the psyche of the players isn't one of conformity to the status quo, its revisionism. A desire to seek something new, to make something new and IQ has proclaimed itself as the champion of this desire for change, for dynamism. THAT is the true trend that players are experiencing now and it plays into your hands not ours as the public's face of revisionism. However, I would like to point out that in contrast to this supposed message of dynamism all that has actually happened is traditional bipolar sphere politics. Nothing has changed. But I am willing to talk about a possible change with anyone who will listen. 

The vast majority of active and able players now lie within IQ's range of nations, which IQ has more of. You have higher tier cohesion and enough active players to make those stats useful. Will we know whether the growth IQ has done since the end of the war is enough to give you a decisive  victory, I concede no one knows for sure. But what I can do is speculate and my reasonable interpretation is (i know the word reasonable is kinda subjective here) you stand at a much better chance than you did previously. Taking into context as everyone should do the changes both sides have made and laying out the respective advantages and disadvantages. Arguments like isn't completely uncontested seem really weak to me, ya, we're not a speed bump in the road and we would still have a fair few nations that remain out of IQ's reach but you're downplaying your strengths hard. Last war NPO was an average what 9-10 city alliance. Now you're an average 13 city alliance. The reach you have easily covers the vast majority of the nations in this game and the water level of the pit puts most alliances well within reaching range of IQ. This is a change of circumstance that no one nor their mother has not taken notice of. You can't really downplay the strategic difference between city 9-10 dominance and city 13. It speaks for itself. 

I wouldn't make this conversation about TKR specifically, but I will address your point nevertheless. I believe what TKR has done has to be taken into the greater context of its sphere. Most conflicts recently have been coalition based so that is the most relevant perspective for this discussion. So, TKR has upgraded an already established long term ally in NK to a MD treaty and we signed RnR along with upgrading longstanding protectorates. We have also lost long term ally tS, powerhouse Mensa, and our upper tier protectorate in GoB. Put that on a NS scale and I'd say, relative to the changes IQ has made, we'd come out in the red. What I'd like to point out is what TKR hasn't done. We haven't signed consolidating treaties within our sphere. We haven't signed Rose to a binding MD treaty, we haven't signed TC, we haven't signed CF. We haven't tried to sign any of the relevant third parties that exist that could tip the balance nor have we tried to coerce any of your allies into defecting from you. We don't feel the need to sign a web of treaties, because that WOULD give the impression that we're trying to double down on this idea of bipolarism and guess what, we're not. I cannot say the same for IQ who have signed a Charlotte's Web of treaties among yourselves since the war ended, which if I may point out to my earlier argument, both gives your an advantage and gives an insight to your state of mind, which is us vs them centric. 

Bipolarity may be an eventuality, but it is not because people automatically pick one side or another. It comes with when one pole gains disproportionate strength so much so that multi-polarity cannot exist. I do not buy that most non bipolar conflicts have been stomps there have been numerous occasions in may similar environments such as this one where multi-polarity has in fact been the most even and hard fought system that was established. No, unipolarity is not an eventuality in the absence of bipolarity, multipolarity can and has existed. These inorganic proposals you say do have a mechanic. It is a self regulating mechanic. An us vs them mentality inherently present in exclusive groups could, would and has served as an able self regulator. The only inorganic part of such proposals would be the initial agreement afterwards politics will take over as usual the only difference being the environment in which it was played. Which I would argue would be a much more enjoyable one to take part in. There seems to be some sort of paranoia regarding the relationship of long term allies and whether alliances would be genuine. Maybe I am too naive, but I believe too much suspicion marks one as untrustworthy themselves. Maybe I can cite some sort of psychologist, but I can tell you this unreasonable suspicion is going to end up as a self fulfilling prophecy if you don't learn to trust every once and a while. 

Eh, I can't buy into the idea of IQ being a recent development. In the context of this game you are already an established sphere. You've been together for the better part of the year at this point. Just because you've only fought one war together does not mean you're a new phenomena. By this point, you're actually old news. And as a concept, I wouldn't put the foundation of my argument against multi-polarity on the idea that IQ, a bloc that has perpetuated the bipolar system established by Syndisphere and ParaCov, still needs time to show us something revolutionary. 

 

Something truly revolutionary would be enacting multipolarity and it is something that can be achieved. It only needs the support of folks who already want it to happen and for those who doubt it to seriously consider it. 

In VE's case, they wanted to join IQ and there wasn't a whole lot of room for them to be dynamic since their relations with other alliances went into negatives after the coup situation. Minds were made up on them and that situation had pretty much sealed the deal.The redundant treaties in most cases don't add much more certainty than already existed especially when some treaties were lost. Stances already were developed. An appearance of potential change doesn't make it realistic.

A paperless alliance is more likely to enter for people they like as opposed to people they dislike or maintaining a neutral stance. This is especially the case when they have relations stretching back years. The historical tendency has been for outliers to play spoiler/tip the scales in conflicts that would otherwise be close. While there wasn't anyone as big as tS alone, several significant alliances that were in the IQ column cancelled or downgraded  and those cancellations were made clearly as a desire to no longer participate/partake on the IQ side. No ambiguity whatsoever. The relations between ParaCov were nowhere near as close as tS had been with the other alliances and there was several incidences of disunity. The paragon separation had none of the lovey-dovey vibes that recent paperless had. Of course, it's always possible they choose not to involve themselves, but it's a lot more uncertainty for IQ when it doesn't have an overwhelming advantage as is.

There's plenty of cohesion when many of the alliances have partaken on the same side in almost every war they have participate in. It doesn't matter if Rose and TKR for instance don't have a treaty because the mutual ties are there and the cooperation is there as well.  Same for the examples I gave. Guardian has a years long history of siding with the same alliances, for example. There's no daylight between the Rose and TKR in the current configuration. Hogwarts' relationship with Lordaeron was exclusively with them and they have almost no one in IQ to hit since IQ lost many of the upper tier nations Hogwarts hit after the last war. Same goes for tC. As I mentioned, if we compare the two columns then we'll have lost alliances as well, while gaining maybe one while Rose and TKR have been adding people through new signings or upgrades. IQ has a lot of holds, but not a lot of pick ups and IQ alliances lot a lost of members after the last war. Our core is tighter on paper, but historically that hasn't been the deciding factor.

I disagree. After every war Syndisphere/EMC won, the tendency was for some alliances on the losing side to switch or just cut ties to the losing side to be out of the way of the winning side. The only break with this trend was IQ itself with BK, BoC, Chola, and CS choosing to move towards alliances that traditionally lost.  The type of abstract change people want doesn't usually have a whole lot of practicality to it and I refer to when people act on practical terms.  After Papers Please, there was a desire for change yes, but it was all super theoretical aside from IQ pulling the trigger on it. Bipolar politics is a change compared to the unipolar status the game was in prior to IQ's formation. The point of the change was so there wasn't an uncontested much stronger side and just fragmented remnants of opposition. . Change on its own isn't always good, especially when the risk is very real of a reversion to the unipolarity.

The vast majority of active and nations in general being more in IQ's range was a reality before but it didn't matter.  The very real reality is that not many players are in the upper tier and they're proportionally over represented in influence and power. What mattered at the time was just "we have the upper tier, so we're going to wait you out and our losses are immaterial in comparison." We have cohesion and an advantage, but it's not an absolute advantage and for submarine strategies to work, the advantage has to be pretty big and spoilers/others joining in would easily tilt the scales to the point where that advantage isn't so big. We bought cities, but so did the other side. We did some growth, but alliances lost members to deletion or alliances on our side.

With the losses, GoB didn't even fight in the last war and weren't needed. They're above the range where down selling is practical. With a nuke bloc alliance signing a binding treaty with TKR and WTF joining nuke bloc, when they defended Rose in the last war, it gave "EMC" additional political power/influence that could make up for the losses of tS/CF. You haven't signed more intra-sphere ties, but they simply are unneeded. If someone attacks TFP, a whole slew of alliances would come out now. Us vs them is pretty inevitable when there have been two sides and the last war's rhetoric didn't really help with that. .

Bipolarity isn't even necessarily eventual if one side can maintain positive enough relationship amongst its constituents and they're content to grow. It's just the only alternative to unipolarity has been bipolarity. In a multi-polar configuration, one group will become strong enough or gain the cooperation of others to get at another group. Unless the groups cooperating then turn on themselves, the natural outcome is unipolarity as that won't always happen or bipolarity if they do.  Non-bipolar wars in this game have been curbstomps of smaller alliances. When people talk about how they want wars which won't escalate into globals, it's often they want to fight a particular smaller actor that they don't see as worth triggering a global for. The suspicion is more than warranted as people are prone to stick to what they're used to and are more likely to cooperate with those they know well rather than those they don't know well. There's no reason to believe multiple poles would be truly exclusive. It's a bit of a reach to call it paranoia when it's a reasonable expectation. People would have to avoid patterns they've followed for a very long time. Alliances typically only cease to cooperate when a dispute or something else triggers a true separation, which usually requires a deterioration of relations.

IQ is a recent development compared to "EMC" which is about two years running in some form at this point as the established victor of the game.  6 months of IQ doesn't undo that kind of history. IQ didn't perpetuate anything, as the game existed in a state of unipolarity from Silent to its signing. It was an attempt to restore competitive balance to the game and break the cycle of one side always being on top. There are a limited amount of configurations that can exist due to the dispositions many alliances have that become increasingly hardened over time and it's guaranteed to define outcomes. If everyone was a clean slate and was willing to drop long-standing issues with people, then it'd be different, but that's not how people have been in this game and it severely limits possibilities. That's where IQ did bring something different: it was a bloc that included people that had previously severe direct disputes between each other between specific government actors  involved in those disputes. Some sort of wide-ranging split of treaties when the relations between certain actors won't change will benefit some over others. Relations are what truly matter, not specific treaties at a given point in time.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keegoz said:

Holy !@#$ people went into full essay mode. Anyone want to tl;dr for me?

 

I won't bother reading it either, but my guess is that it's just the usual back and forth between bigshots of massive blob number 1 and massive blob number 2, which tends to precede every global war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Insert Name Here said:

 

I won't bother reading it either, but my guess is that it's just the usual back and forth between bigshots of massive blob number 1 and massive blob number 2, which tends to precede every global war. 

Gonna be frank on this: there isn't going to be a war most likely(well I don't have any plans in that regard atm) unless some other party does something and the only possibility is something that's turning out to be a nothingburger. I mainly responded since there's been increasing rhetoric that sort of hypes up the interlocking treaties between IQ as representing some sort of definitive edge and people are seeing IQ as unilaterally stifling the game for not breaking up because tS went paperless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

In VE's case, they wanted to join IQ and there wasn't a whole lot of room for them to be dynamic since their relations with other alliances went into negatives after the coup situation. Minds were made up on them and that situation had pretty much sealed the deal.The redundant treaties in most cases don't add much more certainty than already existed especially when some treaties were lost. Stances already were developed. An appearance of potential change doesn't make it realistic.

A paperless alliance is more likely to enter for people they like as opposed to people they dislike or maintaining a neutral stance. This is especially the case when they have relations stretching back years. The historical tendency has been for outliers to play spoiler/tip the scales in conflicts that would otherwise be close. While there wasn't anyone as big as tS alone, several significant alliances that were in the IQ column cancelled or downgraded  and those cancellations were made clearly as a desire to no longer participate/partake on the IQ side. No ambiguity whatsoever. The relations between ParaCov were nowhere near as close as tS had been with the other alliances and there was several incidences of disunity. The paragon separation had none of the lovey-dovey vibes that recent paperless had. Of course, it's always possible they choose not to involve themselves, but it's a lot more uncertainty for IQ when it doesn't have an overwhelming advantage as is.

There's plenty of cohesion when many of the alliances have partaken on the same side in almost every war they have participate in. It doesn't matter if Rose and TKR for instance don't have a treaty because the mutual ties are there and the cooperation is there as well.  Same for the examples I gave. Guardian has a years long history of siding with the same alliances, for example. There's no daylight between the Rose and TKR in the current configuration. Hogwarts' relationship with Lordaeron was exclusively with them and they have almost no one in IQ to hit since IQ lost many of the upper tier nations Hogwarts hit after the last war. Same goes for tC. As I mentioned, if we compare the two columns then we'll have lost alliances as well, while gaining maybe one while Rose and TKR have been adding people through new signings or upgrades. IQ has a lot of holds, but not a lot of pick ups and IQ alliances lot a lost of members after the last war. Our core is tighter on paper, but historically that hasn't been the deciding factor.

I disagree. After every war Syndisphere/EMC won, the tendency was for some alliances on the losing side to switch or just cut ties to the losing side to be out of the way of the winning side. The only break with this trend was IQ itself with BK, BoC, Chola, and CS choosing to move towards alliances that traditionally lost.  The type of abstract change people want doesn't usually have a whole lot of practicality to it and I refer to when people act on practical terms.  After Papers Please, there was a desire for change yes, but it was all super theoretical aside from IQ pulling the trigger on it. Bipolar politics is a change compared to the unipolar status the game was in prior to IQ's formation. The point of the change was so there wasn't an uncontested much stronger side and just fragmented remnants of opposition. . Change on its own isn't always good, especially when the risk is very real of a reversion to the unipolarity.

The vast majority of active and nations in general being more in IQ's range was a reality before but it didn't matter.  The very real reality is that not many players are in the upper tier and they're proportionally over represented in influence and power. What mattered at the time was just "we have the upper tier, so we're going to wait you out and our losses are immaterial in comparison." We have cohesion and an advantage, but it's not an absolute advantage and for submarine strategies to work, the advantage has to be pretty big and spoilers/others joining in would easily tilt the scales to the point where that advantage isn't so big. We bought cities, but so did the other side. We did some growth, but alliances lost members to deletion or alliances on our side.

With the losses, GoB didn't even fight in the last war and weren't needed. They're above the range where down selling is practical. With a nuke bloc alliance signing a binding treaty with TKR and WTF joining nuke bloc, when they defended Rose in the last war, it gave "EMC" additional political power/influence that could make up for the losses of tS/CF. You haven't signed more intra-sphere ties, but they simply are unneeded. If someone attacks TFP, a whole slew of alliances would come out now. Us vs them is pretty inevitable when there have been two sides and the last war's rhetoric didn't really help with that. .

Bipolarity isn't even necessarily eventual if one side can maintain positive enough relationship amongst its constituents and they're content to grow. It's just the only alternative to unipolarity has been bipolarity. In a multi-polar configuration, one group will become strong enough or gain the cooperation of others to get at another group. Unless the groups cooperating then turn on themselves, the natural outcome is unipolarity as that won't always happen or bipolarity if they do.  Non-bipolar wars in this game have been curbstomps of smaller alliances. When people talk about how they want wars which won't escalate into globals, it's often they want to fight a particular smaller actor that they don't see as worth triggering a global for. The suspicion is more than warranted as people are prone to stick to what they're used to and are more likely to cooperate with those they know well rather than those they don't know well. There's no reason to believe multiple poles would be truly exclusive. It's a bit of a reach to call it paranoia when it's a reasonable expectation. People would have to avoid patterns they've followed for a very long time. Alliances typically only cease to cooperate when a dispute or something else triggers a true separation, which usually requires a deterioration of relations.

IQ is a recent development compared to "EMC" which is about two years running in some form at this point as the established victor of the game.  6 months of IQ doesn't undo that kind of history. IQ didn't perpetuate anything, as the game existed in a state of unipolarity from Silent to its signing. It was an attempt to restore competitive balance to the game and break the cycle of one side always being on top. There are a limited amount of configurations that can exist due to the dispositions many alliances have that become increasingly hardened over time and it's guaranteed to define outcomes. If everyone was a clean slate and was willing to drop long-standing issues with people, then it'd be different, but that's not how people have been in this game and it severely limits possibilities. That's where IQ did bring something different: it was a bloc that included people that had previously severe direct disputes between each other between specific government actors  involved in those disputes. Some sort of wide-ranging split of treaties when the relations between certain actors won't change will benefit some over others. Relations are what truly matter, not specific treaties at a given point in time.

 

 

There is no way to measure how much more certainty they add. But I'm glad your recognize it does add to your advantages. The VE entry and the redundant treaties..No, an appearance of potential change doesn't make it realistic, but letting everyone know you're slamming the door on the idea of change says a lot about what your future plans are. 

Yeah ofc a paperless alliance is more likely to enter on a side they liike, no argument there. That's they thing they can enter, its not a definite thing and just because they'd most likely side with us in most situations does not mean they will. That is another part of that certainty advantage we were talking about earlier, and how IQ has relative to Easy Mode, has a lot more of it. You know what their exit does that acts as the complete opposite from the policy most IQ members have embraced recently? An actual potential for change. You to make them like you so they're more likely to enter on your side or sit out, talk to them. EMC alliances have actually put their money where your mouth should be and are actually taking steps to bring about change. Just because you feel as if they don't like you doesn't take away from what they have done and what it means to us. They have the potential for change being paperless and that is a lot more than anyone can say for IQ since the end of the war.  

These several significant alliances, you're going to have to put a name to that. I can off the bat say you may mean HBE, You guys lost them because you had a falling out over ally obligations. That's not even a bid for trying to change the dynamic of anything. Yeah, looking at it without the cause for their exit it is still a loss for you, but even so, it pales in comparison that was the tS, TC, CF exit. So why even bring it up? Its a hard stretch to even compare the two. 

So, because the relations between ParaCov were not as close as our relationship with tS means you cannot comprehend a world where they are actually telling the truth and are separate? That is not skepticism that is borderline paranoia. And it has to call into question whether is denial  of the legitimacy of their move has an ulterior motive. You really have not brought up a legitimate reason why you suspect the move other than a feeling that because we've known each other for a long time, we can't be separate. That is a complete paper thin reason. Drawing the differences between our relationship and the one that existed between ParaCov is valid but its not as valid as the arguments you made yourself in the wake of Silent about one side's continued consolidation in the face of another's change. You're completely contradicting your past stance in almost the same circumstances. You're just on the other side of it and it only makes your present arguments, in light of your previous ones, appear fake.Fact is Easy Mode is actually the face of dynamism now and you're arguing for continued consolidation and the status quo. 

No, the level of cohesion is no where the level a direct MD level treaty provides. There is daylight between plenty of the folks over here in certain areas and that is really not seen with the web of treaties you have signed together as a sphere. If you believe the relationship between Rose and NK is the same as SK and Zodiac, you're out of your mind. There is no comparison history be damned, for public paper. Hell, Rose this alliance that you seem to attribute to us as some sort of long term historical ally, has only aligned with us for a bit longer than IQ itself has been a thing. How can you argue that we are historical allies (when we're actually not, we've fought directly plenty of times) and still call IQ a new phenomena. You say HW's relationship with Lordaeron is exclusively with them, well I'm telling you a number of relationships over here are exclusively with each other. You deny my assertion of bilateral instead of multilateral relationships but continue to defend your own, how? Your consolidation gives you a distinct advantage.

While on the topic of HW, so they can't hit you easily and you say their relationship lies with Lordaeron exclusively. That doesn't take away from my point. Their relationship with Lordaeron is a lot more than what they have with anyone of us and while they cannot hit your nations easily they can hit ours, there is another side to that story you forgot again. Being more closely associated with a close ally of yours I'd say puts them more likely to support you in the event of a conflict and thus takes away from your no swing alliance point completely. You say you have a lot off holds but not a lot of pickups. Well, we have a lot of losses and very few pickups. Put it on a scale and I'd say IQ still comes out ahead. A tight core has undoubtedly been a deciding factor in conflicts. Whether alliances are willing to go offensive or defensive, whether they will hit alliance a or alliance b, whether they decide to stay in longer because they have a lot of allies in a conflict vs bowing out early when their ally leaves. These are factors that have decided wars in the past and all of the trends your sphere has undergone recently points to those factors being in your favor. And its why consolidating as you have been is a good thing if you want to go to war..

No, IQ is not change. The idea of alliances switching allegiances after a war is not new. Alliances deciding to join a losing side is not new. It has happened before in this world and in many others. Bipolarism is not new and its not change, its something contrary to your assertion of uni-polarity, ,has existed for the vast majority of the history of this world and IQ establishing yourselves they way you have are only perpetuating it. Actual change is not continuing bipolarirty, it is getting rid of it. While those theoretical proposals existed since before Papers Please, they didn't have anyone actively pushing for them to happen. That isn't the case now. There are plenty of ideas on how to go about getting rid of bipolarism and they are active in their desire. The practicality argument I've heard and addressed. Multipolar has existed, it is practical it only needs leaders who actually want to back up their rhetoric and buy into it. You seem to be afraid this change I am mentioning will revert to uni-polarity, you're unique with that fear, most folks seem to think it will revert to bipolarity, which I agree with. In any case even if it does, there is precedent both for alliances to leave a unipolar system and establish something else and (if multipolar is embraced) there would be precedent for folks to sit down at a table and self regulate. 

Yeah, ya still has access to the vast majority of nations in your range last war. Now you do + the extra range you can hit with an average of 13 cities. Amount of upper tier that can sit on top of you has diminished greatly, and while you most likely do not have an overwhelming advantage coming pretty close does the job doesn't it. Submarine does not require a large advantage, it requires activity and coordination. It is something NPO has demonstrated it excels at individually and your assistance to the rest of your sphere will prove invaluable. No actually it does have a value in the damage you will do to the previous untouched upper tiers of those alliances you mentioned :P. Ya folks lost people to deletions cities are lost. That happens to everyone. What matters is the scale of loss and gain and you can't reason away the gains you have made with the almost negligible losses. They don't reconcile. The two spheres stand at a point where anyone starting anything will result in untold destruction for either side. It is a unique situation that offers a unique opportunity to put aside the finger pointing and come together to bring about actual change that, will not result in unipolarity, but an active and dynamic multipolar world. 

GoB didn't need to fight no, but they are a loss. And we must not lose sight of the differences during which they did not need to fight. Last war HW came in and wrecked the upper tier of one of your stronger alliances in Zodiac, and now they arguably lie far closer to your side than ours. That huge pressure on the upper tier those wizards brought is no longer there and while we still retain upper tier dominance, it is not upper tier supremacy. Combined with the additional gains you have made in the mid tier, it is a tier that is much more contested since the end of the last war, and that is accentuated by GoB going paperless. A treaty with NK and WTF siding with nuke bloc are things that were already present. What you fail to take into account is how invested tS was to Easy Mode and when you casually write off their loss by suggesting Nuke bloc takes their place, says a lot about your knowledge of the dynamics in our sphere. I'm not saying I don't believe NK at their word when they say they'd defend us, but anticipating the entire's bloc's investment is the same level as tS's would be incorrect. That is why your level of consolidation is alarming, and directly contradicts your supposed rhetoric. Because there is that certainty you can read in the treaties, whereas you assume we're the same way, but we're not. 

You right off that unless like it has no chance of happening. There is piles and piles of history of that exact thing happening across many, many worlds. The alternative to uni polarity is not only bipolarity. Multipolar has proven to be the most dynamic and interesting form of political environment worlds like these have ever seen. Bipolarity just makes politics lazy and it robs smaller alliances of relative power. They become only one of a greater hole and their individual interests are sidetracked for the interests of the greater sphere. That still exists in multipolarity, but in that case, the relative power of smaller alliances is greater as they make up a larger percentage of their sphere and their non compliance means a greater percentage loss of their sphere. I believe if an alliance has a problem with another one in particular or group in particular, there should be an environment which they can act on that. Conflicts that are more personal to each alliance's interests is something we all should be looking for. When an alliance forgoes to use politics in the form of diplomacy or war simply because it would be too much of an inconvenience for them to trigger a colossal machine of treaties every single one of us should shed a tear. 

As far as the suspicion goes, you would have a point if a large portion of your sphere was not made up of alliances that previously worked with folks over here. We have a unique situation where folks on both sides have fought with each other and against each other. The type of bias you are referencing is much less so if a multipolar world were enacted because there are those previous relationships behind just the recent history and while, things may still default to the more recent ones for some of those folks, breaking the wheel allows for an untold amount of combinations and interactions.Will multiple poles truely  be exclusive? Probably not, but by breaking the paper, we make an environment with much more uncertainty. Folks may have people they like more than others even across poles but those ties are not put in paper. Paper gives a kind of funny interaction between alliances that are two folded. The first is certainty. When an alliance makes a joint announcement in paper they are telling their partner they have achieved a certain level of trust and commitment to the point where they are willing to announce it publicly. This sort of gesture makes people confident in their planning that certain things are to be expected in relation to others. That is to say, if I am hit by someone alliance b said to everyone that he'd defend me. That sort of certainty doesn't exist without the paper. Alliances can tell you up to the day you are attacked they have your back, but they can go back at the last second. The second point treaties bring is a kind of leverage against your partner. If they say publicly they'd do something and don't, the norm is for them to be ridiculed and lose PR, reducing their soft power. With no paper, you can't know for sure your agreement with alliance b is there or not and if its not alliance b is going to suffer a lot less from it (from other people). This creates a dynamic that is a lot more flexible in its interactions between people and while the interactions between alliancesThat means the members of a particular conflict are bonded a lot looser to each other and it opens up a lot more surface area of new interactions to take place, thus make new relationships and new politics. The disputes that cause separation you mentioned is a lot more likely to occur in a world where the gravitational pull of treaties are no longer there and the surface area of interaction has increased, making new politics. 

Relative to Syndi IQ ya, but relative to the sides that exist now. You guys are older than us. Easy Mode is not the same with tS, Mensa, TC, CF leaving, you can disagree but its not. And what IQ seems to be a champion of, which is bipolarism, is not recent at all. Its old and its worn out. Your perspective starts with the end of Silent, but there history beyond that and ignoring that only seems to be a choice made to suit your agenda, which is perpetuating the bipolar system. Your assertion that people are not willing to press a reset button also seems to be an assumption made to suit an agenda. I am willing to press a reset button, I am advocating for it. Only suspicion and ulterior motives are what stands against it from happening and that involves you and your view that fundamental change cannot happen. Which I may add, only adds to the problem. You can only look to your present allies and you lose your case right there. BK and NPO were at odds for how long and now you're in a bloc with a supremacy clause. Now much more proof do you need that the idea of change is possible when you're sitting right next to it?

1 hour ago, Insert Name Here said:

 

I won't bother reading it either, but my guess is that it's just the usual back and forth between bigshots of massive blob number 1 and massive blob number 2, which tends to precede every global war. 

Try reading it. And if you're interested in what I have to say, hit me up. 

32 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Gonna be frank on this: there isn't going to be a war most likely(well I don't have any plans in that regard atm) unless some other party does something and the only possibility is something that's turning out to be a nothingburger. I mainly responded since there's been increasing rhetoric that sort of hypes up the interlocking treaties between IQ as representing some sort of definitive edge and people are seeing IQ as unilaterally stifling the game for not breaking up because tS went paperless.

I am not advocating you unilaterally break up, if you've heard my talks with your fellow IQ leaders it is in fact the opposite of that. A mutual agreement to break the wheel. If you don't then yeah, you kinda are showing your cards that you aren't really interested in change, but the status quo. 

  • Upvote 1

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mogar said:

Winning > Political Beliefs Kayser. It's great to believe you want a multipolar world when you're on the losing side, but why bother actually trying to fight for that when you can actually win for once?

I'd agree if the historical rhetoric from some of the folks weren't railing against the bipolar system and calling for some sort of fundamental change. I want to see exactly how much of that was genuine and how much of that was just convenient rhetoric in order to garner political favor. 

I actually want to act on that desire of fundamentally changing the system and if anyone wants that too, you should support it. 

Edited by Kayser

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kayser said:

There is no way to measure how much more certainty they add. But I'm glad your recognize it does add to your advantages. The VE entry and the redundant treaties..No, an appearance of potential change doesn't make it realistic, but letting everyone know you're slamming the door on the idea of change says a lot about what your future plans are. 

Yeah ofc a paperless alliance is more likely to enter on a side they liike, no argument there. That's they thing they can enter, its not a definite thing and just because they'd most likely side with us in most situations does not mean they will. That is another part of that certainty advantage we were talking about earlier, and how IQ has relative to Easy Mode, has a lot more of it. You know what their exit does that acts as the complete opposite from the policy most IQ members have embraced recently? An actual potential for change. You to make them like you so they're more likely to enter on your side or sit out, talk to them. EMC alliances have actually put their money where your mouth should be and are actually taking steps to bring about change. Just because you feel as if they don't like you doesn't take away from what they have done and what it means to us. They have the potential for change being paperless and that is a lot more than anyone can say for IQ since the end of the war.  

These several significant alliances, you're going to have to put a name to that. I can off the bat say you may mean HBE, You guys lost them because you had a falling out over ally obligations. That's not even a bid for trying to change the dynamic of anything. Yeah, looking at it without the cause for their exit it is still a loss for you, but even so, it pales in comparison that was the tS, TC, CF exit. So why even bring it up? Its a hard stretch to even compare the two. 

So, because the relations between ParaCov were not as close as our relationship with tS means you cannot comprehend a world where they are actually telling the truth and are separate? That is not skepticism that is borderline paranoia. And it has to call into question whether is denial  of the legitimacy of their move has an ulterior motive. You really have not brought up a legitimate reason why you suspect the move other than a feeling that because we've known each other for a long time, we can't be separate. That is a complete paper thin reason. Drawing the differences between our relationship and the one that existed between ParaCov is valid but its not as valid as the arguments you made yourself in the wake of Silent about one side's continued consolidation in the face of another's change. You're completely contradicting your past stance in almost the same circumstances. You're just on the other side of it and it only makes your present arguments, in light of your previous ones, appear fake.Fact is Easy Mode is actually the face of dynamism now and you're arguing for continued consolidation and the status quo. 

No, the level of cohesion is no where the level a direct MD level treaty provides. There is daylight between plenty of the folks over here in certain areas and that is really not seen with the web of treaties you have signed together as a sphere. If you believe the relationship between Rose and NK is the same as SK and Zodiac, you're out of your mind. There is no comparison history be damned, for public paper. Hell, Rose this alliance that you seem to attribute to us as some sort of long term historical ally, has only aligned with us for a bit longer than IQ itself has been a thing. How can you argue that we are historical allies (when we're actually not, we've fought directly plenty of times) and still call IQ a new phenomena. You say HW's relationship with Lordaeron is exclusively with them, well I'm telling you a number of relationships over here are exclusively with each other. You deny my assertion of bilateral instead of multilateral relationships but continue to defend your own, how? Your consolidation gives you a distinct advantage.

While on the topic of HW, so they can't hit you easily and you say their relationship lies with Lordaeron exclusively. That doesn't take away from my point. Their relationship with Lordaeron is a lot more than what they have with anyone of us and while they cannot hit your nations easily they can hit ours, there is another side to that story you forgot again. Being more closely associated with a close ally of yours I'd say puts them more likely to support you in the event of a conflict and thus takes away from your no swing alliance point completely. You say you have a lot off holds but not a lot of pickups. Well, we have a lot of losses and very few pickups. Put it on a scale and I'd say IQ still comes out ahead. A tight core has undoubtedly been a deciding factor in conflicts. Whether alliances are willing to go offensive or defensive, whether they will hit alliance a or alliance b, whether they decide to stay in longer because they have a lot of allies in a conflict vs bowing out early when their ally leaves. These are factors that have decided wars in the past and all of the trends your sphere has undergone recently points to those factors being in your favor. And its why consolidating as you have been is a good thing if you want to go to war..

No, IQ is not change. The idea of alliances switching allegiances after a war is not new. Alliances deciding to join a losing side is not new. It has happened before in this world and in many others. Bipolarism is not new and its not change, its something contrary to your assertion of uni-polarity, ,has existed for the vast majority of the history of this world and IQ establishing yourselves they way you have are only perpetuating it. Actual change is not continuing bipolarirty, it is getting rid of it. While those theoretical proposals existed since before Papers Please, they didn't have anyone actively pushing for them to happen. That isn't the case now. There are plenty of ideas on how to go about getting rid of bipolarism and they are active in their desire. The practicality argument I've heard and addressed. Multipolar has existed, it is practical it only needs leaders who actually want to back up their rhetoric and buy into it. You seem to be afraid this change I am mentioning will revert to uni-polarity, you're unique with that fear, most folks seem to think it will revert to bipolarity, which I agree with. In any case even if it does, there is precedent both for alliances to leave a unipolar system and establish something else and (if multipolar is embraced) there would be precedent for folks to sit down at a table and self regulate. 

Yeah, ya still has access to the vast majority of nations in your range last war. Now you do + the extra range you can hit with an average of 13 cities. Amount of upper tier that can sit on top of you has diminished greatly, and while you most likely do not have an overwhelming advantage coming pretty close does the job doesn't it. Submarine does not require a large advantage, it requires activity and coordination. It is something NPO has demonstrated it excels at individually and your assistance to the rest of your sphere will prove invaluable. No actually it does have a value in the damage you will do to the previous untouched upper tiers of those alliances you mentioned :P. Ya folks lost people to deletions cities are lost. That happens to everyone. What matters is the scale of loss and gain and you can't reason away the gains you have made with the almost negligible losses. They don't reconcile. The two spheres stand at a point where anyone starting anything will result in untold destruction for either side. It is a unique situation that offers a unique opportunity to put aside the finger pointing and come together to bring about actual change that, will not result in unipolarity, but an active and dynamic multipolar world. 

GoB didn't need to fight no, but they are a loss. And we must not lose sight of the differences during which they did not need to fight. Last war HW came in and wrecked the upper tier of one of your stronger alliances in Zodiac, and now they arguably lie far closer to your side than ours. That huge pressure on the upper tier those wizards brought is no longer there and while we still retain upper tier dominance, it is not upper tier supremacy. Combined with the additional gains you have made in the mid tier, it is a tier that is much more contested since the end of the last war, and that is accentuated by GoB going paperless. A treaty with NK and WTF siding with nuke bloc are things that were already present. What you fail to take into account is how invested tS was to Easy Mode and when you casually write off their loss by suggesting Nuke bloc takes their place, says a lot about your knowledge of the dynamics in our sphere. I'm not saying I don't believe NK at their word when they say they'd defend us, but anticipating the entire's bloc's investment is the same level as tS's would be incorrect. That is why your level of consolidation is alarming, and directly contradicts your supposed rhetoric. Because there is that certainty you can read in the treaties, whereas you assume we're the same way, but we're not. 

You right off that unless like it has no chance of happening. There is piles and piles of history of that exact thing happening across many, many worlds. The alternative to uni polarity is not only bipolarity. Multipolar has proven to be the most dynamic and interesting form of political environment worlds like these have ever seen. Bipolarity just makes politics lazy and it robs smaller alliances of relative power. They become only one of a greater hole and their individual interests are sidetracked for the interests of the greater sphere. That still exists in multipolarity, but in that case, the relative power of smaller alliances is greater as they make up a larger percentage of their sphere and their non compliance means a greater percentage loss of their sphere. I believe if an alliance has a problem with another one in particular or group in particular, there should be an environment which they can act on that. Conflicts that are more personal to each alliance's interests is something we all should be looking for. When an alliance forgoes to use politics in the form of diplomacy or war simply because it would be too much of an inconvenience for them to trigger a colossal machine of treaties every single one of us should shed a tear. 

As far as the suspicion goes, you would have a point if a large portion of your sphere was not made up of alliances that previously worked with folks over here. We have a unique situation where folks on both sides have fought with each other and against each other. The type of bias you are referencing is much less so if a multipolar world were enacted because there are those previous relationships behind just the recent history and while, things may still default to the more recent ones for some of those folks, breaking the wheel allows for an untold amount of combinations and interactions.Will multiple poles truely  be exclusive? Probably not, but by breaking the paper, we make an environment with much more uncertainty. Folks may have people they like more than others even across poles but those ties are not put in paper. Paper gives a kind of funny interaction between alliances that are two folded. The first is certainty. When an alliance makes a joint announcement in paper they are telling their partner they have achieved a certain level of trust and commitment to the point where they are willing to announce it publicly. This sort of gesture makes people confident in their planning that certain things are to be expected in relation to others. That is to say, if I am hit by someone alliance b said to everyone that he'd defend me. That sort of certainty doesn't exist without the paper. Alliances can tell you up to the day you are attacked they have your back, but they can go back at the last second. The second point treaties bring is a kind of leverage against your partner. If they say publicly they'd do something and don't, the norm is for them to be ridiculed and lose PR, reducing their soft power. With no paper, you can't know for sure your agreement with alliance b is there or not and if its not alliance b is going to suffer a lot less from it (from other people). This creates a dynamic that is a lot more flexible in its interactions between people and while the interactions between alliancesThat means the members of a particular conflict are bonded a lot looser to each other and it opens up a lot more surface area of new interactions to take place, thus make new relationships and new politics. The disputes that cause separation you mentioned is a lot more likely to occur in a world where the gravitational pull of treaties are no longer there and the surface area of interaction has increased, making new politics. 

Relative to Syndi IQ ya, but relative to the sides that exist now. You guys are older than us. Easy Mode is not the same with tS, Mensa, TC, CF leaving, you can disagree but its not. And what IQ seems to be a champion of, which is bipolarism, is not recent at all. Its old and its worn out. Your perspective starts with the end of Silent, but there history beyond that and ignoring that only seems to be a choice made to suit your agenda, which is perpetuating the bipolar system. Your assertion that people are not willing to press a reset button also seems to be an assumption made to suit an agenda. I am willing to press a reset button, I am advocating for it. Only suspicion and ulterior motives are what stands against it from happening and that involves you and your view that fundamental change cannot happen. Which I may add, only adds to the problem. You can only look to your present allies and you lose your case right there. BK and NPO were at odds for how long and now you're in a bloc with a supremacy clause. Now much more proof do you need that the idea of change is possible when you're sitting right next to it?

I don't see how it's slamming the door. In GoG's they worked with the options available to them. When most of the big alliances are still tied together, it's not going to be a surprise if people outside will close ranks.

There's potential for change in any alliance. Some alliances that treaties recently discussed going paperless. The potential doesn't mean much. It's actualization that matters. No assurances. You can talk about tS, but no one else in EMC has done anything. There are more mutual ties now than there were before. I don't think anyone of the 3 alliances that went paperless said  they're totally separate.

You listed one of the alliances. The others would be UPN/ tTO who cancelled on NPO/BK respectively. That's a chunk of strength and now one only has a link to the treaty web trough an alliance that only has optional ties to Pantheon/TCW and no ties to IQ and the other has subordinated MD treaties to being a protectorate of a core alliance on your side. Another alliance, CKD only has optional treaties now whereas they had an MD with BK before the war.   I can say it's far less likely that any of those alliances help IQ than the alliances on your side that went paperless help your side.

I'm going to point a huge difference when you're talking about Silent and consolidation in the face of change. A side with an advantage was consolidating further in the face of a side that was fragmenting. When Paragon cancelled its treaties people were super angry and it contributed to coordination being much more difficult since some alliances were very skeptical of each other after that. I don't know anyone who has experienced a similar level of deterioration with tS.  Then after the side with the definitive victory continued to consolidate and add more alliances. There's a huge difference. 

I wasn't talking about NK specifically as they're more of an outlier. I was talking materially nuke bloc would offer similar amounts of NS. There's no daylight between Rose TKR. With Rose/TKR specifically which connects most of your side. Under the post-silent war government all of their activity has been tied towards furthering your side. It's not the same Rose you fought in any way except retaining some members and retaining the name. They even called themselves Rose 2.0 to try to act if there was no continuity in policy and durmij condemned almost everything done prior. Those aren't exclusively with each other. The vast majority of ties on your side between the biggest alliances aren't exclusive. I don't think Guardian won't intervene if someone they're not allied to but is allied to TKR is attacked. HW''s relationship is extremely exclusive with Lordaeron.

With HW, I don't know if it's a lot more, it's always possible they have paperless ties to alliances on your side. That's the level of connection I have to them politically. They can't hit yours without it being suicidal because you have all the upper tier. It would require a serious shift for it to be otherwise. A tight core does help, but all we have to go on that your core has weakened is tS paperless without relations deteriorating.  It wouldn't stop them from working in unison with your coalition ahead of time. Mensa's actives are largely in Guardian who are still tied, with a few being in TKR/tS. Treaties have never mattered with Syndisphere in terms of people being willing to deploy where needed.

IQ was change from the situation that had existed, a unipolar one. I'll qualify my argument with it being likely to revert to unipolarity. The only multipolar scenario previously was Paragon - Cov- Syndisphere. Neither of the first two could beat Syndisphere on its own and they never had the unity to beat Syndisphere, so Syndisphere was able to win and become dominant in the end in a unipolar capacity. Multiple poles will team up and if they win, they're likely to become the unipolar entity at some point if they don't believe they can win on their own or lose and a different pole establishes dominance as they fragment. I don't really have much of an interest risking a return to the post Silent war situation based on a whim and I imagine it's a real fear for many of the people on this side, which is the real motivation people have for more intrasphere treaties. 

Actually, we don't have as much real lower tier in the last war since we bought out of it for the most. For submarining to work you do need a number advantage as the point is to use multiple nations to bring down a bigger one. In the last war, its limitations were clear. Just as our ceiling for updec increased, the ceiling for downdec increased too.  So, you brought up Mensa but Zodiac lost members to splinters after the last war. CS is down 20 members since the last war, as well. other alliances on the side experienced similar losses. This isn't negligible. It's funny you mention Hogwarts wrecking Zodiac's upper tier. Zodiac's upper tier is mostly gone now and in AIM. An obligatory treaty wasn't present before between NK and TKR. Additionally, tS was invested in easy mode, but I don't believe they're divested now. I honestly don't know and anyone would be seriously concerned about it. I'm not casually writing it off, I'm questioning it.

It hasn't happened in other worlds without it in most cases  just going back to bipolarity and then one side being dominant and sometimes jettisoning components for curbstomps. That's the likely outcome. Your point about smaller alliances wielding more influence would hold if the multiple poles were truly separate, but that's unlikely. Facilitating curbstomps of small alliances isn't really my idea of a dynamic world, tbh. Conflicts that are more personal to interests aren't bad, but the manifestation of them usually is.

The suspicion is more than warranted. Nobody was happy with the alliances that broke off and people are still upset. Alliances like BK and CS got throttled PR-wise and are openly ridiculed still. It's not really much less so bias, because the bias will be shaped on prior actions. There is no reset. If it was realistic to believe prejudices would fade then I'd agree with you. It doesn't introduce real uncertainty, but merely formal uncertainty.There would be myriad understandings between alliances and they would try to achieve the certainty without it. There was a group of paperless alliances at the start of the game that were dominant.  You overstate the value of treaties. Coalition warfare has existed beyond any treaty obligations. Mensa always had a limited amount of treaties and yet an entire coalition would always come together to defend them when they were hit with no obligation.  There don't even need to be many treaties under the bipolar system as long as people are tied to hubs be it informally or formally and we can expect that in a multipolar system.   There's a point about shaming people, but most people wouldn't base their decision to honor treaties simply based on the shame. Most treaties already have non-chaining components and most alliances won't be attacked directly as is. Disputes under the current dynamic don't usually escalate because the costs outweigh the benefits and that wouldn't change.

The alliances that worked together in the last war for the most part are still in easy mode and had previously collaborated. The bulk of your current coalition participated in papers please, for instance.  The current bipolar dynamic is relatively recent. I mentioned an example of multipolar dynamic and its result, so there's nothing new under the sun. I mean, I could say you wanting this to happen now, rather than before is suiting an agenda too.It's not easy to build the faith and understanding that a reset would require. My view that positive change is unlikely is more because I know how people have operated here and there's a long history of grudges/predispositions that don't go away. I don't really lose my case, because BK-NPO is the exception rather than the rule. It didn't require a huge change in either alliance for it to come about. There's nothing else like it and that's a huge issue with this type of proposal.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I don't see how it's slamming the door. In GoG's they worked with the options available to them. When most of the big alliances are still tied together, it's not going to be a surprise if people outside will close ranks.

There's potential for change in any alliance. Some alliances that treaties recently discussed going paperless. The potential doesn't mean much. It's actualization that matters. No assurances. You can talk about tS, but no one else in EMC has done anything. There are more mutual ties now than there were before. I don't think anyone of the 3 alliances that went paperless said  they're totally separate.

You listed one of the alliances. The others would be UPN/ tTO who cancelled on NPO/BK respectively. That's a chunk of strength and now one only has a link to the treaty web trough an alliance that only has optional ties to Pantheon/TCW and no ties to IQ and the other has subordinated MD treaties to being a protectorate of a core alliance on your side. Another alliance, CKD only has optional treaties now whereas they had an MD with BK before the war.   I can say it's far less likely that any of those alliances help IQ than the alliances on your side that went paperless help your side.

I'm going to point a huge difference when you're talking about Silent and consolidation in the face of change. A side with an advantage was consolidating further in the face of a side that was fragmenting. When Paragon cancelled its treaties people were super angry and it contributed to coordination being much more difficult since some alliances were very skeptical of each other after that. I don't know anyone who has experienced a similar level of deterioration with tS.  Then after the side with the definitive victory continued to consolidate and add more alliances. There's a huge difference. 

I wasn't talking about NK specifically as they're more of an outlier. I was talking materially nuke bloc would offer similar amounts of NS. There's no daylight between Rose TKR. With Rose/TKR specifically which connects most of your side. Under the post-silent war government all of their activity has been tied towards furthering your side. It's not the same Rose you fought in any way except retaining some members and retaining the name. They even called themselves Rose 2.0 to try to act if there was no continuity in policy and durmij condemned almost everything done prior. It Those aren't exclusively with each other. The vast majority of ties on your side between the biggest alliances aren't exclusive. I don't think Guardian won't intervene if someone they're not allied to but is allied to TKR is attacked. HW''s relationship is extremely exclusive with Lordaeron.

With HW, I don't know if it's a lot more, it's always possible they have paperless ties to alliances on your side. That's the level of connection I have to them politically. They can't hit yours without it being suicidal because you have all the upper tier.It would require a serious shift for it to be otherwise. A tight core does help, but all we have to go on that your core has weakened is tS paperless without relations deteriorating.  It wouldn't stop them from working in unison with your coalition ahead of time. Mensa's actives are largely in Guardian who are still tied, with a few being in TKR/tS. Treaties have never mattered with Syndisphere in terms of people being willing to deplo where needed.

IQ was change from the situation that had existed, a unipolar one. I'll qualify my argument with it being likely to revert to unipolarity. The only multipolar scenario previously was Paragon - Cov- Syndisphere. Neither of the first two could beat Syndisphere on its own and they never had the unity to beat Syndisphere, so Syndisphere was able to win and become dominant in the end in a unipolar capacity. Multiple poles will team up and if they win, they're likely to become the unipolar entity at some point if they don't believe they can win on their own or lose and a different pole establishes dominance as they fragment. I don't really have much of an interest risking a return to the post Silent war situation based on a whim and I imagine it's a real fear for many of the people on this side, which is the real motivation people have for more intrasphere treaties. 

Actually, we don't have as much real lower tier in the last war since we bought out of it for the most. For submarining to work you do need a number advantage as the point is to use multiple nations to bring down a bigger one. In the last war, its limitations were clear. Just as our ceiling for updec increased, the ceiling for downdec increased too.  So, you brought up Mensa but Zodiac lost members to splinters after the last war. CS is down 20 members since the last war, as well. other alliances on the side experienced similar losses. This isn't negligble. It's funny you mention Hogwarts wrecking Zodiac's upper tier. Zodiac's upper tier is mostly gone now and in AIM.An obligatory treaty wasn't present before between NK and TKR. Additionally, tS was invested in easy mode, but I don't believe they're divested now. I honestly don't know and anyone would be seriously concerned about it. I'm not casually writing it off, I'm questioning it.

It hasn't happened in other worlds without it in most cases  just going back to bipolarity and then one side being dominant and sometimes jettisoning components for curbstomps. That's the likely outcome. Your point about smaller alliances wielding more influence would hold if the multiple poles were truly separate, but that's unlikely. Facilitating curbstomps of small alliances isn't really my idea of a dynamic world, tbh. Conflicts that are more personal to interests aren't bad, but the manifestation of them usually is.

The suspicion is more than warranted. Nobody was happy with the alliances that broke off and people are still upset. Alliances like BK and CS got throttled PR-wise and are openly ridiculed still. It's not really much less so bias, because the bias will be shaped on prior actions. There is no reset. If it was realistic to believe prejudices would fade then I'd agree with you. It doesn't introduce real uncertainty, but merely formal uncertainty.There would be myriad understandings between alliances and they would try to achieve the certainty without it. There was a group of paperless alliances at the start of the game that were dominant.  You overstate the value of treaties. Coalition warfare has existed beyond any treaty obligations. Mensa always had a limited amount of treaties and yet an entire coalition would always come together to defend them when they were hit with no obligation.  There don't even need to be many treaties under the bipolar system as long as people are tied to hubs be it informally or formally and we can expect that in a multipolar system.   There's a point about shaming people, but most people wouldn't base their decision to honor treaties simply based on the shame. Most treaties already have non-chaining components and most alliances won't be attacked directly as is. Disputes under the current dynamic don't usually escalate because the costs outweigh the benefits and that wouldn't change.

The alliances that worked together in the last war for the most part are still in easy mode and had previously collaborated. The bulk of your current coalition participated in papers please, for instance.  The current bipolar dynamic is relatively recent. I mentioned an example of multipolar dynamic and its result, so there's nothing new under the sun. I mean, I could say you wanting this to happen now, rather than before is suiting an agenda too.It's not easy to build the faith and understanding that a reset would require. My view that positive change is unlikely is more because I know how people have operated here and there's a long history of grudges/predispositions that don't go away. I don't really lose my case, because BK-NPO is the exception rather than the rule. It didn't require a huge change in either alliance for it to come about. There's nothing else like it and that's a huge issue with this type of proposal.

If you don't see it I can spell it out for you if you still cannot see if (or refuse to). Adding to your bloc tells people what kind of mindset you are in. The individual alliance doesn't matter. That isn't my point. You could have added Roz Wei and the significance of it would be the same. That you're looking to strengthen you bloc first and foremost and that leads me to believe you're less likely to accept any idea of change, hence slamming the door. 

Yes, each alliance does have the possibility to change, but the current system precludes them to retain a lot of relationships that would have otherwise gone out of favor if there wasn't paper there. A lot of leaders are lazy in that they often look to take an easy out whether the is defaulting to follow other allies into conflicts or citing treaty obligations to justify entering or not entering a conflict. The current system of treaty web is a cancer.that is sucking the politics out from game and that is why changing that system should be the goal of any leader that actually like the politics and war of this world. 

Of course no one else in Easy Mode has done anything since tS left. Look at the response they have seen afterwards. More IQ treaties. Are you telling me it is unreasonable for the alliances that decide not to follow tS are out of their mind because they believe unilateral change is unreasonable? I'm going to answer that question, its not. In fact it is worse than asking us to change unilaterally because IQ is moving in the negative direction in comparison to Easy Mode alliances. You're not only retaining your treaties after EM has dropped theirs, you're signing more. 

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Gonna be frank on this: there isn't going to be a war most likely(well I don't have any plans in that regard atm) unless some other party does something and the only possibility is something that's turning out to be a nothingburger. I mainly responded since there's been increasing rhetoric that sort of hypes up the interlocking treaties between IQ as representing some sort of definitive edge and people are seeing IQ as unilaterally stifling the game for not breaking up because tS went paperless.

How can you gripe about people having faults with IQ not acting unilaterally and then in the next post, call on EM to unilaterally act? These two posts within a very short span of time do not reconcile with each other. So, you can complain about folks wanting IQ to act but then turn around and point out that EMC has not acted unilaterally enough for you? Come on. Folks are point out this disconnect in ideals because they don't make sense and that is why folks are pointing out the fact you're signing more treaties and pointing to your past rhetoric and they're seeing the two do not match. 

Ok so you're saying you lost TTO and UPN, but UPN still retains a what, MD level treaty to an alliance closely tied to IQ? and TTO fought in the war for a fraction of the time, I can't really say they were decidedly IQ for that war. More like an independent actor that wanted to help out an ally. Their role in the war played little in the grand scheme of things and to consider their dropping as a loss is more than a stretch, its more like a sprain. Tell you what, if tS only dropped a couple of their treaties and still had a MD level to our side or TC wasn't considered a core EM alliance before they went paperless, you'd have a point. But there weren't and you don't. Ya still have paper between them one and another wasn't even considered in your sphere. As far as UPN/CKD goes, i can't say whether they're likely or not to fight with you, but you don't know for sure if tS will with us either. At least I am honest enough to admit that. For some reason you seem pretty confident in your projection despite being told otherwise. 

Better yet, if you do consider EM still a huge threat that you need to defend against, why not look into alternative methods like multipolar. Seems like a deal made in heaven for a besieged sphere looking for a compromise. Yet, from your comments on the idea, you don't seem keen to consider it for some reason. 

Ok, so your point of distinction between preSillent and now is that you believe the break was legitimate and now you don't. Another point seems to be that you believe the consolidated side preSilent was the stronger side and the fracturing one the weaker one.That is the gist I am getting. Who holds the advantage now is a point of contention so I cannot agree that the two situations are dissimilar because I don't agree we are as dominant as Syndisphere was preSilent. As for your other point no, we don't outright hate tS, and we weren't angry when they left. They'll do them. But that doesn't take away from the fact they left, and their departure is just as legitimate as the one you criticized us for not believing during Silent. But for some reason you believe it whether it is to continue an agenda or otherwise. If you want to know under what circumstances they'd fight with us, ask em that is up to them, I really have no clue. What I'm telling you is there is no obligation in either direction for them to and to continue to assume so and base your policies on that will only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy.

You're assuming the entirety of nuke bloc has a mdnap with TKR. What leaves you to believe this? We were attacked last war and that NS you're attributing to our coalition didn't move to defend us. Your assumptions have no basis. As far as exclusivity goes. I have said my piece regarding there being exclusive relationships. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you.

Cold hard paper that lies between HW and an alliance on your side tips the balance against any paperless agreements any day. Whether they exist or not. Judging from your response. It seems there is at least one additional agreement between NPO and HW in the form of a paperless agreement. Attributing HW to our coalition without any public agreements is just speculation and its bad speculation. tS going paperless along with their exclusive allies, is a sign that our core has suffered losses. To assume otherwise would be diving into conspiracy theory territory and that does not make a convincing argument. Again, I call back to your at this point seemingly contradictory stance regarding the departure of Paragon preSilent. 

IQ is the spiritual successor of the ParaCov coalition that stood as revisionist powers against Syndisphere. Yes immediately prior to its formation, the world was unipolar but that pales in comparison to the extent the world existed in a bipolar system.  You're continuing to selectively ignore the history of this world. It arguably lasted from Proxy to after Silent. And before then the world was multipolar. Guardiansphere, Paragon, the Covenant. Paragon 2.0,Syndisphere, and Paperlesssphere  It doesn't even stop with this world, another world say its most iconic moments happen in a multipolar world too,  The Unjust Path, SuperFriends, BLEU, OV, CDT, CnG, Citadel, OuT and even far into that game like, XX, DH, AZTEC, DR. All of these smaller spheres drove the politics of this world in an era that lasted many times longer than it did as a unipolar one. And that is completely removing the context with which Syndi claimed its dominance. It occurred over several hard fought wars. Most of these conflicts they weren't even the favored party. Just because Syndi did become the dominant sphere and went on to become a unipolar one, does not mean it was inevitable. It was a perfect storm that had to have several dominoes fall into place for it to happen assuming another multipolar world would end up as such stipulates those dominoes will fall into place again despite the privilege of history. And even if it does bounce back to a similar situation the journey along the way provided some of the most interesting interactions and relationships this world has ever seen. The journey itself to a hypothetical eventuality would be worth it and if we set the precedent to break the wheel to begin with we can do it all over again x years down the line it takes us to get there. Years of multipolarity is vastly more attractive to years of bipolarity. That seems to be a consensus. 

Yeah, I get that seems to be a real fear for folks on that side of the web. Which is why I'm trying to address it. Signing more intrapshere treaties is a reactive stance, not a proactive one. Folks want a multipolar world, they're just skeptical that it can work. Once you get over that skepticism and accept the possibility that someone could eventually become as strong as Syndi and it will be up to those leaders to deal with it, then the sooner we get to enjoy the pros that a multipolar world gives us and enjoy the ride and like I said if it does happen. Folks have already proven themselves capable of self regulating. 

Ya, you need folks under your up-declare in order to pin down the folks you hit. You also had that problem towards the end of last war when the coalition started eating its way up but you delt with the the same way you will deal with it in the future, by selling down and keeping them pinned. Its happened before and you still retain the capacity to do it again. Zodiac lost members to splinters that decided to sign onto your sign as protectorates. Still well within your sphere of influence and reinforcement range if it come down to it. I don't see how that counts as a loss. We didn't sign the Mensa splinters as protectorates and we didn't sign tS's exclusive allies to them either. That is real loss. 

You choose the believe whatever you want when it concerns to tS, any amount of information regarding the state of the relationship seems to be dismissed. 

That is the thing it is a cycle of change and it is going to over time manifest itself into various forms. We have already seen what happens in this world and the next when a side in a multipolar world gains a relative edge over the others. Everyone tries to destroy them. The same thing will happen if we try again but assuming the same outcome will happen just because we exist in a reality where it did (by the falling of a number of dominoes) isn't logical. And yes the interests of smaller alliances would become more influential in a multipolar world thanks for agreeing with me. Though, I cannot respond in kind to your assertion that multipolar would lead to one sided curbstomps. In fact history has shown us the conflicts in multipolar are some of the closest and fiercest fighting of any system. 

There were a number of reasons why people were unhappy with the initial change so I won't speak for all of them. I know I was upset with it because I knew it would mean war on allies we've been close to for a while and there was another possible alternative that wouldn't divide the world into two. Alas that was never acted upon and so we experienced the inevitable conclusion that unilateral change brought about. People are unhappy now because it seems the change that was the supposed justification for the move has only given us more of the same bipolarism that existed before the unipolarity. People are unhappy, because they know there is an alternative to bipolarism and that alternative is seemingly being rejected by your sphere. Whether that is the case or not idk, talks of this alternative are extremely young, but the underlining desire is old. 

What do you mean there is no reset? You're in a bloc with an alliance you've fought against twice! You're in a bloc with a bunch of alliances that used to be allied to the other side. And we're in close association to alliances that we've been bitter enemies with since our inception. There IS a reset of relations YOU just choose not to embrace it selectively because it would not suit YOUR agenda. Disputes are often not elected to be acted upon because of cost-benefit analysis, but that absolutely would change in multipolar. The difference of dragging in an entire machine to fight vs the cost of dragging in a vastly smaller scale into a conflict cannot be overstated. The various agendas and considerations you have to keep in mind when bonded by paper severely limits your potential actions. Because it only takes an alliance here and there in your coalition to decide not to back you and all of a sudden you're at an immense disadvantage in comparison to your enemies. Deciding enter conflicts only when the absolute greatest threat is at hand is DULL politics. There is a point about pr hits as you put it, but those non chaining treaties only lessen the blow for folks who do not honor their word. Alliances still retain that pr hit. That is not even mentioning the cookie cutter road map treaties present for alliance leaders who refuse to consider dynamic action even when it would be in their interests because of paper with alliances they no longer have the same relationship with. And yes, while we have seen some changes here and there with regards to alliances dropping or signing treaties, these moves are the exception, not the rule and that is important to remember. 

The alliances in IQ that fought together since the last war are almost entirely still with IQ. We can go back and forth. And if you believe we have an advantage over you, how would weakening ourselves suit our agenda? You can't reconcile the two. I want to bring about multipolar because I think that sort of system is the most fun. And why play a game if you don't think its fun. The bipolar dynamic isn't recent. Its been in place since 168 with a brief intermission after Silent. Yeah, multipolar isn't brand spanking out of the box new, but its been a lot longer since we've seen multipolar in-comparison to the other systems. Multipolar is also better, which is another reason to go with it. You could say me bringing it up is because of an agenda. Ok, but it really wouldn't further an agenda aimed to put TKR in the best possible position because we'd be kneecapping our support, cutting ties to allies we've known for a while, all while being the #1 alliance in the game and so the most likely target of any ambitious pole who would want to take us on. If I really wanted to give TKR the best chance of becoming the next uni-pole, I'd work to break alliances away from your sphere. But thats not what I'm doing.

I'm calling for mutual destruction of BOTH spheres so we can make a multipolar world and create a more enjoyable environment. The idea that you hold onto about past grudges only reinforces the fact. If you refuse to take an actual change, in light of the relationship you and BK now have as proof of concept you're only contradicting yourself. 

1 hour ago, Seeker said:

IQ: The first hegemoney to never win a war.

No one is saying you are a hegemoney. Only that the gap between the two spheres before the war and now is a lot closer and in light of the moves one side has made your side has only consolidated despite being the face of dynamicism. And that, if there is a desire to retain that narrative you should seriously consider alternate policies.

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.