Jump to content

Ogaden

Members
  • Posts

    1465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by Ogaden

  1. On 12/12/2021 at 2:27 PM, hidude45454 said:

    Are the terms of this still double the bid in damage or two rounds, whichever comes first? If so 1.2b of damage is already significantly less than one round and I would hardly call less than a round "involvement" in a global.

    That, and by the deadline the global will basically already be over so entering on either side would have basically zero effect (not to mention that 1.2b of damage is basically zero effect in and of itself)

    Ahh but have you considered that if you bid say, 1 billion, that is at least 2 billion in damage?  If you bid 2 billion that's 4 billion in damage, which is serious damage!

    • Like 1
  2. 8 hours ago, Zukran said:

    NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it.  Having such large blocs requires alliances to be in a large bloc purely for safety, which further stagnates the game. If we really want a dynamic game that doesn't revolve around 1 or 2 lopsided global wars every year, we need to break up the blocs.

    Doing so will create dozens of smaller wars and conflicts that would greatly increase activity. So many wars aren't started or avoid purely because of blocs.

    • "We can't attack them they are in x bloc"
    • "Our alliance has only 30 people, their alliance has 30, but their bloc has 500"
    • "We want to attack this alliance, but they are in x bloc, will our bloc come to our aid? No? ok we wont attack"

    Getting rid of NAPS is masking the underlying problem that no one wants to address. This is like trying to use scotch tape over a foundational crack.

    This wont solve anything.

     

    The stagnation is due to the constraints on sovereign action that bind alliances.  Non aggression pacts are one such constraint, but so are blocs and all treaties especially mutual defense treaties.  Every time you commit to mutual defense you give up some of your sovereignty, and people with more than two allies basically no longer have control over their foreign policy.

    The root of this is naturally a combination of cowardice and an aversion to the responsibilities that entail being a fully sovereign alliance.  Why do all that thinking about strategy and goals when you can just hitch your wagon to someone else to do that.  The problem is when everyone does that, the wagons are hitched in a circle and can no longer move.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  3. 11 minutes ago, Deulos said:

    Terrible decision, Ogaden. You're just supporting your own demise by defending TKR. 

    Arrgh doesn't really have a stake in the broader geopolitics of the war.  There are various people on both sides who would prefer we were dead, and there are also various people on both sides who are friends or ex-captains including yourself.

    Our primary motivation here is to reclaim some of our role as an active player in Orbis politics, and have some fun violence, pillage some loot, pad some stats, and fight with some new and interesting opponents.  Fighting on the big side doesn't present many opportunities for either glory or even much in the way of loot.

    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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