Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Prefontaine

Orbis, let's have a chat.

Recommended Posts

Agreed. It's a game people, don't forget to have a lil fun ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Valid CB.

noo pls that's not a valid cb 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I'd like to start by saying this is not directed specifically at current events, but a trend that current events are an example off. Often times the side who is on the defensive end of a war having been attacked inevitably bring up arguments about a "valid CB". To the credit of most participants in the current war it's not as prevalent this time though there have been several comments publicly and others privately made regarding the validity of a the CB used here. I'm not here to argue which side or right, or wrong. I'm here to tell you it does not matter which side is right or wrong. 

If your alliance is attacked by someone, their reason for it is valid. If their reason was they attacked you for fun, if they attacked you because they had intel you might be plotting against them, if someone insulted you or your alliance. Whatever motivated you and your alliance to go to war is a valid reason for that war. It does not matter if the defensive side considers your reason for war valid in terms of why the war is happening, nor should it be complained about. The only time a valid CB should be considered part of the equation is during the peace negotiations. Should the defensive side pull a victory over their aggressors and they deem their CB as a load of crap, perhaps the peace terms might not be so pleasant. 

The point is, don't complain that you're being attacked without a valid CB. Just because the reason for the war might not seem like a reason to you, doesn't mean it's not a reason for the attacker. If someone's justification for war is that they believe it might be a good fight, then that is a valid justification for that alliance regardless of if it is for yours. The important thing is to find an alliance who's CB standards matches with yours. If you feel you need a detailed provocation, then find an alliance who follows that general rule. If you want a more relaxed fun based reason for going to war, find an alliance that follows that rule. Good and evil are perspective, validity of CB's are the same.  

Lots of people, myself included, are guilty of succumbing to the CB blame game. But lets focus less on the reason for the war being valid or not, and focus on generating politics based off the wars. 

 

tl;dr CBs are bullshit. 

50% of orbis be like: SRkf2We.gif
50% be like:                 XEqYpgB.gif

MDL be like:  95zrlrj.gif

Edited by MonkeyDLegend
MDL:
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Lots of people, myself included, are guilty of succumbing to the CB blame game. But lets focus less on the reason for the war being valid or not, and focus on generating politics based off the wars. 

tl;dr CBs are bullshit. 

 

17 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I'll bite. A little. Just a nibble!

Really, I see the CB debate as part of an associated pr war, which is important for negotiations, as you say, and all the things that happen between wars. There's a sliding scale of validity in reasons to attack another alliance that everyone has a place on, and people try to make their reasoning look as appealing to other parties as they possibly can. It's bullshit in the sense that you can't quantify or pin down its effects, but not in the sense that it's meaningless, because it's not meaningless to a lot of people.

"Just because the reason for the war might not seem like a reason to you, doesn't mean it's not a reason for the attacker." This is true enough. But why wouldn't it work in reverse? "Just because your reason for war seems valid to you, doesn't mean it's a reason for the defender." The friction between those two statements is political fodder, which is a thing we are here for.

 

I'm with Thrax on this one a bit. First, CBs are awesome, the debate over the validity of CBs is not. As I've said before I want every war to have a CB just because I'm curious, it could be as stupid or as pointless as "We're bored."

Second, the vast majority of the politics of this game is driven by the debate over the validity of any number of actions, more often than not it is CBs, so I'm not sure how we can generate the politics aspect if we just take CBs as valid?

It's a weird ass conundrum that is frustrating, sure, but I'm not sure what would fill the void if we all just dropped it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever constitutes a valid war is going to differ from person to person and from alliance to alliance. There isn't a higher arbiter that can adjudicate wars other than Sheepy. 'sides that it is in the court of public opinion whether a war is justified or not. Now we as a community can have certain standards when it comes citing reasons for war and we can like one reason more or less than another. At the end of the day if you want to war successfully an alliance or individual has to keep in mind the different metrics of opinions out there. Because those folks have an impact on your experience in this game. No one exists in a vacuum. 

And its fair game for someone to contest another's reason for war. That's part of the politics. Convincing others one guy is virtuous or the big bad. One of the only weapons a smaller party has in a war is propaganda. Let them try to win the hearts and minds of the folk.  I wouldn't be quick to set an argument that would rob them of that. And it would definitely tone down some of the quality of the conflicts in this place if everyone resigned any conflict as entirely valid or not for any party. Sure, folks may be more likely to go to war for shits and giggles. That could be fun, but I personally derive more entertainment from wars that I feel have stakes, or result from actual effort being put into their preparation. We can have frequent wars, but we can also have some standards. But that's me. I don't care to force this opinion on anyone else, just expressing it. 

Personally, I like to have a bit of flavor in my wars. If people do it right, it can add quality content for us all to pour over. Its a lot more fun that way. 

 

tl;dr: CB's are whatever you want them to be

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars still end with one side claiming victory and enforcing peace terms over the other?

I thought that hadn't been a thing for a while. I wish it were a thing still, i'm given to understand it's not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

I'd like to start by saying this is not directed specifically at current events, but a trend that current events are an example off. Often times the side who is on the defensive end of a war having been attacked inevitably bring up arguments about a "valid CB". To the credit of most participants in the current war it's not as prevalent this time though there have been several comments publicly and others privately made regarding the validity of a the CB used here. I'm not here to argue which side or right, or wrong. I'm here to tell you it does not matter which side is right or wrong. 

 If your alliance is attacked by someone, their reason for it is valid. If their reason was they attacked you for fun, if they attacked you because they had intel you might be plotting against them, if someone insulted you or your alliance. Whatever motivated you and your alliance to go to war is a valid reason for that war. It does not matter if the defensive side considers your reason for war valid in terms of why the war is happening, nor should it be complained about. The only time a valid CB should be considered part of the equation is during the peace negotiations. Should the defensive side pull a victory over their aggressors and they deem their CB as a load of crap, perhaps the peace terms might not be so pleasant. 

 The point is, don't complain that you're being attacked without a valid CB. Just because the reason for the war might not seem like a reason to you, doesn't mean it's not a reason for the attacker. If someone's justification for war is that they believe it might be a good fight, then that is a valid justification for that alliance regardless of if it is for yours. The important thing is to find an alliance who's CB standards matches with yours. If you feel you need a detailed provocation, then find an alliance who follows that general rule. If you want a more relaxed fun based reason for going to war, find an alliance that follows that rule. Good and evil are perspective, validity of CB's are the same. 

Lots of people, myself included, are guilty of succumbing to the CB blame game. But lets focus less on the reason for the war being valid or not, and focus on generating politics based off the wars. 

 

tl;dr CBs are bullshit. 

Would the validation of war through CB-centered politics not in itself constitute generating politics? I'd prefer seeing arguments over the validity of CBs *more*, rather than less. Especially if these arguments spill over into rivalries and are eventually acted upon.

38 minutes ago, Hilmes said:

Whatever constitutes a valid war is going to differ from person to person and from alliance to alliance. There isn't a higher arbiter that can adjudicate wars other than Sheepy. 'sides that it is in the court of public opinion whether a war is justified or not. Now we as a community can have certain standards when it comes citing reasons for war and we can like one reason more or less than another. At the end of the day if you want to war successfully an alliance or individual has to keep in mind the different metrics of opinions out there. Because those folks have an impact on your experience in this game. No one exists in a vacuum. 

And its fair game for someone to contest another's reason for war. That's part of the politics. Convincing others one guy is virtuous or the big bad. One of the only weapons a smaller party has in a war is propaganda. Let them try to win the hearts and minds of the folk.  I wouldn't be quick to set an argument that would rob them of that. And it would definitely tone down some of the quality of the conflicts in this place if everyone resigned any conflict as entirely valid or not for any party. Sure, folks may be more likely to go to war for shits and giggles. That could be fun, but I personally derive more entertainment from wars that I feel have stakes, or result from actual effort being put into their preparation. We can have frequent wars, but we can also have some standards. But that's me. I don't care to force this opinion on anyone else, just expressing it. 

Personally, I like to have a bit of flavor in my wars. If people do it right, it can add quality content for us all to pour over. Its a lot more fun that way. 

 

tl;dr: CB's are whatever you want them to be

I volunteer to be this higher arbiter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBs are not necessary as far as I know for the purpose of a war. I think they are more used for validity - as money of you will agree - public shame, letting others join in the war or having a reason for which allies should aid.

Edited by Godwinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

The way I see cb's is, it's what you're willing to be hit over. For example if you hit someone because they talked shit about your alliance, then if your alliance does that and is hit, well then it is only fair. You set the precedent that talking shit is enough to roll someone, you can't be upset about someone else doing it to you.

I agree with this pretty strongly too. That's why I see so much use for all the debate... you're building a nexus of precedents that inform future play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing others' comments here, I think the addition of CBs is a fun aspect to the game. Sure, they might not technically be necessary. After all, this is a game, do we really need a reason to war? But I agree with others that they add more to the game by contributing to the PR/propaganda aspects and future gameplay. The politics part of the game is important too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some of you misconstrued what I'm saying, it might be the tl;dr's fault. CB's are fine to have. Complaining about invalid CBs is pointless as you're not the one who's declaring the war.

 

59 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

The way I see cb's is, it's what you're willing to be hit over. For example if you hit someone because they talked shit about your alliance, then if your alliance does that and is hit, well then it is only fair. You set the precedent that talking shit is enough to roll someone, you can't be upset about someone else doing it to you.

This is right, to a point. With the frequent leadership changes alliances often face what one person finds acceptable for a CB can very greatly. Very different leaders might have very different principals on what to go to war over. Then holding them to previous practices and standards makes things a little muddied. 

1 hour ago, Lairah said:

Wars still end with one side claiming victory and enforcing peace terms over the other?

I thought that hadn't been a thing for a while. I wish it were a thing still, i'm given to understand it's not. 

Often the aggressor is the victor. Their goal is typically beating the snot out of the other side. However if the defender wins and feel unjustly attacked that's where you often see terms. Thus why I say debating over who's right and wrong in reasons for attacking is pointless because the aggressor wouldn't go to war unless they wanted to in most cases. 

 

EDIT: One thing however, lying about what your CB is, is a whole other matter. Trying to bullshit people to think your smashing someone that you just want to smash for some higher reason is a different mess. 

Edited by Prefontaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Perhaps some of you misconstrued what I'm saying, it might be the tl;dr's fault. CB's are fine to have. Complaining about invalid CBs is pointless as you're not the one who's declaring the war.

 

This is right, to a point. With the frequent leadership changes alliances often face what one person finds acceptable for a CB can very greatly. Very different leaders might have very different principals on what to go to war over. Then holding them to previous practices and standards makes things a little muddied. 

Often the aggressor is the victor. Their goal is typically beating the snot out of the other side. However if the defender wins and feel unjustly attacked that's where you often see terms. Thus why I say debating over who's right and wrong in reasons for attacking is pointless because the aggressor wouldn't go to war unless they wanted to in most cases. 

 

EDIT: One thing however, lying about what your CB is, is a whole other matter. Trying to bullshit people to think your smashing someone that you just want to smash for some higher reason is a different mess. 

 

No, we're not misconstrueing it :P.

 

My point (and others with me I think) was that complaining about invalid CB's is an aspect of political gameplay. I'd rephrase that from "complaining about" to "Challenging CB justification". Even if you are getting your snot kicked in, being smart about how you handle being beaten can help you set up for the long-term revenge. A part of that is controlling CB-related narrative. If the defendant is supposed to shut up and take it because its pointless to argue back, we would see a "might-makes-right" kind of situation, even more so than it already is.

 

Let the war for the hearts and minds of the people continue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

I volunteer to be this higher arbiter.

The beauty is you're already one. We all are! 

To win you just have to convince folks one opinion should be accepted over all the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

No, we're not misconstrueing it :P.

 

My point (and others with me I think) was that complaining about invalid CB's is an aspect of political gameplay. I'd rephrase that from "complaining about" to "Challenging CB justification". Even if you are getting your snot kicked in, being smart about how you handle being beaten can help you set up for the long-term revenge. A part of that is controlling CB-related narrative. If the defendant is supposed to shut up and take it because its pointless to argue back, we would see a "might-makes-right" kind of situation, even more so than it already is.

 

Let the war for the hearts and minds of the people continue!

Edit: Never mind. I'll save us several walls of text. You won't change your mind. I won't change mine.

Edited by Prefontaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on why you're complaining about the CBs really. There do tend to be people coming out (less so this war than others) who's objections seem more procedural, that you fundamentally are playing the game wrong by not having CB, or having a bad one. These tend to be the same sorts of people who complain about alliances entering into conflicts without treaties and other issues of procedure, and they definitely need to read Pre's post. People can play how they want and don't need the approval of others to do it.

But I would say there is real military and political value to a good CB, and the CB debate. In some wars, the CB can be just as important, if not more so, than the actual blitz. Sure you can win a war without one, but you're going to have a harder time winning the peace if the rest of the world comes away worried that they will be next on the chopping block.

 

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

. EDIT: One thing however, lying about what your CB is, is a whole other matter. Trying to bullshit people to think your smashing someone that you just want to smash for some higher reason is a different mess. 

I would honestly say this is the most important aspect of CBs and the debate around them. Why people think you are attacking is going to determine how they view you post-war. If you go around attacking anyone who might be a threat, or just because you can, that's going to cause problems later. The last thing you want is everyone else feeling like they're next. Do you want coalitions? Because that's how you get coalitions. 

Its why we tried to come up with good CB's in the SK-Guardian-Mensa days, even when half the time the reason was just "you're a threat, we're eliminating you." And of course even if the public CB is the real one, if the enemy can cast doubt on that fact it can still weaken your position. I'm sure you know this, but its worth stating because it seems like something many haven't considered.

So for KT-TGH, complaining about and arguing over the CB is a way to paint a target on TKRs back. If they can successfully construe the war as a wanton act of aggression by the largest alliances in the game, the rest of orbis is more likely to get worried and potential set aside their differences and come together to strike TKR later. On the other hand, if TKR successfully portrays this as a justified response to repeated provocations, we're all less likely to fear that TKR is looking to throw its weight around, and will likely continue focusing on our own squabbles. In this case how the CB is perceived will setup future conflicts.

 

tl:dr - Having a good CB or undermining one is important for warding off coalitions or setting up future wars by painting one side in a negative light.Argue for that point, flavor, or RP. But if you think an alliance actually needs a reason to fight, or they are fundamentally doing it wrong and illegitimate, you need to listen to Pre.

 

 

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly, as much as I don't think CBs are needed, they can indeed work with or against a side in a time of war PR-wise. Additionally, it also provide entertainment for the peanut gallery.

From another standpoint, casus belli are part of the political side of the game, and you can justify them to your alliance members, allies, other parties as well as enemies. Whether those others will accept your point of view and the legitimacy of your reasons is all-together another thing entirely.

So that is one of the things that is part of the player-brought politics to the nation sim, although it is the onus of other parties to dispute a CB justified against them regardless. Even without a CB, that doesn't prevent an opposing party in a war from disputing why they were attacked, if they can see reasons or not. So, as long as there is salt (and there is an unquantifiable bounty in this throughout the community), CBs, imagined or otherwise, will always be disputed. So Pre-pontification over this point may raise an issue for discussion, but I doubt you'll have an affect on practices as done by the community.

It's good you clarified your point, because I read your post and I still came away with "CBs aren't needed to hit people", which I agree with and in the grand scale of things, it never matters which side is "right" or "wrong", that's arbitrary morality and ultimately subjective, which you've acknowledged in your initial post. Therefore this same subjectivity is applicable to your argument too, since it's also about the validity of CBs and complaining about them, or complaining about complaining about them, as the case may be.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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