Jump to content

Orbis, let's have a chat.


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

The debate over validity of CB is the only thing FA has to offer, that and bank-robberies, AA's dying or being couped and general salt, I may have messed my opening argument up little there :D My point is every thing about CB's adds to the general drama of the game, if you hate it quit, it's as simple as that, it's not like Alex has us all captivated behind the screens. CBs and all that goes with it is part of the game, important, foolish, annoying, beautiful part, it doesn't really matter here.

While I can get many arguments presented up above, I still stand in my belief of CBs here, they'll stay here, you can !@#$ about CBs as much as you like, they are part of natural laws on Orbis and there is little anyone can do about it, unless you can talk Alex into another stupid wartime update banning huge part of the  meta-game and generally making things worse again. :D

Those are just my worthless 2 cents on the matter. Feel free to do with em as you like :P  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

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. 

That's true, also if that leader goes to another alliance later down the track. Are they still held accountable for their positions running a different alliance in the past?

And how long do we keep them accountable to these standards, after some time someone could easily say that their views have changed. So yeah, it is muddied. Although the game does seem to discredit digging back too far to use as justifications for the present.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Don Juan said:

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.

 

I guess as sufficient wrap up of my original thoughts and the subsequent comments is that CBs only have as much stock as you put in them, but you shouldn't put too much stock in them. Someone's CB isn't invalid just because you believe it is, if it's valid to them then it's valid because they're the ones acting upon it. You can find it lacking by your standards of CB-quality but that does not undermine is validity. 

From a personal stand point I find people putting far too much stock into CBs these days, which is why I made this thread, to have a (surprisingly) civil discussion on the matter. I don't like CBs being treated as a political handcuff for acting because I do like political activity. War is what generates our political friction. There's plenty of other things that cause political events but without war there is no consequence to our political moves. I don't want alliances to feel like they have to appeal to the older alliances on what is acceptable to go to war. You can fight whom you want over whatever you want.  

  • Upvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying that discussing CBs is important to politics, but I don't think that's true in the majority of cases, even though it can be.

The problem is a lot of posts are just "you have no CB" or "you're CB sucks.". If a lack of CB is the beginning and the end of your discussion, you have contributed nothing. You aren't going to make the enemy care about your points or think they are in the wrong. You might make 3rd parties care, but you have to work for it.

Use your words and actual arguments to explain why the CB is good and people should support you, or at the very least stay neutral. Explain why the CB is bad, and why that reflects badly on the aggressor, such that us 3rd parties should be wary of them if not outright join in coalition against them later.

Use the CBs to control the narrative about the war and shape public opinion to craft a more favorable political landscape post war. Proper framing can diplomatically isolate an opponent, and shape / fuel future action. Just going "No CB no War" shuts down future action.

To the credit of this war, much of the discussion between leaders and prominent members has been of this type, but there are still an unfortunate amount of the more basic complaints, something which is even more depressingly common in other conflicts / combatants.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not wish to have a debate about the validity of your CB, do not provide one for public comment. This is very simple.

I'm not that keen on tone policing what discussions can be had in a way that best befits my self appointed view of what would be most emotionally fulfilling for me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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. 

have you even fought in a war 

aka Filip, The Royalist or Tremor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think this is an either/or thing. You can’t always have CBs, but they spice things up. Declaring for no reason is whatever, but it’s not interesting. This game is about drama and politics, not just war. Declaring on people for no reason in and of itself creates a CB for the defensive party. So we definitely need both happening to have a healthy amount of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that complaining about CBs is pointless. What I'm 100% confident you all mean to say is that complaining about war is pointless, and that is something that I can agree with.

War, after all, is the better part of the mechanical side of the game; this isn't Politics and Economics. Everyone can potentially get rolled, no matter what their score nor alliance; everyone is potentially a threat to anyone else, and that is the way things should be. It's what's called 'competitive balance', and it isn't something to complain about, no matter which side of the rolling you're on. Sometimes you win, sometimes you do damage before you ride beige to rebuild and get back into the fight. Other times you get someone trying to pin you and you missile them until someone breaks. Everyone in KT/TGH/ET have fully accepted this reality and we're 100% committed to fighting this conflict to its conclusion. Not one of us has ever complained about the war; we're all pleased as punch to have someone to fight. That they've got more pixels than us in no way diminishes that; in fact we're all the happier to be fighting a war that lets us showcase our ability and resolve.

What we must very much complain about is the attempts to undermine our reputation. That's why we're complaining about the CB. The thing is, that is completely different from complaining about the war. Attempting to conflate the two is wrong at best, and disingenuous at worst; so please stop it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the idea that fear of upsetting other people shouldn't hinder making a move or declaring a war. I also agree that anyone has the right to decide what their line is and act upon it being crossed.

However, the public arguments had here are one of the cornerstones of politiking. I think it's fine that people argue, I wish people would just put more effort into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I legit said this in another thread - hella fewer words, but cool - be a partisan/prefontaine and make a fricking wall of text and get a reaction. 

^ this is obviously a joke. Wouldn't be Pre or Pre without the WoT 

Edited by Mad Max
sargun downvoted me which upset me IRL and I needed to state that this was a joke.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I mean, I legit said this in another thread - hella fewer words, but cool - be a partisan/prefontaine and make a fricking wall of text and get a reaction. 

 

Yours had pictures, too. Bastards.

  • Upvote 2

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sargun said:

i'm just imagining someone saying this irl and i'm embarrassed already

Don't be, I'm a gentleman - I'll help you back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sargun said:

at least have the god damn courtesy to give me a reacharound

Only if you have the type of lips that can suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB's are PR fluff and PR is all about perception.

Ultimately its all about the what individual people perceive to be a just/unjust act that defines whether something is a valid CB or not.

Like for example, I would personally argue you need a strong CB if you intend to hit another alliance/s whom you have a large or overwhelming statistical edge over. Otherwise you come across as weak and cowardly.

If an alliance/coalition hits a target evenly matched or stronger than them, I don't see any need for a CB.

That being said, if you do decide to post one, it better be good lmfao.

 

  • Like 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

I mean, I legit said this in another thread - hella fewer words, but cool - be a partisan/prefontaine and make a fricking wall of text and get a reaction. 

^ this is obviously a joke. Wouldn't be Pre or Pre without the WoT 

Your post inspired me. 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

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.