Jump to content
Kastor

The Future of PnW

Recommended Posts

So with this war wrapping up, and looking back at the wars this past year, we've gotten into a cycle of the aggressors winning again, but the wars being stretched out for long lengths of time by the defenders, who refuse peace until damage is equal. For example, the 2 longest wars to date were back to back, so obviously the trend we're going with is defenders forgoing long-term growth plans/patterns for short term damage to the alliances their fighting, even if its more detrimental to them in the long run.

Do you think the longer wars/less growth is going to be the norm going forward?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longer wars has been the trend since ToT. AC was artificially short, both sides recognize that. It could have easily stretched another month or two, however as the dominant force in the game at the time was sitting out IQ and Rosesphere understood it was just making us mutually weaker to TKR's gain. Now that the world is shifting back into bipolarity longer wars will be common as major parties won't be sitting out of globals.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kastor said:

even if its more detrimental to them in the long run.

Honestly, I'd have to at least dispute that one. Sure, getting rolled is costly and it inhibits growth and members tend to bail. However, there are still concrete and legitimate benefits to be gained from at least occasionally fighting some difficult fights, and even if not especially when losing them. Reputation, teambuilding, experience, and trimming off deserters all are things that simply cannot be bought with resources, no matter how many years of peace one has to fund them with.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said:

I think if we look at the past, and the wars, the shorter wars were fought by weak alliances as you said: TFP, AIM, etc. 

And the longer wars were fought by, well, just look at the history. Lol. 

I think this supports your claim. 

 

14 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said:

I think if we look at the past, and the wars, the shorter wars were fought by weak alliances as you said: TFP, AIM, etc. 

And the longer wars were fought by, well, just look at the history. Lol. 

I think this supports your claim. 

And that’s why alliances led by kastor routinely surrender quickly

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oh no, the wars are so long now"

I think the real take away in this war is that there are no innocents and anything can be used as a CB.

Wait didn't we know this already?

Actually, the real take away is that it's really amusing to drag everyone into hell. For micros, stagnant alliances, and dead in the water guys, everyone is going to be dragged in now for globals. If you thought not militarizing or claiming neutrality would save you, it won't. In fact it makes you more appetizing.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kastor said:

For example, the 2 longest wars to date were back to back, so obviously the trend we're going with is defenders forgoing long-term growth plans/patterns for short term damage to the alliances their fighting,

even if its more detrimental to them in the long run. 

Do you think the longer wars/less growth is going to be the norm going forward?

I'd argue two wars is too soon to decide that.

I'd argue that the benefit from war experience and removing pixel huggers exceeds the costs of long wars.

Maybe, maybe not. This world is unpredictable. As Paul Krugman said, "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

42 minutes ago, 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲 said:

I think the real take away in this war is that there are no innocents and anything can be used as a CB. 

Wait didn't we know this already? 

valid CB

Looks like Bloc Party was ahead of its time by decing someone because their alliance name had a vowel in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alliance leaders should agree to a max number of days for a war, let's say 3 months, before the limit you have to agree on peace terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Buffet had a similar claim with the Internet vs the ATM, in terms of economic efficiency. The statistics seem to show that digitalization has made a lot of people rich, but it hasn't necessarily made society as a whole significantly richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hodor said:

What are those poles? What should we do if those poles you name just fought a war on the same side and appear to be pretty buddy buddy.

 

I would argue the opposite. Limited wars are more professional. If you enter with a limited goal (eg, cutting someone down to size) then 3 rounds is plenty to accomplish a reasonable goal. It's sufficient enough to get a point across, and avoids the mess of terms. If it is not settled with white peace after 3 rounds, your opponent is either delusional, whales who need more time to burn, or nuke bloc.

Historically, IRL, limited wars are also a sign of political acumen and I think it is the same here.

No.

Before the advent of longer wars, wars had to end because alliances either couldn''t afford to continue them anymore or didn't have the internal political will to sustain them. You're looking at the exact wrong side of the war - wars end when the disadvantaged side decides they should, all things being equal. Until recently, losing sides really couldn't keep it up.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

No.

Before the advent of longer wars, wars had to end because alliances either couldn''t afford to continue them anymore or didn't have the internal political will to sustain them. You're looking at the exact wrong side of the war - wars end when the disadvantaged side decides they should, all things being equal. Until recently, losing sides really couldn't keep it up.

A bit confused, but also partially my fault because I was talking about both in game and real life, so I'm not sure which this is a rebuttal to, but I *think* it is the in game comment. So, yes, I agree that the disadvantaged side decides when the war ends, but I think the aggressors often build into the CB and discussion a motivation to be stubborn.

For example, TGH recently rolled TRF because we wanted to bury the hatchet from the drama of last year. Queen M reached out and asked what the deal was, we said, we want to bury this thing, we saw an opportunity to hit you, we're gonna go for 2 rounds and we want this small concession. We were upfront from the start and it ended exactly as we said it would. This isn't a particularly strong example, but it is recent memory so it may serve some utility.

This war arguably was the result of some simple power politics and straightforward calculus. So, in theory the goal from the get go was to cut TKR sphere down to size for a variety of reasons. This is a reasonable CB and a reasonable war, but the discussions and large amount of humiliating terms certainly pushed a different narrative that it was less about cutting them down to size and handing them an L, and more about absolute humiliation and degradation. Now, this could be a misreading, but that could also be the fault of either my disinterest or poor signalling from the aggressors as to what this war was really about.

I am not TKR but if I imagine that if they knew they were going to get rolled because they were a threat, and once they were neutralized as a threat and handed minimalist terms, I think this would've ended ages ago and with significantly less toxicity.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people choose to be stubborn instead of just accepting they lost, making it end as soon as possible and preparing for The Empire Strikes Back.

 

That's all there really is to it, there's very few terms that could be levied on anyone to justify the stubborn bullshit people pull.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

The problem is that people choose to be stubborn instead of just accepting they lost, making it end as soon as possible and preparing for The Empire Strikes Back.

 

That's all there really is to it, there's very few terms that could be levied on anyone to justify the stubborn bullshit people pull.

There is plenty of strategic reasons to lengthen a war. There were quite a few as to why we extended ours.

1) We didn't see the war as overly justified and therefore stacking terms on top seemed meh

2) We knew a war with TKR was being discussed outside of our sphere, and as the war progressed learnt that it was very likely to happen. Therefore wasting resources and burning anything we could seemed like an alright idea.

3) There were two other spheres not being harassed by us, the guys in tCW with large infra had to stay at max mil otherwise those who dropped were nuked. ET was also doing well against everyones smaller guys.

4) We were aware of what Queen M had done, we however did not have any means of proving it but knew if we somehow could (Which was kinda lucky due to Alex) we would deal a decent PR blow against them.

Overall we achieved some nice objectives and in the end sat out for this war allowing us to rebuild. So it worked out.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent war was choked up by peace discussions, not the other side wanting to dish. If the talks had concluded, then the war would have ended. Just the fact that we were engaged in peace talks for such an extensive amount of time shows that the war could have ended swiftly enough, had the peace talks not choked. This war's length wasn't due to Coalition B wishing to deal damage, it was down to a lack of conclusion in talks.

I remember several times where we thought the war was going to end but carried on because of talks going awry at the very end. Sure they carried on fighting, but that was to be expected. You can blame the lack of conclusion on coalition B not wanting to peace to the terms, but that's different to them wanting to fight out more rounds. 

Edited by Bezzers
edited for clarity
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there aren't global wars 3-4 times a year anymore, most major alliances are able to sit around and gather huge warchests, which makes it much easier for the losing side to fight for longer periods of time and deal more damage to their aggressor. This is similar to what TKR did, except in their case there was a lot more ego and a lot less strategy involved.

Share this post


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

There is plenty of strategic reasons to lengthen a war. There were quite a few as to why we extended ours.

1) We didn't see the war as overly justified and therefore stacking terms on top seemed meh

2) We knew a war with TKR was being discussed outside of our sphere, and as the war progressed learnt that it was very likely to happen. Therefore wasting resources and burning anything we could seemed like an alright idea.

3) There were two other spheres not being harassed by us, the guys in tCW with large infra had to stay at max mil otherwise those who dropped were nuked. ET was also doing well against everyones smaller guys.

4) We were aware of what Queen M had done, we however did not have any means of proving it but knew if we somehow could (Which was kinda lucky due to Alex) we would deal a decent PR blow against them.

Overall we achieved some nice objectives and in the end sat out for this war allowing us to rebuild. So it worked out.

Yeah, but i'm not talking about 69 DW.

Not every drawn-out war is or will be because the losers have gained strategic insight on an opportunity available to them and find they are capable of taking advantage of it. I daresay many would never even gain the insight to begin with and just as many would lack the ability to take advantage of it.

 

Some, of course, prefer doing the Knightfall way of things, and bleeding out for nothing. Doing so much self harm that peaceing out 2 months earlier without losing 100+ members sphere-wide and having to pay 10 billion in reps ontop of the other terms would actually have done less damage.

Which i find hilarious and absolutely idiotic at the same time. People are so against reps because they risk starting a cycle of the same sphere gaining dominance and constantly widening the gap, or even complain that something is a new precedent that makes them feel uneasy and not good, that they'd rather slit their wrists lengthwise after taking aspirin and a hot bath then risk the terrible terrible precedent of reps or some crap with VMers. 

You wanna kill yourselves at least either do it in a less disruptive and idiotic manner or accomplish something in the act. If you're gonna do neither than my original point applies to you.

Share this post


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

There is plenty of strategic reasons to lengthen a war. There were quite a few as to why we extended ours.

1) We didn't see the war as overly justified and therefore stacking terms on top seemed meh

2) We knew a war with TKR was being discussed outside of our sphere, and as the war progressed learnt that it was very likely to happen. Therefore wasting resources and burning anything we could seemed like an alright idea.

3) There were two other spheres not being harassed by us, the guys in tCW with large infra had to stay at max mil otherwise those who dropped were nuked. ET was also doing well against everyones smaller guys.

4) We were aware of what Queen M had done, we however did not have any means of proving it but knew if we somehow could (Which was kinda lucky due to Alex) we would deal a decent PR blow against them.

Overall we achieved some nice objectives and in the end sat out for this war allowing us to rebuild. So it worked out.

And I think this is a prime example of my idea that long wars are due to incompetence or lack of professionalism, whereas shorter wars with clear objectives are more professional.

 

We knew the war was being fought for reasons that were unjustified, and in our eyes unprofessional, so we lengthened it. I’ve no doubt if TKR/tCW/TRF wanted to roll us and said as such, with no terms or minimal terms we’d not have had an issue. The terms were always an issues in light of what we knew about the CB.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Micchan said:

All the alliance leaders should agree to a max number of days for a war, let's say 3 months, before the limit you have to agree on peace terms

Long wars are a fundamental shift in the meta though. Leaders now have to balance how long they can sustain. That was Paracovents weakness was they lacked the economic and political willpower to sustain wars. 

1 hour ago, Ryan1 said:

Since there aren't global wars 3-4 times a year anymore, most major alliances are able to sit around and gather huge warchests, which makes it much easier for the losing side to fight for longer periods of time and deal more damage to their aggressor.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Alliances need huge war chests because of the economics update, which is the true reason for wars being more spread out. If there should be wars it needs to be fixed at a mechanical level by either making wars cheaper or increasing cash flows.

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

And I think this is a prime example of my idea that long wars are due to incompetence or lack of professionalism, whereas shorter wars with clear objectives are more professional.

Long wars are part of a deterrence strategy as well. The first few rounds are when the vast majority of damage is done to the losers, so there is zero incentive to leave at that point.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

1. Long wars are a fundamental shift in the meta though. Leaders now have to balance how long they can sustain. That was Paracovents weakness was they lacked the economic and political willpower to sustain wars. 

2. You're putting the cart before the horse. Alliances need huge war chests because of the economics update, which is the true reason for wars being more spread out. If there should be wars it needs to be fixed at a mechanical level by either making wars cheaper or increasing cash flows.

3. Long wars are part of a deterrence strategy as well. The first few rounds are when the vast majority of damage is done to the losers, so there is zero incentive to leave at that point.

1. Agreed.

2. Also agreed, so we should be pushing hard to make wars cheaper.

3. Disagree, if they were a true deterrence long wars wouldn't happen as often. Or at least it would play into the initial debate as to whether or not to go to war? As to my hard stop of 3 rounds, it could drag longer, but there will certainly be a point where the objective is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are also still stuck with the older war mechanics of conventional war thinking.

Its only a loss when a side decides on it.

I’d rather judge a loss if my bank is depleting too fast, members actually do quit (not delete), or if any goals set are unachieveable rather than listen to forum people who aren’t involved.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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