Kastor Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 So, lets take a break from bickering about the war: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6126 This is a new neutral alliance, which is cool, however they probably only haven't gotten hit because of the war. Do you think they'll get hit, simply for being neutral? 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pruss Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 There is no such thing as a true large neutral alliance. Even the lost empire is aligned to someone. Arrgh technically could be considered to be a chaotic neutral, but there are most certainly alliances they’d never work with. And of course arrgh is great at stopping peace whenever they desire. I’ll always say good luck to those who desire to become neutral, but it seems like an impossible road 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Their treaty list suggest otherwise. 2 Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlan Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 We are neutral in this global war, we have no intention of engaging in a war when were so new. We have friends, political ties and such, but we are remaining neutral for awhile. We are large, but no where near ready to be involved in a war. We are focusing on establishing our alliance and getting secure before we go anywhere near conflict. We recognize that we cant realistically remain neutral forever, but for now, we are and will stay that way 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Ah, read that wrong. Alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 50 minutes ago, Kastor said: Ah, read that wrong. Alright. Without using that particular alliance as an example I do not think neutral alliances are viable. We all remember the gang up on Dark Brotherhood and people calling to jump on R&R next. While those two alliances have treaties, their goals in this game were not militarily focused. However it is because they did not want to fight that people attacked them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 They'd have to start off powerful enough for nobody to be able to contest their neutrality without getting hit for it, like the old GPA alliance in CyberNations. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Also, I can't imagine many people would actually enjoy doing so. What even is the point, really, of playing Politics and War without the politics or war? What do you log in for? Seeing numbers very slowly trickle up which don't mean anything because you can't use them? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalev60 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 GPA here was number one at a time, didn´t work, I don´t think you can stay truly neutral on Obris for very long, it´s either paperless which is lie because sekret treaties of fully integrated into the treaty-web. Quote Charlie Chaplin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 I think it depends on the political situation at the time. No neutral alliance in any world has ever existed purely without conflict. That doesn't really mean they're not viable or not neutral. Neutrality brings up its own question though - how do we define neutrality? No treaties? We've seen paperless alliances a-plenty. No wars? Then even GPA didn't count. Perhaps a general non-involvement in world politics? Do micros count as neutral then? It's an interesting question to answer. Do I think alliances can exist in a vacuum and never have war brought to them? No. Do I think that overall neutrality can exist and thrive in PnW? Yes. The proof is in the pudding, actually. Fark, R&R, WTF, and The Immortals are currently neutral and haven't been involved in a global war since... whenever Fark last got off its ass. Probably years? All four are top ten alliances. Neutrality mostly means you would rather keep your nose in your own business rather than someone else's. Some people want to drag your nose into their business but that doesn't make you nosey. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 Neutral alliances have to be more political than political alliances to survive. GPA failed here because they wanted to isolate themselves. Had GPA been talking to other leaders regularly while maintaining neutrality they would have likely done much better. To maintain your alliances safety you have to be in regular contact with alliance leaders, speak with them, have trust with them and maintain your neutrality. The more alliances you're on favorable terms with the more chance you can be successful in your attempts to avoid global politics. 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalev60 Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Neutral alliances have to be more political than political alliances to survive. GPA failed here because they wanted to isolate themselves. Had GPA been talking to other leaders regularly while maintaining neutrality they would have likely done much better. To maintain your alliances safety you have to be in regular contact with alliance leaders, speak with them, have trust with them and maintain your neutrality. The more alliances you're on favorable terms with the more chance you can be successful in your attempts to avoid global politics. Yes maybe, put just talking to some leaders may get you rolled by other especially in a the current permawar and treaties count for shit environment . Quote Charlie Chaplin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 On 11/20/2019 at 10:49 AM, Teaspoon said: They'd have to start off powerful enough for nobody to be able to contest their neutrality without getting hit for it, like the old GPA alliance in CyberNations. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Also, I can't imagine many people would actually enjoy doing so. What even is the point, really, of playing Politics and War without the politics or war? What do you log in for? Seeing numbers very slowly trickle up which don't mean anything because you can't use them? I've tried that before on multiple iterations of multiple browsergames, and if there's any one thing I've learned it's that there is no possible way of being simultaneously too powerful to hit and not be resented for it enough to where everyone else works their asses off to topple you from that perch. Worse, they start to get desperate, and that can get seriously ugly before the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Next step staying neutral while playing Resident Evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quichwe10 Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 @Kastor, you basically have to be a god of diplomacy to have anything approaching feasibility with that. The game environment just isn't conducive towards neutral alliances. It's all a matter of time before you have a protector get tired of you sitting there quietly, like as happened with DB, or people just end up deciding that they just want to hit you for fun and profit, like the TFP of the isolationist days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapsie Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 (edited) On 11/21/2019 at 10:11 PM, Prefontaine said: Neutral alliances have to be more political than political alliances to survive. GPA failed here because they wanted to isolate themselves. Had GPA been talking to other leaders regularly while maintaining neutrality they would have likely done much better. To maintain your alliances safety you have to be in regular contact with alliance leaders, speak with them, have trust with them and maintain your neutrality. The more alliances you're on favorable terms with the more chance you can be successful in your attempts to avoid global politics. I tried damn hard to keep my avenues open, but one man can only do so much. Good times ? Problem was that no one even wanted economic ties at the time, which was one incentive to a neutral alliance as long as we were to trade indiscriminately. Edited November 23, 2019 by Chapsie Quote We have seized the means of production. Though union, and self-governance, we have organized between all peoples of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 If an alliance stays neutral to long, eventually they'll just be attacked for sport by other alliances once all their competition is defeated. So playing a neutral gamestyle is more of a wait to be rolled alone later style of play if you don't build up any worthwhile allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) On 11/23/2019 at 9:47 AM, Chapsie said: I tried damn hard to keep my avenues open, but one man can only do so much. Good times ? Problem was that no one even wanted economic ties at the time, which was one incentive to a neutral alliance as long as we were to trade indiscriminately. Which is actually really funny because this game's economic system really allows for much more economic customization / specialization / and manipulation. Economic treaties just haven't really been a thing because a lot of the playerbase came from other nationsims where the game economy was basically defunct so all that mattered was military. Additionally a lot of alliances are opposed to taxation and centralized economies so economic treaties become even more difficult to justify. Edited November 25, 2019 by Bartholomew Roberts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr James Wilson Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 They killed GPA multiple times in multiple games and WTF is politically active here soooo, nope. Quote The Volleyball Avanti Immortali ..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUCO Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 On 11/21/2019 at 7:45 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said: I think it depends on the political situation at the time. No neutral alliance in any world has ever existed purely without conflict. That doesn't really mean they're not viable or not neutral. Neutrality brings up its own question though - how do we define neutrality? No treaties? We've seen paperless alliances a-plenty. No wars? Then even GPA didn't count. Perhaps a general non-involvement in world politics? Do micros count as neutral then? It's an interesting question to answer. Do I think alliances can exist in a vacuum and never have war brought to them? No. Do I think that overall neutrality can exist and thrive in PnW? Yes. The proof is in the pudding, actually. Fark, R&R, WTF, and The Immortals are currently neutral and haven't been involved in a global war since... whenever Fark last got off its ass. Probably years? All four are top ten alliances. Neutrality mostly means you would rather keep your nose in your own business rather than someone else's. Some people want to drag your nose into their business but that doesn't make you nosey. Be quiet robert. On 11/25/2019 at 3:36 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said: Which is actually really funny because this game's economic system really allows for much more economic customization / specialization / and manipulation. Economic treaties just haven't really been a thing because a lot of the playerbase came from other nationsims where the game economy was basically defunct so all that mattered was military. Additionally a lot of alliances are opposed to taxation and centralized economies so economic treaties become even more difficult to justify. Quiet. Robert. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 23 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said: They killed GPA multiple times in multiple games and WTF is politically active here soooo, nope. >WTF >Politically active Somebody has no idea about game history I see. Only time WTF has ever been politically active is when Fark decided it would sign every micro under the sun. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr James Wilson Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, Akuryo said: >WTF >Politically active Somebody has no idea about game history I see. Only time WTF has ever been politically active is when Fark decided it would sign every micro under the sun. So, what you’re saying is: they aren’t neutral. 1 Quote The Volleyball Avanti Immortali ..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) P&W certainly makes it more difficult than it was in CN, but I believe a hard neutral alliance (that is, one that truly has no true allies) could still be possible. Pre is right on the money. When I lead FA for the GPA here, granted it was still beta and then early current release, we were never attacked by an alliance. Not once. We existed very cohesively with the community and through personalities like myself and Lambdadelta (you're truly old if you remember that name), actively worked in the community and built up a reputation, but still maintained no political or economic ties with any alliance in particular. Just a lot of friends who were likely enough to help us out to make us not worth attacking. That being said, while possible it is absolutely exhausting to keep up with. I'm talking active on every alliance's forums and channels, almost every day. Hence why the second the GPA's FA here began to slip and it strayed from its original path (CN philosophy), it got rolled again and again. On 11/21/2019 at 7:45 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said: I think it depends on the political situation at the time. No neutral alliance in any world has ever existed purely without conflict. That doesn't really mean they're not viable or not neutral. Neutrality brings up its own question though - how do we define neutrality? No treaties? We've seen paperless alliances a-plenty. No wars? Then even GPA didn't count. Perhaps a general non-involvement in world politics? Do micros count as neutral then? It's an interesting question to answer. Do I think alliances can exist in a vacuum and never have war brought to them? No. Do I think that overall neutrality can exist and thrive in PnW? Yes. The proof is in the pudding, actually. Fark, R&R, WTF, and The Immortals are currently neutral and haven't been involved in a global war since... whenever Fark last got off its ass. Probably years? All four are top ten alliances. Neutrality mostly means you would rather keep your nose in your own business rather than someone else's. Some people want to drag your nose into their business but that doesn't make you nosey. I could dig up for you literal thesis paper level debates on the philosophy of neutrality from the original CN-based GPA's forums. There were soft-neutral and hard-neutral types (the latter is "true neutrality"). Looking back, I think part of what kept us alive was a constant tension over what the best interpretation of neutrality was. You have to take yourself far too seriously just to survive with that kind of play-style. (which is why I left to help form Rose in the first place) Edited November 27, 2019 by Kurdanak 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) On 11/20/2019 at 1:49 PM, Teaspoon said: They'd have to start off powerful enough for nobody to be able to contest their neutrality without getting hit for it, like the old GPA alliance in CyberNations. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Also, I can't imagine many people would actually enjoy doing so. What even is the point, really, of playing Politics and War without the politics or war? What do you log in for? Seeing numbers very slowly trickle up which don't mean anything because you can't use them? To answer your question - community, really. My time with the GPA in CN will always be some of, if not my most favourite memories in these games. You either need a thriving/active community or a really dedicated old guard to keep any alliance alive. At a time, we had both and therefore really organized and healthy ministries, even Defense (especially defense, despite the frequent jokes of "why do they even need that" - we really had to worry about defense lol). Being a truly democratic government also helped, too, as each department head had to individually campaign for their position and typically brought significant change their department. Edited November 27, 2019 by Kurdanak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB.HG Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 @Kurdanak Ah the good old days, of the war soft-neutral vs hard-neutral 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Brando Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 12 hours ago, Kurdanak said: Lambdadelta (you're truly old if you remember that name) ...probably suffering from anger management issues, too. Insofar as neutrality is concerned, I would say the correct argument to be made is to do with sustainability, and not invulnerability by virtue of preclusion from combat. A truly successful neutral alliance would work nonstop to make sure its safety net included actors from different corners and somehow maintain that bipartisan connection without being dragged into one part of the political spectrum needlessly. Even if you were to be hit, having friends in high places would allow you to maintain momentum to some degree or the other. I personally would argue that true neutrality is ultimately meaningless given the subconscious effect apparent “friendships” have on decision making. People have long memories, and it would be a truly monumental undertaking to maintain such a clean record (on both the alliance and individual level) that you’d never attract predatory attention. Also, hello. Haven’t posted properly in quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.