Jump to content
Kastor

Will neutral alliances ever be viable?

Recommended Posts

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? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their treaty list suggest otherwise. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next step staying neutral while playing Resident Evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by Chapsie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P 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 by Kurdanak
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kurdanak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kurdanak Ah the good old days, of the war  soft-neutral vs hard-neutral :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.