Jump to content

Partisan's hot takes: Episode 1


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I look forward to your "hot takes" lol.

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Yet a radio show may not be the answers. For I am lazy and refuse bind myself to times or dates.

Give me a couple hours heads up on a weekend, and I'll probably be able to organize it ;) 

"Alexio of the Ampersandii...what did you do anyways?"

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roberts said:

To have fallen so far and learned nothing.

 

The leadership is not to blame. As much as you and your elitist ilk like to pretend that online nationsim politics is so hard and advanced beyond the means of the everyman, it isn't. Anyone can aspire, politic, and plot. It's your archaic methods in the major alliances and the entanglements of treaties that bind you thusly.

 

Do you want PnW to be interesting?

DEMOCRATIZE YOURSELVES - No nation should be slave to their alliance. The alliance should answer to the people. Your typical defense is OPSEC, which is laughable. What opsec have we seen in PnW? Every member, gov or otherwise, rushes to gossip about any unfolding event as quickly as they can. Democracy or no. Plans leak, wars spark, and that is thankfully the only thing that drags politics forward through the mire in which we find ourselves. You want more interesting things happening? Tired of the same old leadership? Then democratize and start seeing turnover and new blood. Your members aren't inactive, they're merely disinterested in investing three years of their lives to maybe get promoted into a position that you'll simply steal back when you unretire every three weeks.

  • gov should be elected via some method, especially the top leader. Arrgh, for example, elects the Grand Admiral and then he/she appoints the rest.
  • treaties, wars, and major decisions should not only be a vote but a discussion.

 

Are you tired of nothing ever happening?

SHED YOUR PAPER - I'm really not sure how treaties got carried over from other nationsim games like we learned nothing. I expect because in CN and other games we were too strict, too opsec, too self-contained within our own element of government that we didn't inform the masses who came here and took up the mantle. Treaties fricking suck. They kill intrigue, they kill plotting, they kill politics. Treaties reduce this game of would-be thrones into a mundane exercise in contractual obligation. Congratulations, you're simulating a relationship with a bank. So fun right? FA heads tell me honestly - who do you spend the majority of your time talking to and what do you talk about? It's not your allies unless you truly have a special relationship. You spend your time trying to make new treaties. Upper gov the same. You spend all your political time and energy trying to do something new. Something new is fun, exciting, as it should be. Yet you simple-minded apes can't connect the cause to the effect. You sign a treaty, you now may get an occasional check-in from that ally. More than likely, you'll get radio silence for awhile because the fun has been had and the honeymoon is over.

 

The thing people fail to understand is that a paperless alliance can also obligate itself to defend another alliance. It's an agreement like any other but it's not announced or celebrated and it comes with risk and opportunity. If you agree to defend someone and don't hear from them again until next year - that agreement may be revisited. Similarly, it opens opportunity for politicking on another level. Backstabs, betrayals, disloyalty, plots... Things we pretend to decry in public but crave in private.

 

Just some early morning thoughts from your friendly neighborhood Pirate.

Tried a bunch of this, still have an open opsec policy in my alliance.  Democracies are the worst.  We were paperless, until the entire world ganged up on us and told us we were not allowed to be paperless anymore.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roberts said:

To have fallen so far and learned nothing.

 

The leadership is not to blame. As much as you and your elitist ilk like to pretend that online nationsim politics is so hard and advanced beyond the means of the everyman, it isn't. Anyone can aspire, politic, and plot. It's your archaic methods in the major alliances and the entanglements of treaties that bind you thusly.

 

Do you want PnW to be interesting?

DEMOCRATIZE YOURSELVES - No nation should be slave to their alliance. The alliance should answer to the people. Your typical defense is OPSEC, which is laughable. What opsec have we seen in PnW? Every member, gov or otherwise, rushes to gossip about any unfolding event as quickly as they can. Democracy or no. Plans leak, wars spark, and that is thankfully the only thing that drags politics forward through the mire in which we find ourselves. You want more interesting things happening? Tired of the same old leadership? Then democratize and start seeing turnover and new blood. Your members aren't inactive, they're merely disinterested in investing three years of their lives to maybe get promoted into a position that you'll simply steal back when you unretire every three weeks.

  • gov should be elected via some method, especially the top leader. Arrgh, for example, elects the Grand Admiral and then he/she appoints the rest.
  • treaties, wars, and major decisions should not only be a vote but a discussion.

 

Are you tired of nothing ever happening?

SHED YOUR PAPER - I'm really not sure how treaties got carried over from other nationsim games like we learned nothing. I expect because in CN and other games we were too strict, too opsec, too self-contained within our own element of government that we didn't inform the masses who came here and took up the mantle. Treaties fricking suck. They kill intrigue, they kill plotting, they kill politics. Treaties reduce this game of would-be thrones into a mundane exercise in contractual obligation. Congratulations, you're simulating a relationship with a bank. So fun right? FA heads tell me honestly - who do you spend the majority of your time talking to and what do you talk about? It's not your allies unless you truly have a special relationship. You spend your time trying to make new treaties. Upper gov the same. You spend all your political time and energy trying to do something new. Something new is fun, exciting, as it should be. Yet you simple-minded apes can't connect the cause to the effect. You sign a treaty, you now may get an occasional check-in from that ally. More than likely, you'll get radio silence for awhile because the fun has been had and the honeymoon is over.

 

The thing people fail to understand is that a paperless alliance can also obligate itself to defend another alliance. It's an agreement like any other but it's not announced or celebrated and it comes with risk and opportunity. If you agree to defend someone and don't hear from them again until next year - that agreement may be revisited. Similarly, it opens opportunity for politicking on another level. Backstabs, betrayals, disloyalty, plots... Things we pretend to decry in public but crave in private.

 

Just some early morning thoughts from your friendly neighborhood Pirate.

You say a lot of stuff that can make sense.

But you lose me with your railing against elitism and paper, respectively. 

Paper works constricting in the manner you describe only when  it is viewed as more than a political tool utilised in pursuit of some mutual agenda. Ideally, when the agendas ceases to overlap, you either part ways or adjust the agendas to alignment again. There must always be an objective. 

I'd say about 90% fail to do this, and so fall into the trap where they either become stagnant husks dragged around by more politically active players, or they find themselves caught in the crossfire of other people's designs. Or both. 

With regards to leadership: nations vote with their feet. But moreover, leaders hold only as much power as they are given in these games. Lastly... Democratisation tends to stagnate a Shitton because it comes at the expense of political ambition in these games. 

  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had an observational position in the FA of multiple large alliances, I firsthand saw the backroom deals that came out of the blue.

That's not news though. I'm just curious about the personal squabbles in PnW that may effect those actions. Personally, if/when I found an alliance, I have a list of people and alliances I will either be hostile towards or friendly towards. Am I the only one who thinks like that, or are my suspicions correct that they are fairly common?

1 hour ago, Roberts said:

Do you want PnW to be interesting?

DEMOCRATIZE YOURSELVES - No nation should be slave to their alliance. The alliance should answer to the people. Your typical defense is OPSEC, which is laughable. What opsec have we seen in PnW? Every member, gov or otherwise, rushes to gossip about any unfolding event as quickly as they can. Democracy or no. Plans leak, wars spark, and that is thankfully the only thing that drags politics forward through the mire in which we find ourselves. You want more interesting things happening? Tired of the same old leadership? Then democratize and start seeing turnover and new blood. Your members aren't inactive, they're merely disinterested in investing three years of their lives to maybe get promoted into a position that you'll simply steal back when you unretire every three weeks.

  • gov should be elected via some method, especially the top leader. Arrgh, for example, elects the Grand Admiral and then he/she appoints the rest.
  • treaties, wars, and major decisions should not only be a vote but a discussion.

On another note, this is a noble but short sighted point of view. Arrgh might be different, in fact I am certain it is, but many alliances are run by veteran players who know the ins and outs of economics and warfare in PnW. Imagine if Joe Schmo 4 days into the game who thinks he is hot shit decides that cities should have bolstered police forces or something like that. I remember I had a mindset like that. No. Democracy in this game should and does work in its purest form.
Don't like something?
image.png.373d1e592ada862e6590e2671ffd75ae.png

  • Downvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

When I had an observational position in the FA of multiple large alliances, I firsthand saw the backroom deals that came out of the blue.

That's not news though. I'm just curious about the personal squabbles in PnW that may effect those actions. Personally, if/when I found an alliance, I have a list of people and alliances I will either be hostile towards or friendly towards. Am I the only one who thinks like that, or are my suspicions correct that they are fairly common?

I personally like to find an alliance to hate, it makes the game more interesting having that goal to take someone down.  Sometimes people give you a reason to, sometimes you gotta make up a reason to do it.  Its like you read about great competitors, sometimes they have to make up an imaginary slight in their head to get fired up and destroy the competition.

When Grumpy first started it was Test, then it was nuke block, after Nightfall it was CoS and BK, after IQ, it was tough because IQ all rage quit, but TCW stepped up.  I am actually a little annoyed right now, because I need to figure out who the new alliance to hate is, i have some options, but I haven't decided yet.   On that list, Test, CoS, BK, and TCW gave us a reason, Nuke Bloc, I had to make one up for that.

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

5 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I am actually a little annoyed right now, because I need to figure out who the new alliance to hate is, i have some options, but I haven't decided yet.

*cough* CotL *cough cough*

Sorry. Anyways, that makes sense. It would be more enjoyable to actually have emotions against your enemies as opposed to a hollow rivalry.

  • Haha 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh...

I read all of it...Every Word!

I don't play this game to replicate the Earth.

I'm just here to steal some loot, kill imaginary women and children and have a good time.

Arrgh!

 

  • Like 1

 Registered slot thief

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

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.