Jump to content

Rockefeller Rants: Foreign Affairs Edition


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rockefeller said:

I told you if I got bored this would be a multi-part series. If you missed Alliance Edition you may click that and read.

Last time I covered some things that I would consider generalities but that I've noticed the community at-large has neglected. Now I'd like to take a dive into more specific areas of alliance functionality, starting with the area I've spent the most time in: Foreign Affairs.

So firstly what is Foreign Affairs? Foreign Affairs, as it pertains to a nationsim, is any particular alliance's efforts, either implicit or explicit, to influence other alliances. Often this is in pursuit of a goal such as a treaty, bloc, favorable disposition, favorable coalition composition, creating or breaking apart a sphere, initiating a merger, extorting value, or making peace. Foreign Affairs has a myriad of applications and is really, like most things in a sandbox game, only limited to the extent of one's imagination.

For the purposes of this rant I'm going to break down foreign affairs into a few categories. Explicit or Hard FA, Implicit or Soft FA, and Public Relations or non-targeted FA.

 

Explicit FA also called Hard Diplomacy. This is the bread and butter of most ministers and leaders, the nitty gritty discussion of where we go from here. This is usually considered highly opsec and expected not to be shared when it occurs. OPSEC is a term we use for top-secret material and conversations, by the way. For raiders this can often be seen in negotiations with victims for protection money or extortion. For others this can mean peace negotiations during a war, treaty talks, discussing concrete issues in an attempt to resolve them. Explicit FA is what people expect when it's time for business and it's important to be able to have these conversations with the right kind of professional tone. Too nice and you may come off as too weak, too harsh and you may be rebuffed. Professionality is key in these moments.

Implicit FA also called Soft Diplomacy. For many in PnW today this is the mainstream diplomacy tactic. Business is for business hours and I'm on discord to relax unless I am forced into doing my job as the FA person. This may include simple things like jokes, gaming, random chatter, or even playful roasting. Almost imperceptible from normal hanging out with a friend if you're good enough. Implicit FA is the gateway to Explicit FA. Where you are building relationships in order to soften an approach or resolve a problem that would normally have caused an incident. Implicit FA also isn't as irregular as explicit FA, being necessary to maintain the relationships and ties already established. Explicit FA may be where the business happens, but implicit FA is where communication can make or break you long-term.

Public Relations and non-targeted FA. The true long game. Attempting to establish a reputation for your alliance, not only within your group of allies, but across Orbis. Yes, this is where I'm going to rant about a lack of forum content. Alliance announcements, small OWF posts (like Rockefeller Rants), and general engagement in a public and permanent place off of discord is an important part of FA and alliance image outside of actual FA circles. Public communication not only builds and maintains your own reputation but the communications offer opportunity to interact, publicly, with other alliances in both a constructive or destructive manner. Both of which are necessary to a healthy political meta. 

 

Just some surface thoughts. Curious to hear what you guys think of FA.

 

 

 

 

💯👌👍👏

image.png.4824d77377c05ab0639aa7b3275e3aea.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rockefeller said:

I told you if I got bored this would be a multi-part series. If you missed Alliance Edition you may click that and read.

Last time I covered some things that I would consider generalities but that I've noticed the community at-large has neglected. Now I'd like to take a dive into more specific areas of alliance functionality, starting with the area I've spent the most time in: Foreign Affairs.

So firstly what is Foreign Affairs? Foreign Affairs, as it pertains to a nationsim, is any particular alliance's efforts, either implicit or explicit, to influence other alliances. Often this is in pursuit of a goal such as a treaty, bloc, favorable disposition, favorable coalition composition, creating or breaking apart a sphere, initiating a merger, extorting value, or making peace. Foreign Affairs has a myriad of applications and is really, like most things in a sandbox game, only limited to the extent of one's imagination.

For the purposes of this rant I'm going to break down foreign affairs into a few categories. Explicit or Hard FA, Implicit or Soft FA, and Public Relations or non-targeted FA.

 

Explicit FA also called Hard Diplomacy. This is the bread and butter of most ministers and leaders, the nitty gritty discussion of where we go from here. This is usually considered highly opsec and expected not to be shared when it occurs. OPSEC is a term we use for top-secret material and conversations, by the way. For raiders this can often be seen in negotiations with victims for protection money or extortion. For others this can mean peace negotiations during a war, treaty talks, discussing concrete issues in an attempt to resolve them. Explicit FA is what people expect when it's time for business and it's important to be able to have these conversations with the right kind of professional tone. Too nice and you may come off as too weak, too harsh and you may be rebuffed. Professionality is key in these moments.

Implicit FA also called Soft Diplomacy. For many in PnW today this is the mainstream diplomacy tactic. Business is for business hours and I'm on discord to relax unless I am forced into doing my job as the FA person. This may include simple things like jokes, gaming, random chatter, or even playful roasting. Almost imperceptible from normal hanging out with a friend if you're good enough. Implicit FA is the gateway to Explicit FA. Where you are building relationships in order to soften an approach or resolve a problem that would normally have caused an incident. Implicit FA also isn't as irregular as explicit FA, being necessary to maintain the relationships and ties already established. Explicit FA may be where the business happens, but implicit FA is where communication can make or break you long-term.

Public Relations and non-targeted FA. The true long game. Attempting to establish a reputation for your alliance, not only within your group of allies, but across Orbis. Yes, this is where I'm going to rant about a lack of forum content. Alliance announcements, small OWF posts (like Rockefeller Rants), and general engagement in a public and permanent place off of discord is an important part of FA and alliance image outside of actual FA circles. Public communication not only builds and maintains your own reputation but the communications offer opportunity to interact, publicly, with other alliances in both a constructive or destructive manner. Both of which are necessary to a healthy political meta. 

 

Just some surface thoughts. Curious to hear what you guys think of FA.

 

 

 

 

Good introduction, Where's the rant? This was 3 words on the Partisan wot-o-meter.

 

Definitely a topic with lots of nitty gritty details that can be debated ad infinitum. I do believe you've marked down the major aspects of FA, and categorized them neatly in 3 easily digestible concepts. Building on that, i'd stress that the interplay between these 3 "realms" of FA is where alliances distinguish themselves from one another. If an alliance misaligns its hard FA with its branding (PR) or fails to secure trust or rapport through soft(er) FA, those discrepancies can spiral out of control, resulting in controversy (e.g. internal sphere drama in case of the latter, or leaks revealing contradictions between the public and private domain of an alliance). Similarly, a hard-focus on just one area while neglecting the rest tends to cause blind spots. Your super pragmatic 9D chess powerplay isn't going to come off the ground if no one trusts you or buys into your alliance's plan or vision. Yet without a strategic agenda (hard FA) and some backbone, your alliance will end up walked all over in backrooms: You become the plaything of more balanced and visionary alliances.

A recipe is needed. And like with all recipes, different leaders, members and communities will have different tastes. As we are forced to interact with external parties, these differences in taste at times cause tension of their own. That's a different conversation however.

It might be a fun exercise sometime to try to place the major on a model based on this. Rose and t$ make two near-perfect examples. Coincidentally, @Mhearl and I recently had a fairly in-depth conversation on this topic.

Rose is heavily focused on implicit FA: Its community is friendly, its members prefer shooting the shit out-of-game over hardball ingame stuff. Rose tends to try to present itself as a friendly giant. Its government does engage in explicit FA. The alliance is a perennial power player who generally gravitates toward the formation and maintenance of its own powerbase (sphere of influence). Implicit FA? check. Explicit FA? check. Rose does not however, engage much in non-targeted FA/PR. This directly translates to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of their actions and their rationale, and at times directly impacts their ability to conduct either explicit or implicit FA with some parties. Ergo: Rose's profile may be viewed as disharmonious. 

t$ on the other hand, is known for being heavily focused on non-targeted FA. t$ leadership has a strong public visibility (on FA/in-game topics) and presents a coherent narrative in line with its historical branding. t$ also has been at the forefront of power politics (hard FA) with a very specific style of play for the past 6 years. PR? check. Explicit FA? check. Where disharmony kicks in for t$, is the implicit FA: For one reason or another, t$ FA (myself included) has invested only a token amount of time in relation building compared to its peers. This likely impacts the speed at which we generate political capital with non-allies as well as our ability to execute plans that span beyond our immediate circles.

So are t$ and Rose both bad? No. Rose likely believes t$ are obnoxious !@#$ who cant be trusted. t$ may view Rose as spineless hypocrites wo cant be trusted. t$ may style itself a pragmatic power player who "aint got no time for time wastng" whereas rose may be convinced of its role as a friendly community which just wants to have fun. Both communities might benefit from a light reprioritization, but at the same time they may be content with their style of play. 

 Your turn- take 2 alliances: Compare and contrast them!

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Good introduction, Where's the rant? This was 3 words on the Partisan wot-o-meter.

 

Definitely a topic with lots of nitty gritty details that can be debated ad infinitum. I do believe you've marked down the major aspects of FA, and categorized them neatly in 3 easily digestible concepts. Building on that, i'd stress that the interplay between these 3 "realms" of FA is where alliances distinguish themselves from one another. If an alliance misaligns its hard FA with its branding (PR) or fails to secure trust or rapport through soft(er) FA, those discrepancies can spiral out of control, resulting in controversy (e.g. internal sphere drama in case of the latter, or leaks revealing contradictions between the public and private domain of an alliance). Similarly, a hard-focus on just one area while neglecting the rest tends to cause blind spots. Your super pragmatic 9D chess powerplay isn't going to come off the ground if no one trusts you or buys into your alliance's plan or vision. Yet without a strategic agenda (hard FA) and some backbone, your alliance will end up walked all over in backrooms: You become the plaything of more balanced and visionary alliances.

A recipe is needed. And like with all recipes, different leaders, members and communities will have different tastes. As we are forced to interact with external parties, these differences in taste at times cause tension of their own. That's a different conversation however.

It might be a fun exercise sometime to try to place the major on a model based on this. Rose and t$ make two near-perfect examples. Coincidentally, @Mhearl and I recently had a fairly in-depth conversation on this topic.

Rose is heavily focused on implicit FA: Its community is friendly, its members prefer shooting the shit out-of-game over hardball ingame stuff. Rose tends to try to present itself as a friendly giant. Its government does engage in explicit FA. The alliance is a perennial power player who generally gravitates toward the formation and maintenance of its own powerbase (sphere of influence). Implicit FA? check. Explicit FA? check. Rose does not however, engage much in non-targeted FA/PR. This directly translates to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of their actions and their rationale, and at times directly impacts their ability to conduct either explicit or implicit FA with some parties. Ergo: Rose's profile may be viewed as disharmonious. 

t$ on the other hand, is known for being heavily focused on non-targeted FA. t$ leadership has a strong public visibility (on FA/in-game topics) and presents a coherent narrative in line with its historical branding. t$ also has been at the forefront of power politics (hard FA) with a very specific style of play for the past 6 years. PR? check. Explicit FA? check. Where disharmony kicks in for t$, is the implicit FA: For one reason or another, t$ FA (myself included) has invested only a token amount of time in relation building compared to its peers. This likely impacts the speed at which we generate political capital with non-allies as well as our ability to execute plans that span beyond our immediate circles.

So are t$ and Rose both bad? No. Rose likely believes t$ are obnoxious !@#$ who cant be trusted. t$ may view Rose as spineless hypocrites wo cant be trusted. t$ may style itself a pragmatic power player who "aint got no time for time wastng" whereas rose may be convinced of its role as a friendly community which just wants to have fun. Both communities might benefit from a light reprioritization, but at the same time they may be content with their style of play. 

 Your turn- take 2 alliances: Compare and contrast them!

Just in general I’d say that alliances have really grown to neglect the Public side of FA, dismissing it as superfluous and unnecessary. Sometimes you may even hear someone argue that it’s advantageous to not post treaty announcements or DoW’s but I really think it has the opposite intended effect. At best it displays a level of cowardice and at worst it can feel isolationist entirely.

As for comparing and contrasting, I really like your examples. I agree that without a good balance in all areas of FA your general FA strategy becomes tenuous. People forget that this is a polisim where the meta is driven by explicit politicking. Certain other people may forget that we’re all people behind the screen and that sometimes building a relationship can be as effective as a network of well-planned treaties. Then there’s the PR side which can often completely make up for the lack of implicit FA if done right. If people come into your server already loving your alliance then you’re doing things right.

I will add my perspective from being a paperless leader for awhile: The implicit FA only carries you so far as paperless is an extreme example of. Without explicit discussions of what things mean even the best relationships can experience strain of uncertainty. Even if that doesn’t mean a treaty it does mean certain agreements can be reached and need to be in order to ensure success.

Another interesting aspect is that I think FA decays slower than other areas in an alliance. Oftentimes allies can go quite awhile with very minimal contact before anything in that relationship truly changes. Which is, I personally think, a bad thing about FA as it discourages active politicking in favor of collecting a herd of inactives for safety in numbers. This is actually something I think Alex tried to address mechanically by making treaties expire.

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.