Jump to content

Rules of War: Causus Belli


PigInZen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems more then anything the victor of a given war can dicate the CB and consider it a just CB....

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

 

º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is OOC and also does not represent the official views of my Alliance.  In the interest of transparency, I am an old (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) player, so I that has slanted my mindset about this issue obviously.

 

Everyone above me has brought out really good points on this topic, and I want to discuss them a little bit more..  

 

 

CB's do have an internal and external component to them, and they do vastly different things.  As a direct answer to your question, the only "valid CB" is the one based on the external component.  

 

The internal component is important to motivate and inform your alliance of the reasons you are going to war, but if you can imagine playing this game without "alliances between alliances", Open World Forums, IRC, and or the ability to PM or communicate with anyone outside of your alliance, then "validity" quickly goes out the window.  At that point, its just how much your alliance members listen to your leadership, and how much they want to fight.  "Entertainment" and the strategic value of "winning" is enough just as Partisan said, and all internal CB's eventually come down to these two factors.

 

However, the CB system is about "Just War", and "Just War" is not something that can be unilaterally approved, nor is it something that *should* be trivial.

 

A quick definition of a "Valid CB" is one that begins a "Just War".  

 

I know that sounds highly subjective (it is) but that is what makes a CB Valid.  There is no way to directly measure this validity, but there are some metrics you can use to help you try.  These are in no fashion fool-proof, and I can think of plenty of counter examples to each, but its the best I can do for now.

 

The first is "international support".  Ultimately, you declare a CB not for the benefit of your alliance, but for the benefit of the neutral non-belligerents.  Your members and close allies will do with just "We can get stronger if we do this" and "It'll be fun", while your enemies will always perceive your actions as unjust.  The only people left to convince of the validity of your "just war" are the people who are staying out of it.  If people think you have a good reason for war you'll gain plenty of international support.  If people think your CB is garbage, you won't.  I'm not talking about camps or factions either, they'll either agree with you or disagree with you on principle rather than any rational argument, but I'm talking about the people who are truly staying out of it.  If you have a majority of these "fence-walkers and neutrals" on your side, then it's a good chance you've got a valid CB.

 

The second is "precedent".  Generally, if a CB has been used and widely accepted in the past, it'll probably be good to use it again if you can.  In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), Spying has always been a widely accepted "valid" reason for war, since early in the games history..  I would actually put this category as the top of the list, but for many people, this game is still young, and not enough precedents have been established yet.  In addition, the one that has been established, the "Roll Alliances for strategic preparation" strikes me as insanely distasteful, and not something I would consider valid CB.  It is definitely my bias speaking here, but any alliance that does not have a plan to deal with its neighbors (any alliance that isn't neutral or a close ally) if they get hostile is just asking to get stomped. However, if that is the precedent that becomes firmly established, then its a "valid CB", whether or not I personally accept it as such.  

 

*/rant* I'm talking about "strategic preparation", not "operational planning".  Strategic Preparation is about having a plan and gathering the resources needed in case a hypothetical conflict were to break out, operational planning is the implementation of said plan.  Every alliance has a right to defend its members, and having a plan to deal with uncertainties is part of that, but the idea of operational planning is pretty good evidence of intent to carry that plan out.  If you get caught in the operational planning stage, that is a super legitimate CB for the other side to hit first, but no one should be afraid of "planning" something. */end rant*

 

The downside to precedent is that most situations aren't exactly cookie-cutter versions of previous situations, and the eLaywers come out and try to argue why this isn't exactly precedent.  That being said, if you have people, especially the other side, arguing why your CB didn't match precedent exactly or closely enough, its a good indicator that you've got yourself a "valid-enough" CB.

 

The third is "backlash", which is probably the most trickiest, but a greater indication of your general CB "validness" than the other two.  Backlash is kinda like international support, but its not as conflict specific.  Its a general attitude towards your alliances, the amount of enemies you make, and the amount of "hatred" you accumulate among the international community.  The CB system of "Just War" is built upon preventing backlash, or else you end up being treated like Guardian is right now.  Valid CB's will prevent backlash, or at least deflect the majority of it, and invalid CB's will build backlash and cause the whole community to dog-pile you.  Its not something that can really be determined war by war, it's something that is built over time.  

 

Sometimes, backlash is nearly immediate.  The first major war was TAC vs TC, and the backlash that was built, and the coalition that was built as a result of this backlash, was a good indicator that the CB that EoS used "We had old logs that show that TAC was planning to roll us" was not a valid one.

 

Other times, backlash takes a long time to manifest itself, such as this recent rolling of Guardian (and SK, but in a different way).  This beatdown is a direct result of the amount of backlash that Guardian has built up for itself since the end of Marionette.  It represents the culmination of invalid CB's and actions that members of the community have found "unjust."  Although we can't use this metric to define one particular CB as "invalid", we can say that generally, Guardian would not be being beat down right now if their policy in general had not created so much backlash, and we can say that their CB's in general have been invalid.

 

The thing is that I'm using backlash like a kind of "price level" of economics.  Backlash decreases the "price" that alliances will pay to roll you, and perhaps how much they're willing to pay to stay at war with you.  Things like strength, allies, numbers, weapons, stockpiles, leadership, and everything else that makes this game dynamic also modify this price level, which is the reason that Guardian hadn't been rolled until this point.  All these factors made the price of war too high to fight, but backlash will always consistently lower this price, until you get alliances who decide that "enough is enough" and then plan an attack.  With Guardian, the leadership of Prefontaine, the strength of Guardian Nations, and the superior political positioning of Guardian made the cost of war to be high for a very long time, but once Pre stepped down, and their allies did what they did, combined with all the backlash that had been building on Guardian since Marionette, you get a situation like this.  We can look back as say "In general, Guardian did not have valid CB's for their conflicts"

 

 

 

Just a quick note on this section, the truth is that this game heavily favors the aggressor in tactics only (which means actual in-game wars by mechanics), and that has stayed true even in this war.  Although SK++ were the aggressors in this war strategically with their preemptive strike, more wars have been declared on the Axis powers than have been declared by the Axis powers, especially by percentage.  Even during the period where VE had been attacked and VE and Friends were gearing up for war, VE was taking a beating, because they were on the tactical defensive.  When SK++ began to come under attack, tactical aggression switch from Axis to Allies, but nonetheless, tactical aggression still won out the day.  In large scale and organized wars, the aggressors always have the tactical advantage, its the way the game goes.  A team of three can coordinate better than 3 individual targets can coordinate in return on the defensive, and if you get blockaded during the initial blitz, then you've basically lost unless you have an amazing warchest.

 

TL;DR: A valid CB is one that begins a "Just War", and invalid CB does not.  The definition of "Just War" is fluid, but you can see how much Neutral Support, Precedent, and Backlash you are causing to determine whether or not a CB is ultimately Valid.

 

A well thought out response, of which I generally echo the sentiments.

 

With regards to the last section, I suppose I must clarify: In an even situation, where a potential war concerns two equal parties, the aggressor alliance - being the one to strike first on a large scale - will have an advantage over the defender. In a situation where all else were to be equal, this advantage would lead to victory. It is therefore safe to say that this game, via its aggression-favoring mechanics, does favor the aggressor. This advantage can be offset by the political ramifications that come with a lack of justification, as we have encountered in this specific instance.

  • Downvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its always nice to hear approval from people you respect Partisan :) I completely agree with your assessment that all things being equal the attacker wins.

 

I was just emphasizing that this was a mechanical advantage rather than a political or logistical one, it's part of the game for better or worse. There have been two parts to this war, Phase 1 SK++ vs VE solo, and phase two Allies vs Axis. In both phases, the winner of that particular phase was the side that were the agressors. VE got stomped on the defensive, and now SK++ is getting stomped on the defensive, so it's consistent with "Attackers always win" because that's just the game mechanics.

 

I love your posts btw, Partisan, when I grow up, I want to be a CEO now :')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casus Belli literally means the "Case for War", and does not have to be widely accepted, it just has to be accepted by those who would follow you to war.  This is usually an issue with alliances that are trying to build coalitions and they need to convince otherwise skeptical alliances that they should really join their coalition to roll whatsisname over there.  A good example would be this war, where VE took the leaked intelligence that SK was planning on attacking Rose in the future, and used that as a "Cause for War" to convince Rose and their allies that they should side with VE instead of with Guardian and SK.  In this, there were 3 "Casus Belli" in this current war:  SK and Guardian's Casus Belli was the desire to take down VE, an immediate threat, by using Rose and their allies, a future threat, and strengthen their position in the short and long term.  VE's Casus Belli was the simplest of all, they were directly attacked.  Rose's Casus Belli was the leaked intelligence.  I imagine Mensa's foreign policy over the past months possibly motivated some of the Casus Belli of otherwise peripherally involved parties to pile on them this war.  So this war there were at least 3 and possibly many more Casus Belli at play.

 

Basically any time you are a jerk to someone or plot the downfall of someone and, most importantly, they find out about it, you have created a Casus Belli somewhere.  Casus Belli tend to pile up until an opportune moment for karmic retribution manifests itself, though they can be resolved diplomatically and intelligent leaders work hard to ensure noone has active grudges against them, even if it seems like the alliances involved would never be able to act on them, since never is a very long time.

  • Upvote 2
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I completely disagree with "CB as international propaganda" argument.  The masturbatory exercise of debating the "validity" of a Casus Belli is the most tiresome thing you can read.  First of all, clearly it was "valid" or people would not have declared wars, since all it matters is if it was valid to them.  Second of all trying to argue that someone else's reasons for doing something are "invalid" because you disagree, basically that is whining about being declared on only it sounds really legalese and official.

  • Upvote 4
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip*

Essentially correct. I don't think the concept of a "Just War" is universally valid, but you've more or less described the functional aspects of a CB. Attacking without a proper CB increases backlash, makes it so that swing (not neutrals, since neutrality has a specific meaning) alliances are more likely to turn against you, and creates long-term grievances that will eventually be used against you.

 

I would disagree, though, that precedent is as important as international support or reducing the PR backlash sustained as the result of an aggressive incident. Precedent is dissimilar, both international support and PR control are immediate effects, whereas precedent matters insofar as, first, by creating a precedent, it subtly changes the rules of the game, while second, when you appeal to precedent, this mainly matters when the E-Lawyers or rather the propagandists have gotten out with the objective of minimizing or maximizing the PR hit you receive for your actions.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially correct. I don't think the concept of a "Just War" is universally valid, but you've more or less described the functional aspects of a CB. Attacking without a proper CB increases backlash, makes it so that swing (not neutrals, since neutrality has a specific meaning) alliances are more likely to turn against you, and creates long-term grievances that will eventually be used against you.

 

I would disagree, though, that precedent is as important as international support or reducing the PR backlash sustained as the result of an aggressive incident. Precedent is dissimilar, both international support and PR control are immediate effects, whereas precedent matters insofar as, first, by creating a precedent, it subtly changes the rules of the game, while second, when you appeal to precedent, this mainly matters when the E-Lawyers or rather the propagandists have gotten out with the objective of minimizing or maximizing the PR hit you receive for your actions.

 

You are correct taken the better word for them are swing alliances.  I also agree that precedent probably is worse than the other two, since taken from a viewpoint of just keeping in mind the current Global Political Situation (I'd call it realpolitik), it's simply a function of the other two.  However, taken from my viewpoint of "just war", it makes sense to make it it's own category, because if it follows precedent, even if its unpopular and even if it increases PR backlash, it would still be a valid CB, and I don't think many alliances would fault you for using it in that fashion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB's being valid or not are simply whether you're influential enough to get people on your side.

 

For instance, TC's war on TAC was considered unjustified by most, however the same tactic was used by Guardian-sphere to attack TC members and was widely accepted. 

TC felt it was accepted and not accepted in that order. I personally felt both were equally valid (although yours was hypocritical but whatever)

 

The only two "sides" were you and us, I don't think anyone outside of our spheres weighed in on the wars calling them just or unjust. Your side was simply louder on the OWF.

Edited by underlordgc

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's casus belli, not causus belli, it means "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" or shorter version: "case of war". These pages clearly define what is a casus belli

 

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Casus_Belli

 

http://www.eu4wiki.com/Casus_belli

 

There's a whole list of casus belli there. Pick any of these and as long as the casus belli isn't fake, it's acceptable casus belli. You still probably won't be able to avoid backlash, but at least it's valid casus belli.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's casus belli, not causus belli, it means "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" or shorter version: "case of war". These pages clearly define what is a casus belli

 

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Casus_Belli

 

http://www.eu4wiki.com/Casus_belli

 

There's a whole list of casus belli there. Pick any of these and as long as the casus belli isn't fake, it's acceptable casus belli. You still probably won't be able to avoid backlash, but at least it's valid casus belli.

Imperialism CB is best CB.

 

Shellhound did nothing wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's casus belli, not causus belli, it means "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" or shorter version: "case of war". These pages clearly define what is a casus belli

 

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Casus_Belli

 

http://www.eu4wiki.com/Casus_belli

 

There's a whole list of casus belli there. Pick any of these and as long as the casus belli isn't fake, it's acceptable casus belli. You still probably won't be able to avoid backlash, but at least it's valid casus belli.

 

The picture of a ''Holy War'' in P&W is interesting.

 

I hope that someday in this game, there will be an alliance that quickly comes to power that's religiously-themed, and that it gets a bunch of strong members; then it starts conquering other alliances and is basically just a huge problem for everyone to deal with. That would be cool.

  • Upvote 3

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture of a ''Holy War'' in P&W is interesting.

 

I hope that someday in this game, there will be an alliance that quickly comes to power that's religiously-themed, and that it gets a bunch of strong members; then it starts conquering other alliances and is basically just a huge problem for everyone to deal with. That would be cool.

Except that actual conquest isn't a mechanic in this game.  You can crush a nation, but never occupy it.

php9BQiIRAM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that actual conquest isn't a mechanic in this game.  You can crush a nation, but never occupy it.

 

Well, I figure constantly declaring war on a nation over and over again for weeks would be the same as ''conquering'' them as far as P&W goes.

  • Upvote 4

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A casus belli here doesn't work like in CK2 or similar games so the point of having to prove the validity of a CB is kinda moot. 

 

Not only that, but this is a roleplaying game. We create our own reasons and conflicts. CB might for someone seem as weird and bullshit, but that's because it's not real. You're not the despot of an actual nation, with actual people in an actual state alliance. This is a game. You make up things as you go.

 

But that also means that the people in the community gets to decide if they think the casus belli is strong enough to wage a war against someone. If you were to write a CB thread about how a war against me has started because I disagreed with you in a thread people might object for different reasons. The important thing for this isn't whether it's a valid reason or not, what's important is what this reflects on you. It might make people think you're abrasive and can't take criticism, which can have consequences on how other nations and alliances treats you.

 

But some casus belli might not be 100% true. The rpg aspect encourages us to do entertaining and fun things. Where I to write a casus belli against the justice department where I write that I a representative of an anarchist nation with a strong hate against the police and the law, that might not be true but that might not matter to me at all since I'm roleplaying.

 

The reason why we don't have restrictions or rules on how CB's are suppose to be about is because that would extremely limit us in how we play this game. Some people just like the simulation aspect of the game, others enjoy the rp. There's no need to punish the latter group because first group enjoy something else.

It's my birthday today, and I'm 33!

That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS!

*every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party*

4nVL9WJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A casus belli here doesn't work like in CK2 or similar games so the point of having to prove the validity of a CB is kinda moot. 

 

Not only that, but this is a roleplaying game. We create our own reasons and conflicts. CB might for someone seem as weird and !@#$, but that's because it's not real. You're not the despot of an actual nation, with actual people in an actual state alliance. This is a game. You make up things as you go.

 

But that also means that the people in the community gets to decide if they think the casus belli is strong enough to wage a war against someone. If you were to write a CB thread about how a war against me has started because I disagreed with you in a thread people might object for different reasons. The important thing for this isn't whether it's a valid reason or not, what's important is what this reflects on you. It might make people think you're abrasive and can't take criticism, which can have consequences on how other nations and alliances treats you.

 

But some casus belli might not be 100% true. The rpg aspect encourages us to do entertaining and fun things. Where I to write a casus belli against the justice department where I write that I a representative of an anarchist nation with a strong hate against the police and the law, that might not be true but that might not matter to me at all since I'm roleplaying.

 

The reason why we don't have restrictions or rules on how CB's are suppose to be about is because that would extremely limit us in how we play this game. Some people just like the simulation aspect of the game, others enjoy the rp. There's no need to punish the latter group because first group enjoy something else.

IC: I hereby declare war on you under the offense of 'sullying my honour' for 'disputing my post'. I have proof of your misdeeds and I shall destroy you until you take back your words. Death to you and your family!

 

OOC: The above is a joke and is just an example of a war declaration with a clearly defined CB. Don't expect me to actually declare war on him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IC: I hereby declare war on you under the offense of 'sullying my honour' for 'disputing my post'. I have proof of your misdeeds and I shall destroy you until you take back your words. Death to you and your family!

 

OOC: The above is a joke and is just an example of a war declaration with a clearly defined CB. Don't expect me to actually declare war on him.

 

Kudos for getting my drift.

  • Upvote 1

It's my birthday today, and I'm 33!

That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS!

*every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party*

4nVL9WJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that this thread is not trashed by trolling.

You mean this is a serious question?

tumblr_m9czr1koad1rutbklo1_5002_zpsgrmgw


Drip, drip, drop


ヽ( 。ヮ゚)ノ "Jump on the crazy brain gravy train!" (。□゚ノ)ノ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the usual TEst way of hitting people: say there's no reason besides money, and know you're gonna win in the beginning

The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality:


- Kastor: I already came out the closet.


- MaIone: I'm gay


* MaIone is now known as Kastor


- Henri: i'm a !@#$it


 


Skable: the !@#$ is a codo?


 


420kekscope.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the usual TEst way of hitting people: say there's no reason besides money, and know you're gonna win in the beginning

 

Incorrect, we have never been paid to go to war and money is rarely a motivator for us to begin with, especially in the age of missiles and nukes where your nation can expect to suffer tremendous and expensive infra damage, thus negating any actual profit in going to war for profitable reasons.

 

Raiding, on the other hand, that's for money.  Or fun.  Or treasures.  Or skulls.  The motives for that are innumerable.

php9BQiIRAM.jpg

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.