Nationstates is Risk Averse

​

Over the most recent course of NationStates history we've seen a general decline in defending as well the decline of meaningful endeavours. The first thing that many on all sides can agree on is that there are few valuable regions to fight on the battlefield for. With the exception of Osiris, there have been no great notable raids. So while the rhetoric may have been high in the past, even that has been unable to sustain military gameplay as one of the more important facets for the most important regions.

Furthermore, I'd also argue there is little difference between most of the largest regions in terms of ideology. We'd be fooling ourselves if we didn't argue that the main reason regions such as Balder and Osiris get along now are because the hierarchies like each other currently. This was not the case when they disliked the other side intensely. Most regional inhabitants prefer peace and also prefer to be considered "moderate".

With members of NationStates becoming closer and closer, a decline in politics was bound to occur in all regions. The mythical explanations for regions are simply swept aside by the newer sorts of members who see beyond such trivial factors. To what benefit is there in shaking things up when they can harm your own career and your regions moderate image? Lazarus had attempted to shake it up under Milograd, but the most they achieved in world politics were converting their region for the FRA and having mild spats with with Balder and The South Pacific.

It'd be cool for regions to band together and fight one another. But in reality we've become a lot more like the real world, where conflict between countries is becoming rarer and rarer as they all increasingly rely on each other and aren't all that different. Are there any great ideologies left? Certainly I've discussed with many people ways to shake the game up and bringing new ideologies... but the problem is that we have not been able to think of any. Besides. People don't want to take those sorts of risks anyway.

So while there still are differences between regions and disagreements and squabbles, the differences rely not so much in ideology but personalities.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

I guess the lack of a focused enemy means there isn't any rhetoric and, therefore, the politics has become more diluted. Europeia never got into the mass-tag raid style and, since defending them turned too difficult, the fun was probably lost after a sustained period of winning with little/no challenge.

I guess, also, with more sharing common citizenship there's less movement to fight against one-another.

 

[hyanygo]

Well Lazarus' fight against the imperialist is worthy and is an achievement in itself. The enemy is the self-centered imperialist --- the player whose prime objective is not to make everyone better off but themselves and themselves alone.

On that front, Europeia should be mentioned in fighting the worthy battle. It is a long-standing doctrine that we shall not become imperialists and whilst we may have friends of that persuasion, we actively dislike it.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

On that front, Europeia should be mentioned in fighting the worthy battle. It is a long-standing doctrine that we shall not become imperialists and whilst we may have friends of that persuasion, we actively dislike it.

Very much agree. We have only go back a year[ish] when we were called the Euro-TNI-aphere which, from my experiences now, seems to have come to an end. Seems we've all become a bit more friendly with each other

 

[Rach]

Well Lazarus' fight against the imperialist is worthy and is an achievement in itself. The enemy is the self-centered imperialist --- the player whose prime objective is not to make everyone better off but themselves and themselves alone.

On that front, Europeia should be mentioned in fighting the worthy battle. It is a long-standing doctrine that we shall not become imperialists and whilst we may have friends of that persuasion, we actively dislike it.

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to ns military stuff anymore. But how is lazarus so different from imperialists? Members such as milograd and harmoneia have amassed large political careers in multiple regions.

 

[Anumia]

They have a different flag.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

If you're keeping score at home:

Tagging tiny region = evil imperialist
Occupying large, active feeder region = defender

 

[Lethen]

If you're keeping score at home:

Tagging tiny region = evil imperialist
Occupying large, active feeder region = defender

Would make for a clever satire if any papers wanted to write about it.

 

[hyanygo]

So, Balder and Osiris are ignored?

 

[hyanygo]

Well Lazarus' fight against the imperialist is worthy and is an achievement in itself. The enemy is the self-centered imperialist --- the player whose prime objective is not to make everyone better off but themselves and themselves alone.

On that front, Europeia should be mentioned in fighting the worthy battle. It is a long-standing doctrine that we shall not become imperialists and whilst we may have friends of that persuasion, we actively dislike it.

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to ns military stuff anymore. But how is lazarus so different from imperialists? Members such as milograd and harmoneia have amassed large political careers in multiple regions.

Different because they actively fight the imperialist threat. There is no greater threat to security than the slow erosion of regional boundaries that imperialism deals out. It's disgusting.

 

[Rach]

Well Lazarus' fight against the imperialist is worthy and is an achievement in itself. The enemy is the self-centered imperialist --- the player whose prime objective is not to make everyone better off but themselves and themselves alone.

On that front, Europeia should be mentioned in fighting the worthy battle. It is a long-standing doctrine that we shall not become imperialists and whilst we may have friends of that persuasion, we actively dislike it.

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to ns military stuff anymore. But how is lazarus so different from imperialists? Members such as milograd and harmoneia have amassed large political careers in multiple regions.

Different because they actively fight the imperialist threat. There is no greater threat to security than the slow erosion of regional boundaries that imperialism deals out. It's disgusting.

And how is taking over Lazarus & trying to take over The South Pacific to fight imperialism not imperialist in itself?

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by imperialism? Do you mean the taking of small inactive regions?

 

[hyanygo]

No, I mean the concerted and deliberate effort to engage in unequal relationships for one party's sole benefit.

 

[Rach]

Is that not what they're doing by ruling Lazarus? I just don't see the differences

 

[hyanygo]

Um no. Are you purposefully this dense?

 

[Rach]

Let's try not to lower the decorum Hyanygo. There is no need to be rude. I just don't see how installing a dictatorship in tsp and installing an oligarchy in lazarus aren't examples of engaging in unequal relationships for their own benefit. Trying to take over multiple regions in such a way is imperialistic in my opinion.

 

[Apollo]

I just don't see how installing a dictatorship in tsp and installing an oligarchy in lazarus aren't examples of engaging in unequal relationships for their own benefit.

Woah, woah, woah. Let's not pretend for a second that every region isn't led by an oligarchy.

 

[Rach]

Some regions have more oligarchy than others.

 

[North East Somerset]

Well Lazarus' fight against the imperialist is worthy and is an achievement in itself. The enemy is the self-centered imperialist --- the player whose prime objective is not to make everyone better off but themselves and themselves alone.

This seems like a bit of a fantasy to me. Who are these beings you label "imperialists" and say are the enemy? Can you give an example of somebody who fits this description, and explain why they are an "enemy"?

 

[Huxwells Fortier-Shaw]

I don't fully agree, but I think it's mostly in the way you coin the problem, rather than the problem itself.

Regions (talking very broadly here, there are of course exceptions) did indeed become more moderate and aimed at co-operation, rather than seeking confrontation. It makes sense: regions try to get as much newcomers over, in order to grown and see activity continue. The fact that recruitment is becoming increasingly difficult probably adds up to taking less risks in starting possible interregional conflicts. The risks of losing reputation due to any issues are just too big and that's why I think crisismanagment rather than "going to war" has become an increasingly important topic in regional governments. Also, and this might just be a hunch, I think that the game aged along with its most veteran players, who are ofttimes important opinion/decision makers in the bigger regions. Children are too confrontation driven and incapable of assessing the consequences of their actions, while young adults are a lot better at that.

However, ideology has always and will always be a heated topic of discussion. People still hold different views when it comes to military gameplay, but are just less likely to actually fight for them as 1) the options/opportunities of military gameplay are diminishing 2) the risks of social repercussion for their most valuable regions are too big.