I believe that regions come first. In that sense, regions should do what’s in their own interest. Forgetting the raiding/defending game for the moment, I will state what system I’d like using an example:
Region X wants to expand its Empire, it conquers Region Y.
Region Z has a choice does it:
1.Stay Neutral?
2.Prevent the expansion of Region Y’s power?
3. Support the invasion in order to align itself with Region X?
The problem with the current system is that it prevents this sort of game from occurring due to over-simplification and a belief in idealistic rather than practical reasoning by members on both sides. What would happen in the current reality?
Region X wants to expand its Empire, it conquers Region Y.
Region D is idealistically defender and hence will seek to prevent the invasion. As well, it will determine that Region Z is “raider” not due to the beliefs of Region Z but due to it’s action and Region D’s idealism. Region D judges Region Z not based on reality but to fit its idealism (that is, since it is doing something opposite to my beliefs… it is the opposite of me).
Region R is idealistically raider and bases it’s actions on fighting defenders, who are the enemy. For this reason, it will support the invasion because of its raider beliefs and will also judge region Z based on its idealism (since is doing something similar to my beliefs it is the same of me).
This idealism creates misconceptions for the reality of the game and in the previous example, it will become part of the raiding game by trying to grow its Empire even if it would have defended another region to prevent the growth of another region.
For example, a defender I was talking to last night thought that TNI hates defenders. It is a more than perfect example of idealistic logic. TNI mainly raids, hence it is raider and driven by raidererism. TNI dislikes the FRA, a defender organization. Hence, TNI is extremely raider and hates defenders according to certain idealistic defender logic.
Yet, clearly TNI is motivated not by “raiderism” but a set of internal values and interests that determine it’s actions on the world stage. Example: Anarchy. Obviously the defending/raiding game does affect its actions as it does influence the actions of TNI by providing different opportunities and forcing it’s values to adhere to what is a “raider” vs. “defender” world.
Also, it is clear that the FRA does not equal Defending. The FRA is a political-military regional organization that adheres militarily to the ideology of defending. There are defenders, which dislike the FRA! Hence, a distinction must be made between disliking defenderism and between disliking the organization. In truth, one can dislike both but it’s also a mistake to say that the military actions of the FRA speak for the military actions of all defenders. Hence, a region can say it dislikes the military actions of the FRA which does not mean that that region dislikes Defenderism. Rather it dislikes what that organization has done which leads to another misconception:
That the military action of one region speaks for the rest that is labeled under a belief. This is true as defenders shy away from certain actions of other organizations, as do raiders. Indeed, there were defenders who were trying so hard to convince me that Europeia was raider based on their own idealism and beliefs. When I provided proof to the contrary, they simply dismissed it and sought to say that actions to the contrary do not matter. If you raid they say, you are a raider. So, if Europeia defends (as it did with UKB), it’s defender until it’s next operation?
This is where the idealism falls apart, when it is faced with indications that the driving force behind a regions actions are not idealistic in the same sense that they are. In conclusion, idealistic defenderism and raiding are incorrect in their logic with regards to reality as they are blanket terms, which fail to take in account individual regions and people. Rather than examine reality, they pretend that reality conforms to their beliefs. In my opinion, that degrades the game. The game is simply not three sides, neutrals, raiders and defenders. It is far more nuanced.
But, is it an iron cage? Is there no escape from it? While the strongest militaries combined remain “defender” and “raider” it would seem to be. The ideology is strong and easy to fall into. Indeed, there are organizations being created that don’t even include regional self-interest in their creation such as the UDL which are born entirely of “defenderism” whereas the FRA is a multi-regional alliance that exists to serve it’s members interests, which it feels is “defenderism”. It removes the individual region as a player, except to serve “defenderism”. Are we seeing a movement where home regions don’t matter to them?
Which, is a supreme irony in my opinion. That those who serve only to protect regions are in actuality damaging regions far more important to gameplay. This comes in conflict with the belief that the primary efforts should be the improvement of the region. Rather, I believe most idealistic members of the raider/defender belief often believe that there efforts abroad are more important than their efforts at home. That there cause means more and I back this up by their belief in defenderism/raiderism rather than the interests of the region.
It’s possible to argue that defenderism/raiderism is in the interest of a region and I will explore that option in my next post on this.
Part II: Practical Defending/Raiding.
Region X wants to expand its Empire, it conquers Region Y.
Region Z has a choice does it:
1.Stay Neutral?
2.Prevent the expansion of Region Y’s power?
3. Support the invasion in order to align itself with Region X?
The problem with the current system is that it prevents this sort of game from occurring due to over-simplification and a belief in idealistic rather than practical reasoning by members on both sides. What would happen in the current reality?
Region X wants to expand its Empire, it conquers Region Y.
Region D is idealistically defender and hence will seek to prevent the invasion. As well, it will determine that Region Z is “raider” not due to the beliefs of Region Z but due to it’s action and Region D’s idealism. Region D judges Region Z not based on reality but to fit its idealism (that is, since it is doing something opposite to my beliefs… it is the opposite of me).
Region R is idealistically raider and bases it’s actions on fighting defenders, who are the enemy. For this reason, it will support the invasion because of its raider beliefs and will also judge region Z based on its idealism (since is doing something similar to my beliefs it is the same of me).
This idealism creates misconceptions for the reality of the game and in the previous example, it will become part of the raiding game by trying to grow its Empire even if it would have defended another region to prevent the growth of another region.
For example, a defender I was talking to last night thought that TNI hates defenders. It is a more than perfect example of idealistic logic. TNI mainly raids, hence it is raider and driven by raidererism. TNI dislikes the FRA, a defender organization. Hence, TNI is extremely raider and hates defenders according to certain idealistic defender logic.
Yet, clearly TNI is motivated not by “raiderism” but a set of internal values and interests that determine it’s actions on the world stage. Example: Anarchy. Obviously the defending/raiding game does affect its actions as it does influence the actions of TNI by providing different opportunities and forcing it’s values to adhere to what is a “raider” vs. “defender” world.
Also, it is clear that the FRA does not equal Defending. The FRA is a political-military regional organization that adheres militarily to the ideology of defending. There are defenders, which dislike the FRA! Hence, a distinction must be made between disliking defenderism and between disliking the organization. In truth, one can dislike both but it’s also a mistake to say that the military actions of the FRA speak for the military actions of all defenders. Hence, a region can say it dislikes the military actions of the FRA which does not mean that that region dislikes Defenderism. Rather it dislikes what that organization has done which leads to another misconception:
That the military action of one region speaks for the rest that is labeled under a belief. This is true as defenders shy away from certain actions of other organizations, as do raiders. Indeed, there were defenders who were trying so hard to convince me that Europeia was raider based on their own idealism and beliefs. When I provided proof to the contrary, they simply dismissed it and sought to say that actions to the contrary do not matter. If you raid they say, you are a raider. So, if Europeia defends (as it did with UKB), it’s defender until it’s next operation?
This is where the idealism falls apart, when it is faced with indications that the driving force behind a regions actions are not idealistic in the same sense that they are. In conclusion, idealistic defenderism and raiding are incorrect in their logic with regards to reality as they are blanket terms, which fail to take in account individual regions and people. Rather than examine reality, they pretend that reality conforms to their beliefs. In my opinion, that degrades the game. The game is simply not three sides, neutrals, raiders and defenders. It is far more nuanced.
But, is it an iron cage? Is there no escape from it? While the strongest militaries combined remain “defender” and “raider” it would seem to be. The ideology is strong and easy to fall into. Indeed, there are organizations being created that don’t even include regional self-interest in their creation such as the UDL which are born entirely of “defenderism” whereas the FRA is a multi-regional alliance that exists to serve it’s members interests, which it feels is “defenderism”. It removes the individual region as a player, except to serve “defenderism”. Are we seeing a movement where home regions don’t matter to them?
Which, is a supreme irony in my opinion. That those who serve only to protect regions are in actuality damaging regions far more important to gameplay. This comes in conflict with the belief that the primary efforts should be the improvement of the region. Rather, I believe most idealistic members of the raider/defender belief often believe that there efforts abroad are more important than their efforts at home. That there cause means more and I back this up by their belief in defenderism/raiderism rather than the interests of the region.
It’s possible to argue that defenderism/raiderism is in the interest of a region and I will explore that option in my next post on this.
Part II: Practical Defending/Raiding.
