[Op-Ed] Frontier - A Path of Problems





Op-Ed: Frontier - A Path of Problems
A Breakdown on the Drawbacks of the Frontier Choice

Written by @Le Libertie



Introduction:
As the region continues to debate the path it will take as the Frontier-Stronghold update is slated to arrive sometime soon, I wanted to share my thoughts on why I oppose Europeia becoming a frontier. Up to this point, I have for the most part sat at the sidelines when it comes to this debate. This has been for the most part due to my RL busyness, but I have closely followed the arguments made on both sides, and I want to share my unique perspective on the issues with a Europeian frontier thoroughly in this considerably lengthy piece.
There have been many insightful arguments provided in Grand Hall posts and articles by other stronghold-supporters, some of which have inspired me since I first began writing this piece. Ultimately, as the current situation stands, I see choosing frontier today as opting for a path of problems for the following reasons I will outline.

Part 1: The Uncertainty Surrounding the Frontier

This first part of this piece focuses on the one clear theme that--for me--has defined the looming F/S update so far: the utter uncertainty in how it will look in reality. Given this, I believe that at the very least, Europeia should wait to observe some of the initial effects of the F/S update before taking action. Only after receiving concrete information on all of the update’s features, observing how moderator’s ideas actually translate to reality, and thoroughly analyzing the consequences of the update can we truly make the best decision on what Europeia’s path should be. Furthermore, prematurely opting to become a frontier bears considerable consequences, while waiting--as I will argue--ultimately does not have significant detriments. The following are my reasons why I believe that a Europeian Frontier should wait.

We don't know how much of a benefit in our nation count that we would receive if we were to choose a frontier.
Dozens of nations could spawn per day, or Europeia could receive a less-than-satisfactory trickle. Both the method moderators use to determine spawn rates and the number and size of other frontiers will significantly affect how many nations spawn. Other factors, such as dealing with external recruitment and building up our gameside system for a favorable retention rate, will also have to be faced by a Europeian frontier. The simple truth is, despite our best guesses, the variability in these factors given the currently limited information we have renders us unable to accurately confirm what the boost in our nation-count would actually look like. Given that this is one of, if not the biggest, benefit of the frontier update, we need to have a firmer grasp of our potential population benefit before taking action.

Other sacrifices of becoming a Frontier are important to consider.
Outside of losing our founder, there are other significant commitments that Europeia would need to undertake, all for unclear benefit. As a necessity for security, our very liberal endocap would have to be considerably reduced and we would have to restrict the endotarting activity of gameside-only residents. And with less control over who comes into our community, our gameside moderation presence would have to increase. These are potentially resource-intensive endeavors that we have historically struggled to deal with.
Given that opting to become a frontier would cause influence decay similar to that of GCRs, Europeia also would instantly lose years of compiled influence amongst resident nations. In this way, opting for a frontier has some very permanent effects: even if Europeia considered returning to a stronghold after becoming a frontier, that influence would be gone forever. This influence is not a mere NS stat, but part of what has created our region’s nearly unrivaled security.
As a frontier, our region would be permanently connected to an interdependent network of other independent actors, whose decisions (expansion, promotion of more frontiers, etc.) can collectively end up having a significant impact on our spawn flow. In effect, Europeia would be opening itself up to being indirectly influenced by regions to a truly unprecedented extent. Our independence, our ability to (for the most part) control our own fate through our own efforts, would be partially lost in choosing frontier.

We don't know to what extent recruitment will be changed by the emergence of Frontiers.
One prominent claim forwarded by frontier-supporters is that opting to become a stronghold would lead to the slow atrophy and decline of Europeia. This argument is typically supported with the assertion that the emergence of Frontiers will end up "Reducing our recruiting pool by half," as Forward Europeia claims in their manifesto. However, this is mere speculation, one which unsurprisingly makes the frontier option seem more appealing.
The truth is that we simply do not know whether the emergence of frontiers will make traditional recruitment easier or more difficult, but either an increase or decrease in recruitment success rates are easily plausible.
Despite being repeatedly claimed, an increase in the regions that new nations can spawn in doesn't necessarily correlate with a decrease in recruitment effectiveness. In fact, the emergence of frontiers could prove advantageous for traditional recruitment. As more new nations are likely to spawn in severely underdeveloped regions lacking the strong government, integration techniques, and security of GCRs, a stronghold region like Europeia could actually look more attractive than it does today.

There has not been a convincing argument given for why choosing Frontier immediately would be better than taking our time and figuring out these above factors before taking any action.
Opting to become a frontier while being ill-prepared could lead to various effects such as an underwhelming increase in nations, low retention rates of spawned citizens, or an inability to increase gameside presence to necessary levels, all while coming at the cost of a conservative WA culture and years of permanently-lost influence.
But the claim by some that Europeia needs to adhere to some notion of proactiveness or timeliness in choosing a frontier as soon as this option becomes available has not been substantiated with much evidence. The option to choose frontier will remain available at all times, our ability to establish necessary security measures as a frontier will not wane, and the nation-count benefits of becoming a frontier--if they do prove to be substantial--should not disappear quickly either.
Waiting and observing may prove to be one of the most essential aspects of predicting what a Frontier Europeia would look like. Committing right now to becoming a frontier is not pragmatic, but rather reckless given the dearth of evidence that exists in several areas key to determining whether frontier is worth it.


Part 2: Is the Frontier Path Truly Congruent with the Europeian Identity?

Even if some of the benefits frontier-supporters assert are possible, at a fundamental level, I believe that several facets of choosing the frontier option do not necessarily align with the Europeian identity.

Does Europeia define itself as a ‘pioneer’?
I think one of the most prominent themes echoed by frontier-supporters is that Europeia is defined by being a pioneer of politics in NS and that becoming a frontier gives our region another chance to demonstrate this.
But the truth is, for me, that I don’t see ‘pioneer’ as a fundamental part of the Europeian character. Rather, I see Europeia foremost as a community that is defined by its political excellence and pragmatism above all else. Of course, there are times in which Europeia does adopt the role of a pioneer, but I would argue that innovation is not the essential part of our identity. In fact, I would argue that recent missteps involving our participation in the IRC can easily be explained as examples our government of pursuing a theoretically appealing, seemingly innovative idea that fell flat when faced with reality.
When we pursue innovation over pragmatism, we will suffer detriments. And compared to the relatively benign drawbacks of something like the IRC, a mistake in choosing frontier could bring far more serious ramifications.

The gameside-intensive requirements of becoming a frontier have thus far not been a part of the Europeian character.
On the surface, my relatively higher interest in gameside affairs and features compared to other citizens might have made people assume that I would support a Europeian frontier. But alongside my other concerns with the frontier feature, my experience as a gameside fan in Europeia has given me insight into why Europeia’s identity is not congruent with the frontier choice.
If there has been one aspect of Europeia that has somewhat disappointed me in my years of experience here, it has been the region’s overall lack of interest in gameside affairs. In August of this year, I addressed this issue in a comment I made, in which I remarked that there seems to be “an inherent limit to our [gameside] efforts that stems from the fact that many citizens simply don't enjoy interacting on the gameside much”. Many seem to confirm this sentiment, in fact, for some, this reality is seen as an important aspect of who Europeia is.
Yet the most promising results for a frontier require that we boost our gameside presence and tailor our outreach to a broader base of players, that is if we desire to have worthwhile retention rates. In the words of Kazaman, “the basic fact is that without a strong presence on the actual region in NationStates, our security as a Frontier will be compromised”.
A paradoxical issue of sorts emerges: Europeia is a region that has historically been disinterested in the gameside, yet desires to pursue a path that would require unprecedented engagement with this realm. I think that players like @UPC and I acutely observe this issue. Frontier supporters want to take on the potential of having a larger proportion of players lie outside of the typical Europeian interest range, all while acknowledging that Europeia really isn’t designed for players such as those.
A Europeian frontier would have to face many critical questions. Will Europeia simply hemorrhage these outlying nations I just described, cutting into the benefit of becoming a frontier? Will a new administration successfully muster up a consistent passion and energy towards the gameside? And if a change in our gameside attitude does occur, will it be altering a fundamental aspect of the Europeian character? I don’t find many, if any, of the potential answers to these questions to be satisfying. And I don’t think this current administration has addressed these questions in any meaningful manner.

Europeia will need to confront the uncomfortable dilemma that lies at the core of the Frontier-Stronghold update: community conflict, and it must reconcile this reality with our identity.
Even if we can ensure that Europeia itself remains secure, the fact still remains that the F/S update was designed as a catalyst for increased interregional conflict. It was intended for regions to be vulnerable, take more risks, and for the first time, provide a tangible benefit for the complete conquering of regions.
If Europeia were to become a frontier, it would have to grapple with the fact that the elimination of as many other frontiers as possible would be in the region's best interest population-wise (given that, in general, the reduction of frontier regions increases the flow of nations that would spawn in our region).
At worst, becoming a frontier puts Europeia in the position of thriving off of the potential destruction of similar communities.
If we chose to embrace an aggressive expansionist approach, Europeia would be going down a troubling path. Unlike our current ERN practices in which we minimize harm to native members, pursuing operations that eliminate frontiers would necessitate destructive actions such as ejecting/banning natives, passwording a region, or even permanently establishing control of a region under a controlled puppet nation. These methods lie outside the character of what the ERN has done in the past, and the Europeian character as a whole. I doubt that many see this as a viable path.
On the other hand, disavowing an expansionist approach still leads to other issues. Will Europeia idly sit by if the proliferation of frontiers cuts into our population share until the benefits are essentially non-existent? If Europeia chooses to protect other frontiers, will it still find itself at odds with aggressive expansionist regions that seek to increase their share in the spawning pool? Ultimately, Europeia would need to redefine itself in the sphere of foreign affairs, reconciling its Independent ideology with its frontier status.

Conclusion:

In summary, the most important issues with the frontier option are as follows: we don’t know to what extent it will benefit us, we will be making significant sacrifices, and the frontier option is not aligned with the Europeian character.

There is a lot I discussed in this piece: some of which touches on points previously debated, and some of which I feel have not been present in the public dialogue. As we approach a critical election, I hope that not only will both our citizenry and the upcoming presidential tickets address these concerns in-depth, but that others will agree that a stronghold is the best option for Europeia’s future.
 

UPC

His Illustriousness
Vice President
Citizen
UPC wildly paraphrased what i said

What I said:
Our regional founder suggested that that's just how things are.
What you said:
My key proposition here is that the lower retention rate is a feature, not a bug, of how we operate.


Every time I look at a GCR RMB, with some exceptions, I see a mess there. I don't exactly see a lot of their citizens on the game side. Right now TNP have a nation "national socialist Yugoslavia" on the RMB and it hasn't even been banned yet. You're overthinking things a lot, you even wrote a huge post about our and other big GCRs' RMB posts and endorsements (by the way then I'd suggest looking at GCRs and their stats there, since that's what we actually want to become).
I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with this example.

The point is still simple: our nation count will increase (despite what Darc tried to argue but made a fatal error), and eventually the endocount too, no matter what we do on the RMB. The question is to maximise the gains, and to minimise risks, and to make sure there aren't too many Frontiers so that we actually gain something
How can you argue that we ought to be maximising gains and minimizing risks, and then argue that gameside integration isn't a concern???
 

Seva

Citizen
Discord Moderator
How can you argue that we ought to be maximising gains and minimizing risks, and then argue that gameside integration isn't a concern???
I'm not saying it's irrelevant. Just saying it's not important enough to justify not being a Frontier. Ideally we should improve it, but that'd just be a nice bonus

Will clarify again: there will be gains even with bad game side integration, but if we want to maximise them, we need to improve that integration. It's not necessary but it's desirable
 

Sincluda

Supreme Overlord of myself
Cabinet
Senator
Deputy Minister
Citizen
Will clarify again: there will be gains even with bad game side integration, but if we want to maximise them, we need to improve that integration. It's not necessary but it's desirable
But these gains will be small, and not worth the losses of becoming a Frontier.

I’d like to see if anyone would be willing to challenge the point that recruitment probably won’t be harder in F/S, and being a Frontier isn’t necessary to get new nations.
 

Seva

Citizen
Discord Moderator
There are no losses of becoming a Frontier unless we get couped which we won't.

Nobody is even arguing recruitment will be harder. We'd obviously still gain nations as a Stronghold, just much less.
 

Le Libertie

Vice Chancellor
Citizen
I think that it's very informative to hear all of these comments!

I'd like to start off by stating that I want to caution against pigeonholing my whole argument to a singular focus on our region's gameside inadequacy, as @UPC is somewhat leaning towards doing. I do indeed think that Europeia's relative weakness in gameside engagement does play an important part in why becoming a frontier is not for us, but it is still one of several reasons.

@Writinglegend, I recognize the point you are making, but I just don't agree with the notion that we have to be all in or out from day 1. Our decision to become a frontier or stronghold breaks down to a simple question: do the positives of being a frontier for us outweigh the negatives? The thing is, an accurate measurement of both the positives and the negatives of being a frontier is simply impossible for us to predict at this point. This point, in particular, is also relevant to @SkyGreen24's comments: it's not exactly that frontier supporters want to "enact the transition asap without preparation," but that we're putting ourselves at a severe disadvantage by trying to choose frontier without seeing if the factors add up to our advantage (more on this point when I address HEM). The moderators have not even finalized their decision on important factors such as spawn rates that will prove to be critically important. And even in the past few weeks, moderators have switched their positions with massive ramifications, such as eliminating their initial decision that a frontier transition would be permanent. I don't think it is fair for anyone to expect regions to commit to either frontier or stronghold at the outset when so many critical factors are currently fluid and getting an accurate gauge of the positives and negatives will be key to the final choice made.

@HEM, I thought that to a certain extent, I addressed your comments in my piece. I guess I want to start off by saying that a core assumption implied in my article is that the mere existence of an increase in nations alone is not enough for becoming a frontier to be worth it. For example, having an average of 10 additional nations in a frontier compared to a stronghold at any time for Euro might not cut it. Rather, a somewhat substantial benefit, or a 'threshold' (say, for the sake of argument, 100 additional nations for a frontier compared to a stronghold, or preventing population atrophy that some assume strongholds will suffer), would be key to making a frontier 'worth it'. A frontier Europeia would have to put in work, such as keeping a good retention rate of spawned nations, to ensure it is at least meeting that particular 'threshold' to make all of the sacrifices of being a frontier worthwhile. This work requires doing things that GCRs do, such as heavy gameside involvement. The thing is, current GCRs have wide room for error given the massive influx of nations they receive. In addition, as I point out in my article and as other stronghold-supporters argue, Europeia already lacks the gameside-engagement culture that makes keeping up good conversion rates much easier for those regions (and HEM I think your argument is fair that maybe Europeia shouldn't be expected to change its culture). In total, I think it is very unlikely that Europeia can pass on doing the work that GCRs do (intensive gameside integration) while keeping above the 'threshold' that would make a frontier worth it for us. I think it is awfully optimistic to assume that we can either neglect this realm or put forth a gameside effort roughly equivalent to what we are currently doing and still meet this threshold. In summary, people like Sincluda, UPC, and me are skeptical that Euro can alter our overall regional attitude towards gameside affairs, thus causing us to fall below the threshold that makes a frontier worth it, and thus making many sacrifices the region must take as a frontier a waste.
 
Last edited:

Writinglegend

Cabinet
Senator
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
@Writinglegend, I recognize the point you are making, but I just don't agree with the notion that we have to be all in or out from day 1. Our decision to become a frontier or stronghold breaks down to a simple question: do the positives of being a frontier for us outweigh the negatives? The thing is, an accurate measurement of both the positives and the negatives of being a frontier is simply impossible for us to predict at this point. This point, in particular, is also relevant to @SkyGreen24's comments: it's not exactly that frontier supporters want to "enact the transition asap without preparation," but that we're putting ourselves at a severe disadvantage by trying to choose frontier without seeing if the factors add up to our advantage (more on this point when I address HEM). The moderators have not even finalized their decision on important factors such as spawn rates that will prove to be critically important. And even in the past few weeks, moderators have switched their positions with massive ramifications, such as eliminating their initial decision that a frontier transition would be permanent. I don't think it is fair for anyone to expect regions to commit to either frontier or stronghold at the outset when so many critical factors are currently fluid and getting an accurate gauge of the positives and negatives will be key to the final choice made.
And what I'm saying does not disagree with your simple question -- all I am saying is that we need to stick with our decision if we want to reap the maximum foreign policy benefits of this update. I think it is very fair to expect the preeminent UCR in the game to make a firm decision and be a leader of that decision when the update drops which is, when I assume, we will have proper information to make an informed decision (which I get you are arguing we do not have right now).
 

Seva

Citizen
Discord Moderator
yeah, I do have to clarify, I don't want us to make the mechanical transition right after the update drops. We should obviously wait a couple of days while we vote on it and see how many others become Frontiers in the beginning and what the spawn rate etc. is. If the number is more than 30, obviously that won't make sense, but I'm still assuming 5-10 sustainable Frontiers on average (some will be raided maybe, some will opt out, but the number should converge to something eventually, just like in economics during perfect competition, but the profit would definitely be more than 0. Actually this short term profit kind of deal could work - we opt out when there are too many frontiers, opt in when there aren't a lot, and thus manage to profit.

I do concede that to permanently become a Frontier is quite useless if there are a lot of other Frontiers and we don't have enough of a gameside presence. But again, I'm assuming a reasonably low number which would give us enough benefits. And at first the number will probably be low, so we'll profit. Sincluda once mentioned we should wait - well, actually, we should become a Frontier and then wait - if we're not getting benefits, we can opt out, but if we are, we'll just stay a Frontier as long as the Frontier number is reasonably low
 

Le Libertie

Vice Chancellor
Citizen
Actually this short term profit kind of deal could work - we opt out when there are too many frontiers, opt in when there aren't a lot, and thus manage to profit.
Ignoring the other extensive concerns I have already brought up about becoming a frontier, a flip-flop approach would very likely be unsustainable, if not impossible to conduct in an effective manner. The moderators have already clearly outlined that they intend for a transition will come at a massive cost of influence: this means, especially in regards to a frontier-stronghold transition, that it would likely take a very long time to collect influence needed to flip back. Furthermore, if you consider Writinglegend's argument to be valid, a flip-flop approach (if it were even feasible) would be a very bad look for Europeia.

EDIT:
I also overlooked Seva's other comment, which I will briefly do now:
There are no losses of becoming a Frontier unless we get couped which we won't.
Again, my article covers a multitude of reasons why your claim that a frontier has no losses is not the case.
Nobody is even arguing recruitment will be harder. We'd obviously still gain nations as a Stronghold, just much less.
And as I have already said before in the article, this is an assumption that frontier supporters are making with little rationale or evidence (at least that I have seen).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UPC

Seva

Citizen
Discord Moderator
The moderators have already clearly outlined that they intend for a transition will come at a massive cost of influence: this means, especially in regards to a frontier-stronghold transition, that it would likely take a very long time to collect influence needed to flip back.
Can you give the source? The post in the Grand Hall mentions no influence cost, only the cost to a delegate if they decide to switch to Frontier. Plus if we were as big as a GCR we'd still have nations with a lot of influence, even with decay

EDIT: Sorry, found the bit about a hefty influence cost to switch to Stronghold - but only one nation carries the cost, the Delegate, so I still assume it's possible to switch quite easily.
 
Last edited:

Kazaman

Cabinet
Associate Justice
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Yeah there is no influence cost for an executive Founder to do anything.
 

Le Libertie

Vice Chancellor
Citizen
Yeah there is no influence cost for an executive Founder to do anything.
Well the influence cost of switching to a frontier, even though we can use our founder, is the fact that every nation in the region would have its influence rating drop at or lower than the capped system that GCRs operate in. I'm pretty sure that every single nation in the region would likely have their influence reduced, not just the 80+ nations that are currently above the 87.2K limit that Sky calculated. This, again, would not only be a loss for going frontier, but a permanent one, even if we were to reverse our decision later.
 

Fhaeng

Citizen
The maximum influence in a capped system is 4015. Any nation that has no endorsements or only a few will rapidly drop to this level in a frontier unless there is a different system coded specifically. The system works based on a rolling 6 month system where any influence gathered more than 6 months ago vanishes. Mouse is 8th in the world for influence with over a million, that can only be achieved by high endorsements over many years and is impossible in a frontier. An example on the lower end, Vlaska has about 13k influence, but with 0 endorsements due to long ERN service, would drop down to the 4015 limit very quickly.
 

Kazaman

Cabinet
Associate Justice
Citizen
Discord Moderator
While that's true, it doesn't raise any serious security concerns, since native influence will always be much higher than invader influence, and security council influence will be much higher than the influence of the general population, and distributed over enough trustworthy people that no one of them could take unilateral control.
 

Fhaeng

Citizen
While that's true, it doesn't raise any serious security concerns, since native influence will always be much higher than invader influence, and security council influence will be much higher than the influence of the general population, and distributed over enough trustworthy people that no one of them could take unilateral control.
Of course, there is always an advantage to the native side in an invasion. Outside of any security council influence holds no importance to regional security (other than how hard it is for the security council / an invader to eject). But in a game and political sense there is another purpose to influence, what it means to the holder and the region.

Europeia is 7th in NationStates for influence as measured as the game does for regions (by average of the resident nations), there are only 2 other large regions in the top 10: Europe and XKI. Europeia holds a Regional Power rating at "Extremely High" (the highest rating), this is measured by the cumulative influence of resident nations. The top 119 nations for influence in Europeia are all in the top 1% of the world, the nations at the lower end of this aren't even in the top 10% for the region. As a nice golden badge that improves odds in the challenge minigame and in becoming a higher rarity for future cards seasons, influence can hold personal importance other than the security concerns it was created for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UPC

Sincluda

Supreme Overlord of myself
Cabinet
Senator
Deputy Minister
Citizen
While that's true, it doesn't raise any serious security concerns, since native influence will always be much higher than invader influence, and security council influence will be much higher than the influence of the general population, and distributed over enough trustworthy people that no one of them could take unilateral control.
The only problem with this is that security council influence actually needs time to amass.
 

Comfed

Deputy Minister
Citizen
Europeia is 7th in NationStates for influence as measured as the game does for regions (by average of the resident nations), there are only 2 other large regions in the top 10: Europe and XKI. Europeia holds a Regional Power rating at "Extremely High" (the highest rating), this is measured by the cumulative influence of resident nations. The top 119 nations for influence in Europeia are all in the top 1% of the world, the nations at the lower end of this aren't even in the top 10% for the region. As a nice golden badge that improves odds in the challenge minigame and in becoming a higher rarity for future cards seasons, influence can hold personal importance other than the security concerns it was created for.
I have to ask though… do stat badges really matter much here?
 

Fhaeng

Citizen
I have to ask though… do stat badges really matter much here?
If you mean "here" as part of this discussion, then it is an aspect of the game that this decision made by a very few people will affect the entire region. People do care about their stat badges, and influence is one of which that nations of all types can climb the ladder (as opposed to say Law Enforcement).
69th
While it's of little consequence to regional security or other high level arguments for/against, it's something that could play a factor in some people's minds. I could foresee some nations who may decide to leave to a stronghold region if they valued their influence stat highly enough, likely no big loss as a region as these would be nations that participate gameside only if even that, but something bearing in mind, especially as to the nature of the region's atmosphere.
 

Pland Adanna

Citizen
Okay, I'm way late to this discussion but it's been awhile since I've pitched in my thoughts on this issue. I started out lean-Stronghold and slowly shifted to lean-Frontier but, after reading this, I'm back to undecided. It certainly seems that the largest argument in favor of Stronghold Europeia is that we do not have a strong enough gameside presence. I strongly agree with this and hope to see it further addressed. (I was especially disappointed to see RMB WA discussions tossed.) However, I see this as an overcomeable (is that a word?) obstacle. It wouldn't be easy but it could definitely be done. The part of LL's piece that really resonated with me was the part that seems to be discussed the least. I'll quote key parts of it:
If Europeia were to become a frontier, it would have to grapple with the fact that the elimination of as many other frontiers as possible would be in the region's best interest population-wise (given that, in general, the reduction of frontier regions increases the flow of nations that would spawn in our region).
At worst, becoming a frontier puts Europeia in the position of thriving off of the potential destruction of similar communities.
On the other hand, disavowing an expansionist approach still leads to other issues. Will Europeia idly sit by if the proliferation of frontiers cuts into our population share until the benefits are essentially non-existent? If Europeia chooses to protect other frontiers, will it still find itself at odds with aggressive expansionist regions that seek to increase their share in the spawning pool?
Now, I need to think about this more (mostly because I hadn't previously considered it) but the main reason this stuck out to me was simple: We opposed the F/S update because we opposed the possibility of complete destruction of communities. If we choose Frontier Europeia, our survival could depend on doing the exact thing that we've decried from the start. This can easily lead into a raider-defender and definition of independence debate as well, which I'm not really going to get into, but, if we choose to be a Frontier (or honestly a Stronghold), we may need to re-evaluate what independence truly means and what foreign policy truly reflects our values.
 

John Laurens

Citizen
I think that LL, no pun intended, takes some serious liberties with the assertion that Europeia would become some power hungry menace looking to wipe out other frontiers. That’s not who we are. That’s not who we want to be. If we become a frontier than we will be the best frontier because of our recruitment and culture, not because of the light of our military and its ability to smack down other regions.
 

Monkey

Don't forget about the night out in LA...
Senate Speaker
Senator
Citizen
I think that LL, no pun intended, takes some serious liberties with the assertion that Europeia would become some power hungry menace looking to wipe out other frontiers. That’s not who we are. That’s not who we want to be. If we become a frontier than we will be the best frontier because of our recruitment and culture, not because of the light of our military and its ability to smack down other regions.
Yeah, I've seen some comments here about how an F/S switch will force us to evaluate Independence, because it might drive us to 'destroy communities in order to survive', or something along those lines. I don't understand where this argument comes from. Becoming a frontier would only benefit us by getting more nations. If we were a frontier, we would not get any spawned nations at all. The idea that we would need to destroy other frontiers so we get a bigger share (which is what I'm assuming people are arguing), doesn't make any sense to me at all, because if we were a stronghold, we would also be dead?

The only concerns about becoming a stronghold would be security-related concerns, and I don't see how that connects to us going out and destroying other communities, unless we're trying to pre-empt an attack or something because we've become totally paranoid, which I think is highly unlikely.

So I don't really think that the argument of us being forced to go out and destroy communities makes any sense. Because if the argument is that the nations we will be getting won't be enough, well, as a stronghold we wouldn't get them at all, so we'd be dead even faster. There is nothing driving us to go out and destroy communities for more regions, at least no reason why that would be less desirable than a slow death as a stronghold.
 
Top