Join the new world

For anyone to hope to hold a discussion regarding war to any merit, it is vital that they understand the concept of Clausewitzian warfare. Clausewitz was a Prussian, then Russian general at the end of the 18th century, into midway through the 19th century. His revolutionary thinking, as well as his tactical understanding laid a sound foundation of warfare, and the understanding of such warfare, which is in most regards still true to this day.

The salient point of Clausewitzian warfare is its roots. Before Clausewitz, war was in a state of flux; with rife colonialism and empire-building, wars were not fought for domation, but for resources. Clausewitz changed all of this, with his trinitarian view of warfare. His view revolutionized how generals and tacticians would think for over a century until the first World War. His views station around what war is, what it entails and where it comes from. In this article I will show you how embracing a Clausewitzian approach to war is the only way in which any country in eRepublik will ever be able to succeed in any military module, by following the trinitarian view which Clausewitz heralded.







What is the trinitarian view of war?

• War is fought between states
• War is fought by militaries
• A military is just one part of a state


All three of these key ideas are central to the current, and next, war module in the next version of game. Countries which ignore these salient points, will build empires which do not last long, or will fail to build that empire at all. Each of the points is mutually contingent; such is the view of any trinitarian subject; should one part fail, the whole triangle will implode. It is vital that a balance and truth exists between each point, otherwise the harmony of warfare is disrupted, and when this delicate balance is disrupted, it bodes badly.








• War is fought between states

This is one of the most important, and heralded views which Clausewitz introduced. Prior to Clausewitz, the term "state" referred to a loosely held alliance, under central rule. There was no NHS, no "nationality" to speak of; citizens were subject to the rule of whichever monarch, general or empire currently held their home region.

The concept of states being quantitatively recognisable within the world is one which is probably the most standardised view of warfare today; yet few people realise what else this statement entails. For war to be fought between states, states must have the apparatus and personnel to exact their influence, attacks or defence. States must also have a non military element, to fund the other military side of things: nothing comes for free.

This fact presents itself in the eWorld more than most. The countries which have huge incomes, have huge bases of 2 clickers, ploughing their duty and funding a country. The UK, for instance, has a large amount of Income thanks to the fact that as a percentage, our army makes up the vast minority of our population. The only way to earn a significant amount, whilst having a large percentage of your population in the army (and thus on minimum wage,) is to own the vast Raw Materials which Russia and Canada enjoy: people move (and fight for) these countries, because of the huge wages they can gain: whilst also filling up the war coffers through working.

This shows that 'total mobilisation' of a state, both in the real world, and in eRepublik, will never work. We may have huge battles, such as Liaoning, Central Hungary, or Rhone Alps, but such wars are only possible by having countries with a large population of two clickers to fund the tanking and damage of their armies. Poland embodies this fact: as their population matures and enters the army, their income drops through the floor.

Thus, the statement "war is fought between states" brings with it many implications, requirements and a priori facts: whilst a state can increase efficiency by using the commune styled system of making weapons, it loses the efficiency of a competitive job market, with high wages and thus high income.





[img]http://www.deltastate.edu/Images/alumni/Logos/Fighting%20Okra.JPG[/img]


• War is fought by militaries

Again, it is as if Clausewitz has managed to pre-empt the alliance system which has basically consigned this game to a floating equilibrium of success and power. Whilst citizens can consistently fund war, they cannot win it. Citizen armies, in history, where historically poor trained, inefficient and generally "cannon fodder." The same is largely true now, and will be even moreso come the next module. The fact is, even though this is a game, non-military people aren't doing it right.

Militaries are able to direct force with precision; by choosing targets all over the world, and a time to exact that force, and turn the tide of a battle, by pushing a wall into no mans land, or into the underground. The vast majority of countries (minus Hungary) cannot rely solely on their two clickers to win a war for them. This is because the vast majority of two clickers don't stick around. They die, as citizen armies did. Therefore, citizens damage is an unreliable variable. It is much better to have the knowledge of exactly how much damage you can inflict, to the last damage point, at a set time, then have to guesstimate how much damage will be thrown at a wall going on the averages of the past.

With alliances dominance ebbing and flowing with time, it is this guaranteed damage which wins battles: as countries have the confidence and the ability to save fights until the end of a battle, and demoralise as well as crush their enemy. We saw Phoenix do this in Liaoning, letting EDEN get the wall down to the last 100,000 before they even sent people: and such victories taste truly delicious, but are only possible thanks to the Clausewitzian differentiation between military and civillian units.








• A military is just one part of a state.

A military cannot solely make up a state. As I already explained, should such a situation occur, a country will soon have no tax income outside of the public sector, ie, it is paying 100% of the countries wages, and taking in much less in income tax.

But it is not just this which is a vital component of a state. A state needs accountability: someone to blame when things go wrong, or praise when they go properly. This is one of the key parts of Clausewitzian warfare: war is a political tool. An application of force, or rather, a method of relations between two nations. Indeed, both in the real world, and in eRepublik, war is still governed by rules: namely the war module and its limitations. The idea that countries can "block" other countries is merely players taking advantage of the subtlety of the module: and as only Presidents can "push zee button" it is clear that eRepublik subscribes to the views of Clausewitz: war is a political tool of an accountable executive.

There are many arguments in the eWorld these days as to the position of politics over a military. Whilst it may be quaint, even respectable to seek to seperate the two, to do so goes against the very principles of the war and politics modules. They are intertwined; they are dependant and they are in a state of mutual contingency: without a President an army must rely on other countries to attack things, and domestic conquest is impossible. Without an army, a President is powerless to win.

Therefore, from the statement "a military is part of one state" we see that states cannot become the military machines they had to during the world wars. It is counter productive, and hugely destructive in the long term, for a state to specifically set itself up as solely a military affair.

As well as this, military power is not always the sole benefit of a country, especially not in the real world. For instance, take a look at India. Its military spending is a fraction of other countries, but its power comes from its sovereign wealth. The same also applies in game. Countries such as the United Kingdom, and to an equal extent, Canada, are countries which will never be able to claim to be military power houses, such as America, Serbia or Spoland. The fact is, short of any country managing a sustained and huge boom as Poland did, it is simply too late for anyone to catch up with the thousands of field marshals in America, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Indonesia and Spain now. Therefore, it is countries such as Britain and Canada which can offer their alliances friendship, and a steady and stable economy with which huge campaigns can be funded. There are also countries which enjoy their geographical position, and as such, are protected. Australia and Russia are examples of this; with both holding vital routes to and from Asia, to either Europe or Africa. And in Russias case, across to the Americas too.



Thus, this is the state the war is in. It is a political tool, between states or alliances. In the next two articles I publish, I will outline the more in depth details, implications and systems through which successful warfare can be achieved and implemented. Stay tuned 🙂


jamesw
ohgodaseriousarticle