Ambient on/off

Sign up

 

Continue

Continue By creating an account you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy
Resend email   |  Can't find the email? confirmation@erepublik.com

Resend the confirmation email to this address

Resend email Can't find the email? confirmation@erepublik.com

Lets talk game theory eAustralia - War v Treaties

Day 1,907, 17:59 by Mr Crumpets


Good Afternoon eAustralia,

In all the talk of which personalities are which cabinet leading up to the election just gone, we missed an important chance to talk about Game Theory - that is, what policies are best suited to the game itself.

In the last few days I've been looking closely at how treaties fit into the game of eRepublik. I've concluded that they don't fit.



First of all, let's make one thing clear, the last 'treaty' signed between eAustralia and eChile was not in fact a treaty at all. The more accurate term was Conditional Surrender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)

Surrender is the cessation of fighting by soldiers, naval craft, nations or other combatants and their eventually becoming prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers. A white flag is a common symbol of surrender, as is the gesture of raising one's hands empty and open above one's head.

When the parties agree to terms, the surrender may be conditional, i.e. if the surrendering party promises to submit only after the victor makes certain promises.


It was ironic that Mick Gatto (TJ Norton) said on the forums that some people were playing the game like it was still 2009.

That is correct... those who created the 'Conditional Surrender' between eAustralia and eChile under the Greg MacGregor Government were in fact trying to apply 2009 logic in 2012/2013.

For n00bs, back in 2009, eRepublik version 1, the game itself allowed countries to make treaties or individual to make contracts (for companies, orgs, etc...) and that could be submitted with eRepublik admin.

Each treaty/contract would contain a hefty financial penalty if ether party broke it. So if eRepublik admin upheld a complaint that a country broke the treaty, it could almost send a nation broke! There was a hefty price to pay.



We now live in 2013 and eRepublik admin now longer monitor/judge treaties/contracts. They haven't done so for almost four years.

So it puzzles why we have players using 2009 logic and trying to negotiate a Conditional Surrender with an enemy.

The fact is there is no honest broker. There's no one there to ensure fairness and punish those who break the contract.

Furthermore, Conditional Surrender kills baby-booms and goes completely against how the game is promoted.


Image taken from the first page seen by those signing up to play

The features outlined be the eRepublik company itself are promoting war, this is different to how the game was promoted in 2009.

When many of us older players joined the game, the economy wasn't broken (companies were successful), you could publish your newspaper in any country (boost your chance for a media mogul medal) and you or your party could run ads that were displayed on the right hand side of the page (handy in trying to get elected).

The game then was promoted on it's many different aspects. You could succeed in business, politics or media. War as just an additional element.

Now, in 2013, eRepublik are pushing the war element more than ever. Just look at the page n00bs first see when they type in eRepublik.com - it shows a French Flag being planted near London Bridge. It's suggesting to new player this is a game based on war. Try and conquer other countries if you can.

There worse thing a new player can experience is joining a country like eAustralia to discover that we have signed a Conditional Surrender and cannot attack any of the countries around us.

Training war I hear someone say? That's no good. It's like playing the beginner's level of a new video game over and over again. There's no challenge. In any game you want to try and step it up a level. Even if you lose, you had fun testing your skills and you learn a little more each time.

So this is where Fingerguns might chip suggesting we want a scorched earth policy... well...



eRepublik is now designed to make you want to fight more and more.

There are war missions you have to complete. Discounts to buy more gold, thus more weapons. Higher quality weapons for bigger damage. Plus as pointed out above, advertising aimed at n00bs focusing on the war element.

At the end of the day, eRepublik is a Profit Making Company where war is good for business. The more damage done by one side, means the more gold that needs to be purchased (hello Visa and Mastercard) by another to fight buy. That equals more money for eRepublik and it's investors.

Conditional Surrenders are bad for business. They mean less fighting, which means less gold purchased, meaning less money for eRepublik and it's investors.

Start to get the picture now?



There was a troll comment by someone from eArgentina the other week that was actually very insightful.

They said "When are you going to start playing the game eAustralia".

Our enemies already understand it and we don't. One thing you can set your watch to is that eIndonesia will always attack eAustralia every few months.

Why? Because it's an easy victory, restores their 'pride' (ego), makes the game fun for them and help produce baby-booms.

eIndonesia (or eChile or eNZ) making friends/allies with us is bad news for them. If they cannot attack us, that's one less chance for war and one less chance for an ego boost. They NEED eAustralia fighting for the other team so they have a challenge and something to get excited about.

That's why during the election campaign I was talking about making new allies (eChina, eTaiwan, etc...) and taking it up to our enemy neighbours.

It makes the game FUN! Even if you or your allies are losing battles, it gives a nation something to focus on and get behind. It creates a storyline and when you finally do win, how much sweeter that victory is.

So next time you see a candidate want to talk negotiations and make a Conditional Surrender ask them, do you know how to play this game mate?


Mr Crumpets
Founder, Senator and Party President of the Green and Gold Party
 

Comments

Mr Crumpets
Mr Crumpets Day 1,907, 18:01

I'm Mr Crumpets - You Know It Makes Sense

Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen
Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen Day 1,907, 18:16

And this article that shows true understanding of our situation would have gained you 5-10 votes in the election.... your timing is slightly off MC

infin
infin Day 1,907, 18:25

agree100%

Vyrin the First
Vyrin the First Day 1,907, 18:41

Excellent insight and analysis. Keep writing please!

Nicky3Fingers
Nicky3Fingers Day 1,907, 18:47

MC from the top rope!!

Eyebrows
Eyebrows Day 1,907, 18:56

Too bad a lot of our older players still cling to old world rules and laws and want to make peace with everyone in the world.

Hyuuz
Hyuuz Day 1,907, 19:04

Hey those old players...go screw you CoT and move to eCanada because eCan is awesome. Also because it's nicer there.

Bia Pandora
Bia Pandora Day 1,907, 19:05

Really good article!

PsyCokenin
PsyCokenin Day 1,907, 19:13

u're right

sub 145

Tim_Holtz
Tim_Holtz Day 1,907, 19:35

you talk about fun, do you know how fun it is to be completely occupied for months on end?

hint: not very

you should know victory is never achieved militarily in Aus. pity you are too busy pushing your agenda to look at facts and realities

btw it is a treaty look up say the treaty of Versailles or basically any other major european city, it talks about how certain nations take certain regions etc. ofc one side loses that happens in every single war unless a white peace is declared. it seems you fail to understand the difference and terminology of what you talk about

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:35

Indo and Chile will never honour any treaty Tim, they are the two worst countries in the game. difference with Versailles is that war had so many dead you could have filled every cricket stadium on erath with them and then start on NFL grounds. We don't die no matter how much our enemies want to. Wew have had a crap time mate, but now we know exactly where we stand, CoT is, probably always was, an Anti- Australian organisation

vergolian
vergolian Day 1,907, 19:35

You're pretty well right, with the exception over what is the treaty in physical terms. I don't disagree - it's just a piece of paper in the form of what's been agreed upon between two parties i.e. the countries agreeing to it. What puzzles a lot of people is the expectation. eAustralia made a bad habit of trying to exploit treaty terms - your timeframe isn't far off but it also includes XG's govt as well. Binda poked holes looking for a way for the executors and co-signers of the agreement to jump in because after the govt didn't like the terms Greg agreed to it wanted to exercise the right of review, which coincided with the election but didn't help that beneath it all I doubt XG was really committed to peace with eChile, author or not.

Where this article makes an excellent alternative viewpoint is without biased adjudicators (and let's face it there was bias galore under the previous system when admin sided with eSerbia and eHungard every chance they could get away with it) the call is there for countries need to become more self-sufficient. The welfare mentality of relying on another to bail it out of situations is a fallacy. If countries wish to succeed, the power lies within to make changes.

However, taking a war posture in eAus = a certain wipe. Not a maybe or a could be - certain.

Short of that, some good arguments. Nicely done.

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:40

Then we will get wiped every day, but that is the entire game it seems to me, its about fighting and nothing else, there is no diplomatic option with CoT, and remember, ithose 3 nations always need 8 more nations to fight with them just to win. Maybe there is no way out, no biggie, eRepublik will lose in the end, it cannot expect to make much cash from Aussies cos theres little incentive for new ones to want to stay.

tuahtora jr
tuahtora jr Day 1,907, 19:36

agree

vergolian
vergolian Day 1,907, 19:38

What could have turned this from a good article to a great article is pointing out the population, region and resource region disparities between eAustralia and other countries on the map. When the median is defined, we're not far from the bottom of the pack.

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:41

I thought you were a US citizen

Mr Crumpets
Mr Crumpets Day 1,907, 20:58

Tim said "you talk about fun, do you know how fun it is to be completely occupied for months on end?

hint: not very"

Tim, treaty or no treaty we will get attacked. There is no one to enforce it. Whenever a bigger country is bored, they'll just ignore it an attack.

The point is, instead of wasting all our time talking to enemies, MORE TIME needs to be focused on talking to potential allies for when those attacks come.

Remember this is a game. Nations can be attacked at any moment with zero consequence.

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:42

I agree, we have nothing to say to Indo, or Chile, maybe in the year 2077 they may be forgiven, but I doubt it.

Itelat
Itelat Day 1,907, 21:15

find the best way to enjoy this game, don't expect too much from the maker, they only care about making money,
if you don't find this game fun, you're doing it the wrong way

Vyrin the First
Vyrin the First Day 1,907, 21:20

Amen Crumpets! Preach it brother!

That's why I said FA as usual doesn't work....

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/letter-to-the-next-cp-2207107/1/20

Nicky3Fingers
Nicky3Fingers Day 1,907, 21:40

look up say the treaty of Versailles or basically any other major european city

^lets try looking up a treaty that actually worked huh? haha

Llillo
Llillo Day 1,907, 21:51

"The point is, instead of wasting all our time talking to enemies, MORE TIME needs to be focused on talking to potential allies for when those attacks come." +1

Tim_Holtz
Tim_Holtz Day 1,908, 23:54

you seem to think we dont spend time looking for potential allies

come up with a viable solution instead of shooting ideas down


and before you say it, EDEN and Asgard are not viable options, not a single country in it is in a position to help

Mr Crumpets
Mr Crumpets Day 1,908, 00:03

Some nations from EDEN and ASGARD are potential options. Plus you are viewing it as a 'short term fix' - I'm viewing it as building long term relations.

Also, I heard an argument from you to not MPP eChina because they are going to be attacked by multiple countries. Using that logic, then why would any nation MPP us considering... guess what... we've been attack by multiple countries!

You keep saying Tim my options are not viable... what are your options? You've shot everything down but are yet to present some ideas to senate. Remember 'ideas' are not locked in things. You can present 'ideas' before you talk to Chile.

Ouke Stinos
Ouke Stinos Day 1,908, 00:24

v

BOUD1CCA
BOUD1CCA Day 1,908, 01:30

"you talk about fun, do you know how fun it is to be completely occupied for months on end?"
what would be the alternative here Tim?
Now I am not trolling you - I am genuinely interested. If you can give me a good reason I would be prepared to listen to you.
It is no fun being occupied, but there is compensation in fighting the RWs.
The alternative is having the scraps of a country that the occupier lets you have. There is even less fun in that.
The argument is that continuous occupation drives new players away - I have yet to see any evidence of that. Its probably more valid to say that existing on sufferance is very irritating to new (and old )players.
Are you prepared to justify a "humble" approach by Australia?

stump1100
stump1100 Day 1,908, 02:16

Good article!

RyGnwn
RyGnwn Day 1,908, 02:28

With eIndos, it's always been WA
With every campaign, all we ever wanted was WA
From Beta until now, that's always the case
Total annihilation is more like a bonus, and to end the war

Ofc there's an ego boost like "South Indonesia" propaganda
But the main goal is WA, 20% boost to our weapons

Everytime eIndo have WA, you'll have your peace
But when eIndo lost WA, every deal means nothing
So just give us WA, for free, it's easier for all of us : 3~

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:49

Yep, total arrogant shyte, Indo can rot

vosakz
vosakz Day 1,908, 02:38

"At the end of the day, eRepublik is a Profit Making Company where war is good for business. The more damage done by one side, means the more gold that needs to be purchased (hello Visa and Mastercard) by another to fight buy. That equals more money for eRepublik and it's investors." x2

vergolian
vergolian Day 1,908, 02:39

You're not wrong in one way Crumpets but depends who you mean. If you're talking about eGreece and eRomania, they're not going to be in EDEN within the next 2-3 months (moot altogether if EDEN' ends before that). The alliance eRom goes with will determine where eGreece goes - they're chummy like that. Strategically speaking, along with rumour having it, they'll be going to TWO.

Despite the bumps and personalities causing eAus to get off to a rough start in CoT, it remains the best option to-date. The bulk of our traditional allies are already there, so when it comes to choosing enemies we need to pick a nation to fight that isn't in CoT or TWO.

greg L
greg L Day 1,945, 07:53

Sorry Mick, but please allow me time to take 5 thousand double-takes....... what the hell ????
Despite the bumps and personalities causing eAus to get off to a rough start in CoT, it remains the best option to-date. The bulk of our traditional allies are already there, so when it comes to choosing enemies we need to pick a nation to fight that isn't in CoT or TWO. <<<<<<<<<< Is that some foreign language ????, what do you mean our best chance is with CoT,, CoT just told us to F*** Off

Xavier Griffith
Xavier Griffith Day 1,908, 03:00

"Itelat:
find the best way to enjoy this game, don't expect too much from the maker, they only care about making money,
if you don't find this game fun, you're doing it the wrong way "

Well said Mr. President : ) And your right.

Xavier Griffith
Xavier Griffith Day 1,908, 03:03

"RyGnwn:
With eIndos, it's always been WA
With every campaign, all we ever wanted was WA
From Beta until now, that's always the case
Total annihilation is more like a bonus, and to end the war

Ofc there's an ego boost like "South Indonesia" propaganda
But the main goal is WA, 20% boost to our weapons

Everytime eIndo have WA, you'll have your peace
But when eIndo lost WA, every deal means nothing
So just give us WA, for free, it's easier for all of us : 3~ "

Now how many times have I said that and people still tell me I don't know what i'm talking about : ) ... lolololololololol...NOW do you believe me?

argi the eliminator
argi the eliminator Day 1,908, 03:49

voted

Aussie Blokee
Aussie Blokee Day 1,908, 04:01

I want the game I played in 2009 back, wtf is this shit we play today...

Leo de Salto II
Leo de Salto II Day 1,908, 04:10

Voted, you have a point.

But a permanent war is imposible to mantain, at least you have not enougth RL money to do it. There are some countries were a player can not spend 500€ per month in this game becouse that can perfectly be its month salary.

Majester
Majester Day 1,908, 05:13

You cannot agree with Mr Crumpets and have CoT as an ally.

So permanent wipe in the name of fun it is then since there are no allies prepared to commit to war-zone that is Australia. And if we're going to accept being wiped because deals are all rubbish, we may as well play the spoiler by annoying for our would-be oppressors by draining damage until the last Aussie leaves the game for good or they do. Mega-fun.

This game is all about population. The country with the most multies dominates... just look at Chile vs Argentina. The swing back and forth directly coincides with "population" growth.

Whoopie-twang. Its not what I signed up for and I refuse to be so shallow.
Diplomacy works. Deals work. Alliances work. They are just more challenging.

vergolian
vergolian Day 1,908, 05:27

So.. what's your point Maj? His theory on mechanics and alliance paperwork is spot on. Doesn't mean I agree with him on who to ally with. The discussion hasn't got that far. Chances are it won't but nothing like cautious optimism.

e.g. say you're anti-CoT. Without a broader discussion on MPP selections there's no clear indication. When the countries are tallied, the majority alliance is the one a country will go with. It's a no brainer.

infin
infin Day 1,908, 05:58

Diplomacy works? How so when your dance partners renege on every deal...

Xavier Griffith
Xavier Griffith Day 1,908, 06:07

I think I'm with AB on this one : )

Majester
Majester Day 1,908, 06:38

@RyGnwn :So just give us Papua, for free, it's easier for all of us. We may even overlook WA then. Stop getting in our way of conquering USA.

Majester
Majester Day 1,908, 06:39

@infin Change partners.

Majester
Majester Day 1,908, 06:45

@Mick The majority alliance is not always the logical choice. A MPP gives you opportunity for battles to set as a Daily Order... they do not directly translate into damage in your wars. That's where diplomacy and relationships kick in. A single well placed word changes orders worldwide... MPPs be damned. Much loved Indonesia know this... its why Australia eventually wipe them. Three times now... waiting for the agitation threshold to initiate wipe number four.

A small, well organised alliance that has a directed army beats a shambling big alliance that services the biggest members / only their personal goals every single time.

Behind the mechanics are people. Those buttons don't push themselves.

J A R A K
J A R A K Day 1,908, 07:33

Very good article

alimilano
alimilano Day 1,908, 08:46

MC true, sadly after 2 months some heads still not understand this, they need more slaps in face from Chile, Indo and USA. When consider your allies Australia always considering how much some country can help you, instead you should ask yourself how much you can help your allies too. Best move for this are irc mass attacks (unfortunaly used very rare, remember when leaded and organized by Roboa very well)

Majester
Majester Day 1,908, 09:42

Would actually be wonderful to have surrender/peace proposal that doesn't just pay gold like:

- Region Release (cannot RW for 1,2,3 months)
- Enforced Peace (cannot NE for 1,2,3 months)
- Tribute (pay x Gold for 1,2,3 months)

An Idiot Abroad
An Idiot Abroad Day 1,908, 10:36

'Would actually be wonderful to have surrender/peace proposal that doesn't just pay gold like:

- Region Release (cannot RW for 1,2,3 months)
- Enforced Peace (cannot NE for 1,2,3 months)
- Tribute (pay x Gold for 1,2,3 months)'

Yes it would but me thinks it would affect revenue streams for the admin.

Arcaian
Arcaian Day 1,908, 11:15

Very good article!

My only problem was I came in expecting game theory and got theory of the game

Manrod78
Manrod78 Day 1,908, 11:20

you are right... so keep surrendering...

 
Post your comment

What is this?

You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.