Join the new world

Written by Seanan. Thanks to Chewie for publishing it for me.

Its been said there isn't much quality media activity in eIreland, and most of the New World (I agree and respect for trying to fight it. Heres my input!). Therefore in any period of that being pointed out, articles flood the media in

Yeah sure, the accessibly to the media is horribly bad. And yes, eIrish media mainly depends on ignoring Mike's multiple personalties and defending yourself if your a feature in my articles. However, do we actually have anything to talk about?



Hell, me seeking the almighty craic via trolling articles isn't "quality" in the sense of in-depth political/international coverage I've done before. I'm not sure I can write anything which I don't joke about anymore, I've failed not to make a jibe even now. But then, while some people take some things said in the media seriously, I don't see many people making an effort to report about anything significant (regularly) or make a decent accusation. Even though people think I stir the pot with my articles, they ain't "quality" for the simple reason the underlying method I use to write them is:


And then run off giggling.

There was a time when a string of articles attacking your statement would spring up, just over the wording. Now, the best backlash you can expect has about as much substance as the automatic responses your friends and peers comment on your articles, most commonly in eIreland "o7", "voted" and "lol".

Nah, eIrish media is on the same par as eIrish politics. Behind closed doors; No one barely ever makes an "official" political statement supporting or attacking another political movement. We get to see the disagreements on certain topics when there is a catalyst (like a trolling article or shout) or a high profile incident (Like the recent Libertad vs Croatia thing), but these normally end the same way. Each side forms single defensive viewpoint, throws a few harsh words across the barrier and then goes off to their isolated chatrooms or forums and bitches about the other side until its old news. See, I think it takes balls to publicly state your viewpoint nowadays - its not so common practice. If you do, I really think your popularity is what matters. Otherwise it doesn't matter what you say, your article is going to be attacked and widely ignored... which just makes the entire point of it pointless. Ask Mike, the demise of the Scotland thing wasn't by a published counter argument (But talking of lack of expression in the media, his recent idea is something worth supporting - The Irish Social Front could take some pointers). Maybe its because eIrish don't like arguments. Which apart from being very unIrish, could explain alot of it.

Not to say, I'm any better either. Haters hate but I'm a pointer-outer.

If everyone stated their opinion of events when they happen, we would have an active media. If everyone researched their topic, we'd have a respectable media. If ambassadors and governments put out articles telling of events in other countries (don't care who disagrees, no government has done that effectively for the last few months) we'd have something to talk about. Most of us have an idea about our local ongoings, but not much of our place in the New World? If you have the luxury of knowing someone social and connected, then you're fine but think its fair to say not everyone does.

If I were to drill that point home:

We all get the comic potential of an Englishman, a Welshman, and an Irishman walking into the bar. Local stuff, we all know it, don't need a report on the cultural differences.

If someone was to begin with "an Iraqi, an Iranian and an Israeli walk into a bar..." To me, thats no joke... thats a hostage situation. Need a bit of input from informed individuals to break the ignorance barrier.

But its a good analogy, I think.



In the spirit of the moment set by our MoC Tibulus, I will attempt to write something of quality. However, I'm a bit rusty so be generous. The topic I am choosing I believe did not get the recognition it deserved, its also a topic I disagree with the author - eScotland.


To avoid any patriotic feelings be stirred, my objection to the addition to eScotland is based solely on ingame mechanisms and the cost/benefit to eIreland. Just as I believed it was in the interest of ONE to block the addition of Kosovo, hence my support for its addition.

In reference to MikeBane's first and second calls for the addition of eScotland, where he states the user stats of Scottish players with internet access, puts forward the argument that Scotland is a nation and not a historical state, and an emotive call for support - While it can be questioned the reliability of the stats in relation to erepublik, my only objection to the theoretical side of his arguments is that Scottish players want the addition of eScotland. While I can't exactly poll eUK citizens and get a reliable opinion of the rl Scottish about this topic, I have talked to Scottish players in the eUK before and most consider their success ingame in line with the eUK's interests. I can only name two vocal rl Scottish (or by blood) who do not resident in the eUK. One of the most prominent Scottish players oin the eUK, The Grump (since e-dead), disliked eIreland. All indications point to the conclusion that those who would populate eScotland would be pro-eUK and anti-eIreland.

To add force to my statement, it was suggested that the support of eIreland to house Scottish players in our country would win us favour and make their country proEDEN. During this time, I can not recall an active Scot taking up this offer and joining the country. Nor do I believe its a creditable argument to suggest EDEN supporters could populate eScotland.

This table was taken from egov4you, while there is an issue with API, I think the results give a good numerical evidence to back my claim that EDEN supporters can not populate eScotlan😛


Roughly TEDEN has 84000 citizens, while ONE/proONE/ABC/Turkey has 85000 (This does not include Neutral countries, which looking at the list, are mostly proONE in the current politics). According to egov, the % of actives are roughly the same but I am using total citizen counts as what is deemed "active" likely does not include bots and multiple accounts - which when talking about PTOers is a legit factor to consider.

From this data, I'd argue that EDEN does not have the numbers or the damage to support eScotland. In all probability, eScotland would be populated by eUKers and proONE supporters.

It would be a counter argument to point out and ask, damage count coming from ONE and EDEN countries will not change with the addition of eScotland, why would it matter if eScotland did attack eIreland?

To which I'd answer: The damage amount from ONE countries would not increase, but more damage would be diverted to the Anglo-Irish wars. Due to the addition of multiple fronts.

The idea that more fronts draws more damage is reinforced by our own wars with the eUK. While Canada and Ireland's damage amount did not change, when both eCanada and eIreland were attacking the eUK - eIreland was on the map. When eCanada was not in direct NE war with the eUK - eIreland was not on the map. However, both times Canada was putting out the same damage. The difference comes that in time zones, when ourselves and Canada have put out our damage - our allies in different time zones hit their peak. During those peak times, they get out most of their fights. If there is only one battle available, they will only fight in that battle - but in the case that there are two fronts, more of that overall damage will trickle into the battles in our regions.

Our overall survival can be partly tributed to the advantage of having two countries able to open a NE war against 1 country. When Sweden enters the mix, the story changes and we lose that advantage. If Scotland was added, and likely being proONE, them attacking us would also make us lose that advantage.

In conclusion, the addition of eScotland would be a disadvantage to eIreland due to the inability of EDEN to secure the country and the lack of proEDEN Scottish players to populate, and therefore the NE use against eIreland from eScotland.



As some background reading, I'll add in some of the tactical aids I've used to help visualise possible events, also to go along with the eScotland topic in the previous text block.

Things to note:
* "Winning" is not a strategy, its an aim. People often use it interchangeably with aims, but its not the same. If someone promises to conquer Iceland, its an aim. If you ask them "How?". The answer should be the strategy, if its "by winning" then they are likely leaving it to chance and praying. A strategy is like the sequence of regions to be attacked, identifying weakness, diplomatic ploys and international coordination - its also something you likely would not get a public answer, in the case of a strategy involving your enemy to act in a certain fashion.
* Battles are won by having the most damage per round, for 8 rounds.
* Time Zoning, Resource Management, Military/Merc coordination I'd also say are not a strategy. They should be the standard practice of amassing damage.
* A strategy is directing the damage amassed by Time Zoning, Resource Management, Military/Merc coordination into regions with a certain strength and time to optimise the greatest chance of success - greatest chance of achieving the aim. Its the "How".

Game mechanisms:
* The minimum time a battle can be completed is 12:40:00 (hours:mins😒econds - 01:30:00 per round, 8 round - 00:05:00 break in-between each round)
* The maximum time a battle can be completed is roughly 22:30:00 (-/+ a hour if the rounds are hard fought).
* NE laws take 24 hours to pass Congress.
* NE autoattack happens after 24 hours on a random enemy region bordering your country's regions.
*The country which wins a battle in a NE war, will have 24 hours before they have to attack. Potentially it can take 48 hours from a proposal of NE to an attack, if the country declaring the NE does it first.
* After a successful NE proposal, takes 7 days before another can be proposed. Unless the NE'd country is wiped or a border is lost (neither country borders the other) within that time frame - then the NE is cancelled.
* Resistance Wars can only take place after 24 hours of the region being conquered. They can happen straight after eachother if unsuccessful.
* A country can only have one Resistance War at any one time. Example: France can open up a Resistance War, but only one. Germany can also because its a different country. Poland therefore has two RWs in it regions, but only one from each country.
* If a CP selects a region to attack which is currently under a Resistance War, the command is "queued" meaning the Resistance War will need to finish before the attack takes place (a method which can prolong the 24 hour autoattack rule). If the Resistance War is successful, and 24 hours passed before it finished, then the autoattack feature will select a random enemy region bordering.
*An NE law can be dropped only after 7 days, if both countries avoid being wiped or losing a border.
*If one country drops the NE, and the other does not - same rules apply, but the country without the NE loses the training bonus and 10% extra damage against the NE'd country.

^ Thats the background reading. The next bit is visualising and applying, for eIreland I made these 3 maps as an ai😛




As I've said before, a strategy is attempting to optimise the effectiveness of the damage you have at your disposal. They are entirely unique to the situation, although I can name a few standard plans eIrish governments have used before:

One of the more outside-of-the-box strategic plans was the "Yankee Wall" as I called it, involves Shannon and Wexford being given to an allied country, USA or Canada - while Ireland remains control of Cork (no border to the eUK). The reasoning behind the move is that USA or Canada are stronger than Ireland, so should the eUK invade, they would have to beat one of them in order to wipe us (and given the NE law wait times - it could take them awhile). It works under one condition, Canada or the USA can actually beat the eUK in a direct fight - Otherwise the situation to apply it is wrong. It also involves eIreland dropping all the MPPs it shares with Canada or the USA, so its a costly move aswell. An example of when its been successful is here, and an example of when it was not successful was during Sweet Drinker's term.

Another was the duck-and-hide strategy. During the period where ONE's dominance in the New World was at its peak, eIreland could not win a direct MPP battle with the eUK. The strategic plan used during that time was heavy resource input into Resistance War which gets us at least one region in time for congress elections - its incorporated the NE laws, and the "queuing" method. Members of congress as soon as a region was liberated, proposed the eUK as a NE before they could, to give us 48 hours before an attack takes place - when it did that was an additional min of 12:40:00 before the eUK could attack (as the first attack came from eIreland). Which was potentially about enough time to liberate 4 regions. Been done twice or three times I think for congress elections, varying success but the underlying principle was that if timed correctly congress elections and checking would finish before the eUK could take all our regions. A DoD update when the strategy was being used.

Next, the "Run away!" strategy, it was a minor plan which hasn't been successful when tried, but its similar to the "Yankee Wall" in the removing a border aspect. Becoming obvious, most Irish plans involve defence. This was tired during Padraig's term, its shown in the first picture in his last update. Basically we moved eIreland into the eUSA, so the eUK had no border - we did that, but eventually lost the region in a Resistance War which the eUK heavily committed too. Also included in that article was an offensive strategy, which I'd call "Border Control" used both during Padraig's term and Sweet Drinker's term (here for Sweets) which involved RW'ing and heavily committing resources into certain regions and battles which would result in removing Poland and Sweden from areas which they had regions with borders to the USA, Canada and Ireland - both times successful.

I'll finish with a simple one, "Ping-Pong". Its an example of a strategy which can be used defensively or offensively. It simply involves prioritising MPP battles over RWs, the aim is to keep control of our original regions without remaining control over conquered regions. Its almost entirely based on the international situation and Resource Management - Mercs, when ONE was at its peak - this strategy did not work. More recently, TEDEN has been making come backs and successive eIrish CP have been inputting alot of resources. The most recent usage was under Bhane's term, which successfully carried out the "Ping-Pong" war by high resource input, effective Time Zoning (in this case, our allies were in a position to make the plan work) and good Military/Merc coordination. Most other examples of this plan being used were long when either ONE was dominating or the rules were different. However, uniquely to Bhane's term was the strategy used offensively - the conquest of London. This is also an example of a diplomatic ploy, to dishearten the enemy and put pressure on the SG of ONE to direct damage towards his home country - if he did or didnt, has different effects which I shalt go into. No picture aids for this one!

Just Irish examples for now! Perhaps in a latter spread, I'll think of some other situations but international.

The underlying thing about all of this is, a strategy can only work if you have the needed damage behind it for it to reach the aims. You choose a strategy based on the damage you have available to wield and the enemy's strength. If you don't have the damage for the strategic plan you have chosen, its going to fail. So choice of the strategy is secondary to the situation you are facing. Some of this sounds really.. well you'd go "Well durrr" but accessing your own strength and the enemies strength is mostly trial and error. Very difficult for anyone to do.



Leaving with a few perceptives of mine.

If anyone has seen "My Tram Experience" its basically a white British women ranting and raving that her country is full of non-whites etc which she deems as not British. Now, think its kinda common knowledge that I'm mixed race - Irish and Jamaican (But contrary to popular belief, I'm not black.. just look like I've been on holiday a bit. And extremely handsome) - which are both countries which have been under British rule at some point in history.

So... my point is: Briton conquered and ruled a 1/3 of the world's population (give or take) for about 400 years, with the sole aim of putting every culture and creed under British rule.
-> As the lady rightly points out:
JOB DONE!


ohohohohohohohohoho

Another, I've always been told I'm a romantic. Roses, chocolates, telling a girl shes beautiful, looking into her eyes as you savagely destroy her oyster. The type of guy when he heard Bruno Mars, he thought "What standard and cheesy lines to say to a female" only to find out, its actually quite rare.

But got an issue, of being a funny bastard. With need of a women who can understand that, so... I bring my lady chocolates every 3 days or so for a while before she questions me "Why do you keep buying me chocolate?" to which I reply "So you get fat, and no one else will have ya"

It weeds out the boring shites, imo.
:3