Thoughts on Imperialism

Day 786, 16:54 • Published in USA USA • by Lieutenant Scheisskopf
What is Imperialism?
A few quiet days in eRepublik have made me think about some assumptions we make in the game, and I found myself reflecting on what “imperialism” means-- a term we all use without giving it much thought. The conventional dictionary definition would say that “imperialism” applies to all situations where one state tries to extend their authority over another, usually by force. It is a term which, like so many real life (RL) terms, should be taken with a grain of salt in the New World.

The dictionary does not do the term justice in eRepublik, where war is the sole means of competition and the arbiter that determines which side has bettered the other. War is the one convention in which all citizens above Level 5 can take part; as a result, only the war module can give credence to the identification of eRepublik as a massively multiplayer online game that combines social networking and strategy. It is through war that a citizen and their country may unify in an alliance to compete against another group, and it is the outcome of these battles in which one side defeats their opponent through better strategy and mobilization. Not to mention, it is the competition of war which makes the game interesting and keeps people coming back.

That being said, imperialism as a concept does still exist in eRepublik, but not all wars of conquest are imperialistic in design or intent. The examples shown below will hopefully clarify this point.

Can you tell if this is a PEACE, Phoenix, or EDEN hand? I can't

Major Offensives Aren’t Always Imperialistic
Since joining eRepublik nearly 7 months ago, I have seen two major campaigns: PEACE invading North America, and EDEN attacking Phoenix in Asia and Europe. Neither one is imperialistic by eRepublik terms. In both campaigns, the aggressor used a comparative advantage it held over clearly defined adversaries. PEACE took advantage of a slew of activated mutual protection pacts (MPPs) against the eUSA, in order to wreak havoc on their foe; similarly, EDEN exploited Phoenix’s vulnerability as a reinvented alliance, and used its superiority in numbers to retaliate for prior attacks, overwhelm smaller pre-defined adversaries, and strike at Phoenix’s foreign resources. In both cases, when one side lost, the other side was not systematically exterminated, or relegated to inhumane slavery, so the evils of RL imperialism do not apply here.

In both of these conflicts, the intention was obvious and both campaigns have had similar characteristics. Both aggressors used a number of allies to fight a number of established enemies; PEACE in the summer and EDEN now have used their attacks to gain significant baby booms, and both sides use the appeal of military conflict to increase interest in the game. Finally, neither aggressor expected to hold their conquests indefinitely. PEACE relished in conquering 49 of the eUSA’s 50 regions and all of eSpain and eCanada, and EDEN has since celebrated their accomplishments of turning the tables on the same conquerors who overtook them 6 months ago.

If nothing else, wars of aggression in eRepublik are not imperialistic-- they are cyclical and the sole point of comparison between competing forces. Only wars of aggression can define who “wins” and who “loses” in a game of alliances who look to outdo the other on the battlefield, through strategy and mobilization of their respective populations and resources.

We can agree that imperialism in real life has been wrong, but the wrongs in RL do not apply in this game

It is easy to say that because one alliance attacked another’s infrastructure that they are imperialistic, but the alternative logic is even more baffling. If eRepublik was not intended to have conquests and wars of aggression, then there would be a different way to be in competition. The alternatives for wars would be just to stage war games whose outcomes are a given, or to not fight at all and to allow working and training daily to sap everyone’s health. The chance to fight for or against an aggressive country provides significant in-game entertainment and benefits of game mechanics-- as well as some trolling and propaganda that, hopefully, keeps the game light-hearted and fun for everyone. And in some cases, such as with the eNetherlands and eBelgium, people from different countries can agree to merge, because the mechanics of eRepublik warfare allows for one to conquer the other voluntarily through region swapping.

There's no such thing as an "Evil Empire" in this game, but there are some unsavory tactics

eRepublik’s Two Forms of Imperialism
There are still two forms of imperialism in eRepublik: conquest of a smaller country for material wealth, and political takeover (PTO) of a smaller country. I consider PTOs to be the more treacherous method, as their execution often exploits size differences between large and small countries not in military conflict, and is used to sap a country’s wealth through deceit (and very often, multi accounts). PTO’s, whether committed by countries or citizens with pro-EDEN or pro-Phoenix leanings, are wrong and countries who are able to intervene to protect the smaller country’s electoral sovereignty should do so. As a primarily military-focused citizen of this game, I am disappointed that some people force everyone to divert their efforts of fighting through military means, solely because they choose to turn political aspects of this game into a chance at conquest. Game mechanics do not intend politics to serve that purpose, and the targets of PTOs are generally "adversaries" who do not intend to fight or be fought against.

Wars for material wealth are also imperialistic, and if “imperialism” as a whole is considered to be wrong, would also be wrong by extension. However, wars for resources present an opportunity for one country to legitimately improve itself at the expense of an adversary, and are not treacherous by default. Whether it is “fair” or “unfair” for eHungary to hold Heilongjiang or attack a small country for resources, or if it would be “right” for the eUSA to try and conquer South American resources can be debated for the rest of my eLife-- I personally do not consider such ideas to be wrong, but they are less than fair by ignoring the challenge a worthy adversary may provide, in order to exploit a weaker opponent. To me, the battle may be waged properly and legally within game mechanics, but a pick-up game of basketball between Kobe Bryant and a high school basketball player is every bit as lopsidedly unfair. Overall, a large state picking on a small state solely for its resources is "legitimate" unlike PTOs for gaining power, but ethically questionable since it compels smaller states to submit unconditionally and reduces the battle to "might makes right"-- something which is not always true.

The REALLY challenging battle for material wealth that would be both fair and exciting for all sides would involve one side attacking the fortress region of an equally strong adversary, such as if Central Greece or Western Siberia were to be challenged. These fights would be hotly contested, by opponents of equal size, and their victories or defeats would clearly define success of one side versus another in a game where “win” or “lose” is defined by battles whose outcomes are not predetermined.

Conquering powers should use their position to
carve the eRep landscape in a manner they see fit.

Wrapping Up
Anyways, those are just a few thoughts on the “imperialist” term which has been abused in this game. I remember being a newcomer to the game and making the mistake that many do, thinking that "imperialism" as the dictionary calls it is bad across the board in eRepublik. Fortunately, I have been able to realize how important war really is and will continue to be in this game.

PEACE conquered much of North America and several allied states, and EDEN has overrun portions of Europe, but neither campaign has been or will be permanent. Much like a wrestling match, these maneuvers are just one side scoring points against its opponent for a well-placed move. Neither campaign has been final or permanent, and after one alliance has notched a victory, the other has (and probably will) been able to respond. At least, I hope they continue to do so, since the game will become very boring VERY FAST if there are no more real battles and no more reason to log in apart from two-clicking, if everyone already knows what will happen next.

Just like wrestling, however, there are also cheap ways to score points, and PTOs should have no place here; although conquests against weaker opponents are unsavory, they are at least within the conventions of the war module.

God Bless America, and keep on fighting, New World

Lt. Scheisskopf

Join the eUS Airborne!
Want to become a paratrooper and join the eUS military's shock troopers? The eUS Airborne is recruiting and looking for active, experienced, and dedicated soldiers to join its ranks. Apply by clicking on the link above.