An eAmerican Perspective - "Risk" Reverse

Day 531, 09:45 • Published in USA USA • by Ananias

In my last article, I introduced my primary motivation in playing eRepublik:

I play this game with the sole intent to win it for the eUnited States of America.

And in stating my motives for playing I reiterated my definition of “winning eRepublik”:

“When the eUnited States of America becomes so populated with engaged players, so organized militarily and socially, so well developed in the distribution and strategy of our infrastructure, so efficient in the management of our economy, so profitable in our international trade and domestic markets, and so unified in our focus to extend our influence to all corners of eRepublik, that the administrators of eRepublik are compelled to reset the game in order to re-establish game parity for fear of losing players (consumers) internationally, then regardless of the rationalization made by the creators of eRepublik, the eUnited States of America has won.”

I find it interesting that many of the comments in opposition to my definition, or even my general perspective that eRepublik is a game that can be “won” or “lost”, seems constrained by the narrow concept that only through vigorous expansion or imperialism can this be realized. I would state that this is a “strawman” argument, in which the generally negative (in my opinion) pursuit of imperialism, or “Risk”-like approach to global domination, is being rejected, when, in fact, I believe that the game could be won by my definition without ever extending our borders past the existing fifty-one original regions.

While I was hoping to wait on sharing my perspective on how we might see success and actually “win” the game militarily in a future article (following the setup required by a couple more article detailing the foundation of victory), I think it is critical to identify an incredibly important game mechanism which not only separates eRepublik from a "Risk"-like construct but also facilitates victory without global territorial occupation.

In the game of Risk, global domination is reliant on the premise of expansion, whereby final victory is manufactured by chaining together territories and expanding to the point that all adversaries are forcibly removed. Now, while there is some merit to this practice from a logistical standpoint, unlike Risk, the employment of MPPs does not require the development of a contiguous logistical path to the opposition in order to employ military units. Since expansion is not required to successfully engage opposing military forces or political takeover attempts, the exclusion of territorial expansion does not preclude being “unified in our focus to extend our influence to all corners of eRepublik”.

Note that in the above statement I use the term “our influence” rather than “military occupation”.

One of the features of eRepublik is that the “original territory” of a nation cannot be assaulted by an opposing nation through the use of a resistance war; this is key in making the next assertion…if we as a nation can become so unified in our desire to support the sovereignty of the territories of other nations globally, and so organized and coordinated in our ability to mass our population in the liberation of those regions, then it becomes likely that we would have great success (due to our size) in successfully containing expansion by other countries. If after a certain amount of time, foreign nations no longer can expand with impunity because of the eUS capacity to defend the sovereignty of the original regions of our allies and smaller nations, then eventually our influence will force a paradigm switch by those expansionist nations to efforts at gaining an edge through commerce and diplomacy rather than might.

Therefore, the question that we as eAmericans eventually may face, given the development of the robust communications and detailed organization required will not be which nation we feel compelled to invade, but rather which nations we feel compelled to contain by leveraging one of our strongest advantages, population.

In summary, I believe it is not only possible to achieve victory (by my definition) without territorial expansion but, based on the game mechanics surrounding the institution of resistance wars, that the actual expansion of our boundaries past our original territory may provide for a greater obstacle to victory, in the maintenance of non-original territory and defense against “domestic” RWs, than a benefit.

Esssentially, the central thesis of this article is that we have a choice in how we select to establish our influence globally: While from a narrow view of conquest we could assert our influence through the expansion of our boundaries, or from a broader, and more benign, effort we may exert our influence through a paradigm of coordinated military efforts aimed at defending the right to original region sovereignty globally. My preference would be the latter as I am much more inclined to be perceived globally as a nation that vigorously defends the integrity of national sovereignty, internationally, and the right to self-determination, above any exclusive focus on territorial expansion.

I am confident that we can achieve victory without sacrificing the RL social values which are such an integral part of our virtual/national identity, though we will be required to unite in a clear commitment to the strategy.

In the next installment I will discuss how we might achieve the organization and the coordination of our citizenry to facilitate victory, and respond in greater detail to those that perceive eRepublik in a manner which places greater emphasis on the social networking and experimentation aspect of the game; which, in my opinion, is an equally valid approach to the game, though a focus which does not necessarily contribute to my primary objective in the game which is an eUS victory.

Thank you for your time in reading and commenting...I appreciate your feedback.