The Economist ~ Theory of war
Day 3,878, 12:25
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please vote and subscribe
Dear friends,
I want to speak today in brief about a topic I rarely visit, for good reason: war. One of the core aspects of the game we all play is the military module, and it’s fair to say that battles are the engine which drives the economy, and to a lesser extent the politics module.
In the last few years ‘real’ wars between countries have become a rarity, whilst at the same time the amount of ‘training’ wars has escalated out of control. Training wars give top players the opportunity to harvest huge amounts of gold from medals, and much of that gold is converted into currency and then used to buy packs from visa players. This has created a comfortable situation where real wars have become undesirable due the threat they pose to farming medals.
Since the beginning of the year, the amount of significant wars on a global stage can be counted on one hand. The airstrike on Croatia is one, and possibly included in that was the various counter strikes against the USA. The war on Hungary was another. The joint Greco-Croatian airstrike on ROC another. But really, the list doesn’t go on much longer than that. Less than ten countries out of 70 fought in real wars in the last six months, and most of them top 10 powers.
So what were the motivating forces behind those wars? In general, there are three main reasons cited for wars:
1. Boredom (we want a war!)
2. Strategic advantage (we want resources/to deny resources)
3. Supporting an ally who is under threat from 1 or 2.
When should you go to war?
The decision to go to war is something that should never be taken lightly. Generally a willingness to go to war should not directly transfer into a war. In other words, even if you are actively looking for an excuse to fight, you should wait for due opportunity to arise rather than just invading Ireland for the millionth time for the sake of it.
When there is a willingness to go to war (type 1) you should therefore look for another reason to support this- especially as a smaller country. The eUK sits about halfway down the league tables in terms of country strength, right on the edge of relevance. This means invading somewhere for strategic advantage is - if not ruled out - unlikely. Therefore the best and most likely reason for us to go to war is to support allies in a joint campaign.
In the last few months we’ve had a few opportunities arise to do so, and all of these have either failed (Albania) or fallen through (potential involvement in the eUSA fiasco). With the current quiet on the international scene, the opportunities to be actively involved in a real war have been relatively slim.
Some people would argue that we should therefore make our own war by simply attacking country X. Doing that would be stupid, but since I apparently need to do this I will point out why: hypothetical country X will have many friends who, like us, are bored. And like us are waiting for an opportunity to get involved in a real war, and who will attack us. And when our allies have to decide whether to start a global conflict to save our stupid asses, or send us to the negotiating table with our cap in hand, they are going to choose the latter if they have any sense.
For this reason, any discussion about wars should always include international advice from key allies. Whether you are the starting country in a conflict or not, everything must be well coordinated from the beginning.
So are you pro-war or not?
Anyone who says they are ‘pro-war’ without qualifications or conditions shouldn’t be leading the country, in my opinion. In my previous terms as Country President I fought a series of expensive and difficult wars against all of our neighbours- often multiple countries at once. I am not a stranger to war and I am more than happy to fight and organise one.
But I am not going to promise to deliver a war.
Why not? Because a promise like that, without qualification or condition, means that I consider the following outcomes to be equal in value:
1. The UK fights a war and wins
2. The UK fights a war and loses
And I don’t. If I fight a war, I want to ‘win’, and by that I mean I want to achieve my objectives- which will always go beyond “some people said to me they wanted a war so I went along with it because I want to be popular”.
The consequences of defeat today, in this unbalanced age where the eUK is a shadow of its former self, are dire in the extreme. There are countries that have been wiped for months- powerful countries. Those on our level are often forced into rental deals with powerful nations in order to survive, or to accept permanent occupation.
We are very lucky, as a country currently ranking 39th in tank damage, that we have a completely free country, a good training war with a reliable partner, and political access to the most powerful alliance in the world. Let’s not throw that away for a few days of war that - without proper support - won’t even be fun, but will rather be a complete whitewash.
Finally- what wins wars?
In ages past, tanks won wars. Today, not much has changed. Legend bonuses, energy bars and packs are what give countries a big advantage. In the eUK we have half a dozen significant tanks, of which maybe three (UKSF, Piran and Frag) can actually be considered serious. In terms of pack buyers, the last I checked we had less than ten.
Those are the people who matter when a war starts. Each of us contribute a bit, but I’m not going to pretend the 20k I do in an air battle is anywhere near as important as the million that UKSF or Piran can - and do - put into air battles, or the billions on the ground. When you’ve got half a dozen players who put in more damage than the rest of the country, it’s their opinions you need to ask before you start a war.
Next, to win a war you need CO. A lot of it. In the USA-Croatia wars millions were spent within hours of the first battle being opened. In the Greco-Croatian airstrike on ROC, tens of millions were spent. We don’t have that kind of money- even if we wanted to blow all our reserves and private money on a fight which achieved little beyond the initial fight. As discussed above, we wouldn’t just be fighting against a target country, we’d be fighting against all their friends- and they will all put CO up. If we’re going to compete with that, we need friends of our own to help. And for them to want to do that, we have to make sure that there is a purpose to the war beyond ‘fun’.
Finally, to win a war you need some solid victory condition that you’re looking for. If you are ‘pro-war’ then perhaps your victory condition is just pushing the button in the first place. But if you fall flat on your face, like we did with the Albanian AS a few months back, then that’s hardly satisfying any urges for excitement is it? Therefore there needs to be - at a minimum - some goal you are fighting for, to inspire people. Whether that is a wipe, or ‘teaching them a lesson’, or clearing an enemy out of an allied country. Or liberating our own. Without that victory condition, the only difference from a training war is how much it costs.
Conclusions
If I’m re-elected, will there be a war? Perhaps. What I am willing to commit to is:
1. I will talk to our MU leaders about whether they are in favour of a war, and whether their fighters are prepared for it.
2. I will talk to congress about whether they are willing to sanction the huge costs involved in war.
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, I will talk to our allies about whether they have any plans for future wars, and ask to be included in those plans. What I won’t do is promise the impossible just to try and win votes.
Iain
Dear friends,
I want to speak today in brief about a topic I rarely visit, for good reason: war. One of the core aspects of the game we all play is the military module, and it’s fair to say that battles are the engine which drives the economy, and to a lesser extent the politics module.
In the last few years ‘real’ wars between countries have become a rarity, whilst at the same time the amount of ‘training’ wars has escalated out of control. Training wars give top players the opportunity to harvest huge amounts of gold from medals, and much of that gold is converted into currency and then used to buy packs from visa players. This has created a comfortable situation where real wars have become undesirable due the threat they pose to farming medals.
Since the beginning of the year, the amount of significant wars on a global stage can be counted on one hand. The airstrike on Croatia is one, and possibly included in that was the various counter strikes against the USA. The war on Hungary was another. The joint Greco-Croatian airstrike on ROC another. But really, the list doesn’t go on much longer than that. Less than ten countries out of 70 fought in real wars in the last six months, and most of them top 10 powers.
So what were the motivating forces behind those wars? In general, there are three main reasons cited for wars:
1. Boredom (we want a war!)
2. Strategic advantage (we want resources/to deny resources)
3. Supporting an ally who is under threat from 1 or 2.
When should you go to war?
The decision to go to war is something that should never be taken lightly. Generally a willingness to go to war should not directly transfer into a war. In other words, even if you are actively looking for an excuse to fight, you should wait for due opportunity to arise rather than just invading Ireland for the millionth time for the sake of it.
When there is a willingness to go to war (type 1) you should therefore look for another reason to support this- especially as a smaller country. The eUK sits about halfway down the league tables in terms of country strength, right on the edge of relevance. This means invading somewhere for strategic advantage is - if not ruled out - unlikely. Therefore the best and most likely reason for us to go to war is to support allies in a joint campaign.
In the last few months we’ve had a few opportunities arise to do so, and all of these have either failed (Albania) or fallen through (potential involvement in the eUSA fiasco). With the current quiet on the international scene, the opportunities to be actively involved in a real war have been relatively slim.
Some people would argue that we should therefore make our own war by simply attacking country X. Doing that would be stupid, but since I apparently need to do this I will point out why: hypothetical country X will have many friends who, like us, are bored. And like us are waiting for an opportunity to get involved in a real war, and who will attack us. And when our allies have to decide whether to start a global conflict to save our stupid asses, or send us to the negotiating table with our cap in hand, they are going to choose the latter if they have any sense.
For this reason, any discussion about wars should always include international advice from key allies. Whether you are the starting country in a conflict or not, everything must be well coordinated from the beginning.
So are you pro-war or not?
Anyone who says they are ‘pro-war’ without qualifications or conditions shouldn’t be leading the country, in my opinion. In my previous terms as Country President I fought a series of expensive and difficult wars against all of our neighbours- often multiple countries at once. I am not a stranger to war and I am more than happy to fight and organise one.
But I am not going to promise to deliver a war.
Why not? Because a promise like that, without qualification or condition, means that I consider the following outcomes to be equal in value:
1. The UK fights a war and wins
2. The UK fights a war and loses
And I don’t. If I fight a war, I want to ‘win’, and by that I mean I want to achieve my objectives- which will always go beyond “some people said to me they wanted a war so I went along with it because I want to be popular”.
The consequences of defeat today, in this unbalanced age where the eUK is a shadow of its former self, are dire in the extreme. There are countries that have been wiped for months- powerful countries. Those on our level are often forced into rental deals with powerful nations in order to survive, or to accept permanent occupation.
We are very lucky, as a country currently ranking 39th in tank damage, that we have a completely free country, a good training war with a reliable partner, and political access to the most powerful alliance in the world. Let’s not throw that away for a few days of war that - without proper support - won’t even be fun, but will rather be a complete whitewash.
Finally- what wins wars?
In ages past, tanks won wars. Today, not much has changed. Legend bonuses, energy bars and packs are what give countries a big advantage. In the eUK we have half a dozen significant tanks, of which maybe three (UKSF, Piran and Frag) can actually be considered serious. In terms of pack buyers, the last I checked we had less than ten.
Those are the people who matter when a war starts. Each of us contribute a bit, but I’m not going to pretend the 20k I do in an air battle is anywhere near as important as the million that UKSF or Piran can - and do - put into air battles, or the billions on the ground. When you’ve got half a dozen players who put in more damage than the rest of the country, it’s their opinions you need to ask before you start a war.
Next, to win a war you need CO. A lot of it. In the USA-Croatia wars millions were spent within hours of the first battle being opened. In the Greco-Croatian airstrike on ROC, tens of millions were spent. We don’t have that kind of money- even if we wanted to blow all our reserves and private money on a fight which achieved little beyond the initial fight. As discussed above, we wouldn’t just be fighting against a target country, we’d be fighting against all their friends- and they will all put CO up. If we’re going to compete with that, we need friends of our own to help. And for them to want to do that, we have to make sure that there is a purpose to the war beyond ‘fun’.
Finally, to win a war you need some solid victory condition that you’re looking for. If you are ‘pro-war’ then perhaps your victory condition is just pushing the button in the first place. But if you fall flat on your face, like we did with the Albanian AS a few months back, then that’s hardly satisfying any urges for excitement is it? Therefore there needs to be - at a minimum - some goal you are fighting for, to inspire people. Whether that is a wipe, or ‘teaching them a lesson’, or clearing an enemy out of an allied country. Or liberating our own. Without that victory condition, the only difference from a training war is how much it costs.
Conclusions
If I’m re-elected, will there be a war? Perhaps. What I am willing to commit to is:
1. I will talk to our MU leaders about whether they are in favour of a war, and whether their fighters are prepared for it.
2. I will talk to congress about whether they are willing to sanction the huge costs involved in war.
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, I will talk to our allies about whether they have any plans for future wars, and ask to be included in those plans. What I won’t do is promise the impossible just to try and win votes.
Iain
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Thank you for providing me with something to read tonight. Quality writing as always.
Quality work and wise words as ever.
I must admit it's very easy to get carried away with ones own line of thought and forget about the bigger picture.
Interesting. o7
I think this theory of war is a bit late for the eUSA. 😉
brain off and make war 😃
We are very lucky, as a country currently ranking 39th in tank damage, --> really ?
No I don't think that was what was meant. My understanding was that we are in a better position than a country ranked 39 could or indeed should be based on the statements that followed.
I was twisting his words, obviously
War is an end by itself, not a mean for anything.
This game is really not complicated, why do people complicate it, I don't know...
makes em feel important...
[removed]
The game mechanics are simple. Modeling the behaviour of thousands of people to understand how they'll act/react isn't. That's what people don't understand. Even playing a two player game like chess involves trying to get inside the head of your opponent. Doing the same when there are dozens of top level players and hundreds of actors is almost impossible. Some people don't even try - and that tends to result in poor outcomes.
Wayne, I don't need to explain myself to you, but believe it or not I don't write articles for validation. You should know by now that your opinion doesn't hold any weight with me.
You say you don't need to explain yourself to me, yet here we are with you explaining yourself to me...
I said I don't need to, but God help me I feel like I have to try and get through to you...
>"You should know by now that your opinion doesn't hold any weight with me."
So being a former CP that saw off a 5 way gang-bang that ended up with us fully complete and deep into Scandinavia means little to you?
Being one of the largest voices in the group that represent about 33% of the nation and the 2ic of one of the MU's you want on your side in a conflict.........not relevant?
One of the few UK citizens that has access to financial resources needed to support a war.........get to fuck?
The reason we don't have fun/wars is not due to any (Keers)logical reasoning that you attempt to provide..........its your arrogance, dismissive behaviour and unwillingness to recognise any acheivement that hasn't got a TUP label slapped on it.
Alfa, if Wayne had offered solid suggestions or advice his opinion would be valued. "Attack someone" and "you're a pussy" aren't constructive or helpful, and are therefore ignorable.
You've made it perfectly clear that unless our group is willing to foot the bill, you aren't interested in what we have to say.
Just keep being you, Spite...
What I actually said is unless you're willing to do your part, we're doomed to fail. It's a complement if anything. I'm recognising that you're a huge chunk of our active and available damage and without your full commitment we can't even realistically explore options.
As advice goes "stop being a pussy and attack someone" would be a very salient point as unless you have the fortitude to actually perform the action then all other discussion is rather moot.
Let's be honest here, you require the bank account of UKF.
I can be accused of a lot of things, but lacking stomach for confrontation isn't one of them. I'm happy to meet people head on. I just don't see the point unless I think we have a decent chance of winning.
And yes Wayne, that does involve commitment from our tanks, as I said in the article.
> Stomach for confrontation
> Only confronts that which he can win
No one is claiming you wont lash out if cornered, it's common knowledge that a rat is at it's most dangerous when trapped...
>" It's a complement if anything. I'm recognising that you're a huge chunk of our active and available damage and without your full commitment we can't even realistically explore options."
and you cunningly remove any chance of that being a factor by discriminating against pirates and thus ensure you never have to push the button.
Thus the circle is closed and you can always claim its not (in immediate terms) your fault.
Endorsed because I 98% agree.
I support war simply as something to do in an otherwise useless game. Granted I dabble in politics because of friends I've made here and there. I'm told by friends who are not tanks that when they put in their 59k then get excited when someone such as myself saves the round by dropping 1/2 billion. I don't get it but I figure if it makes them happy it's a good thing.
I'll possibly be sticking my foot in poo. Have you considered hinting around that you'd like a mutually agreed on war. None of the TW crap but an all out private little war. Where allies are asked to stay out of it (as much as possible, there will always be some nut) and there is some agreed upon point where it ends (like whoever gets wiped gives the winner 500 gold to cease hostilities), then both go their merry way.
Don't know. Maybe I'm nuts. War with rules.
I did consider it: one of the first ever wars we had was with Ireland, and both our CPs agreed to it in secret and everyone pretended it was a real war to add to the excitement. It we could find a partner and agree on some rules we could do that. How we'd keep allies from getting involved idk. There would be medal hunters as a minimum. I don't think we even have enough players to fight every round
This says it all about how much you respect democracy.
Alphabethis, democracy has so little to do with making fun in the game unless you are role-playing.
The reverse of that is that when I'm tanking hard against 2 or 3 other players trying to keep or swing a bar........when I see Mr Knee, Pauly or Wayne turn up and empty their bars to help - I'm bigly grateful for the assists.
I tried to implement something similar during my term a while back now. Idea was to have a real TW, where we'd pretend its a real war, but tue loser gets his regions back after the agreed upon tike ran out. It called Roachford Training War, or RTW for short.
Unfortunately no one was interested in RTW and in the majority of cases the main reason was that it didn't create enough gold from medal hunting. Maybe forigs would be more likely to accept if we'd throw in a huge gold reward for the winner as you suggest, but it would have to be a pretty big reward and I'm not sure countries equal to us in power (which would be the most fun to have a war against) would be willing to risk it.
As Spite as pointed out, due to game mechanics, we could never have such a war due to any Tom, Dick and Abdul being able to jump in and effect the outcome.
We attempted to set one up when Roachford was CP, but we had no takers. I'm sure Spite would be able to use his international prestige to make one happen though, after all he is Mr Alliance. Or maybe his star has faded too much with time...
[removed]
UK CP
"One of the core aspects of the game we all play is the military module" + " I rarely visit " = Months of farming (which we don't do very well anyways)
I rarely visit it in my writing, but I dare say I've written more about it than you have over the years. It just isn't something I write a lot about. For a lot of reasons.
The amount of articles I write about wars has zero correlation with the amount of wars globally. "farmville" was well established before I even came back to the game.
Agreed
v + c