Join the new world

Yea!! BALLLIN!!

this is first and foremost still a game.
what makes games like these fun? war.

Oh is it only a war game now?
I seem to have forgotten that this is merely a slightly more complex version of risk, rather than a complex social strategy game with economic, political, media, advertisement, and various other modules.
But of course, those don't matter. They're not fun. War is. Why even comment on this article darthramen? Shouldn't you be fighting in this war game?

I figure people are either going to say, "Invading countries is bad and we should instead focus on helping our allies.", or, "This is a war game, figure it out." Neutrality is good because the chance of invasions are less, but it also loses player retention. War is good for boosting the economy, but you risk losing it all. Either way, both have their ups and downs. It just matters on how you play them. It's all a game of chance.

The player retention could be made up in different forms, such as wars of national defense, or para military organizations which offer a much more in depth war experience than the country one, without risking the country itself.
There are points on both sides, but in my own opinion, national security and the preservation of our country is above that of war only for fun, especially when there are alternatives.

Good article, voted. Sorry I don't have something more constructive to say. 😛

lolcommunism
Sorry, hurting my country means you die.

Great article civ! You are really making my replies seem pointless 😃

This is not just a war game once you've progressed a bit and established yourself in the community. For those that have yet to or just have not established themselves, this is mostly just a war game. I think wars keep a lot of people, particularly those that are not in the political loop and lack the resources/understanding/level to start a company, interested. Then there are people like me, who have the most fun when everything is going to $#*! while we're being invaded.

game/rl game-war-fun...

Oh yeah, feel free to discredit my comment by saying something disrespectfull and childish like: "Why even comment on this article darthramen? "

Sorry, but the mechanics don't support politics, nor reward peace.

Good article, although I'm afraid it won't change the eAmerican opinion of Imperialism. Voted, regardless.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with you. Yes we shouldn't invade just to beat up the redcoats, or for "lulz". But there are some territories that would improve our country economically. Voted regardless.

I agree, we need a return to normalcy!

@Shinybluepope: You're correct, the first branch of this game people usually get into is the military. However, I'm not advocating for the abolishion of the military, I'm for using it in a smart way, and not using it to randomly invade and occupy countries. A national crisis simply for the fun of it though? Can't we at least be smart in our wars, and not invade countries for the lulz?

@ Julian Mizu: The amount of respect and thought that go into my responses to comments are directly reliant on the amount of thought put into said comment. If you have a clear cut viewpoint, and say something of some intelligence, I will respect that viewpoint and be civil. However, if you attempt to use blatant idiocy to discredit my theories, I will use blatant disrespect to discredit you. The very fact that I am giving you this drawn out response is in contradiction of my own theory, but this is a necessary paradox.

@ Matthew Gallagher: The game mechanics do support things like Politics and peace, along with media, social interaction, economics, ect. This is not merely online risk.

@ Joseph Scarn: Sometimes you need to state what you believe if you think its right, even if its obvious people will disregard it, or be against it. If its proven wrong, stop saying it. If its some merit, try to get it noticed, if not for yourself, then possibly the one person who may listen.

ONCE AGAIN.
YOU HURT ME, I HURT YOU MORE.

There is nothing in this game except war. It takes a month to get a house, then what?

War isn't everything, it's the only thing.

I used to agree with neutrality. But since my existence in erepublik(beta). eIreland has for the most part been neutral. During this time, ireland has not changed much, it is the same boring mess. Although I do not agree with imperialism IRL, without it this game is no fun.

Now Im not saying you should go around invading everyone possible, but remember war is a good thing in this game. It keeps nations from going crazy, seriously just look at eIreland.

@ JeepAmerica: Okay then....

@ One Eye: I don't know you personally, so I can't tell if thats sarcasm or not. But if I'm not mistaken, you're well known for being an economic mastermind. If everything was war, how would this reputation even exist, both in an economic sense, and the fact you have a reputation, in a social sense.

@ GC: You dont have to be imperialist to have war. I would argue fighting a small war against Mexico or Colombia is boring in and of itself, simply because its almost like a training war. Incredibly easy. Also, attempts on imperialism can lead to national instability, which I'm sure would have been the downfall of eIreland.

Revenge😕=Imperialism.

Nicely written, I may for once agree with you. That doesn't mean I don't still think your name is funny 😉

There are indeed many levels to this game. The economic and political modules are driven by open conflict between nations. Under Armed Neutrality, certainly a player can move about and no doubt there will always be a good fight to get into...however you miss the camraderie and sense of shared purpose when you engage in open warfare, together, as a nation. There is nothing quite like tearing down a wall, or building it back up again, with your countrymen and women - and the added satisfaction of doing so within our military mass attack structures.

In the case of the eUK; they chose a path to set aside the social building aspects of the game when they betrayed their friendship with the eUS. Their aim along with their new PEACE allies was to end our nation here. They chose do or die. Well, they didn't so it's time for them to get busy dyin'.

P.S. It's a game, nobody really dies 🙂. Living proof that this is a game and not even remotely like real life...France didn't surrender when invaded. lol.

I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. In reality, the Cold War turning into open warfare would have killed us, yes. In this game, we can fight in as many battles as we want, and never die. That right there should show that beside the social factor, this is first and foremost, a game.

To some, it's a political simulation. To some, a military simulation. This game reminds me a bit of Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Except this isn't just ancient China, this is the entire world. And everyone plays a role, whether they be civilians, generals, congressmen, or presidents.

To me and many others, the military part is a huge factor. Not only does war add fun to the game for many players, it is also the best source of experience points on a daily basis. So not only are we likely to keep existing players while retaining new ones as well, we are leveling up faster. Neutrality is sound in theory, but boring and slow in reality. 😛

Maybe a poor analogy, but imagine playing a game of Risk with friends. You attack your friends country, he attacks yours. You might talk some crap back and forth even. But in the end, you both can shake hands and agree that it was a good game. We can still be friends with other countries, while fighting them. Even though very in-depth, it is just a simulation game. 😛

@mune
yeah, but if you were playing a game of risk with your friend and you take over all of his countries the game is over. Here the game goes on and your occupied. That sucks. I personally, have no problem with war. I have a problem with being an ass and taking over say eMexico for strategic value. Let the Mexicans play man. Fight them, beat them. Don't occupy them. Share a beer, (an eBeer, for you guys that will say, This is only a game, there is no beer here), and do it again later.

@Jeep America, dude I have no idea what your talking about, lol

Well, I didn't really want to vote this up at first but I suppose I begrudgingly respect your opinion and how respectfully you've chosen to defend it.

My remarks on my enjoyment of chaos were simply to illustrate how differently some may view what's fun in this game.

Concerning imperialistic warfare, it provides a consistent passion on our side and animosity on the side of our enemies, leading to perpetual fighting. This is actually good for the economy in several ways. Guns and gifts are consumed more during war and demand for food of higher quality jumps up as well. Defensive warfare like your talking about doesn't seem to spur as much demand for some reason. People probably just don't care as much about fighting to defend an ally or an insignificant state.

Regardless, subscribed.

Oh, and things aren't that bad when a country occupies another one. Switch your currency, struggle for a bit, and then things pick up. I'm down with heading south.

I'd agree that the game in its current form lends itself to imperialism, so those pursuing an anti-imperialist mode of play are "going against the tide" to some extent (which for me is fun and interesting).

I think it has yet to be proven if there is (or can be) a successful anti-imperialist strategy. Civ has laid out some very interesting ideas for doing so on a national level and there seems to be support for such approaches around the e-globe, though perhaps not so much in the "big powers".

Anyway, I'm guessing that it would take either a breakdown of alliances into a much more multi-polar situation, or the development of a large and powerful internationalist force of some kind to really change the dynamics.

As for what brings in new players and keeps them active, most of the discussion on that is hot air without some empirical evidence.

I like the way you think, CivilAnarchy. But until the political/economic/social modules of eRepublik provide the same exp point gain that fighting 5x can, I just can't agree with a non-imperialist eWorldview.

War unites the nation, improves retention, and provides fun to a greater number of players, increases experience, and stimulates the economy. War just keeps the warring nation healthier as long as it's well managed (even the nation being conquered benefits).

I've yet to see a good argument made for peace apart from appeals to ethics.

Voted & Subbed