Join the new world

In his first installment, Ananias said “I play this game with the sole intent to win it for the eUnited States of America.”



In his second article, Ananias expressed his belief “that we can achieve victory without territorial expansion.”

While this plebeian wholeheartedly agrees with the statement and would favor it over victory by territorial expansion, it was again suggested that victory in the form of eUSA conquest should not be the ultimate goal.

In his most recent article Ananias suggests, “The social network is an external construct to the game developed by the community as an addition to the game rather than an intentional design element of the game.” He has suggested that eRepublik is primarily a game with limited mechanics and therefore limited scope.



Huomeng used an analogy of the "Civilization" games' victory options (Conquest, Economic, Diplomatic) but this reviewer doesn't quite understand how diplomatic or economic conquest is any different (other than method) from the endpoint of military conquest. The intent is still to suppress all other individuals and civilizations in order to show the superiority of the system and ideals that you have set for yourself as a nation and to increase individual power. This correspondent’s question, and the reason for continued dialogue with Ananias, is why does the eUSA have to conquer at all - regardless of military, economic, or diplomatic method?

Your correspondent is suggesting that the goal not be eUSA conquest, but a universal change in philosophy and motivation of ALL individuals in ALL nations to one of cooperation and egalitarianism. The challenge is lofty and will not be achieved quickly - but it begins with conversations like these in the eUSA, adoption of the attitude by political leaders, and continues with a spread of the message and ideals to allies, and finally to enemies. In the meantime... war games, economic security, and effective diplomacy are certainly the only ways to maintain eUSA influence and independence in order to begin the universal paradigm shift.

The most difficult discussion between these two paradigms will likely become the variable of “fun”. Most citizens of eRepublik probably find war games and conquest much more entertaining and straightforward than the difficult challenge of creating an egalitarian Utopia. “Why should I leave the largest and most powerful political party in order to increase equality and democracy? Why should I join the largest and most powerful political party decreasing partisanship and increasing my participation in democracy? Why should I move out of a powerful and dominant country in order to defend the newly founded? Who moves and who stays? Why should I diminish the influence of game mechanics to increase the influence of social simulation? Why should I emphasize transparency when this makes me vulnerable?” These are all valid questions that might be asked about the new paradigm. The answer lies within motivation. Will you continue the easy task of clicking buttons confined within the game mechanics to increase individual and national power? Or will you use eRepublik as a test to explore your greatest political and social ideals by attempting to establish an egalitarian Utopia?

Ananias used an analogy to scrabble and poker and suggested that there are three ways to approach eRepublik: play to win, play to socialize, or play to do both.

This reviewer will point out that in poker and scrabble (despite being suggested as purely social games) – someone wins (therefore a poor analogy to eRepublik). To use Ananias’ analogy, eRepublik is a combination of “winning” and “social” – therefore it is just like scrabble and poker. There is no separation of the possibilities – only a difference in motivation. Ananias suggested that Scrabman plays a game where a winner exists – but not with the intent of winning (sure seems like he enjoys winning).

This citizen suggests that if eRepublik is a game like poker (although fundamentally it is not) – then we should take all the chips after every hand and distribute them equally among all players, including new and old. Therefore, we are playing the game with the motivation of winning (small victories, earnings shared with all) – we are playing the game with the intent to socialize – but we are also recognizing that all players deserve the right to enjoy the game without being forced to walk away early and empty handed. The social aspect of the game is not just RL social networking around a common form of entertainment; it is a RL simulation of the challenges of being a stratified and oppressed civilization.