D10: Training Wars as a Security Feature
•
by Jacob Ferguson
Yesterday, President chickensguys mentioned in a comment that our Training Wars were less about accruing gold and ranks, and more about security. How does this work? What about allowing several countries to conquer states from us on a regular basis and then win them back makes us any safer than us participating in fewer Training Wars that we can handle. I know that with only a few active players a day, having resistance wars and training wars is difficult to keep up with.
As an example, on the day of writing, we have 8 RW starting in or with 8 different countries. These countries are able to focus efforts on these wars (even if it's not voluntary, we've all seen the incorrect "daily orders" from Erepublik telling you to support a direct war or telling you to attack a resistance war), while we have to split our efforts across eight of them. If we limited our Training Wars, they would be over faster, with more focus and we would have more opportunities to focus on them. Starting 6 within 4 hours splits our focus and makes us weak. I'd be interested to see if there are any resistance wars that are started and not finished correctly. I have a suspicion that we actually ARE able to win most if not all of them, but I have my concerns.
I believe that Congress should take steps to evaluate if we're getting a fair deal out of these wars, and if not, at least have someone in the current administration (for each month) send out a newsletter telling the eUS the current state of Training War affairs and what we should be doing on both ends of a training war. Specific regions we should be attacking, regions we should be starting and supporting resistance wars, and countries we are NOT allied with or friendly with to know when we need to attack or defend in a real conflict.
This would ideally come with a daily priority list (similar to the list we receive telling us when resistance wars can be started) that tell us, short of military unit daily orders, what we should be spending our energy on. I realize this is a tall order for an administration that I'm sure has busy lives outside of Erepublik.
I would like any candidate that runs across this article to address how they intend to approach this issue. Also, any detailed insight into how these Training Wars help us, outside of allowing people to make money off BH, FF, RH, AH medals, will I'm sure help clarify this situation for people approaching it with no background.
On to a more personal diary and experience note, I have purchased 2 Q4 FRM farms on account of my 3 Q1 FRM farms not being able to provide the materials I need to run my Q2 food factory. This is going to generate a surplus of FRM, which I intend to sell on the market when I hit storage limits. Surplus food can't be a bad thing, especially if we're going into a new administration bent on performing airstrikes.
Also, it's time to activate my new Q1 house. I don't think I'll be buying a new Q2 house until the prices are below my weekly profit from overtime, and I don't see that happening soon.
As always, if you have more insight for a new/returning player or any other thoughts, please leave them below. If you're looking for a political party, I'd like to encourage you to look into either E Pluribus Unum (with me) or the Socialist Freedom Party (led by some excellent folks). If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to CLA. Thank you!
~JF
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Not very long ago, our country was completely wiped. We struggled for many months to recover from that, and to gain new allies. These new training wars serve multiple purposes, not least of which is the security CG's mentioned. I will attempt to briefly cover two facets of that (though I am no expert in politics.)
1. Certain US states who have borders with enemy or neutral countries/states are an easy target for enemy invasions. Keeping an allied country in that state would make our enemies spend resources and declare war on both that ally and us in order to push through that border state and into our held territory. It's a prevention mechanism.
2. Keeping active wars in higher risk states also 'ties up' those states with wars more easily controlled by us. Another country can't invade a territory that is already being battled over. Again, a prevention mechanism.
There are also sometimes territory trades done to share resource bonuses with allies when one country has duplicates (not sure if this applies to any of our current territories held by allies.) And then the gold farming from medals as you already know.
Oh I see, that makes perfect sense. I didn't take into account the situation where a country can't invade a state that's in conflict. So even if we lose a RW, it's still in our security interests, just loses us the potential gold.
I love how your articles have dragged Drummertheman out of his slumber.
I feel compelled to encourage good quality media. It's too rare in this game lol
Keep asking those questions. Many can learn from the answers or at least start thinking why things are like they are and get active in politics. o7
It has been proven to my satisfaction that we get enough enemy agents supporting our RWs to diminish the benefits reaped by our citizens to a break even level at times.
BHs are often going to a small group of hitters with maverick pack, so not much spread there either.
True patriot and resistance hero do evenly benefit the population though.
Another often overlooked benefit is that the TWs give people something to do thereby fostering continued activity, they also necessitate the consumption of food and weapons, benefiting the economy.