For Whom The Bell Tolls
•
by Lowell Kennedy
I predicted it would come to this and hoped to preempt the war chants:
The greed of each ambitious, ascending power has led to the eventual overextension of themselves. There is little mechanism in the game to suppress. Thus, the controlling nation must maintain its superiority through the status quo means, the mechanics that it controlled to gain the advantage; whether it was the number of tanks in comparison or voters. There are two important notes to make about this. First, being the king of the global mountain can lead many to leave the game, being bored because defending just ain’t as much fun as conquering. Second, when a country spreads itself too thin, coupled with departures, the total damage or total votes of dedicated patriots has been lessened.
Each of these countries has had their moment in the sun. They reached the pinnacle of global affairs. In Risk, they might have won. However, in eRepublik, the game goes on.
The opportunity to take native Russian regions will probably be before us. Should we have recovered our regions, our confidence will be high and our military prowess will be strong. That leads to the question: should we go for it and try to take it?
I have not. I am disappointed that there has not been a definitive rebuttal to the war chants and echoes machine. Let it be here that it is made. First, the economic engine is not driven by war but opportunity. The markets that operate the most efficiently are those in wars. It is a false conclusion that the wars make the economies successful. In fact, it is the efficiency of the economies that provide an advantage in fighting. So any rationale that uses economic reasoning for war is faulty from the get go. Second, this question is not only of the game mechanics but of our philosophical approach. There are those that are promoting romantic conceptions of the art of war: combat, sportsmanlike competition, and the aspect of necessity but those conceptions need to be destroyed. Else, the war led by Americans will turn offensive.
The choice to go on the offensive is promoted by those that cannot find any other aspect of the game fulfilling. They will create heroes and villains where there are none. They will disillusion another generation of players and kill off those that don’t find the find the fighting worthwhile. Such disillusionment is fast becoming a theme of eRepublik; players leading expeditions, only to disappear when it all turns against them. There are many Romanians that have stayed but how many that made them a great power have gone? Should we just be another superpower to rise and fall?
Simply, this game is more than about war. Those that say otherwise will realize in time that the bell tolls for them.
http://somokon.com/erep/hitcounter.png">
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Peace no more, we cry for WAR!
Appreciate the article, but do not agree with much of it.
-- "First, the economic engine is not driven by war but opportunity. "
Well that's just wrong. Thanks to the game designers, the economy is very much driven by war. Without massive global warfare, the economies of the entire New World stagnate. Without war, citizens buy one food a day. And that's it. Maybe the occasional gift and ticket. But with war, there is demand for higher quality food, gifts, weapons, and tickets. War creates demand, which drives the economy.
I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to start ill-advised wars of conquest. I'm just saying, war does indeed drive the economy.
Um sorry, but get out of your dream world. This has become a war game. Put it this way:
What can you do with personal money? Buy gifts, tickets, guns, food, and houses.
What can you do with the companies that give you that personal money? Make materials for or directly produce gifts, tickets, guns, food, houses, hospitals, and defense systems.
What can you do with gifts, food, houses, and hospitals? Get wellness.
What can you do with wellness besides helping to make the stuff that helps you get wellness and fight wars? Fight wars.
What can you do with the guns and defense systems? Fight wars.
What can you do with moving tickets? Go to another country to do the main actions in this game: Work (to produce for war and wellness), train (To prepare for war), fight, and regulate.
What does the government do? Regulate the economy (that allows you to get wellness to fight wars), start wars, end wars, and make treaties.
In the end, everything cycles down to one of two things: wellness and wars. And wellness is used simply to maintain the cycle by producing stuff for itself and wars.
Don't tell me the newspapers & forums mean this isn't a war game. If you play a game of Risk and while moving your tokens about you talk to your friend about your favorite thing to eat for dinner and the weather that doesn't change the game. Mechanics my friend, mechanics.
This is a war game. An unwinnable one that never ends, and therefore not necessarily the best one, but the mechanics speak for themselves. This is a war game.
I have to agree with you Low. The US is slowly taking over the top spot in the world militarily and if we start taking regions we'll end up like Indonesia or Hungary. What we are currently doing by helping assist RWs in other countries and defending our allies is more than enough. Constant warfare is not necessary, especially if it means the US taking the offensive. Much of our strength comes from our allies and our way of helping defend the weak. Once we become the aggressor we will loss much of that advantage.
@ Kyler, this isn't a war game, the same way RL isn't all about war. You only choose to think it is because you like war. War games don't have elections, newspapers, or economics. They simply have war. You need to get this straight because people like you are what drive countries into the ground.
@Teucer
But what do the elected do? As I said they control:
A: The economy, which returns to war.
B: The war directly.
Economics in games that are not war games don't simply sell items that are used in waring. You can't by yourself a T.V. A spa. You can't buy a ticket to the movies. You can't buy profile stickers. You can't buy a car, a shiny new personal robot. You can't buy yourself a house. (Besides a little profile item that enhances your wellness.) You can't buy a pet. Clothes for an av. You can't buy anything that doesn't effect you wellness or war.
As for the newspapers? WTH? I have played online war games. Many online war games. These war games have forums. These war games have chats. These war games have PMs. But that doesn't change their nature.
Real life isn't about war. But this isn't real life.
I never took a stance on the New Democrats like Emerick but I always feared that arguments based solely on game mechanics were weak and this is why.
Generally, people don't understand them to beginning with. Nevertheless, people are willing to put forth lazy logic arguments if they could attach the idea of game mechanics to them. Here, and now, the game mechanics are one thing. Next week, they can be another. Thus, any argument using solely game mechanics is incomplete. For example, weapons are not necessities but war makes them such. Therefore, people are quick to point out the additional needs. Yet war does not create additional economic activity, it simply shifts it and recalibrates the balance in the market. It then seems like when people put forth the 'game mechanics create a need for war' argument that it isn't basic game mechanics that aren't understood but basic economics. Additionally, it is resorting to a zero sum view of eRepublik. Not everyone adheres to such a view. (To summarize, game mechanics are what you want to make of them.)
Furthermore, it's silly to lecture me on the game. I have a tome full of archives that display my understanding. I expect disagreement on the issue. For example, you can disagree with me like Q but I believe that there needs to be the other side presented at the very least. In this case, I will defend it doggedly. I believe the game is more than war. It appears that for those that want continue the war, it is simply about not losing. That's not a good enough reason.
@Kyler
Low is correct in his appraisal and your citing of game mechanics means nothing, it's simply a phrase you like to use.
On the topic on economics, they aren't driven by war. I've played the Monetary Market a lot and I can tell you that while war affects it, it is not driven by it. Prices fluctuate based around elections, opinions of the people in those markets, the state of politics in particular countries, etc. If you take war out of the equations the markets hold up fine. The reason is because people will always find a way to make money, even if it takes more time or skill. The same thing applies to the goods market. War simply makes it easier for people to make money selling weapons or iron.
@Lowell
Perhaps next week the admins will completely change the economic, political, and war models and make this game into something else. Perhaps next week the admins will decide to ban all the Indonesians too, just for the heck of it. But that is next week and this is now. Now eRepublik is a war game.
I reiterate, all products either fuel war, wellness, or other products, and wellness either fuels products or war. Politics regulates the economy, which deals with wellness and war; and war directly.
So I ask you this: if this game does not revolve around war, what is this game about?
Is it to obtain wellness? To consistently stay at 100%?
Is it to make your country the perfect environment for the economy, but then refuse to use the wellness and weapons it creates?
Is it to simply idle while training, working, and gathering money for the heck of it? Using the money to create more companies, and those to create even more money, but never using the money for its only available purposes?
Are the game mechanics just a distraction, just something that can be done on the side? Is the main point just to socialize, to use the newspapers, forums and chat?
@Teucer
The economy is not driven by war alone, but the only products it produces pertain to it and wellness, as I consistently repeat.
My citing of game mechanics means nothing? It is simply a phrase I like to use? Now game mechanics have no relevance at all? Maybe this is truly a dating site. The newspapers were intended for people to find their special mate. Prove me wrong with out citing any game mechanics.
Very nice arguments here. Voted
"Yet war does not create additional economic activity, it simply shifts it and recalibrates the balance in the market."
This.
@Teucer, more on your previous comment:
"If you take war out of the equations the markets hold up fine. The reason is because people will always find a way to make money, even if it takes more time or skill."
True, money could be made without war. But then what is the point of having the money? If the goal is simply to have the largest number in your account, then surely this game is rather a dull one. One could advance beyond other players simply by clicking "Get Gold."
True, true, the game is MUCH more than war.
But still, if one thinks that war does not drive the economy, than what does one think *does* drive the economy? What motivates large numbers of citizens to buy lots of products? I can think of only one thing, and I believe the past economic cycles bear out that war is the driver. Prior to the massive invasion of the eUSA, all global economies were slumping (read Misho and others on this as well). Without wars, product stockpiles soar, prices drop, and so wages drop, and that spiral continues until... more war.
The goal Kyler would be building an empire of companies or maybe holding a large share of a group of companies. Money is useful for more then just tanking. Using that money to influence politics is also common, something that is inherent in human nature.
This is your third article in three days. Have you been drinking an extra coffee recently?
That is true Teucer, but I am taking things a step further. Companies main purpose for the owner in most cases is to create him money. If he has an empire of companies, all successful, he will have even more money. But besides war, what is the money for? I understand you can use money to create more money, but eventually you must have a reason behind your desire for it. Politics is also a good use for money, but this goes back to my description of eRepublik government. Once you're in power you have only a few things you can do: control wars and alliances, and the economy. And the economy goes back to wellness and wars once again. It is true that one can have a personal goal. I could have joined with the goal of amassing 5,000 gold. That could be my only wish, I may not want it for anything but to brag and point at my account. But we dealing with the future policies of our nation, we must look beyond the individual. What is the overall picture? What can be seen from above? What do the majority do with their money and wellness, what can be done? When the economy functions, what does it create? What can we do as a nation? Why is the game as it is? And when looking at the overall picture there is one thing that must be considered more then anything else. The game mechanics, and what everything cycles down to.
And this is why I voted for Lowell for president way back in the day. Or was he vice president? Either way go forward Lowell, fight the good fight, and win.
Kyler, economics here is very much like RL economics in the sense that while war increases the use of goods greatly it is not necessary. I don't think anyone in this game has ever seen a country's economy go through a normal cycle without war because war is interjected constantly. Of course a country's economy will stagnate after a war ends, this is normal because the amount of goods being purchased lessens greatly. This will change eventually though as all economies fluctuate and cycle. To say war is what drives an economy is ridiculous because that is not the case, it is simply one catalyst in a larger cycle.
This being said is one reason why eRep needs PvP back. The ability for fighters to actually die and be out of a battle (and subsequently working with lower wellness) would make this a much more accurate representation of how war works. What we currently have is a system that allows citizens to never actually feel the effects of war other than an economic boost.
Teucer, I have repeatedly stated that I believe the economy can function without war. What I am saying is that the only products that the economy produces are for war or for wellness, and that wellness's only use is producing more products and for fighting. PvP would boost the market for wellness products, but not change the fact that warring is the main use for wellness other then working.
This game isn't all about war as much as you choose to think it is. You don't see "eRepublik: War Game Simulator" in the title of the game do you? If you take out any one part of this game it would simply cease to work the way you say it does. Without politics there is no need for war as there are no issues between countries. Without economics there is no need for war as there is no economy to feed.
As Yoda would say, "War game, this is not."
If you really believe this is a war game, present some facts that support your belief. What would happen if we did not have any battles to fight? What would the effects on the economy be? Just saying "everything in this game is made for war" is not proof of reasoning.
Without politics there is no need for war as there are no issues between countries.
Perhaps this isn't real life? When you sit down and play Axis & Allies you don't do it because of politics but for the fun of competition. It is that competition that fuels war in eRepublik.
Without economics there is no need for war as there is no economy to feed.
See above. As for my reasoning? I believe that was my first post. Go back and read that one again. Time and time again I say: politicians regulate the economy and war, the economy produces for wellness and war, wellness produces for the economy and war.
One more point I'd like to make: whether or not you believe that all the modules revolve around the war module, as I do, it is undeniable that the train, fight, and heal functions, the gun and defense systems, the MPPs and the ability to declare war and end it were all placed in the game for a reason. It would seem rather strange to advocate for peace in a game where war, if not THE function, is at least one of 3 main functions in this game. If the absence of war and the maintaining of original regions is such a preferable state for countries and players, then why would the module have been installed in the first place, and why would anybody attack anyone else? Surely there is some fun in the competition that comes from war in this game? The risks, the victories, the losses? Is not fighting just another enjoyable aspect of this game, not one that should be avoided? Is imperialism truly a bad thing, or cornerstone of eRepublik?
I direct you to my 3rd post in this debate, my reply to Lowell. What is your answer to that question?
Just because war is fun doesn't mean it's the focus of the game. It's the focus of the game for you maybe, but not everyone. If you take out the ability to fight then goods like gifts and wellness actually become far more important because new players and younger players will have to try to buy better goods in order to slowly build up their wellness. This would actually cause those industries to flourish because employers would be either assisting players in getting their wellness up or paying them more to help them buy better food.
If war is so important than why are the majority of the countries in this game still sitting in their own regions? Because they couldn't hold on to anything they took. This game benefits the defenders in every way, especially in original regions, so that every country can play the game. This game IS NOT Risk.
To answer your question, this is a social game in every aspect and game mechanics are simply one part of that. Without the social aspect there is no reason to go to war and no reason to play. Even in other war games I play, the social aspect of the forums and in game talking are a huge drive of who fights and where. You can believe this is a big game of Risk if you want, simply about taking over the world, but don't try to push that misguided thought onto everyone else because you enjoy shooting stuff. They make special games for that called first person shooters, try one of those.
Without war, how do people level up? If there are no wars you get 3 EXP every day! (1 for working, 2 for training) If there are no wars, why do people need to train? That means that your training just to increase your level and get more EXP, not to increase your strength. Without wars, iron companies and gun companies would go out of business! Without wars, you can't heal with a hospital! Without wars many people will become bored and quit. Think about it, would you want to get on erepublik and click the "Work" button, and then click the "Train" button and be done? Without wars what will people write articles about? EX. "Today France signed a peace treaty with the USA so they could all hug and be happy." Without wars gift companies would completely run out of money. Without wars plane ticket sales would drop immediately. Without wars people would migrate to other countries making the population drop and that would be the only way plane ticket companies would sell tickets. Without wars what is the point of signing MPPs? Without wars why would we build defense systems and hospitals, you cant heal without fighting and why do you need a defense system if you aren't in any wars? Without wars what is the point of the DoD Orders? Without wars how would lower leveled citizens increase their wellness, they depend on the hospitals to keep their wellness up because they can't afford higher quality food. Think about this people. (Should I write an article about this?)
I do agree that this game does not revolve COMPLETELY around war, but it does play a big role in it.
Destroy Them!!
War is what drives the game.
Only ally with countries willing to accept Statehood of the eUnited States. Iceland could become a State yet retain it's name. We offer them Statehood, and if they refuse, they're own their own, and could possibly be subject to occupation if needbe..
It's easy to do like Joe does and just say "War drives the game." Everyone wants to continue fighting and you can organize a mindless mass to vote up your article and that's fine, but think it through before you do it. If we attack someone and activate MPPs we WILL end up like Romania or Indonesia. Our holdings will shrink and our citizens will leave. Attacking someone is a mistake. Plain and simple.
Here I agree partially. I do not advocate for full scale invasions of any and all enemies, but rather to tread extremely carefully. MPPs must always be considered before attacking, and all elements of strategy must be put into consideration. That said, if an attack is feasible and more then likely to result in our victory, then I am all for it. It would be nice to acquire other high-resource regions, and I have nothing against imperialism as I maintain that this is a GAME, but caution must be applied. I leave those who have greater knowledge of current alliances, MPPs, intelligence, and future strategy, such as Harlot, to determine what is a safe move. My position is simply that if a move is not too risky as judged by those in the know and the territory will benefit us strategically and with resources, then I will not oppose it for ideological reasons, such a dislike of imperialism. I am in this game to improve our country's and our allies' status in whatever means feasible.
Great, and very well-written article, Lowell! Voted and subed.
Lt. Scheisskopf
http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/stars-and-stripes-journal-191155/1" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/st[..]155/1
Let's put it this way. I'm a level 13 player and am 62 days old. I live in a state with no hospitals or even an economy to speak of. Just a handful of individuals, scattered here and there. Now I bought up wellness early, because employers were complaining about my productivity, so I fixed that problem the hard way - by spending my own money rather than doing what I was told by the political-military machine. Having trained every day, I just got the 5 gold bonus for "super soldier", which I used to buy a Q1 house. That will reduce my demand for food by one star, but here is the rub - that move gets me just that much out of subsistence level earnings. I can then take this money and apply it somehow. How do I use that money ? Well, one option is to help my fellow citizens, to buy them the things that will improve their wellness. Now - which is more fun ? Fighting ? or Charity ? I can tell you which I enjoy more. Even at this stage, I can probably sustain at least one dependent citizen comfortably on my own wages. Governments cannot do this well. But private citizens can do it, and do it well. Everyone complains about inactive citizens, but from a game mechanics standpoint, there is nothing to prohibit you from porking them up, from buying those things necessary to keep inactive citizens alive. If you did that, then you would get all the stimulus you need - without war.
Samuel Seabury
"So any rationale that uses economic reasoning for war is faulty from the get go."
War drives the economy for sure. I know for a fact that I never bought a single weapon until a real war came along, never bought gifts, never bought higher quality food, and rarely purchased moving tickets. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
"So any rationale that uses economic reasoning for war is faulty from the get go."
"War drives the economy for sure. I know for a fact that I never bought a single weapon until a real war came along, never bought gifts, never bought higher quality food, and rarely purchased moving tickets. I'm sure I wasn't the only one."
you see? this is how/why the economy suffers without war.
If you guys keep arguing look at it this way your theory directly applies to the real world everything does come down to war its politics.
Its a politics game what do u get when people run the world average people and tis the same as our illustriouse world leaders you get war and peace
Patience is a virtue, Joe. You should learn that. We don't need constant war, especially at the cost of opening MPPs to attack.
I respect that Kyler Lee Octan is an exception and is trying to debate on the merits but when one side is dominated with throwaway phrases and anecdotes to support their position then it doesn't have strong merits to begin with. Further, it's implicit it my position that I don't want to pursue this course because it's shortsighted and will hurt America in the long run. There is no implied reasoning in the offensive war position--why do we have to attack? Because war drives the economy? Like I was speeding and going 150 because my car can?
@Lowell
Whether or not attacking is strategically sound (I address this in my previous post), the reason behind those asking for war is not only the economy, but even more a desire to keep newbs and bored players interested in the game, by giving them someone to fight and allowing them to enjoy the competition. As for whether we should go through with this I leave that to the commanders, for the reasons I said in my previous post.