The Economist ~ Individualism, dispersed networks, proxy wars and chaos
Day 3,833, 12:46
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please vote and subscribe
Dear friends,
One of the first things people said to me when I came back into the game was “there are no alliances anymore” or “there is only one alliance: Asteria”. In the last few weeks I have come to realise that both of these statements have an element of truth to them, but there is of course more than one side to each story.
More than ever before in eRepublik history, each country stands alone. This is a gradual trend in the game caused by two things. Firstly as time goes on, the amount of betrayals and past wrongs pile up, which makes building a functioning alliance challenging. Secondly the game promotes individual game play, and so national governments are less and less effective at supporting one another (because their citizens don’t follow their orders).
I don’t want to go on a huge trip down memory lane, but for example in 2010 it was common for alliances to tax countries a portion of their income, for countries to have ONLY national military units and for most, if not all, battles to be serious ones. Nowadays out of 80-100 active battles it is unusual for there to be more than 3-4 serious battles ongoing. A huge proportion of world damage just goes directly into training wars, or overhitting resistance wars that are easily won.
A good example of this was the recent Portugal-Hungary war. The war was interesting because it involved an Asteria member nation (from the actual alliance, not just pro-Asteria). Portugal did about 20 billion damage in the round. Macedonia did about 7 billion, Romania 3 billion and Serbia 2 billion.
Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts.
Now Portugal is a medium sized country in this game- it is big enough to sit at the top table of nations in Asteria, but not really a juggernaut. It is well respected because, like Lithuania and Iran, it packs a big punch for its size. It went face to face with Hungary - which is on the cusp of the top tier - and won a number of times. But it’s not in the same category as Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria etc. who occupy the top tier of the world.
In the old days, what you would have seen is Serbia at the top of the damage ranking, followed by Romania, and so on down. Portugal would probably have done 2-3 times their normal damage as people flocked to defend the motherland, but of course the most powerful countries in the alliance would have dealt most of the damage. On the other side you would have expected to see Croatia, Hungary, Greece, Chile etc at the top of the damage roster. But the game has changed since then.
The Portugal-Hungary war was primarily a war between Portugal and Hungary. Yes there were allies fighting and helping on both sides, but not on the scale we saw in the past. Too much damage flows into meaningless battles. Too many fighters think about farming medal gold, and not about fighting for their allies. And governments, however much they try, do not have the same leverage over military units and individual fighters that they once had. People don’t need supplies anymore; they don’t need CO.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none
So what does this do to alliances, and the interplay of relations between countries? It makes it a single player/single country game to a large extent. If you’re in a small country and you get attacked or invaded, the solution isn’t to rally allies behind MPPs and crush the enemy. The solution is to get your allies to directly attack the country which attacked you. Because citizens are only really reliable in a direct war.
People say that Asteria is the only real alliance, but in fact it is more of a federation than an alliance. A federation that includes, outside its official membership, countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia, France, Germany and the UK. A federation that also tentatively covers Poland, Russia, and the Republic of China. It is not an alliance as much as a group of countries that will act with common purpose.
What is the difference you might ask. Surely an alliance is - at its most basic level - a group of countries that will defend one another? That is true. But the difference is that an alliance is something bigger- a supranational organisation which itself directs members for their mutual benefit. That means even if you think the President of a country is useless, or you don’t like a country, you’ll fight for them because it’s the alliance’s daily order. What we have now is a whole string of roughly bilateral agreements between countries to support one another, under the auspices of an alliance.
For example, Macedonia has no official alliance membership. If it fights, it knows it can count on the support of certain Asteria countries it is friends with, but not all of them. That is because it has courted bilateral friendship with those countries, and they will therefore support each other. The UK is the same: we have built up a lot of friendships under jamesw’s leadership, and those friendships are very beneficial to us (and hopefully to our allies too). But the support we get is because of friendships/bilateral relationships, not because of formal alliance membership.
Flipping to the other side of the world, we have a loose group of countries who can consider themselves on the receiving end of the attention from the Asterian federation. Countries like Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, Argentina, Chile, the USA and so on. Those countries are not allies. Some of them will support the others, some won’t. Basically it is a much more dispersed version of the Asterian confederation- each country can rely on several major nations to help it, but nothing like the size of the network they face.
So combine these two ideas together- firstly that countries now fight as individuals, with support coming in the form of direct attacks from friendly nations. Secondly that alliances are now more like dispersed networks, comprised of bilateral agreements. The final component to add in is that direct wars between powerful nations (such as Croatia and US, or Republic of China and Greece) are incredibly expensive: in gold, in currency and in real money.
With these three factors we see a method behind the madness of the last few years. There was no advantage to a direct war unless you’re wiped and looking for a home. So instead what we saw is two things: extremely unbalanced wars where very powerful countries attack much weaker ones (this is a sure victory); and proxy wars where smaller nations fight to prevent larger ones from facing each other across the battlefield. Thus in the vast playing field of North America, it is Portugal that is rooting out Hungary, not Serbia or Romania, neither of which particularly want a border with Croatia and the inevitably expensive war that might trigger.
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
This created a very conservative military strategy for all countries. It meant that no Asteria nation would commit to an attack unless victory is certain, or close to certain, or there are several fall backs available. It meant that other non-Asterian countries would not commit to an attack at all, because of the knowledge of certain defeat. This created a culture, until very recently, where we would have long stable periods of ‘farming’, interspersed with a few very carefully planned and inevitably successful Asterian campaigns.
This contrasts sharply with the kind of environment the game had previously, where multiple alliances would be acting and reacting to one another often at quite short notice. Where national reserves were always one bad round away from empty for every country. Where a surprise attack could - even against the strongest nations like Serbia - result in a wipe.
The Croatian attacks on the USA, and then ROC, represent a break from that history of reaction. They were not a surprise (Croatia openly pledged to attack the USA for example) but the fact that they were out of Asterian control represented a change in the rhythm of the game. The subsequent dogpile from Macedonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania et al was - whilst again not a surprise - out of the control of Asteria. It was a break from the culture of careful planning that had characterised the game for so long.
What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
So to circle back again: individual country policy, dispersed alliance networks, conflict avoidance, a change to a more unpredictable culture. What do these things, together, mean for the future?
If we assume that each country now relies on their own individual strength more than ever, this makes smaller countries much more vulnerable to attack, regardless of alliance membership. So, for example, Portugal is more vulnerable than Bulgaria or Croatia, despite on paper being a member of a very powerful alliance.
If we assume that alliance networks are dispersed collections of bilateral agreements, the natural next step is to assume some (in fact many) of these informal agreements will cross alliance boundaries. Such friendships are openly recognised between Asteria and certain Pacifica nations, but with their combined efforts it is not impossible that there could be Pacifica and Asteria nations becoming friendly with the ‘other’ group (Croatia et al). This process complicates matters and undermines the formal alliances.
If we assume that powerful nations will attempt to avoid direct conflict with one another due to the cost, this means that the most powerful countries (Serbia, Romania, Croatia etc) will not directly attack one another by choice. This is based on previous history, and although perceived by most to be true (perception is reality) may not be.
So finally, the change in culture. If a country like Croatia can act in an unpredictable, undirected way, so can others. When this happens countries react to the crisis rather than act- which means no careful planning, no clever strategies long prepared, no coaching the less gifted country presidents in what buttons to press and when. It means an element of chaos. In that environment, the normal method of things is disrupted. ROC-Greece should not have been a close fight - ROC had most of Pacifica and Asteria on its side. But it was. And that was with 24 hours notice and every fighter sitting waiting for the attack to open.
Il n'est pas certain que tout soit incertain.
These four factors are the four horsemen of the eApocalypse for the current game culture. I see two possible developments. Firstly that, in the face of a threat that requires ever greater organisation and centralised planning, alliance blocks re-solidify into a more coherent and recognisable (dual) alliance structure. Secondly the opposite: that in the face of a reality where you have friends in opposing alliances and enemies in yours, the game becomes ever more reliant on networks of personal relationships, and we see ever more bizarre battles where arch-enemies fight together in support of mutual allies.
Which of these two visions of the future come to pass is hard to say. As things stand right now, the Asteria block has the best hope of reforming into a traditional alliance. It is, after all, an alliance already. Despite some fairly public bust-ups, most of the members and pro- members are friendly toward one another. The rest- Pacifica, Andes and friends, have little in common and a huge bundle of past dramas keeping them apart. That would be a huge and difficult chasm to cross, but if Asteria does soldify they will have to try.
On the other hand if things continue to disperse, we will see a different world altogether. One where individual countries take on more and more a role which previously belonged only to superpowers and alliance leaders- international diplomacy. Whilst most countries have some sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs, their usual job is just to go round making buddy with allies. To have to actually go out there and make allies, and maintain them month after month through shifting sands, will be an incredible culture change.
One thing I think is certain- there will be a change one way or another. The current system is entropic, and that is why we are seeing a gradual drifting apart (towards the second option above). Either that will continue, or we will see a reversal, but there is no status quo to maintain.
To end on a positive note, I think the upside of all this will be that we see more real wars, which will be more exciting and more meaningful. It’s the dream of every alliance leader to win, but for it to be a good fight. I think there will be a lot more of that whichever way it goes.
Change is good for the game, and more interesting political and military developments will keep people active and involved. I am hopeful that this trend will continue in a positive way, and that the chaos can be guided towards a future world structure that means more exciting wars, more incredible diplomatic achievements, more newsworthy events occurring. Whatever your take on how events stand at present, that should be something we can all get behind.
Iain
Afterword
This article represents my current thoughts and feelings. Everyone has a different view on how things are, and how they will progress. I would love to hear those ideas and views in the comments below. There is no right or wrong in this, but every individual perception contributes to the culture I am trying to describe.
Thank you’s
Thank you again to everyone who votes, subscribes and endorses my articles. It is rewarding to have people appreciate my work. Thank you to the following wonderful people who endorsed my last article:
N0s3
Arrlo
Icurlybear
Bulletz4Breakfast
Dio Maximus
Paul Tyndale
Vettige Swa
Vladb
Talon Karrde
Kravenn
El Speverino
The Mike
Niemand
Perry Rhodan
Feynmann
ScimitarInd
Rodney Mckay
Tzu Liang
Alphabethis
Certacito
ArchieSmith
Dear friends,
One of the first things people said to me when I came back into the game was “there are no alliances anymore” or “there is only one alliance: Asteria”. In the last few weeks I have come to realise that both of these statements have an element of truth to them, but there is of course more than one side to each story.
More than ever before in eRepublik history, each country stands alone. This is a gradual trend in the game caused by two things. Firstly as time goes on, the amount of betrayals and past wrongs pile up, which makes building a functioning alliance challenging. Secondly the game promotes individual game play, and so national governments are less and less effective at supporting one another (because their citizens don’t follow their orders).
I don’t want to go on a huge trip down memory lane, but for example in 2010 it was common for alliances to tax countries a portion of their income, for countries to have ONLY national military units and for most, if not all, battles to be serious ones. Nowadays out of 80-100 active battles it is unusual for there to be more than 3-4 serious battles ongoing. A huge proportion of world damage just goes directly into training wars, or overhitting resistance wars that are easily won.
A good example of this was the recent Portugal-Hungary war. The war was interesting because it involved an Asteria member nation (from the actual alliance, not just pro-Asteria). Portugal did about 20 billion damage in the round. Macedonia did about 7 billion, Romania 3 billion and Serbia 2 billion.
Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts.
Now Portugal is a medium sized country in this game- it is big enough to sit at the top table of nations in Asteria, but not really a juggernaut. It is well respected because, like Lithuania and Iran, it packs a big punch for its size. It went face to face with Hungary - which is on the cusp of the top tier - and won a number of times. But it’s not in the same category as Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria etc. who occupy the top tier of the world.
In the old days, what you would have seen is Serbia at the top of the damage ranking, followed by Romania, and so on down. Portugal would probably have done 2-3 times their normal damage as people flocked to defend the motherland, but of course the most powerful countries in the alliance would have dealt most of the damage. On the other side you would have expected to see Croatia, Hungary, Greece, Chile etc at the top of the damage roster. But the game has changed since then.
The Portugal-Hungary war was primarily a war between Portugal and Hungary. Yes there were allies fighting and helping on both sides, but not on the scale we saw in the past. Too much damage flows into meaningless battles. Too many fighters think about farming medal gold, and not about fighting for their allies. And governments, however much they try, do not have the same leverage over military units and individual fighters that they once had. People don’t need supplies anymore; they don’t need CO.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none
So what does this do to alliances, and the interplay of relations between countries? It makes it a single player/single country game to a large extent. If you’re in a small country and you get attacked or invaded, the solution isn’t to rally allies behind MPPs and crush the enemy. The solution is to get your allies to directly attack the country which attacked you. Because citizens are only really reliable in a direct war.
People say that Asteria is the only real alliance, but in fact it is more of a federation than an alliance. A federation that includes, outside its official membership, countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia, France, Germany and the UK. A federation that also tentatively covers Poland, Russia, and the Republic of China. It is not an alliance as much as a group of countries that will act with common purpose.
What is the difference you might ask. Surely an alliance is - at its most basic level - a group of countries that will defend one another? That is true. But the difference is that an alliance is something bigger- a supranational organisation which itself directs members for their mutual benefit. That means even if you think the President of a country is useless, or you don’t like a country, you’ll fight for them because it’s the alliance’s daily order. What we have now is a whole string of roughly bilateral agreements between countries to support one another, under the auspices of an alliance.
For example, Macedonia has no official alliance membership. If it fights, it knows it can count on the support of certain Asteria countries it is friends with, but not all of them. That is because it has courted bilateral friendship with those countries, and they will therefore support each other. The UK is the same: we have built up a lot of friendships under jamesw’s leadership, and those friendships are very beneficial to us (and hopefully to our allies too). But the support we get is because of friendships/bilateral relationships, not because of formal alliance membership.
Flipping to the other side of the world, we have a loose group of countries who can consider themselves on the receiving end of the attention from the Asterian federation. Countries like Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, Argentina, Chile, the USA and so on. Those countries are not allies. Some of them will support the others, some won’t. Basically it is a much more dispersed version of the Asterian confederation- each country can rely on several major nations to help it, but nothing like the size of the network they face.
So combine these two ideas together- firstly that countries now fight as individuals, with support coming in the form of direct attacks from friendly nations. Secondly that alliances are now more like dispersed networks, comprised of bilateral agreements. The final component to add in is that direct wars between powerful nations (such as Croatia and US, or Republic of China and Greece) are incredibly expensive: in gold, in currency and in real money.
With these three factors we see a method behind the madness of the last few years. There was no advantage to a direct war unless you’re wiped and looking for a home. So instead what we saw is two things: extremely unbalanced wars where very powerful countries attack much weaker ones (this is a sure victory); and proxy wars where smaller nations fight to prevent larger ones from facing each other across the battlefield. Thus in the vast playing field of North America, it is Portugal that is rooting out Hungary, not Serbia or Romania, neither of which particularly want a border with Croatia and the inevitably expensive war that might trigger.
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
This created a very conservative military strategy for all countries. It meant that no Asteria nation would commit to an attack unless victory is certain, or close to certain, or there are several fall backs available. It meant that other non-Asterian countries would not commit to an attack at all, because of the knowledge of certain defeat. This created a culture, until very recently, where we would have long stable periods of ‘farming’, interspersed with a few very carefully planned and inevitably successful Asterian campaigns.
This contrasts sharply with the kind of environment the game had previously, where multiple alliances would be acting and reacting to one another often at quite short notice. Where national reserves were always one bad round away from empty for every country. Where a surprise attack could - even against the strongest nations like Serbia - result in a wipe.
The Croatian attacks on the USA, and then ROC, represent a break from that history of reaction. They were not a surprise (Croatia openly pledged to attack the USA for example) but the fact that they were out of Asterian control represented a change in the rhythm of the game. The subsequent dogpile from Macedonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania et al was - whilst again not a surprise - out of the control of Asteria. It was a break from the culture of careful planning that had characterised the game for so long.
What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
So to circle back again: individual country policy, dispersed alliance networks, conflict avoidance, a change to a more unpredictable culture. What do these things, together, mean for the future?
If we assume that each country now relies on their own individual strength more than ever, this makes smaller countries much more vulnerable to attack, regardless of alliance membership. So, for example, Portugal is more vulnerable than Bulgaria or Croatia, despite on paper being a member of a very powerful alliance.
If we assume that alliance networks are dispersed collections of bilateral agreements, the natural next step is to assume some (in fact many) of these informal agreements will cross alliance boundaries. Such friendships are openly recognised between Asteria and certain Pacifica nations, but with their combined efforts it is not impossible that there could be Pacifica and Asteria nations becoming friendly with the ‘other’ group (Croatia et al). This process complicates matters and undermines the formal alliances.
If we assume that powerful nations will attempt to avoid direct conflict with one another due to the cost, this means that the most powerful countries (Serbia, Romania, Croatia etc) will not directly attack one another by choice. This is based on previous history, and although perceived by most to be true (perception is reality) may not be.
So finally, the change in culture. If a country like Croatia can act in an unpredictable, undirected way, so can others. When this happens countries react to the crisis rather than act- which means no careful planning, no clever strategies long prepared, no coaching the less gifted country presidents in what buttons to press and when. It means an element of chaos. In that environment, the normal method of things is disrupted. ROC-Greece should not have been a close fight - ROC had most of Pacifica and Asteria on its side. But it was. And that was with 24 hours notice and every fighter sitting waiting for the attack to open.
Il n'est pas certain que tout soit incertain.
These four factors are the four horsemen of the eApocalypse for the current game culture. I see two possible developments. Firstly that, in the face of a threat that requires ever greater organisation and centralised planning, alliance blocks re-solidify into a more coherent and recognisable (dual) alliance structure. Secondly the opposite: that in the face of a reality where you have friends in opposing alliances and enemies in yours, the game becomes ever more reliant on networks of personal relationships, and we see ever more bizarre battles where arch-enemies fight together in support of mutual allies.
Which of these two visions of the future come to pass is hard to say. As things stand right now, the Asteria block has the best hope of reforming into a traditional alliance. It is, after all, an alliance already. Despite some fairly public bust-ups, most of the members and pro- members are friendly toward one another. The rest- Pacifica, Andes and friends, have little in common and a huge bundle of past dramas keeping them apart. That would be a huge and difficult chasm to cross, but if Asteria does soldify they will have to try.
On the other hand if things continue to disperse, we will see a different world altogether. One where individual countries take on more and more a role which previously belonged only to superpowers and alliance leaders- international diplomacy. Whilst most countries have some sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs, their usual job is just to go round making buddy with allies. To have to actually go out there and make allies, and maintain them month after month through shifting sands, will be an incredible culture change.
One thing I think is certain- there will be a change one way or another. The current system is entropic, and that is why we are seeing a gradual drifting apart (towards the second option above). Either that will continue, or we will see a reversal, but there is no status quo to maintain.
To end on a positive note, I think the upside of all this will be that we see more real wars, which will be more exciting and more meaningful. It’s the dream of every alliance leader to win, but for it to be a good fight. I think there will be a lot more of that whichever way it goes.
Change is good for the game, and more interesting political and military developments will keep people active and involved. I am hopeful that this trend will continue in a positive way, and that the chaos can be guided towards a future world structure that means more exciting wars, more incredible diplomatic achievements, more newsworthy events occurring. Whatever your take on how events stand at present, that should be something we can all get behind.
Iain
Afterword
This article represents my current thoughts and feelings. Everyone has a different view on how things are, and how they will progress. I would love to hear those ideas and views in the comments below. There is no right or wrong in this, but every individual perception contributes to the culture I am trying to describe.
Thank you’s
Thank you again to everyone who votes, subscribes and endorses my articles. It is rewarding to have people appreciate my work. Thank you to the following wonderful people who endorsed my last article:
N0s3
Arrlo
Icurlybear
Bulletz4Breakfast
Dio Maximus
Paul Tyndale
Vettige Swa
Vladb
Talon Karrde
Kravenn
El Speverino
The Mike
Niemand
Perry Rhodan
Feynmann
ScimitarInd
Rodney Mckay
Tzu Liang
Alphabethis
Certacito
ArchieSmith
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
beep beep n0s3y
waaah, do not disrespect me!
1ST 😃
o/
It's not about just BHs, it's about TP and Legends and packs too, the game mechanics do not allow for more help to be provided, it's not about culture. The military system has been ruined by Plato , there is no economy, power shifted to pack sellers.
And BTW Croatia is not powerful, they might be all arrogant and entitled right now but they have more than 0 regions only because Serbia has allowed them to.Might be time end their vacation though.
Serbia is the strongest country in the game. Croatia remains a strong country however.
I agree packs and so on exaggerate the influence of individual players, leading to a more individualistic and uncontrolled method of playing. People hit where it will advantage them the most, rather than where is best for their alliance. This makes controlling and directing damage challenging for countries and alliances.
One of the reasons Croatia has done well recently is that they have a lot of pack buyers, but also that those buyers have actually fought in a coordinated fashion. So whilst packs might encourage more individualistic behaviour, that can be challenged by culture change.
I said pack sellers, I was not talking about people that have packs but the ones that sell them, by the dozens and hundreds. If you factor that in , you can say that there is Asteria and Colin but there are other pack sellers that do bulk, at least at times.
For buyers, the current system exacerbates the need for cc but in your reasoning on Croatia you try to claim that hitting for TP is a change in culture. They just do what everybody else does except now they can attack others so they make more of an effort.
The game mechanics aside, the Govs around the world , especially the ones in largest nations are lazy as hell. They get elected and do next to nothing, except wasting tax income on wars that do not serve the nation , just their egos. Smaller nations try harder but the large one are just no effort at all.
kme?
umber bear was here 🙂
\\\\ /
vote
Portugal did about 20 billion damage in the round.
.....................
True but we had 3 battles ongoing and a coup made by a black sheep I not saying that we could win the battle but many of us give up spending damage because will not do anything but if we had only the battle against hungary the result could be a little better but in the end was funny.
Congratulations to all the fighters from hungary and my country.
and to you for the article and welcome back to game too.
Don't get me wrong, my point isn't that Portugal did a low amount of damage. I am looking at proportional support rather than specific damage.
I like chocolate milk.
Excellent article! Thank you.
There is a way to fix it. A True Ally medal and damage pool which works for alliance member country fighters only. Will reshape alliances and make world bipolar.
And thanks for another good read, enjoyed that!
I also like chocolate milk.
"So instead what we saw is two things: extremely unbalanced wars where very powerful countries attack much weaker ones (this is a sure victory);"...not quite true.
No big country on the other side was spared, we had campaigns gunning for all of them at the same time.
And it wasn't always easy, the South American campaign had at least 3 moments when the tide could have changed but we have read those moments and countered them,it might have looked to be business as usual but it was hard. People should try fighting against 3 Chilean legends fighting with boosters for 2 weeks in every round non stop and Ikki doing epics for 4 rounds consecutively in each division.It was fun to win them but easy it surely wasn't 😁
And yes, Asteria went in campaigns with plans, call people old fashioned but seems the right thing to do 🙂
The advantage was with Asteria from the start vlad. Surely there were and will be difficult battles. But the battles were on their soil, it was them that were being invaded, and them having to spend tonnes of RL money and going above and beyond - just to counter the fraction of Asterian strength that you could point in the right direction.
It's not that the other side did not have plans at certain moments in time it's just some plans are better at a given moment in time.
Damage - that didn't just came out of nowhere, nor did the plans, nor the organization, nor the network to make them happen, nor acquiring the tools to make them happen or the legwork to have 5-10 countries getting together and fighting in a campaign.
But yeah... you have to do the work to get to that, complaining that the others have more damage is easier 😁
Just from a damage perspective : add up Synd and Adr damage from a couple of years back and compare it with Asteria's damage then. Some have managed to preserve a lot of their damage, some lost a big chunk...It's s got to mean something, right?
It means that when you consistently lose or are occupied many players leave the game or give up. I've been on the winning and losing sides of alliance wars in many different configurations over many years, and damage is king. TWO won wars with a damage advantage. Phoenix lost wars with superior organisation. You can do great things with few resources, but when you have the bulk of the world superpowers on your team (ala TWO) you have the advantage from the starting line.
But why/how battles are won and alliances were formed is not the purpose of this article.
When you talk alliances you talk communities.A lot of countries on the other side used to do really well... until they didn't.
How many campaigns, successes, bonuses and other benefits you can provide to the communities is essential to an alliance success cause you know ... alliances are just more communities.
Don't want to point fingers but the other side always cared more about what Asteria does rather than focusing on what they should do for their communities... the result can be seen.
Vlad I respect your perspective, but I think your point is that if the 'other side' just got their shit together they could win, and the current situation is not asteria's problem. Personally I disagree. Unless they get a baby boom, or some countries currently at the fringes of our area of influence switch sides, they will never be able to meet as equals even if they're super organised and put all their past hatreds behind them. So it does rely somewhat on events out of their control.
So what you are saying is that the other side's chance of actually doing something is that someone else doing the work for them. And even then because of their lack of planning and organization the outcome would be hard to predict.
It's not that the other side did not get opportunities but they somehow almost always managed to mess it up.
And yes, the first step to build something is getting your shit together which cannot be done from the outside.
Bitching and whining sounds more easy to do though than putting your shit together, but bitching and whining only brings more bitching and whining.
As far as Asterisk goes: we did our part, the only well thought campaigns in the last 2-3 years that lasted more than one day had Asteria planning and coordination. We have kept Asteria communities and allies entertained but we also won them.At the end of the day everyone benefited from those campaigns it just our side was on the winning side.The alternative would have been years of training wars.
Tell me ... what destroys communities most? Having well thought campaigns or leaders always complaining about the other side just to hide their own failures?
I think I was quite fair in the article in that I pointed out that years of mistakes and bad relationships kept the other side from coming together effectively. There are two parts to their current status, one is due to their own actions, one is due to the actions of others. There are times when you are at the disadvantage and a completely viable strategy is to wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Of course in the meantime there are things you can do to prepare yourself as best you can to take advantage of that. But it's not like waiting for the enemy to screw up is somehow an invalid strategy. It's a standard defensive strategy that countries in the real world have practiced for centuries. The offense always has more possibility for mistakes than the defence after all.
Just to add something really brief. The other side had the chance to screw us during spring of 2016. This is when Croats and Greeks with South America created 2 alliances to counter Asteria.
There was a brief window of opportunity for them when Brazil and Argentina left. However with their own mistakes and smart moves from our side that window was closed and the momentum definitely shifted back to our side.
When they finally actually moved against us and by proxy Macedonia in India we were ready and organized. After that we just kept killing them off one by one, while the counterattacks and almost all off their plans were being dealt with even before the start of military actions with smart use of subversion and soft power.
Other side just doesn't know how to play the meta game
The difference between Asteria and anti-Asteria side is too big to be made up by planning and organization and with time it will be only bigger. If admins don't do something to decrease imbalance nothing will change. With much effort, planning, time and money investment one could achieve some success, but on the long term it is not possible to win against the more damage. And why would anybody do it if only possible to lose? I think we play in a way that effort/fun are in more or less reasonable relation. And whining is because it is unfair that some unsuccessful years decide the outcome of the game forever.
There were times when anti Asteria had or could have had the same damage but some go up others go down.
It's up to each side to make It's side stronger.
And It's not like damage comes out of nowhere.
And yes...planning and coordination mattered and it still does.
>If admins don't do something
please off yourself
Damage correlates with the population that is willing to invest RL money in their characters. Huns for example didn't do it, this is why there aren't enough legend accounts and they are years behind Romania and Serbia. Personally I don't believe they will ever have motivation to spend on this game but who knows.
Dio, vlad
Asteria won not since the cooperation, plans or whatever only. Since you have more ppl, more support (eb, resources etc) and although it is possible to beat you one-two battles, but for a middle or long term it is not.
Change side ? Nobody dare to f*ck with the two strongest nation of erep 😃 LoL . Who would exit Asteria or pro-Asteria, or Pacifica to ajoin the other side where no resources are granted etc ?
rRonin, Hungary did, and did it well!
Hungary, Greece, Argentina, Brazil... for example 🙂
Oh, they are long time on the opposit side. You have occupied them and are still occupying some of them, or try, but even push others to attack them one after other...
Long jorney
Poi!
tl;dr
Wow what a great perspective!
I subscribe a lot of things that you wrote, but as already written above Legends are true game killers. Legends win wars. A country with few legend players can't face another with more legend players. And players that have higher legend rank won't fight for allies beacause their hit it's a lot higher when hitting for their country.
As you wrote Croatia had a great organization past few weeks, and they saved Hungary of being erased in the US.
Whilst I do not always agree with you analysis Iain, I do appreciate the amount of intelligent analysis and effort that is distilled into your articles.
It is good to have you back.
Endorsed and voted
aint your newspaper name a misnomer. The Economist but given that you quit and returned are a very low level i doubt whether that title can still be accurate?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
I'm not claiming to be an economist. That's just the name of the paper.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by a 'very low level'?
Voted
Splendid article.Must read to understand the current game
In fact, eRepublik didn't give Alliance a different characteristic (just add or remove Member country), this means something purely symbolic Alliance.
Good read (despite not using the official name for FYROM)
Allow me to highlight a fundamental factor in the complete absence of alliances or real wars or any interest in the military (or other) module any more.
It is the complete lack of supporting elements by the developers.
When was the last time you had resource wars?
And even back then what really happened ? Bigger countries were deciding the fate of resources even beyond their borders.
How easy it is for countries to occupy other countries when their is no penalties applied (like other games) or the deterioration is hardly even felt and easily reset?
You have well pointed out that current alliance structure is defined by interpersonal relationships.
I believe it is crystal clear that those leading the only alliance(Asteria) are not top spenders instead and (credit goes to them on this) they meticulously carved an environment they can outspend the top spenders (RL money) by farming (digital) .
It is also a fact that this game relies on players paying. If people get bored they will stop spending simple as that winner or losers does not mean a thing. And there is a strong majority of pack buyers that does not spend RL money to get one. But we have not seen any decent effort to revamp peoples spending appetite. Instead we have seen minor changes that were actually rewarding those that spend hours of their lives in this game (also a factor) who normally are the farmers of Asteria federation right?
Pacifica or even Asteria have tried a lot to make their attacks/wars justified or even interesting but the truth is that people just dont buy this BS any more no matter what the fairy tale (perfect example is vladb struggle to prove there was a real fight with the other side right here on your article or Julius previously trying to convince the world their attack on Turkey was justified and an actual war )
To summarize in my opinion as long as the game it self does not introduce or refresh some of its elements people who play this game without spending and dominate the farmville do not have a reason to fight one another.
Therefore Croatian comeback alone will eventually wear off and the only benefit of this is to give another fake excuse for the only Alliance of the game to continue existing and play as they play.
When was in the last 3 years when you had initiative?
You call Asteria farmers but the only real campaigns came from Asteria side.You just wait and wait, make some kind of attack 4 or 5 vs 1 that last for a maximum of 3 days.That' s the maximum you can get.Than it' s vacation and boycott mode.You are the real farmers of this world, no initiative, no plans , just whine.
As for money spent - there are plenty on the Asteria side that have spent a lot of money, many players that buy for themselves packs but you won't see them complaining all day long.
You Don't like how you're communities are doing than try to do something besides the same lame excuses for years.
And yeah...one of the main reasons your communities are the way they are is because they were pushed by ego tripping leaders that after years of failure still fail to admit they were wrong and hide behind Asteria hue hue excuses.
No need to get sensitive. You lost me (and i guess a lot of people with common sense) where you said Asteria has more spenders (ROFL?). Also read what i wrote . Credit goes to the winner for tailoring the environment it suits them and a lot of time spent to get organized plans and strong diplomacy needless to say even better awareness of the mechanics from time to time. But i do think your comments are very valuable because they prove that despite all the above Asteria federation leadership is a group of people with extreme inferiority syndromes against others (farmers ?) and no matter what the situation they will try to spin it around as it suites them (good in this game as i said since the level of politics in this game is below average populist decay)
How about adding some value to your comment and tell us what is the in game tools nurturing wars and game diplomacy aside biased little men that thing they are taking on capitalism
I think It's plain for everyone to see who has inferiority complex 😁
We can just agree to disagree mate its part of life