Join the new world

That's what eRepublik is billed as, and how the game works. I remember Jewitt once wrote, "eRepublik is really just a combination of RISK and Facebook." So, let me try break it down in this article.

Before beginning, my good friend Gulden Draak has a very similar article that you should read and vote up if you have not yet.

Social Networking
This game is about building relationships; it is the only way to succeed. The people who are better are building relationships are the people who are better at succeeding and having fun in the process. This is where politicians and eDiplomats come into play in this game. You need relationships to succeed in eGovernment and work with other nations on campaigns and strategy. You tend to need relationships to get wealthy; it involves networking with others, very often. Media, congress, and the presidency are all based off of social networking.



This can be somewhat daunting at first for newbs, because they have no idea who anyone is, but for the most part eCommunities welcome newbs into their ranks and get them started. I started in this game as an ambassador for the eUSA, and from there got to know people in the eUS government and in other countries throughout the New World, building myself up to become a successful diplomat, multiple-term politician, media mogul, and experienced bureaucrat. It may seem a little hard to break into these established communities at first, but it is always difficult when you're new somewhere and need to start networking from scratch-- it takes patience, a calm and open attitude, and a willingness to start from the bottom and move your way up in the community you're in.



Some people do not do very well with the social networking. These include people like Ajay Bruno who, apart from cheating, routinely spouts of hate-laced speeches at people who disagree with him and insults people (RL and in-game) with all sorts of cruel and irrational comments. Because people like that are not good at social networking, and because cheating gets you banned when caught, they change from social networking to rabble-rousing, which is particularly effective against newbs or people who have been a hard time finding satisfaction with their attempts to network successfully. Because of how daunting it can seem to be a new person in these established communities, it is often very easy to simply blanket-accuse all within them as being elitists intent on keeping out anyone new and maintaining a strangle-hold over the political aspects of this game. Since populism driven by the passions of jealousy and hate can be so inviting, and because the creation of "us" and "them" can be so easy within a social network, this anti-social network strategy in the game can be successful on a micro level of supporting a very small handful of individuals while also often complicating the macro.

Strategy


Here enter the politicians and the eMilitary. Strategy is not only defending your nation but, often, either conquering or defending other nations as well. Successful strategy must be based on two things: brute strength or good social networking. The former almost never works due to the social networking aspect of this game; countries banded together can often resist the strongest nations in the game. Though the war module changes often (and is, almost always, met with derision by the community), it makes war-based strategy complicated, but it is still there-- everything from taxes to make budgets for the military and alliances to where the president must press the attack button to where the bulk of the nation's citizens must fight is encouraged here. Good war strategy, of course, requires good social networking-- within the militaries, the network must be stable and organised; for important battles the general public must be encouraged to support the national strategy (and they often are via Citizen/Public Orders in most nations); and the general rule is that you need to utilize your networking resources with other button-pushers and militias of countries you are working with to be successful.


Politically, strategy can be just as complicated as war-strategy, for there are more ways to conquer a nation that military occupation. Political take-overs, called PTOs, are when one social network (either a nation or a community of individuals) attempts to seize control of the Congress and/or the Presidency in an election in or to subject it to the will or wishes of that particular social network, and are usually against allowing anyone new into that network (though sometimes non-national PTOs take place just to rob the national treasury or, simply, "for the lulz"). The best example of this is the Theocratic PTO of South Korea; upon completely taking over the nation, the Theocrats implemented economic strategies intent on strangling any new players and also controlled the national citizenship via Congress to make sure no one could enter. Most successful PTOs have the backing of a government, such as the Polish PTO of Peru or the Indonesian PTO of Australia, though others have been backed by sub-communities within those nation networks who are not working for the government but nonetheless wish to make the nation a colony of that government. In response, Anti-Take Over units (ATOs) are formed to plan and implement strategies to stop PTOs. This can sometimes lead to giant messes where a nation is left completely in barren ruin to any new players as they become a political battleground between nations or alliances, such as in Belgium and South Africa.


Good PTO strategy involves moving a large, active, and organized bulk of citizens into an area and/or cheating by creating multiple accounts to help counter the native votes (or the votes of the people you wish to remove from power of a region). When going up against an organized ATO group, another excellent strategy is to do what you can to sew dissent within that ATO group and hurt its ability to create a unified front against the threat you pose, or to mislead it into a false sense of security-- essentially, the strategy is to attempt to unravel the opposing social network in order to give yours the advantage (fomenting "us and them" is a hugely successful ploy). Good ATO strategy involves heavy communication, particularly with two-clickers, and the idea of keeping a strict round of caution tape around Congressional elections, particularly when there is open citizenship (usually citizenship must be granted by a Congress, but when there is no Congress, anyone can claim it, creating more PTO threats as exemplified by the six new nations). Typically an ATO Group will find a way to place "blockers" in open congressional seats--people who are not actively running for a position but merely preventing someone else from being able to run--and then, on election day, both Political Parties and Governments will typically work to organise voters to ensure that any race where it appears a perceived or confirmed threat is winning remains secured at the end of the day. The interesting paradox here is that, by engaging in often-necessary ATO operations, a government runs the risk of giving demagogues something to latch onto and play up as "us vs them" and "people vs elites".

Game
A game. Something you play to have fun, but also often with the intentions of not losing. I mean, yeah, monopoly and chess and soccer are great, but it does start to make it a little less-fun if you have an unending losing-streak. Now, if this were just a game between all sorts of good friends with good humor, that would be different. Unfortunately, it's not. There are some people who really want to win, and go so far as to cheat (or, at the very least, insult others) to help make that happen. This is because they put too much stock into what is only a game.


Have fun. If it's not fun, stop playing. Maybe you'll come back at another time and it'll be fun again, but if not, it's no big loss. For some people, fun is Role-Playing and thinking that your government is real and trying to create the community around these personas and fake institutions you've established. For others, fun is fighting in the military module and pwning other people. A good deal of people embrace game mechanics-- only operating within the perceived rules of the game and trying to stay focused on not losing. Still others prefer the politics of it all, engaging in debates on tax policies or war strategy. The game is different things for different people.



And, no, there really is no way to "win". You can be winning, but you've never won (unless you've quit; and if that counts, then GF Necrosis was obviously full of the most win). However, there is a way to lose. You lose when your nation is conquered via PTO or military might. So, the best way to play the game successfully is, as mentioned above, to be good both at Networking and Strategy. Yeah, if you try an alternate route--demagoguery or cheating--it might help you, personally, and maybe some of your friends win in the short run (micro), but it makes the greater community you are a part of lose in the long run (macro).

Personal Side-Note to eNew Zealand
I've been out of town for two days and have limited internet connection for a while, so I'm still trying to assess what's going on; forgive me for not getting to the two dozen messages in my inbox right away. I think I can gather the general gist of it all, though, and I have really just one major statement and request: I'm fine with people playing the game for the type of fun they want, but we have open citizenship right now-- please don't make us lose the game. Because then it isn't fun for anyone except the privatised network hoping to subject us to the will of another network. I beg people to put their grudges and political ambitions off at least until Open Citizenship is closed. Please.

The End

Love,
Myles