[eUSA] Some Thoughts on US-AIM.

Day 1,996, 08:07 • Published in USA USA • by Hercules Mulligan


Citizens of the eUSA,

So... it seems like US-AIM is a hot topic recently. Lots of articles covering it. I was quoted in one article by fingerguns, Controversial Funsies = Best Kind? Her quotes kinda illustrate a point that deserves a bit more attention. As she said in the comments in her article, she sorted the quotes by (1) eRepublik article quotes and (2) eUSA Forum quotes. She might as well have sorted them as (1) Pro-AIM and (2) Anti-AIM, because that's how they read. This isn't a hit on her, her article was great. It's an indicator of some broader sentiments.

Most voices on the eUSA Forum may be against AIM, but the sentiments seem reversed in the in-game shouts and media. Different people focus on different areas. One constant problem is that forum-centric people often forget the game-centric crowd, therefore disregarding those thoughts and opinions when making policy decisions. Same goes for players who focus even more exclusively on private forum boards, versus public ones.



When FG quoted me in her article, being a forum quote, I ended up grouped in with some negative quotes. Totally not the case. In that comment I did try to objectively address the problems of future coordination and political potential, and the latter half may sound negative taken alone. Here are my recent comments on US-AIM in full:

1. From DMV's article, [US-AIM] Taking the war to TWO!,

Personally, I'm interested to see how US-AIM ultimately develops as a credible opposition block to Unity. A lot of folks in the MUs represented here have very different views on foreign policy, elections, etc, from the current cycle of metagame leaders. Case in point, we are about to welcome back President Artela.

I think it's inevitable this military power bloc becomes a political power bloc. Frankly, that's good. We need some honest national opposition in our politics. One big problem with the old JCS fights was that their political isolationism had it's merits, but left them in an ivory tower without much of a voice in politics.

If this independent coordination of military units leads to a political movement, directly or indirectly, good.

Either way... I had fun tanking to win a round in NF&L yesterday. I didn't realize there was also an active IRC coordination effort, and I regret missing that. One of the best aspects of the old game was the regular activity and camaraderie in the eUS Military general chat channel and the different branch channels... the first chat room I ever participated in with the eUSA was the Mobile Infantry room.

2. From Dio Publius's forum thread, US-AIM Spanish OP,

Oblige: Unlike some in this post I'm all behind the idea of AIM because it organizes what used to be a disparate group of damage dealers and unites them under a common banner - which is awesome. I just wish the target had been different.

^ This.

I think the main issue here is the targets. Granted, given the specific foreign affairs preferences of some of these MUs vs the Unity Exec cycle, full coordination is impossible. Still, if the government and US-AIM talk over future plans in advance like ST6 did in their early days, a lot of the aggravation can be avoided in the future. It will never be the partnership that ST6 had with the old JCS back then, because they were one militia with the same general foreign priorities as the government, just a different view on tactics; whereas this is 16 militias with varying foreign alliance preferences, none of which sync up with the government, or they would be in the national military. Also, even back then when JCS and ST6 had almost identical views on foreign nations, there eventually came a point where the leaders of the two groups held much animosity for each other due to escalation of fights about tactics and strategy. At best, this will be worse, but coordination should still be attempted.

I'm also deeply skeptical that this will not grow into a political movement over time. Frankly, good. It could be good for us to have an actual national opposition movement in our politics instead of (or in addition to) the AFA. It will make us less effective as a nation, but it will make the social, political, and military landscape more engaging and enjoyable for many, as there will be countless fights to be won over the direction of the nation. Our allies will get pissed, ofc, but we already have a reputation for that and it's bound to happen again eventually anyway. Like now.



Some folks in US-AIM highlight that they can out-perform the eUS Armed Forces by a 3 to 1 margin. As Josh Frost explains in his article, independent military power becomes political power. Being so large, US-AIM will inevitably either dissolve or become political. It's a natural evolution, not a corruption.

As I said above, good. This would be an interest group, if not necessarily a political voting bloc, as Gnilraps mentions in We're Innocent When We Dream. Perhaps they will come to lead one or more established T4 parties. I think this is more likely than a large group of generally apolitical and anti-political players raising a small party like The Seed to T5 ranks.

Why is this good? Right now the leaders in our nation all favor a generally identical game strategy. In the past primary cycle won by Artela, both of her opponents had almost identical cabinets, almost identical policies, the main differences were in the execution thereof. This is efficient, certainly. It's also dead boring.

The folks in US-AIM have a very different approach to the game. Their strategy, tactics, organization, goals, propaganda, most everything, will be different. If they stay together, coalesce into a strong political interest group, take control of some parties organically based on winning the hearts of the electorate, then begin fighting for some changes in national direction... we will see a very different game here on the home front. Frankly, US-AIM is the grassroots movement that the AFA wishes it was.

SPQR stalled for a few reasons: (1) too many meta-players, (2) too much top-down control, (3) not enough rank and file membership, and (4) starting from the political front and thinking to move to the military front later. This is all backwards. In contrast, US-AIM is based on active players of the game itself, bottom-up coordination between 16 militias, plenty of good folks who know how to follow orders, and a strong military foundation.

As I heard it said a few days ago... US-AIM is very SPQR. Except where SPQR failed because it was more of the same with a different coat of paint, US-AIM is what SPQR wanted itself to be. I hope US-AIM moves forward together, coordinating closely wherever possible, not caving in to any demands handed down from on high over in meta-land, and making the eUSA a more fun and dynamic nation. US-AIM can be a game-changer.

Anyway... just my $0.02. I'm staying in the Feds and not running for any office, so this isn't personal politics. I'm in S.H.I.E.L.D. which cannot join US-AIM since we are an official party militia. This is just the best objective assessment I can make of the field as I see it. I like US-AIM and I look forward to see what happens next.

But what do I know... I'm SINISTER. Just ask BeachBunny. o_o

V/r,
Max McFarland 3
~ P/H, Federalist Party.

We are Dio. You are Dio. I am Dio.
May the Love of Dio be with you, Forever.