1AM, Falling Snow, and Indirect Warfare
•
by Elaine of the Snowy Forest
Greetings friends and enemies, as the title implies it is 1AM, snowing, and - having difficultly sleeping - I decided I would leverage one of the most niche and exclusive blogging platforms in the world to ramble about a topic of tangential relevance to the game but of incredible interest to myself. If you're even reading this I guarantee you're bored as hell so you can't do much worse than indulging me some.
Some old dead and wise fellow once wrote something to the effect of "war is a tool used to accomplish political objectives by other means". In other words, we go to war because we want something. Obvious, right? It is also a well-known fact that war is very expensive. So, in a vacuum, any less costly means to attaining that political objective ought to be superior. Now, this game is built entirely around combat so one might assume that there is a much stronger than normal incentive to accomplish political objectives through warfare. If war is expensive, and the desired political outcomes of those wars are attainable by other, less expensive means, then would it not be the duty of any nation to engage in those less costly measures first?
I believe we see this today where information warfare campaigns are used to accomplish all sorts of political objectives in lieu of conventional warfare. Because it's cheaper than leveraging force - so much cheaper that almost every nation in the real world is developing departments for this exact purpose. Another example might be foreign aid. Instead of going to war, economic prosperity could stabilize a region and avert poverty-induced political radicalization. But I digress - you get the point.
The question I want to pose to my four subscribers (Especially you Steve, keep on keeping it real my friend) is this: What kind of nonconventional approaches cost less than war in this game, but could be leveraged to accomplish political objectives?
Anyway, I should try to sleep again. I take no responsibility for my lack of understanding this game's mechanics, the coherence of this dead collection of thoughts, or the person I was when I started playing this game in 2009. Speaking of which, any and all donations will go towards changing my name to something that does not fill me with shame. Hope you guys have an easier time sleeping than I do.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
The answer to your question would probably depend, at least in part, on your objective. There certainly has always been a place for diplomacy in the game, although it is sometimes crude. Personally, I have been influenced by good writing and ideas, but I will admit that I am a somewhat unconventional player. The thing that kept me in the game was the belief that war was not the only route to success. My advice is to do what makes you happy within the rules of the game, and not to worry about anyone else's definition of the right way to play.
Welcome back Kirito.
I enjoyed your thoughts on this! I just recently decided to come back myself and see how the game is progressing and wondering if there are alternative, more peaceful, ways to play... I think until there are "serious" consequences to being at war, it's unfortunately going to be a very normal occurrence.