The Economist ~ eAmerican Isolationism and the path forward
Day 3,798, 12:47
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please vote and subscribe
Dear friends,
I am writing today about a topic relevant to current events in the eWorld, but the topic is not a new one, and in a sense this is more a story of a nation than a reflection on the ongoing invasion and wipe of the eUSA.
Recently an article was published discussing the so-called “WildOwl doctrine”, a policy of America-first isolationism led by the USA’s chief diplomat, WildOwl. The article itself was more a character piece about the man himself, rather than the policies he espoused. This article will aim to give some analysis of the foreign policy of the eUSA, and also some speculation on the path forward for that country.
A land of bounty
When the admins created eRepublik, they divided each nation into sub-regions in order to make their vision of a war module possible. In Europe they mostly used the EU parliament voting regions, since they were ready made. In countries like India, China and the USA they used provinces or states. This led to some bizarre situations, such as Brazil having only seven regions whilst the US had 50.
America’s fifty regions made them an untenable target for an invasion in V1, when every attack cost gold. Even today an invasion and wipe of the US represents an extremely large commitment by any attacking country. Whereas most countries can be removed from the map in a week or two, (less with multiple invaders), the US requires a months-long commitment by an attacking force. In that time, many things can happen. Circumstances can change. Other fronts can be opened. For this reason an invasion is always an alliance-wide commitment that requires a cessation of most or all other conflict.
Outremer
The USA also has few land borders, and those mostly with weak countries like the UK, Ireland and France. Its only significant historical threats were from Spain (for most of the USA’s history an ally) and Indonesia. In the age before airstrikes, the powerful countries of central and Eastern Europe had to make a long and costly land-bridge across their Western neighbours in order to get a border.
Even in the age of airstrikes, the US only has to win one battle, and they are safe. Compared to many other medium powers (and the US is today a medium power- perhaps it always was in some senses) it has the advantage of having no resource-hungry superpower sitting on its borders, keen to invade.
I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you
The USA (despite being widely disliked outside of the West IRL, much like the UK) has no real natural enemy in the real world. Unlike Serbia-Croatia, Hungary-Romania or Greece-Turkey, there was no real world dislike or rivalry driving countries to invade them. They didn’t have someone shouting “remember Trianon!” and storming their gates.
The major powers of Eastern Europe and the Far East were therefore more frequently occupied attacking each other than trying to reach the USA. What’s more, the USA was able to offer its support to one side or the other - and know that the likelihood is they wouldn’t have their own fights to worry about. As the game got more warlike post-V2 this became incredibly valuable.
Exit light, enter night
Time-zones have always been critical to eRepublik. In V1 battles lasted 24 hours, and if you started the battle in the middle of the night (European time) that would be when the battle ended. The final hours of the battle were always the most important, and the Americans could fight then almost unopposed except for a few insomniacs in Europe, and early risers in Asia.
This also made their damage incredibly valuable to allies, and along with Brazil the USA was often fought over by actual and potential allies alike for their night damage. Many battles were decided by how committed US forces were to defending your country, and so they had a big diplomatic as well as military advantage.
Splendid isolation
From what I understand, the “WildOwl doctrine” involves American non-involvement in the wars of Eastern Europe, a focus on resource gathering, and various political tradeoffs with the existing major powers to ensure that this is achieved. This in effect means selling America’s military and economic advantages (as described above) in exchange for isolation and stability at home.
Whatever the name this policy currently holds, it did not originate with WildOwl. In fact for almost the entire history of the US their government has pursued a policy of isolationism. Partially this is because the advantages described above also serve to cut the US off from the main theatres of combat. Its direct fights therefore are mostly limited to Western Europe and East Asia; spheres where they face little threat or challenge. But there is more to it than that.
Without an obvious national enemy the US, much like the UK, does not attract the type of players who come to the game looking to settle scores. Although they have had various powerful military units, the military aspect of the game has never been their focus. Most players in the US were focused inwardly on their own domestic politics, policies and communities.
This created a situation where political parties fought deadly battles amongst one another for control of congress. Where power struggles raged in government and congress over funding for various new citizen aid programs, or military actions, or other aspects of domestic policy. Unseen by the rest of the world, the USA still has a long set of metagame rules and regulations governing their congress’ behaviour and actions. They have a uniquely strong presence on forums and IRC (now discord). In other words, they are a nation of role players, and they don’t play quite the same game as everyone else.
Apart from making the average eAmerican less interested in foreign affairs than the average citizen in other countries, this also makes their government less interested in alliance politics and all the drama that comes with it. As described above, the US is an almost untenable invasion target (it always costs much more to invade than any benefit gained for the participating countries) and so they were very rarely forced to actually ask for help from allies. This makes their involvement in alliances almost perfunctory, and their leaders reluctant to commit themselves on an almost daily basis in exchange for protection from an invasion which only occurs once every 2-3 years.
Is isolationism a good or bad thing for America?
This key question has been asked many times throughout the eUSA’s history in the game. Despite a mostly internal focus, the eUSA has at times been led by hawkish presidents who have taken them abroad. On almost every occasion this ended in disaster. This is partly due to the challenges the US faces even in reaching most of the key players in the game. But it is also due to the attitude of American citizens. Their belief in isolationism makes them - at best - reluctant fighters in foreign wars. Whereas domestic invasions of the eUSA usually see them burning all of their resources to defend the homeland, overseas adventures are usually seen as vanity trips or attempts to help other countries that eAmericans don’t really care about.
From this perspective, the obvious political course for the eUSA is to continue its policy of isolation. Every 2-3 years they will face an invasion and a wipe, to the great cost of all involved, but for the rest of the time they will have good bonuses, stability, and the ability to go on with their metagame entertainment. Those Americans particularly interested in war can fight via MPP, or play at alliance building with various minor powers who happily take the support offered by what is still a respectable power. The end result of this path is a USA more or less unchanged from present.
The other path is fraught with danger and uncertainty. An eUSA wiping clean its slate, selecting new players to lead them and a new path. An eUSA with a focus on foreign affairs, on warfare, on alliance politics and diplomacy. What lies down this path? Much more frequent danger for the eUSA, possible loss of bonuses, a need to overcome international distrust and dislike. Why then should they risk everything on this path?
The eUSA is a fading power. Once it stood alone amongst “Western” nations as a great power. Today it stands in the second rank, and the failed airstrike on Croatia (and subsequent successful attacks from multiple powers) revealed the weakness forming at the heart of the country. This invasion, like every one preceding it, served to awaken the American population and unite them (more or less) in the goal of resisting and overcoming invasion. A more active eUSA, politically and militarily, would drive activity and retention. The eUSA could take back its position in the front rank of countries.
What is more, the game has changed since 2009, or even 2014 when I last played. It is now a war game, with some cosmetic additions, and the metagame has become ever more irrelevant. With the UK abandoning its forum, the eUSA now remains the only country in the game with an active metagame scene. I love the metagame, and the eUS forums, but the game today attracts a different brand of player. In order to reflect that change, the eUSA needs to embrace a more active military and foreign policy.
Changes in the way bonuses are applied, and the prevalence of bonuses in American core regions, makes the USA a more attractive target both for large empires and core-less countries looking for a new home. In order to protect against invasions, the eUSA needs allies. This war has shown that it needs more than one significant ally (Poland), as both Asteria and the South American/Croat bloc can summon damage on a level that the eUSA and it’s current allies can not hope to match. The situation as it stands now is that the eUSA only has a single significant MPP. That makes their situation incredibly vulnerable. To put matters in perspective, even relatively puny countries like the eUK can rely on more battlefield damage than the eUSA can. That is a failure of politics.
A change in foreign policy requires a change in culture. That is an enormous challenge, but one which the eUSA’s existing metagame makes (ironically) more possible. It would be an uphill struggle, but it should be done - and I say this as someone who has fought the eUSA for most of my almost ten years in the game.
Conclusions
Towards the end of the failed project that was Sirius, the eUSA was expelled from the alliance. I can’t even remember the details of what happened, so I won’t tell that sad story again. I do remember however that the eUSA was faced with a significant dilemma. Whether to throw themselves under the bus and commit almost certain suicide to help an ally. Naturally their leadership were hesitant to make this move, especially given their involvement would not have helped the situation - it would have been an almost entirely empty gesture.
The problem was that those kind of empty gestures are what build friendships and alliances. Countries like Croatia were so used to being invaded and wiped that it was a walk in the park for them. They, and certain other members, didn’t see the reason for the hesitation. On the other hand, the eUSA leaders knew they’d have to justify to their people why they’d committed themselves to a war they could not win. Whereas Croats et al would accept without question that they were getting wiped to protect their allies, eAmericans are more pragmatic about these things. That was both their strength and their weakness- to have a culture so different from other major powers in the game that they cannot bridge the communication gap easily.
The eUSA leadership have been on the whole smart people. They know everything I’ve written in this article already. That isn’t the problem- the problem is that it is still a hard decision to make. To consistently commit to one path or the other is incredibly difficult, and so we have a situation where we see a mostly boring foreign policy interspersed with the odd few months of something exciting.
eAmerica, be brave! It is to the benefit of the whole game that you get stuck in, and make your voice and your military strength felt. We all want something more exciting, let’s make it happen. De oppresso liber!
Iain
Afterword
In the spirit of several recent articles where people have admitted their own personal faults, I feel I should do the same. During the dying days of Sirius when the eUSA was kicked from the alliance, I had more than a small hand in the whole situation. Some of the confrontations were very unpleasant for those involved, in particular Molly Emma, DMJ and Disco. I have since come to know them and do regret the tone and language I used in those “discussions”. Forgive me, goodbuddies.
Thank you’s
Thank you to everyone who endorsed my last article. Your ongoing support is much appreciated!
N0s3
Arrlo
Old 7
William Thomas Riker
Envagyok0223
Bogi
Bulletz4Breakfast
Nevmjbmti
Vladb
Danijel Kralj
AlphaMFPEFM_Z
MaryamQ
Altinkss
General Hi Story of Trite
Supernana
Hampa Seria
rainy sunday
Feynmann
Martel0
Kravenn
Dmjohnston
BastovanSurcinski
Blabla.
Niemand
Paul Tyndale
Tzu Liang
Perry Rhodan
The Mike
Molly Emma
Shaymin0000
AG.trimafadzi
TheJuliusCaesar
Nimnul
Jaroslav Kolesnik
Dorosh881
Carthan
Thydan
Baranac1
Salty
ArchePrime
Gaetano Cadaverin
Ruminantus
Korosh I
Alphabethis
Roxyem
Leroy Combs
Jd Jack Serenade
The Lone Cobra
Dear friends,
I am writing today about a topic relevant to current events in the eWorld, but the topic is not a new one, and in a sense this is more a story of a nation than a reflection on the ongoing invasion and wipe of the eUSA.
Recently an article was published discussing the so-called “WildOwl doctrine”, a policy of America-first isolationism led by the USA’s chief diplomat, WildOwl. The article itself was more a character piece about the man himself, rather than the policies he espoused. This article will aim to give some analysis of the foreign policy of the eUSA, and also some speculation on the path forward for that country.
A land of bounty
When the admins created eRepublik, they divided each nation into sub-regions in order to make their vision of a war module possible. In Europe they mostly used the EU parliament voting regions, since they were ready made. In countries like India, China and the USA they used provinces or states. This led to some bizarre situations, such as Brazil having only seven regions whilst the US had 50.
America’s fifty regions made them an untenable target for an invasion in V1, when every attack cost gold. Even today an invasion and wipe of the US represents an extremely large commitment by any attacking country. Whereas most countries can be removed from the map in a week or two, (less with multiple invaders), the US requires a months-long commitment by an attacking force. In that time, many things can happen. Circumstances can change. Other fronts can be opened. For this reason an invasion is always an alliance-wide commitment that requires a cessation of most or all other conflict.
Outremer
The USA also has few land borders, and those mostly with weak countries like the UK, Ireland and France. Its only significant historical threats were from Spain (for most of the USA’s history an ally) and Indonesia. In the age before airstrikes, the powerful countries of central and Eastern Europe had to make a long and costly land-bridge across their Western neighbours in order to get a border.
Even in the age of airstrikes, the US only has to win one battle, and they are safe. Compared to many other medium powers (and the US is today a medium power- perhaps it always was in some senses) it has the advantage of having no resource-hungry superpower sitting on its borders, keen to invade.
I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you
The USA (despite being widely disliked outside of the West IRL, much like the UK) has no real natural enemy in the real world. Unlike Serbia-Croatia, Hungary-Romania or Greece-Turkey, there was no real world dislike or rivalry driving countries to invade them. They didn’t have someone shouting “remember Trianon!” and storming their gates.
The major powers of Eastern Europe and the Far East were therefore more frequently occupied attacking each other than trying to reach the USA. What’s more, the USA was able to offer its support to one side or the other - and know that the likelihood is they wouldn’t have their own fights to worry about. As the game got more warlike post-V2 this became incredibly valuable.
Exit light, enter night
Time-zones have always been critical to eRepublik. In V1 battles lasted 24 hours, and if you started the battle in the middle of the night (European time) that would be when the battle ended. The final hours of the battle were always the most important, and the Americans could fight then almost unopposed except for a few insomniacs in Europe, and early risers in Asia.
This also made their damage incredibly valuable to allies, and along with Brazil the USA was often fought over by actual and potential allies alike for their night damage. Many battles were decided by how committed US forces were to defending your country, and so they had a big diplomatic as well as military advantage.
Splendid isolation
From what I understand, the “WildOwl doctrine” involves American non-involvement in the wars of Eastern Europe, a focus on resource gathering, and various political tradeoffs with the existing major powers to ensure that this is achieved. This in effect means selling America’s military and economic advantages (as described above) in exchange for isolation and stability at home.
Whatever the name this policy currently holds, it did not originate with WildOwl. In fact for almost the entire history of the US their government has pursued a policy of isolationism. Partially this is because the advantages described above also serve to cut the US off from the main theatres of combat. Its direct fights therefore are mostly limited to Western Europe and East Asia; spheres where they face little threat or challenge. But there is more to it than that.
Without an obvious national enemy the US, much like the UK, does not attract the type of players who come to the game looking to settle scores. Although they have had various powerful military units, the military aspect of the game has never been their focus. Most players in the US were focused inwardly on their own domestic politics, policies and communities.
This created a situation where political parties fought deadly battles amongst one another for control of congress. Where power struggles raged in government and congress over funding for various new citizen aid programs, or military actions, or other aspects of domestic policy. Unseen by the rest of the world, the USA still has a long set of metagame rules and regulations governing their congress’ behaviour and actions. They have a uniquely strong presence on forums and IRC (now discord). In other words, they are a nation of role players, and they don’t play quite the same game as everyone else.
Apart from making the average eAmerican less interested in foreign affairs than the average citizen in other countries, this also makes their government less interested in alliance politics and all the drama that comes with it. As described above, the US is an almost untenable invasion target (it always costs much more to invade than any benefit gained for the participating countries) and so they were very rarely forced to actually ask for help from allies. This makes their involvement in alliances almost perfunctory, and their leaders reluctant to commit themselves on an almost daily basis in exchange for protection from an invasion which only occurs once every 2-3 years.
Is isolationism a good or bad thing for America?
This key question has been asked many times throughout the eUSA’s history in the game. Despite a mostly internal focus, the eUSA has at times been led by hawkish presidents who have taken them abroad. On almost every occasion this ended in disaster. This is partly due to the challenges the US faces even in reaching most of the key players in the game. But it is also due to the attitude of American citizens. Their belief in isolationism makes them - at best - reluctant fighters in foreign wars. Whereas domestic invasions of the eUSA usually see them burning all of their resources to defend the homeland, overseas adventures are usually seen as vanity trips or attempts to help other countries that eAmericans don’t really care about.
From this perspective, the obvious political course for the eUSA is to continue its policy of isolation. Every 2-3 years they will face an invasion and a wipe, to the great cost of all involved, but for the rest of the time they will have good bonuses, stability, and the ability to go on with their metagame entertainment. Those Americans particularly interested in war can fight via MPP, or play at alliance building with various minor powers who happily take the support offered by what is still a respectable power. The end result of this path is a USA more or less unchanged from present.
The other path is fraught with danger and uncertainty. An eUSA wiping clean its slate, selecting new players to lead them and a new path. An eUSA with a focus on foreign affairs, on warfare, on alliance politics and diplomacy. What lies down this path? Much more frequent danger for the eUSA, possible loss of bonuses, a need to overcome international distrust and dislike. Why then should they risk everything on this path?
The eUSA is a fading power. Once it stood alone amongst “Western” nations as a great power. Today it stands in the second rank, and the failed airstrike on Croatia (and subsequent successful attacks from multiple powers) revealed the weakness forming at the heart of the country. This invasion, like every one preceding it, served to awaken the American population and unite them (more or less) in the goal of resisting and overcoming invasion. A more active eUSA, politically and militarily, would drive activity and retention. The eUSA could take back its position in the front rank of countries.
What is more, the game has changed since 2009, or even 2014 when I last played. It is now a war game, with some cosmetic additions, and the metagame has become ever more irrelevant. With the UK abandoning its forum, the eUSA now remains the only country in the game with an active metagame scene. I love the metagame, and the eUS forums, but the game today attracts a different brand of player. In order to reflect that change, the eUSA needs to embrace a more active military and foreign policy.
Changes in the way bonuses are applied, and the prevalence of bonuses in American core regions, makes the USA a more attractive target both for large empires and core-less countries looking for a new home. In order to protect against invasions, the eUSA needs allies. This war has shown that it needs more than one significant ally (Poland), as both Asteria and the South American/Croat bloc can summon damage on a level that the eUSA and it’s current allies can not hope to match. The situation as it stands now is that the eUSA only has a single significant MPP. That makes their situation incredibly vulnerable. To put matters in perspective, even relatively puny countries like the eUK can rely on more battlefield damage than the eUSA can. That is a failure of politics.
A change in foreign policy requires a change in culture. That is an enormous challenge, but one which the eUSA’s existing metagame makes (ironically) more possible. It would be an uphill struggle, but it should be done - and I say this as someone who has fought the eUSA for most of my almost ten years in the game.
Conclusions
Towards the end of the failed project that was Sirius, the eUSA was expelled from the alliance. I can’t even remember the details of what happened, so I won’t tell that sad story again. I do remember however that the eUSA was faced with a significant dilemma. Whether to throw themselves under the bus and commit almost certain suicide to help an ally. Naturally their leadership were hesitant to make this move, especially given their involvement would not have helped the situation - it would have been an almost entirely empty gesture.
The problem was that those kind of empty gestures are what build friendships and alliances. Countries like Croatia were so used to being invaded and wiped that it was a walk in the park for them. They, and certain other members, didn’t see the reason for the hesitation. On the other hand, the eUSA leaders knew they’d have to justify to their people why they’d committed themselves to a war they could not win. Whereas Croats et al would accept without question that they were getting wiped to protect their allies, eAmericans are more pragmatic about these things. That was both their strength and their weakness- to have a culture so different from other major powers in the game that they cannot bridge the communication gap easily.
The eUSA leadership have been on the whole smart people. They know everything I’ve written in this article already. That isn’t the problem- the problem is that it is still a hard decision to make. To consistently commit to one path or the other is incredibly difficult, and so we have a situation where we see a mostly boring foreign policy interspersed with the odd few months of something exciting.
eAmerica, be brave! It is to the benefit of the whole game that you get stuck in, and make your voice and your military strength felt. We all want something more exciting, let’s make it happen. De oppresso liber!
Iain
Afterword
In the spirit of several recent articles where people have admitted their own personal faults, I feel I should do the same. During the dying days of Sirius when the eUSA was kicked from the alliance, I had more than a small hand in the whole situation. Some of the confrontations were very unpleasant for those involved, in particular Molly Emma, DMJ and Disco. I have since come to know them and do regret the tone and language I used in those “discussions”. Forgive me, goodbuddies.
Thank you’s
Thank you to everyone who endorsed my last article. Your ongoing support is much appreciated!
N0s3
Arrlo
Old 7
William Thomas Riker
Envagyok0223
Bogi
Bulletz4Breakfast
Nevmjbmti
Vladb
Danijel Kralj
AlphaMFPEFM_Z
MaryamQ
Altinkss
General Hi Story of Trite
Supernana
Hampa Seria
rainy sunday
Feynmann
Martel0
Kravenn
Dmjohnston
BastovanSurcinski
Blabla.
Niemand
Paul Tyndale
Tzu Liang
Perry Rhodan
The Mike
Molly Emma
Shaymin0000
AG.trimafadzi
TheJuliusCaesar
Nimnul
Jaroslav Kolesnik
Dorosh881
Carthan
Thydan
Baranac1
Salty
ArchePrime
Gaetano Cadaverin
Ruminantus
Korosh I
Alphabethis
Roxyem
Leroy Combs
Jd Jack Serenade
The Lone Cobra
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Their biggest problem was calling us pig-disgusting. The rest comes from that.
oink oink
Interesting and thoughtful analysis- as one would expect from Spite. One fact that I think you may have overlooked is the number of alliances the USA has either intentionally or inadvertently helped scuttle. The list is almost depressingly long.
Sometimes alliances need to die in order to reset relationships, or make the game interesting again.
I agree; at the same time though that would run slightly contrary to your narrative of the eUSA FA policy as being staid and undynamic.
Inaction can cause collapse of relations as often as action. I think it's the nature of politics to always view your own part of affairs as being more significant. However I can't think of a time when an alliance with the eUSA as a member collapsed where there weren't more significant issues at play.
excellent read. I have always felt the eUS should be the war ground for this game, would stimulate the game itself so much, but the isolation is too easy maintained for the meta lords to over look.
Thanks for this historical perspective. I hope many in the eWorld, including many eAmericans, will read it and think about it.
Very informative, thanks.
Are you sure that eUSA doesn't have a RL enemy ingame? All the times eUSA wiped out were by Serbs, included the last one.
Should I remind you that they had even PTOed eUsa?
The Serbs, like many people, might dislike the USA IRL. But that doesn't equate to the long seething dislike that creates baby booms and spawns a decade long rivalry.
Serbia didn't have anything with this wiping. Only thing they did (or did not) was not helping you. On the other side, croatia has always tried to help USA (I personally have joined the game when USA was being wiped for the first time and battles for USA were the first battles that I took part in) untill pfeiffer and wild owl decided to as us out of the blue. It is true that you never had a "natural" enemy but it is also true that for the last last say 5-7 years you never had a true and honest ally cause USA has been one of the most unreliable allies to the others.
They never quite completed their PTO attempt
Yes, they did actually. It's why four of the top five parties were once under our control and are now elitist parties. The battlefield is littered with the remains of the valiant.
Bakaras, I'm takling about rl only here. The reason we Serbs, in general, dislike Croats is because we had a really ugly war between ourselves. A war that was set up by foreign powers, USA for example. We didn't ask fot it, we were both pushed into it. Mainly by USA. However, when it comes to USA, they had their share of troubles caused on every single continent there is. It hit us, as well. We were bombed by USA in 1999 because of our internal politics. Much like Somalia, Afganistan, Irak, Vietnam and many others were. One side, the one that is not obeying USA, is proclaimed to be terrorists, and the rest is familiar to you I believe.
Now. We can easily hate Croats and vice versa because we can see them, we can feel them. We have a border with them. USA? No. You cannot be reached. And all the above mentioned coutries feel the same. I hope you understand that this is not directed against you personally, I'm trying to explain my point of view regarding your government and global politics. Now what got me pissedoff the most was that article published by I don't remember who, a USA citizen, who started trolling Croats for going back against you. Basicaly, it can all be summed up like "we've f****d you in rl, we're f****ng you here, as well, and now you're trying to have at least a piece of revenge here". Without knowing what rl USA has done and caused to both our countries, and many more, he is still being arrogant and cocky. A typical ignorant USA citizen that has never seen anything outside of his own state, let alone country.
So you see, it is not so hard to be hated by others when you're being USA. It is a matter of coincidence that Serbia was one of the wipers, but believe me when I tell you that we are not the only ones that don't like USA, to say the least.
Once again I point out that I do not have you personally in mind, but USA government.
I am greek in real life so no offence at all 🙂
I was going to make a joke about this, but then I saw you were Greek.
Greeks were one of the largest groups in our alliance. It's sad to see you chose to side with the oppressors.
It's funny, I wrote about Croatia in the same manner as you did here about USA. The two countries are two polar opposites on how to play this game. Croatia used to be like USA in V1, but has adapted since then.
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/stanje-dr-ave-hr-state-of-croatia-en--2666209/1/20
"adapt" is such a weak phrase for what we went through 😃
reincarnation is a much better and more appropriate word
Unfortunately most of the English text of that article is hidden
Even in a time that money is tight, this was awesome and definitely deserves an endorsement! Great insight!
Great article. Keep on with it.
v+s
great article.
Mr Spite , i like your article very much ...the eUSA needs to embrace a more active military and foreign policy, eworld has changed forever ... war has reached your shores , sleeping is your enemy and the world is bigger than Poland.
that pragmatism will cost you a lot in the short term, mid-long term you can still pul out, but you have some serious rebranding to do
in a wargame, noone wants a nation that does not go ballZ deep for their friends
Nice article.
So sad. Alongside william thomas riker's articles, this is today's best propaganda.
Bring back zoli. Could you lick any more arses?
Childish.
I agree that most eAmericans "role play" rather than focus on serious game mechanics. It's more funner. Learning, understanding and applying themselves is much more of an effort. They may ask themselves, often, how much sense it makes to spend so much time learning mechanics... given those are SO subject to change.
But... having said all that, I believe it should be reasonable enough to commit to learning.... worth it to show themselves as strong players. But, again... eAmericans are addicted to fun. That would be "workable" if, in eREALITY, they payed more attention to the way the rest of the world plays. They COULD... with small effort.
They forget nothing and learn nothing.
Excellent read. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Wonderful read.
Thank you for taking the time to put this together.
It has been far to long, that I have read an article of this fine quality.
The road ahead is gonna be fun!
This game needs more knowledge, intrigues and actions that Spite has to offer. o7
Good article, should go in erep archives.
v + c
This is magnificent.
Learn Jamesw how to write
vote
good read, thanks o/
Funny how everyone talks against USA now, only a month ago no one didn't want to "ruin the relations" 😃
Welcome back Iain. 🙂
Pues no estoy en gran parte de acuerdo. EEUU no ha jugado una baza aislacionista en los sucesos que le han llevado al actual borrado, de hecho ha jugado una baza marcadamente pro Asteria, es cuando el velo de falsa "neutralidad" se ha caído, y ha cabreado a todos los que dudaban si atacar o no, cuando ha empezado el borrado.
Tampoco estoy de acuerdo con que EEUU sea difícil de conquistar por su gran extensión, eso podría ser en otros tiempos del juego, pero ahora, con la cantidad de bonos que hay en EEUU para repartir entre las potencias se puede llegar a un entente donde solo proteger esas provincias ocupadas y dejar a EEUU con Congreso pero sin bonos.
El soporte no es igual a la acción. El que la hace, la paga.
The eUS totally miscalculated the strength of the antiAsteria countries, they were so scared by the possible invasion of Asteria.
o7
FIST
got CTRL?