CE-Tara Federation

[vonGenf]

The second if the tendency for ordinary players to accept the status quo, and even help to preserve it through minor actions.  In most places in the game, internal strife and a desire to break apart are very hard to instill in any but a very small proportion of the population. This is why even though a lot of people in Old Grehk were frustrated, bored, and angry about it, King Vagabond was able to keep them out of wars for over a year, and still maintain his throne. This is why the Long Peace had to be broken with lightning bolts—not with rebellions or other internal conflicts.

Can you give me an historical primer on that? I though you were talking about the long peace on EC.

[Anaris]

But, how are they able to enforce periods of peace? By threatening war to those who refuse to remain peaceful.

Yes, a brief, one-sided war, that ends in total destruction for one realm.

That's not particularly fun for most people either.

[Anaris]

Can you give me an historical primer on that? I though you were talking about the long peace on EC.

Sorry; two separate incidents. The Long Peace was on the EC, but the Year of Peace in OG is another example of why TMP was originally created.

[Geronus]

But, how are they able to enforce periods of peace? By threatening war to those who refuse to remain peaceful.

But if they carry on their threat, then you have a war, so problem solved! You have wars until such a point where they factually control the whole continent (i.e. all rulers are "they", whichever side they ends up being). At this point, the worst thing you could do would be to present them with an external threat. If they fear, then they will remain united and huddle together.

Note that I'm not trying to argue that gridlock is good (I don't think it is), I'm arguing that presenting an external threat in the form of cross-island links would not help the situation.

[/b]

Is someone arguing for that? I think Tom only raised the point to observe the resulting gameplay issue that arises once one power bloc effectively dominates an island, not to suggest that inter-island travel links are the obvious solution.

The problem with your hypothesis, applied to this situation at least, is that the federation doesn't control everything. Instead they control just enough to ensure that they can no longer be challenged. There are still enough independent realms on the island to provide elements of randomness and intrigue, which in turn provide just enough challenge to keep things interesting without actually threatening the hold that they have. In fact, they are not necessarily interested in creating a long peace; they need wars to keep themselves entertained as much as anyone else does. What they have done instead is create a situation where war is no longer a risk for them. They literally cannot lose, so they are able to enter wars with impunity. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where all wars are by implication conducted with the federation's tacit permission and under terms dictated by the federation. They have have the power to decide who fights who and who wins in the end. Realms that get into wars without the federation's permission end up fighting the entire federation and are either destroyed or reduced. Thus, if you are an independent realm that wants to pursue a conflict, you have two choices: Ensure that the federation either remains neutral or comes down on your side, which involves essentially obtaining their permission to fight, or risk the consequences of having the federation side against you. This is the most brilliant form of control possible in BM, and really the only one that could ever work over the long term.

[Dante Silverfire]

The main point is that this form of federation control has worked for a long time now. It worked long enough that everyone else got fed up with it, and tried to stop it from then on. This realm wide "revolt" if you will. Failed for a number of reasons but was essentially the last ditch effort by non-federation forces to change the situation. But, now that they've lost its essentially impossible to ever start up such a revolt again so the federation has essentially "Won" Atamara.

[Geronus]

The main point is that this form of federation control has worked for a long time now. It worked long enough that everyone else got fed up with it, and tried to stop it from then on. This realm wide "revolt" if you will. Failed for a number of reasons but was essentially the last ditch effort by non-federation forces to change the situation. But, now that they've lost its essentially impossible to ever start up such a revolt again so the federation has essentially "Won" Atamara.

Agreed. This "Great War" was a last ditch effort by the rest of the island to change the trajectory of history away from domination by the federation. It failed, and the outcome of the war makes it even more difficult to change things.

[vonGenf]

Is someone arguing for that? I think Tom only raised the point to observe the resulting gameplay issue that arises once one power bloc effectively dominates an island, not to suggest that inter-island travel links are the obvious solution.

Well, I interpreted Tom's comment as "there should always be an external challenger, I thought I had made the islands big enough". I'm arguing that a finite size is a good thing, and that as complete hegemony is achieved, it will crumble.

The problem with your hypothesis, applied to this situation at least, is that the federation doesn't control everything. Instead they control just enough to ensure that they can no longer be challenged. There are still enough independent realms on the island to provide elements of randomness and intrigue, which in turn provide just enough challenge to keep things interesting without actually threatening the hold that they have. In fact, they are not necessarily interested in creating a long peace; they need wars to keep themselves entertained as much as anyone else does. What they have done instead is create a situation where war is no longer a risk for them. They literally cannot lose, so they are able to enter wars with impunity. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where all wars are by implication conducted with the federation's tacit permission and under terms dictated by the federation. They have have the power to decide who fights who and who wins in the end. Realms that get into wars without the federation's permission end up fighting the entire federation and are either destroyed or reduced. Thus, if you are an independent realm that wants to pursue a conflict, you have two choices: Ensure that the federation either remains neutral or comes down on your side, which involves essentially obtaining their permission to fight, or risk the consequences of having the federation side against you. This is the most brilliant form of control possible in BM, and really the only one that could ever work over the long term.

I agree with you that it is brilliant. However, I don't see it as much of a problem. I don't think that wars occur in a vacuum, and I dislike calls of "leave us have our little war and stay away, it doesn't concern you". Of course every war does concern other realms, as the results will impact them in the future. Politics should be taken in consideration when declaring war.

There is nothing wrong with calling for the federation's blessing if this is what will ensure your victory. It's the clever thing to do.

If anything, the mindset of not asking the Hegemon's blessing because you value your independence is more damaging to the spirit of the game. That creates gridlock, because it causes small realms to retreat from politics and try to keep a low profile because they see any entering into politics as a loss of identity. Identity is fine and dandy, but sometimes to attain a position of power you have to lose a bit of it. That's the price you pay.

[Geronus]

Sure, but where's the fun when all wars have a predetermined outcome? Part of the fun of conflict is the uncertainty as to the outcome. People don't play games where the winner is announced in advance.

[vonGenf]

Sure, but where's the fun when all wars have a predetermined outcome? Part of the fun of conflict is the uncertainty as to the outcome. People don't play games where the winner is announced in advance.

People don't play games when the winner is announced in advance and is not them.

[Geronus]

People don't play games when the winner is announced in advance and is not them.

And that is a meaningful distinction because... ? It takes two to tango.

[Sonya]

Just for Educational purpose, i will post a picture of the Side Division of of Atamara continent:



Was about to put the full image, but didn't wanted to take the space.


Peace!


PS:Go away MS Pain haters!

[Geronus]

Well, I interpreted Tom's comment as "there should always be an external challenger, I thought I had made the islands big enough". I'm arguing that a finite size is a good thing, and that as complete hegemony is achieved, it will crumble.

I also disagree with your last premise there. I would argue that the federation does enjoy complete hegemony, and has for a long time now, yet shows no signs of crumbling.

[jaune]

I think people see things too dark... CE has once again won a war. But it is not end of the Atamara, has not been before and wont be this time either. If we are able to sign peace, yeap, propably long lasting peace will come... but like after previous huge wars... people grow impatient. People quit, new players come... eventually wars will start to brew again. Time will tell if CE has the skill and patience to keep things together. At some point, one of their puppets wants moar, talk with other puppets(or outside the federation). Maybby CE did what i have always dreamed to do... Win battlemaster :)

-Jaune

[vonGenf]

I also disagree with your last premise there. I would argue that the federation does enjoy complete hegemony, and has for a long time now, yet shows no signs of crumbling.

I also disagree with your last premise there. I would argue that the federation does enjoy complete hegemony, and has for a long time now, yet shows no signs of crumbling.

I think it comes down to this:

You are not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

I think the federation does have an external threat: all other realms are known to be willing to league against them! Of course I wouldn't trust them and I would try to rule by division in their shoes.

You argue that gridlock is caused by an unbeatable federation. I argue that if there is gridlock, then it means the federation is not strong enough to let go.

[Indirik]

So how do you explain the Long Peace?

It was my understanding that the Long Peace on EC was due to OOC considerations. The people in charge were using OOC friendships and relations to maintain their control of the situation. They controlled 4 or so of the 6 federated realms, right? That's why lightning bolts were needed to break it up. The OOC collusion was too strong for IC pressure to break it apart.

(Disclaimer: That was a long time ago, before I was a dev, and I wasn't privy to all the details. I could be wrong.)