Multipolarity IV Signup Thread

[Tani Coyote]

If you want to reserve Italy, I'd suggest taking well, Italy.

Welcome regardless.

Latest map http://i.imgur.com/vpztf89.png

 

[Robert Can't]

Ba ba ba Baaaaaa

 

[Jehoshua]

Whats with the wierdness in China Tani? There are no competing claims with the claims of Japan or the golden horde...

--

EDIT: Oh, Ninjacow, ofc. well he hasn't claimed any provinces (BTW, redspy stated his intent and claimed for that matter before NC even posted, so its a bit incongruous for you to ge messing with his claims), and there remain free provinces that include the yellow river excluding those already explicitly claimed . like so...

Spoiler :

alternatively, this is not so ugly borderwise than your unilateral alteration and fulfils the letter of NC's SOI.

Spoiler :

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

Spoiler :

Something Communist, perhaps Russia/East Germany related :>

 

[Tani Coyote]

Didn't notice RS editing his claims; will edit the map accordingly.

===

So certain parties have PMed me and expressed concern the inability for major powers to fight could possibly harm gameplay. Thoughts from the player base?

As it stands, every player nation has an ICBM arsenal, which makes direct war impossible.

Points:

-Mass nuking is still impossible as you can only use them if you're suffering a major loss on your soil or are fired on first

-It's possible to disband your army and navy entirely, but this hurts your ability to project power, and runs the risk of domestic discontent/revolts. The United States, for example, could get by with just its nuclear arsenal, but would suffer the aforementioned effects.

-It forces major powers to keep full focus on diplomacy with each other, as they are no longer able to roll in and conquer an enemy nation.

So, thoughts?

 

[Jehoshua]

hmm, from my point of view, your third point is a bit strange, since its the threat from other nations that actually encourages diplomatic engagement to begin with. So to use an example the spectre of Xinjiang led to people talking to eachother to find ways of putting Mr George in his place. Another would be the threat of Romnesian dominance (and the knowledge he could hurt us) led to nations working together to bring P_F down a notch. The fact that people are not secure, leads to people talking to eachother to work out ways to maintain their security. This is the core of diplomacy

However if you remove the threat other players represent (which is precisely what universal nuclear weapons does) the result is glorious isolationism. Afterall if, as you say, direct war between major powers is all but impossible because one is secure in ones ICBM ringed fortress, there is no imperative to talk to people at all since you can just go about your business with the minor powers completely secure that you can ultimately get away with it scott free, and no one can really harm you. Sure you may still get some diplomacy, but it would be shallow, and lack any strategic depth, because afterall, everyone would have already obtained the ultimate strategic guarantee.

Thats why I would say that the universal nuke thing should go. I would incidentally actually support no WMD's at all, because without nukes the threat of other players remains, and war would also be more interesting because players just can't be instantly wiped off the map. This is also not to mention the stalemate of people eventually obtaining nukes, which effectively halts a lot of warfare goes as well (I know I refrained from war with Russia in MP3 precisely because I feared they had nukes).

 

[Tani Coyote]

You can still invade a major power; it's just pushing too far would warrant nuclear war.

Minor powers are fair game; no one wants a nuclear holocaust on the basis of the Republic of Backwateristan. I vet nuclear launches, so they cannot be used gratuitously; there must be LOGIC behind them.

There is still enormous room for disparity, and that is where diplomacy will come in instead. Fights over trade, clients, and espionage will still ensue, as a country that has half the world's income is still a massive threat. There's plenty of room for conflict between players; players merely need to rethink the traditional "beat the other guy over the head" model.

 

[NinjaCow64]

hmm, from my point of view, your third point is a bit strange, since its the threat from other nations that encourages diplomatic engagement. So to use an example the spectre of Xinjiang led to people talking to eachother to find ways of putting Mr George in his place or the threat of Romnesian dominance (and the knowledge he could hurt us) led to nations working together to bring P_F down a notch.

If you remove the threat other players represent however (which is precisely what universal nuclear weapons is) the result is glorious isolationism. Afterall if, as you say, direct war between major powers is all but impossible because one is secure in ones ICBM ringed fortress, there is no imperative to talk to people at all since you can just go about your business with the minor powers completely secure that you can ultimately get away with it scott free.

Thats why I would actually support no WMD's at all. In that case the threat of other players remains, and war would also be more interesting because players just can't be instantly wiped off the map.

Well players are still a threat. I mean espionage allows you to Royally Rodger someone if you a strong enough. And no WMDs =/= no one turn wars. I mean look at the Spammers' Crusade.

 

[Jehoshua]

thats not really a point though because none of what you have pointed out merits an existential threat to any one power. Your opponent can have innumerable spies, a massive economy and influence over every single one of the minor powers. Yet in the end with your nuclear arsenal you are absolutely secure in scenic Backwaterstan, and have no need for filthy foreigners to ensure your continued existence. The imperative for hedging, or bandwagoning against or with certain powers is thus removed, because you can sit around doing your own thing knowing full well that if anyone did anything to you they face the threat of mutual annihilation. Why work with, or compromise with, other powers if you don't have to? Now of course Im sure some people would work with other players, but the point is that the imperative is gone, and so a good portion of gameplay is either watered down or removed. This ultimately would affect the depth of the game and likely its lifespan and enjoyability.

PS: I would also add that a "minor war" itself is effectively impossible, because the threshold for when a nuclear launch becomes "logical" is an unknown quantity and always will be. Why risk invading a nuclear power when the threat remains that at any moment you could be screwed? Its perceptions that matter, not the objective reality and the knowledge everyone has nukes is an effective block on major power war precisely due to the uncertainty involved in making war against another player.

 

[Tani Coyote]

thats not really a point though because none of what you have pointed out merits an existential threat to any one power. Your opponent can have innumerable spies, a massive economy and influence over every single one of the minor powers. Yet in the end with your nuclear arsenal you are absolutely secure in scenic Backwaterstan, and have no need for filthy foreigners to ensure your continued existence.

Players are competitive. Few people are content to fall hopelessly behind. That is all.

I would also add that a "minor war" itself is effectively impossible, because the threshold for when a nuclear launch becomes "logical" is an unknown quantity and always will be. Why risk invading a nuclear power when the threat remains that at any moment you could be screwed? Its perceptions that matter, not the objective reality and the knowledge everyone has nukes is an effective block on major power war precisely due to the uncertainty involved in making war against another player.

And so you avoid direct invasion and instead work on building alliances that have an economic and espionage basis...

Still conflict, just not as visible as the usual blitzkrieg tactics.

In addition, disabling nukes via espionage is very possible as well...

 

[Jehoshua]

Players are competitive. Few people are content to fall hopelessly behind. That is all.

Thats not the point though. The point is you don't NEED other players unless there is an existential threat. You can improve your economy, spy defence and all that without ever having to talk with another player. To cut to the chase (since i can't think of how to put what Im thinking in words you would understand) , the universal stalemate preventing war between players (war being a fundamental part of the human experience) undercuts a lot of the depth from interaction, and makes most interaction unnecessary. It would simply therefore be the height of absurdity to suggest that this absence of necessity wouldn't affect the game and water down the level of engagement that occurs.

And so you avoid direct invasion and instead work on building alliances that have an economic and espionage basis...

Still conflict, just not as visible as the usual blitzkrieg tactics.

So you tacitly accept that minor war is de-facto almost never going to occur , which brings us back to the above point regarding economic and diplomatic competititon.

EDIT: espionage doesn't break the stalemate though, afterall at what point is it necessary to disable nukes? can one be sure they won't be nuked absolutely by some third party? is there any imperative to actually risk your neck fighting a major power anyway if you can never be sure your attack will be the last thing you ever do in the game? As I mentioned earlier, it would be much better for gameplay to just remove WMD's alltogether so that people are compelled to work together for their own security and so that ones destruction cannot ever be instantaneous (with this reality not negating in any way the possibility of co-operation in any other area, you can have your espionage/economic cake and a deep security dillemma in the game. Its not an either/or.)

EDIT II: Oh, and I note also, that you've tacitly admitted that gameplay will suffer precisely because the prospect of player v player will either be drastically decreased or cease alltogther. Knowing this, and knowing that every other aspect you have mentioned is not mutually exclusive with the prospect of PvP war. The question you implicitly made when you first brought this up on the thread "do you think gameplay would suffer with universal nukes" is as such quite unambiguously a yes in its answer, because its clear that something is being lost and nothing is actually being gained from this action.

 

[Double A]

This is just a signup thread, nothing's happening to Terios.

Because we've never heard that before.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Why are you using that awful awful map

El Reino de los Zetas

Leader: Juan Treviño Morales
Religion: Catholic
History: After the collapse of the USA in the early 21st century the Mexican government, missing it's most vital trade partner, began to crumble. The drug cartels, profiting from how easy it had become to smuggle drugs into America, began to attempted to take the control of the nation. What was to follow can only be described as a free for all with multiple rival cartels and the government fighting for control over major cities.The Leader of Los Zetas Cartel marched into Mexico City, declaring himself king. The territory controlled by the kingdom remained inconstant through out the century.
While the other drug cartel nations collapsed as they began to look to become bigger players on the international scale, Zetas managed to remain in tact, even gaining recognition from the UN. While not being considered the most liberal nation in the world, by the 23rd century a lot of the nations drug cartel history had been forgotten, even with some democracy at a local level.

Spoiler :

 

[Dem Taqat]

Argentina in some shape or form.

Not sure if the Falklands Islands Islas Malvinas are one province or two, so I put in the light green province in case I have claims left over.

Socialist Peoples Republic of Argentina

Government: Dictatorship
Language: Peoples Argentinian (Essentially Spanish)
Currency: Argentinian Mark (AM)
Economy: State Run
Capital: Buenos Aires
Religion: Predominantly Christian
Social Situation: Conservative


DT

 

[Double A]

Magocracy of Antioch

Government: Magocracy
Languages: Magicratic, Arabic, Hebrew, French, whatever else is in the area
Currency: Rhinu
Economy: Mostly private
Capital: Antioch
Religion: Polythestic beliefs of mathematically and magically proven gods. They are all dicks.
Social Situation: Ridiculous

 

[Kinich-Ahau]

I'm with Jeho; a game where you can't make war on another player is going to be lacking something, something that no amount of embargoes or spies can make up.

 

[Lighthearter]

Agreed.

-L

 

[Omega124]

Hey, I see you removed Luxembourgh. Can I not have Netherlands, then, and instead take the Vienna region of Austria?

 

[KaiserElectric]

Dumb question, but how do we claim unowned territory?

 

[Ogane]

People's Republic of Soviet Siberia​

Spoiler :

Government: Communism
Economy: Russian Ruble
Leader: Vladimir Lenin
Flag:

Spoiler :