Nature of This Game (Stargatewars yes/no?)

[semper]

WAR
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.



Having an NAP is NOT a war in the sense of the game, it may allow a war of politics and recruitment, but ultimately, no matter how you sell it, all these NAP's are a massive pile of BS made by people who love their accounts far to much.

You certainly dont see the English and Americans in Iraq trying to negotiate an NAP with the Iraq militia or Binladen that are still fighting because they cant strike out at them properly without incurring severe damage and tolls on their own forces?

On the flip side, there is nothing stopping the weaker players from attacking either, so both sides are to blame.

No madtown, this is meant to be a war game, yet it is far from it. A political strategy game is more like it.

Furthermore, anyone actually using an NAP or 'hiding' in an alliance and daring to use the old "well its a war game argument" to feebly justify their massings and attacks should be booted up the arse, as they're some of the biggest hippocrits standing.

I actually think admin should put a max size on alliance membership, and the prospect of an NAP or a alliance alliance should be shunned by the community. Not to mention the immediate dissipation of PPT.

You never know..SGW may one day be a war game...

[SVaRuN]

WAR
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.



Having an NAP is NOT a war in the sense of the game, it may allow a war of politics and recruitment, but ultimately, no matter how you sell it, all these NAP's are a massive pile of BS made by people who love their accounts far to much.

You certainly dont see the English and Americans in Iraq trying to negotiate an NAP with the Iraq militia or Binladen that are still fighting because they cant strike out at them properly without incurring severe damage and tolls on their own forces?

On the flip side, there is nothing stopping the weaker players from attacking either, so both sides are to blame.

No madtown, this is meant to be a war game, yet it is far from it. A political strategy game is more like it.

Furthermore, anyone actually using an NAP or 'hiding' in an alliance and daring to use the old "well its a war game argument" to feebly justify their massings and attacks should be booted up the arse, as they're some of the biggest hippocrits standing.

I actually think admin should put a max size on alliance membership, and the prospect of an NAP or a alliance alliance should be shunned by the community. Not to mention the immediate dissipation of PPT.

You never know..SGW may one day be a war game...

I would disagree and perhaps do smth rude...

Probably there is a reason why some of the ppl are leading top alliances...probably if you could do it better you would be at least leading one of them...
Imo with your way of thinking, it will be hard to ever do it...


If you dont want to both you and the possible alliance are at a gain


A bit provoking, but at the same time stating my opinion that there are not stupid ppl who negotiate these NAPs and often this ppl brought alliances to where they are now also...and ppl trust in them...
You saying what they do is some BS basicalky indirectly implys you think your way would be better one...whatever that way is...I suggest you apply for some leadership position

Heck I offer you my own if you convince 50% of my guys you could lead them better...


Not saying your way is not a better one...but perhaps you looking down on others is a bit ironic and strange...
If you are confident in yourself build a team thats willing to back your thinking and conquer the -SGW universe...show us the meaning of sgWARS as you say


I appologize if any of above offended you, it was not my intention...and its all my opinion anyway, who is to say more right the yours





Blue

[Amar]

Meant that for Semper. @ Blue posts like that are the answer to your question from earlier

[RepliMagni]

lmao....guys, this game can't function without NAPs...I've spent longer than most here in one war, and yes it was lots of fun, but it isn't possible to maintain constantly....either in RL time or ingame resources. You need time to rebuild, time to go out and see the sun again

[Mordack]

I really don't know how fun this game is going to be if all it comprises of is two seperate sides locked in a permanent deadlock situation. I wonder where it's going, and how it could possibly be exciting again. Part of me thinks a huge server war is necessary in order for the game to progress and become interesting again, although there's another part of me which thinks said war would last too long and become tedious anyway.

DISCLAIMER: This post is just my personal opinion, by the way, and not a reflection of my either my alliance's policy or it's general feelings toward the current state of the server. I wouldn't want to be accused of 'rocking the boat' whilst negotiations are still in progress now, would I.

[weilandsmith]

are we debating the justification and use of the term "war game" or are we debating the game it self?

@ weilandsmith...

i have neither the time nor the inclination to go as far off topic as you have but what i will say is this...

if you think the US has no control over what is happening in iraq you are seriously misguided!
america never had any intention of leaving iraq and as for this faceless terrorist "enemy" that is causing so much trouble?

click the link below and you will see man kinds greatest enemy and terrorist alive today...unless you still beleive that a group of sheep herders organized the worst acts of terrorism seen since hitler burned down his own reichstag?

i will gladly debate this further in a split topic or via PM.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... -515h.html


back on topic anyone?


edit:

just found this lol...

''You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.''
—President George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

I was using world war II, the cold war and Iraq as examples to define the word "war" and how silly it is for people to try to "civilize" war by placing rules which will be broken anyway once war starts in SGW. I never made any political statements. You did. It seems that you are the one who is very eager to debate about Iraq. I'm not. Iraq is a huge political mess. Why in hell would I want to discuss a mess?

please read the whole post next time. writing down aggressive comments without seeing the whole picture is, well, you get the picture.

[DarkChaos]

Let's use real history.

In the second world war, Sweden kept itself untouched by using its technological advantage. The Swedes provided Hitler and Nazi Germany with equipment made from first rate materials and superior craftsmanship. If not for the advantage of technology, Sweden would have been annexed by Hitler.

The Allied landings in Normandy was a deliberate ploy to throw huge numbers of cannon fodder against fortified military installations. The German installations had the strategic advantage of fortifications and vantage points. All the allies had was an overwhelming number of troops which would eventually manage to take out the fortifications. As it turned out, overwhelming numbers won the day over fortifications.

Let's move on to more modern times. The so called cold war that had the United States and the USSR locked in a game of oneupmanship. Both governments ceaselessly struggling for the definitive advantage that would permanently knock the other out. Unfortunately, the USSR became politically unstable while the US remained intact.

The 2 Gulf wars are prime examples of technological advantage winning out over one man's tyranny or idealism. It all depends on your point of view, so lets not argue about the terms used here.

In these 4 examples, you have the advantage of technology, political stability and numerical superiority.

Now let's take a look at Iraq the way it is now. In spite of the United State's overwhelming technological advantage, it cannot seem to beat the fanaticism or idealism of several existing factions in Iraq. These are those who the US government label as terrorists.

Now that that's all said and done, what does it meant to you? If it doesn't mean anything, then perhaps that proves the saying that war is senseless.

If you paid close attention to what was written, you can surmise the following:

1) That those who made war or entered into war used whatever advantage they could to win over their opponents; or in Sweden's case, keep the enemy at bay.

2) That the way they fought depended on their capacity to make war. Sweden with their excellent craftsmanship and technology, the terrorists with their guerilla war tactics and suicide bombings.

When you compare these events to SGW, you will see the same things happening. 2 Super alliances in a quest to get the ultimate advantage in terms of manpower. This is similar to the United States versus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Eventually, as in the case of the USSR, one will break down and the other will have dominion.

Speaking of dominion, take a look at Iraq. The United States may have dominion over Iraq, but small factions continue to elude them.

If ever a faction manages to gain the upper hand here in SGW, there will always be more players than that one single faction.

Everyone makes war according to their capacities to carry out war. If they cannot win by force, they will try to win by diplomacy. If they do not want to be part of the politics, they isolate themselves or refuse to join alliances.

What is the point? War is not linear. There are no rules. People who demand that SGW should be a constant, ceaseless struggle; people who demand that rules be put in place to define the style of play in SGW; people who demand that rules be put into play to define wars; they are wasting time and effort because wars will always be about exploiting advantages. Would you allow your advantage to be nullified or canceled out because of a rule? Most likely not. Most especially not in an environment where war is always imminent.

Get your facts straight sweden didnt have a technological advantage, but they had iron that they traded with germany and britain before the war.
Sweden tried to stay nutral during the war since germany whould have owned them so the iron trade kept them safe.
swedens neutrality also saved a lot of people that ran in to the country from norway, denmark and finland and was granted asylum.

[weilandsmith]

i'm not arguing about sweden. i just used them as an example of how they acted during a war. sweden, and all the other examples i used can be used a s some sort of comparison as to how war is played out in SGW. sheesh

[DrDread]

You guys are missing weilandsmith's point.
He gave an example approximately what occurred in our history.
This game does follow those same type of events.
Human nature is what it is.
Whether you are in RL or here... people will be people.
Individuals, Groups(Alliances), Societies(Alliance Groups) all behave in fairly predictable patterns.

I believe this was the point weilandsmith was trying to make.

[weilandsmith]

You guys are missing weilandsmith's point.
He gave an example approximately what occurred in our history.
This game does follow those same type of events.
Human nature is what it is.
Whether you are in RL or here... people will be people.
Individuals, Groups(Alliances), Societies(Alliance Groups) all behave in fairly predictable patterns.

I believe this was the point weilandsmith was trying to make.

finally, someone who understands.

[Severian]

You guys are missing weilandsmith's point.
He gave an example approximately what occurred in our history.
This game does follow those same type of events.
Human nature is what it is.
Whether you are in RL or here... people will be people.
Individuals, Groups(Alliances), Societies(Alliance Groups) all behave in fairly predictable patterns.

I believe this was the point weilandsmith was trying to make.

finally, someone who understands.

But that is exactly where your argument collapses.

It is important to note that the actions committed that made history are objective while the action of recording is always subjective - whether through political agenda or simply not having the information to properly understand in detail the circumstances that lead up to that action. In other words, I will write already with a set purpose in mind or I will write with only my understanding/perspective in mind [and select Primary and Secondary sources that back my argument up]. Truth is an almost impossible thing to capture, built up upon differing perspectives to create something that only partially resembles it. This then applies to the way History is taught but more importantly, used as examples to justify current actions or statements.

The issue a lot of people don't like to approach is that History is a very Subjective and useful tool to cultivate the population to grow into certain ideas and adopt certain perspectives. I'd like to note that I’m not saying that this is wrong and we shouldn't remember or honour things in times past, but merely that we keep an open mind to the wider context of the things we are taught, especially seeing the frame used to teach a specifically select series of events and why those boundaries are placed. In this case, why the poster used those particular events to justify and give substance to his argument and set it out as an absolute in order to promote his take on what is going on.

The point is:

Things always happen. Said things are usually recorded. However, when to promote one thing or another and at which angle too publically approach said things is a very interesting and rewarding field to study.

This is of course all building up and setting the argument of historical "proofs" in context.

The use of promoting History and the neglect or omission of History is an important political tool (and while it is certainly not the only use of History, it is one of the more prominent ones used today). What is taught and what is not is carefully selected by those with influence as with what light to portray certain events and as such the general knowledge of a given people can easily reflect a given country’s political (not necessarily ruling) elite and their agendas.

History is vast enough to be used as justification for almost anything. It can very easily show and be used for conflicting arguments. One side will pick a particular event that supports his view while his opponent can just as easily point out different examples which promote his and debunk the original.

In this case we have Sweeds and their actions in world war two. But I could just as easily pull out any event from any given people from any given political standing in any given era which could just as easily show the complete opposite.

Does this make my view correct? No. But by using history to pass your ideas off as truth is a very fickle thing to do and should not be so easily assumed as so. Your argument is the substance and history can be used to show past examples to support your ideas but history can never really be the crux and sole argument because it is simply too vast and conflicting but more importantly, a subjective thing trying to be applied to a subjective argument which is being passed off as objective fact.

So all those who shoot down others arguments and demand that they be seen as right because they use real world examples should be more careful in tossing events around. You are free to use History to support an argument but to say History is linear/black & white and shows absolutes that prove your view is the be all and end all is a tad too much of simplification.

I am guilty of using history or historical terms myself, but they are merely used to support something that I present as a viewpoint without being the argument in itself.

That and this is a wargame that deals in abstracted ideas and concepts which are not comparative to the real world so while we bring the world with us intentionally or indirectly, they are not the same.

[DrDread]

Severian,
I have not bothered to read this entire post(probably a mistake).
Everything you said about history is true and valid.
It was also well thoughtout and presented.

Although I have never seen anything happen on SGW in 5 years that i have not seen in RL.

That and this is a wargame that deals in abstracted ideas and concepts which are not comparative to the real world so while we bring the world with us intentionally or indirectly, they are not the same.

The "Nature of this game" is human nature.
Nothing has happened here(and perhaps never will) that has not happened in our RL past.

Although SGW often seems more like "Lord of the Flies" than anything in RL.

[Severian]

Severian,
I have not bothered to read this entire post(probably a mistake).
Everything you said about history is true and valid.
It was also well thoughtout and presented.

Although I have never seen anything happen on SGW in 5 years that i have not seen in RL.

That and this is a wargame that deals in abstracted ideas and concepts which are not comparative to the real world so while we bring the world with us intentionally or indirectly, they are not the same.

The "Nature of this game" is human nature.
Nothing has happened here(and perhaps never will) that has not happened in our RL past.

Although SGW often seems more like "Lord of the Flies" than anything in RL.

Three Years.

Also, answer this. What is Human Nature?

Can it truely be classified into sets and subsets of behavioural patterns that can be traced to determine exactly what is human or do we look into things such as behaviorism and determinism with questions brought up by thinkers such as Nietzsche, Marx and a growing post modernist movement?

This is a question that borders Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy and heck even, Theology to an extent and not something that can be pinned down so easily to any one thing. Just how malleable or unmoving are the results of situational circumstances and experience in a person's life that determine how (s)he thinks and acts?

That is why i try not to use human nature as an argument as to do so assumes that there is a universal agreement on it.

[weilandsmith]

Severian:

Can you not compare events of war in the real world to a highly political and volatile game such as SGW? Let's take the Swedes for example. Surrounded by conquered German territories, they had two choices: To surrender and join the Nazi empire or to offer the Nazi empire valuable assistance to avoid annexation? In the end, had Hitler not been neutralized, he would have eventually invaded Sweden. Why? Because Sweden was sitting inside or surrounded by conquered territories. No good general or leader would have allowed a hole such like that to exist within their territory.

In the SGW world, you see alliances scrambling to at least gain NAPs with every other alliance to avoid getting embroiled in the perceived great war that will happen between the two great alliances. Therein lies the irony of it.

War is war, and no matter how many rules you set to impose, war, by virtue of its chaotic nature, will render ordered rules inutile. This is my point. No amount of rules, order or limitation will hinder a full blown war. You can take the current political situation in SGW right now as an example. So many NAPs in force and yet every single day, a NAP is broken. There is confusion as to which alliance has a NAP with what alliance. What more if the much heralded war happens? Do you think that imposed rules will circumscribe a full blown war? Do you think that people attacking and getting attacked will have to time to bother waiting to find out if so and so alliance has a NAP with their alliance? Considering that the two super alliances are not really solid; considering that the alliances within the two super alliances will have their own agendas, considering that they have pacts and treaties with other alliances that may or may not be respected by others in the super alliance?

No. War and politics is chaotic. If war does not happen, the many agendas of each alliance within an alliance will break apart the super alliances. It is just a matter of time. The question is will war come first or will they collapse like the Soviet Union?

Now we come to the point of this post. As is written in the original posting in page 1, people want to dictate or regulate the way SGW is played. SGW, by nature of its design is a thoroughly political and war intensive game. How can you regulate or control politics and war?

My answer. You can try to set down rules and or limits. However, if there is indeed war between the two super alliances, whose numbers i think are about 500 to 600 players, then all those rules and limitations will, at some point in time, be set aside and ignored. Why? Because war is chaotic. Look back at all the wars that have happened in history and tell me where war has been described as orderly and neat. George Bush would like to think of his 'liberation' of Iraq as methodical and neat, but up to now, it isn't.

[Severian]

Severian:
...

You obviously did not get the entire point of my post.

The Sweed example is fine. But I can find examples in history in similiar situations where:

A Given Force surrendered right away when surrounded.
A Given Force Fought against odds and won.
A Given Force Fought against odds and lost.
A Given Force was assimiliated willingly and both cultures merged into one.
A Given Force was assimiliated unwillingly and adopted the other's culture.
A Given Force was allowed to remain independant and left alone to continue with its own ways undisturbed.

So for each example you provide to back up your point, history will have a dozen others showing entirely different results. People will ignore all those other results and say because X happened in Case Y, My association with case Z is accurate/true/validated.

Therein lies the flaw of resting your entire argument based upon a single and rather selective and convienient case study from the pages of a subjective History.

As for my public views on the current situation, they can be found in my post on the first page of this thread. Having been apart of the TLE command structure and the person who introduced Janus and delt with several members of FUALL with a rather extensive social network ingame, my views are shaped and based upon a rather indepth insight into the behind the scenes workings of the game and diplomacy that are not present on forums.

However you are entirely entitled to make your own assumptions and form your own views based upon the information and experiences available to you and that is something I cannot deny you. I can only present my own argument and the reasons why and how I came to said conclusions.