Why Civil Wars are Necessary

[Sella]

There is also the tyrrany of the majority... But i agree to some extent. Issues like that need to be resovled in some way but i am not sure if it should be just civil war. 

Watch naval action evolve into a political simulator xD

[z4ys]

7 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

It doesn't matter whats right or wrong, there's no moral objectivity in a game. If my nation sees a clan who holds a port, and the majority of the nation wants that clan to not hold that port for whatever reason, they should be able to reclaim it for the majority.

 

So you are asking for a griefing feature?

 

7 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

 

Talking doesn't always resolve conflict. Even if I have 80% of my nation on teamspeak talking to the 20% about what they SHOULD do, it doesn't mean they'll do it, even if it hurts the nation.

Maybe you should start listening to the 20% and find an agreement both sides would like. Remember the mule? Prussia was a nation of pve players to 80% we told them to start fighting 20%. They didnt listened and lost all ports at panama. You you telling me while 80% saying the one thing they are right? I dont believe that. The right way would be to find an agreement but that can only be achived by listening and understanding each side and working together. If that would have happened prussia wouldnt have failed in the first place

Edited January 8, 2018 by z4ys

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

6 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Civil war in NA is equivalent of the majority asserting power over the minority because they actually have that power. That's democracy at work

You are sorely confused good sir. That's not the correct analogy. That's anathema. An absurd to even "define" democracy as such.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Sella22 said:

There is also the tyrrany of the majority...

Yes I know, but if that's where the majority wants to take their nation, so be it. Who are we to limit their fun and possibilities? This game IS, in a way an 18th century political simulator. If tides change, a new majority can always rise up against the perceived tyranny, that's the beauty of a sandbox

 

Just now, z4ys said:

Maybe you should start listening to the 20% and find an agreement both sides would like. Remember the mule? Prussia was a nation of pve players to 80% we told them to start fighting 20%. They didnt listened and lost all ports at panama. You you telling me while 80% saying the one thing they are right? I dont believe that. The right way would be to find an agreement but that can only be achived by listening and understanding each side and working together. If that would have happened prussia wouldnt have failed in the first place

I appreciate your faith in humanity, but there will always be griefers, there will always be rebels, and there will always be stubborn people not willing to budge an inch. The same way I can't assure you that diplomatic talks will resolve tension between North Korea and the United States, diplomatic talk won't always resolve tensions between clans with different goals/ideology. Some things are just too far a part to see in the same way and I don't how else to say it. What's common place when diplomacy breaks down in real life, in history? War, and name one war that has outlasted the ideas behind it.

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

You are sorely confused good sir. That's not the correct analogy. That's anathema. An absurd to even "define" democracy as such.

de·moc·ra·cy

dəˈmäkrəsē/

noun

 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

   "capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"

   synonyms:

   representative government, elective government; More

   • a state governed by a democracy.

     plural noun: democracies

     "a multiparty democracy"
   • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

      

     I use democracy loosely.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

...loosely meaning miles away from target... actually the mark was the complete opposite way

But it is the 18th century and the young USA is nothing like the monarchic powers of europe

Lead by example, not by force and your nation will be strong. NA in a nutshell.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill said:

...loosely meaning miles away from target... actually the mark was the complete opposite way

But it is the 18th century and the young USA is nothing like the monarchic powers of europe

Lead by example, not by force and your nation will be strong. NA in a nutshell.

But I quite literally used the definition. The majority rules over the minority, is that not democracy? Not how officials are elected?

Leading by example only works if you have the ability to choose what examples should lead. Otherwise everyone is going to do their own thing.

We're getting sidetracked here, back on topic. How does a nation solve a dispute within its clans? Because I can point in any direction and show you that diplomatic talk is not the final solution.

[Sella]

It's not ok to completely destroy or take away the ports of the disagreeing minority though. There has to be another way.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Sella22

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

2 minutes ago, Sella22 said:

It's not ok to completely destroy or take away the ports of the disagreeing minority though. There has to be another way.

xoxoxoxoxo hugs and kisses ? 

[Farrago]

Civil wars are necessary because:

1) ALTS are very important in game and nations need a way to police their own waters.

2) Creates  challenge and puts pressure on the largest nations to maintain unity.

[z4ys]

22 minutes ago, Farrago said:

Civil wars are necessary because:

1) ALTS are very important in game and nations need a way to police their own waters.

2) Creates  challenge and puts pressure on the largest nations to maintain unity.

And again how do you know it's an alt. When I learned something in NA then it is that people are really fast when it comes to accusations. It's although a nice feature for large clans to grief smaller ones. I really don't see any benefits of fighting your own nation only exploits.

Edited January 8, 2018 by z4ys

[Odol]

2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

...loosely meaning miles away from target... actually the mark was the complete opposite way

But it is the 18th century and the young USA is nothing like the monarchic powers of europe

Lead by example, not by force and your nation will be strong. NA in a nutshell.

 

Correction 19th century. 

If it were the 18th century, we wouldnt have the HMS Victory, Constitution, Trincomalee, Bucentaur, or 95% of the ships in game.  AND the United States wouldnt exist.  As they didnt actually win their independence till late in the 18th century, 1783.  

 

[Landsman]

8 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

 

Why did they set Little River to available for all?

[Farrago]

2 hours ago, z4ys said:

And again how do you know it's an alt. When I learned something in NA then it is that people are really fast when it comes to accusations. It's although a nice feature for large clans to grief smaller ones. I really don't see any benefits of fighting your own nation only exploits.

I usually don't know it's an alt and a nation that indescriminitely kills it's "young" or unknown players deserves to not thrive. But SOMETIMES you do know. And a large clan that griefs smaller clans also deserves to have their nation get that reputation as well.

[Jean Ribault]

14 hours ago, Farrago said:

...But SOMETIMES you do know...

Yep.

If it walks like a ___  and smells like a ___ and looks like a ___ , then it probably IS a ___ .

When I see an unknown captain's name and he's sitting outside the capital in a basic cutter for about 2 hours straight or more, then he probably is an ____.

You don't necessarily need to be smart to simply be observant.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[Slim McSauce]