The Case for Strategy
Day 1,089, 17:52
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by SaraDroz
About a year and half ago I figured out the rules of winning a war in this game... seems Eden HQ and continuing eCanadian Government still haven't achieved this. Today we speak of "taking London" and "crushing eIndonesia"... what claptrap! For starters to even attack London would cost too much (anyone remember the Acacia War? - we couldn't AFFORD it!). As for eIndonesia - yea right - lots of resources there... oh wait none!
I shall sum up what should be our and Eden strategic policy very simply: To not attack any region unless it should be for a diversion or leads to a high resource region which a country can realisticaly hold. Now I am told the current eUK attack is partly to distract from ePolish invasion of eGermany and partly because we hate them. I was there when they became traitors - or imo were betrayed - but this is NOT a strategic reason nor a logical one - helping ePoland is (but what is in eGermany?). Tell me this... Why are we invading eUK and not relieving pressure from eSpain by invading eFrance?
Ladies and Gentlemen let me introduce you to logic! It is not hard to grasp in erep it simply involves high resource regions! A 'conquest' of eIndonesia achieves nothing but RWs - a passage through eIndonisia and liberation of eAustralia deprives Phoenix of titunium for weapon production. Is eIndonesia hold-able - long term no but the high titanium regions in the south are.
Which brings me to this outrageous deal: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-omb-a-new-doctrine-and-indo-here-we-come-1546634/1/20 What what? eUSA propes to invade eIndonesia while letting them produce weapons in Karnataka to fight the invasion. The lack of vision shown here to me is astounding or perhaps circumspect.
"To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence." (Friedrich Nietzsche).
The point is in this game you CANNOT 'conquer' long term. Strategic war must be aimed at depriving resources to the enemy and gathering for ourselves. All else is a waste.Lecture over. To illustrate this let me use two current examples...
Case 1: ePoland - Cake and Eating.
ePoland currently hold the most resource rich region in the game WSB (Western Siberia). Now this is great since Phoenix and eRussia in particular almost certainly had alot of companies there. They need this region! Yet while trying to keep hold of this they are invading eGermany where there is... not alot. Every attack they make and every useless region they win becomes a potential RW that will distract some of their troops from the vital task of retaining Western Siberia... Was eGermany a threat to them? No. Are they going for another high resource region? Well there are none that compare to Western Siberia... It is a long way from relieving the pressure on eSpain from eFrance. What then is the objective? Essentialy every useless of eGermany they take comprimises their position in WSB.
Case 2: eUSA - Not Eating Cake First.
The doctrine mentioned here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-omb-a-new-doctrine-and-indo-here-we-come-1546634/1/20 is, in my opinion entirely WRONG. Where does eIndonesia produce weapons nowadays? Where, no doubt, are their allies now getting resources to produce weapons to help them? Well perhaps from their allies ePakistan occupying the high iron (eIndian) region of Karnataka... The arguement I have seen is the 'eIndonesia has never been invaded before therefore we must invade them'. This is a fallacy of the lowest order. They should perhaps be passed through to liberate eAustralia is most. However to undertake this operation BEFORE liberating their (and others) resource base in Karnataka is to increase the cost of any invasion and essentialy self defeating. Foot...aim...fire!
The 'Lulz' Arguement.
It has been argued that war in this game is what makes it fun - I agree! However war for the sake of war is, in my opinon, totaly senseless. As for the claimed boost to the economy it brings - well a Government could boost the economy just the same to create a stockpile for a strategic objective! "You misunderstand a man who takes a few steps backwards - when he intends to take a leap forwards!". Yes it is a game and we are all supposed to play by the rules on even playing field. What is the point of a game if it isn't to win? That is the written into to the very definition of 'game' I think. While pointless wars may be 'lulz' the REAL fun is for those who work out how to win - the joy of taking their important regions, putting several 1000s companies out of work, cutting their tax, STRATEGY!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voted a.a.
second?
War without opponents? Let's take the UK cause they called yo mamma fuggly.
saraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Strategy is boring
CRUSH UK is more interesting and FUN!
Excellent article! I'm planning a similar article but more focused on eCanada specifically. VOTED!
Strategy is more "lulz" than foolish "lulz". Ironic? Maybe. But ask eSerbia or eRomania how it feels ruling the world. I'm pretty sure it's "lulz".
The cost is irrelevant when you have unending pot.
Think I wrong? watch and see...
there's one thing that you did not take into account:
according to this realistic (as a theory) concept one should always attempt to conquer high regions and further to only perform distracting manoevers so allies can get theirs. However, it would mean that you just need to conquer every high region that you can get, either for yourself or your ally. Now, in the case of Karnataka, this would trigger another war for the USA, while they already have their hands full. By being too greedy and go for a high region in the hands of a country that's neutral to them (even slightly allied, since they're both Dioist nations), they would create another front and another enemy. While now yes PHX can get iron from Karnataka, but they can also get it from Brazil or, for the smaller PHX countries, from countries who don't have trading embargoes against every country yet. Or they can survive on titanium from FER, South Africa or WA. Or they even just export iron/titanium to a neutral country like, say, Singapore, produce weapons there and then sell on the PHX country markets. 10 000 solutions to circumvent weapon shortage, but no solution to end hostilities between nations quickly.
"The cost is irrelevant when you have an unending pot."
A valid point. However, most of us don't have one of those so the cost remains relevant.
As for the article, I wholeheartedly agree. 1u1z for 1u1z sake is bad policy and war with no tangible objective is a recipe for failure. I really like the idea of warring to conquer not regions, but resources. A policy like this could result in some long term strategies in which we make it increasing expensive and difficult for our enemies to arm themselves. If we reduce the resources at our enemies disposal, we reduce their ability to attack us and increase our relative military strength.
It's basic strategy.
So Sammy eIndo was a great idea still?