<font color=“Black”>Introduction
First of all, thank you for taking the time to listen to a lecture on a topic that is largely on the sidelines of the greater NationStates gameplay world. If you haven’t yet, Apulita also delivered a talk about the Warzones, focusing on the unique culture that has risen out of our gameplay position. I highly recommend you take the time to read through the transcript of that lecture if you weren’t there for it.
Warzones, specially designated game created regions with distinct delegate restrictions and privileges, offer a unique gameplay experience on Nationstates. Unlike Feeders and Sinkers, there is no natural source of residents as no nations are created or resurrected there. Unlike user created regions, delegates cannot password the regions to protect themselves from attack. Moreover, unlike both user created and game created regions, influence has no effect in Warzones, allowing delegates to eject and ban freely (with the caveat that all bans expire every update). This combination of attributes sets aside the regions from both UCRs and GCRs, with the main effect of creating regions that tend to be unstable in the absence of a competent regime.
In his lecture, Apulita talked about the factors that made up a successful community. I will focus more specifically on what makes a successful regime – that is to say, a strong governing organization that can maintain regional stability – focusing specifically on the last two years of Warzone colonizations.
What makes up a competent regime? Strong recruitment? Incredible persistence? Diplomatic prowess? This talk analyzes successful and failed Warzone regimes in the past two years to outline the factors that determine the rise and fall of different regimes while contrasting Warzone gameplay with that of other regions.
A short outline of this talk follows:[/font]</font>
[ul]
[li]Regional Security
[li]Warzone Diplomacy
[li]The Interplay Between Security and Diplomacy
[li]Comparison with Broader Gameplay[/li][/ul]<font color=“Black”>Regional Security: Culture Matters
Firstly, a short discussion on regional security.
Because Warzones lack the endorsement inertia that Feeders and Sinkers typically enjoy, and do not have the protection of an omnipotent founder, WA endorsements play a critical role in ensuring regional security. Because recruitment is harder for a Warzone compared to other GCRs, coups are a relatively frequent occurrence, with few regimes lasting longer than several weeks.
As a result, recruitment takes on an unusually critical role. Whereas most UCRs can sustain activity and enjoy security without a high endorsement count thanks to their founders, Warzones rely on a high endorsement count for protection from raiders and coupers. And there are a lot of them – in the past two years, a wide array of UCR and GCR militaries have unseated a sitting WA delegate position in one or more Warzones.
In light of this, it is not enough to recruit in a Warzone. What good is recruiting if you lose your newly recruited nations to another region? Recruitment needs to pull in WA nations, which are always scarce, and must be followed up by providing a regional culture engaging enough to keep recruited nations from leaving. It could therefore be said that Warzones may be the only regions in the game where cultural ministry is of the utmost security importance – an incompetent cultural affairs minister can compromise regional security, while a competent one can do more for regional security than any other government entity.
Unfortunately, this has been a historical weak point for Warzone governments. Regional populations typically are below 30, with delegate endorsement counts near-universally below 3, even if there are more than 3 government members.
Of course, just to complicate matters even more, recruitment success has not been the best predictor of regime success. For example, the People’s Republic of Warzone Asia has rarely enjoyed more than 2 endorsements at a given moment, yet has managed to remain in power for over two years. Likewise, Warzone Airspace has had a very low endorsement count for the past two years, but remains in control of the region nonetheless.
Warzone Diplomacy: Do or Die
If anything, diplomatic ability is the biggest predictor of regional success. Because there are no regional protections against external military action, diplomatic failures quickly spiral into regime failures, especially against the backdrop of chronically low endorsement counts. Conversely, diplomatic success essentially ensures the permanence of a Warzone regime, providing a weak regime with military aid and even assistance with liberations following a raid.
In essence, there are two cardinal rules to Warzone Diplomacy:</font>
[ul]
[li]Do not alienate your allies
[li]Do not agitate your antagonists[/li][/ul]These rules are essentially universal to all political systems, Warzone or not, but the unstable nature of a Warzone makes them especially pertinent, with little room for error.
<font color=“Black”>Two Case Studies in Diplomatic Failure
The most spectacular failures are clearly defined by their diplomatic inability followed up by external military action.
The Anonymouslands Regime in Warzone Sandbox quickly failed due to incompetent diplomatic policy. Immediately after its inception, the regime decided to recruit directly from The Association of Imperialism, incurring their founder’s wrath. At the same time, the regime also alienated potential allies in The Eternal Knights, stripping away any potential military aid that could have protected it from what was to come. Other Warzone governments, noting the regime’s ability to attract trouble, judged its delegate a liability, and quickly cut off ties when, expressing no confidence in his ability to hold the region.
Shortly afterwards, the region was seized by the Association of Imperialism. Having no allies willing to help him recapture the region, Anonymouslands conceded his independent rule of the region, eventually exiting Warzone gameplay.
Esamir Colonizations in Warzone Sandbox, Africa and Australia failed similarly. While extant Warzone Governments largely accept the status quo of government turnover, Esamir’s expansionist activity inclined Warzone Europe, Asia and Airspace, which hold the oldest Warzone regimes, to oppose their presence. They further emboldened opposition to their continued presence when they posted intimidating and insulting messages on neighboring Warzone RMBs.
Within several weeks, a coalition of forces from Warzone Europe, The West Pacific, and Wintreath gained control of all contested Warzones, purging all traces of Esamir.
Similarly, Esamir, a role-playing region with imperialist aspirations, chose to colonize Warzone Australia, ejecting the residents while using the in-game embassies to post intimidating messages on neighboring Warzone RMBs. They were later pushed out of Warzone Australia and moved to colonize Warzone Sandbox and Warzone Africa instead. Having failed to earn the good will of any neighboring Warzone while alienating several larger allies (namely The West Pacific and Wintreath), a coalition consisting of updaters from Wintreath, The West Pacific, and Warzone Europe decisively purged them from all Warzone regions shortly there after.
No Warzone is an Island: The Importance of Allies
In stark contrast, regimes that excel in building bridges, as opposed to burning them, do quite well.
The People’s Republic of Warzone Asia is a stellar example of how diplomatic success provides for a regime’s ongoing permanence. Although the PRWA’s delegate, North Campbell Nation, has rarely managed to hold onto more than 3 endorsements at a time, the regime has withstood the test of time.
When the region was briefly occupied by the EPSA, calm negotiations between the PWRA and the EPSA led to the development of cordial relations following the conclusion of the exercise.
More dramatically, when an outside group attempted to colonize the region in 2014, the PWRA’s friendship with the Association of Imperialism led to a strike force quickly re-seizing the region and returning it to PWRA control. Curiously enough, this group consisted largely of well-known raiders like Vandoosa, Ever Wandering Souls, and Festavo.
The Dominion of Warzone Europe has similarly benefited from its regional ties. Although the present regime has a very strong power base, with 15 endorsements making the region essentially invulnerable to the average tag raid, it has strongly benefited from having Astarial as its Empress. This has largely deterred many other groups from actively targeting it for raids (though the region has been randomly targeted by tag raiders in the past).
The interplay between regional security and diplomatic power
There is, of course, interplay between these factors.
Regions with strong military power have more room for diplomatic gamble. In 2014, the Association of Imperialism requested that the Warzone governments become its protectorates. Although the offer was seemingly benevolent, it was backed by the warning that the Association of Imperialism intended to make all Warzones join its commonwealth either through diplomacy or force. The standoff was broken when Warzone Europe declined the “invite,” causing the region’s founder to back off his previously stated warning. Since then, the Association of Imperialism and its successor, Sanctum, have continued to provide assistance to various Warzone governments.
Military affairs are also impacted. Whereas most regions have complete freedom to conduct their military affairs with little or no fear for repercussion to their home communities (like many raiding organizations which have little fear of repercussion for their actions), Warzones must be strategic about when and where to commit to military action.
Gameplay ideology can play into both of these areas. Whereas many regions can adopt ideologies such as raiding, defending, imperialism, and independence with little impact to their communities, Warzone governments must carefully consider the allies and enemies that can be generated by such choices. Committing (or failing to commit) to an ideology can open and close doors, impacting diplomatic possibilities. Warzone regimes must assess the present opportunities and make pragmatic decisions about what best serves the community’s long-term aims, rather than simply making decisions based on personal and/or ideological opinions.
Conclusion
Although the lack of protections in a Warzone makes for a challenging environment, with fewer than half of regimes surviving longer than six months, they provide an intriguing environment for NationStates gameplay where diplomacy and military operations are closely tied together. Indeed, many residents find their gameplay experience more enjoyable because of the unique military and political ramifications of being situated in a Warzone.</font>
At this point, I’ll open up the lecture to questions, either here, or for as long as I’m still logged into the IRC channel. Thank you.