Thursday, July 18, 2019

The DMT Doctrine: The Troublesome Case of the Allied Battles

KLONDIKE, Club Penguin Armies Offices- Over the past few months, the community has realized the importance of foreign affairs in the army scene.  However, are armies abusing their relations?

The DMT Doctrine is an editorial series that comes from the mind of CPA Spokesperson and Administrator DMT.  Thus, the concepts conveyed in this article do not represent the viewpoints of Club Penguin Armies as an organization.


As of writing this, the dust has settled on the latest battle in the war dubbed "the war of smoke and sour".  Lime Green Army's invasion of Northern Lights from the Recon Federation empire was unsuccessful after an early forfeit from the attackers.  In the wake of the ending, a flurry of messages rolled into the battle room from both sides.  LGA leader, Zeke, had had it with the war.  He made his troops log off early because, in his words, "we're tired of fighting a whole alliance".  Emotions running high, the conversation ended with more questions than answers.



Roughly two weeks ago, RFCP leader Prior Bumble messaged me privately, asking how wars work.  I explained the process of declaring a war, and how the declaring army declares the terms in a war.  Whilst providing the example of a common condition being "no allies", Prior interjected, asking if allies were welcome.  A bit puzzled, I said yes.  Just like that, the declaration rolled in, with Prior adding "allies are welcome!"  Just a few days later, Recon Federation joined the New Viking Alliance.



For me, it was foreign concept to not only allow, but to encourage allies in a war.  In the original community, wars were used to test the strength of singular armies.  War battles were a showcase of which army was stronger and which army was lead better.  Back then, we had no server map, and land designations were hard to come by.  Most armies had their capital and a small handful of servers they recognized as their own, but that was it.  The one thing that fueled wars was pride.  Armies fought to prove that their army was better than their enemy.  Evidently, things have changed.





When allies would get involved in wars, it would be as separate entities scheduling their own invasions.  Their would be some crossover troops, yes, but armies never had their entire player-base back their allies in a battle.  Actually, their were alliance battles, but these battles went under the name of the respective alliances.  Alliances such as the Red Dawn Alliance, the Triple Entente, and the Great Alliance would host events as a single group, with their own alliance uniform.  Armies were represented by their own users, not by their allies.

The war of smoke and sour has had all the emotions of a war from days past, but the presence of allies greatly influences these emotions of anger and hatred.  The war no longer feels like Recon Federation vs Lime Green Army, but an open ended battle where anyone can support any side they liked.  I'm always aware of when a battle is ready to start, because the allies of the respective armies ping their discord servers to help their allies out.  Thirty minutes will pass, and I will strap in to judge another battle where I will be criticized and ridiculed regardless of what I judge.

It's tiring, but there's nothing to be done about it.

This is where the question arises: do allied battles lose integrity?  The answer will depend on who is asked.  If someone asked me, I would say yes, because allied battles go against what I've thought war was all about.  If someone asked another, perhaps they would say no, because armies are just taking advantage of their foreign affairs.  It's not an easy question to answer, and it falls back to the complicated mess of subjectivity that is present in many problems within the community.  When going on the facts, allied battles are perfectly legal and do not break any physical rule.  But do they break a moral law?

I'm inclined to believe so.

I'm doing my best to not attack individual armies in this post, but I find it quite silly when an army posts a training session that gets ten troops, and then posts a land battle that gets twenty five troops.  Honestly speaking, it's deceitful.  Those troops are not a part of the army, they are simply under the guise of the uniform.  I guess that makes it physically "clear", but it still strikes me the wrong way.  How can someone call that "their army" when over half the troops are not registered within the army?  How can that army hold sole possession of a server that was earned by a collective group of armies?



As much as armies are about foreign affairs, they're about images and morals too.  The community experienced this with the Templars.  Despite their claims of being clean, the tainted history of the Templars brought their downfall within the community, resulting in their death.  In the same way, the morals and image of the Army of Club Penguin were thrown into a loop after leading the charge in the acts of "Order 67".  More information can be found out about that event in time HERE and HERE.  Point being, the way others in the community perceive other armies is a big deal.  The actions that armies take, and the people who represent it, shape their future interactions in the community.

This war will go down in history as the first war in the Club Penguin Armies v2 Era, but it will be remembered as the war that demonstrated the stance on allied battles.  The majority of the community has made it clear they are O.K. with the idea of fully allied wars.  Maybe there's an army out there that shares my sentiments that will remember this war, and declare war on the attackers down the road with a no ally rule.  The image of the Recon Federation (LGA has continuously expressed their disdain for allied battles) will now be viewed as an army that rose to power on their strong connections, but that's it.  Perhaps I'm struggling to accept the changing climate in the community, as I am just an administrator of a news site.  What I say will not have as much power as an army leader.

I present to the new community an idea from days past.  Building an army becomes much more fun when the leaders must rely on recruiting instead of allies for success.  Judging the strength of the army makes the community interactive, and it gives leaders a reality check on their grasp on the community.  If every army relies on their allies, are we really an army community anymore?

DMT


CPA Spokesperson

4 comments:

  1. Your representation of me (including small little details like the smiley face to paint a negative picture) is inaccurate.

    RFCP is a month old army. How can it have made such strong alliances with years-old armies that seemingly do not need us?

    Skill in leadership, strategy, negotiation, and grace.

    I am proud of our alliances. LGA would do well to seek friendships by not pushing leaders away with hostility, ex. calling his former ally, Sage of Mopia, a jackass today.

    I fear no Lime. We maxed 15, no allies, at a mere recruitment event last week (and we do not attract rogues with our complex uniform).

    But I know how to make an army and a campaign even stronger.

    We will win the War of Smoke and Sour.

    Erat Ipso Sacra.

    Prior Bumble
    Commander-in-Chief
    Recon Federation of Club Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems you missed the point of DMT's post, his whole point is that using allies is seen to some, such as himself, as immoral. You think building relations with an alliance, one that accepts any army anyways, makes you a strong leader. Before 2019 not many people had this mindframe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow very cool! Thanks for Sharing!

    ReplyDelete