A question for Andrew? Do you really think the true right advice for me or people who think as I do is: to seek some new diplomatic answer to avoiding war with Apoc or BA or anyone in this game? Who the heck is there left to fight but Apoc. You guys had a huge hand in friggin crafting this world. What you expect? submission?
Of course not. I regard it as a complement to me and the rest of my tribe that you and your tribe regards Apoc as
the major power in world 18. It has taken a long time and a lot of effort to wrest that title/position from MM.
Your (and dipank's) efforts to argue that the world must unite against us are entirely appropriate. I would do the same in your shoes. What I wouldn't do is to try and humiliate my potential ally into siding with me. And if I felt such a tactic was appropriate, I certainly wouldn't do it in the public eye.
I think the fundamental issue here is about understanding tribal objectives. Simplistically speaking Apoc's is to win the game as quickly as possible. Although I would guess that MIM and ~S~ have similar objectives, their route is certainly not the fastest. In fact their journey is one that may never complete as their criteria are too "pure" (one tribe takes all). I'll explain...
In order to achieve victory one tribe must prevail (duh!) However their fear of not being the tribe that does so means that, as soon as one tribe gets the upper hand, the others will reform to ally against it, thus restoring the equilibrium. So, while their objective may be to prevail, the reality is that these tribes are actually advocating stasis/deadlock. I won't start talking in terms of game-theory but those who are familiar with the concepts (on either side) will understand the way of breaking such a deadlock and thus achieving a victory. In short it is the approach that Apoc is following i.e. to turn the world blue.
I believe this was an objective that was subscribed to by all the members of the UA, including BA. Your problem is, assuming BA still has the same objective, it will win the game when Apoc does. So... why is it not a part of Apoc/UA? The original stated reason was it found the bureauocracy too cumbersome and it wanted to forge its own way without having to achieve consensus across the alliance. Assuming that is the primary/sole reason then its current position can be seen as not inconsistent (watch the double negative!) with its (and the UA's) original ethos.
Of course BA may no longer have the same ethos as that advocated by the UA. Alternatively it may just want to stir things up a bit
