DeletedUser
Guest
Which real life are you talking about where wars are avoided as much as possible? Sounds like a fantasy world that one.
As to everything else you said. Yes Ceasar is appointed to act dictatorily whereas normally the romans used the democracy of the senate. Yes the supreme chancellor of the republic is given dictatorial rights so he can wage war against the trade federation more effectively in the same way.
The difference i'm referring to is this.
We sacrifice certain control factors that TSL doesn't appear to suffer such as we don't enforce sits in a do or die way. Therefore we might suffer intel problems TSL may appear to avoid. We dont enforce taking over an acct that appears to be losing villages either, although that offer is almost always there. We don't have the constant threat of dismissal hanging over our heads for refusing to be a part of the aforementioned two examples.
We don't give up on players just because leadership determines its logical to do so. Sure in such a case the tribe may suffer more losses than is reasonable. The flipside is you gain rocksolid loyalty. This sort of loyalty is not available to the followers in a fear regime because you cannot breed loyalty when everything is surrounded by fear. A democracy brings equality and with that a freedom of personal choice. This in turn breeds lots of good things like loyalty which, not surprisingly, make all the difference in the end.
So when you say 'no TSL member leaves by choice
' it is not due to loyalty, it is due to fear.
As to everything else you said. Yes Ceasar is appointed to act dictatorily whereas normally the romans used the democracy of the senate. Yes the supreme chancellor of the republic is given dictatorial rights so he can wage war against the trade federation more effectively in the same way.
The difference i'm referring to is this.
We sacrifice certain control factors that TSL doesn't appear to suffer such as we don't enforce sits in a do or die way. Therefore we might suffer intel problems TSL may appear to avoid. We dont enforce taking over an acct that appears to be losing villages either, although that offer is almost always there. We don't have the constant threat of dismissal hanging over our heads for refusing to be a part of the aforementioned two examples.
We don't give up on players just because leadership determines its logical to do so. Sure in such a case the tribe may suffer more losses than is reasonable. The flipside is you gain rocksolid loyalty. This sort of loyalty is not available to the followers in a fear regime because you cannot breed loyalty when everything is surrounded by fear. A democracy brings equality and with that a freedom of personal choice. This in turn breeds lots of good things like loyalty which, not surprisingly, make all the difference in the end.
So when you say 'no TSL member leaves by choice
Last edited by a moderator: