Rules of the Game

KLONDLIKE, CPAC Philosophy Desk- With the newly risen issue of LT and AR’s declaration of war, it’s important to take a step back and look at the rules of the game. 

Note: the following post is an editorial, and as such it includes the personal opinion of the author. This post by no means represents the general views of CPAC or any of its other staff members. 

Having good sportsmanship, accepting loss with grace, playing by the rules of the game- these are concepts that I’ve talked about it here and here and possibly in other places too, but my posts, along with a ton of other posts CPAC has churned out over the past months and even years. You’re probably bored to death of these topics and I don’t want to repeat them over and over again (because I’ve already done that to some degree). Today, I want to take a slightly different perspective at some of these topics. 

Recently there’s been the declaration of war on the Army Republic by the Light Troops. This sparked off a series of posts from both armies. Leader Yoangelyo issued a statement that the invasions would be invalid, because the New Dawn Alliance have taken all of LT’s servers. 

In response, Spi101, LT leader, said:

Lol AR, so all you had to do to prevent this war is gain NDA’s help. First of all, we ignored the NDA’s invasions and we can do so, CPAC has not made a rule about it and never had anything to state against it, therefore we keep our servers. Don’t worry, LT will just party on your capital. Honestly, I think you guys are afraid to fight LT.

-Spi101, LT Leader

So let’s try to sum up the situation quickly:

LT declared war on AR.

AR says that the invasions are invalid, because the LT have no servers.

LT says that they ignored the invasions, so the invasions are invalid and they still have servers. They justify this because ‘CPAC has not made a rule on this’.

This raised quite a lot of eyebrows in the community, particularly this sentence: ‘We ignored the NDA’s invasions and we can do so. CPAC has not made a rule about it and never had anything to state against it, therefore we keep our servers.’ Pro-LT members of the community applauded this reply, while the rest of the community were left slightly confused, some even amused. I think their stance is best summarized in a post by Mustapha, DCP Leader:

According to Spi – CPAC (yes the news site) has not made a rule about ignoring invasions, therefore he keeps his servers. So, if you’re allowed to ignore invasions and keep your servers, then why are you claiming that AR cannot ignore your invasions? According to you, you can dance all over their capital and they still keep it. So even if you did have servers (which you don’t because LT fails) they can ignore you and keep their servers.

-Mustapha, DCP Leader

Many are now appreciating this irony. The LT says that they do have servers, contrary to AR’s claim, because they ignored the NDA’s invasions- this means that AR cannot ignore LT’s invasions. This raises quite a few questions and shows a larger problem that just the rule of ignoring servers. We often have disputes over what the rules really are. Can allies be used in a war? Does the invading army follow the defending army, or vice versa? These disputes create loopholes that armies often exploit to try to claim victory. 

What are the rules? Who sets these rules? Do you have to obey the rules? Are there even any rules at all? 

The Council’s Rules and why Rules are Necessary

The last time there were a set agreement on what the ‘rules’ really are was back in the time of the CP Army Council. As listed here, these rules covered most of the major aspects of CP warfare. 

With an ‘official’ council, armies were able to have a clear set of rules, written in stone. With the demise of the Council, however, many of the rules that were placed back then have since been ignored, while other rules continue in place. The 24 hour rule is an example of a rule that continues to be universally respected. Other rules, like the ‘Server Cap rule’, which states that armies cannot have more than 15 servers or all invasions they schedule are invalid, is cleanly forgotten. 

Here’s the problem though. We do need to clarify the rules in some places. Let me put a few examples up:

-The Consistent Pursuit Rule: the rule states that

Invading armies must seek out the defending army during the invasion. Blatant attempts to avoid fighting the defending army directly will result in an unsuccessful invasion. Invading armies must attempt to attack the defending army head-on throughout the battle and either force them to regroup, retreat, or surrender.

 However, it is the norm for defending armies to have to seek out invading armies. Yet this creates a loophole: since there is no set agreement, some armies try to claim victory even when they clearly lost because ‘the invading army did not follow the defending army’.

-The No Allies Rule: the rule states that

The No Allies Rule can be implemented only when both the invading and defending armies agree. If both armies agree to a no-allies battle, any proven use of allies by either side merits immediate disqualification, and victory is awarded to the other army. The No Allies Rule also applies to proven loaning of soldiers in the case that they dress up as members of the invading or defending armies. If the No Allies Rule is not agreed upon by both armies, allies may be used by either side.

Here’s another issue. Armies often claim victory because ‘the other army used allies’- and the other side will retort that they did not agree to using no allies. 

So yes- I guess it’s a little wrong for me to place the blame entirely on leaders for not admitting defeat. There are no reliable rules that you can point to, and thus loopholes are easily found- especially for leaders who feel that defeat is not an option. So do you have to obey the rules, when they don’t suit your interests? Not necessarily, some would answer in their mind. 

Think of a soccer game. The players have rules to follow. If not, they’d probably be clutching the ball in their arms and rolling it into the goal. That’s basically what CP armies is- an anarchic community where there is very little guideline as to what proper protocol is. It’s clear it’s necessary to have firm agreements on what the rules actually are.

A Broken System with No Fixer 

Once again, I’ve established yet another reason for why the entire system is broken. Spi’s statement is simply the most recent of evidence that there are really no clear rules, however badly we need them for the community to function properly. But the issue at hand is that clearly there’s no one who’s able to fix it. 

The most interesting thing in Spi’s passage was probably how he said that CPAC did not set any rules regarding invasion ignoring, thus meaning that he could ignore the invasions, which would make them completely invalid.  This is an assumption, then, that CPAC sets the rules. But does CPAC set the rules? As powerful an entity as it is, CPAC cannot set any rules and it has no real say over issues outside of its own power. 

Yet no one would agree on a Council, certainly. So is there anyone who can set the rules at all? At this point, I’m still yet unsure. It’s necessary to have rules- I think I’ve established that quite clearly -but there’s no one who has the power to set the rules.

Closing Thoughts (and a bit of opinion!) 

You probably have your own opinion on the issue of LT’s declaration of war, and I do too. I’ll state it right here. (Remember: it’s an editorial. Calm down before you scream at me for having an opinion). Personally, I feel it’s simply illogical for LT to say that the NDA invasions were invalid because they ignored them: ignoring invasions does not mean they are invalid. That makes no sense. The insistence that AR must recognize LT’s invasions, then, is also hypocritical. 

This reminds me of a post Boomer made long ago called ‘Of All the Things I Lost, I Miss My Mind the Most’. The post talked about all sorts of craziness that armies were up to in a war at that time- how everything was illogical. Same thing here. It’s a nice representation of how there aren’t any real rules in armies, however much we need them. That’s just my opinion of course- feel free to have your own. LT’s invasions may be valid or invalid- I don’t know. AR might be able to ignore LT’s declaration of war with legitimate reasons- I don’t know either. 

Why? Because there aren’t any rules of the game, anyway. 

Thanks for reading. 


CPAC Executive Producer


30 Responses

  1. before the rage commences:
    -i clearly stated this is an editorial. i am allowed to write my opinion in an editorial. so yes, the last paragraph had my opinion. no need to be shocked that cpac writers have opinion.
    -this post changes nothing. i know that. cring. omguarmyleedurshudlisten2me ikeepwritingthiscrap4u lol jk


  2. Great post. The invaders having to pursue the defender rule was always a bit silly though. It should be the other way around because in real wars if an army defending their land didn’t follow the enemy the enemy would clearly get through…


    • The general idea of an invasion is to break through the enemies’ defenses, and thus the rule was born.


  3. CPAC are merely a media, not an organization that sets out the rules. LT seem to ignore whatever armies they want whenever things aren’t looking good for them.
    For example, during the ACP vs LT war:
    UMA declares war on LT. // LT Ignores invasions.
    RPF declares war on LT. // LT claims it is invalid.
    DCP declares war on LT. // LT claims it is invalid.

    Looks to me like the L.T. are playing by their own rules, using irrelevant excuses to save their own skin.


  4. “Lets ignore NDA’s invasions”
    *Declares war on AR*
    “You cannot ignore our invasions”


  5. I know it’s relevant, but I just don’t think the title matches with the post.


  6. I’m starting to think lt is gay, nice post




  8. LT has been topping the charts. No one likes them anymore.


  9. Great post Splashier. Light troops are pulling a double standard. They “ignore” NDA’s invasions, yet we have to follow their invalid invasions? No. Light troops, You desperately need some knowledge.


  10. We need the rules to return somehow and in someway that EVERYONE will agree to. Chances of that happening are as slim as Pain leading ACP.


  11. How to Read Posts on CPAC
    1. Get redirected to the comments section
    2. Scroll up
    3. See post is really long
    4. Comment tl;dr
    5. Join the comment wars


  12. Fuck the rules lool


  13. Game? THIS ISN’T A GAME! THIS. IS. LIFE!!!!


  14. This has been a point I’ve tried hammering across multiple times. We have no rules that are agreed upon. The mere idea of a council just brings protest. Let’s just face this.
    Unless we finally agree on something we will continue down this path.




  16. […] chaotic lack of rules used to be, and still is, an issue that prompted many to call for unity between armies in order to […]


What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: