Advertisements
  • Welcome to CPA

    Since April 26th, 2019, Club Penguin Armies has been the top provider for news pertaining to the CPPS (Club Penguin Private Server) army community. CPA hosts a wide variety of content, such as tournaments, top tens, and discussion posts; all encouraging the community to participate. The site is truly the leading hub for everyone interested in the CPPS army scene. -CPA Staff
  • Recent Posts

  • Advertisements
    Advertisements
    Advertisements
    Advertisements

Admitting Defeat? A look into WWIII

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
♣~♦~♥
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Table of Contents:

  1. Overview
  2. Interviews
  3. Poll

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
1. OVERVIEW
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

For years, admitting defeat has been a constant struggle among armies. Who decides who won? How does one decide who won? Well, I won’t be getting into those questiosn here. Instead, I will present the other side of the metaphoric coin: Should armies admit defeat at all?

I’ll be using Club Penguin WWIII as a basis for my examples. Those of us who remember WWIII remember it fondly as the greatest war Club Penguin armies have ever waged. It raged from late 2006 until June 25th, 2007, at the Battle of Wool Socks. But what exactly set this war apart from other wars, and even other World Wars? Besides the vast scale in which it was fought, the main component of the war’s “success” was the lack of contact between soldiers. Leaders of the opposing forces rarely had any contact beyond arguments, and–since Xat chats had not yet been widely used–ACP soldier never had the opportunity to talk to UMA soldiers face-to-face.

Why did no contact between armies enhance the lifespan of WWIII? Because when a you fight a friend, you are more likely to admit defeat or accept victory humble, then go back to being allies. On the other hand, when you fight a stranger you are more likely to fight until one of the armies is completely destroyed. War at its finest. And up until the summer of 2007, neither the  ACP and RPF nor the UMA would ever admit defeat ( excluding the Battle of Mammoth [click for video], where the ACP clearly lost ) at any battle, no matter who should have won by today’s standards.

That’s right, not admitting defeat helped prolong a war for SEVEN MONTHS. Isn’t that the kind of war we strive for today? At the Battle of Breeze [click for video] the ACP, RPF, and CPAF claimed to have defeated (ACP post, RPF Post) the UMA. However, the UMA claimed to have won aswell. Did this affect anyone? Not really. The ensuing arguments just set the stage for the next monumental battle, and so on.

Not until the Battle of Wool Socks [click for post] did the war finally end. Oagalthorp ( 3rd person ftw! ) talked with the new UMA leader, Mpenguin123, and because of this friendship the war ended with an ACP-UMA alliance. Had the two not become friends, the war might have raged on for another 2 or 3 months until the UMA war completely destroyed.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
2. INTERVIEWS
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Interview with Fort57, former ACP leader & WWIII veteran . . .

Oagal: How do you feel about armies admitting defeat? Should the leaders take the high road and admit when they lose–risking a loss of soldiers and an end to the war–or claim to win the battle so as to continue the war and keep up troop morale?

Fort57: I think that if you know you’ve lost you should admit defeat, plus I hate it when the other side doesn’t admit defeat when they lose.

Oagal: Well put. But what about in WWIII, when admitting defeat meant the possibility of losing the entire war?

Fort57: I suppose that’s a different circumstance. Besides, most of the battles were very close, and alliances played a big factor in the whole war.

Oagal: True, true. When you led the ACP, how did you decide whether to admit defeat or claim victory after a battle?

Fort57:  The only time I could ever admit defeat in a battle is if we are completely outnumbered by the other side, and if everyone has to leave and can’t be there to continue the war.

Oagal: Good call. Well, thank you for your time. Any final statements?

Fort57: Nope!

Oagal: xD

Interview with Hollow (Shadow 2447), former Nacho leader and WWIII veteran . . .

Oagal: How do you feel about armies admitting defeat? Should the leaders take the high road and admit when they lose–risking a loss of soldiers and an end to the war–or claim to win the battle so as to continue the war and keep up troop morale?

Hollow:  Winning is different in everybody’s eyes. Over the course of the past year I’ve felt that the winning army is obviously the more aggressive army. It’s not about exact numbers, but how big your numbers look and how they’re used. Battles these days are just drills that can be ran over and over.

Oagal: Interesting perspective. What about in WWIII, when admitting defeat meant the possibility of losing the entire war?

Hollow: Back in WWIII it was different. Of course we didn’t want to end a war so we did our best to win every battle, whether it be unscheduled or scheduled. The unscheduled battles obviously became as big of a role as the scheduled ones did as a matter of recruits came.

Oagal: Agreed. When you led the Nachos, how did you decide whether to admit defeat or claim victory after a battle?

Hollow: The Nachos were never a gigantic with 40+ at every big battle back then. We had some great unscheduled battle runs though. We were never really the army for the official-show-up-at-a-certain-time gig. Winning in my opinion was accomplishing the mission we set out to do. If it was a raid on Mammoth and we did a good job it was a win, but if we failed to protect a server it was a loss.

Oagal: I see, I see. Well thank you for your time. Any final statements?

Hollow: The methods used to judge a battle are over-interpreted decision methods from the past.

Interview with Boomer 20, former ACP leader and WWIII veteran . . .

Oagal: How do you feel about armies admitting defeat? Should the leaders take the high road and admit when they lose–risking a loss of soldiers and an end to the war–or claim to win the battle so as to continue the war and keep up troop morale?

Boomer 20: I feel it’s important for army leaders to admit defeat when their army loses, because if no one did this, it would be complete chaos and no one would want to go to war in the first place knowing they would have to deal with that. If you do have to admit defeat, I think it is important to use it as motivation with your soldiers in order to encourage them to work even harder.  You can’t become discouraged if you are defeated one time, train harder and come back stronger the next time.

Oagal: Good point–the ACP used this strategy after their loss at the Battle of Mammoth and more recently the loss to the IW in that practice battle a few weeks ago. But what about in WWIII, when admitting defeat meant the possibility of losing the entire war?

Boomer 20: I think in the case of World Wars it becomes a little more complicated.  You can admit defeat in the battle, but you will not have lost the war (necessarily).  I think it’s important that you don’t surrender however, just keep fighting until you gain the upper hand and hopefully win the war.  I think the only time admitting defeat in a World War would be the better option is if staying in the war and being annihilated on a daily basis is going to serious damage to the army, and you need to surrender in order to rebuild and/or prevent collapse.

Oagal: I see where you’re coming from. When you led the ACP, how did you decide whether to admit defeat or claim victory after a battle?

Boomer 20: The easiest way is to talk to the other leader(s), and if they agree that you won, then obviously you say you won. If both of you disagree, then I would go back to the pictures that were hopefully taken (I always made sure to have plenty as evidence to support my case).  I looked at size first (I’m not sure if ACP was ever truly outnumbered while I was leader), then at our ability to attack the opponent (if our charges were more effective than theirs, etc.).  I would only admit defeat if we were truly outnumbered/outmaneuvered by the opponent.  I think the only times we were defeated or were close to being defeated were during the unscheduled battles of the ACP/Nachos war in April 2009, which ended in a tie/cease fire.

Oagal: Great insight. Thanks for your time, it’s been great to catch up. Do you have any final statements?

Boomer 20: Thank you for this opportunity, I’m looking forward to the post!

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
3. POLL
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Here’s a quick poll where I will ask you your opinion: If a battle is close, should the disadvantaged army admit defeat or claim victory to continue the war?

If a battle is close, should the leader of the disdvantaged side admit defeat or claim victory?
 Admit defeat: It leads to less arguments and ends wars. 
 Claim victory: It helps troop morale and might continue a really good war. 
 Undecided.

Quantcast

Comment with your opinion!

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
♣~♦~♥
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Welp, I hope you enjoyed reading my first post! I look forward to continuing to help you all better understand the history of CP armies.

~ Oagalthorp
Thanks for reading,
March on!

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. =O

  2. 1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. 1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol lol lol

  4. BIAS TO ACP

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.