KLONDIKE, CPA Headquarters – Dual enlistments are often a topic that can have a variety of different opinions ranging from positive to negative. Are dual enlistments beneficial for armies? Do armies believe that dual enlistments can be damaging?
Dual enlistment sparks a lot of debate regarding whether or not they have a positive or negative impact on an army. However, the argument can be related not just to the impact that they could potentially have, but to the impact on the overall reputation of an army. To define ‘dual enlisters’: they are troops that decide to enlist into more than one army at a time.
It is possible that enlisting in multiple armies could expose a troop to the wider army community and could therefore be beneficial in increasing their knowledge and experience of how armies work. Thus, helping the troop to develop further and gain enough experience to make an impact on the community.
When broadening the scope of the issue, though, it is arguable that dual enlistments could be both beneficial and costly. Regarding the benefits; a dual enlister contributes towards the max size of an army in an event. They could also help run the army with moderation or recruitment. On the other hand, dual enlistments can be seen as unreliable for tournaments or wars. Some community events disallow dual enlisters to attend for both of their armies, meaning they must pick one army to attend for. This can impact the reputation of an army for holding a troop base of mainly dual enlisters in the army, demonstrating a lack of loyalty.
War terms were set out between Help Force and Silver Empire in April 2021.
For example, if either army in this war had dual enlisters, those troops would not be allowed to participate. This is an extreme negative for an army, as they can lose a good chunk of their troops due to their dual enlist status. Though not all wars and tournaments bar dual enlisters from participating, it is definitely a popular stipulation.
To explore this ongoing debate of dual enlistments further, CPAHQ sought the opinions of three major army leaders.
What would you say are the positives of dual enlistments?
Xing: Artificial growth.
Kally: A dual enlister can enjoy a wider variety of events, as no two armies are the same. Two communities can maybe equal double the amount of friends, and a wider awareness of the overall army community.
Zeus: A positive side for dual enlists are a troop could experience other armies if they are curious while being in another army.
On the other hand, what would you say are the negatives of dual enlistments?
As stated by the leaders, dual enlisting widens the amount of experiences that a troop experiences, which helps them to better their understanding of the community. Conversely, the leaders agreed that dual enlistments are problematic when events clash between a dual enlisters army, or if there is a function where dual enlisters were not allowed. The question of loyalty can be raised too, alongside the reputation of the army. Ultimately, dual enlistment brings positives and negatives to the table. Its effectiveness is determined by the army leaders in how they manage troops who happen to be in multiple armies.