Jump to content

Why Treaties are Bad


Ogaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe you should only treaty those who you are willing to defend no matter what they do. If it isn't felt both ways then it isn't a treaty you should have. I'd gladly march to my death for my allies no matter how bad they !@#$ed up. If you can't laugh off the damage and have fun with your fellow ally then what's the point of allying them?

 

That makes good strategic sense and being completely dependable in terms of ally defence will never earn you anything but praise, but when you get to a situation where the majority of the world operates along this policy, you get to a situation where really only 2 or 3 alliances have a foreign policy.

  • Upvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much treaties= less wars 

too much agreements= everybody gets along so so so well totally 

 

There should be contracts instead :P 

 

 

We should go back in time and let everyone fight each other :P 

  • Upvote 1

<Dragonk>Like I drink beer, nto it

 

"You couldn't live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to know how to sign fewer treaties?

Make everyone hate you!

It's pretty simple actually, talk a little shit, get hit, cry about it, and voila!

Worked miracles for me, and if I can do it, so can you!

Stop trying to take other people's credit.

  • Upvote 2
6XmKiC2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: this is a repost from my blog from a year ago, which I guess noone read

Blogs are stupid

Edited by Metro

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro are stupid

2138133.jpg

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want real freedom, we need to get rid of this "alliances" concept. These giant blobs of nations that sometimes mutually defend one another really messes with the mobility in this game.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want real freedom, we need to get rid of this "alliances" concept. These giant blobs of nations that sometimes mutually defend one another really messes with the mobility in this game.

You're farming some organic truth there auctor

  • Upvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're farming some organic truth there auctor

 

 

I believe the genius who posted right before Auctor had the exact same idea. Plus she may or may not be selling loose nukes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to add another wall of text in here, but people could also really learn to recognize when it's time to cancel a treaty.

 

 

 

- Haven't seen hide nor hair of them on your forums / on irc? Time to cancel.

 

- Did they pull a fast one on you and not honor their treaty obligations in a situation where they should've? Time to cancel.

 

- Do they actively attempt / want to fight your other allies? Time to cancel.

 

- Do you actively attempt / want to fight their other allies? Time to cancel.

 

 

etc.

 

 

 

Also, chill with the fear of Non-Aggression Pacts or Optional Defense Pacts. It's ok to not contractually obligate yourself to another group, I swear.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same arguments can be made about alliances. Treaties and allies give out as much as you put in to it. If you think it's gonna be a protective shield against any conflict obviously you're gonna be disappointed, but if you see your ally as a true friend, someone you'd have fun fighting wars with then treaties can be a real treat. Not that you need treaties to do this, but it does help you get invited to the party.

  • Upvote 1

It's my birthday today, and I'm 33!

That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS!

*every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party*

4nVL9WJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaty = If your ally doesn't come to your defense in war then they're publicly humiliated for abandoning their ally.

Informal Verbal Agreement = If your ally doesn't come to your defense in war then they suffer no real loss of reputation.

 

Seems pretty obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaty = If your ally doesn't come to your defense in war then they're publicly humiliated for abandoning their ally.

Informal Verbal Agreement = If your ally doesn't come to your defense in war then they suffer no real loss of reputation.

 

Seems pretty obvious.

It's more like - regardless of what you actually sign, people are going to take you at your word. If you break your word, you damage your reputation. Informal or otherwise.

 

The era of treaties was originally designed to contractually obligate alliances to each other, to be enforced through vengeance and reputation gains/losses. I think it worked for a time until multiple groups stopped signing responsibly and now we have this massive web to deal with everywhere we go - where we feel guilty for signing a new treaty because rather than achieve a political goal it simply chains us down to 30 other groups.

 

Even with "non-chaining" MDP treaties (ie - "I will only defend you in a 1v1 situation" which will never happen for 99% of alliances).

Edited by Corvo
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more like - regardless of what you actually sign, people are going to take you at your word. If you break your word, you damage your reputation. Informal or otherwise.

If the verbal agreement is made public, yes, but if the verbal agreement is made in private then who are the public going to believe? Even if an alliance says "X alliance's leader promised to protect us in war" well that's not the same as breaking an actual treaty for the public to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.