Why Treaties are Bad

[Chunky Monkey]

So basically the GPA is the best alliance due to not having any treaties?

Let me reuse a comment I made before. Last I checked the game is called "Politics & War", not "Spreadsheets & Shitposting".

[Foltest]

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.

 

It's pretty easy to post logs and screenshots. Reputation isn't purely reliant on treaties.

[Buorhann]

Let me reuse a comment I made before. Last I checked the game is called "Politics & War", not "Spreadsheets & Shitposting".

 

 

Damnit.  I'm in the wrong game.

[Chapsie]

Let me reuse a comment I made before. Last I checked the game is called "Politics & War", not "Spreadsheets & Shitposting".

We joke we joke, I don't think we should be restraining anyone to do anything. If you want to do spreadsheets to organize data in your nation/alliance, I see no problem with it. A "War war war" policy? I don't see a problem with it. Play how you want as it's a game. If you don't like what's going on, just make something yourself and have fun with the game.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Chappie

[Jodo]

Thought about it.

 

Reread it.

 

Wholeheartedly agree with the op.

[Warburg]

I really liked this post. Treaty webs initially appear like they help the little guy: the small, newly formed alliances out there that get to attach themselves to the dominant players. By doing so, they don't have the worry about being rolled by a larger alliance, when in actually--as OP points out--they are pretty much sacrificing any hope of being able to develop a sovereign foreign policy by becoming a subset of whatever "sphere" they've aligned with. A separate entity in name, but not in function. 

 

Statistically, I am curious: How much danger is a new small to medium sized alliance in if they don't attach themselves to a political sphere through signing lots of treaties? 

 

Is the treaty web system supported by force, or simply by being perceived as general orthodoxy? Is it a verbal smokescreen, or a physical cartel? If that makes any sense 

[Clarke]

This is all fine and dandy but when you involve yourself in wars you aren't obliged to take part in you're adding to the atmosphere that encourages more treaties. 

You can make points about it making the game more fluid but its makes the game more opportunistic as well. 

I'm missing the analogy but by trying to be that way you're encouraging more alliances to sign treaties and if you sign more treaties you're encouraging more alliances to sign more treaties. Its a never ending cycle.

This opinion isn't any different than the morons who want to see the world turn into a communist utopia, sorry but it ain't going to happen and its really not going to be that good if it did happen. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Clarke

[Auctor]

I really liked this post. Treaty webs initially appear like they help the little guy: the small, newly formed alliances out there that get to attach themselves to the dominant players. By doing so, they don't have the worry about being rolled by a larger alliance, when in actually--as OP points out--they are pretty much sacrificing any hope of being able to develop a sovereign foreign policy by becoming a subset of whatever "sphere" they've aligned with. A separate entity in name, but not in function. 

 

Statistically, I am curious: How much danger is a new small to medium sized alliance in if they don't attach themselves to a political sphere through signing lots of treaties? 

 

Is the treaty web system supported by force, or simply by being perceived as general orthodoxy? Is it a verbal smokescreen, or a physical cartel? If that makes any sense

Well, Arrgh used to specifically single them out and hump them like a bunch of monkeys making love to a stuffed animal, but it's a solid question to ask now.

[Ogaden]

Well, Arrgh used to specifically single them out and hump them like a bunch of monkeys making love to a stuffed animal, but it's a solid question to ask now.

That's not true, we actually preferred to go after people with treaties, preferably lots of them

[Arthur James]

I don't think more treaties are bad, but who you are agreed to sign the pack.

Arrgh! Isn't the cases that you guys have a long list of no-raid treaties and then break all of it bcos your character is pirate??

Yes, I think the partner should be more trustworthy before signing the treaties, but it does not mean more power bcos each of them have their own gain/lost to be think of.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Arthur James

[Eumirbago]

That's not true, we actually preferred to go after people with treaties, preferably lots of them

This is true

[Spite]

If mensa didn't have at least some allies it could rely on we would be screwed.

[Hereno]

treaties let you actually see who is going to do what and plan things out

 

paperless alliances aren't actually paperless. they would be better referred to as "alliances who hide their treaties from public knowledge".

 

it is a strategy in and of itself - by obfuscating things you make it a lot harder for someone to know exactly how strong you are wrt who will actually defend you if attacked

 

if everybody was paperless, i think you'd see a lot less wars. you're more likely to get wars if people can sit and add things up and know that they're going to win (or at least that there's a good chance)

 

beyond that, treaties serve as a way to deter attack through showing how much force you have. they let you put things, well, "on paper", where they can serve as a political tool in numerous ways. this isn't a reason that they're necessary, but all in all, i think the treaty web is a lot better for the game than you guys want to make it out to be, for all of the above reasons. in short, it exists for a reason, and just trying to get everybody to agree not to have it is probably never going to work without a serious disinformation campaign.

[Warburg]

if everybody was paperless, i think you'd see a lot less wars. 

 

I think Ogaden's argument was that, without as many treaties (only essential ones), you'd see a lot less wars too, as you wouldn't be dragged into wars but would have to prompt them yourself. So even if treaties serve to deter some wars as you pointed out, they also drag you into other wars, and the net sum is argued as being positive (more wars). You said it yourself, having a web of treaties allows the key players to "line up" and predict what will fall where, which increases the incentive to attack (for whoever is on the stronger side of the predicted alignment). 

 

I don't know if that's true or not, I don't know the history of the game or have any statistical backing, but I think that's the argument being made. 

[Hereno]

I think Ogaden's argument was that, without as many treaties (only essential ones), you'd see a lot less wars too, as you wouldn't be dragged into wars but would have to prompt them yourself. So even if treaties serve to deter some wars as you pointed out, they also drag you into other wars, and the net sum is argued as being positive (more wars). You said it yourself, having a web of treaties allows the key players to "line up" and predict what will fall where, which increases the incentive to attack (for whoever is on the stronger side of the predicted alignment). 

 

I don't know if that's true or not, I don't know the history of the game or have any statistical backing, but I think that's the argument being made.

it would be nice if the web were more fragmented and so you could have more minor, isolated war incidents that weren't global, but again, the web exists for a reason. not having allies either on or off paper and doing anything results in you being rolled by anybody larger than you or anybody who has a single friend willing to do it. it is in the interest of less politically-prominent alliances to tie themselves into the web for protection. yes, this allows them to be used by the "shot-callers" in their wars, but that's the game.

 

you can't change game theory without changing the game. as an example, the prisoner's dilemma will always be the prisoner's dilemma until you change how the game works to encourage a different result. you guys are sitting there trying to convince the prisoners that option A is in their best interest. but they aren't stupid. you might not like option B for this reason or that but until you change the circumstances you will not get people picking any other option. pretty much everybody here agrees that strength should be in numbers - okay well everybody ganging up together to pursue (sometimes very vaguely) mutual interests is a result of that. what's even worse is that you've almost set it in stone who the most powerful alliances will always be because you've given them all seniority which translates to being the most powerful nations in the game more or less forever unless they really, really screw up. i've suggested changing it - everybody calls me stupid and says "good luck". well, there you have it. you guys have the game you wanted. and you're still complaining.

[Warburg]

Thanks for clarifying Hereno that made lots of sense

[Crust]

It's better to argue for changes in the system, rather than discarding the system all together. It's a prisoner's dilemma in itself, there's no way in hell the top alliances would turn paperless because that puts their nemesis at an advantage, even if they as well desire less treaties.

 

I am however impressed with alliance like NK who take a bold move against the spidernet. Having a paperless sphere could maybe change things up a bit. Plus that void needs to be filled now that arrgh has been severly crippled.

[SoS]

So basically the GPA is the best alliance due to not having any treaties?

Yeah, you basically avoid being hit 99% of the time simply by being irrelevant to politics.

[Apeman]

It's better to argue for changes in the system, rather than discarding the system all together. It's a prisoner's dilemma in itself, there's no way in hell the top alliances would turn paperless because that puts their nemesis at an advantage, even if they as well desire less treaties.

 

I am however impressed with alliance like NK who take a bold move against the spidernet. Having a paperless sphere could maybe change things up a bit. Plus that void needs to be filled now that arrgh has been severly crippled.

We love filling voids.

[Crust]

You can fill my void anyway, apeman

[Woot]

Of course the treaty web needs to be abandoned. It's infested with !@#$ing spiders.

 

[Prefontaine]

It's better to argue for changes in the system, rather than discarding the system all together. It's a prisoner's dilemma in itself, there's no way in hell the top alliances would turn paperless because that puts their nemesis at an advantage, even if they as well desire less treaties.

 

I am however impressed with alliance like NK who take a bold move against the spidernet. Having a paperless sphere could maybe change things up a bit. Plus that void needs to be filled now that arrgh has been severly crippled.

 

Yeah, paperless alliances could never take hold and rule the political atmosphere in the game. That would totes never happen gais,

[Crust]

Fiesty!

[Ivan the Red]

The mentality behind the current treaty web is still influenced from past games whose extremely limited game mechanics meant wars were won simply by the side who dropped more bodies. Under such mechanics there was little option but to build the largest possible treaty network.

 

This game, however, works under better mechanics, in which quality matters and you do not always want to drop more and more bodies because overcrowding just increases casualties in your bloc without enhancing performance. And, if you suck, someone else dropping bodies on your behalf will not save you.

 

As a result, we are now seeing limited wars in which the parties involved prefer to not have their allies involved. Perhaps we are going to slowly transition to smaller blocs and more fluid conflicts that will not necessary become always global wars.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[Sval]

Some things are worth surrendering a little sovereignty for.

Loyalty to friends. Honourable conduct. Personal conviction. All a treaty really does is give form to this intent so that it's made apparent to others.