Popular Post Ogaden Posted April 21, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2016 It seems to be accepted wisdom that the only thing wrong with treaties is not having enough of them. More treaties = more power! All those allies of yours who will happily march into the meat grinder to further your glorious ambitions and provide a barrier between you and any enemy seeking to harm you. Signing a million treaties is only bad for the game because stagnation or because it makes you a !@#$, but that's someone else's problem man, for you it's ballin'. Few people seem to realize that treaties themselves have significant downsides which erode your sovereignty, earn you enemies and makes you a target for wars, the exact things that treaties are supposed to protect you from. Most alliances have enormous requirements for declarations of war against another alliance. Democratic alliances could require the whole alliance to vote in favor, or only the emperor is allowed to declare war, and is a decision made with gravity and seriousness. If you have even one treaty though, this entire process is hijacked and you are thrown into someone else's conflict because you signed a piece of e-paper. The decision as to when and how and upon whom you declare peace or war is the most significant element of sovereignty an alliance has, and treaties with any mandatory defense clause destroy this. For reasons unknown, this surrender of sovereignty to third parties is often done with happiness, as alliances don't want the stress and burden of maintaining their own foreign policy, and essentially cede control of this to their "allies" (masters?) who take a more proactive view of foreign policy. In this instance, you no longer control your foreign policy, you ally controls your foreign policy, you are no longer an alliance, you are a subset of your ally's alliance. You have just made yourself into a vassal state. This surrender of sovereignty is significant but unheralded, and the slaves insist they are free, and prove it by going from one master to another. The ugly secret about treaties is that they do not keep you safe. A treaty is an aggressive act, not a defensive one. A treaty is essentially a declaration of war in a bottle, which you hand to someone else for them to make use of in an emergency. It is less like a shield and more like a daisy chain of grenades. Because of the nature of defensive treaties, having a treaty with the target of a war can mean that due to the sick logic of treaty chess, you are the one attacked, as was seen with the war against Rose where Mensa HQ attacked Vanguard instead of Rose, knowing that Rose will have no choice but to counterattack. Did Vanguard joining a bloc with VE and Rose keep them safe? No, it made them a target. The giant blobs of treaties which have amalgamated into three vague blocs of paper essentially view each other as a threat, and so have made enemies out of each others constituent alliances who had few and isolated prior arguments, purely due to the fact that they exist as rival power structures. Rather than disengage from these power structures and maintain their own foreign policy, the answer to this hostility and looming warfare is MORE TREATIES. Yes, always more treaties with more power blocs, every important alliance must be connected directly to you! This leads to the final absurdity of treaties in that in the end it's a promise, and not everyone keeps their promises. After all the downsides of hostility and partisanship, alienating alliances due to your connections, loss of sovereignty, loss of independence and increased risk to yourself for signing so many treaties, in the end when your alliance is attacked by your various enemies and rivals, half those treaties are worthless because those allies also have treaties with your enemies and the half that don't will find any excuse not to defend you. So put the pen down, stop being such a !@#$ and have some self control, for !@#$ sake. Note: this is a repost from my blog from a year ago, which I guess noone read 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenbarca2001 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It makes the game fun tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNG Posted April 21, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2016 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! 16 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TellUrGrlThx Posted April 21, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2016 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 !@#$ed up. If you can't laugh off the damage and have fun with your fellow ally then what's the point of allying them? 15 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin D Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I blame the GPA. I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 I believe you should only treaty those who you are willing to defend no matter what they do. If it isn't felt both ways then it isn't a treaty you should have. I'd gladly march to my death for my allies no matter how bad they !@#$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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollocks Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Quote The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keza Purple Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Too much treaties= less wars too much agreements= everybody gets along so so so well totally There should be contracts instead We should go back in time and let everyone fight each other 1 Quote <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 More sharing options...
Yosodog Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Hey Ogaden, wanna sign a treaty? 6 Quote [22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made BK in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Arrgh FA is the best though, right? 2 Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) Note: this is a repost from my blog from a year ago, which I guess noone read Blogs are stupid Edited April 22, 2016 by Metro Quote 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: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Metro are stupid Quote 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 More sharing options...
Popular Post Fraggle Posted April 22, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2016 The best solution to this is chaos. I hereby propose the following: Eliminate all alliances. No more treaties. No more structure of alliances. Backstabbing be damned, chaos for all. Also, on a completely different topic (yea sorry Ogaden, I know people will read this thread so I'll hijack it a bit) I'm selling all my nuclear weapons and spy services to any nation or "alliance" for a fair price. Plus food....lots of food on futures contracts. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraggle Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunky Monkey Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Last time I checked the game was called "Politics & War" not "War & War". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kurdanak Posted April 22, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2016 I believe the genius who posted right before Auctor had the exact same idea. Plus she may or may not be selling loose nukes.Sorry, we didn't notice. I think you need to increase the font size a few more times. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) So basically the GPA is the best alliance due to not having any treaties? Edited April 22, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crust Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. 1 Quote 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* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) 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 April 22, 2016 by Corvo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 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. Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.