Jump to content

Paperless Treaty Web - Upper Tier Alliances


Placentica
 Share

Recommended Posts

First off, we need one.  Post your alliances you think have paperless treaties with each other.  If I am missing anything in my treaty web, let me know.

Secondly, after discussing what are some of the main alliances with larger upper tiers, I realized they were basically all either chain-paperless treatied to each other...or have been rolled/marginalized.  Since games like this still put an emphasis on a winning the upper tier, this is very important to changing the political environment.  You will notice that in the following paperless upper tier treaty web how little these alliances fight (if ever).  TEst was rolled once, a few others a very long time ago, but you really don't see several of these alliances fighting several others within the paperless web/circle below.  The middle 6 even less so.  This is the most important political dynamic and the reason for the current stagnation, which has lasted for quite some time, well over a year imo.  The IQ and NB wars doing nothing to really change anything politically.  Nor have recent curbstomps or the TKR/TRF-TGH/KT war, or when a previous version of TEst was rolled. 

We all know that upper tier alliances don't like to fight each other in a situation they could lose, but if upper tier alliances don't want to lose infra or really fight, what does that really mean for this game?

erjxxH9.jpg

Other alliances with a large upper tier by city count not on this web:

Paperless: TEst-KT/TGH

Recently Rolled: KT, TGH, SK, Empyrea

Could be possibly be added?: Tesla, CoA, NK, Fark, Polaris

Edited by Placentica
Rose-tS update
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've certainly gotten some of these ties correct (I mean some are dead obvious at this point) and others are from my knowledge way off. In saying that I have been proven wrong before, we as a community seem to have transitioned into what I would call more 'secretive' treaties or agreements than paperless ties.

Paperless ties in the past, you rarely had to question who was allied with who. Think Guardian-SK or Guardian-TEst, no treaty existed but we knew where they stood. These days that doesn't seem to be clear at all and some alliances actively hide their association.

I'll will give you one thing, there are alliances with upper tiers who complain about boredom but seem to shy away from any actual warfare with other similar alliances to alleviate it. I don't believe though that it is because they are all allied at this point.

Edited by Keegoz
  • Upvote 3

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

You've certainly gotten some of these ties correct (I mean some are dead obvious at this point) and others are from my knowledge way off. In saying that I have been proven wrong before, we as a community seem to have transitioned into what I would call more 'secretive' treaties or agreements than paperless ties.

Paperless ties in the past, you rarely had to question who was allied with who. Think Guardian-SK or Guardian-TEst, no treaty existed but we knew where they stood. These days that doesn't seem to be clear at all and some alliances actively hide their association.

I'll will give you one thing, there are alliances with upper tiers who complain about boredom but seem to shy away from any actual warfare with other similar alliances to alleviate it. I don't believe though that it is because they are all allied at this point.

I think it's honestly more that alot of them are just afraid. Of the uncertainty, of risk, or losing. Everyone's treatied to everyone, either blatantly into large blocs or suspected of secretly being organized into one anyway. Nobody wants to move or do anything because everyone expects a massive war over it, they want to wait for opportunities for smaller wars. But nobody wants to do anything to anyone else, so nobody gets distracted or tied up in anything, so there's almost never any chance for anybody to do anything, and even if there is such a chance, they're likely to miss it wasting their time worrying about the risks, and uncertainty of this and that, and possibly losing and so end up doing nothing and playing it safe, instead of playing risky and going for it.

Even though taking risks is the only way to move forward in anything. It's just one giant gridlock where everybody feels they have alot - too much, to lose and never enough prospective gain.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I always knew CoS was tied to TKR. frick you @Spaceman Thrax

 

 

We're chilling in a Steve thread for a break from how awful the rest of the forums are. I think it's frick everyone. :D

Is this something we want to have a serious conversation about? I'm game but if it's going to be just me I won't bother.

Realistically speaking, there is actually no incentive in this game to wage war. Inertia tends to favour inaction. To get to be a larger alliance, you need to have been around for a while, which means probably most of these alliances have already sized each other up and probably smashed each other already if they had a real drive to.

 

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI - you are missing the Grumpy/Hogwarts block.

To address why Grumpy doesn't fight more often, it has nothing to do with being afraid to fight.  If I am going to roll out for war its not going to be for the lulz.  I'm rolling out to protect according to this web above, my ally in guardian, or I am rolling out to fight in a war that benefits my alliance. (see war with nuke bloc)  It's not that we are afraid to fight, or afraid to lose, it is my responsibility as the leader of my alliance to put my alliance in a position to succeed.  If going to war every month was the way to do that, I would happily do it, but with the cost of war being so high at our size its not.  I would rather wait and be completely prepared to fight in a large global war, than fight in little expensive skirmishes every month or two.

Also to people that think all the upper tier alliances are allied to each other, I can tell you right now that is not true we are not.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pool is muddied by people who claim they aren't allied and actually are, or people who hide behind secret treaties. There is a difference between being paperless and a coward. I think those are plac's points. 

  • Upvote 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Avakael said:

I was underneath the impression that with just a few exceptions, there's virtually no beef between any of those alliances.

And yet the majority of them complain about "No slots" when in a war once in a blue moon.  Either due to out of range, or having numerical supremacy in their tiering.

3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Also to people that think all the upper tier alliances are allied to each other, I can tell you right now that is not true we are not.

lol.  I wouldn't say all, but uh... a good chunk of them are, or tied in some manner just like how Syndisphere exploited their treaty chains back in the day.

4 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Realistically speaking, there is actually no incentive in this game to wage war.

Realistically speaking, the only time every player gets to actually "play" is during a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre beat me to it. Some are wrong, some are right. One that is missing is TKR-GOB, who would 100% come to each other's defense in the event of an attack. But the point is correct, there's lots of paperless treaties out there, especially from alliances who claim they want to shake things up / not stagnate the game, while at the same time giving shit to IQ for having too many paper treaties. Well at least people know where they stand. :P 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

Pre beat me to it. Some are wrong, some are right. One that is missing is TKR-GOB, who would 100% come to each other's defense in the event of an attack. But the point is correct, there's lots of paperless treaties out there, especially from alliances who claim they want to shake things up / not stagnate the game, while at the same time giving shit to IQ for having too many paper treaties. Well at least people know where they stand. :P 

says the guy in a paperless alliance...

And its Grumpy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Buorhann said:

And yet the majority of them complain about "No slots" when in a war once in a blue moon.  Either due to out of range, or having numerical supremacy in their tiering.

I haven't had that issue in years, myself, but that'll be because I'm usually on the outnumbered side.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Anyway, regardless of the accuracy of the claims of who being tied to who, consolidations of tiers is a bad thing on any level. I get why IQ has done it, but I don't think it's a good thing for game health. I don't think the top tiers being conjoined would be conducive either and would personally be against such things happening.  

I mean IQ did it to respond to an already existing system of consolidation in specific tiers. We would keep losing wars if attempted to play into those hands, we decided to claim our own tier. 

I mean Steve has a valid point in trying to showcase paperless treaties. Its always to blame IQ for stagnation when we've done more to keep things ticking along than most of the upper tier alliances in the last year. Paperless ties and inertia amongst them, leaves the sides pretty much intact since the end of ToT. I'd be surprised if any of those folks would seriously go out of their way to do anything different though. 

  • Upvote 1
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.