Jump to content

Global War 14 War Declaration & Treaty Webs


Placentica
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Sorry to say it, fam, but those are some of the most illegible scribblings I have ever seen and I can't make heads nor tails of what you're getting at with any of it.

So, I suppose by that logic it is perfectly reflective of the actual war, which I also can't make any sense of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is a brief legend you can reference or clarified in the OP.

Edited by Placentica
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

i just assumed that was the point

It sorta is.  It's not supposed to tell you what x and y alliance did, but how intertwined each coalition is and how the reality of treaties and the actual practice of them are two different things.

Take Grumpy - you have just a few treaties ingame, but when it comes to the actual practice that shoots up to 10+ defacto treaties.  it's common practice in coalition fighting and I'm not making a judgement call here.  I would say it's quite clear we have 2 spheres based on the first image and given the sheer amount of cross-attacks.

For example:

Alliance A has no ingame treaties.

Alliance B has 5 ingame treaties.

Alliance A goes in with 10 other alliances (defacto MAP).

Who has more treaties?

or

Alliance C has 20 ingame treaties, but come wartime doesn't honor any of them.  Do we measure our allies by peacetime or wartime?

Edited by Placentica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rollo said:

No reflective surfaces where you are, I see. 

I'm rubber and you're glue anything you say to me bounces off of me and sticks to you.

I think that comeback is relative to your mental status...tell me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Mad Max
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HopeSolo said:

Yea, I agree with you Mad Max, Placentica is such a retard!

whoa whoa - I might not like the guys In-game IC persona, but I was strictly talking about the lines.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Placentica said:

It sorta is.  It's not supposed to tell you what x and y alliance did, but how intertwined each coalition is and how the reality of treaties and the actual practice of them are two different things.

Take Grumpy - you have just a few treaties ingame, but when it comes to the actual practice that shoots up to 10+ defacto treaties.  it's common practice in coalition fighting and I'm not making a judgement call here.  I would say it's quite clear we have 2 spheres based on the first image and given the sheer amount of cross-attacks.

For example:

Alliance A has no ingame treaties.

Alliance B has 5 ingame treaties.

Alliance A goes in with 10 other alliances (defacto MAP).

Who has more treaties?

or

Alliance C has 20 ingame treaties, but come wartime doesn't honor any of them.  Do we measure our allies by peacetime or wartime?

I understand the line of logic you're applying here and I'm not necessarily disagreeing if its a repeated pattern. Just in practice though, coalitions forming is the natural way a healthy multi-polar political system works.

So for comparison, if fighting in the same war on the same side becomes a de facto treaty... Does signing a treaty mean you become de facto the same alliance? I've honestly made the argument before that M-level treaties are effectively signing over your alliance's sovereignty so the argument is there to be made. You just also have to acknowledge that it's situational.

If Chaos and KETOG form repeated coalitions then yes they can be considered de facto allied. If not then no, they're merely participants in a global war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
 
 
Just now, The Point Guard said:

Did you forget this is an OOC section of the forums?

Nope - I understand that this is of Out of Game Discussions of Game Politics.

Did you forget?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Point Guard said:

Did you forget this is an OOC section of the forums?

ur mom's an OOC section of the forums

  • Haha 1

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Nope - I understand that this is of Out of Game Discussions of Game Politics.

Did you forget?

I'm not the one calling people "retarded" in an OOC section of the forums, then backtracking and passive aggressively editing posts.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
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.