Popular Post Placentica Posted June 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) First image tracks defacto treaties based on in-game wars. Yes it's a clusterf*#k. That's also saying something about the nature of treaties in PW. Other images track in-game war declarations, same correlation there and the nature of actual spheres vs. in-game treaty spheres. Red attacker, royal blue defender in the first few days, added light blue for clarity for defense later on. If your alliance is big enough and has declared wars against another alliance it show up in this chart (i.e. Rose/Ming Empire hit BK along with TKR, Soup Kitchen, CoS, SK so that is a red line, defacto MAP/oAP between them all. Then those who hit TKR have defacto MDP/oDP with BK). Sorry to those who are smaller or have few members. I had to leave off about 10 micro alliances as it already is a clusterf*#k of lines. This is an overall picture of links and a broad overview. In-Game War Declarations: (latest through Jun. 20, need to update for Jun. 21) Through Day 1: Through Day 2: Through Day 3: Through Day 4: Listed above. Edited June 22, 2019 by Placentica 6 3 1 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted June 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2019 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)_/¯ 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted June 22, 2019 Author Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) 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 June 22, 2019 by Placentica 1 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migraine d'al Braskia Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lory(FlyingDutchMan) Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Sorry to say but this is a real mess it gives me a headache if i look at this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 8 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. i just assumed that was the point 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 no terminal jest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted June 22, 2019 Author Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) 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 June 22, 2019 by Placentica Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) Whoever downvotes this is just about the most retarded IC persona I've ever seen. Edited June 22, 2019 by Mad Max 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan1 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Thanks, I already had a headache (Take Your Kid To Work Day for 4-7 year old kids at my internship today) but after seeing this I have a migraine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollo Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Mad Max said: Just about the most retarded thing I've seen. No reflective surfaces where you are, I see. Quote STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 You are in the wrong alliance, your talent would be greatly appreciated elsewhere 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) 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 June 22, 2019 by Mad Max 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopeSolo Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Mad Max said: Just about the most retarded thing I've seen. Yea, I agree with you Mad Max, Placentica is such a retard! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Mad Max said: I'm rubber and you're glue anything you say to me bounces off of me and sticks to you. And I have the Glint-Glint Fruit so I'm too fast for you 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Thank you for using the correct Valinor flag. Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Roll Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Mad Max said: Just about the most retarded thing I've seen. Did you forget this is an OOC section of the forums? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 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? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betulius Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 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 1 Quote Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]> God your worse the grealind >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Roll Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 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. 1 3 Quote 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.