Jump to content
  • entries
    8
  • comments
    86
  • views
    8,804

The treaties go bump in the night


Icewolf

1,156 views

So this is about the treaty web and the fact that so many alliances have conflicting treaties. Which people complain about. A lot. If you are not aware of this, welcome to the OWF, I hope your first time is not too traumatising.

The thing is, everyone has either very very few treaties or treaties that might seem to clash. Yet lots of people bemoan the twisted nature of the web and the insane complex tangle that can now only be expressed in 3D.

However, it continues. In every war there have been alliances that are caught on both sides. Some of these are old treaties that no longer reflect the political landscape, and some are signed with both sides knowing damn well they will be on opposite sides in the future.

The key point though is why? Why does everyone do this? Well, I regard this as painfully simple. I will refer to events in Ender's Shadow (never quite got round to reading Ender's game shhhh). Warning, spoilers below.

When Ender is first made a Captain in the team as they play on the space station he radically changes the strategy for fighting. And they are devastatingly effective. And Bean reflects on this he realises that this is because the accepted doctrine of fighting is a a guaranteed draw. To change and attempt something different risks defeat and a slide down the leaderboard.

Well, the same applies here. Some alliances have figured out that clashing treaties, provided it is properly managed, is a way to play the game that gives them a moderate amount of success. The ability to have a broad spectrum of allies means any challenger must have a broad spectrum of allies as well. If you play in the same way, you are guaranteed a draw, in that you hope to get as many wins and defeats as anyone else and remain roughly speaking where you are.

However, if you were to aggressively change, and go against the grain, you would find yourself fighting as a minority of one. If it succeeded you would be victorious and dominant. If you failed...well there is a long road to climb back up for those that lose in this game.

Ultimately, the tangled treaty web may or may not be the best way to play this game. But unless you are able to be 100% sure that a new stratagem is the way forward, you will not take that risk. This is not the Game of Thrones were you play to win or die. This is the Game of Webs, where you play to survive or die.

11 Comments


Recommended Comments

Alliances should cut all ties with foreign AAs. It worked well for VE(1). Le sigh. Loved VE(1). Anyway, this is the way people play. If we're talking realpolitik, the treaty-whoring method spreads out the risk. With the way power shifts around these parts, alliances consider themselves more secure if their position is more fluid. However, since we're all too deluded to speak plainly, I should mention that in CN people only sign treaties with friends, etc. Seriously, though, there's definitely a relationship component to this, as regards CN. That's why we see some like SF and DH that will stick together through thick and thin, as their bonds do run quite deep.

Note: Depending on who you ask, DH may or may not have been through the thin part of the thick and thin. Heh.

Link to comment

... one would think that a simple adjustment to one web's configuration would create enough damage to the trust at the heart of the web, ultimately dissolving the web. Then, one would simply mobilize all effective capabilities, be it their own military or the combined efforts with others, to engage and eliminate the exposed target.

For example, revealing that a nation which opposed you for some time actually has questionable ethics towards both it's people and it's defeated enemies would shatter the trust developed and hence, crush the web system. These conflicting webs are very difficult to sustain. Just ask Switzerland in world war two. If anyone made one move to discouraging the theory that the swiss were neutral, the rumor would engulf them like a wild fire.

Link to comment

... one would think that a simple adjustment to one web's configuration would create enough damage to the trust at the heart of the web, ultimately dissolving the web. Then, one would simply mobilize all effective capabilities, be it their own military or the combined efforts with others, to engage and eliminate the exposed target.

For example, revealing that a nation which opposed you for some time actually has questionable ethics towards both it's people and it's defeated enemies would shatter the trust developed and hence, crush the web system. These conflicting webs are very difficult to sustain. Just ask Switzerland in world war two. If anyone made one move to discouraging the theory that the swiss were neutral, the rumor would engulf them like a wild fire.

I don't think there is a heart of the web to be shattered.

Link to comment

Bold assertion there. I mean the idea that people complain about conflicting treaties a lot - it feels like it's mostly just CoJ :D

I haven't considered the web as a way of ensuring a "draw" over the long run, but it does seem supported by the data. At the very least, there's the perception that being in the web makes one "safe" somehow, compared to the chaotic, tortured existence of those of us who maintain independence. Considering we're all immortals here, ruling over a collection of pixels, I really wish there were a way to instill a bit more risk-taking in the game, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment. I don't know why alliances that reach the size of IRON or NG etc. would be content to be just another cog in the machine when they could easily break off and create their own thing.

Meanwhile, the alliance rankings are dominated by neutrals, and the alliance ANS rankings are swamped with neutrals at the top, despite relatively few of them out there. There hasn't been an existential threat to an established neutral since The War on Peace.

Link to comment

Don't give them ideas, Prodigal Moon... :P

But seriously, if the content of this entry is the reasoning behind having treaties, it's horribly flawed. Treaties don't really provide safety.

I suspect that they have more to do with having something to do in peace times and with having an excuse to participate in war times.

Link to comment

Don't give them ideas, Prodigal Moon... :P

But seriously, if the content of this entry is the reasoning behind having treaties, it's horribly flawed. Treaties don't really provide safety.

I suspect that they have more to do with having something to do in peace times and with having an excuse to participate in war times.

I wasn't considering if playing the game this way keeps you safe. Obviously in this game there is a clear risk of engaging in politics. My point is that certain people have created what they regard as the best way to play politics, and others follow it because it guarantees they don't do too disasterously.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...