On the ridiculous phenomenon known as the "MnDoAP"

[Wayfarer]

1 hour ago, Vladimir Poutine said:

I think the problem as OP sees it is that every treaty these days is an MnDoAP. Meaning that no one wants to be 100% committed to defending another alliance.

 

Yes. As always eminently sensible, Merger.

 

[Duderonomy]

2 hours ago, Vladimir Poutine said:

I think the problem as OP sees it is that every treaty these days is an MnDoAP. Meaning that no one wants to be 100% committed to defending another alliance.

And that's a diplomacy problem for a portion of AAs. I've seen plenty of MDs without the n in the last year. If you got ally problems, I feel sorry for you, son. I've got 99 problems and MnDs ain't one.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Duderonomy

[Vladimir Poutine]

5 hours ago, DragonsPhyre said:

Being 100% committed to defending another alliance means that you, as an alliance not just the government, need to be 100% sure that other alliance will never make a choice entering a war that you disagree with vehemently. It also means having the kind of relationship between alliances that survives when that inevitably happens. Ideally, a MDoAP is a sign of that kind of relationship and built trust, a public statement that your two alliances have enough shared values and goals that you can't see each other operating at their best without the other one behind their back.

 

Reality is, of course, very different. Treaties are political tools, same as wars. And similar to wars, they've become heavily leaned on and somewhat devalued over the years as the treaty web expands, contracts, and splits according to whatever winds the various governments and active members feel blowing. Right now, those winds are highly in favor of Oculus so the treaty web is centered around them and they are the instigators of major alliance wars. Some alliances are just far more able and willing to put their values and plans into motion and so those become the norm around which most of the rest operate. Could it change? Yes, sure, but it requires a deep cultural shift. That takes time and risks on behalf of alliances both big and small. Not everyone is willing to commit to that for different reasons. It's about playing it safe and comfortable vs risky and potentially very volatile.

And this notion of 'playing it safe' versus 'risky and volatile' is precisely what everyone is complaining about in CN these days. People want to go back to the heyday of 2006-09? (or whenever you want to define it) Then start playing riskier hands.

 

4 hours ago, Duderonomy said:

And that's a diplomacy problem for a portion of AAs. I've seen plenty of MDs without the n in the last year. If you got ally problems, I feel sorry for you, son. I've got 99 problems and MnDs ain't one.

You know, I find myself agreeing more and more with NG members. I must be losing my mind.

[Auctor]

With increasing lack of diplomatic activity, it's not terribly surprising that alliances want to be less and less committed to their allies. Most can't even be arsed to find out what their allies might be up to and whether they genuinely want to participate or not.

[Helbrecht]

On 6/19/2016 at 11:50 PM, Lord Hershey said:

Investigators at Bob's News Corporation examine the issue as per the thread...:

 

Yoy mean the primacy clause, the thing thats almost as ild as admin.

[rileyaddaff]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Auctor said:

With increasing lack of diplomatic activity, it's not terribly surprising that alliances want to be less and less committed to their allies. Most can't even be arsed to find out what their allies might be up to and whether they genuinely want to participate or not.

Probably cause there is an 80% chance their ally is tied to oculus. Of the 20% left half is neutral, 5% is getting rolled by oculus, and the other 5% doesn't even know what an oculus is.

[Auctor]

You might have some kind of point if this was something that happened after Oculus arrived. As is, it makes just as much sense to say Duckroll disbanding caused it.

[Lord Balian]

On June 18, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Duderonomy said:

I will agree with White Chocolate on intelligence clauses. They don't seem followed at all, anymore, with people preferring to tie the web up in treaties rather than actually admitting who their targets are.

 

The n has its utility in allowing a little more flexibility among treatying nations. For example,if you like NPO but don't want to encourage defense of NG from a counter in an aggressive war, you can slip that "n" in there so that NPO might defend NG, but counters resulting are not your problem. It can help if you generally aren't included in war planning or prevent scheming to pull you in against another ally.

 

Unfortunately, the jaded use of the M in treaties has resulted in putting together the supremacy clause (or pulling it back, if it's from before my time). I'm honestly surprised that I haven't heard more complaining about that, since it severely impacts the value of M-level treaties already signed. In my own humble opinion, any AA shouldn't commit to more than 3 M-level treaties (particularly interconnected ones). Otherwise, you've devalued yourself as an ally by ensuring you'll be in opposition to at least one of your allies in any given conflict. Blocs count as a single M-level tie in this valuation (1 out of 3) due to the mutual commitments of everyone in the bloc to ensure all act in concert.

 

I'd rather see that "n" in more treaties to create more clearly delineated sides. If you like someone and want to defend them, but aren't close to their allies, then that "n" can save you from a war that you don't care about. I wouldn't even count it against the 3 M limit above, since it deliberately breaks chains of counters.

 

Ultimately, what I'd like to see is more gradual ramp-ups in relationships. This jumping straight into Ms or even Mns are the biggest problem with politics on Bob. There's a range of ties from NAPs to ODoAPs to, yes, MnDoAPs that aren't fully utilized. I'm not a fan of seeing a straight jump from nothing to MDoAP. Even a MnDoAP at least gives you an out if this new friend of yours goes crazy. Relationships aren't an either/or thing, and ebb and rise over time. I'd like to see more treaties recognizing this analog relationship.

 

I understand "n"s make it harder for people to warplan, but that's part of the drama and challenge of it. I get the gratification of just fighting to fight, but that isn't politics. Most people are here for politics.

Man, you make some really great points here!! I don't know if you are active in PW, but if you are, do you feel that it has some of the same dynamics as CN? Again, great points made!

 

Blessings,

 

Lord Balian

 

 

[nish81]

On 6/25/2016 at 4:22 PM, Lord Balian said:

 I don't know if you are active in PW,

 

 

Edit: Nvm

Edited June 27, 2016 by nish81

[Haflinger]

On 2016-06-18 at 3:24 PM, Auctor said:

Quite honestly, if your commitment to your ally is solely determined by the terms you've agreed to on paper, you're probably a lame ally anyway.

It's better to go the other way: determine what you put on paper based on what your commitment is. Treaties are tools, although it's too late for most of the people here to realize that. Make sure you don't agree to anything you're not comfortable with.

 

I've always obeyed intel clauses, and once got my alliance to cancel on MHA because they failed to honour theirs. I would agree that they tend to be observed in the breach though.

 

Dilber was pretty good at using them though. Back in the day.