What a beautiful demonstration of the inanity of the treaty web. Of course it's fine when it stifles any political movement and allows everyone on the majority side to feel like they're on top. And as long as you don't mind being a satellite AA, it works well enough for when the actual powers decide they want a war. But god forbid the wrong alliance decides to have an agenda. This messes up everything!
Source: NoR declares war on LSF
Let's look at Prodigal Moon's post as players, i.e. from an Out Of Character POV.
This game's politics is largely dominated by the needs of coalition-level warfare, which isn't good or bad in itself.
However, I find it silly that coalition warfare is so much engineered with "treaty chaining"... A hits B and not C, to trigger what D, F and G do, while C and D pre-empt Z to prevent F and X to assist Y.
How can this sort of Mikado be even slightly funny?
As I will likely remain neutral for another long while (probably until the end of CN) I can just ignore the issue and have fun eating popcorn (which I'll definitely do), but you treaty-hoarders might want to think a bit more about it.
When you don't know which side you'll be on in a coalition war, because your choice doesn't depend on the (good/bad) CB, or on the (friend/foe/indifferent) initial combatants, or on your interest, but just on the order that will be followed in the declarations... Sorry for you, but that means that something went really wrong.
I am not talking of the "movers", which quite obviously pull the strings, but of the other people: this isn't the only way, you can choose another path as a few (too few) others already did/are doing.
(Sorry for not citing any specific example, but any example would cause arguing because of the people named and not because of its meaning. I thus chose to just avoid making them.)