Jump to content
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    245
  • views
    20,458

Treaties with the "other" side: bad?


jerdge

613 views

It's still a blatant attempt to try to convince people to not tie themselves into our sphere because of "abuses". And then you give credit to others (NPO) even though they are doing what you criticize, signing treaties all over the map including into C&G which is tied to us.

Source: Declaration from Vox Populi

Seriously guys, let's stop with the "awww treaties with a/the/some different/other power cluster are bad" argument. Treaties are tools, and establishing bonds with people of the "other" coalition can also be done to (try) erode their group. The thing can be criticized, but only in context: it's not bad by itself.

How do you think that Q lost its preeminence?

(This rant isn't aimed at Aza specifically, BTW.)

8 Comments


Recommended Comments

You should use the "blog this" link under a post's avatar in the future so that people reading the thread are directly linked to the discussion.


Well, hello. I'm glad you opened this blog.

The vast majority of treaties signed are based on friendships. Sometimes, there is a legitimate political unity underlying those treaties, and by "political unity" I mean the treaties have a specific goal behind them. But most often, a treaty is simply more like a Valentine card, or a means by which an alliance can show the world it's still active. The problem with this is that CyberNations is a geopolitical simulator, not Facebook-with-nations, and also not simply a war simulator, and while we go to war with people we dislike, we don't go to war simply because of dislike. We go to war over politics. And when the rubber hits the road, all those friendship ties make everything a mess--they become broken promises and tools by which the very few who understand that this is a political simulator manipulate dupes into doing their dirty work. Yes, dupes.

In my specific example to which Azaghul was responding, I said that NPO is on the right track to my philosophy that (1) alliances must become more self aware, develop identities, values, and philosophies, and base their actions on them and (2) alliances must develop foreign policies which are aligned with their internal identity, and sign treaties that are politically-based (treaties with a purpose).

Azaghul's reply belies a basic misunderstanding either of what I was saying or what NPO is doing. First off, NPO with its Francoism is a quintessential example of part 1 of the philosophy I laid out. Second, while NPO is signing treaties all over the place right now, NPO is cearly doing it with a purpose, with a goal, and these treaties are clearly political. Anyone that can't see that is in honest terms: stupid. If that includes Azaghul, so be it.

Right now, while NPO is on the way to its goal (whatever that may be) they are definitely in positions that create tension between NPO's internal values and its treaty obligations; Brehon made that clear as day at the onset of the last war, and I have infamously stated that "the Emperor's feet disagree with his mouth." BUT, that is not the same as maintaining a permanent, static foreign policy that has no cohesion, no reflection, and/or no direction. It will not happen in one day, as NPO reestablishes its world presence, big shifts are happening, and as in all things political (politics is how we decide who gets what), people who stand to lose influence, power, etc will be working to stop or slow NPO's advances. As such, there is going to be a period where NPO, its old allies, its new allies, its old enemies, and its new enemies are all going to be doing things they will not be doing once things are settled. That's change. And when things settle, some treaties will be gone, some new ones will be there, and their foreign policy will once more march closer in step with their internal philosophies. Because NPO is already a prime example of the model I am advocating, and NPO knows that it is a superior model.

And they say that the OWF is dead.

Link to comment

Thanks for your reply, My Dear Shantamantan! :)

You should use the "blog this" link under a post's avatar in the future so that people reading the thread are directly linked to the discussion.

That is what I did: this entry links to Azaghul's post and it shows at the bottom of the page when you browse the thread. I just changed the title because I considered the standard "From: ..." title to be (as usual) a poor indication of the topic of the blog entry.

Link to comment

Thanks for your reply, My Dear Shantamantan! :)

You should use the "blog this" link under a post's avatar in the future so that people reading the thread are directly linked to the discussion.
That is what I did: this entry links to Azaghul's post and it shows at the bottom of the page when you browse the thread. I just changed the title because I considered the standard "From: ..." title to be (as usual) a poor indication of the topic of the blog entry.

d'oh!

Link to comment

Treaties with the other side aren't so bad when they're used like you described - which is mainly going to occur when it's done by one of the 7 or so major players in the game. When an MK or an NPO signs a treaty that's otherwise incongruent with their treaty set, it often implies that the group they signed is going to be following them into battle. When an alliance like INT signs a treaty with an alliance like R&R, you know it's just going to muck things up and either 1) impeded interesting conflicts from happening and/or 2) get ignored once the pressure is on and the rest of their treaty partners need help. So in that sense, I think there's a strong OOC argument against them most of the time (i.e., they reduce the potential for conflict by trapping everyone in an interconnected web) and from an IC argument (i.e., the only way to really "enforce" adherence to treaties is through community opinion, and so it behooves us to raise a stink when people ignore treaties so that others including our own allies see that there is a penalty for violating them).

Link to comment

Treaties with the other side aren't so bad when they're used like you described - which is mainly going to occur when it's done by one of the 7 or so major players in the game. When an MK or an NPO signs a treaty that's otherwise incongruent with their treaty set, it often implies that the group they signed is going to be following them into battle. When an alliance like INT signs a treaty with an alliance like R&R, you know it's just going to muck things up and either 1) impeded interesting conflicts from happening and/or 2) get ignored once the pressure is on and the rest of their treaty partners need help. So in that sense, I think there's a strong OOC argument against them most of the time (i.e., they reduce the potential for conflict by trapping everyone in an interconnected web) and from an IC argument (i.e., the only way to really "enforce" adherence to treaties is through community opinion, and so it behooves us to raise a stink when people ignore treaties so that others including our own allies see that there is a penalty for violating them).

This^

The problem isn't people signing treaties with the "other" side, the problem is when one alliance sign treaties with alliances who are in a completely different FA path and when war comes those treaties are simply ignored: See ODN-Sparta, RnR-INT... The problem lately happens more with alliances who are part of blocs, when you sign a treaty with an alliance who are in a bloc there seems to exist an implied clause who says that unless you are aligned with the objectives of all alliances in the bloc your treaty with one of their alliances will be worthless. I think that alliances who are part of blocs shouldn't be allowed to sign external treaties(Like GUARD) and to avoid isolationism when wanting to signing external treaties they should be signed for the bloc as a single entity, eg: "DH-TOP MDoAP" or between blocs "SF-XX MDP".

Link to comment

"Worker bees can leave

Even drones can fly away

The queen is their slave."

I find Schatt's assessment to be an oversimplification of CN foreign affairs. (Surprise Schat!!)

While I've seen great "praise," given to those who have "a treaty set," it is often overlooked that other people exist in that "treaty set," for their own self-interest. Same goes for acquiring a "treaty set." Just because an NPO will cut ties with an alliance like Invicta over fears of cuddling too closely to a different "treaty set," or an MK might be willing to offer its previously staunch ally up as future bait in exchange for an alliance conveniently forgetting their own despite no actual treaty between the two does not mean this behavior pervades in CN. In fact, as is quite readily admitted -- it is the minority.

Why, you ask? Because it is not the most efficient way of achieving ones ends. There are better alternatives to your own theory, and I question whether the vanity of being the one's in the spotlight of their "treaty sphere," is willingly or inadvertently clouding better options available. When these alliances grab the spotlight -- It's bright. When the light fades, it gets far darker than it ever would had you never stepped into the spotlight at all.

For instance. Take GOD, NPO, MK, and old GOONS.

These four alliances would very much fit Schattenman's description. These four alliances have had great successes. But each has tasted the pavement just as much as they have enjoyed hegemony to some degree. Each of the four alliances has faced multiple beatdowns for its time in the limelight, and every single one has had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play. This can not be denied.

I (and I know people love to baww at the suggestion out of hand for some reason (perhaps the suggestion that nothing is achieved in this game alone unsettles some,),) argue that survival, the ability to survive and grow relatively unimpeded and the ability to influence with the smallest amount of opportunity cost in doing is the most effecient means of achieving ones ends.

Taking the top ten alliances in the game by score. Removing the two neutral alliances (for fun, because whether you like it or not they actually follow your philosophy better than your best example,) you have IRON, Umbrella, ODN, MHA , GATO, TOP, NPO, NpO (Anarchy Inc. aside because they are simply too young and to take the sum of their historical parts would be inappropriate for the exercise.) Aside from NPO, NpO, Non Grata to a lesser and TOP to a much lesser extent, I believe the other alliances to have been doing quite well despite having many current or previous treaties linked to friendship rather than political expediency. These treaties didn't create their own spheres (and for the love of Xiphosis, Umbrella treating anyone does not a sphere-centric treaty make it,) but were either borne out of membership or government level friendship. They also served a political purpose, and were fulfilled until that bond broke or a combination of that bond weakening and the bond becoming strenuous occurred at an unobtainable level. If you journey farther down the alliance list, you find many more examples of alliances who have held treaties with alliances in seperate "treaty sets," but have been honored nonetheless.

Furthermore, there is another inherent flaw with Schatt's proposal.

Every alliance is self-aware to some degree, has an identity, values, and even a philosophy that they do base their actions upon.

That does not mean they are held to the same degree, that identity means as much from one to the other or that values can not be eschewed for expediency. Nor does it mean an alliance has to have a well-document spokesman, frontman, or thirty page essay to have a general guiding philosophy -- whether it be static or dynamic -- and alliances generally do base their decisions on all of these things.

I think to ignore that is quite damaging to your suggestion, Schat. I also disagree that treaties have to be politically based in order to meet your criterion. For example: The Apparatus defended the Mostly Harmless Alliance on a vastly greater foe in GATO, de-facto declaring on the entire Complaints and Grievances Union. It was not politically expedient for The Apparatus to defend MHA on an ODP, but they had developed what you refer to as "a friendship," based treaty. The Apparatus' identity was one of honor and to defend its allies whom it felt were being unjustly attacked/persecuted. It was political only in that it increased the relatively small alliances standing in the world -- but at the potential cost of devastating losses from a much greater foe whose allies had been known to willingfully disband or encourage the disbandment of smaller alliances for sport. There are many, many more examples of said treaties. For example, R&R and FOK's treaty was a chip stuck in the roof of Pandora's Box's mouth for quite some time. While you claim treaties like this (or one with Int,) serve no purpose, I would beg you to speak to an alliance who dealt in government channels in the previous two wars and how difficult those tiny, insignificant, friendship based treaties made their world -- there are few who question R&R would be hurting much more than it has do to its relationships with Int and FOK. Even a relationship to a completely different bloc can have quite the role in negotiations, potential opportunity when an attack is poorly planned to injure one of the parties assailing the alliance on the receiving end of a curbstomp, or any other imaginable boon.

Sure, these things fail -- often spectacularly over time. We've all seen the fall of eternal treaties. We've seen hell freeze over, and then have seen lingering resentment about Continuum era treaties not being fulfilled on the eve of Karma. I have seen many pontificate on the value of the treaty, but often those doing so do not hold the actual treaty. The treaty itself is what those who hold make of it. Only when one of the alliance bends to the will of others for a more economical relationship does that bond break -- not a moment sooner -- usually at a time when those values change.

Unless it explicitly or covertly a joke -- no treaty is without purpose, and certainly that value of purpose varies by signatory, observer and greater planet. Goals are not limited to overextended campaigns that inevitably implode -- they can be much smaller or much more covert than the public peanut gallery would ever know of.

If I didn't know any better I'd say that your philosophy was either flattery or a setup to get certain people to take more credit for their future or past actions than what they deserve before the clock strikes twelve again. ;)

Link to comment

I think treaties with the other side are fine as long as both parties support coalition warfare and are alright if their partner is on the opposing side come war time. The sides won't change over time if these types of treaties aren't signed, but at the same time they do delay wars.

Link to comment
The vast majority of treaties signed are based on friendships.

There's also a large number of treaties signed around enemies. A MDP comes with a really solid CB. And sometimes, sitting together with someone telling them how much you hate this other alliance is a bonding moment.

So when an alliance's goals are to roll a certain alliance, they'll be angry with people who get in the way of that.

Treaties are like marriages - when you treaty someone, you treaty their whole family, regardless of whether it's non-chaining.

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...