A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future
Entry posted by Ragashingo
187 views
A while back we were having a GATO brainstorm about what role we should seek once we are a free alliance again. We had a good range of differing opinions and some good debate both in the topic itself and elsewhere such as on IRC. I'd like to share one of my original posts below and then follow up with some additional thoughts that were the direct result of my discussions with fellow GATO members.
Please keep in mind that these thoughts are simply my own ideas of where I'd like to see my alliance go. While some of these ideas received more support than others, GATO as a whole has not endorsed these ideas in any way shape or form.
1. We should write better treaties.Most treaties these days are a joke. They are written in a way that allows them to be cancelled very quickly without any real explanation. They even allow for an alliance to suspend the treaty, which basically means they can ignore it whenever they want, which defeats the entire point. I'd also like to see our treaties give us a way to let our friends off the hook in the event of another idiotic GATO-1v war scenario.
Thus I propose any new treaties we sign that include defense clauses also include the following bits:
- The cancelation clause should be modified to only allow cancelation after a notification of 14 day instead of the typical 1 to 2 days we normally see. Having such a long waiting period serves two purposes. First it gives us a chance to negotiate and affect world opinion about our situation. Second, it gives our nations time to fully prepare for a war.
- The cancelation clause should also require that the full reason for the treaty's cancelation be posted on the OWF in enough detail that even a new CN player would understand it. This would prevent the infuriating "they know what they did" type cancelations that we often see. It will also provide incentive for us not to do anything we'd be embarrassed to have show to the entire CN world.
- There should be a clause that allows an alliance under attack to restrict the other signed alliances from coming to its defense. Basically I hate the idea of dragging down good alliances with us in the event of another ridiculous GATO-1V type war.
- Finally there should be a clause that states that the treaty cannot be made inactive in any way. Either you abide by the treaty or you start the long waiting period to cancel it. There should be no middle ground that allows someone to ignore the treaty when it isn't convenient.
I doubt there are many alliances who would agree to all these terms. To me thats a good thing and it leads me to my second point:
2. We should only sign treaties with alliances we are willing to die for.
These treaty webs are just stupid. Treaties aren't signed between friends very often anymore. They are signed between two powers who want yet another meaningless redundant layer of protection. We don't need that. I'd rather have one true friend like the IAA than a hundred "friends" who will flee from us at the first sign of real trouble. A true friend wouldn't balk at the tougher clauses listed above, they'd embrace them. There's nothing to fear in those clauses if you actually have friendship and respect for the alliance you are signing with, instead of the need for more false security. Also limiting the amount of treaties we sign will help to keep us out of unwanted wars.
3. We should follow the NPO's lead and commit ourselves to the protection of the brown sphere.
I make no secret about my dislike of the NPO or its policies, but I do allow an exception for their defense of red. It is one of the best policies that any alliance in this game has. Our defense of brown would be an optional service advertised through team messages, just like the NPO's. By doing this we could get good press (or not, the CN world is a very fickle place) and more importantly we could give our MoFA and MoD people something to do in times of peace. You see in the NPO system they don't just go in gun blazing. They diplomatically contact the offending nation and its alliance in an attempt to find out why the attack on a red nation occurred. Once the attacker is deemed in the wrong they attempt to pressure a peace through diplomacy. Then if that fails they intervene with their military. Quite frankly, the system is awesome and we should duplicate it.
All right, there's the post. I hope you made it this far. 
Now for some additional comments:
On idea #1, I proposed a 14 day cancellation time period but I recognize that such a long period may be a bit extreme. I'd be perfectly happy with a 7 day limit, but less happy with anything below that. Remember the point of this limit is to discourage creating a treaty with people who might abandon us at a later time, to provide us time to work out a situation diplomatically while we still have allies allied to us, and to give our military time to prepare if a war is inevitable.
Also be very sure to note that all my ideas for these "better treaties" only apply to ones that contain a defensive element. Purely economic or friendship based treaties are excluded from many if not all those sub-points.
The point of idea #2 is that a true friend has nothing to fear from a treaty. One might correctly suggest that a treaty shouldn't even be necessary in that case and I'd agree except for a few things. We all know that as players and alliances in CN we like to negotiate treaties it's fun after all, we all like to keep such agreements public knowledge as a warning to others and as a passive defensive, and lets face it, we all like to be noticed for doing things.
Idea #3 generated many questions and opinions from my fellow GATOans. Would we have the military power to do such a thing? Would foreign, non-brown alliances, disparage us for attempting such a thing? Would the other alliances on brown cooperate with us, attempt to hinder us, or want no part of the idea and ignore it? Etc.
I do believe in time we will have the military strength to accomplish the defense of brown, assuming that foreign alliances don't meddle with brown in a lame attempt to disrupt GATO or draw us into a war.
As for working with other brown alliance, I think it would certainly be possible. GATO has no interest in "owning" brown in the way the NPO "owns" red. I believe that a defended brown would both make it a safer place for all brown alliance, and provide all of us with more and better trade opportunities. Joint defense of a color might very well be more difficult than NPO style exclusive ownership, but I think the rewards of more trades, more potential members, and closer relationships with other brown alliances makes it more than worth the effort for GATO.
Anyway there you have it. Feel free to discuss these ideas but please, this is not a topic about GWI, GWII, GWIII or any other war really. It is also not about the lives, actions, decisions, or "deaths" of any past or present GATO members. And yes, you know who I mean.
Finally it is worth noting that this is the first non-introduction post to the Honor in Justice blog. BarbulaM1 created the blog a bit ago and later invited me to post along side him. We will likely cross post all our articles to the OWF for increased visibility (finding a random blog is of course difficult). The blog itself will serve as a great archive of all thought provoking topics.
Thanks for your time and don't forget to comment.
--Ragashingo
4 Comments
Recommended Comments