Marooner's Musings

While your post is essentially true, it is impossible (by design, pretty much) for anyone outside the back channels in which the 'drama' happens and the plans are made to see anything.

In fact I believe that the public forums are displaying more information since the Polar war than they had done for a long time prior to that, if you are prepared to read between the lines. Certain 'dramatic' announcements were in fact devoid of drama (notably Grämlins and FOK leaving Continuum), because that information had been hinted at and leaked to the extent that the common man knew it was coming. However, there are other actions (such as the Valhalla-NpO treaty) where the drama is entirely reactive, and yet a few people knew about it months ago. It would be impossible for an outside observer to pick up signs that that was coming.

It is interesting – in the beginning, wars were fought on the battlefield, a trend that arguably ended at the end of GW2. GW3 and the Unjust War were fought partially in the diplomatic back channels, and partly on the battlefield (you could put GW2 in there as well, possibly). Since the UjW, wars have been decided on Embassy Row and simply executed on the battlefield; on some occasions (e.g. TPF v Atlantis) it was fought entirely in back channels.

This is counter-intuitive, as the damage that can be done by a war had been decreasing until the tech damage bonus update to the game mechanics. However, it can be explained by one simple statement: strength is relative. Only in a dipolar world (i.e. the 'cold war' prior to GW2 and the ceasefire before GW3) does fighting a damaging war make sense – you can damage your sole rival more than yourself, and that is a victory.

But since GW3, the world has effectively been monopolar, which means politics is a constant struggle for the upper hand within that pole. No alliance wants to fight a damaging war, as it will lose relative strength against the others who do not, and so it is more important to do the diplomatic work such that the entire single pole works together to remove a much smaller enemy. This doctrine will only have been reinforced by the damage taken by the NPO due to its engagement with MK, particularly when compared to the minimal damage each alliance attacking Polaris took.

What you state about MDPs is also true – 'MDPs are the new NAPs' has been a complaint since 2007 – and results in many alliances being forced to break treaties when something blindsides them. The Unjust War remains the most flagrant example of that, with the MDP World Unity Treaty and the MADP Unjust Path (along with a whole host of other treaties between individual alliances) causing almost every major alliance to break at least one treaty. But the Polar/Hyperion war is also a good example, with high profile treaty-breaking from alliances tied to Polaris, many of which could not reasonably satisfy the demands of the treaties they held with both sides. (For example Echelon, who held an MADP with Polaris and also MADP membership of One Vision – bound to attack everybody on both sides of the war!)

It is a serious problem that alliances simply don't follow the words that they write on their treaties, and therefore it is very difficult to predict what an alliance will do, or whether it will defend you if it has a treaty with you.

As always, Bob Janova, I enjoy reading your comments, as they seem to take my original post to a whole new level. I agree with you on most of your premises, and especially liked this:

Since the UjW, wars have been decided on Embassy Row and simply executed on the battlefield;

Which is primarily the point I wanted to drive home, although you did it much more eloquently. However, additionally I wanted to make it clear how much more sophisticated the game has gotten, and how little some alliances realize this level of sophistication. Unlike the majority of the CN populace, I actually like the current state of CN foreign affairs with the massive amounts of treaties - I think it makes the environment much more challenging.

I have always believed that diplomacy is a form of war and that an actual war is already a loss. War is the consolation round for something that could have been resolved without weapons. But I have a tendency to be a pacifist.

You also outline what I have come to define as offensive and defensive MDPs. Offensive MDPs are used to expand one's stake and profile in the world. They're done with friends and allies who have something in common with you. Defensive MDPs, for example, are MDPs signed for the purpose of protecting oneself from that alliance or its allies. For example, if Alliance A doesn't like Alliance C but kind of likes Alliance B and Alliance B is treatied to Alliance B, Alliance A may treaty Alliance B to stop it from coming to the aid of Alliance C due to a treaty conflict.