Jump to content

muffasamini

Members
  • Content Count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About muffasamini

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    muffasavil
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order
  • Resource 1
    Water
  • Resource 2
    Wine
  1. The main problem is that coalitions and treaty partners are now different. Yes people have been playing treaty chess since the start of CN. But in the past the treaty game WAS the coalition. You and your friends were in a coalition and tried to adopt others, everyone else was building a different coalition. There is something wrong with whats become of the treaty game. I really liked Ogadens point that its dehumanizing the alliances into statistics. Its somehow become normal that the only clean line we can split the treat web across will likely place your alliance in a coalition with allies you barely like, and enemies who you'd rather fight beside. This ruins the sense of political fervor that often marked some previous wars.
  2. The main reason they were banned was that viceroy's generally require the alliance to hand over root access to their forum, which could be considered theft. However, viceroys existed in a time before alliances were a real concept faithfully represented in the game itself. I dislike the idea of viceroys, but as a thought experiment, I wonder if there is something worthwhile perhaps to exploring what could be legally done instead. Now that there is an in-game representation of alliances, there could be a more in-game-focused hand off the AA. If an alliance was required to relinquish control of the AA itself, then board owner would not need to hand over root access. This would also be an interesting way to enforce draconian peace treaties, because non-compliance could result in immediate termination of the AA or expulsion of offending members. A softer method of vice-royalty could be the forced signing of a MDMA (notice no optional clause), optionally backed by AA ownership (to enforce in-game compliance). This would enforce in-game alignment, but still leave the out-of-game properties to act as they please. Still not sure its a good idea, but that's certainly an option for how to reconstruct viceroys. In general, use of the in-game AA ownership concept might be an interesting twist to peace terms or even protectorates in the future.
  3. Its all about how you define "playing the game" the doctrine was horrible for those that wanted to be red, but participate in the OWF, world diplomacy etc, but great for those that just wanted to play the nation simulation game. But really, I honestly dont think many were effected by its institution, or loss. I think the reason for the drop was many felt (rightly so) that due to the war, the revenge doctrine was no longer protecting them (which was why they were there in the first place) and fled to safer areas. They could care less whether another alliance was on red or not.
×
×
  • Create New...