Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

muffasamini's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  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. I never thought I'd see this day, but its here, and its going to be awesome.
  4. This game is very flexible. If you want to see it played differently, start a new alliance and play politics in a new way. I would love to see an alliance try and play a little differently. However, I would recommend you join an alliance (any alliance) to help learn how the mechanics work first. Half of this game is the internal logistics of coordinating an alliance.
  5. We like to call it Korean BBQ
  6. I am unsure exactly why anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place. Glad to see everyone achieved peace.
  7. You forgot to use the words "ivory tower". Please try again.
  8. "A long time ago, there was a big bad boogeyman named NPO. He did bad things, so now I can do bad things too. Boo! Now give me your money." ~MK
  9. [quote name='JoshuaR' date='16 February 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1266303022' post='2185085'] I like the responses asking how it could hurt GOD to take the reps anyway. Other than the possibility that alliances at war with GOD will now attack the NPO for war-aiding and thus force GOD and 14 others to now come directly to NPO's defense and if they cannot then they fail to fulfill their own surrender terms thus freeing Pacifica from its own obligations... [/quote] shh, your giving away the whole plan! Only one alliance didnt see through our plot and your about to ruin our chances! [quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1266303169' post='2185090'] According to the wiki, Tromp is FOK's DMoFA and he said you hadn't spoken to them in this very thread. Though it is possible to chalk that up to communication error. I have no idea m'self. [/quote] Because whatever has happend just now in this thread is the only thing to have happened. I learned that in peek-a-boo. I'm sure once Tromp talks to the rest of his gov he'll see that we have indeed talked to them, its just a miscommunication.
  10. [quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1266300511' post='2184959'] Asking an alliance to hold its end of surrender terms it agreed to in order to get an edge in a war? You're somehow calling that a [i]bad[/i] thing? [/quote] No, were going to pay them their terms as due. I'd say its a "[i]bad[/i] thing" to try and justify their choice by saying they aren't the only ones who choose to (which isnt even true) or that its ok because the NPO is evil, instead of admitting why they did it, To be petty and piss off the NPO in any little way they could. Too bad they are the only ones with such odd priorities, It's obvious they were expecting others to join them.
  11. Wait wait.. Xiphosis/GOD acts like an arrogant vindictive jerk, then says that its ok because the NPO committed <insert just absolutely horrible act> years ago? This is my shocked face: [IMG]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/MuffasaMini/Ca.jpg[/IMG] No matter what you try to say, the fact remains that you are the sole alliance to demand the NPO continue the minimum rep payments during war.
  • Create New...