Everything posted by muffasamini
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 y
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
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.