If people complain so much about the tangled treaty web...

[Leet Guy]

...why the hell are there so many blocs? I mean, it's literally the only thing you could do to bottle up politics worse. Everyone then demands black and white pictures of these blocs, when in reality the individual sovereignty and culture of the alliances within these blocs is what makes things much more gray than black or white. Really, it would seem most logical to either cut down ties between blocs, or just slash the blocs themselves. Building up more of both is just counterproductive to the goal of keeping what little interest we have left in the CN community. This also goes hand in hand with the problem that such few people seem willing to take risks anymore, because of the eagerness of people to complain about people playing politics in a political simulator. And as an addendum, if you're going to come in here and complain about this being about my alliance being attention whores or barking out commands, I think you're completely missing the point of this topic.

[Drai]

But 1337, isn't Doomhouse a bloc!

[CheeKy]

We should all go neutral. Also, I partly agree, I think the same problem will excist even without those blocs, but maybe to a lesser extent. The problem with most blocs is that all the alliances in a bloc are basically tied all over the place and this is mainly due to certain alliances being afraid of cancelling old treaties because of their nostalgic value.

One of the major problems(I guess) is the lack of wars, if wars are started more frequently people will know who they can trust in a war and who they can't, if nothing is happening then most alliances don't have a reason to cancel certain treaties.

[Gibsonator21]

You're right. Blocs should all have a unified FA path, or they shouldn't be a bloc. Then again, people get those ties to protect themselves, which is also part of the game. You want to "win", and to "win", you need strong allies.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='CheeKy' timestamp='1314734778' post='2791167']
One of the major problems(I guess) is the lack of wars, if wars are started more frequently people will know who they can trust in a war and who they can't, if nothing is happening then most alliances don't have a reason to cancel certain treaties.
[/quote]

I always feel like the "lack of wars" and "too many treaties" is a chicken or the egg argument, as to which one causes the other. There isn't really a right answer.

Edit - Too = to

Edited August 30, 2011 by Leet Guy

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='CheeKy' timestamp='1314734778' post='2791167']
this is mainly due to certain alliances being afraid of cancelling old treaties because of their nostalgic value.
[/quote]

I agree with this very much. If people would quit worry about being friends with their everyone and start worry a little bit more about their political positioning we could solve the treaty web problem. I think it's a bad side effect of the "friends over infra" philosophy. You can be good friends with anyone willing to jump on skype with you, but that don't mean you need to be their treaty partner.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Omniscient1

[supercoolyellow]

MK are a bunch of attention whores and you're just barking out commands at us.

In all seriousness, the treaty web makes things murky, but blocs makes things clearer as to where people can stand and what we can expect. One thing, from what I can tell, was that in the past there were more smaller wars because there were more alliances that were isolated, and so people felt more confident in starting those wars.

Today every alliance, except ACTI, has learned either not to tick people off, or to secure themselves in the web. This raises the uncertainty in attacking an alliance, and leads us to less war. With a bloc you can feel more certain about the potential outcomes. Therefore an alliance in a bloc should feel more comfortable starting a war. For example, it should be no surprise that the SpyPolar war originated from Pandora's Box, the most politically and militarily powerful bloc.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314734899' post='2791170']
I always feel like the "lack of wars" and "too many treaties" is a chicken or the egg argument, as to which one causes the other. There isn't really a right answer.

Edit - Too = to
[/quote]

This is true, and also it could go the other way around. Wars break up a lot of treaties, and causes tension when people in coalitions do not get along, this leads to more wars in the future. So more wars mean fewer treaties, which means more wars.

[Sephiroth]

Because everyone is retarded and scared of not being tangled up in it. Also apparently not being tied to the treaty web makes you a rogue in the viewpoint of most senators if you end up in a fight, even though its viewed as fine to attack alliances without treaties. If someone doesn't have themselves tied into the treaty web, they get to be treated as a rogue as the senators take whatever the ones requesting the sanction say at face value, even if the ones requesting the sanction actually started the fight.

So the main reason is that most of the bigger alliances try forcing other alliances to tangle themselves up in it as well, or be victimized by tech raids and sanctions.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Methrage

[Lord Hershey]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314736860' post='2791193']
Because everyone is retarded and scared of not being tangled up in it. Also apparently not being tied to the treaty web makes you a rogue in the viewpoint of most senators if you end up in a fight, even though its viewed as fine to attack alliances without treaties. If someone doesn't have themselves tied into the treaty web, they get to be treated as a rogue as the senators take whatever the ones requesting the sanction say at face value, even if the ones requesting the sanction actually started the fight.

So the main reason is that most of the bigger alliances try forcing other alliances to tangle themselves up in it as well, or be victimized by tech raids and sanctions.
[/quote]

Yup, that's just the way this CN world works. I'm sorry that you had to learn the hard way.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314736860' post='2791193']
Because everyone is retarded and scared of not being tangled up in it. Also apparently not being tied to the treaty web makes you a rogue in the viewpoint of most senators if you end up in a fight, even though its viewed as fine to attack alliances without treaties. If someone doesn't have themselves tied into the treaty web, they get to be treated as a rogue as the senators take whatever the ones requesting the sanction say at face value, even if the ones requesting the sanction actually started the fight.

So the main reason is that most of the bigger alliances try forcing other alliances to tangle themselves up in it as well, or be victimized by tech raids and sanctions.
[/quote]

This topic is about alliances and not sad sappy rogue crusades. Please keep that garbage between you, Non Grata, and whatever other alliance is helping do their duty to Bob.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314737169' post='2791198']
This topic is about alliances and not sad sappy rogue crusades. Please keep that garbage between you, Non Grata, and whatever other alliance is helping do their duty to Bob.
[/quote]
I was giving a reason why alliances feel forced to tangle themselves into the treaty web, my comment doesn't just apply the situation with Non Grata and you're the only one bringing them up in this thread.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Methrage

[Beau Vine]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314734207' post='2791160']if you're going to come in here and complain about this being about my alliance being attention whores or barking out commands,[/quote]

I don't think it's posts/threads like this one that build such image (aka - good topic :-) ).

I think the reason for big number of blocks at this very moment - is precisely because people want clearer image. Grays, you say? It still beats the usual entanglement.

But I agree it ought to be a transitional model, not a permanent one if the ultimate goal is allowing for more interesting political world on Bob.


As to blocks making it more clear. Consider normal treaty web. You've got multiple treaties, which you can weight against others - should ODP partner attack other MDoAP ally - obligation is clear, if uneasy. But ODP partner fights with other ODP over some BS CB, and we have a problem. With proper bloc - where people gather because they share similar views on FA, not because they feel in such group they'll raise to more power - you have certain treaties prioritised, and you can work - together - on future FA line.

If current blocks work in this direction, until eventually they achieve at least situation where it's impossible to have a conflicting treaty against other bloc partner - it's a win.

tl:dr - cut blocks away and downgrade them to small treaty webs

[Goldie]

The world saw what SF and C&G could do with their blocs, and then PB formed and then this past war happened, and people saw things as a 'if we want to have a say in things and cohesively protect ourselves, we need to make a bloc' and you saw the XX's/MJ's/PF's of the world pop up.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Beau Vine' timestamp='1314737393' post='2791201']
With proper bloc - where people gather because they share similar views on FA, not because they feel in such group they'll raise to more power - you have certain treaties prioritised, and you can work - together - on future FA line.
[/quote]

I think this hits on another issue which is that some blocs don't necessarily have a clear goal, objective, or mission, and if you're lacking such direction completely defeats the purpose of a bloc. If all blocs had streamlined FA goals and aggressively or subtly pursued them, we would likely at least look at the bleak prospective of a bloc politic world in a better light.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1314737473' post='2791202']
The world saw what SF and C&G could do with their blocs, and then PB formed and then this past war happened, and people saw things as a 'if we want to have a say in things and cohesively protect ourselves, we need to make a bloc' and you saw the XX's/MJ's/PF's of the world pop up.
[/quote]

Oh certainly, I would never deny this to be the root cause of the current political gridlock.

[CheeKy]

[quote name='Beau Vine' timestamp='1314737393' post='2791201']
I don't think it's posts/threads like this one that build such image (aka - good topic :-) ).

I think the reason for big number of blocks at this very moment - is precisely because people want clearer image. Grays, you say? It still beats the usual entanglement.

But I agree it ought to be a transitional model, not a permanent one if the ultimate goal is allowing for more interesting political world on Bob.


As to blocks making it more clear. Consider normal treaty web. You've got multiple treaties, which you can weight against others - should ODP partner attack other MDoAP ally - obligation is clear, if uneasy. But ODP partner fights with other ODP over some BS CB, and we have a problem. With proper bloc - where people gather because they share similar views on FA, not because they feel in such group they'll raise to more power - you have certain treaties prioritised, and you can work - together - on future FA line.

If current blocks work in this direction, until eventually they achieve at least situation where it's impossible to have a conflicting treaty against other bloc partner - it's a win.

tl:dr - cut blocks away and downgrade them to small treaty webs
[/quote]
This only applies if every bloc had no outside treaties and if only bloc-bloc treaties would excist. This will never happen because this would destroy the whole purpose of having an alliance. A good thing would be the following: All !@#$ alliances would merge into one big pile of !@#$, so that the rest would be able to roll them whenever they want.

@ theleetguy, what would you suggest to solve the problem?

[Baltus]

The obvious solution is to create more blocs. Obviously.

I think the streamlined FA path makes sense; blocs need to have a goal. Since there's no way to "win", each bloc should have a set of goals that they want to see accomplished (ex. roll bloc/alliance XYZ)

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='CheeKy' timestamp='1314738996' post='2791211']@ theleetguy, what would you suggest to solve the problem?
[/quote]

I think that people just need to take a few more risks. I'm not necessarily saying chaotic or belligerent risks, but calculated risks at least. Someone recently pointed out that this was one of the first summers that there wasn't even so much us a minor skirmish (save the small NsO-SoS drama from much earlier), and I think this is partially indicative of the lack of people doing so much as anything besides building stats and frowning - but not acting - at the bleak political landscape.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Leet Guy

[CheeKy]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314739848' post='2791216']
I think that people just need to take a few more risks. I'm not necessarily saying chaotic or belligerent risks, but calculated risks at least. Someone recently pointed out that this was one of the first summers that there wasn't even so much us a minor skirmish (save the small NsO-SoS drama from much earlier), and I think this is partially indicative of the lack of people doing so much as anything besides building stats and frowning - but not acting - at the bleak political landscape.
[/quote]
This is true, however trying something which doesn't fit in with the general view of planet BOB, will usually get you in alot of !@#$. I am not only referring to starting random wars here but also dropping treaties without good reasoning etc.

[Mind the Gap]

This is dumb.

You're complaining about a macro effect that is purely logical on and individual scale - of course people are going to group up, when their enemies are grouping up. You act as though you can just show them the error of their ways and they will care, but they won't, and I don't think they're wrong for being that rational.

Complaining that the molecules are doing molecular things is lazy thinking.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Mind the Gap' timestamp='1314740586' post='2791221']
This is dumb.

You're complaining about a macro effect that is purely logical on and individual scale - of course people are going to group up, when their enemies are grouping up. You act as though you can just show them the error of their ways and they will care, but they won't, and I don't think they're wrong for being that rational.

Complaining that the molecules are doing molecular things is lazy thinking.
[/quote]

If this was as easy an issue as friends grouping together simply because enemies are, in order to counteract each other in a typically political manner, I doubt I'd be complaining about that. I think you should go take a look at the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=46911"]treaty web[/url] to understand how convoluted things have become.

[Alterego]

If every bloc disbanded there would still be a billion treaties of MDP and up. Nothing would really change

[Derantol]

But the idea isn't to have blocs disband - a bloc should have a cohesive FA policy beyond "You guys are my best friends!" Blocs are more or less adding an additional semi-permanence to the natural ebb and flow of treaties, which is incredibly slow in the first place. Without a concentrated effort by all members of a bloc, it just freezes the web, and the only factor that seems to change that is war friction, which only comes around once every five hundred years or so.

[White Chocolate]

Why have blocs at all? Why not just form bigger alliances? To me blocs seem like an extra form of administrative nightmare.

Also, as someone not in an alliance that is in any bloc, if any of them have any actual goals other than protecting their membership - it isn't clear. Yeah - there are rumors. But nothing to me that defines one bloc over another. Besides, if it is just a matter of protection or wanting to "roll" some other group, that can be done via treaty web without blocs. So what is the point?

I get organizing into color spheres and having economic cooperation as a result. But I'm actually surprised that blocs formed outside of anything other than team color. That's really the only logical reason I can see, unless a bloc is formed where everyone shares other similar policies.

Edited August 30, 2011 by White Chocolate