Jump to content

New Treaty Web


The Ace of Aces
 Share

Recommended Posts

I only added some alliances that had more than 80 nations. I did not even add some alliances, that had more than 80 nations. But you can request you alliance to join the web by filling out this form

Alliance name:
Alliance abbreviation:
list of MADPs,MDPs,and MDoAPs
number of nations:
nation strength:


You can also request to add new treaties and remove treaties just tell me what two or more alliances. This was made to last a long time and be updated.

Thanks for your time and God Bless.


Look at a circle follow that line from that circle to another circle that a treaty....

[img]http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc383/somebody141/TreatyWeb.png?t=1318124820[/img]

Edited by The Ace of Aces
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1318125288' post='2821221']
the 3D one looks better, we have too many alliances to manage the 2D webs anymore.
[/quote]

It's not just the number of alliances, though. A lot of it is the raw number of treaties and blocs floating around. If we had the current number of alliances but most retained a much simpler treaty roster, it would be far easier to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work Ace. I understand why you didn't want to include alliances with less than 80 members, but those alliances not on here really change things up quite a bit. Still though, you did more than I would have bothered to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What..? I've already spotted some errors. IRON isn't MDoAPed to either FOK or MK. Also, number of members doesn't mean irrelevancy, that is going to leave out quite a few alliances that matter today and inherently flaw this treaty web. If someone can't find the chains to smaller alliances then they can't figure out the connections to the larger ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good start. Although I like using the 3D web to see how things cluster in general, I feel that a well-designed 2D web can give the viewer a clearer picture.

I might suggest that a 2D web makes the most sense when drawing out the two sides of a potential war. Then, viewers can visually ascertain how the two factions are tied to alliances within their respective factions and who might be called upon to fight a war for an alliance multiple chained separations away, but you could also see how the two factions could technically be tied to each other.

So... what could be fun and interesting might be drawing 2D webs starting from a simple premise: Alliance A attacks Alliance B. Then draw all of alliance A and B's treaty partners and connect the lines. Then draw the treaties of the treaty partners, and so forth. Possibly the web will contain all of CN anyway, but it could be interesting to see a few of those...

Maybe even Bob Janova's treaty compendium/3d web could have its program modified to also spit out 2D webs based on scenarios such as the one described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318129304' post='2821271']
Wait CN Wiki says MK is treatied to IRON? Really?
[/quote]

No, not really :P Our wiki is up to date, last edit was on 1st October to reflect IA ministerial switch. Since your page is up to date as well, I don't know where that came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...