The history and future of alliance politics

[Dcrews]

Simply put, how has inter-alliance politics changed over the course of CN history? Has this change been for the better or worse and what future change can we expect in the near and foreseeable future? If you had the influence to alter the way politics are conducted what would your ideal be?

[Proest]

Paperless is the best way but unfortunately not many around here agree. The future is what you make of it, not that anything around here actually changes. You can predict the way things will go here like clock work.

[Letterkenny]

Paperless is the best way but unfortunately not many around here agree. 

 

I think most everyone agrees, AAs are just afraid to implement it. Even alliances that claim to be paperless have things written down/ signed/ posted on the OWF. It's the nature of the game. Unless there's a conference a la G8 that decides treaties are no more, I think the paperless route will be grueling, resulting in an isolationist FA policy and possibly being left out of war. No one wants to be left out of the next great war.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Letterkenny

[Proest]

Isolation will happen, yes, but I call that progress. It only matters if a major alliance does it. Would anyone attack IRON if they suddenly threw away all of their treaties? Doubtful. But if a micro did it, they'd be in the backalley getting their salad tossed.

 

Pretty much as you said, it goes by who makes what moves. But these days that won't happen.

[Letterkenny]

Isolation will happen, yes, but I call that progress. It only matters if a major alliance does it. Would anyone attack IRON if they suddenly threw away all of their treaties? Doubtful. But if a micro did it, they'd be in the backalley getting their salad tossed.

 

Pretty much as you said, it goes by who makes what moves. But these days that won't happen.

 

I'd wager a number would attack IRON. Why the hell not? Certain friends may still come to the defense of IRON; what if the enemy is paperless? Can they count of friends to back up their aggression willingly? That's the kind of war I want to see. 

[Neo Uruk]

with the rumor mill CN is, would paperless make all that much of a difference? if anything, people would shit themselves at the thought of rushing into a losing war.

[Rayvon]

with the rumor mill CN is, would paperless make all that much of a difference? if anything, people would shit themselves at the thought of rushing into a losing war.

And without the papers to publicly protect you (obviously not 'you' specifically), it comes down to a real power play to see who will come in still for you .. Not knowing for sure if you are going into a losing war or not. Edited May 22, 2013 by Rayvon

[Neo Uruk]

And without the papers to publicly protect you (obviously not 'you' specifically), it comes down to a real power play to see who will come in still for you .. Not knowing for sure if you are going into a losing war or not.

Yeah, but given the nature of alliances to never pull the trigger without the odds at least being largely in their favor at the time they draw up plans, I would think it would make wars happen even less often. Either that, or maybe a spike in smaller-scale conflicts, which would be a positive gain.

 

I dunno, though.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Dcrews]

It seems that a paperless route is the desired political setup. Why is paperless so attractive and how does it compare to the norms when CN was young?

[iamthey]

Paperless/flat world ect heavily favors aggressive risk prone actors with strong relationships among their allies. It would be a disaster for everyone else. Extensive prewar organization would still occur, heavy cooperation/collaboration would still exist, it would be even more difficult to hedge and maneuver as the effective web would now be invisible. Due to the lack of formal ties, it would be increasingly easy for alliances to skirt their obligations to one another, and altogether it would create a situation where the only sure bet for any war is to side with your closest friend on the aggressing side. Beyond that the world it creates is boring as fuck, and almost utterly inaccessible to all but the most addicted and plugged in players. I really can't understand why this is such a popular idea- though if those of you who like it want to expound a bit I'll give it a chance/read.

 

If anything the diplomatic game needs MORE complexity, and the web needs to be more entangled. This makes for an interesting problem and creates the immersive environment for players to operate within - this is what we had when the player base was larger. It is the tendency to a bipolarity- the tendency to simplicity (probably brought about by the strong networks of individuals) which has made the politics dull, but breaking up the structure doesn't make things better it just cedes the world to its most organized and ruthless constituents. Sadly though what I want is akin to recapturing a lost innocence- so I don't see it happening.

Edited May 22, 2013 by iamthey

[Neo Uruk]

I'd like that as well, iamthey. While more treaties does rule out certain alliances engaging each other, more treaties forged out of political necessity instead of the whole "we're best friends" routines would lead to quicker and more complex war engagements. Then again, I'm no scholar, and it is 3 AM, so my opinion could be incredibly inaccurate.

 

But I've always been a fan of the idea of backstabbing someone in the middle of a war (poor execution by Polar tbh). After all, this is a game, why not make it more Machiavellian? Your friends will understand you did it to make things more interesting, even if they don't really like the impact it had on their nations.  Wild, insane stunts seem to entertain the masses, and Polaris alliances has survived enough beatdowns as a result of pariah status to make it seem doable without killing off your alliance if you have a strong enough community.

 

Essentially, I think alliance politics need to go beyond "we don't like your sense of humor" and "hey you kinda fucked our execution last war so we don't like you"

Edited May 22, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Hereno]

It doesn't make any rational sense for an alliance to go paperless when it is more beneficial to have paper. Paperless politics is a pipe dream.

[Helios]

In my mind, a paperless world would mean freedom to the point of chaos. Alliances would probably move in circles, unsure of exactly where to manoeuvre out of fear of being allied to someone who might get rolled. It would also likely mean far less wars, as nobody (or rather, very very few alliances) would be willing to risk attacking someone on the off chance that they will not be heavily defended.

 

Of course, much more complaining would also ensue as people bitch and whine about why someone didn't defend them, enter this war, attack this alliance, etc.

[Letterkenny]

Paperless/flat world ect heavily favors aggressive risk prone actors with strong relationships among their allies. It would be a disaster for everyone else. Extensive prewar organization would still occur, heavy cooperation/collaboration would still exist, it would be even more difficult to hedge and maneuver as the effective web would now be invisible. Due to the lack of formal ties, it would be increasingly easy for alliances to skirt their obligations to one another, and altogether it would create a situation where the only sure bet for any war is to side with your closest friend on the aggressing side. Beyond that the world it creates is boring as fuck, and almost utterly inaccessible to all but the most addicted and plugged in players. I really can't understand why this is such a popular idea- though if those of you who like it want to expound a bit I'll give it a chance/read.

 

If anything the diplomatic game needs MORE complexity, and the web needs to be more entangled. This makes for an interesting problem and creates the immersive environment for players to operate within - this is what we had when the player base was larger. It is the tendency to a bipolarity- the tendency to simplicity (probably brought about by the strong networks of individuals) which has made the politics dull, but breaking up the structure doesn't make things better it just cedes the world to its most organized and ruthless constituents. Sadly though what I want is akin to recapturing a lost innocence- so I don't see it happening.

More entangled? Not even sort of. This is the move that would make the world boring - bringing CN politics closer in line to RL politics. We don't see world wars anymore because everyone's tied to everyone, except for those regions of the world exploited for resources with governments no one cares about. Will the US go to war with China? Will North Korea launch an attack? Please. Global politics are so complicated that'll never be more than media hype and a good Bay film. It works for real life, why would we want that complication in CN? War is what keeps us going. War is what we need more of.

 

Hereno said it well; currently it doesn't benefit alliances to go paperless because the landscape becomes chaotic, unpredictable, the opposite of what the world is now. But going paperless would result in more war, and an actual fog of war. Spies would actually have merit again.

 

VE attacks NG out of hatred; will NPO rescue them? Will there be a rallying cry against the terrible actions of VE? Or will AAs flock to the thought of beating down a sanctioned alliance? 

 

Those are the kinds of scenarios that I'd like to see. No guarantees. There really isn't any backstabbing or Polar moments because there aren't official allies. Just fights in the hallway so to speak - are you going to help your friend, or watch from the sidelines? Totally your call. No paper or red tape can force you to do anything. I think this would not only drive up the hero:villain ratio, but it will increase the frequency of war; so long as you believe your friends are trustworthy. If your allies aren't worthy, not only is the paper you hold pointless but you'll be driven out by the strong in a paperless world. 

Edited May 22, 2013 by Letterkenny

[White Chocolate]

Based on what the world was like from when I first started paying some attention to politics to now, the change I've seen is a move from highly formal with fairly strict "unwritten rules" to somewhat more flexible "unwritten rules" - but still there.  This has affected everything from what type of treaties are encouraged/accepted over others to how much, if any, criticism people will get when they step outside the unwritten rules.

 

What I would like to see is fewer (note - I am not saying paperless) treaties signed (especially mandatory treaties) plus fewer large multiple alliance (i.e. World) wars and more frequent smaller ones that do not go beyond two to four alliances being involved.  A "world war" should be a REALLY big deal.  As things are now, it's happens yearly which I think cheapens it significantly. 

 

However, what would have to happen for this to occur is either that the alliances who are at war tell their allies to stay out of it or it becomes acceptable for allies to stay out of a war for various reasons (other than treaty conflicts) or those of us who draft treaties need to get more creative and then follow it.  I've seen treaties, for instance, have non-chaining clauses and I think that's an interesting attempt to put a limit one's entrance into a war.  It's not even that creative and yet it's rarely used if officially there.  Making non-chaining standard and regularly followed would limit war to the participants and their direct allies.  I would prefer that as it's far more fun in my opinion to actually have a stake in the outcome of the war or be directly allied to and friends with the alliance that does. 

 

Going paperless (the other extreme) is a bad idea.  (OOC: CN:TE has been paperless for a long time and it's worse off because of it, imo). 

 

Here is what happens: 1. Politics become even more behind closed doors 2. Agreements are broken easier.  No accountability.  3. Due to number 2, internal alliances spies become more necessary in order for alliances to have any clue what the others are actually planning.  4.  Due to number 3, alliance security gets tighter - so forget about there being any sort democracy. 5. The result of all of these things is that members have less investment in their alliance and not as much fun and either become completely inactive or leave out of boredom and start their own group. 

 

Overall result: More smaller alliances, no one trusts anyone else, it's impossible to switch "sides" (try it - the other side will not trust you at all, you're probably there to spy) and because those who plan wars rarely do so without some confidence that they will come out on top, either wars rarely happen or what makes war "okay" gets redefined - because, you know, e-lawyers have to argue something.  (OOC: the big argument in TE regarding war is whether or not it's an "equal fight")

[Letterkenny]

Based on what the world was like from when I first started paying some attention to politics to now, the change I've seen is a move from highly formal with fairly strict "unwritten rules" to somewhat more flexible "unwritten rules" - but still there.  This has affected everything from what type of treaties are encouraged/accepted over others to how much, if any, criticism people will get when they step outside the unwritten rules.

 

What I would like to see is fewer (note - I am not saying paperless) treaties signed (especially mandatory treaties) plus fewer large multiple alliance (i.e. World) wars and more frequent smaller ones that do not go beyond two to four alliances being involved.  A "world war" should be a REALLY big deal.  As things are now, it's happens yearly which I think cheapens it significantly. 

 

Going paperless (the other extreme) is a bad idea.  (OOC: CN:TE has been paperless for a long time and it's worse off because of it, imo). 

 

Here is what happens: 1. Politics become even more behind closed doors 2. Agreements are broken easier.  No accountability.  3. Due to number 2, internal alliances spies become more necessary in order for alliances to have any clue what the others are actually planning.  4.  Due to number 3, alliance security gets tighter - so forget about there being any sort democracy. 5. The result of all of these things is that members have less investment in their alliance and not as much fun and either become completely inactive or leave out of boredom and start their own group. 

 

Overall result: More smaller alliances, no one trusts anyone else, it's impossible to switch "sides" (try it - the other side will not trust you at all, you're probably there to spy) and because those who plan wars rarely do so without some confidence that they will come out on top, either wars rarely happen or what makes war "okay" gets redefined - because, you know, e-lawyers have to argue something.  (OOC: the big argument in TE regarding war is whether or not it's an "equal fight")

I think unwritten rules have pretty much gone away. At least, from my perspective. Nukes are launched ASAP. Screenshots aren't CBs. Poaching isn't a CB. IRC flaming is commonplace. Unwritten rules - the morals, if you will - fallen the way of tech raiding and "start up" aid (does anyone do that anymore?). 

 

Aye, world wars should be a big deal. In fairness, they are currently, they're just predictable. We have a massive buildup every X months (8 iirc), the GRL skyrockets, and then the waiting begins with a few conflicts here and there. It should indeed be much rarer, and much more of a bigger deal.

 

As to your problems with a paperless world: I see these as positives. 

 

1. Politics become even more behind closed doors.

 

Good! I shouldn't be able to predict the next political move. I shouldn't, as a regular member, be able to say "long time coming, good to see, blah blah blah." It should be secretive. It should be done with planning, it should be nerve wracking. It should not be easy and predictable as it is now.

 

2. No accountability. 

 

This is semi-accurate. As I mentioned, there won't be backstabbing, there won't be red tape, or accountability in that sense. However, other AAs could decide to hold you accountable. It will be different than the "justice" delivered in this world of complicated political spheres, but there may still be justice nonetheless. Or perhaps there won't be. Perhaps, if you're the strongest, you'll get away with whatever the hell you want. This is the beauty of a paperless world - no one can predict what the shape of things to come will be. Those that may happen to get it right will be hailed genius and praised for their massive network of spies that must be in place. Speaking of...

 

3. Spies become necessary.

 

Spying continues today, it's just pointless for the most part. An increase in the fog of war and a subsequent increase in spying will be a nice change of pace. Keep your friends close, and make damn sure you can trust your brothers and sisters in arms.

 

4. Forget about democracy.

 

I disagree this will happen, but I'm in an alliance that isn't necessarily democratic, so it doesn't matter to me. But you're right - open elections may be a thing of the past. To that I say, finally.

 

5. Members have less investment, lose care, etc.

 

To this I agree. Non-government & non essential members will lose interest quickly. On the flip side, it could spur activity upward. If we can market this game as a never ending politically active, spy orientated, carousel of war; who wouldn't want to play that game? Earn trust, punch someone in the mouth to get power, give the finger to people you don't like, and then use that power for good... or evil. Totally up to you. Sounds about as interesting as this nation simulation game is gonna get.

 

re: Overall result

 

I don't think there will be smaller alliances. I think the amount of alliances being created will severely drop, thank god. There won't be any real protection unless someone wants to play hall monitor, but that leaves them wide open for a blindside attack. Who wants to be that guy? Alliances who can't hold their own go away - good. The strong will survive, then. Trust will still be there, it'll just be on shakier ground. But to be fair, that's essentially the way it is today. Even with a treaty, it's easily cancelled or in some cases straight up ignored. That's why we call so many treaties downright pointless. 

[iamthey]

People who push paperless as the means to obtaining some kind of utopian vision are laboring under delusions. We've already purged ourselves of legalism, treaties today are simple, unserious, and minimalist in their approach. For the most part the arrangement of the web is simply a lagging record of relationships- the same ones that would still exist in a paperless world.

 

Treaties and the general ethics of the game are premised on basic loyalty, and while doing away with the paper would eliminate the record it would not do away with consistent clusters of collaborating alliances. If you think the disbandment of doomhouse or CnG or SF to go paperless would mean the end of their intimate cooperation you are kidding yourself. Preparation for war would still be extensive, attacking coalitions would still be organized and arranged prior to entry, war would remain highly calculated and for the competent instigator would be nearly risk free. In the absence of a hit to one's reputation the defending party which has no prearranged commitments outside of its immediate friends would see potential support shrink away as the full size of the arrayed opposition emerged from the shadows. This is what paperless means; a world where the most aggressive and ruthless members of the community would have free reign to snow ball their own steam rolling coalition moving from one risk averse group to the next all scattering in their wake.

 

Paperless doesn't mean balance, freedom from hegemony, security or nuance- it is the complete evaporation of any remotely interesting political game- and utter dominance through preponderance.

[MCRABT]

I agree with Iamthey, we don't need a paperless world we need more competent actors, using treaties for their intended political purpose rather than pinning them to the wall as  symbols of friendship and letting them gather dust.

[Master Hakai]

this is hilarious LOL!

[Rayvon]

If you think the disbandment of doomhouse or CnG or SF to go paperless would mean the end of their intimate cooperation you are kidding yourself. Preparation for war would still be extensive, attacking coalitions would still be organized and arranged prior to entry, war would remain highly calculated and for the competent instigator would be nearly risk free. In the absence of a hit to one's reputation the defending party which has no prearranged commitments outside of its immediate friends would see potential support shrink away as the full size of the arrayed opposition emerged from the shadows. This is what paperless means; a world where the most aggressive and ruthless members of the community would have free reign to snow ball their own steam rolling coalition moving from one risk averse group to the next all scattering in their wake.

 

These are all the pro's to it right here .. Make it all a game. No one can hide behind a wall of fucking paper anymore like cowards lol .. Make it a game again, as opposed to the obvious pre-determined chains we have now. First thing every leader does now when they consider taking an alliance to war, is follows their paper trail back; and then decides what course of action is worthwhile. This just means less action. It would make the FA teams have to work even harder as well to establish and maintain those connections that won't bitch out on you when you need them. Works for everyone except the apathetic who just want to collect taxes and chat4lyfe in da community -- find a chat room, not a game.

[Neo Uruk]

These are all the pro's to it right here .. Make it all a game. No one can hide behind a wall of fucking paper anymore like cowards lol .. Make it a game again, as opposed to the obvious pre-determined chains we have now. First thing every leader does now when they consider taking an alliance to war, is follows their paper trail back; and then decides what course of action is worthwhile. This just means less action. It would make the FA teams have to work even harder as well to establish and maintain those connections that won't bitch out on you when you need them. Works for everyone except the apathetic who just want to collect taxes and chat4lyfe in da community -- find a chat room, not a game.

I don't think most people will change their style of play just because OWF announcements are gone. People in CN talk, so most will still have a pretty clear picture of the treaty landscape.

[Rayvon]

I'm not suggesting the layout will ultimately change. Of course just because treaties would be gone, I'm not gonna instantly turn to Farrin and say 'ok fuck you good bye no more treaty in this here world' .. We're still going to maintain our relationship, and we're still gonna work together, and we're still going to 'play the game.' That's where it increases activity all around in the game, makes the relationships more important. 

 

Why would OWF announcements be gone? Just because treaties aren't being announced, doesn't mean alliances still don't have announcements to make (beyond the rah-rah-milestone announcements). Talking would certainly have to increase, so I hope people in CN talk.

[Letterkenny]

No one can hide behind a wall of fucking paper anymore like cowards

 

Works for everyone except the apathetic who just want to collect taxes and chat4lyfe in da community -- find a chat room, not a game.

Exactly this. Neutral alliances can keep their forums, there's no business remaining a pixel hoarder in this game. Stay strong or die.

[jerdge]

These are all the pro's to it right here .. Make it all a game. No one can hide behind a wall of fucking paper anymore like cowards lol .. Make it a game again, as opposed to the obvious pre-determined chains we have now. First thing every leader does now when they consider taking an alliance to war, is follows their paper trail back; and then decides what course of action is worthwhile. This just means less action. It would make the FA teams have to work even harder as well to establish and maintain those connections that won't bitch out on you when you need them. Works for everyone except the apathetic who just want to collect taxes and chat4lyfe in da community -- find a chat room, not a game.

Up to the DH-NPO war, targeted alliances routinely asked their allies to stay out of losed conflicts to both shorten the war and to preserve their proxies' stats for another day. Wasn't the "six million dollar war" one of those occasions? (I might remember it all wrong though.)
How would a paperless world not make it even easier that people "hide like cowards" and don't come to the assistance of the attacked?

I anyway think that a lot of people - enough to decisively condition where politics go - already make their decisions because of their relationships and/or out of pure convenience - despite their treaties, when necessary. We already have a de facto "paperless" connections-web.
The mentioned "Everything. Must. Die." attack rendered non-chaining and limitation clauses ineffective in shielding people from being involved, and more recently the "an attack of one is an attack on all" paradigm (which IIRC wasn't invented by EQ, but which they "just" used extensively for the first time) made the letter of the treaties (the "wall of paper") even less meaningful than before. But the examples are almost countless (E.g. The "Coalition of Cowards", the cancellation of the Ordinance of the Orders, the MHA-NPO treaty going down the drain, basically every massive use of Peace Mode to preserve stats (instead of assisting alliance mates/allies that got caught in the open), several situations involving Int - I lost count - etc.)
I basically think that we already have that world that you wish for, and in fact we probably have had it since the beginning of CN.

Treaties provide drama, they don't drive politics. I might add: rightfully so! I have always found rather stupid to stick to the letter of your obligations even when people are evidently carefully aligning DoWs to have you fall on this or that side. Letting your treaties do the work for them and not for you is not very bright.
But treaties provide drama, as I said. While in "ancient" times people used to make a better effort to pretend, in more recent days we got used to a disenchanted Out Of Character attitude which IMHO provides a terrible narrative (if any) and renders the toy much less entertaining.
Preaching a paperless world, while ineffective (or superfluous, if you will) in changing politics, would thus just risk to spoil the game even more, driving us to the boring Era of Unfun.

You said "make it all a game" and heaven knows how you're right. But a game has to be played "seriously": pretending, giving form to it and fighting to preserve its narration; and "unseriously": not letting relationships and convenience entirely drive your play, but leaving some room for fun.

tl;dr: disregard convenience, acquire form/fun.


[hr]

Exactly this. Neutral alliances can keep their forums, there's no business remaining a pixel hoarder in this game. Stay strong or die.

Strange how we started from "cancelling all treaties" and we ended with "down with the neutrals" (i.e. with the only people that don't hoard treaties).
Fact is, this game can be played (and is played) in several different ways, and the neutrals just do it their way. The chatting plays a major role in the enjoyment (like with everyone else, I might add) but the pixels have their function too.
You can always attempt to harm their (our) pixels to show that they (we) are "unstrong", by the way.

[Rayvon]

Up to the DH-NPO war, targeted alliances routinely asked their allies to stay out of losed conflicts to both shorten the war and to preserve their proxies' stats for another day. Wasn't the "six million dollar war" one of those occasions? (I might remember it all wrong though.)
How would a paperless world not make it even easier that people "hide like cowards" and don't come to the assistance of the attacked?

I anyway think that a lot of people - enough to decisively condition where politics go - already make their decisions because of their relationships and/or out of pure convenience - despite their treaties, when necessary. We already have a de facto "paperless" connections-web.
The mentioned "Everything. Must. Die." attack rendered non-chaining and limitation clauses ineffective in shielding people from being involved, and more recently the "an attack of one is an attack on all" paradigm (which IIRC wasn't invented by EQ, but which they "just" used extensively for the first time) made the letter of the treaties (the "wall of paper") even less meaningful than before. But the examples are almost countless (E.g. The "Coalition of Cowards", the cancellation of the Ordinance of the Orders, the MHA-NPO treaty going down the drain, basically every massive use of Peace Mode to preserve stats (instead of assisting alliance mates/allies that got caught in the open), several situations involving Int - I lost count - etc.)
I basically think that we already have that world that you wish for, and in fact we probably have had it since the beginning of CN.

Treaties provide drama, they don't drive politics. I might add: rightfully so! I have always found rather stupid to stick to the letter of your obligations even when people are evidently carefully aligning DoWs to have you fall on this or that side. Letting your treaties do the work for them and not for you is not very bright.
But treaties provide drama, as I said. While in "ancient" times people used to make a better effort to pretend, in more recent days we got used to a disenchanted Out Of Character attitude which IMHO provides a terrible narrative (if any) and renders the toy much less entertaining.
Preaching a paperless world, while ineffective (or superfluous, if you will) in changing politics, would thus just risk to spoil the game even more, driving us to the boring Era of Unfun.

You said "make it all a game" and heaven knows how you're right. But a game has to be played "seriously": pretending, giving form to it and fighting to preserve its narration; and "unseriously": not letting relationships and convenience entirely drive your play, but leaving some room for fun.

tl;dr: disregard convenience, acquire form/fun.


[hr]Strange how we started from "cancelling all treaties" and we ended with "down with the neutrals" (i.e. with the only people that don't hoard treaties).
Fact is, this game can be played (and is played) in several different ways, and the neutrals just do it their way. The chatting plays a major role in the enjoyment (like with everyone else, I might add) but the pixels have their function too.
You can always attempt to harm their (our) pixels to show that they (we) are "unstrong", by the way.

 

The 6m War situation was more of a we-made-our-bed-we-lay-in-it situation moreso than 'protecting' our allies (whom did want to enter, yes). Heft, Emperor at the time, made the clear decision for the aid to be sent without consulting allies (or perhaps he spoke with one or two, I'm not 100% certain as I was only 2 weeks into my NSO tenure when that war kicked off) and thus, the respectful, took full accountability for it. Much like the Tetris-Legion war, that was originally our bag. One of our gov members unconsented, and one of Tetris' leaders, continued it and so we stepped in and took as much accountability for it as we could considering it was originally rooted in our actions (Big, bad Legion thought to make an example of Tetris after letting us walk all over them).

 

The 'hide like cowards' comment was more towards alliances whom are, for all intents and purposes, treaty whores - nothing to do with Neutrals (you still 'play the game' in a similar fashion that Switzerland still contributes to the real world .. My thoughts of neutrals don't fall within the confines of this discussion). Build a large number of treaties, and then sit and do nothing politically or to contribute to the game and just sit behind that protection. The fact that you may see less people assist the attacked, is where the game gets more interesting. That, again, falls back to the required work that FA departments would have to do. It may mean some alliances who may not necessarily step forward because they're afraid of the 30000 'x' alliance is holding, and hope they did due diligence in assuring their ass is covered. Yes de facto treaties are still going to exist in a manner of speaking - noting as I said before, using a previously mentioned relationship as a consistent example, NPO and NSO wouldn't have any less of a relationship and you could count on the other being there if you hit one.

 

The world as it is now (including the way it worked in the 6m example), as I'm reading in some of your post, is more of a world where every single treaty is just purely optional and not mandatory. A far cry from 'paperless' still.

 

I can't even quite follow the rest of your post at the moment lol I'll try after I get a nap (shift 3 sucks) ...

Edited May 24, 2013 by Rayvon