Jump to content

attn world


Ardus

Recommended Posts

NATO-R&R MDoAP is missing. It played an important role in the last two wars, so I thought I'd point it out. Also, R&R-TIO oDoAP. How are we going to fall under NPO's benevolent eye othwerwise?

TPF-Fark, AI-Fark... It seems you're forgetting a whole lot of treaties. Seems almost a pattern, eh?

Most ODOAPs were not included.  If you want a map of every possible link ever, go make one yourself.

 

Further, [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs]Farkistan's CN Wiki page[/url] does not list any treaties between itself and TPF, nor is such a treaty indicated on [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Phoenix_Federation]TPF's page.[/url]

Edited by Ardus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Uh, the NATO-R&R tie is a tad more important than the TPF-TSI tie lol

Considering TSI was largely considered a TPF satellite (who besides TPF knew they hadn't talked in forever?)the treaty there is a bit more memorable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, the NATO-R&R tie is a tad more important than the TPF-TSI tie lol

Given R&R has a staggering [b]nine[/b] MDP or higher treaties listed on their wiki page (one of which, to FOK, is defunct), and is a member of two distinct blocs, it's really hard to say any one of them look particularly important.  Frankly every time I see the page I think about doing my Schatt impression, previously witnessed in this thread.

 

NPO is similarly bloated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT ENOUGH TRASHTALK

 

 

Swapped TORN and ML's places to make TORN's north/south treaties easier to put in.  Also swapped Echelon and DB4D, adding DB4D's treaty with TORN and Echelon's treaty with R&R.  R&R's treaty with NATO added.

Edited by Ardus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just a location issue, but it looks to show treaties between TPF and both LoSS and NATO.

The first version I posted on here was actually the third revision in a short span of days and, when I made it, I had to erase all the connections and overhaul everything.  In that process, it appears I accidentally moved the NATO-TIO treaty to NATO-TPF.  Congratulations on the treaty you never knew you had. :P

 

I've edited the above to correct that mistake.

Edited by Ardus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with any treaty map is that the distances involved imply that a lot of alliances are closer than they actually are, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT ENOUGH TRASHTALK

Where your abbreviation is not an acronym, (Avalanche, Sparta, etc) it would be better if you don't capitalize all letters.
 

Also, CoJ, if you want to get on the map you'll need to upgrade that treaty to an obligation.

Our O's and treaties of non-specific designation stem from a specific foreign policy philosophy which pre-dates the proliferation of non-chaining M's ("Mn's") but is on paper a similar concept.  I say "on paper" rather than "in practice" because while CoJ has always said exactly what it means, even the advent of Mn's has not allowed for alliances to speak plainly as they boast about their disdain for the n and intentions never to employ it, yet they continue to include it. 
It's your map and so you can draw the line on inclusion wherever you want, but a purely legalistic exclusion of CoJ over the O, or an exclusion based on an incongruity between what we mean by O and what O traditionally means makes your web out of touch with reality. Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be really sweet is if you had each alliance as a circle indicating relative NS ;)

I have an excel sheet for tabulating statistics.  The purpose of a relationship web is to keep in mind who each alliance has most in mind, not how strong they are.

 

It's doable on LOSS's far more technically impressive system.  It's impractical for me to manually construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's doable on LOSS's far more technically impressive system.  It's impractical for me to manually construct.

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure how you were making this. If it's by hand, probably not so fun to do..

 

 

edit - oh, now I just saw LOSS's. 

Edited by enderland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't include treaties that "don't count" and alliances that "don't matter".  You'd be surprised at how many treaties count.

 

And there is a very clear "north" and "south" right now.  But each of those regions is its own compartmentalized mess.  Down south you have SF/XX/Chestnut/Aftermath/Sentinel/NpO; no alliance in that mass has initiated a major war in recent memory, only followed the lead of some other provocateur or defended.  Also, four blocs overlap one another.  Up north you have DH/C&G/Aztec/DR/NPO/TOP/MI6, wherein most component parts of that mess hate most of the other component parts, such that nothing in it can readily project power at present.  There are some ODPs connecting those two groups that played a role in the last war but are diminished in the present atmosphere.

 

Amusingly enough, TIO might be one of the better connected alliances right now, with treaties leading to C&G (GATO), DR (IRON, Argent), NPO (sphere unto itself), and Aztec (-->LOSS-->DT).  No one alliance down south carries connections vital to the rest of the group--there are a zillion redundant treaties, possibly because nobody up north wants a thing to do with them.

 

 

Will the south rise again, though? 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...