Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) 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 June 13, 2013 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 You should weight the spheres by tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Uh, the NATO-R&R tie is a tad more important than the TPF-TSI tie lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Uh, the NATO-R&R tie is a tad more important than the TPF-TSI tie lolConsidering 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) 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 June 13, 2013 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 There's an IRON-GLoF MDoAP :v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Still not that many connections! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 There's an IRON-GLoF MDoAP :v *Looks at web and alliances between the two* Not in my world there ain't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Nice revision, but still no love for the CoJ - NpO treaty? No matter, it will only come as that much more of a shock when our 2 million NS* crashes down on the northern web. *by then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 I think it's just a location issue, but it looks to show treaties between TPF and both LoSS and NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) 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 June 13, 2013 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Also, CoJ, if you want to get on the map you'll need to upgrade that treaty to an obligation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 At least you can admit that the GPA part of the map is the easiest to draw. (I personally figure us looping around that ball of thread. Tongue out.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 LoSS - TPF doesn't exist either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Instr Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Umbrella has the coolest geometric pattern of treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 I just realized that if I moved the South Pole a little to the right I could make the whole thing look roughly like Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 (edited) 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 June 14, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 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.That's sexy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 What would be really sweet is if you had each alliance as a circle indicating relative NS ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) I am the glue holding together two worlds. What have I done... :( Edited June 15, 2013 by mythicknight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) 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 June 15, 2013 by enderland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.