Jump to content

The reason CN is the way it is


Ogaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

Imagine for a moment that all treaties worldwide were cancelled, and there were no treaties compelling action between alliances.

 

Thus, we have removed the treaty web!  Now wars should be fun!

 

Into this void, Alliance A decides to attack Alliance B.  Alliance A is much larger than Alliance B.  Alliance B, who have known alliances C and D for years, will most certainly lose the war, and Alliance C decides that Alliance A are being jerks, and declares war on Alliance A for declaring on Alliance B.  Alliance D decides that Alliance C was right and also attacks Alliance A.  Alliance A also has old time friends in Alliances E and F and agreed that Alliance B deserved to be rolled, so they declare war on Alliances C and D for attacking their friends.

 

So we have an escalating alliance war.  Perhaps it won't escalate as rapidly or orderly as one from treaties, but it's looking pretty darn similar already.

 

The "treaty web" is actually a web of trust and relationships that exist between alliances and have for donkeys years.  The difference is that in CN, we publicly announce our relationship with other alliances rather than it being a private thing, so war is somewhat more predictable and manageable.  Removing the treaty web would not actually make wars smaller or prevent them from escalating so quickly, but they would make wars more unpredictable with a higher error rate in coalition planning.

 

Wars escalate because alliances expect their friends to defend them when they are attacked.  Almost every modern treaty has a non-chaining clause, so in these hugely escalating wars, the treaty web is not actually causing the escalation, since all those escalated declarations are effectively optional defense, due to chaining.  They defend because it's their friends, not because of the treaty.

 

The reason why wars are so lopsided is very simple.  No-one sets out to start a war they will lose, before pulling the trigger and starting a war, coalitions try to ensure victory before it starts, otherwise why on earth would you start the war.  Making the situation more uncertain and unclear just means that coalitions will now "factor in" the uncertainty, and the only wars that would occur are ones where it is a complete curbstomp.

 

The reason for this hesitancy is that losing a major war can set your alliance back years, sometimes never to recover.

Edited by Ogaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the treaty web would not actually make wars smaller or prevent them from escalating so quickly, but they would make wars more unpredictable with a higher error rate in coalition planning.


Ogaden is pretty spot on in his logic. The line I quoted is also correct and in my opinion would actually result in less wars than what we have now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting, but as Dajobo said, we'd have less wars than we do currently. Things would be even more stale than what we're used to.


Frequency of wars is an issue.

The way CN fights wars right now is akin to WWI style grinding trench warfare. Slow, bogged down, no easy victory even when the end result can be calculated from the outset. Leads to 3 month + war campaigns that take the steam out of everyone and follows up with mammoth 8 month peace cycles to recover. You end up playing a game that delivers a war a year and I think that's clearly an issue.

Having kicked around in TE over the years and in small micro AA's at times in SE, there's something to be said about the mechanics of fighting CN wars using nothing but smaller nations vs other equally prepared opponents. Its likely the way admin intended the game to be played rather then billion dollar nuke turret sieges we see now. If it is a game mechanics issue, rather then just a treaty web issue then your looking at perhaps some form of reset or major mechanics overhaul to bring war back into a more speedy action orientated event that can occur, finalise (via submission power against a foe) and be rebuilt from in a shorter period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last couple major wars haven't been lopsided in terms of damage dealt/received, only upon whom it is concentrated.

 

Depends how you want to look at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last couple major wars haven't been lopsided in terms of damage dealt/received, only upon whom it is concentrated.
 
Depends how you want to look at things.



We're still standing... yeah yeah yeah...

dj.subfvonj.227x170-99.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last couple major wars haven't been lopsided in terms of damage dealt/received, only upon whom it is concentrated.

 

Depends how you want to look at things.

 

I know. I did damage NG pretty well.

 

We're still standing... yeah yeah yeah...

dj.subfvonj.227x170-99.jpg

 

I am sorry. Maybe next time you will look at me before u attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last couple major wars haven't been lopsided in terms of damage dealt/received, only upon whom it is concentrated.
 
Depends how you want to look at things.

I'd agree with this. It's all about perspective. Let's say a curbstomp is lined up and executed with this type of non-lopsided damage. For the stompees, when compared to how badly it could have gone, that sounds like a success story from the perspective of being able to limit and manage damage while facing unfavorable odds. On the other hand, for the stompers, you don't get to hit someone without suffering at least some retaliation yourself. You pay the price for victory, but yes, you get the victory by paying that price.

And furthermore:

...coalitions try to ensure victory before it starts...

Naturally, in most circumstances, you'd try to ensure a decisive victory before starting something. If we're going to assess things
"in terms of damage dealt/received," then I guess the last few wars are examples of the instigators trying, but not exactly succeeding. Or perhaps the opposition being successful in their actions. Or a combination of both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to have a treaty web, don't have an internet (the wonder).  DBDC has always strived to arrange treaties with our friends, that way when we act we will be by default assisting our friends AND allies (or calling in assistance from friends if things go south).  I think you're reading too much into this.  Alliances generally sign treaties with other alliances they are friends with, at least at the time of signing.  It's true that some treaties are purely political in nature, and some are used to consolidate power spheres or to buy safety.  It still doesn't really make much difference, because the flip side of this is what we generally have now, where there is terrific OWF outcry when someone jumps the treaty chain and attacks someone for the reason of (gasp!) 'We don't like you'.

 

As for the status quo about losing wars, it really shouldn't be this way.  Wars have turned into such grudge matches that alliances will stay at war for weeks, even months longer than they should.  Most wars in CN are decided within the first 60 days, even after the late joiners find a way to chain in.  The grind phase is what we should really seek to reduce as a community.  People work very hard to import tech and maintain good warchests, granted some do it more diligently than others, but the effort is generally there.  To have it all stripped away because of an alliance war the majority of combatants don't necessarily agree with is a HUGE factor in why people either stop playing, or form their own DOOMCAVE.  Not all of us are fortunate enough to be super tiers with lots of friends, so people quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty hilarious that you believe this.

 

I'm not surprised though, it is Rotavele after all.

 

Regarding the topic itself we have a real issue with people actually doing the whole "attacking" part, people not having treaties wont change that.

Edited by King Brandon
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...