Ogaden Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) 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 May 22, 2014 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I will cancel all of my treaties if you cancel all of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 imagine having alliance treaties in 2014Public Enemy is the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Don't think about war, think about love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitchellBade Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Was this supposed to be some revelation or we just stating the obvious here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted May 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Was this supposed to be some revelation or we just stating the obvious here? Obvious to you and I perhaps, but you would be surprized Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Tyrant Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 If you want more wars bring back the old team system where only one AA per team could receive sanctioned status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) I think this is a great suggestion, but it's been tried before. FAN did it with success, and they still do it. MK tried to copy and ended up being the lone gunner, and decided to write treaties again. Edited May 23, 2014 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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... I am sorry. Maybe next time you will look at me before u attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 MK tried to copy and ended up being the lone gunner, and decided to write treaties again.Confirming MK was always politically inept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Confirming MK was always politically inept. I mean they tried? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre4mwe4ver Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxplayer Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Was this supposed to be some revelation or we just stating the obvious here? Sometimes relevations are about the most obvious things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilyn Caster Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) MK tried to copy and ended up being the lone gunner, and decided to write treaties again. It's pretty hilarious that you believe this. Edited May 23, 2014 by Devilyn Caster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Brandon Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) 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 May 27, 2014 by King Brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Treaties or no treaties, friendships would endure and the spheres would still be the same and the coalition planning of wars would remain. Nothing would really change IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Does anyone else remember all the whining about the use of strategic OAs in the last war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Does anyone else remember all the whining about the use of strategic OAs in the last war?You are sad and weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 No but I wish you'd remind us at every opportunity? 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.