Jump to content

Why do micros sign treaties?


Lord Hitchcock
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's already beginning to be a blockbuster year in the micro world. With treaty, after treaty, after treaty....

 

And my question is why? Why sign all of these treaties?

 

Are you afraid of being attacked by another micro? Historically speaking, M Inc is the only aggressive micro in the last 2 years... are we that scary?

 

Are you in fear of Big Red crawling out of bed one morning and saying 'it's time to purge the micros'?... (which at that point I'm sure we'd all be banded together anyway)

 

Why not just have a protector? Growth and protection included in one single treaty- in a day and age where tech suppliers are in high need.

 

Is it because you want to feel independent and sovereign? Of what exactly? You have no enemies, micros haven't done anything in years unless it pertained to m inc. What kind of independence are you searching for and what makes your alliance different and unique from the other micros? Why should a member join your alliance over another?

 

Is this like an AZTEC bloc thing where micros band together for Econ purposes and over time became very influential?... the politics then, were much different then they are now.

 

And the micros who have bigger influences in their FA, would a micro treaty really influence you to choose that treaty (with said micro) over the treaty of your sacred macro cow?

 

Is it because a 'signed peace of paper' all of a sudden 'allows' you to work together with the signed alliance?

 

As a micro alliance, you are safe. Macros would rather deal with you for your tech and Monsters Inc isn't going to hit you. Outside of an occasional rouge (easily dealt with by 'a' treaty) would suffice.

 

Bundling yourselves up together does very little.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I feel like this is partially directed at me, as we started this "treaty spree" with our PIAT with TM last week.

 

Firstly, I shrug off the definition of The Ironborn being a "micro."  I think our history and strength at the individual level puts us at a moderate level.  We don't need to measure an extremity here.  But that's just semantics.

 

Protectorates are only one part of the game.  Alliances under 1Mil have a terrible track record of staying alive, and treaties allow for activity and co-growth across the board.  Shaking hands isn't just for the big kids' table.  If it gives people a reason to be interested in their alliance and sign in every day, then effing do it.

 

I like to think that myself, Gorgoth, Marco, Lucius, and Tyronia see the benefit of working together, respectively (we've only treatied two of them).  The more alliances, the better.

Edited by Maegor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a non sequitur when you consider micro alliances different than "normal" sized alliances? 

 

You should title this thread as, why do alliances sign treaties. Because a micro is just a loose definition, and it differed from this year to two years ago, to five years ago etcetc..

 

Any alliance with a semblance of FA, and desire to protect their alliance across multiple tiers, can sign treatise. 

 

 

It would be better to look at why alliances have many overlapping treaties to the same side, more so than critiquing small alliances for signing a treaty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what it boils down to is that alliances, regardless of size, want to play the game. There's only so much in-game clicking you can do so really it's about communities and politics and the status quo dictates that politics are largely treaty-centric sooo...

 

Not that I'm passing judgment necessarily.

 

There's a tangential discussion in here on what constitutes a micro. The CN Wiki has a fun definition.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knew this was going to be a "hurr durr Minc is stronk" thread before even opening.

 

Treaties provide stability. Strength in numbers. Most younger nations dont want to be dealing with a nation with a massive warchest and 30 wonders on a 1v1 basis.

 

The toxic nature of warfare in CN today has already driven off countless new nations, those who remain desire security so they can grow stronger (a process that takes months to years to achieve).

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said:

We do it because we can, and there is basicly nothing else going on. 

 

Dead planet or burned out planet with active micro governments. 

 

Your pick. 

The second all day long. If big alliances have a problem with micro activity then they need to start acting more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maegor said:

I feel like this is partially directed at me, as we started this "treaty spree" with our PIAT with TM last week.

 

Firstly, I shrug off the definition of The Ironborn being a "micro."  I think our history and strength at the individual level puts us at a moderate level.  We don't need to measure an extremity here.  But that's just semantics.

 

Protectorates are only one part of the game.  Alliances under 1Mil have a terrible track record of staying alive, and treaties allow for activity and co-growth across the board.  Shaking hands isn't just for the big kids' table.  If it gives people a reason to be interested in their alliance and sign in every day, then effing do it.

 

I like to think that myself, Gorgoth, Marco, Lucius, and Tyronia see the benefit of working together, respectively (we've only treatied two of them).  The more alliances, the better.

 

This is not particularly directed at you as it is more directed to micros in general. And I disagree that ironborn is not considered a 'micro' as I would also consider alliances even like Kashmir as a micro in the grand schemes of comparison (this isn't a bad thing). Track records of (active) alliances over one million nation strength compared to alliances under 1 million nation strength have no statistically linked association with 'staying alive', link there is usually how long an alliance has been around (without being too old), think of a bell curve here. Shaking hands at the 'big boy table' is necessary in their political world as they have less to fall back.

 

6 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

I think it's a non sequitur when you consider micro alliances different than "normal" sized alliances? 

 

You should title this thread as, why do alliances sign treaties. Because a micro is just a loose definition, and it differed from this year to two years ago, to five years ago etcetc..

 

Any alliance with a semblance of FA, and desire to protect their alliance across multiple tiers, can sign treatise. 

 

 

It would be better to look at why alliances have many overlapping treaties to the same side, more so than critiquing small alliances for signing a treaty. 

 

I agree that that the term micro has certainly redefined itself over the course of declining numbers. A 'micro' at one point was an 80 nation alliance whereas today that same 80 nation would be considered otherwise. The 'overlapping' treaties you mention is very interesting. As when macro treaty cows collide micros at opposite ends of the spectrum (in relation to their macro cows) aren't going to choose their less-valuable micro treaty. So these little dingy treaties are certainly from a micro drama standpoint, but what micro drama? M Inc? 

 

6 hours ago, SirWilliam said:

I think what it boils down to is that alliances, regardless of size, want to play the game. There's only so much in-game clicking you can do so really it's about communities and politics and the status quo dictates that politics are largely treaty-centric sooo...

 

Not that I'm passing judgment necessarily.

 

There's a tangential discussion in here on what constitutes a micro. The CN Wiki has a fun definition.  :P

 

I agree that building communities is a large part of it. Micro (and especially newer) alliances want that sense of belong and acceptance. But communities are not built solely on treaties at all. Here's an example, Polar and ODN have been on the opposite ends of the spectrum for a very long time, this doesn't change their friendly discussions in each other's embassies or their professional dealings among each other otherwise, while politically they are different, whether linked or not does not represent either of the alliances being in favor of community isolationism.

 

6 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

Knew this was going to be a "hurr durr Minc is stronk" thread before even opening.

 

Treaties provide stability. Strength in numbers. Most younger nations dont want to be dealing with a nation with a massive warchest and 30 wonders on a 1v1 basis.

 

The toxic nature of warfare in CN today has already driven off countless new nations, those who remain desire security so they can grow stronger (a process that takes months to years to achieve).

 

This is not a 'hur durr' m inc discussion. It's actually very true. Historically speaking, the only real micro drama is an aggressive M Inc.

 

And I think you shot yourself in the foot by answering your own statement. You claim new nations are driven from the planet because of 'toxic wars' when indeed you state that a new nation takes years and years before they actually have fun. Hmmmm, does that mean that the declining numbers of new nations in hegomey alliances is also our fault? I think your trying to blame the high electric bill on some non energy efficient light bulbs (10% of the bill) when it's really the outdated furnace and air conditioner (50% of the bill).

 

6 hours ago, General Gorgoth said:

And yeah, if we go by number of members then both Ironborn and TMG are micros, going off of the total strength we both are full alliances albeit admittedly smaller ones

 

Your numbers are great but that doesn't mean a whole lot. There was a bloc called aftermath and they were outstanding alliances. What it really set them up for was being an open target. Strength in numbers can be a very good thing (think CnG) but it can also set yourself up too. I would certainly consider both ironborn and tmg micros in comparison with the big whales (again, this isn't a bad thing). But it's true.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said:

We do it because we can, and there is basicly nothing else going on. 

 

Dead planet or burned out planet with active micro governments. 

 

Your pick. 

 

Is there a difference?

 

 

29 minutes ago, General Gorgoth said:

The second all day long. If big alliances have a problem with micro activity then they need to start acting more

 

I don't think big alliances have a problem with it. I do not even think they care. 'Micro activity' is as stated above, just signing treaties all day and trying to stay clear of controversy.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Is there a difference?

 

 

 

I don't think big alliances have a problem with it. I do not even think they care. 'Micro activity' is as stated above, just signing !@#$ all day.

Yes there is a difference.  

 

Until all the micros grow up, or all the protectors die...or just no longer care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said:

Yes there is a difference.  

 

Until all the micros grow up, or all the protectors die...or just no longer care

 

So micros grow up to become protectors who die because they no longer care? Seems like an efficient numbers declining cycle.

 

but as junka stated, first they need to build for a few years.

 

I think you're missing the point here, or at least validating it completely.

 

Now I'm not saying go out and bop the nearest micro. In fact, I'm not advocating war at all. I do however want micros to be more bold in their beliefs, represent their own unique character with passion. Disagree on issues. Blending yourselves together with signed papers is no different than just merging in with one another.

 

Stand out, have fun. We've certainly had ours and it's time for new leaders to step up in this world and create new dialogue.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Razgriz24 said:

 

I feel bold in my unique belief that I passionately disagree with you on this issue.

 

A completley bold and unique statement. Certainly unique.

 

I am trying to make this a serious discussion. 

 

Micros sign treaties and I don't really think they have goals in mind, or really thought it through. Some may have.

 

Is it for protection? Find a protector. Is it for Econ? Find a protector. Don't like war? Declare neutrality (you may get pegged once every 5 years). 

 

Its challenging enough to keep up with all the treaties that really provide nothing. And my challenge to micros is to separate what makes your alliance different. What goals do you have and why? What's the point of treaty A?

 

Kashmir has stood out by really advocating paperless and they've been quite successful. Super Nova X has stood out by being producers and following essays by old leaders, SRA has stood out by not linking themselves into the treaty web following 'treaty web politics', when yearly world wars were the norm', animalz has stood out by warring everything under the kitchen sink, Limitless Nexus stood for libertarian principles, Doom Squad stood out as a micro in macro politics with their support by DBDC.

 

Micros certainly have identities, it makes them very unique. There are others however that have yet really expressed their mission on here, And without identity why treaty? There are no goals on this planet, there is no such thing as winning or losing. There's you, there's your members, and there's your own unique reason for being here. A clumped ball of treaties doesn't define that.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

I do however want micros to be more bold in their beliefs, represent their own unique character with passion. Disagree on issues. Blending yourselves together with signed papers is no different than just merging in with one another.

 

Stand out, have fun. We've certainly had ours and it's time for new leaders to step up in this world and create new dialogue.

 

 

I mostly agree with this statement. Though it is important to have friends on the micro level as well. Therefore some treaties, or at least close and dependable micro friends, are necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

"I do however want micros to be more bold in their beliefs, represent their own unique character with passion. Disagree on issues. Blending yourselves together with signed papers is no different than just merging in with one another." 

 

 

 

 

You are afraid of micros eventually unifying? There may be some merges in the future but for now it's just micros consolidating their influences. You're over analyzing it. 

 

I'm an imperialist and a monarchist and I'm passionate about it. I've made strong disagreements in the past. At one time I objected to your raiding so much I attacked you. 

 

And signing papers is not like merging. Especially when they are not MdMap type treaties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said:

 

You are afraid of micros eventually unifying? There may be some merges in the future but for now it's just micros consolidating their influences. You're over analyzing it. 

 

I'm an imperialist and a monarchist and I'm passionate about it. I've made strong disagreements in the past. At one time I objected to your raiding so much I attacked you. 

 

And signing papers is not like merging. Especially when they are not MdMap type treaties. 

Mergers typically have a net gain to begin with, but if done incorrectly or too frequently, they can destabilise the final alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

I agree that that the term micro has certainly redefined itself over the course of declining numbers. A 'micro' at one point was an 80 nation alliance whereas today that same 80 nation would be considered otherwise. The 'overlapping' treaties you mention is very interesting. As when macro treaty cows collide micros at opposite ends of the spectrum (in relation to their macro cows) aren't going to choose their less-valuable micro treaty. So these little dingy treaties are certainly from a micro drama standpoint, but what micro drama? M Inc? 

 

 

I don't believe that's true, as there's never really been a push for micro's to enter the war, as they'll need more aid to keep afloat that other alliances in the war. Being in, and around micro alliances for 8 years, I've rarely been asked to the battlefield by a protector, or an alliance with a much larger NS range than we. 

 

I must echo that there is a certain mystique about why micro's sign treaties, but it can do with aggression from other micro's, philosophical discussions as well. There needs to be more intrigue at the top, not the bottom of the alliance count. It never matters if micro drama reaches war as it will almost likely be shot down because of the treaties both micro's have. So in that case it helps to have treaties to minimize damage from other micro alliance dealings.

 

I for one, if I was so willing, would look to attack the ones with less treaties, to trigger any defence. So. No. I think your assessment that micro treating is bad. It's great for the safety of the alliance, and for likely amusement for others to see if a micro war will turn into a huge war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Archangel1 said:

 

I mostly agree with this statement. Though it is important to have friends on the micro level as well. Therefore some treaties, or at least close and dependable micro friends, are necessary.

 

You're absolutely spot on but let's examine the current, and as of today (more current) micro treaties.

 

If you took the micros and started drawing lines from micro alliance to micro alliance you'd have one big giant black dot. (Alsonso's point)

 

Now let's stop and think about this, CNials, is this what you want? It's certainly locked up the macro world.

 

If you're going to sign treaties understand the future of it. Understand what it means for your alliance. Don't fall into the same trap as the older alliances before you. Even out sides, form opposing blocs, create fun drama. Make your world fun and make the macros jealous.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

You're absolutely spot on but let's examine the current, and as of today (more current) micro treaties.

 

If you took the micros and started drawing lines from micro alliance to micro alliance you'd have one big giant black dot. (Alsonso's point)

 

Now let's stop and think about this, CNials, is this what you want? It's certainly locked up the macro world.

 

If your going to sign treaties understand the future of it. Don't fall into the same trap as the other alliances before you. Even out sides, form blocs with beef with other blocs. Make your world fun and make the macros jealous.

 

What makes you think there is no beef? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

I am trying to make this a serious discussion.

 

You're right. From my point of view anyways... first yes, it's the "free at last!" sorta thing but should be taken seriously when pen meets paper for those signatures. Does the current relationship exist without the paper and will continue to exist without a paper? Then that is the time to consider the paper and never before. If there is something I cannot stand it's a treaty for a treaties sake or treaties where there is no already existing relationship of love or at very least; a common goal or ideal.

 

A treaty to "feel safe" is the same as getting married to "feel complete". You should already feel complete before you say those vows or else you likely aren't doing it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

those who remain desire security so they can grow stronger (a process that takes months to years to achieve).

 

"Dear new nation ruler, welcome to Planet Bob, where everything is outdated. Don't worry though, you'll have fun in a few months, maybe years..."

 

Yes. Yes. I can visualize the new ruler retention already.

 

3 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

 

You are afraid of micros eventually unifying?

 

I'm absolutely terrified. But not for the reason you're thinking. I am not 'terrified' pertaining to my alliance. I am terrified that the micro's are doing the same thing that gridlocked the macros.  

 

3 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

there's never really been a push for micro's to enter the war.........

 

 There needs to be more intrigue at the top, not the bottom of the alliance count.

 

 

I read this a few times. First yes, protectors do not push micros into war. At this point protectorates almost push protectors into war (because protectors are that bored).

 

And if you think micros should wait around and wait for the slow chuggin sludge we refer to as 'macro politics' then you've failed to see that 1) Why would you want to subject our youth to that misery anyway and 2) It wouldn't satisfy our CNials anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Razgriz24 said:

 I cannot stand it's a treaty for a treaties sake

 

Neither can I and that's why I asked the question, why are micros even signing treaties?

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone will eventually take action against a micro. Oculus also goes to war since they can't think of their own. Most micros hope enough treaties can make the decision unthinkable for most in power to target them.

 

Also many micros are afraid of fighting period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

I read this a few times. First yes, protectors do not push micros into war. At this point protectorates almost push protectors into war (because protectors are that bored).

 

And if you think micros should wait around and wait for the slow chuggin sludge we refer to as 'macro politics' then you've failed to see that 1) Why would you want to subject our youth to that misery anyway and 2) It wouldn't satisfy our CNials anyway.

 

 

I think you willfully misinterpreted what I said/meant, or you want to talk about something else besides micro's signing treaties. 

 

What you quoted was saying "It never matters if micro drama reaches war as it will almost likely be shot down because of the treaties both micro's have. So in that case it helps to have treaties to minimize damage from other micro alliance dealings.", if you read it all, you'd have understood. That 1) You fail to see the need of treaties between only micro's, and not "macro" alliances, to be able to have wars more frequently. 2) Signing treaties increases your chances of going into a war be it in micro or macro politics. 

 

You seem to have a very reactionary view to politics when you critique micro alliances from signing treaties. If your only goal is to go to war than you need not apply for treaties, and you can enter, such as alliances have done in the past, which trigger treaties to protect against those type of attacks; be it rogue nation/alliance. Now the alliance who did not sign those treaties would 1) Be unable to defend themselves across all strength tiers, or in one tier particularly, then why even have an alliance if you can't protect every member, 2) the other alliance that did sign the treaty is called into war, and that satisfies your micro drama level to have more activity at the bottom. 

 

It seems to me that you'd want more treaties from micro's to form sides more than less treaties, as one spark could ignite the excitement you think is needed. Those side only form from treaties, so in theory, what you (seem to) want is more treaties to form sides that are more or less equal. Which is in contrast to the current situation at the top of the alliance list. Which is why I said "There needs to be more intrigue at the top, not the bottom of the alliance count." Because this disintegration from the current power structure would lead to more interesting micro politics, as those at the top, if they see any hit to their core power group will shut down the micro "drama". 

 

So to get back to your original post, or question, why sign a treaty? It creates a clear side, which creates drama, which creates the actually need for politics. 

 

I think the question you are looking for, is why do micro's sign more than one treaty to multiple groups that they are aligned to. Alliance A, B have a treaty, and then A, C have a treaty, and A, D have a treaty. Why does B then sign with C, D when they are already linked to those alliances? That just creates a fake side, and creates deadlock especially if one of those groups then sign with am outside group. It ties both groups together through 2-3 treaties instead of one, or one loose tie. 

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...