Why do micros sign treaties?

[Velyni]

Ultimately, when I began interacting with FTW when I was running GREAT (a very, very, small group of people and not known) it was for a lot more than protection. There was always that bonus, but it added more depth to a game that lacks excitement at times I can only imagine how the ancient nations feel at times. They gave us knowledge, direction, security, but ultimately a purpose. Text-based games only thrive when the community is active and welcoming. So being able to work out tech deals, talk economics, and really build a strand of friendships added extra substance. I could have interacted with other Alliances for the sense of safety knowing that we may be preyed on, but I would only do that if I felt that our growth would have been held back due to our micro size.

[Lord Hitchcock]

54 minutes ago, Velyni said:

Ultimately, when I began interacting with FTW when I was running GREAT (a very, very, small group of people and not known) it was for a lot more than protection. There was always that bonus, but it added more depth to a game that lacks excitement at times I can only imagine how the ancient nations feel at times. They gave us knowledge, direction, security, but ultimately a purpose. Text-based games only thrive when the community is active and welcoming. So being able to work out tech deals, talk economics, and really build a strand of friendships added extra substance. I could have interacted with other Alliances for the sense of safety knowing that we may be preyed on, but I would only do that if I felt that our growth would have been held back due to our micro size.

 

There is no issues with having a treaty or two as a micro. M Inc has one with SPTR, they fit what we want perfectly and it's a mutual friendship. And that treaty is very strong. 

 

What I'm seeing today is micros signing tons and tons of treaties and are really clogging up the micro world (and their fun). My question is why?

 

Now this is most certainly their right, it's their alliance and they have free reign over that. 

 

(Alonso,I will respond to yours later this evening).

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock

[Lucius Optimus]

11 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

What I'm seeing today is micros signing tons and tons of treaties and are really clogging up the micro world (and their fun). My question is why?

 

 

 

 

If you knew everything there would be no point in secrets 

[Neo Uruk]

because to be a micro-alliance leader with a protectorate in 2017 you don't have to be active in another alliance for several months before they trust you with the keys to your own crib, you can just kinda make your own !@#$ and people will say yes because they need tech or whatever

 

there's no political experience at all needed anymore

Edited January 13, 2017 by Neo Uruk

[Lord Hitchcock]

5 minutes ago, Neo Uruk said:

because to be a micro-alliance leader with a protectorate in 2017 you don't have to be active in another alliance for several months before they trust you with the keys to your own crib, you can just kinda make your own !@#$ and people will say yes because they need tech or whatever

 

there's no political experience at all needed anymore

 

And this is why we need LPH back with head chef Sir Kiloist. If of course you aren't running to the open position at Anarchy something something 

 

 

 

[Neo Uruk]

even if i personally wanted to invest the time, there's not enough fresh meat out there that would be both willing and capable of helping to sail a tight enough ship to make a micro worth a damn these days lmao

 

LPH 1.0 had a good chunk of statistical leverage when i took over and was basically only irrelevant because of all the burnt out members. Once I brought in new blood and the activity percentage was up there were offers coming in from tech buyers, but I was always going to play too fast and loose for the top players to really want to gamble. I was able to attract the people I did, though, specifically because I wasn't an ideal leader and took more interest in a round-table/oligarchy approach. 

 

Then Deebo came back and everything unravelled lmao it was lit

[AL Bundy]

If micros were not signing treaties everyday there would be no activity on the forums. Except an anniversary every once in a while.

 

AL

[Montezuma]

serious question not looking for fights but did monsters and la familia ever have official treaty and if we did would it technically still be valid since no real war or violations have been done other then some smack talking but nothing that really hurt or would cause a breaking of the treaty unless in the treaty it said no saying mean things about each other lmao

 

I know we fought a lot together but I'm not sure if it was through friendship with others like sig and meth or through our own treaty because y would we have helped hardin after methrage was gone if there wasn't a treaty and also one guy says we had one the other says no soooooooooooooo yeah

[Neo Uruk]

30 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

If micros were not signing treaties everyday there would be no activity on the forums. Except an anniversary every once in a while.

 

AL

Signing treaties for the sake of doing something is not something I would condone. At best it makes some people drop in to say congrats, maybe a couple people !@#$ the thread up because they hate you, but overall more people are just going to stop checking the forums if the only activity is something they don't care about; your activity doesn't matter to most people and thus it doesn't hold their interest. Focus on securing real relationships and learning how to grow an alliance.

 

Look into mergers but don't stray from your core principles and membership requirements. For people to care, you need to surround them with other people that care. The major problem is that "culture clashes" are often very real even among alliances that in theory blend seamlessly.

[Lord Hitchcock]

On 1/12/2017 at 10:10 PM, Alonso Quixano said:

 

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. 

 

First off, I did not 'willfully' misrepresent or have any other intentions than the topic at hand. I am more than happy to respond with further clarity and there is no need for compulsive accusations or just plain being an asshat.

 

And let's examine what you claim I 'fail to see' and I quote: "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." 

 

1) This is not the case at all. Micro's don't war. 95% of them are not even aggressive. And that's what I am getting with in regards of the question. Here's an example of a good, solid treaty... NPO / Umbrella announces a treaty right before the Doom War. This treaty served mutual interest for both parties, it shared a common goal, it was put into effect right away. It was a utilized treaty. The treaties these micros are signing are "hey we may need this one day", let's sign this treaty in case the 'what-ifs' ever occur. 

 

2) No, signing treaties increases your chance of piggy backing in a war. The problem with Macro politics is that a lot of these older alliances are hollowing out inside. Meaning that if you even ask them to get off of their lay-z-boy chair, they'd rather quit than actually have to do something. This is a very strong reason Oculus formed in the first place. And as you mentioned yourself, you don't need a treaty to go to war (if that is your goal). As stated here: "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." Now this next excerpt is interesting, and I disagree with you "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." There's no micro drama! Non, zilch. And in a lot of ways, historically (let's go the past 3 years) random escalation is non existent, and as you've mentioned, the upper alliances usually kill the fun. So I certainly wouldn't say that there's a whole lot of satisfying 'pros' to signing a bunch of treaties except for that they would be protected. Which again forces one to think whether they are in the right frame of politics or if neutrality is a better path for them.

 

You have brought up great points about signing a macro is pretty useless because they are not included in the drama and perhaps that should be discussed (in another topic) but in order for a micro to roll with a macro, that macro would have to have signs of life to begin with. Micros sign more for protection and blending in rather than understanding that they are actually pretty safe in the micro world and the goal should be defining what makes your micro alliance stand out not stripping away differences to fit in like a puzzle piece.

 

And a question for you, what clear side is created in our current world, right now? "It creates a clear side, which creates drama, which creates the actually need for politics." ... what side, you mean a ball of sludge?

 

I agree with on about this: "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."

 

And I don't understand how there can be both sides and entanglement.

 

13 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

If you knew everything there would be no point in secrets 

 

I know more than you think. Even when we don't seem active, believe me, we are.

 

10 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

If micros were not signing treaties everyday there would be no activity on the forums. Except an anniversary every once in a while.

 

AL

 

Hi Al, first I want to say that you showed a lot of courage in your last drama, and you won't ever hear a pepe out of me about your character again. I absolutely enjoyed seeing you step up to the plate. 

 

Your comment is an interesting one, and by all means the absolute reason for this thread. There would be MORE activity on the forums if micros did other things besides signing treaties- rather than just signing them to pass the time.

 

10 hours ago, Montezuma said:

serious question not looking for fights but did monsters and la familia ever have official treaty and if we did would it technically still be valid since no real war or violations have been done other then some smack talking but nothing that really hurt or would cause a breaking of the treaty unless in the treaty it said no saying mean things about each other lmao

 

I know we fought a lot together but I'm not sure if it was through friendship with others like sig and meth or through our own treaty because y would we have helped hardin after methrage was gone if there wasn't a treaty and also one guy says we had one the other says no soooooooooooooo yeah

 

Monsters Inc and la familia never had a treaty. RUKUNU and I pondered the idea a long while back and we decided we would have mutual respect for one another. As at the time animalz had some form of beef with some knights alliance (forget which one) and we had no interest in it. Over the course of our friendship we helped with goons, in fact, this is right from your own LPC charter in your forums: 

 

•  

Charter of the LPC

by Kindle » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:40 pm 

The LPC was created in the midst of the Goon war involving aNiMaLz, Monster's Inc and Limitless Nexus. During the war Goons were requesting senators from every color sphere to sanction us for no reason other than our refusal to bow to Goons. Understanding the importance and need for open trade, trade circle benefits and more Sephiroth also known as Methrage, and RUKUNU banded together to form the LPC

and it summerizes our relationship with animalz quite well. We helped out of mutual respect and left it at that, we also got SPTR to pull the plug on TAO (who did not like animalz and really just sucked in general) and as I recall we back-doored SNX when they were fighting animalz and limitless nexus. This war came to a quiet end as Polar entered on SNX and we sort of just stopped fighting after that, (I think we moved on to MI6). We picked up the SNX fight about a month later where we really put the hurtin on them. My leave was very fast, what occurred while I was not here had no reflection on my decisions. Sir Kindle wanting to say that I kicked him to the curve was a solid "f-you" and so $%&3 him, don't roll with us anymore.

 

10 hours ago, Neo Uruk said:

Signing treaties for the sake of doing something is not something I would condone. At best it makes some people drop in to say congrats, maybe a couple people !@#$ the thread up because they hate you, but overall more people are just going to stop checking the forums if the only activity is something they don't care about; your activity doesn't matter to most people and thus it doesn't hold their interest. Focus on securing real relationships and learning how to grow an alliance.

 

Look into mergers but don't stray from your core principles and membership requirements. For people to care, you need to surround them with other people that care. The major problem is that "culture clashes" are often very real even among alliances that in theory blend seamlessly.

 

For not being a good person, you really are an intelligent little bastard. By far the best response in this thread, you nailed it. 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock

[Alonso Quixano]

2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

First off, I did not 'willfully' misrepresent or have any other intentions than the topic at hand. I am more than happy to respond with further clarity and there is no need for compulsive accusations or just plain being an asshat.

 

And let's examine what you claim I 'fail to see' and I quote: "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." 

 

1) This is not the case at all. Micro's don't war. 95% of them are not even aggressive. And that's what I am getting with in regards of the question. Here's an example of a good, solid treaty... NPO / Umbrella announces a treaty right before the Doom War. This treaty served mutual interest for both parties, it shared a common goal, it was put into effect right away. It was a utilized treaty. The treaties these micros are signing are "hey we may need this one day", let's sign this treaty in case the 'what-ifs' ever occur. 

 

2) No, signing treaties increases your chance of piggy backing in a war. The problem with Macro politics is that a lot of these older alliances are hollowing out inside. Meaning that if you even ask them to get off of their lay-z-boy chair, they'd rather quit than actually have to do something. This is a very strong reason Oculus formed in the first place. And as you mentioned yourself, you don't need a treaty to go to war (if that is your goal). As stated here: "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." Now this next excerpt is interesting, and I disagree with you "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." There's no micro drama! Non, zilch. And in a lot of ways, historically (let's go the past 3 years) random escalation is non existent, and as you've mentioned, the upper alliances usually kill the fun. So I certainly wouldn't say that there's a whole lot of satisfying 'pros' to signing a bunch of treaties except for that they would be protected. Which again forces one to think whether they are in the right frame of politics or if neutrality is a better path for them.

 

You have brought up great points about signing a macro is pretty useless because they are not included in the drama and perhaps that should be discussed (in another topic) but in order for a micro to roll with a macro, that macro would have to have signs of life to begin with. Micros sign more for protection and blending in rather than understanding that they are actually pretty safe in the micro world and the goal should be defining what makes your micro alliance stand out not stripping away differences to fit in like a puzzle piece.

 

And a question for you, what clear side is created in our current world, right now? "It creates a clear side, which creates drama, which creates the actually need for politics." ... what side, you mean a ball of sludge?

 

I agree with on about this: "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."

 

And I don't understand how there can be both sides and entanglement.

 

I wasn't trying to be an asshat, I just posted in the same style you posted in. 

 

That's not true, especially when alliances allow tech raiding, most alliances don't act on the CB to attack the alliance that raided them. There would be more wars if micro's took advantage of the CB's they were given, and signing those treaties gives you more firepower to act on those CB's, not that most of them do. So I don't disagree with you that 95% of the micro's out there aren't aggressive, they just don't act on valid CB's. 

 

I should also note that I disagree with your assessment,"The treaties these micros are signing are "hey we may need this one day", let's sign this treaty in case the 'what-ifs' ever occur," this phrase can be used for any macro treaty as well. You don't sign a treaty just because war is coming, you sign a treaty to prevent you from being caught off guard incase of war, or trying to swing other treaties your way. Your assessment is just plain wrong, because it's a treaty thing, not a micro treaty thing. 

 

I must disagree with your point, it's not the treaty's killing things, it's people will of not acting on valid CB's or philosophy that is opposed to theirs. There is drama, as you saw that last few days, just not the right kind of drama to force a global war. Just because it's not your kind of drama doesn't mean their is not drama. Having a treaty is still the sure fire way to get into war, unless you want to be neutral. 

 

There are clear sides in the micro world, not the macro world. You can't in one hand admonish micro's for signing treaties, then disavow them creating sides, from said treaty's; which you can't see. There's a clear side of micro's, which is about even, if it ever broke out. Which it wont because the top is heavily aligned together, so it permeates down to the micro level. 

 

You should be more concerned when macro alliances sign, more so than when micro's sign.

 

To recap. There is only one sure fire way for an alliance to "create" drama. Step one. Stand up for your rights. Step Two. Have a treaty. Step three. Probably have another treaty. Step Four. Act on the defence of your rights. Which means that micro's need to sign treaties if they will ever be able to defend their rights at such a small size. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Alonso Quixano

[Lord Hitchcock]

1 hour ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

I wasn't trying to be an asshat, I just posted in the same style you posted in. 

 

That's not true, especially when alliances allow tech raiding, most alliances don't act on the CB to attack the alliance that raided them. There would be more wars if micro's took advantage of the CB's they were given, and signing those treaties gives you more firepower to act on those CB's, not that most of them do. So I don't disagree with you that 95% of the micro's out there aren't aggressive, they just don't act on valid CB's. 

 

I should also note that I disagree with your assessment,"The treaties these micros are signing are "hey we may need this one day", let's sign this treaty in case the 'what-ifs' ever occur," this phrase can be used for any macro treaty as well. You don't sign a treaty just because war is coming, you sign a treaty to prevent you from being caught off guard incase of war, or trying to swing other treaties your way. Your assessment is just plain wrong, because it's a treaty thing, not a micro treaty thing. 

 

I must disagree with your point, it's not the treaty's killing things, it's people will of not acting on valid CB's or philosophy that is opposed to theirs. There is drama, as you saw that last few days, just not the right kind of drama to force a global war. Just because it's not your kind of drama doesn't mean their is not drama. Having a treaty is still the sure fire way to get into war, unless you want to be neutral. 

 

There are clear sides in the micro world, not the macro world. You can't in one hand admonish micro's for signing treaties, then disavow them creating sides, from said treaty's; which you can't see. There's a clear side of micro's, which is about even, if it ever broke out. Which it wont because the top is heavily aligned together, so it permeates down to the micro level. 

 

You should be more concerned when macro alliances sign, more so than when micro's sign.

 

To recap. There is only one sure fire way for an alliance to "create" drama. Step one. Stand up for your rights. Step Two. Have a treaty. Step three. Probably have another treaty. Step Four. Act on the defence of your rights. Which means that micro's need to sign treaties if they will ever be able to defend their rights at such a small size. 

 

You're in a micro with recent drama. Was that enough drama for your fix? Did you enjoy Umbrella stepping in so quickly or would you have preferred a fun, longer war between AGW and POSSE with no outsiders? Was the victory won off of POSSEs backs or because of their link to Umbrella? 

[Roal36]

Why do OoT (a small and insignificant micro) sign treaties?
We at the Order sign treaties because we were aggressively attacked by members of Cobra and VG/Kashmir on multiple occasions in the recent past and they backed off without giving us ANY damage reparations and ANY apologies (beyond the one from Banned). OoT was also attacked way before by members of the same alliances aggressively. Also OoT was subject to verbal attacks in the forums and recently myself was falsely accused by General Kanabis for spying on an other alliance. Evidence finally showed the truth thank god and till that came to light I was defended (verbally) by OoT's new protectors the honourable knights of TTK and our other friends (some of them treaty partners then). Ofcource they defended me not because of treaties its because they knew I was right.
 TTK is also right now fighting another raider who attacked the Order, he has indicated that he was directed to me by someone or some alliance. This raider it happens (not a coincidence) is also friends with Kashmir. Our treaty with TTK is the reason why my nation is not in ZI levels and why the Order still exists. Nobody really stands up for the micros, not in forum squabbling, not in game (Please note that all this aggression happened when I had a NAP agreement with all the violators.

Lord Hitchcock tell me if this is a fair reason for us signing pacts with other alliances similarly threatened by the forces of evil. Tell me if our treaty with the TTK turned out to be useless.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Roal36

[Lord Hitchcock]

1 hour ago, Roal36 said:

Lord Hitchcock tell me if this is a fair reason for us signing pacts with other alliances similarly threatened by the forces of evil. Tell me if our treaty with the TTK turned out to be useless.

 

Politics in today's world, especially at the micro level- are very laid back. While you may have hit ZI, it wouldn't have forced your nation to delete, nor would your opponents try to force you off the planet.

 

If you're referring to your current conflicts as the 'forces of evil' then consider yourself living a pretty good micro life. And berbers isn't evil, he's just bored and really has no ill will.

 

Let me tell you about evil, when I started there was a raider named General Chow. He was the biggest asshat you've ever met. I have seen him raid nations who weren't aligned. He would force the poor soul to send him 100 tech so that his unlucky victim wouldn't eat a nuke. After his victim sent him tech, he'd nuke the poor bastard anyway, daily, and then laugh at the responses of his victims.

 

The earlier you travel back in time, the more evil it was. GOONs 2.0 had a mercy board on their forums, where basically a nation on their !@#$ list would have to go on there and 'ask' for forgiveness and the members would just spit on him and they'd save that nation's tears as their wallpaper.

 

And there's a reason why there's a GOONs 2.0 and that's because the original GOONs were the most evil alliance in bob history. They'd go beyond OOC just to make nations quit. 

 

And ZI, let me tell you about one of our members, Jonesing- he used to be in an alliance with Pansy, BAPs. And they were basically just a bunch of trouble makers always getting into something. Jonesing is on his 3rd nation because his former nations were not only ZI'd- but their opponents would save their (OOC) IP addresses and if you re-rolled and they found out your former nation, they'd ZI you again!

 

The evil we have in today's world is nothing like it was before. If anything, this is the best opportunity a micro has to be themselves. Heck M Inc got to hit NPO and they let us off mainly because (and I assume) they were just happy that someone swung in their direction, they enjoyed the shin-dig because they like to have fun too. As a micro, if you would have hit big red 6 years ago or Polar when Grub was emperor, you'd be drinking your meals through a straw the rest of your planet bob career. Now-a-days these big whale alliances yearn for the occasional ping.

 

The community doesn't want to see leaders leave (don't confuse that a 'I'm gonna leave if I don't my way' card- they'll still show you the door in that regard) but you'd have to be a pretty big asshat (like a Rotavelle) to fall into a category where people want to, and are trying, to knock you off the planet. Oculus has had a bad reputation for rolling alliances into non-existence: STA, TPF, but it wasn't Oculus who allowed that to happen. They didn't force their enemies into disbanding, their opponents chose to give up, retire, whatever you want to call it. They folded on their own free will. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 

TTK is a good treaty. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you understand what it's for and to remember that even though you have a treaty, it doesn't mean that your alliance should live their very existence based off it. Ask yourself, why is your alliance better than others. Why should a nation join your alliance? Will they have more fun there than other alliances? Treaties should support these ideals and not hold them back.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock

[Roal36]

8 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

The evil we have in today's world is nothing like it was before. If anything, this is the best opportunity a micro has to be themselves because really the community doesn't want to see leaders leave (don't confuse that a 'I'm gonn leave if I don't my way' card, they'll still show you the door' but you'd have to be a pretty big asshat (like a Rotavelle) to fall in that category.

 

TTK is a good treaty. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you understand what it's for and to remember that even though you have a treaty, it doesn't mean that your alliance should rest their very existence on it. Ask yourself, why is your alliance better than others. Why should a nation join your alliance? Will they have fun? Treaties should support these ideals, not hold them back.

 

 

 

Wow that is pretty sick. I have heard about the orginal GOONS.  Ofcource Berbers isn't evil, I didn't mean him. We did have a neat fight except for him not buying back his soldiers and doing GAs.
I agree with your last point strongly. But alliances like mine needs protection pacts just to survive. Ofcource anything we do more is due to our own efforts though we have partial helps with TCs and Tech deals also.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Roal36

[General Gorgoth]

Yeah the area around the divided factions of COBRA from the 3 strikes war is still quite active.

[Lucius Optimus]

4 hours ago, General Gorgoth said:

Yeah the area around the divided factions of COBRA from the 3 strikes war is still quite active.

You're welcome CN! 

[Lucius Optimus]

5 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Politics in today's world, especially at the micro level- are very laid back. While you may have hit ZI, it wouldn't have forced your nation to delete, nor would your opponents try to force you off the planet.

 

If you're referring to your current conflicts as the 'forces of evil' then consider yourself living a pretty good micro life. And berbers isn't evil, he's just bored and really has no ill will.

 

Let me tell you about evil, when I started there was a raider named General Chow. He was the biggest asshat you've ever met. I have seen him raid nations who weren't aligned. He would force the poor soul to send him 100 tech so that his unlucky victim wouldn't eat a nuke. After his victim sent him tech, he'd nuke the poor bastard anyway, daily, and then laugh at the responses of his victims.

 

The earlier you travel back in time, the more evil it was. GOONs 2.0 had a mercy board on their forums, where basically a nation on their !@#$ list would have to go on there and 'ask' for forgiveness and the members would just spit on him and they'd save that nation's tears as their wallpaper.

 

And there's a reason why there's a GOONs 2.0 and that's because the original GOONs were the most evil alliance in bob history. They'd go beyond OOC just to make nations quit. 

 

And ZI, let me tell you about one of our members, Jonesing- he used to be in an alliance with Pansy, BAPs. And they were basically just a bunch of trouble makers always getting into something. Jonesing is on his 3rd nation because his former nations were not only ZI'd- but their opponents would save their (OOC) IP addresses and if you re-rolled and they found out your former nation, they'd ZI you again!

 

The evil we have in today's world is nothing like it was before. If anything, this is the best opportunity a micro has to be themselves. Heck M Inc got to hit NPO and they let us off mainly because (and I assume) they were just happy that someone swung in their direction, they enjoyed the shin-dig because they like to have fun too. As a micro, if you would have hit big red 6 years ago or Polar when Grub was emperor, you'd be drinking your meals through a straw the rest of your planet bob career. Now-a-days these big whale alliances yearn for the occasional ping.

 

The community doesn't want to see leaders leave (don't confuse that a 'I'm gonna leave if I don't my way' card- they'll still show you the door in that regard) but you'd have to be a pretty big asshat (like a Rotavelle) to fall into a category where people want to, and are trying, to knock you off the planet. Oculus has had a bad reputation for rolling alliances into non-existence: STA, TPF, but it wasn't Oculus who allowed that to happen. They didn't force their enemies into disbanding, their opponents chose to give up, retire, whatever you want to call it. They folded on their own free will. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 

TTK is a good treaty. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you understand what it's for and to remember that even though you have a treaty, it doesn't mean that your alliance should live their very existence based off it. Ask yourself, why is your alliance better than others. Why should a nation join your alliance? Will they have more fun there than other alliances? Treaties should support these ideals and not hold them back.

I remember some of these people. Those were scary times. 

 

In 2015 I believe COBRA fought a war of existence against some reformed GOONS. If they had more active treaties back then maybe that would have gone better. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Lucius Optimus

[White Chocolate]

8 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

Let me tell you about evil, when I started there was a raider named...

 

And ZI, let me tell you about one of our members, Jonesing -

 

The evil we have in today's world is nothing like it was before.

Welcome to the old man's club, Lord Hitchcock

 

 

[Alonso Quixano]

9 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

You're in a micro with recent drama. Was that enough drama for your fix? Did you enjoy Umbrella stepping in so quickly or would you have preferred a fun, longer war between AGW and POSSE with no outsiders? Was the victory won off of POSSEs backs or because of their link to Umbrella? 

 

I wouldn't consider us a micro at this point, as we were, before the war, top 40 in the game. From your outside perspective, you haven't noticed, we've had drama since the beginning of the war where Flying Kiwi's were attacked. That's a good three month stretch of political drama, and then war drama. So yes, we are quite happy with our drama right now. 

 

We asked Umbrella to step in, and they did, they told us if they did we would continued to get countered, we didn't mind. You must also not read announcements, or you really trying to spin everything to fit your neat little narrative. because you're entire post is wrong, from start to finish. There was no victory. It was a complete white peace. We didn't have any one surrender, we didn't surrender. Umbrella has three attacks on AGW Overlords, andAlpha Wolves had about 10 attacks on us. We found out in the middle of it that the person that whole war was about wanted to coup our government, and then in the same breath wanted to flee to VaG, and take members with him. 

 

So. Let's reiterate a few points that make all your assumptions from the OP till then obsolete. 

 

Why do micro's sign treaties. If we use the last kerfuffle as a case study. If we don't reference the removal of the rogue.

 

AGW Overlords would have been completely over ran by Umbrella/POSSE. POSSE would have been over run by AGW Overlords/Alpha Wolves. The only way AGW Overlords had a chance in the war was because of the treaty it signed a long time ago, with the emphasis on saying, we might need to use this one day. If that treaty was never signed, Sparta would not have stepped in so quickly, and AGW Overlords would have been over run, and reduced to nothing. 

 

That is why micro's sign treaties. The latest case study into micro drama, and politics completely shreds your OP, and overt questions into micro's needing to be more aggressive, to create drama, or the need for treaties. 

[Roal36]

3 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

I remember some of these people. Those were scary times. 

 

In 2015 I believe COBRA fought a war of existence against some reformed GOONS. If they had more active treaties back then maybe that would have gone better. 

COBRA had no military treaties then I think. Ameroca was a jerk.

[Master Hakai]

I think many of you experience a degree of sensual satisfaction when typing the word "micro"

[The Zigur]

At no time did Monsters deal some crushing blow to ISX. Yes, you bullied some new nations. No, you did not affect our stats.

 

The only real damage was done when Monsters instigated Sengoku and their allies to attack us during the Plutocratic War.

[General Gorgoth]

1 minute ago, Immortan Junka said:

At no time did Monsters deal some crushing blow to ISX. Yes, you bullied some new nations. No, you did not affect our stats.

 

The only real damage was done when Monsters instigated Sengoku and their allies to attack us during the Plutocratic War.

Isn't that statement contradictory? You deny they dealt a blow then cite and example of where they did.

[Lord Hitchcock]

On 1/13/2017 at 10:50 PM, Alonso Quixano said:

To recap. There is only one sure fire way for an alliance to "create" drama. Step one. Stand up for your rights. Step Two. Have a treaty. Step three. Probably have another treaty. Step Four. Act on the defence of your rights. Which means that micro's need to sign treaties if they will ever be able to defend their rights at such a small size. 

 

This is very logical and I hope it becomes reality.

 

17 hours ago, Roal36 said:

COBRA had no military treaties then I think. Ameroca was a jerk.

 

Ameroca was actually not that bad. The original goons would leak RL info of players on CN to get them to quit... one player actually had AIDs in RL and it was all over the forums.

 

18 hours ago, White Chocolate said:

Welcome to the old man's club, Lord Hitchcock

 

 

 

I really feel like it. I enjoy the new blood on planet bob and I certainly feel obligated to nudge them a little and tell them that this 'big bad world' is theirs for the taking. I may even get up off my rocking chair to help them a little. 

 

15 hours ago, Master Hakai said:

I think many of you experience a degree of sensual satisfaction when typing the word "micro"

 

Not even typing... just seeing the word gives me goosebumps

 

4 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

At no time did Monsters deal some crushing blow to ISX. Yes, you bullied some new nations. No, you did not affect our stats.

 

The only real damage was done when Monsters instigated Sengoku and their allies to attack us during the Plutocratic War.

 

Let me see if I can pull up our last shin dig, ah yes here it is (and your tears were delicious):

On 7/13/2016 at 9:27 PM, Immortan Junka said:

For myself I don't consider this war "fun." I have better things to do than fight yet another war against punks with nothing better to do than harass us. So this war will be bitter, and I hope as unfun for our attackers as possible. I have nothing in my heart for them other than hatred and contempt, and I hope we leave a mark while they seek to exterminate us.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4 hours ago, General Gorgoth said:

Isn't that statement contradictory? You deny they dealt a blow then cite and example of where they did.

 

Watch and learn young grasshopper

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock