New Frontier Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 PIAT: The Peace, Intelligience and Aid Treaty The PIAT has long taken over where the NAP left off, as a starting point for friendships between alliances. When two groups decide they like each other, they rip off someone else's template, change a few names, and post a PIAT in the OWF. However, how many PIAT signatories actually mean it? How many instances can you recall of the "Aid Clause" in a PIAT actually being invoked? How many times in the history of the treaty has a significant amount of aid been sent from one signatory to another? I am sure it's happened in the past, but those cases are easily in the minority. One has merely to reflect on the sheer volume of PIATs signed in recent memory to come to that conclusion. If you want to sign useless, "friendship" treaties, just cut the crap and call it an NAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Why not just stop signing NAPs and PIATs? Honestly, I'd rather just sign a "this is a piece of paper that will get me out of trouble in case an alliance questions the legitimacy of me jumping to the defense of our friends" pact. TIAPOPTWGMOOTICAAQTLOMJTTDOOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Flawed logic. A treaty is worth as much as the signatories value it. The failing is not in the treaty, it's in the alliances. I mean, seriously, who thought that NPO was really going to notify MK of any threats to it because they had a PIAT? Or any other opposing alliances for that matter? The use of PIATs as an indicator treaty is a result of the character of the dominant-side signatory. Edited July 30, 2009 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I do know for a fact that Polaris does follow up on the 'Aid' portion of the PIAT treaty. We will often sign PIATs with those whom we have been tech dealing with at quite favorable rates. I would be more concerned about the Intelligence portion, honestly, and how many alliances follow up on that portion of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 ^Agreed. As usual, Schattenmann cuts through the red tape. There are some alliances that will honor all their treaties, and others...that have a poorer track record. It all depends on who you have signed with, and how much they value their treaty to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 GATO honored PIATs with AiD and NTO in UJW. TOOL honored a PIAT with DefCon in the NoV war (though that was also partially due to them being a protectorate of an ally who was engaged on a couple fronts already). There have probably been a couple others. I disagree... I look at PIATs, ToAs, ACTs, FPTs, PEACEs, and the myriad other ODP variants as statements of "Hey, we like these guys, don't be calling us bandwagoners if we defend them." However, I agree very much that they're overused. A PIAT ought to be used as a leadup to an MDP... Not as an end in it's own right. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Blitzer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 The PIAT has long taken over where the NAP left off, as a starting point for friendships between alliances. When two groups decide they like each other, they rip off someone else's template, change a few names, and post a PIAT in the OWF. well you got to start somewhere don't ya? anyway yeah, some alliances don't follow the provisions and some do, no reason to hate on the treaty because the alliances signing it are unwilling to follow the actual provisions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James IV Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I can't remember for sure but I believe LoSS used their PIAT with GR to help after the noCB war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) I can't remember for sure but I believe LoSS used their PIAT with GR to help after the noCB war. TOOL also tried to aid GR after that war because of a PIAT, but I never did get through the red tape with the people they surrendered to. If I had a dime for every time someone had to "get back to you in a bit"... -Bama Edited July 30, 2009 by BamaBuc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's a formal statement that gives you a firmer commitment to work on getting closer. Beyond that... not much. Also in the recent war our NPO PIAT kept MK from directly attacking NPO like the rest of C&G did or making anti-NPO propaganda pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I agree. For example, RAD's PIAT with MK means literally nothing to us. Hey, just kidding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) ....or making anti-NPO propaganda pieces. Sorta, sure, why not lolololol PIAT as any other treaty, ultimately means as much as signatories want it to mean as such it is useless or useful depending on the strength of the bond between the two parties involved in a PIAT relationship. Edited July 30, 2009 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I would agree that it's usually the intelligence clause that is ignored – even on MDPs, if they're signed with inconvenient alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Many people want a statement of friendship beyond a mere peace treaty, to start a relationship. I see nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Every treaty is worth the value the parties that sign it put into it. There is for example no reason that a treaty pledging NOT to attack someone is worth less less than a treaty obligating one to attack someone. It is just the value judgement of the signees. A lot of people view anything less than a mandatory military defense treaty as being worthless. I disagree and see it as a useful starting point for alliances to get to know each other formally before perhaps ascending higher in the treaty ladder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I'm hearing from reliable sources that TIAP's are the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 PIAT: The Peace, Intelligience and Aid TreatyThe PIAT has long taken over where the NAP left off, as a starting point for friendships between alliances. When two groups decide they like each other, they rip off someone else's template, change a few names, and post a PIAT in the OWF. However, how many PIAT signatories actually mean it? How many instances can you recall of the "Aid Clause" in a PIAT actually being invoked? How many times in the history of the treaty has a significant amount of aid been sent from one signatory to another? I am sure it's happened in the past, but those cases are easily in the minority. One has merely to reflect on the sheer volume of PIATs signed in recent memory to come to that conclusion. If you want to sign useless, "friendship" treaties, just cut the crap and call it an NAP. Invicta only honoured the aid clause in a PIAT once as far as I know (USN after the GATO war). We have however honoured the intelligence clauses on a whole lot of occasions. The I is much more important. I'd be fine with signing PITs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Many people want a statement of friendship beyond a mere peace treaty, to start a relationship. I see nothing wrong with that. Thats how i view them, it is a stepping stone on which to prepare the ground for an upgrade. For some alliances and in some context (read ODN) it is a necessity in order to prove that an upgrade is viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Also, in the real world, you sign NAPs with your enemies, as a means of preventing war. On occasion this has been done here: the TPF-PC NAP, the ancient UPN-Valhalla NAP (which still stands, although the circumstances that made it necessary are long gone). But usually NAPs are signed with friends, it's sorta weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 PIAT: The Peace, Intelligience and Aid TreatyThe PIAT has long taken over where the NAP left off, as a starting point for friendships between alliances. When two groups decide they like each other, they rip off someone else's template, change a few names, and post a PIAT in the OWF. However, how many PIAT signatories actually mean it? How many instances can you recall of the "Aid Clause" in a PIAT actually being invoked? How many times in the history of the treaty has a significant amount of aid been sent from one signatory to another? I am sure it's happened in the past, but those cases are easily in the minority. One has merely to reflect on the sheer volume of PIATs signed in recent memory to come to that conclusion. If you want to sign useless, "friendship" treaties, just cut the crap and call it an NAP. In most cases the intelligence clause is overlooked too. PIAT's might actually be half-decent treaties if everybody who signed them followed them to the letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I remember sending LoSS 200 million dollars over the span of a few weeks to help them rebuild after a war they got involved in, and I believe we only held a PIAT with them at the time. Schattenmann is right - it's the alliances who are the problem, not the treaty structure itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I don't sign treaties lightly, and have at times even started with a ToA before a PIAT. Any alliance of mine follows its treaty obligations to the letter, and so I don't jump right in with MDPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 i agree with those who are saying the value of a treaty is in the signatories and not the treaty. A PIAT can be signed, and no AID be sent. i find that even ODPs are signed with no intention of honoring it. "we COULD come to your defense, but you are outnumbered, and we <3 our pixels, so since we hold an OPTIONAL defensive pact... good luck..." that is why it is important to sign with those you trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I think the even bigger one is the Intelligence part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) GATO honored PIATs with AiD and NTO in UJW. TOOL honored a PIAT with DefCon in the NoV war (though that was also partially due to them being a protectorate of an ally who was engaged on a couple fronts already). There have probably been a couple others.I disagree... I look at PIATs, ToAs, ACTs, FPTs, PEACEs, and the myriad other ODP variants as statements of "Hey, we like these guys, don't be calling us bandwagoners if we defend them." However, I agree very much that they're overused. A PIAT ought to be used as a leadup to an MDP... Not as an end in it's own right. -Bama The bolded part. I like starting at a PIAT level baby steps are much better than jumping straight in. When you first meet some one you could think hey they are the coolest and as time goes on the more you get to know some one, perhaps your goals arent as similar as you thought, or perhaps its time to upgrade. They arent the end all of treaties but a very good place to start. As far as PIATs go TTK honored theres with CSN and USN after the GATO war and sent pretty good chunks of Aid out to them. MA and other maroon alliances did as well. Edited July 30, 2009 by Buds The Man 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.