TheStig Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Many alliances regularly claim to take treaties very seriously and only sign them when a genuine friendship exists between the two parties. Many say that it is the friendship they both share that makes them strong and practically every single person would say that "if they are not your true friends, they would not defend you when it comes to war." If that is the case, in a war if alliance A were to be attacked and alliance B, a friend of A were to come to its defence, although they have not signed a treaty, this would be seen as bandwagoning -- something that is generally viewed as oh so immoral. Why is this the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Many alliances regularly claim to take treaties very seriously and only sign them when a genuine friendship exists between the two parties. Many say that it is the friendship they both share that makes them strong and practically every single person would say that "if they are not your true friends, they would not defend you when it comes to war."If that is the case, in a war if alliance A were to be attacked and alliance B, a friend of A were to come to its defence, although they have not signed a treaty, this would be seen as bandwagoning -- something that is generally viewed as oh so immoral. Why is this the case? Bandwagoning is generally a term used when it is clear they are not helping out of "friendship" or "conviction", but just to get in on the winning side of the war, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 It's one of these stupid conventions on Planet Bob, that you have to have a treaty to come to the defence of your friends. Personally, I think that if Alliance B attacks the enemies of Alliance A, even if they don't have a treaty.... well, what are you going to do about it? I heard a new idea for alliance politics recently. It's basically a clause in the charter of an alliance which means that no actual treaties are signed by said alliance, but they will attack anyone who attacks their friends. I wouldn't do it myself, I would want the security that treaties can bring, but it's an interesting concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 E-lawyering, hello? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 9 times out of 10, when an alliance says "Our treaty was based on friendship and trust" this isn't the case. It was signed because they both seemed to be on the same side of things and didn't want to get curbstomped. And now there's been some odd taboo made saying that if you don't have a treaty, you can't come to someone's defense. Why this has happened, I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 9 times out of 10, when an alliance says "Our treaty was based on friendship and trust" this isn't the case. It was signed because they both seemed to be on the same side of things and didn't want to get curbstomped.And now there's been some odd taboo made saying that if you don't have a treaty, you can't come to someone's defense. Why this has happened, I'm not sure. It's the same with spies, aid and secondary organisations. It's just unwritten rules of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I've never seen alliances bandwagon with friends who aren't allies. If they're truly friends, they'll have a treaty anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I've never seen alliances bandwagon with friends who aren't allies. If they're truly friends, they'll have a treaty anyway. I would like to note that the NSO came to the defense of MK, who they considered friends and who they felt they owed a debt to (as MK stated they would defend NSO in their early stages of development), without a real treaty obligation to do so. Ivan, rightfully so, didn't really care that people complained about that. Your statement seems to indicate that if two alliances don't have a treaty then they're not really truly friends. I disagree completely. I also disagree with the notion that you can't fight a just war without a treatied reason to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I would like to note that the NSO came to the defense of MK, who they considered friends and who they felt they owed a debt to (as MK stated they would defend NSO in their early stages of development), without a real treaty obligation to do so. Ivan, rightfully so, didn't really care that people complained about that.Your statement seems to indicate that if two alliances don't have a treaty then they're not really truly friends. I disagree completely. I also disagree with the notion that you can't fight a just war without a treatied reason to do so. If I was ever head of a major alliance (God help us all), I'd never sign a treaty over an NAP. Treaties just help explode !@#$ up. If you were going to defend them only because of a piece of paper, you shouldn't be defending them in the first place. If you were going to defend them without a piece of paper, why sign it and tangle up the web some more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfg4ng Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I admire an alliance who has the cajones to attack without a treaty,I do not how ever admire band wagoners who attack purely for convenience or hitting an alliance while its down, they're two totally different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I've never seen alliances bandwagon with friends who aren't allies. If they're truly friends, they'll have a treaty anyway. I'll have to disagree as well. There a plenty of alliances I like and consider to be my friends, but yet DT does not hold a treaty with them. Sometimes it can come down to, I like you but not the alliances you are allied with. Which I've seen happen a lot,plus most treaties now a days are chaining, which is another reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 It's not about being on the winning side most of the time. It's about having a mutual enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 9 times out of 10, when an alliance says "Our treaty was based on friendship and trust" this isn't the case. It was signed because they both seemed to be on the same side of things and didn't want to get curbstomped.And now there's been some odd taboo made saying that if you don't have a treaty, you can't come to someone's defense. Why this has happened, I'm not sure. GWI and GWIII probably saw the highest prevalence of outright bandwagoning of any off the major wars. Most of it was against the Orders. It's not difficult to figure out why it was stamped out by social convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 There were a few small alliances who bandwagoned this war iirc. Most were lead by people who were unaware of traditional conventions. The main reason I don't agree that much with declarations of war without a treaty. It's kind of like most ODP's. It's like we're friends now but I'm not sure if I value you enough to put my $@! on the line. On the other hand, I find MADP's generally over-eager documents. It, in theory, signs away your FA to your ally since any way they enter automatically pulls you in. It's really only for the very closest of allies with extremely similar views and membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Theres no such thing as bandwagoning, it's just a term used to slander the opposing side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 You know, you could have probably just asked this in the MHA board considering the only alliances they would defend NPO against were bandwagoners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyranus Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Theres no such thing as bandwagoning, it's just a term used to slander the opposing side. Spot on. Just like NPO are brainwashed evil oppressors, Karma are no better, tech raiders deserve eternal damnation, people who don't like something are bawwwers, anyone who supports an ally in a war is potentially a bandwagoner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Theres no such thing as bandwagoning, it's just a term used to slander the opposing side. That was well put Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauner Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) Theres no such thing as bandwagoning, it's just a term used to slander the opposing side. In most cases probably right, but i would wager there is quite a few times when people join the winning side of a war under the excuse of 'helping friends' (even when they need no such help realistically) just to pickpocket the corpse. Edited August 2, 2009 by Fuhrer Alpha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iosif Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) It's [the crapola about treaties being only actually valid casus belli when intervening] merely a tradition from the years of ancien régime that served the interests of ruling factions then. It's quite outdated by now and definately moronic. Edited August 2, 2009 by Iosif Moldov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Alliance A declares war on alliance B and alliance C sees an opportunity to grab a share of the reparations if they make the war into a complete curbstomp. Some alliances choose poorly and accidentally jump in on the side of the losing alliance but they rapidly withdraw when this mistake becomes apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) There are alliances who only bandwagon and apparently they hunger for something. These alliances are made up of cowards who wont enter a battle unless they are assured of victory. They will usually have lots of treaties across the world for just this purpose and after the war be treatied only to the winning side. They can pick their side when the time comes and drop treaty partners at an instant even if it goes against what was written in the treaty. Some alliances who band wagon are crazy and would fight anyone no matter what the odds. These people are not really bandwagoners. They just jump on the band wagon sometimes but are doing it out of love for war. I've never seen alliances bandwagon with friends who aren't allies. If they're truly friends, they'll have a treaty anyway. It happened in the last war on the Karma side. Edited August 2, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I admire an alliance who has the cajones to attack without a treaty,I do not how ever admire band wagoners who attack purely for convenience or hitting an alliance while its down, they're two totally different things. Id agree with that. RyanGDI declaring war between GDI and NPO after discovering that he didnt like them strangely around the same time as NPO was getting dogpiled. Funny watching him backpedal furiously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 This is the problem with Optional treaties. They're garbage and have no place in CN. Everything is optional...always, but don't use your treaty as a CB please. If you're friends then mutual should be the only word used....ever. Goodnight., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 This is not a new problem. See my blog on the exact same topic. 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.