The AUT Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) So we've all complained about the MDP web and its stagnation for quite some time. It's convoluted, treaties running around everywhere and it doesn't make any sense. Anyone recall the pre-GW II MDP web? Very simple, pick a side and when war comes stick with it. Not the case anymore. So my question is should the treaties be signed as a reflection of your FA policy and who you intend to go to war with, or should it be signed anytime you want to take a friendship to the next level regardless of the other alliance's FA policy? Edit: And yes, in CN, we must be able to laugh out ourselves sometimes. Edited December 8, 2009 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 The lack of options is not the only ridiculous thing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hmm- option one takes the early lead at 100% I take a 'realist' approach to alliance relations though- it'll be interesting to see these results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Friendships. Down with clear treaty webs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted December 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 The lack of options is not the only ridiculous thing here. The reason I didn't add options was because it's fairly clear cut. Fact is do you believe MDP or higher treaties should be signed based on who you're going to war with, making for a clearer MDP web, or based on friendships with any alliance you want to ally with no matter what side of the web they're on. This could be traced back into the large mess of an MDP web we call today. Just think back, if you were here that long, and make a decision. By adding more options you ruin the quality of the poll and leave for more open ended and unnecessary questions. Trust me, I'm a poll Dr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Friendships and political leanings. You naturally have a tendency to befriend other alliances whom share the same slope of political ideologies as yourself. As time progresses either your goals or your allies goals change, in which case the alliance with either end or it'll be down-graded. This rate of "Change" increases based upon some values, most notably; if the alliance was signed with a firm friendship in the background as opposed to a political scheme or shroud of protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) It's a bit of both. I mean, Treaties don't take friendship to the next level, they reflect it. But besides that, after you sign a MDoAP with someone, it's prudent you don't sign another with someone who is going to blantantly be on the other side of the conflict. Signing a MDoAP is taking a commitment, and a commitment is assuming a responsibility before your treaty partner that you will defend that treaty partner. Signing treaties that would create conflicts in that area is, to a degree, a breach on the commitment you made towards your ally. So yeah, signing treaties based on friendship.. but preferently not with someone on the other side of the upcoming war. EDIT: Edited for clarification. Edited December 9, 2009 by Lusitan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Voted 3. But you should be on the same side, unless you endeavor to be in an 'ODN-like' position when a war comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 The reason I didn't add options was because it's fairly clear cut.Fact is do you believe MDP or higher treaties should be signed based on who you're going to war with, making for a clearer MDP web, or based on friendships with any alliance you want to ally with no matter what side of the web they're on. This could be traced back into the large mess of an MDP web we call today. Just think back, if you were here that long, and make a decision. By adding more options you ruin the quality of the poll and leave for more open ended and unnecessary questions. Trust me, I'm a poll Dr. You ask whether "realpolitik" (quote for its dubious connection to the real world meaning of the word despite its applicability within this world, not because I think you used it) or friendships should be the basis for a treaty, and your poll options reflect your inherent bias to reinforcing the current treaty system that has spawned the MDP web of horror; regardless of which of the first two answers someone picks they are deciding to allow the current MDP treaty web to exist. That's what I was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 If you feel your friendship should be taken to the next level Seems a little suggestive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well, at least the way I understand those options, I'd say none of those. Treaties should only be signed if you're willing to have you and your alliance go to ZI for the ally's alliance. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 What is it with you people and "the next level"? If that were true for everyone who signed treaties, I'd think alliances were really women in disguise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hegemon Rob Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 hopefully you will go to war with for your friends, and hopefully you don't have too many friends. If the alliance leaders don't know(off the top of their head) who they are allied to directly, and indirectly there is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 If your friends are on the opposite side of a global war from you, are they actually friends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Didn't vote because there was no "people should just stop caring about treaties altogether and go to war whenever they feel it is just" option. If friendship is so clear, you should not need a treaty in order to want to fight alongside someone. I'm new school like that. I figure people will always sign treaties for whatever reasons, but the idea that treaties are the sole thing that can justify involvement in a conflict is stupid. I await the day that an alliance of consequence actually fights at their own discretion rather than the judgment of Planet Bob's abundant e-lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GulagArchipelago Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 For CCC's case, since they can't sign MDoAP or MDAPs, MDPs signify the highest form of friendship and trust. It is probably 99% true that a MDP with them will guarantee them joinin with you during war. For other AAs, it can be either of the first two cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Misr stop making polls, no body loves you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 AUT, you know which one I voted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 when *should* they be signed? friendship when *are* they signed? when you are looking at a losing war in the future and you need quick numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 You should make a poll about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I thought there was a general consensus that Misr should never be allowed to create polls again? 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.