The Right Number Of Treaties?

[supercoolyellow]

Its now Monday, at least on the East coast, and that means time for another policy corner.

Todays question is two fold, when does an alliance have too many, or too few treaties?

How do the goals of an alliance, types of treaties, relationship with treaty partners, the partners you treaty with, etc, etc affect this?

Here's how I would answer at length my own questions.

First I will say that the whether or not your alliance has too few or too little treaties is not affected at all by NAPs, TOAs, or PIATs. This of course is assuming that there is not an extreme case of an alliance having so many of these treaties that they cannot attack other alliances. Also esclude nuetral alliances from said scenario.

Too Few Treaties

First an alliance has too few treaties when the cancellation of just one or two treaties mutual defense treaties leaves it vulnerable to attacks.

Take for example the United Earth Directorate. Mafia and Ragnarok's cancellations on the United Earth Directorate left UED vulerable to the World Federation. If UED had more treaties with Mutual defense cluases they would not have found themselves as diplomatically isolated.

I can't judge UED though. BTO is currently at the same place. If VA ever had good reason to cancel on us, we would be left on the hope of relying on one of our two ODPs, and I would hate to leave the security of my alliance up to those odds. Needless to say, we try to be on the best behavior. In the future though, we will need to sign more substantial treaties.

You may be able to have fewer treaties with defense clauses if you have very close relationships with the partners you do have, and if those partners are effective military and/or diplomatic powers. For this reason I am glad that I have a good relationship with our protector Veritas Aequitas.

An alliance also has too few treaties if it doesn't have enough treaties involving aggression clauses.

For example if tomorrow BTO was spied on, we would have little to negotiate for reps with. We technically have no treaties involving even optional aggression, and no one is likely going to be afraid of an alliance where the average NS is 5,000.

Too Many Treaties

An alliance has too many treaties when the amount of treaties it has lessens how much a treaty partner can trust their treaty.

For example I'm going to take a risk and pick on one of the most respected alliances in CN today, Mushroom Kingdom. They currently hold MDoAPs with members of Frostbite, Citadel, and Aztec, and of course, they are members of the Complaints and Grievances & Committee as well. They also have a PIAT with Ragnarok, a member of Super Friends, and I'm assuming they have secondary treaty connections with Super Friends. Secondary connections meaning they are allied an alliance who is allied with Super friends. If there were to be an inter alliances war, it is probable that many of these treaties that MK has could not be followed.

Another theory that I am working on is that the more treaties an alliance has, the more likely they are to end up on the losing side of a global war. The losing side, is usually an alliance that is the center of aggression, and their allies, while the winning side is usually the first attacking nation/coalition, their allies, and the allies of their allies, etc. The more treaties an alliance has, the more likely, I presume, they would be allied to that first losing nation. This however, I am not sure about.

So there is my wall of text, what are your thoughts? Am I right, or totally off base and need to be trolled

edit: added policy corner graphic

Edited December 15, 2009 by supercoolyellow

[Drai]

Just from reading the thread title, I'd personally like it if alliances had only 3-5.

[loannes]

Just from reading the thread title, I'd personally like it if alliances had only 3-5.

I agree. Even the big alliances annoy me when they're pushing into the teens, and in some cases twenties.

[Starcraftmazter]

Quality > Quantity

Number of treaties = log2(number of members)

In regards to having more treaties = losing side of war, IMO alliances will always pursue whatever path they want regardless of treaties. That is to say, if they have treaty partners on both sides, they will choose the side who's certain alliances they value more as allies and friends.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[Caesar833]

3 treaties sounds good to me.

[Jack Diorno]

I agree, MK has too many treaties, they are stagnating the game.

[white majik]

If everone had 3-5 treaties or was a member of one bloc Bob would be alot more interesting,

EDIT- thats 3-5 MDP or higher treaties, I think this would lead to a rise in NAP,PIAT,SISTER, and ODP treaties. Which is one of the big things that I miss...

Edited December 14, 2009 by white majik

[Lord Panda]

The more treaties one has, the more conflicting treaties they may have.

I agree with the view that any treaties at MDP or above should be carefully considered before an alliance signs it.

[Choader]

It would make CN very interesting if all alliances agreed to limit themselves to 3 total treaties or 1 bloc membership along with 1 outside treaty.

[Remaliat]

If the treaties are truly based on friendship then having a large number of treaties is not a bad thing, there are alliances out there that certainly have far too many treaties that are not rooted in friendship.

[raasaa]

its depends on the alliance, their strategies and goals. If an alliance feels that it can handle the obligations presented by having many treaties, then i dont see any harm in having them...

An example is TORN. Before the karma war, for an alliance their size, they had a !@#$ load of treaties. I think at one time it exceeded the collective sum of treaties AZTEC alliances held with other parties.

[potato]

So, basically, what you're saying is that if a friend of yours wants to get closer, you go "Sorry, dude. No can do. I have too many treaties already since I arbitraly decided on a set number...".

[Earogema]

3.

Though, make sure they are all with the same alliance

[p2die]

3-5 treatises are those single treaty's or is one just, one big thing say like "super friends" would super friend count as 1 or 5?

[ikMark]

We have 5. If with the right people, that's more than enough.

(although 1 or 2 more would not hurt imo)

Edited December 14, 2009 by ikMark

[Ogaden]

You can never have too many treaties so long as all your treaty partners are on the same page.

If you're allied to people for essentially no reason and they either attack your other friends or just bail on you in your hour of need, then you were on a different page than they were.

Edited December 14, 2009 by James Dahl

[Lord Brendan]

The problem is not large amounts of treaties, it's conflicting treaties. You can have a million treaties and be fine as long as you're careful about who you sign them with.

For example, we currently hold MDP+ treaties with some 12 alliances, but I can't really imagine any plausible situation where we'd have a conflict and be unable to follow through on obligations.

[D34th]

19

Because I finished The Dark Tower books some days ago and it's clear that 19 is the number.

[Bob Janova]

There's no set number that's the right amount. You should never sign a treaty that conflicts with your ideals (so 0 is the right number for GPA or TDO), or a purely strategic treaty that puts you between friends (i.e. many of the NPO's pre-war treaties). But denying a treaty with a friend because you have 'too many' would be absurd.

[astronaut jones]

4. And if you're just starting out, 1 really good protectorate is all you need.

The treaty web is still a complete mess because people haven't gotten it through their heads that having a treaty with someone simply because they express interest isn't a good !@#$@#$ reason to sign a treaty.

[Tick1]

It is still possible to connect the whole entire planet with 5 treaties per alliance. So I don't understand what this discussion is about. God forbid anyone attempts to stop a global war! Hello Bob!

[lebubu]

Just from reading the thread title, I'd personally like it if alliances had only 3-5.

Face it, you just want an easier job!

No such thing as right number, fifty treaties are perfectly fine if the relationships are there and are properly maintained by both sides.

I'm assuming they have secondary treaty connections with Super Friends

Everyone is tied to everyone via "secondary treaty connections". It's what makes non-chaining clauses so damn beautiful.

[supercoolyellow]

If the treaties are truly based on friendship then having a large number of treaties is not a bad thing, there are alliances out there that certainly have far too many treaties that are not rooted in friendship.

So, basically, what you're saying is that if a friend of yours wants to get closer, you go "Sorry, dude. No can do. I have too many treaties already since I arbitraly decided on a set number...".

I would argue that if you have far too many treaties, adding another one detracts from the value of your current ones because themore you sign the less likely you are going to be able to honor all your treaties in large scale ware because they are going to be conflicting. Also if the friend is going to conflict with your treaties, perhaps a NAP, TOA, or PIAT would suffice. They aren't as strong but they avoid wars with the partner you signed it with.

3-5 treatises are those single treaty's or is one just, one big thing say like "super friends" would super friend count as 1 or 5?

Blocs like Super Friends don't add stress to your treaties like adding 5 seperate treaties, so I would count them as one treaty.

edit: Added the part about NAP, TOA, and PIAT

Edited December 14, 2009 by supercoolyellow

[supercoolyellow]

Everyone is tied to everyone via "secondary treaty connections". It's what makes non-chaining clauses so damn beautiful.

Point taken. I should have thought about that before I said the thing about secondary treaty connections.

Edited December 14, 2009 by supercoolyellow

[wickedj]

Its all in who you sign with. alot of our treaties were made redundant the moment we were admitted into SF! and without looking it up i believe our Corp treaty is the only O(A)DP we hold. everything else is MDP or higher