astronaut jones Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So.. what, we're back in the same boat now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The only real issue is that the more MDP+ level treaties you have the more you'll run into conflicts of interest. Even if they are non-chaining treaties and you are not obligated to defend an ally, there would still be that expectation, and l can't imagine it ever being nice to have to choose between two allies. So yes there has to be a limit, not any particular number, just when it seems like you're getting too involved and spread out over the treaty web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 There isn't such a thing as having too many treaties nor too little if your looking for one clear answer. It all really depends on your goals as an alliance as well as personal preferences to meeting these goals. I'm not going to try and portray myself as a hard-$@! and say "No treaties" is the way to go. Because that's honestly foolish, and never conducted by anyone who goes anywhere important with an alliance. From a strictly objective view, you have to weigh in your personal relationships and strategic values when determining how many treaties you wish to hold, gain, or cancel. Ultimately, this "Sweet-Spot" will vary for an alliance at different times through it's lifetime as the memberships values change; by extension forcing a healthy leaderships values to conform along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I think the rule of 'too many' applies if those treaties are with people you are tied to only for strategic purposes of hedging your bets so their sphere of power won't want to kill you. That leads to you either misjudging how the treaty web will play out in a war, and/or you being a non-factor in it because you have friends on both sides. When you keep your treaties within a group of alliances who share similar ideals with you and who actually truly care about your defense, then you can't really have too many treaties, because each one just helps to reinforce the others. Contradicting treaties lead to 'too many', however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Says the man in the alliance that's looking more and more like NPO 0.5 day after day. Aw, shucks! Tell us more, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 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. Everyone is tied to everyone via "secondary treaty connections". It's what makes non-chaining clauses so damn beautiful. That actually came to mind immediately after posting I don't even think my answer was that great. It completely depends on which treaties you sign, not the number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) Going to disagree with you two on this. Even if you maintain a great relationship with all your treaty partners, and even if you're willing to honor all your obligations, you can still end up with conflicting treaties that make it impossible to honor everything. You keep your treaty partners from being in conflict or change the situation. This was seen by me when the CSN-USN treaty was canceled. Says the man in the alliance that's looking more and more like NPO 0.5 day after day. You really are one of a kind. Trying to use "buzzwords" doesn't make them stick. If you want to try and insulate yourselves by touching every corner of the treaty web, go ahead. But don't be shocked when people start calling you out on your behaviour, and don't be shocked when people start realizing how pathetic it really is. We apologize for the wide variety of relationships MK has with a lot of alliances. Really, we do. However, to state that we are insulating ourselves by touching every corner of the treaty web isn't pointing out a truth, it is misconstruing the truth. There is none or little conflict between our allies right now and canceling a treaty because of future ramifications of being stuck in the middle of a conflict that may or may not occur is pathetic. We don't build our alliance's foreign affairs based off of political gain, we build it based off friendship and mutual respect. If you don't understand that, then it is easy to understand why you are upset with our choices. . Edited December 15, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Corrupt Teacher Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Says the man in the alliance that's looking more and more like NPO 0.5 day after day.If you want to try and insulate yourselves by touching every corner of the treaty web, go ahead. But don't be shocked when people start calling you out on your behaviour, and don't be shocked when people start realizing how pathetic it really is. Actually that wouldn't work. MK couldn't go roll anyone they wanted then impose an insane amount of reps+viceroy and get away with it. In fact if TOP wanted it could get enough strength together to roll MK if the circumstances worked in TOP's favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Says the man in the alliance that's looking more and more like NPO 0.5 day after day.If you want to try and insulate yourselves by touching every corner of the treaty web, go ahead. But don't be shocked when people start calling you out on your behaviour, and don't be shocked when people start realizing how pathetic it really is. I'll take NPO 0.5 over LUE 2.0 anyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I'll take NPO 0.5 over LUE 2.0 anyday. We are 1/2 as bad as NPO apparently. D: Babyjesus try harder. Edited December 15, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Attaching an exact numerical limit to this is nearly as silly as I would consider signing too many to be. If you desire honor in war, get as few treaties as possible as strong as they can possibly be. If you wish to live in peace, spam the entire web and honor only the ones that fit your goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I honestly think the true magic number is zero. But since everyone wants to stick by this system that can't possible do anything other than stagnate things, I will say a handful. Those you know best, don't care if they are right or wrong, and are more than happy to fight an eternal war (even a losing one) for. Anyone else you can just declare in solidarity if you feel you really want to help them. Edited December 15, 2009 by Drostan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I prefer only having a few treaties of MDP or higher. We have 2 MDoAPs and 3 ODP/PIATs. That's perfect for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 However many friends you have. If i have 20 alliance that i would go into flames for and i know will go into flames for me then i'm signing 20 treaties. And if i have 2 alliances that i would go into flames for and i know will go into flames for me then i'm signing 2 treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 lol, I would go down in flames for many more people than I would commit to going down in flames for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Looks like the consensus is 'depends on how many really close friends you have'. And..well, Mr Jones, I'll have to say that the Mushroom Kingdom isn't quite to the point you're suggesting yet. Now, if they were to sign an MADP with a chaining clause with, say, the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, then that'd be a bit of a concern (and a great way to celebrate 01 April).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Truck Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Says the man in the alliance that's looking more and more like NPO 0.5 day after day.If you want to try and insulate yourselves by touching every corner of the treaty web, go ahead. But don't be shocked when people start calling you out on your behaviour, and don't be shocked when people start realizing how pathetic it really is. You realise that just prior to the end of the Karma War everyone we are allied to was on the same side, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 You realise that just prior to the end of the Karma War everyone we are allied to was on the same side, right? That's also true of NPO just prior to the end of WotC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Meh, there is never a perfect number. The less the better, but if you have, say, only two treaties with NSO and Fark, who are on completely opposite sides of the web, that can also mightily screw up your FA. So, be independent and not have treaties at all, or be involved with only one larger power sphere. Everything else will just be stagnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If we're talking about MDP level treaties, ideally only one. It would make for a more interesting world if every alliance joined a bloc or only held treaties with a single bloc. Other than that no treaties though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Too few is when they are all in one direction. You need a primary focus (usually a Bloc and the extensions that you get from that Bloc) and then 1 or 2 side tangents that aren't opposed to your other treaties but aren't directly concurrent. That way you are a bit independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If an alliance has more then 4 treaties, they have too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Meh, there is never a perfect number. The less the better, but if you have, say, only two treaties with NSO and Fark, who are on completely opposite sides of the web, that can also mightily screw up your FA. So, be independent and not have treaties at all, or be involved with only one larger power sphere. Everything else will just be stagnation. The problem with aligning yourself with one large power sphere is the issue of that power sphere breaking apart. My own alliance has that seen happening twice, which means you'll have to re-evaluate your treaties. No MDP level treaty is signed on a whim and in an healthy relationship you, during the time you have a treaty together, grow closer together. Cancelling a treaty is often far more difficult then signing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 (edited) Anywhere between 0 and ∞ is the perfect amount of treaties. But there's a catch. Treaties should be A. With friends, B. With people you want to defend and possibly go down fighting for, C. Consistent, your treaties shouldn't be all over the web. And a tip regarding treaties, always be ready and willing to reevaluate. There's no shame in prioritizing your friends, as long as you have your gameplan set before the !@#$ hits the fan. Edited December 18, 2009 by Mathias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Seventeen 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.