Roman Empire Announcement

[lonewolfe2015]

I still dont get why people have a problem with treaties, I treaty with alliances I view as friends like most other alliances do. A treaty is basically a public showing of friendship and that if you touch either of us, the other will come and help out.

Say everyone got rid of posted treaties to please you lord all mighty, friends will still back each other up regardless just without written proof of it. The "problem" as you call it will stay be here just not visible.

Welcome to the world thats life you dont like it, noone elses problem but your own.

The first part is actually favorable without a slip of paper. Because if an alliance jumps into a war without a treaty and it was already fair as it was, then they are free game to be countered by someone else unhappy. But usually treaty partners have another treaty waiting who defends the unfair sides. All I really want to see is TE encourage even wars rather than wars with a heavy advantage one way. Remember, the aggressor has an advantage to begin with, let alone the ones with more NS lately.

Don't say to please me though, I'm simply stating my opinion again that treaties are inhibiting gameplay. Just like others think alliances inhibit gameplay or trades do.

As for the last part, it was an observation, not a challenge or a reason for anyone to snap at me.

See, I'm a proponant of every round is a fresh start for people. I slip every so often like any human being does, but this is a fresh start for me to try and remain more civil despite my lacking of such last round.

[Infidel Israeli]

The first part is actually favorable without a slip of paper. Because if an alliance jumps into a war without a treaty and it was already fair as it was, then they are free game to be countered by someone else unhappy. But usually treaty partners have another treaty waiting who defends the unfair sides. All I really want to see is TE encourage even wars rather than wars with a heavy advantage one way. Remember, the aggressor has an advantage to begin with, let alone the ones with more NS lately.

Don't say to please me though, I'm simply stating my opinion again that treaties are inhibiting gameplay. Just like others think alliances inhibit gameplay or trades do.

As for the last part, it was an observation, not a challenge or a reason for anyone to snap at me.

See, I'm a proponant of every round is a fresh start for people. I slip every so often like any human being does, but this is a fresh start for me to try and remain more civil despite my lacking of such last round.

But you can do everything in that first paragraph without a treaty. To me its more of a public statement. Also, when I declare on an alliance, I plan for the war to be even. I like treaties are there in public eye to show who's backing me up if someone tries to make an even war unfair.

But just like lonewolf, this is just my opinion.

[HisK Owns You]

I still dont get why people have a problem with treaties, I treaty with alliances I view as friends like most other alliances do. A treaty is basically a public showing of friendship and that if you touch either of us, the other will come and help out.

You don't need a treaty for that.

[Infidel Israeli]

You don't need a treaty for that.

The only reason TPF didn't roll us last round was because RE was standing in their way. If it wasn't publicly announced maybe they wouldn't have hesitated.

edit: don't expect a quick response after this. goin out

Edited December 28, 2009 by Infidel Israeli

[lonewolfe2015]

Honestly, you shouldn't need the treaty though. If RE really had your backs, then let TPF attack only to find the results of an uneven war and RE hitting them.

That's my opinion on how TE should be played.

[Lysander]

I'd like to take this time to say, that while I reallllyyyy like RE, an alliance chock-full of good guys (with the obvious exception of teh ebil tibs ), that their channel utterly reeks when no one is there to voice people. That is all, kthanksbai.

I'll fix that

[Clash]

Thanks Lysander

The only reason TPF didn't roll us last round was because RE was standing in their way. If it wasn't publicly announced maybe they wouldn't have hesitated.

Actually, we had a treaty with RE

With us, if two of our treaty partners fight, then we don't interfere.

II has a good point though. That situation stops a curbstomp. The worst stomps come when one alliance attacks a second one and fills it's offensive slots. Then the 1st alliance gets hit by a 3rd alliance, who smells a weak kill. They get it too. That situation is what seems to get the most complaining on the forums. It's happened to me before and it spoils a good war. If the 1st has treaty partners in place to watch their backs, then maybe the 3rd doesn't hit. On the other hand, sometimes treaties make for really BIG wars, as the treaty chains get activated. 1st alliance hits 2nd, 3rd hits 1st, 4th hits 3rd, and before you know it, BRAWL.

Treaties can be good or bad.

There are no across the board circumstances.

Personally, I think the decline in people joining TE is because if you aren't in a big alliance, you get tech raided to death and can barely play. You can't be in a small alliance, you certainly can't be unaligned. You just get killed and almost never make it over 2000ns. Not everyone wants to be in a big alliance, or in ANY alliance. Yet that's about the only place you can go and have a least a chance to make it big enough to get nukes, for example. In theory people who are months away from nukes in SE can get them in a couple of weeks in TE. There's some fun! In practice it doesn't always work that way.

I think people have gotten better at tech-raiding over the sessions, too. People watch the war screens, looking for nations who were just raided, because they will have low soldier counts. When I first started and was unaligned, I got hit by two and three people in a row. I got crushed and it stank. Some jerks will tech raid you two-three times in a row, because you were just the perfect size for them. This is why I joined an alliance in the first place.

When nations 50-100% bigger than you kill you, all the time, there's not much you can do to fight back. Cruise missiles, ooooo. That's fun, right. I think it's why so many people don't come back. If you have a good time, then you do. If you don't then why bother?

This is part of the reason why I support protectorate treaties for smaller alliances, and I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about that. They will have at least a chance to get bigger nations and to have a bit of fun. They might have even fights, instead of mass tech raids. TPF will continue to do that as long as I have any input on it. And I don't much care what anyone else thinks about it, either.

[lonewolfe2015]

We could really go around in endless circles about how to improve TE, perhaps the best option would be to hold a conference in which we give admin our conclusions?

[Clash]

THAT might well be a good idea.

[Varianz]

We could really go around in endless circles about how to improve TE, perhaps the best option would be to hold a conference in which we give admin our conclusions?

Lol Jim and I were talking about that the other day on IRC. Think it's worth doing? Not to toot our own horns, but you, Jim and I do have rather a lot of sway in TE...participation by the three of us would give such a program weight.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Tiberius12

[Grags]

I keep hearing how treaties are ruining TE. That brought an idea to mind. Lets get all of the players from TE to form a quick alliance in SE and start a TE vs. SE war to shake things up! See if the non-TE players can actually fight!

[Clash]

o/ Grags

[the rebel]

You don't need a treaty for that.

Indeed, I just like to know who are close friends with who instead of second guessing

[andymac64]

I keep hearing how treaties are ruining TE. That brought an idea to mind. Lets get all of the players from TE to form a quick alliance in SE and start a TE vs. SE war to shake things up! See if the non-TE players can actually fight!

Now that would be interesting.