There are too many alliances and some of you should disband.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Unholy' timestamp='1280419679' post='2394000']
Contradicting yourself by insulting the person you just chastised for insulting you in the same post. It's a classic really.
[/quote]

you are and are not correct. Since Olaf only posted a personal attack on Voodoo, all Voodoo had to reply to was a personal attack. Unlike Olaf, who instead of debating Voodoo resorted to an ad hominem argument. something which Olaf also finds a classic.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1280401033' post='2393811']
Dis confirm my suspicions: U mad.

Ad Hominem, always a classic. We can snipe back and forth indefinitely over who's !@#$ for what reason, but at the end of the day all that matters is results, and Sparta delivers. Sparta rules--It's a fact.
[/quote]

Next time, you should tell your king to actually refute a post instead of sniping someone. It will make your alliance look far better than it currently does.

[Unholy]

If we want to get technical, he was insulting Olaf because of a statement he disliked. Which is precisely what he had chastised Olaf for doing.

[KagetheSecond]

My alliance does nothing except stat whore. Expect our disbandment notice soon.

[Cataduanes]

El Machete - Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra

[Corinan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1280420075' post='2394007']
I must also say, mdnss69 has a real point. Why do you feel bigger alliances are better? Because it "cleans" the treaty web or something?[/quote]

Yes. Less alliances means less treaties which means more conflict and drama. The game was more interesting when there were more players jammed into less alliances. At one point I think this game had nearly 40,000 players and far less alliances than we have currently. We're now under 23,000 players and probably have more alliances now than we ever had. That seem healthy to you?

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1280420075' post='2394007']
this is just someone thinking they know what's best for other people.
[/quote]

What if I [i]do[/i] know what's best for other people and they're simply too stubborn to take the advice?

[xoindotnler]

[quote]Yes. Less alliances means less treaties which means more conflict and drama.[/quote]

Easy fix, cancel a few of your treaty's. 8 is way to much.

You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi

Edited July 29, 2010 by xoindotnler

[Unholy]

Still makes you arrogant enough to believe that you do know best, regardless of the validity of the belief. People are free to do what they please after all.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Unholy

[Corinan]

[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1280421405' post='2394030']
Easy fix, cancel a few of your treaty's. 8 is way to much.

You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi
[/quote]

You may have a point, sir. I'm not a government member in NSO, however, and do not set our FA policy. That doesn't change the fact that if there were less alliances, we'd have less alliances we'd be able to treaty ourselves to. Do we really have 8 treaties? Damn. But then again I don't really think that's considered a lot in todays world.

Yes, I am arrogant, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[Unholy]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280421699' post='2394037']


Yes, I am arrogant, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
[/quote]

Not saying you are.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280421314' post='2394027']
Yes. Less alliances means less treaties which means more conflict and drama. The game was more interesting when there were more players jammed into less alliances. At one point I think this game had nearly 40,000 players and far less alliances than we have currently. We're now under 23,000 players and probably have more alliances now than we ever had. That seem healthy to you?
[/quote]

Quite so actually, alliances will take the natural run of life eventually if they are really meant to die. Look at GGA and MASH for instance. Obviously each alliance provides something if they grow and remain.

[quote]
What if I [i]do[/i] know what's best for other people and they're simply too stubborn to take the advice?
[/quote]

How do you know you're right though?

[MikeTheFirst]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280421699' post='2394037']
Do we really have 8 treaties? Damn.
[/quote]
You have 11 MDP's, even. He counted the blocs as 1 treaty.

I have to admit you (as in the NSO) make the game more fun, but once an alliance starts treaty-whoring, they tend to get less interesting.

[Earogema]

For the record, \m/ only has 5 treaties, and 2 of them are ODPs.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Earogema

[Delta1212]

[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1280421405' post='2394030']
Easy fix, cancel a few of your treaty's. 8 is way to much.

You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi
[/quote]
Actually, this seems like a more workable, albeit still unlikely to come about, solution. Nobody really wants to start canceling most of their treaties as it makes them easier to isolate or push to a weaker position by alliances who don't decide to drop their ties. Even alliances who decide to convert to a treatyless policy but maintain a relationship with friends that includes military assistance wouldn't be accomplishing anything because the complex ties would still be there, simply less visible.

With merges, political prestige and security isn't really being sacrificed. Some leaders might sacrifice some personal autonomy, but they'd mostly wind up with a government position in an alliance that was far stronger than their previous alliance was. It also expands the base of active members in the merged alliance making it more enjoyable for it's members and more functional.

I don't see masses of merges taking place, but it'd be easier to pull off than mass treaty cancellations.

[Daimos]

The more treaties we have the safer we feel. Let us all admit it. We are the problem why we have so many treaties.

[xoindotnler]

[quote name='MikeTheFirst' timestamp='1280422243' post='2394047']
You have 11 MDP's, even. He counted the blocs as 1 treaty.

I have to admit you (as in the NSO) make the game more fun, but once an alliance starts treaty-whoring, they tend to get less interesting.
[/quote]
Blame me, I'm lazy.

[CRexx]

Longer wars and harsher terms are a possibly solution to this problem. The alliances that add the most to game have the force of will to change the game and a strong internal culture. If your alliance rolls over and disbands or surrenders in the first week of war, you don't add much to the game. Such alliances should be crushed with a jackboot.

White peace, early outs for the hangers on, those kinds of things need to fall by the wayside. If you're going to sit at the big boys table and play world politics, it should carry big boy consequences.

Edit: Yes, this is the cruel solution. But given the fact the community has no interest in pruning the treaty web on their own or enforcing some kind of large scale cap on alliance size, this is the next option on the list. If you want to get truly ugly, return to the days of truly trumped up casus bellis and tech raids. Like the Continuum tech raid on the GPA.

Edited July 29, 2010 by CRex of Gulo Gulo

[illini12day]

^^^Me reaction

[MagicalTrevor]

I agree with about 90% of the op, although your decision to not disband NATO upset me


As for the rest of the thread... olaf

[Corinan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1280422055' post='2394044']
Obviously each alliance provides something if they grow and remain.
[/quote]

Just because something can grow does not mean it makes a positive contribution. Cancer can grow inside a living organism, but it certainly does not contribute to the organisms good health in any way. Quite the opposite, left unchecked and untreated it can kill it. Alliances that do nothing more than grow and bloat and suck up otherwise good potential players are a cancer in that sense.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1280422055' post='2394044']
How do you know you're right though?
[/quote]

I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I've been playing this game for a long time. I can see where it's been and where it is now and what the difference is that made it get from A to B. Alliances breaking off into micro alliances, backroom lawyering, treaty whoring, and a general lack of boldness have gotten us to where we're at now.

[mdnss69]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1280419718' post='2394002']
The Jedi Order would like to have a word with you.
[/quote]

Fine, drama. Cor..whatever, go declare war on the Jedi's and create some drama.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280421314' post='2394027']
Yes. [b]Less alliances means less treaties which means more conflict and drama.[/b] The game was more interesting when there were more players jammed into less alliances. At one point I think this game had nearly 40,000 players and far less alliances than we have currently. We're now under 23,000 players and probably have more alliances now than we ever had. That seem healthy to you?
[/quote]

I disagree with your conclusion. The alliances that remain would still have all the treaties with the other alliances that remained. Having fewer, bigger alliances will just make the politicians even more loath to take risks, because there will be even more at stake in every conflict. Less AAs means less "leaders" and thus less chance for any two of them to butt heads and maybe spark something. Maybe you should stop looking at the symptoms(lots more smaller AAs) and start trying to find a cure for the disease....what is it exactly that encourages so many people to go off and make their own alliances instead of trying to merge and form bigger ones? The ever increasing reps after wars is probably one reason for this 'independant is better' mentality.

All I see at the top of the Sanction list is lots of big AAs that don't want to make waves because.... they are already at the top. If you removed all the small AAs the drama around here would die, not increase.

[Corinan]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1280424975' post='2394094']
I disagree with your conclusion. The alliances that remain would still have all the treaties with the other alliances that remained. Having fewer, bigger alliances will just make the politicians even more loath to take risks, because there will be even more at stake in every conflict. Less AAs means less "leaders" and thus less chance for any two of them to butt heads and maybe spark something. Maybe you should stop looking at the symptoms(lots more smaller AAs) and start trying to find a cure for the disease....what is it exactly that encourages so many people to go off and make their own alliances instead of trying to merge and form bigger ones? The ever increasing reps after wars is probably one reason for this 'independant is better' mentality.

All I see at the top of the Sanction list is lots of big AAs that don't want to make waves because.... they are already at the top. If you removed all the small AAs the drama around here would die, not increase.
[/quote]

I disagree. I think if you take all the displaced players from the disbanded alliances and inject them into the ones that remain you'll have more personality clashes that will lead to more drama and conflict. I also think more clearly defined "sides" leads to more war.

[Unholy]

I'd rather not be repeatedly fighting the same people over the same stuff, though. it'd be the same war every time.

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280365347' post='2393204']
9) The Legion: Stays
[/quote]
This isn't the only one without any obvious reasoning, but why legion?

[CRexx]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1280424975' post='2394094']
I disagree with your conclusion. The alliances that remain would still have all the treaties with the other alliances that remained. Having fewer, bigger alliances will just make the politicians even more loath to take risks, because there will be even more at stake in every conflict. Less AAs means less "leaders" and thus less chance for any two of them to butt heads and maybe spark something. Maybe you should stop looking at the symptoms(lots more smaller AAs) and start trying to find a cure for the disease....what is it exactly that encourages so many people to go off and make their own alliances instead of trying to merge and form bigger ones? The ever increasing reps after wars is probably one reason for this 'independant is better' mentality.

All I see at the top of the Sanction list is lots of big AAs that don't want to make waves because.... they are already at the top. If you removed all the small AAs the drama around here would die, not increase.
[/quote]

The history of CN does not support that belief. Larger scale wars were common back when you had fewer large alliances. Back in the days of just two big alliances, #1 and #2 tended to always fight. You had a natural north/south division in the MDP web and Great Wars happened fairly frequently. The time between the GWs was interesting because people focused entirely on propaganda and swaying over the half dozen independent alliances that mattered.

There are definitely some useless large alliances, MHA for example. Ones that sign treaties with everyone, but most of the large alliances have enough history to keep them on one side of the web. MK and NPO for example will never have any kind of meaningful treaty. The only treaty they ever had was one the NPO forced on MK in an attempt to control it. If you have large alliances with ideologies, you'll always get a divide.

The problem is the bandwagon is too large and fickle. Alliance leaders avoid making moves because the bandwagon is increasing hard to predict and if they jump in on the other side, you're boned. Wars have slowed down because it takes forever to get all your allies mustered up and ready to go. No one moves, because they days the alliance that tends to fire first tends to get hit with a massive counterattack. Whereas first strikes used to be rewarding (see WUT vs GATO in GWIII). The system needs to be adjusted to favor first strikes. Maybe admin can lift the 24 hour timeout on nukes, so you could do a twin nuke blitz at update and that might give people an incentive to take the offensive.