I call for a moratorium on signing new treaties!

[kpcurley]

Hey there,

Ever notice how "Alliance Announcements" has become 99% treaty announcements and mindless hailing and back slapping? Are you not bored out of your skull with this game and might just go rogue if you see another treaty signed, or bloc formed? Are you one of those leaders who whines about how there is no drama, or war, and then proceeds to ensure your alliance's stagnation by picking up a few more treaties every year?

Right now you couldn't even start a serious war of you tried. There are no bad guys anymore; everyone is either a friend, or a friend of a friend. So little spats that would of started weeks of fun and interesting wars in the past are simmered down in a matter of days. Think about the best times you have had playing this game; Were they at times when you were paying bills, collecting taxes and organizing tech deals? The point is, the game is choking slowly under the weight of treaties and I think we all know it.

Here is what I propose, but I will probably be shot down by planet bobs outspoken elitist. I'm sorry I am not a cool enough on this planet.

1. A 6 month moratorium on signing new treaties.
2. Each alliance agrees to during that period evaluate all of it's ODP and above treaties, and then proceed to limit the number of these treaties to 3.

[xoindotnler]

Maybe we should do some edgy move and cancel all of them, so we can resign all of them !

Stopped looking there for interesting things a while ago.

[Fernando12]

This won't work so what's the point of even suggesting it?

Treaty web provides some security. Limiting treaties puts you at risk of being rolled.

The simple answer is for people to stop caring so much about their nations/alliance statistics and go to war for however long it takes and refuse to pay reps. At some point the war will slow down and nations/alliances will begin to rebuild. Everyone is afraid of having to pay huge reps. Do they realize they don't have to pay huge reps if they choose to fight it out? Seems like they don't realize this. Instead many alliances screw themselves even further by rebuilding the tech levels of their enemies. Realize that if you do not pay reps you and your enemy will be at the same nation size. What's the point of expanding the gap between you and your enemies by paying reps to them? Next war rolls around and you put yourself at a major disadvantage and get pummeled again.

[Chief Savage Man]

I am an outspoken elitist and I am shooting you down.

[Believland]

Can we win something?

[Omniscient1]

I'm honestly pretty tired of all these threads complaining about everything being boring. If I see another one of these threads, that's what will be what makes me go rogue.

[TheyCallMeJeezy]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1292698750' post='2542878']
I'm honestly pretty tired of all these threads complaining about everything being boring. If I see another one of these threads, that's what will be what makes me go rogue.
[/quote]
Can you guarantee this? If so I volunteer to make said thread.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='kpcurley' timestamp='1292696221' post='2542830']
Are you one of those leaders who whines about how there is no drama, or war, and then proceeds to ensure your alliance's stagnation by picking up a few more treaties every year?
[/quote]
Are you?

Why doesn't your alliance start a war? The treaty web does not prevent wars. People fearing losing prevents wars. kpcurley, you should take your alliance to war every few months and start the domino effect on the treaty web if you want more wars. You never know, it might stay isolated or it might go global. War is in your hands, stop making ridiculous suggestions.

[Bob Janova]

As always, treaties are the symptom, not the cause. You wouldn't change anything by doing this. And if you're so bored with the status quo, do something about it ... personally I think the politics is rather interesting at the moment.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='TheyCallMeJeezy' timestamp='1292699086' post='2542882']
Can you guarantee this? If so I volunteer to make said thread.
[/quote]

Sure, find me someone in my range I dislike, and make the thread. Then I'll go rogue.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292699526' post='2542892']
As always, treaties are the symptom, not the cause. You wouldn't change anything by doing this. And if you're so bored with the status quo, do something about it ... personally I think the politics is rather interesting at the moment.
[/quote]

Pretty much I agree with this.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Omniscient1

[Schattenmann]

It depends on the treaty being signed.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292699526' post='2542892']
As always, treaties are the symptom, not the cause. You wouldn't change anything by doing this. And if you're so bored with the status quo, do something about it ... personally I think the politics is rather interesting at the moment.
[/quote]
Didn't you in another thread say you lost respect for \m/ for them saying "do something about it" (sorta but not really)

I agree, the new year should be interesting as posturing eventually triggers the next war.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='kpcurley' timestamp='1292696221' post='2542830']
Right now you couldn't even start a serious war of you tried. There are no bad guys anymore; everyone is either a friend, or a friend of a friend. So little spats that would of started weeks of fun and interesting wars in the past are simmered down in a matter of days. Think about the best times you have had playing this game; Were they at times when you were paying bills, collecting taxes and organizing tech deals? The point is, the game is choking slowly under the weight of treaties and I think we all know it. [/quote]
You really don't know what you're talking about. If you think that everyone is friendly with each other and that there are no "bad guys", you aren't paying attention. Go read the Legion/NpO treaty thread.

A bloated treaty web didn't stop bipolar or Karma. And it is highly unlikely to stop another major war from occurring either.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Azaghul

[Locke]

I would call for a moratorium on silly posts like this, but that's not going to happen either.

[Kevanovia]

Here here! Although I think a petition against protectorates would be more effective.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1292706512' post='2543019']
You really don't know what you're talking about. If you think that everyone is friendly with each other and that there are no "bad guys", you aren't paying attention. Go read the Legion/NpO treaty thread.

A bloated treaty web didn't stop bipolar or Karma. And it is highly unlikely to stop another major war from occurring either.
[/quote]

This is the truth. The treaty web just makes the chain reaction messier.

What's really hurting is that Karma and Bi-Polar were so costly. Unlike the "old days" where rebuilding could be accomplished relatively quickly, many have yet to fully recover from Karma and Bi-polar. This makes people a lot less interested in tossing the dice, imo. That goes for all sides, btw. No AA walks away from 3 weeks of nukes w/o taking serious damage, even if they were the winners. Pyrrhic Victories are the rule in today's CN.

[Sephiroth]

The problem that causes so many treaties to be signed is the general mindset in CN that you need to have one with an alliance or you can't help them if they get attacked. An ODP should be pointless if people felt they could declare to help another alliance without one, but currently if people declare without a treaty telling them to they are either labeled as rogues (if they are entering to help the smaller side) or bandwagoners (if they are entering to help the winning side). To solve the treaty web problem people need to move away from that mindset and not base whether they are going to enter a war on whether a treaty is telling them to, but on who they want to see win or want to help out without needing a treaty to tell them they can do it. If people didn't base every war decision on treaties and having one didn't make such a big difference when someone posts a DoW, it would make for a more unpredictable and interesting political environment. Currently almost no large alliances are willing to enter a war without a treaty giving them a clear entrance, especially after what happened to TOP, IRON and TORN in the BiPolar war when they decided to declare based on the side they wanted to see win rather than being required to enter.

[Rebounder]

Quit complaining, go rogue. It's awesome

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1292711212' post='2543133']
Quit complaining, go rogue. It's awesome
[/quote]

lol, you're doing such a swell job of that, mr. 5k NS

Still, GPA, ODN, and MHA should be ashamed that they let you out of anarchy. Ridiculous.

[Rebounder]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1292711317' post='2543135']
lol, you're doing such a swell job of that, mr. 5k NS

Still, GPA, ODN, and MHA should be ashamed that they let you out of anarchy. Ridiculous.
[/quote]

Well, Mr. "I'm going to sanction you because I'm scared of a 2.6k ns nation," if you'd look at my [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=415278"]chart[/url] from since I stopped getting nuked (the point at which the nukes stopped coming is fairly obvious), I've more than doubled my strength.

In fact, you see that jump from 3k-4k last night? That $4 million Valhalla dollars at work. I'd like to send a heartfelt thank-you to your alliance for the contribution to the cause of the Reformation.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1292711558' post='2543139']
Well, Mr. "I'm going to sanction you because I'm scared of a 2.6k ns nation," if you'd look at my [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=415278"]chart[/url] from since I stopped getting nuked (the point at which the nukes stopped coming is fairly obvious), I've more than doubled my strength.

In fact, you see that jump from 3k-4k last night? That $4 million Valhalla dollars at work. I'd like to send a heartfelt thank-you to your alliance for the contribution to the cause of the Reformation.
[/quote]

lol, your sanction was at the request of those whom you were already fighting. Zarkon, Zaxxon, Z-something or other asked purple to sanction you. It's fairly routine, i just check your warscreens, make sure that you were an aggressor, and click the sanction. Don't know you from Adam, hardly scared of you.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1292710139' post='2543112']
This is the truth. The treaty web just makes the chain reaction messier.

What's really hurting is that Karma and Bi-Polar were so costly. [b]Unlike the "old days" where rebuilding could be accomplished relatively quickly, many have yet to fully recover from Karma and Bi-polar.[/b] This makes people a lot less interested in tossing the dice, imo. That goes for all sides, btw. No AA walks away from 3 weeks of nukes w/o taking serious damage, even if they were the winners. Pyrrhic Victories are the rule in today's CN.
[/quote]
The bolded part...

This is what I don't get at all. This mindset that rebuilding takes forever. Rebuilding years ago if you had a warchest was simple because nations were alot smaller. Rebuilding today, everyone wants to get back to 80k+ - that takes alot of time. It shouldn't be the goal though. Rebuilding to what? To get back in range of the meat grinder? To get back in range of nations that your alliance just sent 20k+ tech to and who have been buying tech while you can't because you have to send tech as direct reps payment or use your slots to buy tech and have it sent to your enemies. All this time your enemy is getting stronger and you are not wanting to wage war because it puts you back on the meat grinder.

It's better to fight a war and get your alliance out of range of the meat grinder, get peace, and be strong at a lower tier than making peace and rebuilding the tech levels of your enemies only to have them tear you up again because the nations you face in the next war will probably have a 2:1 tech advantage.

The solution is for alliances to stop being a bunch of stat huggers and fight.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Sorry, we won't be able to abide by this.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1292710139' post='2543112']
This is the truth. The treaty web just makes the chain reaction messier.

What's really hurting is that Karma and Bi-Polar were so costly. Unlike the "old days" where rebuilding could be accomplished relatively quickly, many have yet to fully recover from Karma and Bi-polar. This makes people a lot less interested in tossing the dice, imo. That goes for all sides, btw. No AA walks away from 3 weeks of nukes w/o taking serious damage, even if they were the winners. Pyrrhic Victories are the rule in today's CN.
[/quote]
Yea, most wars are about gaining in relative strength.

It's not a problem with the community, but a systematic one with the age of the planet. More nations being around longer raises the average of nations, which means the average or relevant size is a lot larger, which means that it takes a lot longer to reach or re-reach that average or relevant size.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]It's better to fight a war and get your alliance out of range of the meat grinder, get peace, and be strong at a lower tier than making peace and rebuilding the tech levels of your enemies only to have them tear you up again because the nations you face in the next war will probably have a 2:1 tech advantage.[/quote]
Um, is this a joke?

The lower tier is pointless, and if that's all you have, all your nations are going to be rolled by nations twice as big. And fighting until you're all lower tier isn't going to get you out of reps, either ... just look at TPF in Karma.