What Does a Treaty Mean These Days?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1295670950' post='2590822']
What a novel idea. I mean really, that is brilliant.
[/quote]

What an excellent post. I mean really, its brilliant. You make making useless posts easy and fun to do!

[wickedj]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1295668548' post='2590666']
Its a shame treaties are the norm. In my opinion nobody should have any treaties, just people they get along with.
[/quote]
on Skype we've mused over different ways of putting an end to the treaty madness since we cant seem to do it voluntarily. hardcode treaties into the game. you're only allowed a small number of them..of course this would create more iFOK-like chains but alas

[Lennox]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1295671516' post='2590854']
on Skype we've mused over different ways of putting an end to the treaty madness since we cant seem to do it voluntarily. hardcode treaties into the game. you're only allowed a small number of them..of course this would create more iFOK-like chains but alas
[/quote]

I agree that finding a way to end this web will make benefit for glorious cybernations. The only issue with your suggestion may be that people will do what they want regardless of what treaties they have. To me this problem is less of an issue with game mechanics, and has everything to do with the community's perspective.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1295670529' post='2590798']
I have to agree with this post. It's pretty boring to just run a few quick calculations, determine the sides from the beginning, and turn it into "well I have more NS than you and there's nothing you can do about it". Each side has had to be very careful in this war, which is a lot of fun to watch. (My alliance is on the sidelines right now so I can't judge as to how fun the fighting is, although the shoutout thread is showing it is.)
[/quote]
It was funny to see VE get proven wrong when they thought having a treaty with an alliance (RoK) means you can attack an ally of theirs (NpO) and somehow they cancel each other out, making them think RoK wouldn't honor their MDoAP with NpO. So stuff like that can make a war based on treaties interesting, then we see RIA declare on both sides activating their MDoAP with VE and MDoAP with RoK as well. Then we see another alliance GOD, activate their MDoAP with RnR to enter on the opposite side as RoK, but activate their MDoAP with RIA when they were counter declared by GATO. Although now depending on how they treat their treaties this could bring several CnG alliances in on GATO or they can declare on VE in defense of IAA. With several alliances fighting both sides and a lot of treaties yet to be activated, a lot of interesting wars can happen depending on who people want to declare on and how they want to treat their treaties. NV is now is the interesting position where VE who is allied to them has attacked their other treaty partner, so it will fun to watch whether they choose. Although not having a copy of the treaty on hand I'm not sure whether their MDoAP with VE includes a NAP that would prevent NV from DoWing them in response and cause them to need to choose between which treaty is more important.

So that we don't know who will honor their treaties at all, who will only do the minimum to honor a treaty and who comes to the assistance of an ally regardless of whether its required can still make the wars unpredictable to watch despite the fixation on treaties, although I agree with those who say a treaty isn't needed to help friends and think when alliances behave that way it can make for even more unpredictable wars, where PR matters a little more than how tangled you are in the MDP Web.

Although I think the main problem with the mentality that you need to follow treaties to enter a war, is it encourages excessive treaty signing so alliances can get in on a war that starts using that as their CB. How it should be is you have just a few treaties for defense that you are willing to honor no matter who declares on them and where you can count on them to do the same for you, but still being able to enter a war without a treaty obligation telling you to do it making OAP and ODP clauses pointless.

[Max Power]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295672714' post='2590905']
It was funny to see VE get proven wrong when they thought having a treaty with an alliance (RoK) means you can attack an ally of theirs (NpO) and somehow they cancel each other out, making them think RoK wouldn't honor their MDoAP with NpO. So stuff like that can make a war based on treaties interesting, then we see RIA declare on both sides activating their MDoAP with VE and MDoAP with RoK as well. Then we see another alliance GOD, activate their MDoAP with RnR to enter on the opposite side as RoK, but activate their MDoAP with RIA when they were counter declared by GATO. Although now depending on how they treat their treaties this could bring several CnG alliances in on GATO or they can declare on VE in defense of IAA. With several alliances fighting both sides and a lot of treaties yet to be activated, a lot of interesting wars can happen depending on who people want to declare on and how they want to treat their treaties. NV is now is the interesting position where VE who is allied to them has attacked their other treaty partner, so it will fun to watch whether they choose. Although not having a copy of the treaty on hand I'm not sure whether their MDoAP with VE includes a NAP that would prevent NV from DoWing them in response and cause them to need to choose between which treaty is more important.

So that we don't know who will honor their treaties at all, who will only do the minimum to honor a treaty and who comes to the assistance of an ally regardless of whether its required can still make the wars unpredictable to watch despite the fixation on treaties, although I agree with those who say a treaty isn't needed to help friends and think when alliances behave that way it can make for even more unpredictable wars, where PR matters a little more than how tangled you are in the MDP Web.

Although I think the main problem with the mentality that you need to follow treaties to enter a war, is it encourages excessive treaty signing so alliances can get in on a war that starts using that as their CB. How it should be is you have just a few treaties for defense that you are willing to honor no matter who declares on them and where you can count on them to do the same for you, but still being able to enter a war without a treaty obligation telling you to do it making OAP and ODP clauses pointless.
[/quote]
Interesting and well put, and speaks a lot to how complicated this all gets. I disagree on the OA/OD clauses though, depending on how they're used. They can make very strong statements if the alliance using them isn't handing out MDPs like they're nothing.

[D34th]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1295671285' post='2590843']
Another solution to going treaty-less is going with more specific treaties. If we required our treaty partners to defend us regardless of treaty conflict then the treaty would have more meaning. Then they either have to cancel or defend. I think the practice of outright ignoring treaties and staying neutral has helped get us here as well... That practice should be ridiculed endlessly.
[/quote]

I agree with you, make things more serious and less "lulz", we are playing a political simulator not a clown simulator.

[Schad]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1295669685' post='2590726']
I think it's more people overuse MDP when really it should be oDP. Defense of your friends will usually result in a yes, but during a global war like this there are other factors. So then, do you follow the mandatory defense against your better judgement, or neglect to do what you said you'd do in writing? Either road can lead you off a cliff.
[/quote]


Absolutely, and the variations designed to make mandatory treaties less mandatory (non-chaining clauses, MDoAPs where any action can be interpreted as 'aggression', and the like) simply distract from the fact that the vast majority of treaties are optional. And that's perfectly alright...there are circumstances, whether brought on by strategy, the casus belli, primacy of other treaties, where just about any treaty will end up ignored. Hell, even joining on the same side but a different front from an ally is technically violating the terms of most treaties, so as long as people sign several mandatory pacts, there will be people breaking several mandatory pacts each and every time war rolls around. To do otherwise would be to have every war consist of half the participants taking RIA's tack in this one...and while it's laudable, and entertaining to watch when a couple alliances pull it off, at the macro level it'd be one massive and incomprehensible jumble of wars, good for nihilistic thingsgoboom but bad for the game as a whole.

In a perfect world, there would be two types of treaties: ODP/OADPs (really, there shouldn't be a difference) and MADPs. The vast majority would be the former; under some circumstances, perhaps even [i]most[/i] circumstances, you'd defend them. Unless they screwed up terribly, or a closer ally was on the other side, or you wanted to protect your infra, or whatever. MADPs and blocs of the same format would be reserved for the people whose side you'd never leave...even if you were already fighting on two fronts, if they were hit/hit someone, you'd immediately channel every available nation to fighting alongside them.

But realistically, that would never happen. If barred from signing anything but OADPs or MADPs, we'd still find a way either to sign so many MADPs that we couldn't possibly live up to all of them, or we'd fill them full of clauses that devalued them much in the same way that MDoAPs/MDPs have been devalued. Because we're terrible, terrible people with no self-restraint.

[Feanor Noldorin]

I am in agreement with the OP.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1295674608' post='2591062']
I agree with you, make things more serious and less "lulz", we are playing a political simulator not a clown simulator.
[/quote]
Agreed on this front.

Still, as far as hardcoding treaties, I don't see that working at all. Alliances are in, of course, but how would you work a treaty into that?

As far as the nature of treaties? Honestly, I don't see that ever changing. It's almost as if politics is rearing its head when it comes to figuring out war strategies..

[BossCat]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295669747' post='2590731']
I think when TOP+Allies declared on MK+CnG in the BiPolar War it gave people a reminder of [b]how things can go wrong if declare without a treaty obligation, you run the risk of everyone else deciding its time to e-lawyer it up with the treaties and pile as many alliances onto the attacker as they possibly can[/b], then needing to pay high reps for the horrible crime of declaring a war before your treaty obligations make it necessary.

Although Kerberos Nexus has no treaties and we were involved in two wars, the Six Million Dollar War and Roguefest 2010, and we're doing alright.
[/quote]


Hmmm... Seems that a piece of this action sounds a.... bit... normal?... nah... Familiar, that's it.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='BossCat' timestamp='1295678916' post='2591438']
Hmmm... Seems that a piece of this action sounds a.... bit... normal?... nah... Familiar, that's it.
[/quote]
I think a new record was set in that war in how many alliances they were fighting, probably a record amount of reps or close to. Although it is normal for some alliances, others usually don't ask reps recently, such as the $6m Dollar War there weren't reps asked that, although that was just NSO along with KN and PPF on one of the sides.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Six_Million_Dollar_War

I think alliances can tell their allies they don't want to support huge reps or any reps if they want, but alliance who consistently ask for high reps will get a reputation where they might need to pay a big amount themselves if they end up losing a war eventually. Alliances that don't ask for reps tend to get better terms when on the losing side usually, than those who do ask for unreasonable reps at least.

I remember in the Karma War FCC and Gremlins didn't ask reps and even argued against the excessive reps of others that it caused a middle ground needing to be reached on how much reps they could ask. In the Karma War TOP also refused to take any reps and ended up taking a lot of flak from some alliances for giving white peace individually in order to not take part in the reps that were being asked. People can refuse to support excessive reps if they want to.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Methrage

[der Rote Baron]

Better more meaningful treaties and less of them!

Also, defending your allies doesn't always have to be about "sides". An alliance should certainly have the right to defend its allies regardless of whether they give a toss about NpO, VE, etc.

[Joseph Black]

With all due respect to both sides of this conflict, I myself don't understand why when large wars are declared it becomes coalitions fighting each other. Some of the alliances involved are sometimes multiple treaties away from one another, and it confuses me that GATO's decision to defend allies on both side isn't more the norm. So long as two of your allies are not directly attacking each other than I see no reason you shouldn't be assisting allies in conflicts.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Muddog

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1295674608' post='2591062']
I agree with you, make things more serious and less "lulz", we are playing a political simulator not a clown simulator.
[/quote]

Amen.

And Tyga, how are you surprised by how people regard treaties? This trend has been going on for years.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='der Rote Baron' timestamp='1295681485' post='2591524']
Also, defending your allies doesn't always have to be about "sides".
[/quote]

RIA's doing it right

[Earogema]

If you people just utilized oA more in your engagements, we wouldn't have to keep discussing the problems of D. Instead the lot of you declare on alliances "defensively" in what is one of the worst semantics arguments ever.

There is a goddamn good reason why the real world doesn't have MDPs and doesn't make a huge deal out of "defense," so that EVERY SINGLE DECLARATION is done "defensively."

Hell, I could actually respect the CB in BiPolar simply because it was obviously an aggressive action and nobody was going to say otherwise.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Earogema

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295684803' post='2591577']
Amen.

And Tyga, how are you surprised by how people regard treaties? This trend has been going on for years.
[/quote]

I'm not surprised, it has been something that has been annoying me for some time. It just reached a new level this war as can be seen by the slow drip of declarations each night.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1295669685' post='2590726']
I think it's more people overuse MDP when really it should be oDP. Defense of your friends will usually result in a yes, but during a global war like this there are other factors. So then, do you follow the mandatory defense against your better judgement, or neglect to do what you said you'd do in writing? Either road can lead you off a cliff.

I think part of it though is that oDPs are usually seen in a poor light when invoked. Lots of insults tossed around at the oDPs activated so far in this war; usually people claiming they're only invoking them to get onto the winning side or whatever.
[/quote]

I don't have an issue with oA or oD clauses being used in war to help an ally, that is what they are there for as far as I'm concerned, Most of the people throwing insults around about it know that as well but think they score some political points by making a fuss about it. What concerns me more is alliances leaving allies to burn citing allies of allies as a reason. Essentially they value a treaty between two other alliances over their treaty with your alliance. It is backward.

[Kowalski]

It's the way that alliance wars in CN have evolved. Ghost DoW's, tactical coalition targets, deploying alliances where they have the greatest effect rather than with their strongest treaties, that sort of thing. It's happening on both sides, witness RV and Schatt bemoaning GATO for choosing to defend their closest ally rather than tactically declaring to best benefit that 'side', or all the initial counters being on iFOK to limit the counter-counters (?). In the last war Umbrella didn't initially activate it's MDoAP with MK when they were hit, even though they're one our closest friends, but we did enter through the NOIR oDP to defend FoB. Just because an alliance doesn't activate every MD treaty or activates an oD over an MD doesn't mean that the treaties not activated have lost value, it's likely that both parties are happy with the situation because they've signed up to the needs of the coalition, it just means that there are greater forces at play and alliances are looking at the bigger picture. GATO have taken a stand and stated that they won't be part of any coalition and will just straight-up defend their allies; you can either call that honourable and wanting to be in control or you can call it stubborn, short-sighted and making things difficult for their 'side'. I think doing what they're doing is the only way to bring the value back to treaties that the OP seems to want, although personally I find that approach very old-fashioned and restrictive. In individual skirmishes treaties should still have value but in an alliance war pick a side and sign up to be deployed wherever you're needed. If that means GATO don't get to fight with IAA or Umbrella don't get to fight with MK and GOONS then so be it, each party should understand the need to put the greater good ahead of personal honour.

[R3nowned]

I don't know why people just only sign ODPs, since that's basically what every treaty out there is these days.

Anyway, to me, ODPs are just as important as MDPs, though I feel that viewpoint is shared by but a tiny minority of people playing CN

[Tygaland]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1295697780' post='2591745']
I don't know why people just only sign ODPs, since that's basically what every treaty out there is these days.

Anyway, to me, ODPs are just as important as MDPs, though I feel that viewpoint is shared by but a tiny minority of people playing CN
[/quote]

ODPs are the default as far as I'm concerned. Any alliance has the right to defend any other alliance, treaty or not. The Cyberverse has been conditioned to see alliances defending others without a piece of paper obliging them to as bad while allainces doing nothing to defend others despite having a piece of paper saying they are obliged to is seen as acceptable.

[Alterego]

To the majority of alliances especially the ruling power group treaties mean nothing. If you look at the way treaties have been derided during war time by these powers since the Karma war up to this war. When someone in this group signs a treaty they wheel out a well written document and say this is our word to each other come hell or high water. Then their alliance members and allies flood the thread with hails and merriment. However when these same alliances some of whom have 2 dozen or more allies face a war suddenly treaties become a big joke and not important at all because friends do as they please. This never really existed pre-karma but has become steadily worse since that war when suddenly everyone wanted a shot at NPO & co but had no treaties or CB so they just made up this war coalition or friends angle. It gives cowards a way to avoid getting stuck on the wrong side of a war without having to drop treaties ahead of time and picking a side. We live in an age where cowardice is cheered on as long as the right people are betrayed.

They talk about people forming an opposition to them. That might never be possible ever again unless there is a new found respect for the treaty by the main alliances but when alliances like MHA, Sparta and SF alliances treat their own word and their allies like a piece of crap this will continue the be the status quo.

If these alliances dont think a treaty is important when war comes around they should stop littering the OWF with their rubbish and not sign them at all. We all know come war time they will just do as they please regardless of treaties.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Alterego

[James I]

I agree.

The vast majority of the treaties signed these days have clauses in them which allow for the sort of conduct described, but it's true that actions can go against the spirit of a treaty while falling outside of its exact legalistic wording, I suppose. That's been the case for a long, long time though.

[James I]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1295697780' post='2591745']
I don't know why people just only sign ODPs, since that's basically what every treaty out there is these days.

Anyway, to me, ODPs are just as important as MDPs, though I feel that viewpoint is shared by but a tiny minority of people playing CN
[/quote]
That it's a tiny minority that shares your perspective should clear up the confusion you were trying to explain in the first sentence.

[OmahaHusker]

Tyga, congratulations on coming to the same conclusion we did a long time ago. Thats not sarcasm either.