What Does a Treaty Mean These Days?

[eyriq]

By strategically controlling for triggers we may have our closest war in ages. Stop complaining about the evolved sophistication and take it for what it is; a much more competitive and compelling environment. Chess over checkers every time, thank you.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1295748271' post='2592725']
By strategically controlling for triggers we may have our closest war in ages. Stop complaining about the evolved sophistication and take it for what it is; a much more competitive and compelling environment. Chess over checkers every time, thank you.
[/quote]

Way to miss the point.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1295738169' post='2592514']
Really agree with this post. However one example of how to properly play out a bad situation is do what RIA just did, attack both sides
[/quote]

Which is stupid now and before.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295668189' post='2590644']
I think this war more than any other has become a circus of chess-like treaty shuffling. Sure it always happens to some extent in recent wars, Karma and Bi-Polar for example, but this war seems to have seen a huge increase in the tactical analysis of treaties and what attacks on a certain alliance may bring in return.
[/quote]
That is how you win a Coalition war. Control the treaty web, you control the war.

[eyriq]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295749794' post='2592746']
Way to miss the point.
[/quote]

You claimed the strategical planing of triggers was analogous to a "circus", and you also stated that "a treaty with an alliance means little on its own" due to the strategy displayed. I simply took the same data (strategical triggers) and wrapped it differently, pointing out the opportunities it is providing for the most even war I've seen and maybe that we've seen. I provided another perspective, because quite simply the narrative of this being a bad thing isn't a meme I'm in favor of. Treaties should be treated with more freedom of thought and sophistication imo.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1295749887' post='2592749']
Which is stupid now and before.
[/quote]

They're pulling it off rather well right now.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1295751504' post='2592787']
You claimed the strategical planing of triggers was analogous to a "circus", and you also stated that "a treaty with an alliance means little on its own" due to the strategy displayed. I simply took the same data (strategical triggers) and wrapped it differently, pointing out the opportunities it is providing for the most even war I've seen and maybe that we've seen. I provided another perspective, because quite simply the narrative of this being a bad thing isn't a meme I'm in favor of. Treaties should be treated with more freedom of thought and sophistication imo.
[/quote]

My point was not so much the circus but the deterioration in what a treaty between alliances means. In the past you could rely on an ally to step up and assist when needed, these days not so much.

[quote name='Hyperion321']
That is how you win a Coalition war. Control the treaty web, you control the war.
[/quote]

Not every war is a "coalition war" but they all end up that way thanks to the treaty web and the selective adherence to treaty obligations.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Tygaland

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295752133' post='2592806']
My point was not so much the circus but the deterioration in what a treaty between alliances means. In the past you could rely on an ally to step up and assist when needed, these days not so much.[/quote]
I think what clouds this slightly is how the treaty web in the distant past initially saw very few connections between the two main "blocs". The fewer treaties most alliances had at start mixed with how few alliances there were made sure that the chances of it were minimal. So I disagree; I think the past really didn't see any greater meaning in treaties than is present now. You'd frequently see alliances delay entry into major wars for cancellation periods to expire prior towards their either joining the other side of a conflict or outright attacking their former ally or just declaring neutrality.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1295738919' post='2592542']
Years ago I read a very different definition of honor. I have held it in my heart ever since.
[/quote]
Please don't take this this the wrong way Cerridwyn, but I think herein lies the problem.

Sometimes I too yearn for the way things were, when alliances issues DoW's before attacking, when treaties were activated to the letter and when the alliance that issued the DoW were the aggressors, not those who committed the initial reason for war. However the way the game has evolved means we operate in a different world; we evolve or become extinct, we adapt or die. Personally too any alliances are more concerned with being seen as honourable in the public view rather than doing what they can to help out their side, which consists of allies, friends or those fighting for the same cause, and this is an outdated standpoint that leaves themselves looking good but others high and dry.

[Cerridwyn]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1295752685' post='2592818']
Please don't take this this the wrong way Cerridwyn, but I think herein lies the problem.

Sometimes I too yearn for the way things were, when alliances issues DoW's before attacking, when treaties were activated to the letter and when the alliance that issued the DoW were the aggressors, not those who committed the initial reason for war. However the way the game has evolved means we operate in a different world; we evolve or become extinct, we adapt or die. Personally too any alliances are more concerned with being seen as honourable in the public view rather than doing what they can to help out their side, which consists of allies, friends or those fighting for the same cause, and this is an outdated standpoint that leaves themselves looking good but others high and dry.
[/quote]

Being seen as honorable is not the same thing as having honor. Never has been, in any world, never will be. Those that think it is are wrong, if not downright delusional.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1295752812' post='2592822']
Being seen as honorable is not the same thing as having honor. Never has been, in any world, never will be. Those that think it is are wrong, if not downright delusional.
[/quote]
I agree, one can have honour by putting themselves and their alliance (with the blessing of the members) on the line for a greater good. This fascination with being honourable seems to be attached to activating every treaty an alliance has and it bemuses me.

[Anxiety]

Treaties are in the eye of the beholder. If you choose your allies wisely I think a treaty can mean a lot.

[eyriq]

Are you saying that people are planning on staying out of this war? Why in the hell would they want to do that? (not a serious question, I'm sure they have their reasons though I'd probably not agree with them)

A good framework for predicting alliance behavior via the treaty web is by looking at each treaty as presenting 'pressure' on an alliance to act a certain way, which is pretty much what Bob Janova applies in his treaty web. Controlling for the amount of pressure placed on an alliance via triggers can influence the development of a coalition. The same can work for an alliance trying to decide their future course of action, by asking themselves which side they are most 'pressured' to join. It may be an ugly way to play the game but in an environment with such instantaneous communication and such an interconnected community (the same thing really), and where alliances continue to demand mandatory treaties, "strategical triggering" is as unavoidable as is coalition building.

Now if you were advocating optional treaties than I'd say I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, but you equate optional treaties with an alliance's inherent right to defend whomever they choose. So with that in mind you wish for the impractical; you wish to see the treaty web behave in ways that does not appreciate its complexity.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Going treatyless isn't the solution. It may look like it but it's definitely not unless you want virtually every war to become global.

On the other hand, it would likely make sides more defined than the last two cluster$%&@s since alliances would be completly open to choose whatever side they want to choose and give priority to a single friend/alliance above anything else.

However, your mention that your alliance could be disbanded are laughable, unless you're planning to disband yourself. Nobody hates you enough to force you to disband, unfortunately.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1295753157' post='2592832']
Are you saying that people are planning on staying out of this war? Why in the hell would they want to do that? (not a serious question, I'm sure they have their reasons though I'd probably not agree with them)
[/quote]

I'm sure some are planning on staying out but, no, that was not what I'm saying at all.

[quote]
A good framework for predicting alliance behavior via the treaty web is by looking at each treaty as presenting 'pressure' on an alliance to act a certain way, which is pretty much what Bob Janova applies in his treaty web. Controlling for the amount of pressure placed on an alliance via triggers can influence the development of a coalition. The same can work for an alliance trying to decide their future course of action, by asking themselves which side they are most 'pressured' to join. It may be an ugly way to play the game but in an environment with such instantaneous communication and such an interconnected community (the same thing really), and where alliances continue to demand mandatory treaties, "strategical triggering" is as unavoidable as is coalition building.
[/quote]

I'm well aware of how the treaty web works.

[quote]
Now if you were advocating optional treaties than I'd say I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, but you equate optional treaties with an alliance's inherent right to defend whomever they choose. So with that in mind you wish for the impractical; you wish to see the treaty web behave in ways that does not appreciate its complexity.
[/quote]

I'm not advocating that at all.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Tygaland

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1295753784' post='2592837']
Going treatyless isn't the solution. It may look like it but it's definitely not unless you want virtually every war to become global.

On the other hand, it would likely make sides more defined than the last two cluster$%&@s since alliances would be completly open to choose whatever side they want to choose and give priority to a single friend/alliance above anything else.
[/quote]

I'm not really talking about going treatyless although it would have some advantages. I'm talking about finding alliances to treaty who will always uphold that treaty and not sign dozens of treaties all over the place which makes everyone of their treaties more or less useless.

[quote]
However, your mention that your alliance could be disbanded are laughable, unless you're planning to disband yourself. Nobody hates you enough to force you to disband, unfortunately.
[/quote]

Your last word betrays the rest of your comment.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1295752637' post='2592817']
I think what clouds this slightly is how the treaty web in the distant past initially saw very few connections between the two main "blocs". The fewer treaties most alliances had at start mixed with how few alliances there were made sure that the chances of it were minimal. So I disagree; I think the past really didn't see any greater meaning in treaties than is present now. You'd frequently see alliances delay entry into major wars for cancellation periods to expire prior towards their either joining the other side of a conflict or outright attacking their former ally or just declaring neutrality.
[/quote]

Depends on your definition of "distant past", I suppose. But again, you miss the point I was trying to make. My qualm is not so much with the treaty web (it is more a symptom of a greater problem), it is with alliances signing so many treaties that they cannot possible uphold them all. The treaty web is the result of this. The effects of this are that you can no longer rely on your allies to come to your aid during war due to either treaty conflict or due to non-chaining clauses that were another result of the number of treaties alliances were signing.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

My last word doesn't betray the rest of my comment: I find it unfortunate that nobody, in a position of power, hates you enough to make you disband.

Of course, some of us do wish it. But we're either in the minority of our respective alliance or in no position to impose such a drastic measure.

Your problem lies with too many alliances to begin with. I'm offering a solution. Cull the herd.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1295757748' post='2592929']
My last word doesn't betray the rest of my comment: I find it unfortunate that nobody, in a position of power, hates you enough to make you disband.

Of course, some of us do wish it. But we're either in the minority of our respective alliance or in no position to impose such a drastic measure.
[/quote]

You didn't mention "position of power" at all which means your last word did betray the rest of your comment.

[supercoolyellow]

Tyga, I think one thing we can learn from this is the importance of treatying people with fewer treaties rather than more.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1295760488' post='2592990']
Tyga, I think one thing we can learn from this is the importance of treatying people with fewer treaties rather than more.
[/quote]

Indeed, but it is difficult to do as you cannot, nor should you try to control, who your ally signs treaties with.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295761342' post='2593068']
Indeed, but it is difficult to do as you cannot, nor should you try to control, who your ally signs treaties with.
[/quote]

Actions should have consequences though. A lot of people had disparaging comments to throw around recently when one alliance cancelled a treaty because their treaty partner signed a treaty with someone they couldnt allow themselves to be linked with. (In fact this has happened twice recently, and most of the comments in both cases seemed very critical of this move.) But why? I applauded. That showed someone that took their treaties seriously. We need more, not less, of that.

Instead most seem to just sign as many treaties as they can, then wait till there is a war to figure out which ones they will honour and which ones not. The trouble is this works. As long as it works, people are going to do it.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295755589' post='2592868']
Depends on your definition of "distant past", I suppose. But again, you miss the point I was trying to make.[/quote]
No, I didn't miss your point at all. I nitpicked.

[quote]My qualm is not so much with the treaty web (it is more a symptom of a greater problem), it is with alliances signing so many treaties that they cannot possible uphold them all. The treaty web is the result of this. The effects of this are that you can no longer rely on your allies to come to your aid during war due to either treaty conflict or due to non-chaining clauses that were another result of the number of treaties alliances were signing.[/quote]
Another nitpick: if your issue with treaties is when they can't be upheld because of conflicts then the focus is not on quantity per se but should be with who ever signs the treaties and isn't willing to concede that their partners are incompatible due to mutual antagonism, different partners or philosophies. It's entirely possible to sign only two treaties but with those diametrically opposed.

[Tiggah]

I find the issue to be an over-abundance of alliances. You can't help but be associated to every corner of the web because every alliance is going to run it's own policy and even if every alliance only takes one alliance that doesn't make web-sense it creates a total mess. Next war should be a culling of the weak...

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1295763078' post='2593316']
Actions should have consequences though. A lot of people had disparaging comments to throw around recently when one alliance cancelled a treaty because their treaty partner signed a treaty with someone they couldnt allow themselves to be linked with. (In fact this has happened twice recently, and most of the comments in both cases seemed very critical of this move.) But why? I applauded. That showed someone that took their treaties seriously. We need more, not less, of that.

Instead most seem to just sign as many treaties as they can, then wait till there is a war to figure out which ones they will honour and which ones not. The trouble is this works. As long as it works, people are going to do it.
[/quote]

I'm unsure where I said actions should not have consequences. Nor did I criticise GOD for cancelling that treaty. I agree with you with regards to the need for more alliances to respect what treaties stand for more than they currently do.