Stolt, i see your reasoning and i agree - but if you take things out of a black and white scheme, then you will have to wight the power (the actual inRP power) of the factions involved.
Of course Liberty and Bretonia will not reopen the front to Kusari for kneeling to the frenchies or trading with Rheinland( Bretonia is doing so as well). But what about big factions vs small ones...or small ones versus small ones?
let's see what we can dig up and how fast my patience runs out^^
Corsairs - Hogosha - Reavers
Corsairs - Hogosha - Mollys (no clue if up to date)
Hogosha- Corsairs - Junkers
Reavers - Hogosha - GMG
Gaians- Hogosha- Mollys
SCRA- Mollys-Gallia
Gaians-SCRA-Mollys
SCRA-Mollys/Hessians- LR/Hackers
Tired now, but i think you can get my drift even if i focused on the sairs&friends cloud. Maybe a line diagram would be the best way to show borked up relations....which would be very easy to clean up, too...
(also it shows that most factions are too lazy to keep an updated faction status )
sorry
In the middle is the guy the other two like - the other two hate each other though, so it shows factions that are allied to a mutual friend but are at war with each other...clearer?
Wel I remeber fighting Hogosha on Mollys, so you should probly take the molly/hog ones out. GMG and Hogosha hate each other, reavers are no surprise, being hired guns. Neither are the junker ones, as they like to keep neutral.
There are some in there with a point though, but remember diplomacy sometimes works like that.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
Well, i think "hired guns" might be a bit of an issue...or not? My point stands - if the second biggest mafia and a company that can face off at a house hate each otehr to the blood...would they hire the same "guns" and support them? how can there not be a conflict of interests, to me this and many others is simply turning a blind eye on things - inRply both these factions couldn't care less about a inRPly small merc faction that shouldn't be worth hiring over risking true and bigger allies....
Same for the Junkers - sure anyone can see the oorp need of places for unlawfuls to dock, same for the Zoners - but they can, at least in my opinion( which might be totally wrong ) keep their neutrality only because the players want to have it that way- and in the hoggie-sair-junker connection it would be actually ery possible that either the hoggies and the junkers try to charm the sairs to give them a monopoly on the artifact or go the other way round and and blackmail them into choosing one over the other, so one side can get the complete market....now that would make up an ugly situation ....
Do the hogs and the gmg both hire reavers? I didnt think they did.
As for Junkers, thats the whole point about them, being neutral, its not oorp, they might not like the corsairs trading with the hogs and vice versa, but theyr not going to risk their neutrality over it.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
I feel it important to note that when we are talking about "guns for hire" factions, there is a great difference between the terms 'alliance' and 'business partnership'.
Another important thing is the reason of alliance. If faction A is allied with faction B for X reason, allied with faction C for Y reason but B and C are shooting at eachother for Z reason, and these reasons do not contradict eachother, the triangle can happily exist. Faction A can also share their technologies with B and C as long as the terms state that the two don't use tech from A against eachother, just to prevent A getting involved in conflict Z and needing to pick a side.
That's the beauty of Disco's diplomacy system, that it's not all black and white.
Situation A: You bud C robs some nerdy kids of their lunch money, B sees this, is not victimized but knows that guy is your best bud and robbed his best buds
Situation B: Your bud C borrows your signature baseball bat "to show that nerds some respect" and once again beats up the friends of B, he sees he is using your stuff for it, still e is not victimized
Situation C: Your dearest C does what he always does, and in terror B runs to you and asks why you don't help his friends and keep your hands idle, he can't stop C on his own
Situation D: C beats up B - B comes to complain while you are still friends with the guy who beats up him and his friends
Situation E: C uses your bat to beat up B and you run into the fight, both asking you to help
Of course the situations are more and more escalating(and small scalish compared to politics, but i think simple is already complex enough when it comes to disco). Everytime C is out for trouble against B and his friends you know it, he knows it that you know.
The question is how long will he tolerate your knowing-but-not-acting-yet-supporting. What will watchers from the outside think of your triangle?
Will it be acceptable to them that you say these are friends in different areas of your life, thus you keep them seperated and they should deal with that? Will you be able to tell that reason to B with him "understanding" it?
Generally speaking, whatever makes my enemy stronger is something i don't like- i like my enemies weak or weakening. If a friend of mine supports an enemy of mine to reach his goals that are unrelated to me- doesn't my enemy gain more options and capacities to harm me? Yes or no? Would i like that?
Think on tradeships-mercenaries-pirates on teh somali coasts again afterwards and find your grey area again.
(08-14-2013, 06:22 PM)Rodnas Wrote: As you might have guessed, i disagree - while black and white are extremes gray areas are areas you have to maneuver with finesse, not sledgehammers.
Stolt: I have no idea what you mean by this analogy.
Maybe let's pick up some more "real life examples"
Stolt: Did you seriously just compare international relations between RL countries + Disco diplomacy to....
...an elementary school bully fight?
Situation A: You bud C robs some nerdy kids of their lunch money, B sees this, is not victimized but knows that guy is your best bud and robbed his best buds
Situation B: Your bud C borrows your signature baseball bat "to show that nerds some respect" and once again beats up the friends of B, he sees he is using your stuff for it, still e is not victimized
Situation C: Your dearest C does what he always does, and in terror B runs to you and asks why you don't help his friends and keep your hands idle, he can't stop C on his own
Situation D: C beats up B - B comes to complain while you are still friends with the guy who beats up him and his friends
Situation E: C uses your bat to beat up B and you run into the fight, both asking you to help
Of course the situations are more and more escalating(and small scalish compared to politics, but i think simple is already complex enough when it comes to disco). Everytime C is out for trouble against B and his friends you know it, he knows it that you know.
The question is how long will he tolerate your knowing-but-not-acting-yet-supporting. What will watchers from the outside think of your triangle?
Will it be acceptable to them that you say these are friends in different areas of your life, thus you keep them seperated and they should deal with that? Will you be able to tell that reason to B with him "understanding" it?
Generally speaking, whatever makes my enemy stronger is something i don't like- i like my enemies weak or weakening. If a friend of mine supports an enemy of mine to reach his goals that are unrelated to me- doesn't my enemy gain more options and capacities to harm me? Yes or no? Would i like that?
Think on tradeships-mercenaries-pirates on teh somali coasts again afterwards and find your grey area again.
Please read up on Neo Liberal Institutionalism. It will explain to many things regarding the current international relations system. You could also look up realist international theory, though that theory is outdated due to the decline of the use of military force (which is being replaced with economic interdependence as Joseph Nye explains in his theory, complex interdependence).
NeoLiberal Institutionalism in short is this:
o They point out that in reality, states do cooperate with one another, but they also assume anarchic international system
o They also believe in a state centric system and that power matters
o Whereas REALISTS believe we live in a ZERO-SUM world, Institutionalists believe that we live in a POSITIVE-SUM world where all parties and gain or at the least live peacefully
o Institutionalists say there is no international government but that there are international rules and that they are not perfect but that the rules generally work
o Institutions reinforce complex interdependence
o At its core according to realist theory, the states ultimate goal is self-preservation
o One must take into account the domestic politics of a country and how it affects their foreign policy as well (e.g. China has an unruly Muslim population known as the uighurs, this would mean China should not like the Muslim countries that much since their repress their own muslim population. HOWEVER, due to China needing oil, most of which it gets from Islamic countries like Iran and Sudan, China cannot hate on Islam that much since it may damage relations).
EDIT: These notes are taken from my lecture notes by Professor Joseph Kopstein from the University of Toronto, Introduction to International Relations course.
To take a Disco example, The Order is allied with the Bundschuh, but neutral with Rheinland. By your oversimplistic ideas of diplomacy which in my opinion are incorrect, The Order should have to go to war with Rheinland because they are allied with the Bundschuh, which to the Rheinland government is a terrorist organisation.
But you have to take into account that the Order only sides with the Bundschuh when operating against Nomads/Wilde, not when the Bundschuh is fighting the RM. You also have to take into account that if the RM decided to become hostile to the Order, they would have to deploy their military to fight the Order as well, which is very difficult considering they are inRP losing the war against Liberty.
Additionally, the Order and Liberty are hostile to each other. Occasionally Liberty and the Order fight each other, which is good for Rheinland since it keeps the Liberty Navy distracted from Rheinland, even if its just a little bit distracted
Rodnas, I once again restate my point that there are a million factors you have to take into account when considering both real world and Disco diplomacy. Diplomacy is a very complicated matter because it affects people greatly.
I'll also remind you that a lot of people ridicule Former President Bush when he said "You're either with us, or you're against us" shortly before invading Iraq. How'd that turn out?
)
![[Image: n4v9g3.jpg]](http://i28.tinypic.com/n4v9g3.jpg)
) keep their neutrality only because the players want to have it that way- and in the hoggie-sair-junker connection it would be actually ery possible that either the hoggies and the junkers try to charm the sairs to give them a monopoly on the artifact or go the other way round and and blackmail them into choosing one over the other, so one side can get the complete market....now that would make up an ugly situation ....
![[Image: OFPpYpb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OFPpYpb.png)
![[Image: N1Zf8K4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/N1Zf8K4.png)
![[Image: LnLbhul.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LnLbhul.png)
![[Image: 2-jun-2020-sig-FINAL.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/fL6Vx1Sp/2-jun-2020-sig-FINAL.png)