Consular wrote:What does the line between Albion and TNP represent?
The North Pacific and Albion Security Treaty? Or was that voided in Albion's semi-recent FA change. It's still hosted on TNP's forum as active...
Cerian Quilor wrote:Tl;dr: Osiris has a lot of treaties, treaties increase security, multilateral treaties make the game more interesting, there should be more GCR multilateral treaties.
Yes, and more specifically, multilateral treaties can work where bilateral treaties fail. When X and Y don't like each and Z and A hate each other, a functional multi-agreement between X,Y, Z and A is a more pragmatic and political solution than trying to make bilateral treaties work between the quarrelsome X and Y, or Z and A.
In the past, a lot of people have always thought the 'proper' evolution for relations was Niceties --> NAP ---> Agreements ---> Treaties ---> Multilateral Pacts. I'm saying the reverse can be more effective and pragmatic when parties in this context really need to get along (for their own interest): Hostility --> Multilateral Pacts ---> Treaties ---> Agreements ---> NAP ---> Niceties.
It's a way of seeing multilateral pacts, instead of as a 'gift' to be earned through friendship, as a functional arrangement to keep regions associated even if only with the safety of other partners in the relationship. It's pretty much the opposite of the traditional school of thought but I believe it's salient and appropriate in this context.
(I'm bad at this 'Tl;dr:' stuff...)