Alliance Specialization

[Greene]

When I first saw this thread, it made me think that person was suggesting allowing alliances to sort of specialize. Since that wasn't the case, I wanted to suggest that. Here are a few ideas on how it could be implemented:

"Corporate" alliance would see a reduction in costs for developing at the lower levels, but would also see an increase in pollution.
"Ecological" alliance would double the benefits of having lower pollution/pop density and also double the penalties of having higher pollution/pop density.
"Hippy" alliance could see increased population in cities (communes, anyone), at the cost of significantly higher military costs and a reduction in military caps.
"Raider" alliance would see military costs reduced and their capabilities increased, but would also see population reduced.

Alternatively, each of the above could unlock a special project in each nation that players would still have to build to receive those benefits. The only way to make this fair, I think, would be to implement a 30 day delay period between changes. So for example, as an alliance leader if I know I'm going into a war, then I might consider switching to Raider. If the war drags on for 30 days or more, then it was a smart move. If the war only lasts a week, I'm stuck for the remainder of that period in whatever specialization. Also, as an additional check, if you had the special project have to be built in individual nations, any time the alliance switched specialty, the project would be destroyed. This forces the alliance to really weigh the pros and cons, and also whether a change is the right choice. For my nation, I'm sitting on 9/8 improvements. If one of those was the special project, then even if I had the cash I couldn't replace it without first rebuilding even more.

[Sketchy]

I like the core concept of specializing for bonuses and meta, but the examples provided are kinda eh, and I'm way too tired to bother coming up with my own right now.