Jump to content

some questions about alliances


Fideo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I came here to make three answers about big alliances for the oldest players

1-why the great part of the most relevant alliances adopt imperialist politics to his minor allies/colonies?

2-why commonwealths and unions of medium/little alliances are so uncommon on the game? (or fail)

3-how do a economic/military union of tiny alliances could defend itself of a imperialist alliance?

Edited by Fideo
grammar errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fideo said:

I came here to make three answers about big alliances for the oldest players

1-why the great part of the most relevant alliances adopt imperialist politics to his minor allies/colonies?

2-why commonwealths and unions of medium/little alliances are so uncommon on the game? (or fail)

3-how do a economic/military union of tiny alliances could defend itself of a imperialist alliance?

Yes

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Fideo said:

I came here to make three answers about big alliances for the oldest players 

1-why the great part of the most relevant alliances adopt imperialist politics to his minor allies/colonies? 

2-why commonwealths and unions of medium/little alliances are so uncommon on the game? (or fail)

3-how do a economic/military union of tiny alliances could defend itself of a imperialist alliance?

This is from what I've noticed from beginning the game and becoming gov in a few small alliances. May or may not be coherent. I've been awake for almost 20 hours now after getting like 6 hours of sleep.

1. Why not? It's entertaining for the larger alliance and benefits them through war experience, loot, etc.

2. Usually coordination. When a large alliance initiates hostilities (usually due to the reasons above or one of the alliances being annoying), the smaller alliances have to react almost immediately, coordinate meaningful attacks, and all participate. Even if all of those go well, they still may not be a match from the large alliance (or alliances). Usually, the "union" of micro alliances fail in most, if not all of those points.

i. Having a leader or high gov member from most/all alliances who is able (both politically and intelligently) to coordinate counterattacks online at the time of being attacked is necessary, but almost never happens. Large alliances, on the other hand, have more members in high government positions, so the probability of one or more of them being online and able to coordinate attacks is larger. A member of a smaller alliance may not listen to the leader of an allied alliance, which is a problem larger alliances don't have. In addition, a government member of an alliance would prioritize their alliance over other alliances and possibly cause conflict of interest. In addition, you need to have active members to counterattack, which many micros are unable to have. They need to be engaged in the community to be active. KT, for example, at the time of writing this (9PM Eastern) has 9 government members (all of whom I personally know are capable of staging a counterattack), in addition to at least 28 members (not including those who are set to invisible on Discord) online and able to counter an attack, with 45 offline.

ii. The leaders of micros tend to be relatively newer players who don't understand the mechanics well, so they are unable to train their members what to do if attacked or tell their members how to counterattack in a meaningful way. Compare that to a larger alliance. KT, for example, mandates members complete competency quizzes and build their nation with fighting in mind before they receive certain government funding. Back in Empire of Spades, we had spreadsheets of our enemies, including their score, military, etc. in order to easily see who we can target, who to assign to the target, and monitor war progression. I'd assume most, if not all large alliances have that capability. Some micros probably also have that capability, but the probability of a member having the skills to do that is small. Having one of those members in every alliance in the union is even smaller. Finally, most micros don't enforce any warchest requirements, so they are unable to fight for prolonged periods of time. Even if one or two micros in a union enforce one, they will be let down by their allies who roll over after one or two rounds of fighting. This all adds up to the members in general being poorer fighters, mostly due to government failures.

iii. I can't remember any time where this happened, but alliances may ditch their obligations to fight. I'm including this in the list since many micros tend to have leaders with no FA experience, causing them to sacrifice their long-term reputation in an attempt to save their growth. They find ways to not honor the treaty or provide little assistance, hoping for the opponent to spare them. (One way to not honor the treaty would be using the enemy's casus belli. If the CB is from one alliance being stupid, usually in the form of stupid posts on the forums, then they can try to wiggle their way into not honoring the treaty.) The entire basis of TEst's paperlessness was (and probably still is) building relationships and creating informal, secret treaties. You can read more about that on Prefonatine's blog. Now, if a union of small alliances were to do this, they would (in theory) be able to stick together. However, that takes time and would probably never happen.

3. If the union were to address the above points and not provoke conflict, they may have a chance. However, coordinating all of the above without infringing on each alliances' rights would be difficult and could even strain the relations, risking alliances bailing in a crisis.

  • Upvote 3

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
16 hours ago, Bacon Empire said:

Eh, my micro is doing fine ?

Judging by your alliance's age and score graph having no dramatic drops (except May 5-6, which isn't too big, could be a somewhat upper tier player leaving or inactive purge), I'd say your alliance hasn't experienced many strains. All of your leaders were active in-game relatively recent of the time of this post. Your members overall seem fairly active in-game. Hopefully the same is also true for your Discord. I can't speak for your community's atmosphere, so that could go either way. Most of your members are on the new side, so they may be lacking experience/knowledge in both war and peace. Your gov is also overall fairly new, which could also indicate a lack of experience/knowledge. The two previous points can be mitigated to an extent through providing guides and educating your gov/members during peacetime before a crisis begins. I don't know micro FA, so I can't speak to that. Taking a look at 5 random nations in your alliance, your IA could probably do a better job with advising building strategies and offering tips to your players. Some of them had... Interesting builds. Anyway, these were a bunch of sentences stringed together not really in any order. Hopefully they made sense and/or helped.

Y'all are still getting rolled for gravedigging, though.

  • Haha 2

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.