Jump to content
Ryan1

What Makes A Good Alliance?

Recommended Posts

Discuss. 

P.S: While referencing current alliances and politics is fine, please for the love of god do not make this another political debate.

Edited by Ryan1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vladamir Putin said:

Memes and coordination. 

Also known as Knights Templar 😛 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? The alliance needs to instill a sense of community, have an active form of communication (ie active alliance Discord channels), and the capability of learning, adapting and developing its members.

Edited by LordInfinitius
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordInfinitius said:

Honestly? The alliance needs to instill a sense of community, have an active form of communication (ie active alliance Discord channels), and the capability of learning, adapting and developing its members.

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LordInfinitius said:

Honestly? The alliance needs to instill a sense of community, have an active form of communication (ie active alliance Discord channels), and the capability of learning, adapting and developing its members.

I hate alliances that are dead in Discord. In order for an alliance to function properly activity and competency are key to survival and growth in my view. And members who are excited to grow and want to learn the war and political aspects of the game are also very useful. I think what the problem nowadays is the fact that everyone wants to lead. Nobody is happy being a regular “member” or high/low gov. Everyone wants a shot at leading an alliance whether it’s starting from scratch or trying to Coup. But I also agree that social interaction with memes is somewhat positive for the alliance, getting members to talk and get to know each other establishing firm relations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChristianTheGOAT said:

I think what the problem nowadays is the fact that everyone wants to lead. Nobody is happy being a regular “member” or high/low gov.

I'd argue the problem is the opposite. This game sorely needs more competent leaders and alliances.

The issue is some people aren't patient and rush to form an alliance after playing for like 3 months and don't have solid enough foundations or understanding to survive. The end result is a bunch of mid sized alliances that orbit around the major political players and never move until they eventually merge or disband.

The major political players have barely changed in the last 4 years. The only thing that has changed (a few times) there is the sides they are on and who is in the advantageous position.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

In my opinion, the lack of new, major political actors (as in, alliances) is not so much so a function of, "Enough people don't want to lead" or "Too many people want to lead" but a product of too few players being competent and being willing to lead an alliance that doesn't already have most of its foundations figured out. It's fair to chalk things up to competency, but I'd say the amount of time you're willing to invest, the energy/drive you have, and the vision you have are all necessary components of good leadership too. It's easier, in most cases, for one to assume leadership in an existing alliance and exert political influence of their own than it is to create a brand spanking new one, and lead for long enough/competently enough that something comes out of it. There are a few alliances that have succeeded in that regard, but they are not the norm.

As for the OP:

  • Identity (what're you here for? If you're just here to exist, then you're not going to go anywhere);
  • Activity (self explanatory, but this covers day-to-day activity in Discord/slack channels, forums - if you have them);
  • Community (this is more than just people talking shit in your private channels; how much does your average member actually care for the alliance and those who he plays the game with? How much do your leaders care?);
  • A proper governing system (none of that democratic bullshit unless you can pull it off; even then, it's better to just not go that route. You end up with oligarchies);
  • Leadership's investment into the game (you'll have 'active' leadership - as in they'll be around - but they won't care about the game/actually leading, which is just a big no-no);
  • Military and Econ awareness (both of these can't be stressed enough. Knowing how to run a military is related to understanding game mechanics, but its important enough for me to highlight the difference. Similarly, if your Econ sucks - as in, isn't doing its best to maximize profit while still remaining in tune to how war works in the game - you're fricked when war time comes around);
  • Keep your FA fluid. Be willing to work with people. Know your way around the joint.
  • Some random shit:
    • Having an alliance/theme gimmick. This is just 'fluff' but I've found having these things can attract more people to your grouping (...or turn them off massively. Their choice),
    • Connections with other leaders/alliances. Be friendly to randoms. Cultivate ties (not necessarily political in nature) with people you wouldn't think you'd side with first thing next morning,
    • Teach your kids how to play the game. Don't frick up and let new players run around free with no idea about how they'd actually progress. You do that, you'll end up with a shitton of new players who you invested a ton of money into that are worthless in war. Just don't.
  • Praise Dio.

There's honestly a lot more that can be said, but I guess at the end things come down to a few things: be willing to learn from your mistakes. Work towards a healthy balance of politics and fun. Try your best, and don't be disheartened when things don't go your way. Many of the serious - as in, major, not "serious" - political players today had a ton of shit not going their way in the past, but perseverance is a god-like quality to have. (Not to be confused with stubbornness or a lack of desire to change)

This. It's why I've never attempted to start my own alliance- either here or CN. I can get half of that stuff together at best, and not enough friends to cover the rest.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the biggest problem rn is mid-low alliances being risk adverse and the top ones being too opportunistic.

Everyone is so focused on winning the game, they forget to add anything to the games story. Though they can wrap themselves in propaganda and say they are.

As for what makes an alliance great, it's not being stubborn but instead flexible. Willing to change the status quo politically, structurally and internally. [If you can't offer anything different from the existing alliances you shouldn't exist]

...You can also tell the competent Foreign Affairs team from the shit one by how much they buy into sphere ideologies. No one's perfect and alliances feigning altruism [fking all of em] are memes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vladamir Putin said:

Memes and coordination. 

It is memes only

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont have Sean Anthony as the leader 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A group of players that all share mutual objectives of some sort is the bare minimum for an alliance, at least in my eyes. 

 

A group of players that can accomplish said shared objectives is what makes a good alliance. 

Edited by Malleator
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
6 hours ago, Sketchy said:

This game sorely needs more competent leaders and alliances.

The way I read it, that's what I think Christian's point is. Everyone wants to lead, but most of them won't be able to handle it and will either get couped or rolled. Nobody is happy just being a cog in the machine; they're selfish, incompetent, and think they're the best. Even lots of leaders have that mentality, though it mainly applies to micros and OFA.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 12:02 AM, Sketchy said:

I'd argue the problem is the opposite. This game sorely needs more competent leaders and alliances.

The issue is some people aren't patient and rush to form an alliance after playing for like 3 months and don't have solid enough foundations or understanding to survive. The end result is a bunch of mid sized alliances that orbit around the major political players and never move until they eventually merge or disband.

On 6/30/2019 at 12:50 AM, Dio Brando said:

In my opinion, the lack of new, major political actors (as in, alliances) is not so much so a function of, "Enough people don't want to lead" or "Too many people want to lead" but a product of too few players being competent and being willing to lead an alliance that doesn't already have most of its foundations figured out. It's fair to chalk things up to competency, but I'd say the amount of time you're willing to invest, the energy/drive you have, and the vision you have are all necessary components of good leadership too. It's easier, in most cases, for one to assume leadership in an existing alliance and exert political influence of their own than it is to create a brand spanking new one, and lead for long enough/competently enough that something comes out of it. There are a few alliances that have succeeded in that regard, but they are not the norm. 

IMO, we have all the competent people. They just don't have the time, drive, energy, and/or desire to build a new alliance. The main reason EoS fell when I led it was I didn't have the time. I don't have the time right now, either. I did think I would have more time late last year and planned a new alliance. I had a theme, created a Discord, but waited to see if I actually did have time before telling anyone, even my close PaW friends and KT leaders. (I was going to try to be a protectorate of a KERTCHOG alliance for a few months, so I probably should've said something to someone.) I obviously didn't have nearly as much time as I thought I might, so I'm still in KT. Some of KT's high gov could probably pull off an alliance, but I don't think they want to create a new alliance. I'd imagine its the same elsewhere. Plus, we're losing leader through retirement, quitting, and new players doing what you described. That's why I try to help micros, on the off chance one of their leaders is actually competent and can become a new influential player.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

IMO, we have all the competent people. They just don't have the time, drive, energy, and/or desire to build a new alliance. The main reason EoS fell when I led it was I didn't have the time. I don't have the time right now, either. I did think I would have more time late last year and planned a new alliance. I had a theme, created a Discord, but waited to see if I actually did have time before telling anyone, even my close PaW friends and KT leaders. (I was going to try to be a protectorate of a KERTCHOG alliance for a few months, so I probably should've said something to someone.) I obviously didn't have nearly as much time as I thought I might, so I'm still in KT. Some of KT's high gov could probably pull off an alliance, but I don't think they want to create a new alliance. I'd imagine its the same elsewhere. Plus, we're losing leader through retirement, quitting, and new players doing what you described. That's why I try to help micros, on the off chance one of their leaders is actually competent and can become a new influential player.

I'm not as convinced. After all, you need more than a leader in an alliance. You need a good 4-6 people in leadership roles usually, and all of them competent preferably. That is 80-120 people just to manage 20 alliances let alone 30, 40, or 50. And yer, lots of older players could probably do it,  but ideally you want fresh faces to change the dynamic as much as older ones.

Most of these offshoot mid-sized alliances start with a ragtag group and pick out their leadership before they even form, and then many or most of those people don't end up being competent or active enough. There is plenty of incompetent high gov spread amongst all of these middle sized alliances (and some larger ones). Part of the problem is that people tend to split off in cliques and as a result they all compete over recruits and are smaller separate entities. More smaller/mid sized alliances (particularly sub rank 30) should seek out alliances of their size, treaty them rather than get a protector, and/or merge with each other, combining their best people together to create a solid high gov lineup.

Part of the reason I think they don't is many alliances don't really care about playing the game as is. Many of them are content to be delegate their FA to a protector or larger ally, many of them don't care about growing their ranks, many have no desire to be a top tier alliance or political player, or to have any impact other than a minor influence on say a global war. They are just "hangout alliances" for their respective cliques. Many are content to just sit on the sidelines watching the spectacle while contributing nothing to it other than perhaps their commentary.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am biased but:

IA first. If you can't get nations to join, learn, or interact you're dead.

Econ second: people like growing, keeps them invested and clicking. If they click wrong scold them, if they keep clicking wrong that's what rebuild thresholds are for. 

MilCom third: If they don't exist, can't learn or interact, and don't know how to click properly you're dead. If IA and Econ held up their end you're in a good position to thrash some shit. 

FA last: If your people exist, are learning and interacting and have enough discipline to click properly (or at least accept the consequences when they don't) you're MilCom is probably... at least... okay. If they are interacting superbly well you've probably adopted a culture and principles and interests, too. So it's now FAs responsibility to not frick up all that great momentum and leverage it into as engaging, fun, and not disappointing circumstances as possible. 

Of course, if 1/4 of these doesn't hold up their end of the bargain you will have some serious problems but there are models for succeeding at different capacities. Depending on your metrics for "success". 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to have a prayer of being successful, you need a competent government and a competent membership. Incompetent government will trickle down to the membership, and incompetent membership will spread around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Create an upper tier alliance of all active experienced members, and sit back and chill out, the alliance will run itself.

aka Grumpy Old Bastards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

declaring offensive wars when your allies get blitzed

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hope said:

declaring offensive wars when your allies get blitzed

Didn't you desert and flee to CoA lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Didn't you desert and flee to CoA lol

i mean i dont think you're looking for a serious response, but considering I was top in damage dealt in SK two wars in a row (and second this war before I left), ran their training alliance for six months, and was planning on leaving after the KETOG-Chaos war and was goimg to stay until this war ended (until NPO joined and I realized this war would go on for another three months) I think I can get caught some slack

this isnt even taking into consideration all the irl stuff I had going on

edit: also ill do whatever the frick i want when i want?? god lmao

Edited by hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 5:07 AM, Epi said:

Everyone is so focused on winning the game, they forget to add anything to the games story. Though they can wrap themselves in propaganda and say they are.

I’m still waiting for the next Ripper comic to find out whether IQ ever broke up, now he has this war to catch up on as well. He’s clearly slacking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.