Jump to content

Alliance-wide Embargoes


Kosta
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Kosta said:

Embargo system can be abused by alliance leaders. Limit alliances to 5-10 embargoes each. This should leave the global market very much open to alliance trade for members. 

No, no limits, if an Alliance leader really wants to cutoff his members to a degree that its impossible to trade for things, they can leave. 
 

 

20 minutes ago, Kosta said:

Too many embargoes made by alliances can place large strain on the global market. Again, 5-10 embargoes max each alliance. Yes, this will place some strain on the market, however this will make the politics game much more interesting. 

Cutting off large parts of the market and suffocating the other side during war can be an interesting tactic, therefore I oppose the limitation.
 

 

20 minutes ago, Kosta said:

We already have an embargo system in place. Yes, but only for members, which is frustrating inefficient to coordinate between multiple alliances and spheres. 

Crappy arguement imo. Alliance-wide embargoes would be awesome to see.

Overall, I agree with your points, just that I dont think there should be limitations.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kosta said:
  • Too many embargoes made by alliances can place large strain on the global market. Again, 5-10 embargoes max each alliance. Yes, this will place some strain on the market, however this will make the politics game much more interesting. 



 

Adding strain to certain alliances and the market as a whole would make the game even more dynamic and fun... This is the best part imo 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kosta said:

text

 

Alex said he would consider this in some form yes.


I hope if this gets added it will be somewhat like what @Zephyr proposed for taxes, ill give you an exerpt:

On 7/14/2021 at 2:00 PM, Zephyr said:

I think a more elegant solution could be requiring that members manually accept alliance taxes each time either their tax bracket changes or their tax bracket's rates change (and the new rate is not 0/0). Add a tax rate section to the nation edit page indicating the tax rate one's alliance wishes to apply with a checkbox to fill before saving, accepting the new tax rate and commencing tax payments. Send players a notification about alliance tax changes applied to them, reminding them to accept changes via their nation edit page before their nation will resume paying taxes (under the new terms).

He said taxes should be accepted like this, i think the same could and should apply for alliance wide embargoes, if members then decide to not respect embargoes or taxes leadership can decide to remove those elements.

Belgium

Edited by BelgiumFury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

Alex said he would consider this in some form yes.


I hope if this gets added it will be somewhat like what @Zephyr proposed for taxes, ill give you an exerpt:

He said taxes should be accepted like this, i think the same could and should apply for alliance wide embargoes, if members then decide to not respect embargoes or taxes leadership can decide to remove those elements.

Belgium

Do I need to go through years of old posts to find the dozens of examples exactly why that's so monumentally stupid? 

Cause it's seeming like someone has to because the same few do-little fools keep bringing it up like it's brilliant.

Also, that's basically how Alex has said to do alliance-wide embargoes anyway for years now, and he's been told repeatedly how mind numbingly moronic and detached from the actual reality of running alliances that is.

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

7 minutes ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Do I need to go through years of old posts to find the dozens of examples exactly why that's so monumentally stupid? 

Cause it's seeming like someone has to because the same few do-little fools keep bringing it up like it's brilliant.

Also, that's basically how Alex has said to do alliance-wide embargoes anyway for years now, and he's been told repeatedly how mind numbingly moronic and detached from the actual reality of running alliances that is.

Members need to do incredibly little to contribute to their alliance, namely the following:
- Log in once every 3 days.
- Change their nation color if they get beiged, or had a period of inactivty.

What we are saying here is one little extra button to make sure members agree with what their alliance asks of them.
If an alliance can't get their members to be the right color, or click a box once every three months than maybe the issue isnt with the member.
The same would apply to embargoes i'd think.

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

Members need to do incredibly little to contribute to their alliance, namely the following:
- Log in once every 3 days.
- Change their nation color if they get beiged, or had a period of inactivty.

What we are saying here is one little extra button to make sure members agree with what their alliance asks of them.
If an alliance can't get their members to be the right color, or click a box once every three months than maybe the issue isnt with the member.
The same would apply to embargoes i'd think.

I never have, and never will charge taxes in my alliance, with that being said, even I think that is a terrible idea.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kosta said:

Hey guys,

Adding the ability for alliance leaders to embargo other alliances on behalf of their alliance

This suggestion has been floating around for years, and I have seen this come up on P&W Radios etc. I really think it can work if reasonably added to the game and here is why:

  1. Much more efficient than individual members each embargoing an alliance. 
  2. Adds a greater dynamic to politics and diplomacy in the game.
  3. Third-sphere argument: Two spheres are at war, and they wish to prevent a third sphere from growing too fast whilst the war rages. They simply embargo the third sphere.
  4. Allows alliances to place economic pressure on the alliance/sphere they are at war with.
  5. Allows third party alliances (allies who are not in war) to place economic strain on your allies enemy. Or allows alliances to specifically back one sphere by embargoing the other. 

Counter-arguments:

  • Embargo system can be abused by alliance leaders. Limit alliances to 5-10 embargoes each. This should leave the global market very much open to alliance trade for members. 
  • Too many embargoes made by alliances can place large strain on the global market. Again, 5-10 embargoes max each alliance. Yes, this will place some strain on the market, however this will make the politics game much more interesting. 
  • We already have an embargo system in place. Yes, but only for members, which is frustrating inefficient to coordinate between multiple alliances and spheres. 


Hope this could be considered.

Thanks,

Kosta.
 

Sounds good to me. Will make management a little easier for us

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

Alex said he would consider this in some form yes.


I hope if this gets added it will be somewhat like what @Zephyr proposed for taxes, ill give you an exerpt:

He said taxes should be accepted like this, i think the same could and should apply for alliance wide embargoes, if members then decide to not respect embargoes or taxes leadership can decide to remove those elements.

Belgium

Making members "accept" taxes or an embargo is very counter intuitive. It limits the ability of alliance governments to control and organise their alliances.

If members do not want taxes they should leave. They know what they signed up for. 

I really hope Alex does not do that. 

Edited by Kosta
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Zephyr
On 8/10/2021 at 10:51 AM, Kosta said:

Hey guys,

Adding the ability for alliance leaders to embargo other alliances on behalf of their alliance

This suggestion has been floating around for years, and I have seen this come up on P&W Radios etc. I really think it can work if reasonably added to the game and here is why:

  1. Much more efficient than individual members each embargoing an alliance. 
  2. Adds a greater dynamic to politics and diplomacy in the game.
  3. Third-sphere argument: Two spheres are at war, and they wish to prevent a third sphere from growing too fast whilst the war rages. They simply embargo the third sphere.
  4. Allows alliances to place economic pressure on the alliance/sphere they are at war with.
  5. Allows third party alliances (allies who are not in war) to place economic strain on your allies enemy. Or allows alliances to specifically back one sphere by embargoing the other. 

Counter-arguments:

  • Embargo system can be abused by alliance leaders. Limit alliances to 5-10 embargoes each. This should leave the global market very much open to alliance trade for members. 
  • Too many embargoes made by alliances can place large strain on the global market. Again, 5-10 embargoes max each alliance. Yes, this will place some strain on the market, however this will make the politics game much more interesting. 
  • We already have an embargo system in place. Yes, but only for members, which is frustrating inefficient to coordinate between multiple alliances and spheres. 


Hope this could be considered.

Thanks,

Kosta.

From the Game Development Thread - July:

On 7/7/2021 at 9:22 PM, Prefontaine said:

New Content:

Quality of Life Changes:

  • Alliances will gain the ability to embargo other alliances
    • Individual nations will be able to delete the embargo if they so choose

It seems an opt-out solution is coming, but I'd prefer an opt-in solution; add a section to the top of the nation embargoes page listing alliance embargo directives, each time the alliance adds an embargo notify the player and link them to the embargoes page to approve and establish the embargo.

Nations shouldn't perform actions that their leader hasn't specifically elected, such as agreeing to pay taxes to their alliance at specific rates, applying embargoes, and sharing privileged information about their resources stockpiled or their spy count. This is consistent with the game premise, new player expectations, nearly every actual nation game mechanic, and the game's thematic presentation. We play as supreme leaders to our nations but there are players that insist on removing our autonomy, as nonsensical and inconsistent with game world logic as it is, because they find it personally inconvenient applying the effort of communicating and coordinating an alliance. I would expect most forum users are either in gov, have been, or are temporarily embarrassed; so I wouldn't be surprised if the forum responses were overwhelmingly supportive of this alliance centric view on what constitutes an acceptable game change consideration.

Though I wonder how many alliances would actually even use an alliance-wide embargoing power if they had it. I've asked a few alliance leaders over the years and they didn't seem too interested, dismissing it as not really beneficial to start embargo wars and complicate trading options. It's also worth noting that it's not like alliances can't actually do this already. Many alliances manage to coordinate and enforce war chest requirements and minimum military requirements without the ability to personally stuff member nations with appropriate military units, relying entirely on individual member efforts. If an alliance wanted to they could establish similar methods to coordinate and enforce an embargo list of their own, and compliancy would arguably be even easier for members than building an expensive war chest as it's just a few one-time clicks for each embargo. So I suspect the interest just isn't actually there.

 

14 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Do I need to go through years of old posts to find the dozens of examples exactly why that's so monumentally stupid?

No, just make an actual point.

14 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Cause it's seeming like someone has to because the same few do-little fools keep bringing it up like it's brilliant.

Useless babbling.

14 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Also, that's basically how Alex has said to do alliance-wide embargoes anyway for years now, and he's been told repeatedly how mind numbingly moronic and detached from the actual reality of running alliances that is.

Noncontributory gossip.

 

6 hours ago, Kosta said:

Making members "accept" taxes or an embargo is very counter intuitive.

It's actually not, it's perfectly aligned with the game premise. What would be counter intuitive is direct control of other nations.

6 hours ago, Kosta said:

It limits the ability of alliance governments to control and organise their alliances.

Not unless you are incapable of communicating with your members. This just reads as, "It limits my ability to control my members".

6 hours ago, Kosta said:

If members do not want taxes they should leave.

I won't comment on what they "should" do without knowing the details of their situation, but either they can leave or the alliance can remove them. These are both things that are already possible, so there's no change here to be concerned about.

6 hours ago, Kosta said:

They know what they signed up for.

This isn't actually true though, alliances can and do change in many ways; from policy changes, through to their gov line up which can affect internal dynamics and foreign relations. If your members know what they're signing up for, then it won't be an issue for them to approve the tax rate you set for them. Your objection implies that you may not be entirely honest with prospective members and expect this to cause problems, but that is just a communication deficit you need to work on and part of the responsibility of coordinating an alliance.

Edited by Zephyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zephyr said:

text

You're making my point but a lot better than i made it.
I'd write you a love letter if i knew where to send it to.

The point is indeed that alliances change in many ways and members should *know* what they are actually agreeing with and a competent alliance who communicates well with it's members should literally find no issue with it's members paying taxes. Unless you are sneakily taxing your members without them knowing ofcourse. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZephyrWith every respect to you Zephyr, I must disagree. 

Your suggestions, although advocate for greater individual freedoms for members would work in a real life setting, however in Politics and War would make it a complete nightmare to run an alliance. 

18 hours ago, Zephyr said:

Nations shouldn't perform actions that their leader hasn't specifically elected, such as agreeing to pay taxes to their alliance at specific rates, applying embargoes, and sharing privileged information about their resources stockpiled or their spy count. This is consistent with the game premise, new player expectations, nearly every actual nation game mechanic, and the game's thematic presentation.

This seems to be your interpretation of the game premise, and one that I 100% disagree with. If members were able to refuse actions such a taxes, embargoes, and sharing information (I know information sharing is already a mechanic, however it is not a problem because not many players know about it) it would be incredibly difficult to govern an alliance. Your premise would work if Politics and War were a full time job however your premise allows for zero mechanical governance by alliance leaders. 

Currently alliances have only one proper mechanical tool for governance and that tool is taxes. Taxes can have multiple uses however one such use is punitive. If members are able to refuse taxes, it defeats one of the important middle-grounds of punishment for inactive/non-compliant members. Instead the only way governments can deal with non-compliance is alliance removal, since taxes are "opt-in". 

18 hours ago, Zephyr said:

We play as supreme leaders to our nations but there are players that insist on removing our autonomy, as nonsensical and inconsistent with game world logic as it is, because they find it personally inconvenient applying the effort of communicating and coordinating an alliance.

Again, if Politics and War war was a  full time job your premise would work. Would you expect an alliance leaders to physically ask every single member what their stockpile is? what their spy count is? If their compliant with embargoes? Are they paying their taxes? What a complete waste of time. 

 

18 hours ago, Zephyr said:

Many alliances manage to coordinate and enforce war chest requirements and minimum military requirements without the ability to personally stuff member nations with appropriate military units, relying entirely on individual member efforts.

We can literally see their information on the control panel. And also we can see their nations. If members had the option to cancel that information it would be a ridiculous task to coordinate. 

18 hours ago, Zephyr said:

Not unless you are incapable of communicating with your members. This just reads as, "It limits my ability to control my members".

I am advocating for all governments here. Its simply not viable. Your are advocating for a system of zero mechanical control by governments except for being able to kick members which WILL NOT work. 

And before anyone swings the "tyranny" hammer my way. TF is looking to democratise in the future. And if Zephyr's model were implemented, it would be a complete nightmare any govt of the alliance. Perhaps alliances with bots could make things easier, but not every alliance has that luxury. 

TL;DR I disagree on most points. 
 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Zephyr
On 8/11/2021 at 6:17 PM, BelgiumFury said:

The point is indeed that alliances change in many ways and members should *know* what they are actually agreeing with and a competent alliance who communicates well with it's members should literally find no issue with it's members paying taxes. Unless you are sneakily taxing your members without them knowing ofcourse. 

Exactly, my proposed approach poses no threat to an honestly organised alliance. The only ones that should be threatened are those that describe their relationship with their membership as one of control instead of collaboration in shared interests.

 

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

@ZephyrWith every respect to you Zephyr, I must disagree. 

Your suggestions, although advocate for greater individual freedoms for members would work in a real life setting, however in Politics and War would make it a complete nightmare to run an alliance. 

This seems to be your interpretation of the game premise, and one that I 100% disagree with. If members were able to refuse actions such a taxes, embargoes, and sharing information (I know information sharing is already a mechanic, however it is not a problem because not many players know about it) it would be incredibly difficult to govern an alliance. Your premise would work if Politics and War were a full time job however your premise allows for zero mechanical governance by alliance leaders. 

Currently alliances have only one proper mechanical tool for governance and that tool is taxes. Taxes can have multiple uses however one such use is punitive. If members are able to refuse taxes, it defeats one of the important middle-grounds of punishment for inactive/non-compliant members. Instead the only way governments can deal with non-compliance is alliance removal, since taxes are "opt-in". 

Again, if Politics and War war was a  full time job your premise would work. Would you expect an alliance leaders to physically ask every single member what their stockpile is? what their spy count is? If their compliant with embargoes? Are they paying their taxes? What a complete waste of time. 

 

We can literally see their information on the control panel. And also we can see their nations. If members had the option to cancel that information it would be a ridiculous task to coordinate. 

I am advocating for all governments here. Its simply not viable. Your are advocating for a system of zero mechanical control by governments except for being able to kick members which WILL NOT work. 

And before anyone swings the "tyranny" hammer my way. TF is looking to democratise in the future. And if Zephyr's model were implemented, it would be a complete nightmare any govt of the alliance. Perhaps alliances with bots could make things easier, but not every alliance has that luxury. 

TL;DR I disagree on most points. 
 

None of your post makes any sense to me, I don't think you understand what I'm proposing. I'm suggesting that when an alliance wants to establish an embargo, each member is notified and goes to their embargoes page and clicks a confirmation to establish the embargo from a section listing alliance embargo directives. There should also be an alliance control panel to indicate which members have ratified which embargo directives. It doesn't have to be implemented in this specific way, whatever makes it simple for an alliance to notify members of embargoes to set up and which requires member action to establish. Similarly, nation information sharing should be opt-in, and taxes should have to be approved each time a nation's tax rate changes (and is not 0/0). This would respect the game premise and player expectation that they are the highest authority determining their nation's actions.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

Your suggestions, although advocate for greater individual freedoms for members would work in a real life setting, however in Politics and War would make it a complete nightmare to run an alliance.

I disagree. In fact, it is already possible for alliance members to opt-out of sharing information with their alliance's gov and yet the sky has not fallen. If a member refuses to share their nation information or establish an embargo directed by the alliance, either they may decide to find another alliance that better aligns with their values or the alliance gov may determine that it's a deal breaker and remove the member. In neither situation is there a monumental destruction of order as you suggest, you are exaggerating the situation. If communicating with your members is a nightmare, you're doing something wrong.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

This seems to be your interpretation of the game premise, and one that I 100% disagree with.

It's not an interpretation, it is a nation sim. The fact you'd even dispute this or pose it as an opinion is quite ridiculous. I'd wager you would even describe it to others as a "nation sim". If your game experience itself hasn't already made this abundantly obvious to you, we can simply review the home page which clearly establishes the game premise:

Quote

Politics & War is a free to play browser based persistent massively multi-player online game where you create your own nation and rule it. Forced to make grueling political decisions you are truly in charge in Politics & War. Play together with friends and strangers, pit your armies against each other and wage war, or work together cooperatively for mutual prosperity. In Politics & War you call the shots.

I would be curious what part of the game description confuses you. In fact, there is no explicit mention of alliances in the game description and it quite clearly promises that the player determines their nation's actions. Even the third sentence, which presumably alludes to alliances, describes cooperative play and not authoritative rule over other players. Your opinion is clearly at odds with the facts.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

If members were able to refuse actions such a taxes, embargoes, and sharing information (I know information sharing is already a mechanic, however it is not a problem because not many players know about it) it would be incredibly difficult to govern an alliance.

Why would you expect your members to refuse? As you seem to recognise here, they can already refuse to share nation information if they so choose. I've run an alliance before and encountered a few members that had disabled nation information sharing, but after simply explaining the feature use I believe we resolved each instance without problem. It sounds like you have a communication problem with your membership, but that's just a responsibility of running an alliance. The solution isn't to ask admin to mechanically remove aspects of their autonomy that inconvenience you.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

Your premise...

It's not my premise. It's the game premise, it is a nation sim. The entire appeal of nation sims is that you rule your own little nation and determine what it does, and the game even describes itself as such.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

...would work if Politics and War were a full time job...

I don't understand the talk about it being a job. Are you not already communicating with your membership? How, under this scenario, is the workload increased considerably enough that you'd describe it as a full time job?

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

...however your premise allows for zero mechanical governance by alliance leaders.

Zero mechanical governance? I'm not suggesting removing any of the current alliance features, but only that a nation must consent to share their nation information, agree to pay taxes at the rate requested by the alliance, or confirm alliance embargo directives before they establish the embargo.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

Currently alliances have only one proper mechanical tool for governance and that tool is taxes. Taxes can have multiple uses however one such use is punitive. If members are able to refuse taxes, it defeats one of the important middle-grounds of punishment for inactive/non-compliant members. Instead the only way governments can deal with non-compliance is alliance removal, since taxes are "opt-in".

A nation is a separate entity operated by another player with their own autonomy, it makes no sense that their treasury would permit you to march in and steal a bunch of resources without their leader having consented to that arrangement.

If your member does not consent, then obviously you should not be capable of taxing them. At that point you can try talking to them about the issue, or you could eject them from your alliance. You could even go to war with their nation to steal the resources you were trying to steal using a bogus game mechanic that permits theft at no personal risk.

An alliance is a collaboration. If your member does not want to collaborate, whether this be in tax contributions or embargoes, then the game premise would dictate that should be their right.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

Again, if Politics and War war was a  full time job your premise would work. Would you expect an alliance leaders to physically ask every single member what their stockpile is? what their spy count is? If their compliant with embargoes? Are they paying their taxes? What a complete waste of time.

We can literally see their information on the control panel. And also we can see their nations. If members had the option to cancel that information it would be a ridiculous task to coordinate.

I only advocated for alliance features being opt-in where they presume action on a nation's behalf, so no you wouldn't have to ask every single member. Unless you're really bad at recruitment and catfish a lot of players, the workload shouldn't be any more significant.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

I am advocating for all governments here. Its simply not viable. Your are advocating for a system of zero mechanical control by governments except for being able to kick members which WILL NOT work.

The only way it wouldn't work is that you are recruiting people whose interests don't actually align with your own, but that would mean you're bad at recruitment. You should not have direct control over other nations without their consent, this is perfectly consistent with the game premise and player expectations. Your entire argument seems to ride on how inconvenient nation autonomy is to you who feels entitled to control others, but unwilling to exercise actual responsibility by communicating with your membership. If you believe your membership would decline paying taxes, establishing your embargoes, or sharing nation information, then your alliance has major miscommunication problems between membership and government. If it resultingly fell apart from my proposed changes, it would be doing its membership a favour.

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

And before anyone swings the "tyranny" hammer my way. TF is looking to democratise in the future. And if Zephyr's model were implemented, it would be a complete nightmare any govt of the alliance. Perhaps alliances with bots could make things easier, but not every alliance has that luxury.

This is weird. Democratising but you'd expect it to fall apart if members opted-in to alliance features? Doesn't make sense to me, but good luck.

Edited by Zephyr
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zephyr said:

Exactly, my proposed approach poses no threat to an honestly organised alliance. The only ones that should be threatened are those that describe their relationship with their membership as one of control instead of collaboration in shared interests.

This exact thing is what is bugging me most with people against it. Do alliance leaders not talk to their members or? I seem to recall last time i was on gray and didn't pay taxes because of it (we already have the choice to not pay them you see), i got a dm from my IA head and we sorted that shit real quick. 


Alliances are ways for people to collaborate, every healthy colaborative relationship needs communication. it doesn't matter if it's a 1 on 1 relationship or 100 people sharing a commitement. 
Assuming you communicate with your members they probably won't opt out of being your alliance color, paying the new tax rate or even joining in an embargo. Unless ofcourse you are taking incredbily bad decisions and your membership hates you, or you just try to sneak stuff behind their back and raise taxes without giving a heads up.

11 hours ago, Kosta said:

I am advocating for all governments here. Its simply not viable. Your are advocating for a system of zero mechanical control by governments except for being able to kick members which WILL NOT work. 

And before anyone swings the "tyranny" hammer my way. TF is looking to democratise in the future. And if Zephyr's model were implemented, it would be a complete nightmare any govt of the alliance. Perhaps alliances with bots could make things easier, but not every alliance has that luxury. 

I'm not sure what point you are making here? You are aware that this is the only thing you can do right now right?
Members can currently: Stop paying taxes, and stop sharing their inventory... Most members won't do that because they want a cooperative alliance.
If you can not make a proper announcement saying "well we are embargoing rose because we think tulips are prettier pls dont unembargo" then you don't deserve to have an embargo.

Keeping your members in line is like the nr1 priority of most alliances, and something many alliances (can speak of personal expierience) spend a lot of time and people on. If your members actively oppose your alliance embargoing someone you really have to think that you maybe shouldn't embargo those people, or maybe need better communication or it's neither you should perhaps cut some elements from your alliance.

1 hour ago, Zephyr said:

The only way it wouldn't work is that you are recruiting people whose interests don't actually align with your own, but that would mean you're bad at recruitment.

Affirmative.

---

It feels to me like you don't already know how much autonomy members actually already have, and how rarely they'd actually use it because they aren't actively trying to sabotage the alliance they are in.

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zephyr@BelgiumFury I am just going to agree to disagree here. This is going to keep going back and forth. Probably best to let otherd make up their opinions based on what has already been said. 

Edited by Kosta
Grammer
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems this thread is developing into something more of a "What should the Authority and Power of Alliance Governments over their Members be?: A Political Science Philosophical Debate, featuring distinguished guests @Kosta and @Zephyr" Instead of letting alliances embargo.

 

Totally support adding AA embargos. Would add politcal dymanic to in-game economics, instead of the simple meta that currently stands.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

seems this thread is developing into something more of a "What should the Authority and Power of Alliance Governments over their Members be?: A Political Science Philosophical Debate, featuring distinguished guests @Kosta and @Zephyr" Instead of letting alliances embargo.

XD
 

2 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

Totally support adding AA embargos. Would add politcal dymanic to in-game economics, instead of the simple meta that currently stands.

Completely agree with you. 

Edited by Kosta
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

seems this thread is developing into something more of a "What should the Authority and Power of Alliance Governments over their Members be?: A Political Science Philosophical Debate, featuring distinguished guests @Kosta and @Zephyr" Instead of letting alliances embargo.

 

Totally support adding AA embargos. Would add politcal dymanic to in-game economics, instead of the simple meta that currently stands.

 

 

Once again we have the issue though how extensive that control should be :p.
Saying i support it doesnt solve this deep filosophical debate!

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.