Just a general curiosity, what is the general consensus on the size of a recognized alliance

[Greene]

I've asked this of some folks on IRC, but I'm really curious what the general community at large thinks. At what point do you recognize an alliance? For me (and by extension CU), we do less than 5 members aren't recognized, but 5 or more are.

[Khestra]

I've always considered 3 to be the qualifying number required for a group to be classified as an alliance.  

[Shellhound]

It depends, officially we consider it to be 5 bit personally I consider relevancy more than anything. In alpha there were a few alliances with pretty large membership (25+) but no one ever heard of them or interacted with them in any way. While they were very much an alliance they served about the most basic needs for their nations and that was it.

[Grillick]

I think every alliance that is created using the game mechanics counts as an alliance.

 

But I don't think any of them are relevant.

[Jodo]

3+ and a DoE on the forums.

[Greene]

3+ and a DoE on the forums.

 

So you wouldn't consider the CU an alliance then since we haven't DoE'd (or have we... dang I don't even know anymore)

[Jodo]

So you wouldn't consider the CU an alliance then since we haven't DoE'd (or have we... dang I don't even know anymore)

Since I don't even know what CU stands for, you'd be right.

 

Don't feel bad though. I'm not a legit alliance by my own standards.

[Shellhound]

Since I don't even know what CU stands for, you'd be right.

 

Don't feel bad though. I'm not a legit alliance by my own standards.

Tbf to you, your alliance is puppeteer of all other alliances so....

[Jodo]

Tbf to you, your alliance is puppeteer of all other alliances so....

You have that backwards. I'm President of everything, remember?

 

Someone sack Shelly for me. Your President demands it.

 

Edit: I'm dumb. Reading comprehension during a double shift is hard.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Jodo

[fistofdoom]

5+ members with an active government member/leader

[Dark Specter]

I consider alliances with 5+ members along with a doe as a legit alliance.

[naTia]

I consider any alliance with 5+ to be diplomatically viable. In terms of strength and whether I would consider raiding them, I would say always less than 10.

[Prefontaine]

5, or politically active. Usually if an alliance has an IRC channel with a couple members, has a couple members that post on the forums regularly, or has a treaty, I consider them a legitimate alliance. 

[Dwynn]

Legitimate in relation to what is the real question. Most alliances have the bar at 5+ members or a treaty of sorts to protect them from raiders.

[Greene]

I meant legitimate in just general terms, all of the different ways that an alliance would be considered legitimate (eligible for treaties, trade deals, not being raided, not getting recruitment messages sent, etc.)

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I'd say 5 or maybe 8 seem like good thresholds.

[Dwynn]

I meant legitimate in just general terms, all of the different ways that an alliance would be considered legitimate (eligible for treaties, trade deals, not being raided, not getting recruitment messages sent, etc.)

 

Well unfortunately there's no clear answer there. For posterity sake though, I'll address each.

 

#1 Eligible for Treaties: You could be a 1-man alliance and still be eligible for treaties. That's all about foreign affairs and likability of the party at hand (i.e. Jodo would easily get a treaty from me, however if someone like underlordgc asked for one I'd deny.)

 

#2 Trade Deals: Again, you could be eligible as a 1-man alliance. The key here is having the necessary goods to provide the other alliance.

 

#3 Not Being Raided: Unfortunately there is no guarantee that an alliance will never be raided. However, to help your case, being active on the forums (you are) would lead you more to something for the #1 option, which would often sway people away from attacking. The likelihood of being retaliated against is the major force in the decision of whether to raid an alliance or not.

 

#4 Not getting recruitment messages: Unfortunately no guarantee here too other than being in an alliance of size or being recognized. Even then, recruitment messages are often sent out by trained monkeys. They look at simple things like "how many in alliance?" if there's an alliance tag. Monkey's don't always have recollection of forum accounts and reknown, and often times don't have forum accounts of their own.

 

Hope that helps!

#brothermaloneisalwaysright #exceptwhenhashtaging

[Keegoz]

5+ and are active in some way i.e. forums, irc or ingame messaging

[Geronimo]

5+, DoE on the forums, and pretty active on IRC.

[Jodo]

Speaking of recruitment messages, the copy paste version are building up in my inbox. I'm collecting them.

[Adama]

To me what defines a legitimate alliance is if they show ambition to actually be something. Like if you only have two people and you post a doe I consider you a legit alliance because you show you care. If you're IRC active as well, basically, just reaching out. But for alliances that aren't id say 5 members with the "gov" being active as legitimate.

[Nicholas II]

Not to speak for my alliance as a whole, but I, personally, think it depends on the alliance in question.

 

If the two top nations in the whole of Orbis decided to create an alliance of just them two, they would already surpass half of all alliances in score. They are active and well established around the community and really know what they are doing. However, most of the lower tier alliances, which would be the ones in question, are inactive or few membered. Even the active ones, sometimes are unrecognized on the inter-alliance level of politics because no one knows who they are since they are not active on the forum.

 

So, it really boils down to, for me, (1) being active and (2) having the ability to assert yourself.

Edited November 19, 2014 by TsarNicholasII

[Shellhound]

You have that backwards. I'm President of everything, remember?

 

Someone sack Shelly for me. Your President demands it.

 

Edit: I'm dumb. Reading comprehension during a double shift is hard.

Shut up Jodo.

[Jodo]

Shut up Jodo.

I'M OFFENDED.

[Reagan]

If we were getting technical...
 
 

al·li·ance
a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations.

 

a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities.

 

a state of being joined or associated.

 

By definition, you would need at least two people.  Can't be joined, have anything mutual, or have a relationship with just one person involved. From there, you really have to set your own premise.  Over the years, I've seen many alliances set their bar of recognizing other alliances (in terms of raiding, etc) at 5 members.  That's typically what I go with as well.  On the other hand, I don't really like to attack people simply because they're small and I can.  Could be a decent little group trying to get established.  They deserve the opportunity and, often times, attacking players in micros can drive them out of the game and that's not really good for anyone.