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

[Greatnate]

5+ members regularly logging in, with exceptions made due to score/strength.

[Hansarius]

We generally work with 10+ members

But if the alliance is politically active, then numbers doesn't matter that much.

[Clarke]

5+ members regularly logging in, with exceptions made due to score/strength.

That's close to my thoughts, an alliance of people largely inactive is not much of an alliance. 

Edited November 20, 2014 by Diabolos

[Emmad]

I would say 10, that's a fair number of members to be "established". But of course I would say you can't have all new people otherwise it's just a band of new players. Need some older people for military and economic support.

[Dark Specter]

I would say 10, that's a fair number of members to be "established". But of course I would say you can't have all new people otherwise it's just a band of new players. Need some older people for military and economic support.

I dont mind if the alliance is made up of new players, if they are willing to make an attempt at politics and stick through with it then im fine with them.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Checking alliance raid policy usually is a good indicator of size of recognition.

[Ayayay]

Needs to have some members and have some sort of mention on the forums. Be it a DoE or an active member. IRC definitely helps. However, if an alliance is under 10 members then they get raided for being a tiny alliance.

[Kurdanak]

Needs to have Jodo as President. No exceptions.

[ELPINCHAZO]

the answer is 0

[George W. Bush]

It's one. You have to count the one person alliances in the low score ghetto that try to raid other people in the low score ghetto to get them to join their alliance.

[ooohu]

I recognize alliances that bring da ruckus.

[Kurdanak]

I recognize alliances that bring da ruckus.

So basically TEst, and... yeah, that's it.

[Maleficent_2014]

To me, an alliance is two or more nations in an in-game alliance. If we're talking about game mechanics, it's pretty simple, and even one nation can qualify as an alliance. However if we're talking about at what point do other alliances see alliances as more than just micro-alliance or "raid"-fodder, then you get a little more subjective. I would say anywhere from the standard 5 plus nations or higher would be a good bet. Most alliances I have heard of here, and elsewhere take this as a common starting place. Some alliances are bloder and are as high as ten members or more so long as they do not have a protectorate treaty with another alliance.

 

Personally, I find raiding distasteful since it forces newer players to either learn quick, join an alliance or quit the game. IT leaves little room for national sovereignty and those who don't necessarily want to join an alliance and partake in the politics that go with it.

[Livius Clades]

5 members is the Brotherhood's position.

[Maleficent_2014]

5 members is the Brotherhood's position.

 

I am well aware.

[Livius Clades]

I am well aware.

 

I wasn't referring to you directly Mal. I apologize if I confused you.

[Odin]

5, with that they are out of raidzone.

And they need a forum for an embassy.

[Donald Sterling]

If they can protect them and their members then they are an alliance.  If one nation could beat the alliance it is not a true alliance.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Otto von Bismarck

[fistofdoom]

If they can protect them and their members then they are an alliance.  If one nation could beat the alliance it is not a true alliance.

How do you mean?

[Maleficent_2014]

How do you mean?

 

He basically means if His alliance can raid it with impunity, then it's not an alliance. He forgets these things called treaties, in which other alliances come to the aid of their friends. Doesn't that mean none of them are alliances if they help out one another? That they cannot defend themselves without help?