Coalition of Alliances

[Red Huxley]

In Modern Times when a Nation is invaded, they are at war with multiple Nations and Alliances that form a coalition. Since I have been playing this game (few months) I have noticed that multiple Alliances will go to war with a single Alliance. I would like to see the ability to create a coalition, that could hold multiple Alliances as one during a short amount of time, or with extremely costly upkeep to be kept together.

 

A Coalition is much like an Alliance, but many alliances have different approaches and tactics. If we could create a Coalition and arrange leadership, I believe war would come a lot more manageable on a bigger scale.

 

A leader of an Alliance would control the members of the same alliance, but the Leader of the alliance would follow the leadership of the Coalition. Should be able to organize players and military units, but at a bigger scale.

[fistofdoom]

I dont understand. We can just do what we're already doing.

Edited April 19, 2015 by fistofdoom

[Red Huxley]

Yes. But one day there will come a time when many alliances will unite and undertake a massive offensive against a giant alliance. Until then, there is no demand for such a thing.

[Fox Fire]

There's no real demand for it at all. I'm not sure how this would help. I mean, most heavily organized wars are organized on forums/irc. Not in game.

[Red Huxley]

I was more curious about the sum of military units if a coalition was created, like on the alliance page. Also, it would be better if a coalition was made of volunteers from different alliances that would make up a coalition.

[Spooner]

It would be easier to join a larger alliance that doesn't suck. Just saying.

[Red Huxley]

It would be easier to join a larger alliance that doesn't suck. Just saying.

My suggestion was to be able to destroy a large Alliance with the use of many small and medium alliance United.

[Buorhann]

My suggestion was to be able to destroy a large Alliance with the use of many small and medium alliance United.

 

Don't mind him, he went full derp mode.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea, considering alliances are pretty much what that is.  A coalition of nations put together.  All you really need to do is have a singular forum base with all the alliances you'd like to have put together, and just pool your collectively thoughts there.

 

There's no need to introduce the mechanic in the game when you can do it yourself off site.

[TellUrGrlThx]

I agree with others on there is no real demand. It's not a terrible idea but I see no real reason to have it added now when there are much more important fixes and updates that sheepy can add and work on.

[Red Huxley]

I agree with others on there is no real demand. It's not a terrible idea but I see no real reason to have it added now when there are much more important fixes and updates that sheepy can add and work on.

Just something I would like to see. There is no demand yet, but I believe it could organize smaller alliances for a bigger impact.

[LordRahl2]

I have read worse ideas syrup.

[Alice Lune]

To tell the truth, I don't agree with the direction this feature request will take the game.

 

I imagine Red Huxley's suggestion is similar to the bloc system we already have in the real world. Well, that works fine in the real world, because if you don't agree with any of the real world's bloc, you can just perform guerilla, spy or terrorist acts on them. And it can't be traced back to you unless the receiving nation has a very good spy network.

 

What this will do to the game is give newbies the option of "Join one of the big alliances under a big coalition or get smashed when one of them don't like how you stare at them". We already have this happening, just that the smaller alliances still in theory have a fighting chance even without a protector. What this feature request will do, is make everyone conform to the bigger alliances. I really enjoy individuality. I enjoyed Socialist International, even though my ingame-character does not agree with their ideals. When SI disbanded, I was truly sad.

 

What this will do, is remove individuality and creativity from a nation or an alliance. Everyone will just be another VE, or Arrgh or Rose or Mensa HQ. Everyone will eventually be afraid to try out new ideas and stand on their own because they'll be one tiny pig (a single alliance) in a stampede of elephants (coalition of alliances, which will only get bigger as it soaks up the terrified lone alliances).

 

Some would argue that this is already happening, but we don't need a game mechanic that actually announces it to the terrified masses. You probably think that you can pool small alliances to fight bigger ones, but big alliances can do the same too. I've seen enough games that got destroyed because of this.

 

Tiberium Online being one of them. A newbie just can't survive in that game unless you join one of the huge alliances that control at least 10 POI. And smaller alliances can't hope to ever fight them because these large alliances had already divided the land among themselves. Fighting one huge alliance equals fighting all of the huge alliances.Pardus is also one of them. I've played that game for almost 8 years and commanded one of the largest alliance ever. But then this was introduced and newbies were forced to join one of the larger alliances, effectively reducing interest in the game and now, no new blood is joining the game. With old players quitting and new players nonexistent, that game was slowly dying, the only reason it's still running is because it got a grant for testing social relationship from some university in Switzerland.

 

I know Red mentioned that this is temporary. I know some would think up some way this can work, but please don't. Once you've gone this route, it can't be undone. Yes, I am deathly afraid of this feature, because I do not want another game I play to be destroyed because of this. EVE can do whatever they want, I don't play it.

 

I would vote, "Hell no!"

Edited April 20, 2015 by Alice Lune