[Brantley Mcdonald]

I am going to tally up votes okay. yes or no

[Jacques Cousteau]

You can make a poll for this type of thing.

And it depends not on the size of the nation, but the value of the member in the inner workings of the community.

[Choader]

I vote pie.

[Bleda]

By large nation I'm assuming you mean large enough where he is pretty much self sustaining as far as growth . To that end I would hope such a nation would be a team player and be using almost all of his aid slots and putting at least 100 million a month out in aid to further the alliance he calls home. Or at the very least giving out 3 million for 50 tech deals to his alliance mates. Once you are controlling an apex nation your logical job should be helping others create apex nations , so at a time of war you can actually have back-up .

[Haflinger]

100 million a month in aid would be an incredible feat for a nation that only has 18 aid slots a month, which normally max at 3M per slot.

[alpreb]

Quote

> Alliances Strongest Nations, Should alliances go out on a limb just to support one nations.

No, they certainly should not.

[LOLtex]

Yes, please direct all tech and cashmonies to me. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Delta1212]

I don't understand the point of this topic.

I mean, I understand what the question seems to be, but alliances really don't do this, so I'm inclined to think I'm either misunderstanding something or completely missing the point.

This post has been edited by Delta1212: 14 August 2009 - 12:12 PM

[Essenia]

Delta1212, on Aug 14 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

I don't understand the point of this topic.

I mean, I understand what the question seems to be, but alliances really don't do this, so I'm inclined to think I'm either misunderstanding something or completely missing the point.

Pretty sure IRON did this with Matt Miller at some point and I believe other alliances have done it as well. It's a terrible idea regardless.

[Derantol]

essenia, on Aug 14 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Pretty sure IRON did this with Matt Miller at some point and I believe other alliances have done it as well. It's a terrible idea regardless.

Erm... I don't think we did. Matt Miller is pretty level-headed and doesn't get himself into any trouble outside of what IRON as a whole gets. Unless of course you're referring to military support during war, in which case I suppose we have, but we tend to try to do that for everyone.

Or I misread the question, and it's suggesting that one alliance should invest in a nation like Matt's to make them as strong as possible? Gonna have to side with Bleda on that one. It's not sound strategy to simply invest in those top nations, and not have them give back at all. It cuts down on the growth of the younger nations too much. Matt got the top spot on CN because IRON wasn't involved in the first three great wars - he's always been a huge supporter of building up smaller nations.

Either way, an alliance shouldn't put so much focus on one nation without a REALLY good reason.

[Gondor]

Choader, on Aug 13 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

I vote pie.

I think pie is the correct answer here.

But seriously, like has already been said it's a bad idea all around. Anyone with any life exp. beyond that of a 2 year old should know that just focusing on one thing and ignoring others is a one way ticket to being a cruddy alliance.

[Penguin]

This reminds me of our "Get Electron Sponge to nuclear range" program from about two years ago. The results?

Nuclear Rogues: 1
Imperial Bank of Polaris: 0

[Machiabelly]

No, I don't think they should, it should be the other way around.

And Cake

[Näktergal]

Theoretically speaking, it might be sound for a ton of smaller nations to pool their resources to build up a few larger nations, then once those larger nations are generating massive amounts of income, reverse the pipeline and have the larger nations funnel aid back down. In that sense, it becomes akin to a long-term investment for the smaller nations, who will eventually be repaid multiple times over for their initial investment.

That being said, you'd have to have near absolute trust in your larger nation, because it would suck for multiple smaller nations to fuel a larger one, only to have the larger one flip them all the bird and skip out before repaying the favor.

[Essenia]

Derantol, on Aug 15 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

Erm... I don't think we did. Matt Miller is pretty level-headed and doesn't get himself into any trouble outside of what IRON as a whole gets. Unless of course you're referring to military support during war, in which case I suppose we have, but we tend to try to do that for everyone.

Or I misread the question, and it's suggesting that one alliance should invest in a nation like Matt's to make them as strong as possible? Gonna have to side with Bleda on that one. It's not sound strategy to simply invest in those top nations, and not have them give back at all. It cuts down on the growth of the younger nations too much. Matt got the top spot on CN because IRON wasn't involved in the first three great wars - he's always been a huge supporter of building up smaller nations.

Either way, an alliance shouldn't put so much focus on one nation without a REALLY good reason.

I'm referring to tech feeding, not getting in trouble. Some time ago, I watched his aid screen for several weeks and the only thing there was incoming tech.

[Kaiser]

essenia, on Aug 17 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

I'm referring to tech feeding, not getting in trouble. Some time ago, I watched his aid screen for several weeks and the only thing there was incoming tech.

Gromlins do this for their top 5 nations.

[Gauner]

The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.

Every member should be considered vital and should be protected by their alliance as a whole, with every member prepared to go to war in defence of another regardless of size.

[Londo Mollari]

Say you have only 6 nations in your alliance, and you have 18 months to build those 6 nations for a massive war against another 6 nation alliance. - A6 and B6.

A6 and B6 both do tech deals and all grow to 4999 infra by the end of 6 months, at which point they begin buying tech from a starting point of 300. Alliance A6 has all nations buy tech @ 3M for 100 tech all six slots for 12 months - resulting in 6 nations with 7500 tech apiece at the end (with 12-14 wonders). Alliance B6 uses nations to feed some of their nations, using 2 of their nations to send 18 slots of aid each per month, directing 3600/4 tech = 900 tech each to the other 4 nations.

A6 has 6 nations @ 8,500 infra 7,500 tech and large warchests. B6 has 4 nations at 8500 infra 11,100 tech and large warchests, along with 2 noncombatant "tech banks".

Run the numbers, and you will see that the 4 nations will destroy the 6. So it makes perfectly good sense for Gremlins to build their top nations with continuous slots of tech.

[kencojenko]

I have my slots filled with incoming tech and no outgoing money through donations and doing odd jobs people are too lazy to do (finding them tech sellers etc).

means i get 900 tech a month and can catch up with those guys ahead of me.

If i can do this on my own, no reason why an alliance should do it for them.

[Kiss Goodbye]

I believe it is a worthy venture to build up an upper tier that is razor sharp. Especially via nations who are almost completely inactive--possibly getting nation sat--who otherwise wouldn't be bothered to import their own tech. These nations aren't going to grow anyway, so they may as well be sending tech to people who cause someone else to grow.