One of the first treaties that many alliances (dare I say it... all?) sign is the Protectorate Agreement. The Declarations of Existence that clutter the Alliance Politics section are usually complemented by these promises that the big-boy alliance is going to protect his little brother (or sister) from meanies who come after them.

But how useful are they really? In response to incidents regarding protectors/protectorates over the past few years (most epically during the Unjust War, in my mind), what is the benefit of having these agreements with small micro-alliances? I came come up with a few: the ability to cultivate a new alliance and welcome them to the Cyberverse, the safety is ensures the protected alliance from others who may prey on them, and the distinction is gives to the protector for being significant enough to protect both themselves and a third party (or several, like RagnaBlok).

But how does the protectorate agreement do this in a way that the other treaties do not? This is not advocacy against the PIAT and the ODP, which are entire other subjects. These protectorates sometimes force their protectors to make difficult decisions, especially when treaty conflicts come into play... even if clauses are included to prevent it. They otherwise provide the same benefits as an MDoAP... or a one-sided MDP. And as these treaties sometimes, if the relationship is good, blossom into "big-boy" treaties, why sign them in the first place?

Clearly, these treaties, which have existed for years, are the products of a by-gone age. Alliances no longer declare war whenever they feel like it (noCB or Karma War debates aside). I equate the protectorate with the pre-modern concept of a child's governess. Once very essential to the proper care and upbringing of a child... it is now an antiquated institution that has died parallel with its decaying usefulness. In the days of old, perhaps large alliances did prey on the smaller ones just for fun, but today, this would be deplored by the inter-alliance community.




Now these are just my opinions - I'm sure that many, especially those who are in alliances that are large enough to have these agreements and act upon them. I am curious, however, and ask that supporters of this increasing unnecessary aspect of alliance growth (that could easily be replaced with a tech agreement, ODP or PIAT) to share some insight.

Discuss.

Hmmm, I think the main problem is that without a protectorate a small alliance will get tech raided and be unable to shake off the raiders. For example, my old alliance MCXA (a pretty sweet alliance) picked up Little Big Alliance after LBA did their DOE because LBA was getting tech raided and was too small to handle it.

I'm still not sure if its worth it for the protector, althought maybe if a protector is cynical, err realistic, they will offer a protector and then assimilate the alliance once it fails. Honestly I'd like to see fewer alliances get started anyways.

Alliances don't just attack others on a whim? Well.... the Popcorn War was a prime example of that...

Well, although protectorates were originally meant to help protect small alliances from outside attacks from other alliances, however now it's more used to protect people from tech raiding. Think about it, in a small alliance of 10 members, how many do you think are going to be in the same range and able to defend each other from outside aggression? Not a whole lot usually. However, if they get a protector with, let's say 150 members or so, then their protector will be able to help take on that tech raider.

What Nitenderek said, specially true since most raiders are in themselves in an alliance which usually backs the raider when the raided Alliance decides to defend their member from the raid. I know it is a lame thing to do, but we see that often enough to be able to overlook it. How many 10 -15 man alliances, without owf known names would be able to mount a successful defense of their members against a raider from an alliance that is 150 members strong?

Add to that the wasted time and energy in Private channels trying to get raids to stop, when all you want to do at the time is to focus on internal growth and making friends.

Many protectorate treaties include economic provisions. Most new alliances grow by recruiting new nations and thus become seller dominated very quickly. If you are an alliance this always looking for tech sellers, then having a protectorate can be seen as access to a small but reliable tech far. There's nothing wrong with that is there?

Its all about money.

New alliances need it cause there's enough jackasses who pick on them.

Established alliances use it to ruin said jackasses' fun and get exclusive access to tech sellers.

The really funny part is someone who attacks a helpless alliance to steal would probably get a lot more out of it if they offered a treaty instead of a "pm for peace".

It's signed to protect new alliances.

Is that so hard to understand?

Next.

I think the protectorate is a pretty useful treaty. Some even have a clause that every treaty needs to be passed by the protector. It's just natural that a new alliances searches for guidance from more experienced players and willingly sacrifices part of their sovereignity for it.

Most techraiders don't even care about the profit they make, if a nation fights back they also know they will loose their gains from a couple of months.

Proud to be a jackass.

Actually, I get more out of techraiding than I do tech trading. Tech trading is a boring method of growth, whereas techraiding provides plenty of growth while ruining someone's day in the process.

Actually, protectorates were not common or even needed until the period immediately proceeding the Unjust War (I know, I was in a small alliance that existed for five months before we ever felt we needed a protectorate). The reason they were not needed was that most tech raiding was done with the \m/ threshold of five members or less, so as long as you had 6 members or above, you were usually free of organized raiding.

In the month or so before the war, that started to change. Alliances like Golden Sabres and the Order of Feudalistic Security, with the backing of the Goon Order of Neutral Shoving, started to get into the practice of attacking small alliances regardless of their number of nations and refusing to give peace unless they agreed to pay money or be annexed (I had this happen to my alliance from OFS). There was an explosion of the number of protectorates around this time and they've been common ever since.

I'm aware that that war was almost two years ago now, but I think that protectorates are still needed. Alliances like Poison Clan and NEW raid willy nilly with no threshold and a protectorate is the only real way to really give yourself some legal standing to get them to stop. And MDP would work, but in my opinion, that kind of treaty is only really valuable when both alliances are capable of honoring it. The larger alliance would be able to defend the smaller one but the smaller one wouldn't be able to do much for the larger one, hurting the reciprocal obligation to defend the other that those treaties are build on. PIATs and ODPs are only optional, so they aren't respected by other alliances as much as MDPs and protectorates.

I agree with everyone here who has mentioned that the original aim of protectorate treaties, preventing large-scale attacks by other alliances, is neary irrelevant in the current political climat of Bob.

That being said, in my humble experience as an alliance leader under a protectorate treaty not so long ago, I will not argue the use but also the near-neccessity of protectorate agreements for the majority of the new alliances on Bob. Of course alliances founded by very experienced players or by a star player's personnality cult can survive, and even thrive, without a protector. However, for those alliances in neither of those positions, usually the ones where the DoE is posted by someone with less than 10 posts , these agreements are crucial.

Now let me highlight UINE's case to give a little more depth to my argument. UINE was founded under all the conditions which should normally leade to utmost failure... UINE had 2 nations and 900NS, no protector, no idea what a techdeal was, no forums or IRC, no charter, no flag and located on the red sphere due to it being my favorite colour... (to raise a small issue in the OP who would've ever signed an ODP or even a PIAT with us?)

Nonetheless, back to my story, UINE was lucky enough to pick up a few members in its first few days and eventually reach 10 members. At that point we were brought into CN politics with a bang when we started receiving messages from the NPO about being illegally on the red sphere. They led me onto IRC and their I had the honour of being threatened with destruction and asked to merge into pretty much everyone of their cronies (oh and we had a 24hour deadline to comply btw)... Thats when by chance ARES found us, after talking to us for a few minutes they decided to give us a protectorate agreement. I cannot begin to describe the effect this had on UINE, under their guidance; we became an actual alliance worthy of that name. They taught us everything about CN, setup everything from IRC to an artist for our flag, gave us development money, introduced us to many other blue alliances, etc....

Our protector had a resounding effect in defining my leadership style, the functioning of our alliance, our allies, our growth and even our continued existence to this day. True they never had to defend us from much and in fact we fought more often against raiders of the ARES AA than reverse, however, it would have been impossible to for us to develop without them and we probably would have slowly fizzled away into nothingness or merged away.

My point is that this type of neccessary relationship could not exist under a PIAT or ODP (most likely because alliances would not sign with the upstarts anyways...). By their very nature and purpose, protectorates have a greater potential pf being run like an extended family, almost another part of the AA. On the other hand, a PIAT or ODP is not as personnal and in fact can really be translated as: your cool people, but we dont really wanna commit to much yet.

While UINEs case might seem unique, I believe that considering many new alliances are created under similar circumstances, our case is actually more widespread than it originally seems. What alot of those new AAs need is a protector who treats them in that special way, nurturing their development as if they were their own child. Of course just like in anything else, there are bad protectors who simply want a tech farm or a chance at easy recruits, however, we shouldn't rule the protectorate treaty out on those grounds (their are numerous bad allies after all and we dont rule out other treaties on that basis).

In conclusion, I see protectorate treaties as giving small AAs a chance to develop and not to fade away like most do. These treaties also allow a "Big Boy" to develop very close allies... I sometimes wonder, how many small AAs could have potentially developed into large renouned alliances had they been given a good parent alliance?


P.S: Sorry that was rediculously long, ill be briefer in the next posts

Most alliances offer protection over a new alliance because they understand the numbers game and that, like most businesses, that most new alliances won't last. And the most likely result of an alliance that falls is that their membership will go to the Alliance that they knew the best. Sure some will go where there other friends are, but many will go to the protector.

Yep. Worked well for Rangarok.

While I agree wholeheartedly, the ready adoption of the strategy however has led to some odd effects once the war ended. The availability of easy protectorates drained many of the larger alliances as many of their cliques tried to set off on their own. In a way the very strategy originally employed to gain alliance members actually moved the world into a different equilibrium where the steady state might ironically leave most of the big guys with less members overall.

The only way to win members is to not only to retain all of your splinter groups (hoping they fail eventually) but to pick up protectorates splintering from other alliances. The problematic relation is the more desirable a protectorate is the less likely it is to fail, in other words to really gain members you need to solicit the worst protectorates, and those are exactly the sort of members you don't want.

tl;dr The proliferation of protectorates adversely effects the size of big alliances and those alliances that really take off by exploiting the environment are more likely to accumulate sub-standard membership rolls.

My opinion and experiance of protectorates is that they are far more hassle than the worth of it, I dont know why people bother with them either

Protectorates are a risky venture but sometimes well worth it. There are two types of small alliances. Those who are led by experienced CN players who form their own alliance for various reasons and new players who venture into CN not knowing much about it.

Now for the first type of small alliance- the experienced CN player tends to get a protectorate just to ensure they can actually grow their alliance in relative peace. This is a boon since with a seasoned vet at the helm it has more of a chance to succeed and the protector will gain a good ally from this protectorate later on. Now all this of course is only a possibility but more likely than the other type of small alliance.

The second type of small alliance though needs guidance as well as protection. This type of protectorate is valuable in that they are almost fully dependent on the protector for much of their beginning. This allows for a much closer relationship to be able to form due to almost constant interaction between the govs of both alliances. though more likely to fail in the end due to various reasons, it could be valuable to the protector either way. if they fail, they could/would most likely merge into the protector or if they succeed, again the protector would have most likely gained a valuable ally.

I can only think of two reasons apart from those you listed.

1. Tech Farms
2. Forming a relationship with what may be a significant allliance in the future


Otherwise, you're right. I never really have understood what the protector got out of these pacts... it always was just the way it was, to me.



EDIT:

3. Knowing that most new alliances fail and that by forming a protectorate with a new alliance, that alliance is likely to fail and the protector is likely to absorb its membership.

As someone who played a role in the mass proliferation of protectorates and protectorate blocs I pushed them because of past experience. When we formed COLD we had all of 5 members, not many people sign MDPs with groups that size. We of course got lucky and grew fast with a merge. Once in TPF I saw the chance to help give others a shot at making it as well. The Generals Protectorate was a first step that allowed an alliance to succeed or fail on its own but, not at the hands of others. If the alliance grew and became something then we have a furture ally if it failed and faded away then it was meant to be. We also had some exceptions like the Ninjas whom I think are still under TPF protection who never got larger then a few members but, also never caused any trouble. They have been as they were for a couple years now playing as they see fit. I for one think that it is pretty cool.

During the Unjust War one of our protectorates was attacked and we were other wise occupied so I had to run around to our other protectorates to try and build a counter strike, in the end that never happened and things worked out. It did however plant the seed for OPP so that now our protectorates could help each other and when they left they would have allies and friends made while in OPP. And I can say that some of TPFs closets and most trusted allied came from former protectorates so for them at least it had a definate plus side.

So are PIATs (which I hate) and simple tech-deals between alliances. The latter of which also doesn't stink up the alliance politics section of the board, so this is really win-win.



Definitely true. I'm not such a fan of that because it's fairly infantilizing for the new alliance. The protector, therefore, simply extends their foreign policy through a smaller arm, and we don't have two alliances anymore... we have one alliance and one annex.


Magnanimous, to be sure. Helping new alliances come about is what keeps the Cyberverse healthy with a stable influx of new alliances to take up the slack where older ones fail, disband, or decline.

That said, the case for micro-alliances needing protection if they have five or six people in it... are we granting them protectorates to further the proliferation of an infinite number of tiny one-man shows? There's a new alliance formed every other day, many of which die out right away because they weren't solidly founded and didn't have enough people.

Perhaps this is caused by our overwillingness to sign protectorate agreements; why would an alliance take the time to develop something truly amazing and solid when they could half-$@! it and create something that a bigger alliance is going to protect either way?

Well to be fair a protectorate does not keep a new alliance alive, most still fail and they move on. What it does is keep them from being targets so they can move on. Micro alliances are fine they keep things from becoming to dull for many people who would other wise quit. And they do provide some much needed drama on occasion.

Why Protectorate Treaties Persist

On the surface, on the most literal of interpretive levels, protectorates exist to protect newborn alliances from unasked for aggression. While this is the protectorate treaty's most basic function, it is by no means the only function.

Probably the most readily identifiable reason for this form of treaty is the inexperience of the new alliance's government. New players like to make new alliances, but do not always have the experience necessary to cope with the harsh realities of the inter-alliance system (whether highly regulated, as during Pax Pacifica, or loosely regulated as now; both have inherent dangers and pitfalls). A protectorate, then, could be considered formal entry into the sphere of influence of an established power predicated upon a mentor/pupil relationship.

The same might also be true of a new alliance whose leaders are politically seasoned but mechanically disadvantaged. A protector can supply instruction in mechanical nation development, supplement understaffed Internal Affairs ministries, and set up bureaucratic and procedural systems that will provide for the common defense.

A protectorate treaty can also (like it or not) can speed the accumulation of prestige. Every day a new alliance pops into existence, but choosing an appropriate protector can help you differentiate yourself from competitors and generate the buzz that is often necessary in order to draw experienced players to your alliance.

From the protector's standpoint, a protectorate relationship is also quite useful.

The protector is able to expand their sphere of influence into hitherto untapped populations, ideologies, philosophies, and themes. This is probably best exemplified by the Order of the Black Rose and their creation of Blackwater and later the Realm of the Rose. The Order proper would probably not have been able to attain even the moderate degree of influence that they currently possess without expanding in this fashion. Moreover, this manner of expansion is not hostile and creates few enemies.

The protector can also benefit by taking a direct hand in the creation and development of allies that they find suitable to their own interests. MDP partners often have only tangentially shared interests, and always come with some manner of checkered past. By building up a new alliance as a protectorate (and later MDPing them) you have created an ally whose membership and leadership you are intimately familiar with, whose goals you have had a hand in shaping, and whose behavior is reasonably predictable.

Finally, protectorates are an unsurpassed method of attaining a cause for war in the best possible public perception. I will direct your attention to Polar's use of the Brotherhood of the Storm and Pacifica's use of Norden Verein in order to create favorable circumstances for war against parties whom they would ordinarily be hard pressed to manufacture a case for war against. The protectorate is often viewed as an innocent in the affair, and the angered protector a righteous avenger. There is no higher ground than coming to the defense of a weaker party (in fact it is because of this that NPO suffered so during the Second VietFAN; they were clearly attacking those whom they were committed to defend).

Do people who have no concept of how to run a government know to ask a larger power for protection? I feel like a new alliance made up of people who just started the game wouldn't even know to ask. I exclude "people who can't run a government correctly because of incompetence from this - they know to ask for Protectorates as they've probably been around for a while.

I just think it's silly that we sign them left and right for everyone. Even larger alliances who have a substantial number of gifted people who are politically-savvy get protectorates. New Sith Order, a collection of excellent political minds, still had a temporary protectorate with STA. It's almost like a rite of passage that we've created; a tradition that often acts as an unnecessary middle step that could be replaced by a treaty with actual substance.

I will throw it out there, though, that TBB and WalkerNinja almost convinced me to renounce my treaty-unfriendly ways

IMO the original intent of the protectorate treaty-type was particularly relevant in the case of NSO. Ivan Moldavi is a very controversial person, against whom many a grudge persists even from the elder days. He left the game unbowed and undefeated (the best anyone ever got out of him was an expression of regret for the ODN oath, and completely hollow apology for GW1), so if any alliance in the history of Planet Bob needed a protectorate while it set up, it is probably the NSO. Can you even imagine how many coaLUEsers want his blood even today?

Another good example of this would be TSO. I think they're fantastic guys, but not everyone shares that opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. Upon reflection (and confirmation from certain alliance leaders after the fact) I think it quite likely that in the absence of protection TSO would have experienced a bloody birth.

I completely agree with this. When Sam and the rest of the current TSO government left MCXA, most of Planet Bob either celebrated it, or hated it. Half of the community despised Sam and the rest, and thought this might have been an opportunity to finally bring him down. Had TSO not signed their treaty, they most certainly would have been attacked in my opinion.

But for most of the new alliances these days, the actual practice of a protectorate is unnecessary in my opinion. A normal MDP accomplishes the same thing. However, in an attempt to limit the number of MDP webs and miscellaneous treaties in Bob, more people are starting to limit their treaties, and for a small alliance, their main goal is to grow under their protector, and focus most of their political attention to that protector. As most protectorate treaties include some form of limitation in how the protectee governs their alliance, such as a clause making it the protector's responsibility to approve or deny the protectee's treaties, etc; the smaller alliance is making foreign affairs a less important part of their start up, and as FA is said to be the most important department for most alliances, the lack thereof lets the smaller protectee focus on developing the other parts of the alliance.

While they are helpful for smaller alliances, I think they give the protectee a false sense of security, as they are tied most likely to one major alliance. For instance, if I created an alliance and had TOP as a protector for example, most likely, TOP would not let me sign MDPs with whoever I please. So should TOP fall(Hypothetical of course), then I would be left with no real allies. If I would have signed an MDP with TOP from the beginning, I would not be in the same position, as most MDPs do not limit an alliances sovereignty, but offer the same protection as a protectorate. Thus, I would most likely have more allies, and would find myself better protected than being under one major power.

Large alliances usually offer protectorate agreements because they want tech sellers.

The small alliances are normally composed of people who want to do their own thing, and are OK with just selling tech for growth, which is a fairly efficient way to grow if you do it right in any case, or don't really care about growth at all. They get the protectorates signed to stop themselves from getting blitzed by raiders.

I do not see the point of them. If you cant make it on your own why do it. You dont need to fear attack if you make friends and have good communication skills.

A protectorate agreement for a small alliance is almost like an endorsement by the bigger alliance.It gives them some credibility.If a small alliance announces a DoE before they have a protectorate agreement everyone immediatly says what a dumb move it was for announcing before they were protected.While if you get a good protector everyone says "hey these guys must be cool".

As a big alliance the main thing I can think of is tech farms ,and I think someone already said that.

Two quick things.

One, when I helped form LOUD we never had a protectorate.

Two, protector alliances can help mold and shape growing alliances into their sphere of influence, increasing their power. It's quite simple actually.

In my experience, it's mostly about size.

I was one of the co-founders of the Sons of Muspel, a now-defunct alliance that never had more than about 50 members.

When we started near the end of 2007, we hoped to get some kind of a protectorate set up. However, since many of us came from NoV -- which was still tied to what was once 'the Hegemony' -- no one would touch us for fear of causing some kind of conflict.

So we lumbered along without a protectorate, occasionally wondering why no one attacked us but really quite unconcerned.

The answer, it seems, was simple. We started with about 25 members, nearly all of them nuclear, and with a combined NS of nearly (possibly more than? I really don't remember) 1,000,000.

The cost:benefit ratio of attacking us was....poor, to say the least.

When Nordreich re-founded, we did not have a protectorate. That was intentional and, I will admit, largely a result of my continued prodding to 'just get the damn thing done'.

Did I worry? Not really. The climate at the time was such that anyone attacking a re-founded alliance -- even Nordreich -- would have faced one hell of an uphill PR battle. Again.... the cost:benefit ratio was simply too high.

Hrm....now where was I going with this?

Oh yeah....size. If you're big enough when you start out -- or your name happens to be 'Nordreich' -- no one will mess with you, no matter how much they might want you dead.

EDIT: Almost forgot. Another thing about protectorates. If the protected alliance fails, there's a good chance the protector will get to 'pick up the pieces' and increase the size of their alliance. And let's face it....a lot of new alliances fail.

I must express my disagreement. There are both minor and major conflicts affected by protectorates, some turn to actual wars while others don't, thus they are still an important part of politics and diplomacy.

Granted, I pointed that out in the OP. They are very important in alliance politics... the question was, should something that has pulled their protectors into long wars (and even global wars) time-after-time be justified?

Do the benefits of protectorates mitigate the inherent risks?

Yes, if you're even remotely competent in dealing with your protectorate.

I agree with all your details.

What's your example of a protectorate getting the protectors in trouble? The Unjust War? I wasn't really involved, but my recollection is that both sides were looking for a fight (or certainly posturing that way) and so the protectorate thing is really missing the point (a little like looking at the Karma war as just OV's allies coming to their defense).

In contrast, most protectorates don't make waves. Some fold into the protector and or just fade away quietly. Those that survive usually grow steadily and sometimes even becoming significant players. Umbrella was a protectorate way back when, wasn't it? That really brought ruination upon their protectors, didn't it? ()

But finally, as to why people still issue protectorates, sometimes people ask their friends for favors. If you have a group of people in a small alliance (realistically, less than 15 without a protector is rolling the dice) then it's a good idea. So you ask your friend for his blessing and a very minor protection arrangement. Maybe friendship doesn't fit in realpolitik calculations, but maybe realpolitik isn't that hot for calculating something's worth.

Or you can take a swing at what I think is ultimately a good institution just to be cool.

So ebil imperialistic Emperor's like myself can extend our influence and hegemony over others. Next step is calling them full blown colonies.
Fritz

Ah, here we go again.

BoTS, the alliance which set off the Unjust War, was not a protectorate. Neither was OV.

Hyperion was though, but I think it's pretty clear WotC would have happened without them.

Technically, BoTS was not a protectorate at the time of the outbreak of war - Polaris had upgraded their treaty shortly before IIRC. Still, the protectorate aspect still applies, even if only in spirit. How you brought OV into this is beyond me though - I think AJ mentioned them only to create analogy.

As far as the necessity of protectorates, what do we say about having a protectorate agreement instead of having any of the other alphabet soup treaties were use in the Cyberverse? The idea of signing an MDP with a new alliance is laughable, but isn't that what a Protectorate is anyway? An MDP-PIAT-ToA-ish combo?

Some protectorates do not require the protectees to defend the protector in case the latter is at war. There are also sometimes stipulations that grant the protector oversight in the protectorate's affairs both foreign and domestic. I think that was the case with one of Fark's protectorates a while back (who folded somewhat messily but not to any embarrassment on the part of Fark). I don't remember if it was explicit or implicit, but we had a few people with admin rights on their boards and we kept them on a moderately tight leash.

Some protectorate arrangements aren't all that formalized and barely count as a treaty, as it so happens. (Thanks Polar and Fark )

A fair point - I think Ragnablok has a proviso like that.

Admittedly, this is my first post on these forums (under this particular account/name at least), so feel free to dismiss my comment.

You claim that protectorate treaties are a product of antiquity and perhaps ought to be replaced by another treaty type already in existence. Now, I definitely see your point in regards to them being potentially unnecessary, and I am not trying to defend their continued use or the cessation of its use. In fact, my reason for posting is to determine your defense for their use in antiquity. You suggest their was once reason to sign them, but that has passed. What made these necessary or even preferable over other treaty types?

As an aside, I must point out that oftentimes protectorates have some sort of timeline/deadline and this fact alone may make them appealing. I am unaware of MDPs or other similar treaties that are time-sensitive, though that is not out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.


Warning: I did not read this thread in its entirety and if these points were previously mentioned feel free to disregard. Heh, guess I should read the whole thread - just now getting back into the swing of these sort of things.

To be honest, I think protectorates are a bit of a waste of time. I, personally, as a Foreign Policy specialist, have never liked them. The fact of the matter is, protectorates are formed on the basis of noblesse oblige - great powers have great responsibilities, and acting honorably is among them. A large alliance that can collectively protect itself can also protect others. Also, a protectorate should acknowledge the sacrifices made by their protector to defend them; some protectorates get themselves into trouble through their sheer n00bness.

MHA has four simple provisos for protectorates in the EPIC pact; 1) They must officially reside on Aqua or place a significant portion of their nations on the Aqua sphere, 2) they must present regular reports on their progress as well as goals to be met for the next report, and 3) sell tech to us on a preferential basis before considering other alliance buyers and 4) if they do not meet their goals or decide to disband, they are to fold into MHA. We cannot realistically force the 4th proviso, but its something our protectorates acknowledge before they sign up with us. As a protector, our "rates" don't seem very "competitive." But that's what MHA expects and all parties are aware of their obligations.

We, like every other alliance out there, seeks a return on their investment. What people don't realize is that precious alliance resource known as "activity" is poured into maintaining protectorates where it could be better served in the Finance Ministry or Recruitment Department. Another alliance forming on Bob is a potential competitor to your own.

Some people are just afraid for their comrades, and as such will seek to surrender their sovereignity in order to avoid getting stomped. However it's not helping with the larger alliances recognizing only alliances with protectorates and 10-20 members as a sovereign entity.

My personal belief is that if you believe your alliance will succeed, you do not need a protectorate.Without a protectorate it provides a good bit of war experience for your members etc. You won't grow as fast as the rest of the world, but at least you'll be having fun with your nation.