LB-log

I think the bottom web is inaccurate for who it leaves out. You have a lot of smaller alliances in the top cluster, why not include similar sized alliances in the bottom? Include GOONS, umbrella, \m/, GATO, NV, STA, PC, GO, iFOK, IAA, and the international?

PS. IRON just screwed it all up for you, sorry

PS. IRON just screwed it all up for you, sorry

I actually knew that was coming. It doesn't actually change that much, they still have 3 ties to the rest of the group.

A hastily done correction:

Where are you putting TOP?

You're trying too hard.

Where are you putting TOP?

I just took a small sampling (15 alliances) for both graphs.

I just took a small sampling (15 alliances) for both graphs.

Well done including Echelon and GDA in there, whom only have one treaties each to tie itself in. Using that same logic you should have included RnR.

Uh Valhalla and Legion cancelled.

RV, if you think GDA and Echelon would ever leave 'that side' you crazier than you sound

CSM: dont overwork him, this is the first sign of activity ive seen from him in a long time

Well done including Echelon and GDA in there, whom only have one treaties each to tie itself in. Using that same logic you should have included RnR.

And once you include RnR you can include anyone from C&G/SF/beyond. So in effect you can pick any random 15 alliances and turn them into a 'side' if that's how you're determined to present things.

And once you include RnR you can include anyone from C&G/SF/beyond. So in effect you can pick any random 15 alliances and turn them into a 'side' if that's how you're determined to present things.

But isn't that already how he's presenting things?

I have to agree with mythicknight second time in roughly 48 hours.

I dont really get you LB and this fascination of yours with the "marginal" alliances on the treaty web (really, pushing the "bogyman" thing,....I suppose I thought more of you), but o.k. I really do not know, who is to buy this?

Even just slightly knowledgeable player of the game would recognize your "clusters" as lacking and incorrect (in first case, there is no cluster but a plural collection of alliances clearly showed by the lines themselves and that all despite tendentious way of presenting; in second case bunch of alliances are not accounted for which are well connected part of the main power web).

I mean ok lol, draw lines for fun how you will. Whatever makes this more enjoyable for you.

My purpose was not to create an all-inclusive web of the ex-Hegemony alliances, but rather to demonstrate how closely tied a sampling of said alliances are.

GDA and Echelon are included because their only significant treaties connect them to this cluster. R&R has their one treaty with IRON, and 7+ others that connect them to an entirely different cluster, so they are obviously not a part of it. There has to be a certain level of redundancy before bunch of treaties becomes a cluster.

For example if you wanted to connect NADC and NPO, you could go via NATO, or Legion, or do a double chain via MCXA-TPF. On the other hand the ONLY way to connect Valhalla and R&R (for example) is to go via the IRON-R&R treaty. There are NO other ways to get there, the connection is not redundant and so R&R is not a part of the cluster.

I have read the cybernations history of the first couple of years, and I enjoyed the intrigue and simplicity of essentially the same sides getting into different conflicts.

But I look at todays' alliance politics and I am utterly confused. How can there be global wars if every alliance is connected to each other in some sort of way?

I go crazy when StarCraft doesn't work to. =(

I go crazy when StarCraft doesn't work to. =(

Once I couldn't log on to battle.net for like 2 weeks.

I don't see a TOP in either of those pictures. A+

NSO has an MDP with GATO so you are wrong good sir.

NSO has an MDP with GATO so you are wrong good sir.

Ah, now that is a relevant mistake. I guess I thought it was canceled during the BPW.

NATO - Legion treaty missing. And why put GDA in there if they only have one tie.. theres tons of alliances with one tie to both groups

NATO - Legion treaty missing. And why put GDA in there if they only have one tie.. theres tons of alliances with one tie to both groups

Again, the idea was to take a "random" selection of alliances I consider to be in "ex-Hegemony", and see how interconnected they actually are. If I had only chosen alliances with 4+ treaties with other members, all that would show is that I can cherry pick alliances.

Making a comprehensive web isn't a bad idea though.

I think the reason the ex-Heg is so tightly bound together is the fact that Super-Grievances refuse to touch these alliances. They have no other options, but to treaty with each other.

I think the reason the ex-Heg is so tightly bound together is the fact that Super-Grievances refuse to touch these alliances. They have no other options, but to treaty with each other.

Shhh, Omni....don't let facts get in his way. Let him have his fantasy.

Some things are just too good to be true.

Recent developments have changed little, really.