eyriq

Very pleased to know Bassman. He does your alliance proud.

So many interesting points scattered throughout that thread, and I'm only through page 109. [list] [*]Alliance Sphere of Influence vs Bloc Sphere of Influence [*]Lower tier dominance vs Upper tier dominance [/list] Just to name two that jumped out at me. Regarding Alliance vs Bloc effected spheres of influence, I heavily lean towards a bloc's readily mobilized NS vs an isolated AA. In terms of lower vs upper tier dominance, we saw this very idea play out the in DoomHouse vs NPO war. Just interesting to see it mentioned in the Q&A long before it was utilized by the NPO coalition.

Revenge is a perfectly valid CB, especially the Bi-Polar variety.

Let's just hope labor talks dont take as long as this treaty! Very proud to call OMFG allies. o/ OMFG

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1309492082' post='2745610'] Cult of Justitia is happy beyond compare to enter into this ODOAP with Grämlins. o/ CoJ o/ Grämlins [/quote] This or bust!

Cool treaty you have there.

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1309327524' post='2744023'] No. You know nothing about Mjolnir or how the bloc came to be. You are just a cocky and ignorant idiot who happens to lead an alliance that isn't worth their weight in salt. When Asgaard was approached about joining Mj we said no initially. Part of the reason why was that RoK had just cancelled on AzN much to our (and AzN's dismay). Likewise we were concerned about the political implications of a bloc with NoR, Val and DT. We had to be assured that the intent of the bloc was not outright confrontation with Maroon/SF (because of our historical ties to maroon and existing treaties with TTK and CRAP). Likewise we were concerned that the bloc might seem to be postured against PB as they had just formed when we were initially asked. After long hours of discussion(over several months time), questions etc we were appeased that Mjolnir wasn't postured against anyone aggressively. Now obviously the leader of VE was there(not really) for those discussions know's what we were talking about(obviously not)... so basically just shut up and go away, no one here gives a !@#$ what you say, just disband again why don't you. [/quote] This post is pretty money, though I can appreciate the angst that Impero must be feeling. Creating an element defined by predetermined aggression against a dear ally can play a potent role in political dialogue, and I'm sure that the recent tension between Mj/SF/XX as placed strain on different chains, motivating Impero to start desperately making !@#$ up. However, I think this above post pretty much puts that illusion to bed. To judge Mj as so shallow as to be based on the root germ of revenge is indicative of lazy and biased reasoning. Sure the group is comprised on warriors that aren't afraid to stir !@#$ up, and yes they shouldn't be viewed as a neutral entity bent on stat collecting, but to define their existence in such narrow terms is ridiculous.

Good times. I've thoroughly enjoyed my 1,081 day share of said benchmark. I have 891 days left on my Mars Base, so heres' to another 1,000!

I'm stealing almost all your questions for future use. This thing is like a massive lesson in running a Q&A.

Question: What is "mouth love" and how does that effect one's culture? Good read so far!

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308524309' post='2735055'] $%&@ it, I'm not letting this one pass. Point out all of these conflicting treaties I've signed over the last two years. [/quote] Holy !@#$ man, what side of the war did you just fight on?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1308459748' post='2734414'] ...snip... There's some good stuff in the rest of your post but we can stop right here. Yeah, because MHA is the most active alliance out there with all its condensed NS. IRON is really hoppin, you can't walk two feet without running into some guy from IRON. Can you believe this swarm of activity from GATO lately? Do you really contend that merging [i]multiplies[/i] activity instead of just adding it all under one AA?[/quote] Instead of activity I'll say freedom of movement, as one implies current action while the other implies potential action. I base the observation that condensed NS correlates to freedom of movement on how the web operates. The movers and shakers are the huge multilateral organizations. Whether you look at the early World Wars, Unjust War, War of the Coalition, Karma war, 6 million dollar war, Bi-Polar war, PB/NpO war, all of them were effected at the multilateral level, a shared identity around which to condense NS. So, what I'm implying regarding merging is that the condensed NS at the alliance level will lead to more value at the coalition level and hence greater freedom of movement. Of course your ultimate point is correct, we shouldn't need to create such gross masses of NS to find some freedom of movement, and the current web culture is the main problem in limiting movement at lower levels of NS groupings. I would say though that the web is breaking up more and more. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1308459748' post='2734414']Also completely contradictory to all present reality. If mergers were going to happen because of the [i][b]culture[/b][/i] of the bloc, they would have happened over a year ago. The merger is happening because Athens, LOST, and GR (particularly GR) are three alliances that lost steam a year ago or more. [/quote] No doubt they lost some steam, but I don't like the decline perspective for our environment and instead favor a refining narrative. A bloc culture does allow a backdrop around which alliances can increase their trust and communication towards an eventual merger, whether or not it is the result of the wheat separating from the chaff.

I'm noticing a trend. Congratulations to both very fine alliances!

Congratulations to our dear friends in Asgaard. Couldn't be prouder right now! Just take us on a raid every now and then, k?

Sweet, just in time for collection.

Condensed NS leads to more activity. You can either achieve this through mandatory blocs or super-alliances. In today's environment you are going to need to lay down the foundation of a mandatory bloc before you see the emergence of a super alliance. It is also a sign of the refining phase that the game is going through. Active and dedicated cores are outgrowing their fellow mates and finding themselves in an ever less acceptable alliance, so they merge with other active and dedicated cores that are aligned congruently. Look at iFOK and PC, they had almost identical FA and culture, and frankly will be a great fit. The better the bloc culture, the more likely a merger, should it be necessary. C&G and PB are some of the best blocs the game has seen, so not surprised to see their culture creating completely merged communities. Of course, I'm not sure we want a scene entirely comprised of super-alliances, that would just be too damn hard to compete against. Edit: By activity I mean action, mobility, drama, war, political intrigue, that sort of thing.

So, you like green alliances do you? Congrats! o/

Awesome name! Good move to counter the TPF menace.

So beautiful

Good luck with the shuffle.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496'] No, because XX isn't a pole (it doesn't do anything). Neither is C&G, SF or Pandora's box. When they actually start to do !@#$, two sides will form. Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere. [/quote] You seem to be misrepresenting the idea of a bloc. It is a collectivization of interests. When you collective interests multilaterally at the alliance level, it is similar to what occurs at the nation level; you arrive at a powerful actor. The more collectivized NS there is the more power there is. I've seen you comment on politics before and I doubt you are unaware of something that basic, so I can only assume you have some sort of grudge against the current power dynamics, for whatever reason. Or you are aware of the state of current bloc cohesion and you know that several of the bloc no longer function, but I doubt that would apply to XX since they are so new.

The blocs all seem to be tied together unilaterally at best, with most of the momentum indicating a focus at the bloc level. PB/DH is still going to be adjusting to political realities post war, XX just formed and is going to be looking to assert themselves more, SF and C&G are either going to find a way to redefine themselves or fall apart. No, I really wouldn't expect to see these blocs in a coalition next war, or these blocs as they currently are, regarding SF or C&G. Edited: grammar

Hey, I know these guys. Congratulations!

Xiphosis, from this and those logs where you defined your sphere pre-VE/NpO war as including NpO couldn't it be safer to say that you [i]saw[/i] this as a hegemonic bloc? I would say that due to your influence you helped make it as much a reality as possible, but when you look at actual outcomes during this time-frame it just doesn't look like the most accurate interpretation.

The only problem with neutrality is that in a naturally competitive environment you can only creep up the rankings so far before political realities drag you back down. Which I'm sure is part of the logic behind WTF breaking up their AA to avoid sanction and other ranking honors that are coveted by political movers. I wonder if the evidenced mult-polarity from this Power Center Comparison can even provide an environment for a Neutral to attain the number 1 rank in the game and keep it through continued neutrality. I doubt it.