[Who would win?]

higher navy, lower infra = crappy warchest

Not necessarily; we don't exactly skimp on the war-chests. Higher infrastructure could just as easily mean nations are spending money on infrastructure more freely rather than saving it.

Honestly, the outcome would depend on the definition of "winning" you use. If winning means causing more damage to the opponent than one receives in a set period of time, I would bet on us, by virtue of having a more developed top-end, a slight nuclear superiority in the middle-lower ranges, and having a higher tech-to-infra ratio. (In war, infrastructure is far more perishable than technology.)

If, on the other hand, winning means making the other alliance "cry uncle" first, it really depends on who first points out the absurdity of our alliances being at war just because the OWF thought it would be fun to watch.

[I've Never Done a 'Callout' Before. Am I Doing It Right?]

It's true, Kingzog is terrible when it comes to graphics work.

[Missing the Point by a Mile]

Good points. Indeed, the real "thrill" of a war comes more easily when there's a reason for it beyond treaty obligations.

[Beer Reviews, Psychology and Imperialism]

You know, I would have been thrilled if the Continuum's war of extermination against the Norden Verein had lasted two weeks and ended with a beer review.

[Toppling Tyranny: Hegemonic Hierarchies and How They Collapse]

I have had a perspective very similar to this for quite a time now; namely, that large alliances tend to form their own spheres of influence (if their foreign affairs team has it together), and a hegemony is formed when the leading alliances of these are united under a common agenda. When the Continuum formed, I noticed the conspicuous absence of Polar and immediately recognized that One Vision would become more or less vestigial. In terms of realpolitik, it was a very good move.