The Age of Super-Alliances

[Mason]

Has the time finally come? Will more and more small to mid-tier alliances abandon their posts to melt into other AAs, forming a new age of super-alliances? The argument has existed since I can remember that there are simply too many alliances. Combining active members under common banners, much more can be achieved. Despite running a micro, I tend to agree. When the majority of active members in Planet Bob are spread thin across numerous AAs, inactivity can appear to be more prevalant. So much focus has to be spent just on recruitment and fostering activity that it can bog you down. Larger alliances have the luxury of having enough members to have a fully functioning government and people who can focus on other activities that provide entertainment and generate interest. Competition is greater, and that also breeds activity. I could go on. But, I don't believe that's the reason we could see this trend continue.

For the most part, the same sanctioned alliances have dominated Bob forever. Other alliances exist that have the talent, but not the individual muscle, to really achieve all their capable of. Mergers can shake up the playing field, create new drama, fun, and interest. I can't say for sure if the age of super-alliances is upon us, but I can say it would definitely get interesting.

[Banksy]

Paging Atlantis.

[kevin32891]

I think the age of Super-Alliances has already happened and passed. Back in the day alliances like NPO or GOONS had over 800 members.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

More people need to merge, yes.

[Jaiar]

[quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1308351297' post='2733317']
I think the age of Super-Alliances has already happened and passed. Back in the day alliances like NPO or GOONS had over 800 members.
[/quote]
What's the most members one alliance has ever had? Also, it's GOONs.

[Altheus]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1308351743' post='2733320']
What's the most members one alliance has ever had? Also, it's GOONs.
[/quote]

Legion had over 1,500 members at one point.

[Facade]

I certainly hope so.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Altheus' timestamp='1308352024' post='2733323']
Legion had over 1,500 members at one point.
[/quote]
I think they peaked at over 1,600.

[Xiphosis]

Fingers crossed.

[LegendoftheSkies]

It's what a lot of people are hoping for.

I'd personally like to see a return to that kind global structure seeing as that era passed before I came to CN.


I'm thinking there's too many small individualistic groups who want to do their own thing for this type of structure to come about again though. It's too easy for them to get a protectorate or some other form of protection too. Hell even if an unprotected micro got attacked, there'd be an almost instantaneous rush of sympathizers to come to their aid.


In short, we must all collectively agree to start rolling micro alliances if we ever expect something like the OP suggested to come about. Demand that your protectorates or !@#$%* micro allies merge into you. If they don't, cancel on them and roll them once the cancellation period is up.

Edited June 17, 2011 by LegendoftheSkies

[MrMuz]

I've always been opposed to viewing an alliance's strength only in that alliance itself. NPO was one of the few super-alliances of last year, yet they lost a total defeat, due to the lack of powerful allies backing them up. SF-C&G were medium sized alliances, yet they held the 'hegemony' title for a while. If someone were to beat up CSN right now, which is a rather medium sized alliances, they'd be beaten far harder than if someone attacked NPO, just because of good positioning.

True strength is based on the strength and loyalty of your allies as well. A MADP bloc in itself is collective NS/power for as long as that bloc exists. They will maintain their sovereignty of course, be able to choose allies of their own, able to do stupid things.

You need a similar culture and political direction. For example, you'll never see a SF alliance merging with a NPO ally (without force). You won't see a serious alliance merging with a lulz alliance, even on the same political side. The recent mergers have all been alliances that are very strongly politically tied and had similar views. Something like NSO which has a distinct culture would have difficulty trying to merge into anyone well.

Some micros actually do have a much higher potential to merge. A triumvirate or democratic government is much easier for a merge. An authoritative one will be harder, unless they merge into a triumvirate gov. If you've got no political direction, all the better to merge somewhere.

Personally, I do like people forming in larger power clusters, though. If people won't merge, at least form more blocs, it's easier to classify people as a group.

Edited June 17, 2011 by MrMuz

[New Frontier]

As the leader of a (relatively) newly merged alliance, I agree that more alliances need to merge. It doesn't mean you failed, it means you realized you'd be better together, and that most importantly, CN needs less alliances.

[Prodigal Moon]

I hope this trend continues. I will be more than happy to merge DNA with another alliance if I think we can do so without abandoning our FA goals. Theme, name, and flag are pretty meaningless when you get right down to it.

Along those same lines, I can't see us ever having a protectorate. Either they'd have similar goals to us, in which case they should just join DNA, or they'd be pursuing a different path, in which case I have no interest in helping them for free.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Prodigal Moon

[Hereno]

Alliances sometimes merge to come together and make a more powerful alliance. Alliances sometimes merge as an alternative to disbandment. Just because we've seen several cases recently doesn't mean we're at the "coming of a new age of super alliances".

In before mindless micro bashing by members of objectively terrible alliances, because we all know that is the future of this thread.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Hereno

[Conformist Maryland]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1308354441' post='2733347']
As the leader of a (relatively) newly merged alliance, I agree that more alliances need to merge. It doesn't mean you failed, it means you realized you'd be better together, and that most importantly, CN needs less alliances.
[/quote]

Oh look at this. It is a thing of beauty.

[Joseph Black]

For the most part I'm going to say no, there isn't going to be a new age come on us.

[Azaghul]

While the trend has been towards mergers recently, we still see a lot of new alliances popping up, and CN is far more spread out than it was in years past, so there would be a very long way to go.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1308358302' post='2733386']
While the trend has been towards mergers recently, we still see a lot of new alliances popping up, and CN is far more spread out than it was in years past, so there would be a very long way to go.
[/quote]

Sadly, this man is right. Further, the more micro AA's that exist, the worse off the game becomes. I dont think that it is coincidence that as the larger alliances get smaller, wars are fewer and further between. And those wars last longer because now you have get umpteen alliances to agree on terms for one combatant. The splinters from the larger alliances that make these smaller ones, are a detriment in every way to the game (except for the satisfaction of the founders, in their own minds, that they have their own little piece of CN to hold on to)... I hope more smaller alliances take this advice to heart, and begin to seek out mergers into larger alliances, that we may restore some political fluidity to this game.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308358595' post='2733389']
Sadly, this man is right. Further, the more micro AA's that exist, the worse off the game becomes. I dont think that it is coincidence that as the larger alliances get smaller, wars are fewer and further between. And those wars last longer because now you have get umpteen alliances to agree on terms for one combatant. The splinters from the larger alliances that make these smaller ones, are a detriment in every way to the game (except for the satisfaction of the founders, in their own minds, that they have their own little piece of CN to hold on to)... I hope more smaller alliances take this advice to heart, and begin to seek out mergers into larger alliances, that we may restore some political fluidity to this game.
[/quote]
This is 100% correct. The large number of alliances also makes it a lot harder for anyone to wield much power without having dozens of treaties. That's also detrimental.

[LittleRena]

I have a problem with change, I get too attached to seeing names around and then a new name comes along.

But yeah, more larger alliances might be a good thing but we do also need a few micro alliances as well, else who's going to cause the drama

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1308359292' post='2733404']
I have a problem with change, I get too attached to seeing names around and then a new name comes along.

But yeah, more larger alliances might be a good thing but we do also need a few micro alliances as well, else who's going to cause the drama
[/quote]

The proof that micros are not needed to start drama, is all over early CN history. Micro drama almost never explodes into anything substantial anyways.

[Joseph Black]

When people start talking about the problems of the game, they seem to point the finger everywhere, but onto themselves. Other alliances treaties, micro alliances, lack of larger alliances to go to war, admin not making new updates, how long it takes to build/rebuild a nation. The reason your not having fun isn't anyone's fault, but your own. This isn't a scripted TV show, you have to put something into it to get something back out of it. Stop the gripping and complaining because it doesn't do anything.

[Mason]

I know that micros are formed for various reasons. Primarily, people want to structure something the way they envision it and create their own culture or society. I should know, it's been what I've done the majority of my time in CN. While this is good for individuals and small groups, I honestly feel it hurts the game. Naturally, I'm not bashing micros. Everyone should have the freedom to do what pleases them so they get enjoyment from it. I have to believe, though, that fewer alliances and a return to more powerful ones would really energize the game.

[Ozymandius]

Unless all the existing AA agree to let no new AA's emerge except from mergers Bob will continue to have people wanting to make new alliances that they feel will be a unique place or will change the world.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1308359771' post='2733414']
When people start talking about the problems of the game, they seem to point the finger everywhere, but onto themselves. Other alliances treaties, micro alliances, lack of larger alliances to go to war, admin not making new updates, how long it takes to build/rebuild a nation. The reason your not having fun isn't anyone's fault, but your own. This isn't a scripted TV show, you have to put something into it to get something back out of it. Stop the gripping and complaining because it doesn't do anything.
[/quote]

The scripted TV show analogy is a pretty bad one. The proof is in the pudding. And fun, was never addressed in relation to alliances. It just simply is a fact, that the presence of MULTIPLE political entities make getting anything to happen, much more difficult. It also brings about slower ends to wars. It just does. Prime example? One particular front that Athens was in during this past war, was dragged on an extra 9 days because we had to literally gather signatures from 11 different alliances for 3 seperate peace deals, all of which relied on one another to come into effect.

You are in a micro, so you will, of course, fight to defend your turf, and I am ok with that. I just happen to think that the game needs to have less of you, and not more of you.