A 'super-alliance'

[MrMuz]

Umbrella strikes me as the only genuine super-alliance. Maybe Nordreich or TOP or BN, can't really tell. There's a lot of other good alliances, too, but 100% activity is pushing it.

Umbrella's a good example that it's possible to take the game seriously, have a lot of leadership/IRC active types, and not have a lot of in-fighting for power. It also shows that taking the game seriously and building a strong community are not mutually exclusive.

[quote]Is this something that would appeal to you?[/quote]

No, definitely not. I do love Umbrella, it was the first external board I signed up for. But the fact that there's so many good members in one spot, the fact that so many good alliances would be tied to them is unappealing. They could win any war, make FA moves with little to no effort or individual skill. There becomes no challenge in playing the game. And seeing how a lot of good players actively look for a challenge, having a super-alliance will actually scare off a lot of good members as well.

There is also a lot of joy in educating other noob players and watching them turn into good players. An alliance filled with only good players doesn't have much room for internal growth and education. I'd rather be the one in the !@#$%* alliance who helped train them, than the one in the super-alliance screening them.

[Penkala]

[quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1312917148' post='2776044']
The best part of this thread is people claiming their own alliances to be super-alliances.
[/quote]

The best part of this thread is Schattenmann claiming his alliance is a super-alliance.

[New Carnoly]

It seems like a flawless idea, but with everybody caring so much people will be bound to step on each others toes, and then the fighting within starts.

[zzzptm]

Nothing lasts forever. The start would be fantastic, but the end eventually comes.

Remember the first Vox Populi? With Martens, RV, and Starfox in it? Remember how long that lasted before its head asploded?

Great threads on the OWF when it did blow up...

[Blacky]

As many before me have pointed out. Nemesis was just like that from it's inception until about half way through it's existence. (I would argue even after the founders went their seperate ways).

We were super active, super effective, and everyone had a role and was capable of expressing themselves. I made lots of good friends in Nemesis.

[WorldConqueror]

For me stuff like this always comes down to how engaged I am with my current alliance. If I was just a grunt I'd definitely be interested in joining something like this, whereas if I had a semi-important position I wouldn't want to go, and leave people in the lurch. And if I didn't join straight away I probably wouldn't at all, because I'd want to be involved from the start to have some input.

[zigbigadorlou]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312782193' post='2774673']
[color="#0000FF"]I think such an alliance would be doomed to fail. Too many goats, not enough sheep.[/color]
[/quote]
If too many talk, many shut up. Activity unbridled breeds inactivity.

[JoshuaR]

I suppose 80% active is good enough for me.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Natan' timestamp='1312789367' post='2774734']
Hey Drai, wanna found an alliance?

In all seriousness, what you're basically doing with this is taking a very good alliance's government and adding a few other members who in all honesty are ex government types.

There would be a lot of conflicting opinions as everyone's prior experience and dealings would be very different. This wouldn't be a problem though if in the end everyone would go with whatever the top leader(s) would want, though I'd assume an alliance like this would have to be democratic.

The real problem, and RV touched on this, would that there would be no "sheep". Sheep make up a lot of NS for the alliance and in the end the more NS you have the more influence you have in the world. No one is going to listen to some small 20 man alliance when making decisions wrt war or coalition structure, because even if your nations are huge (lets say 125K NS), between you you're still only 2.5M NS. You're not exactly a game changer.

And then there is real life. What do you do when someone's grandad dies and they have to take two weeks off? Boot him for being inactive? Stuff happens. That example was a bit extreme but its the classic, "well he used to be active but then he something about school/job/etc" and that poses a huge problem for me within Umbrella, and I can only imagine it'd be even more of a problem for an activity utopia.
[/quote]

The answer to this is making an identical alliance on the opposite spectrum of the treaty web. The big problem, just like you mentioned, is that fully active alliances generally tend to eat themselves out from the inside UNLESS there's a distinct common enemy that's more easy to hate and that can harvest the collective effort to bring them down. Ideally the other alliance would be just as active and competitive because a few somewhat-intelligent slobs leading a bunch of "sheep" will generally grow apathetic since there's no new/active blood endangering their position and motivating them and will fail eventually.

[Natan]

[quote name='uaciaut' timestamp='1313311110' post='2780446']
The answer to this is making an identical alliance on the opposite spectrum of the treaty web. The big problem, just like you mentioned, is that fully active alliances generally tend to eat themselves out from the inside UNLESS there's a distinct common enemy that's more easy to hate and that can harvest the collective effort to bring them down. Ideally the other alliance would be just as active and competitive because a few somewhat-intelligent slobs leading a bunch of "sheep" will generally grow apathetic since there's no new/active blood endangering their position and motivating them and will fail eventually.
[/quote]

Really if everyone is fully 100% government level active then any times should be interesting, even times like these with all the political maneuvering going on. In reality there is always something going on at a high level of governmental politics, its just not seen most of the time.

Or maybe real life is the common enemy?

[JoshuaR]

Real life is the biggest problem.

[white majik]

Roll RL/Tyga

[Grealind]

Just a thought here, but what about a direct democracy? If it's going to be a very active alliance, then a direct democracy is not hard at all. You have one "Speaker" who is the official voice of the alliance to the public (voted on) and then everyone else does everything? If someone needs help with money, someone helps them. Defense, everyone beats the aggressor to a pulp, recruitment, well, it'll sorta sell itself... and education, well, everyone's already knowledgeable so no need there. Only thing missing is FA, which is where "Who wants to head out where? Who do we want to treaty with?" conversations happen.

With the heightened activity OP is looking for, it would theoretically be doable.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Feels good to be in charge of what people call a 'super-alliance'

[Charles Stuart]

For a super alliance to form, more mergers need to occur. That's half the problem, everyone with an ego wants to head their own alliance with the result being all the talent is spread across too many alliances. The thing that all the long lived and successful alliances have in common is at their core, they have a team of individuals who can work together and combine their abilities.

The issue though is that everybody wants to be a boss

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1313531408' post='2782372']
Feels good to be in charge of what people call a 'super-alliance'
[/quote]
You lead CoJ?

[Baltus]

[quote name='Anson' timestamp='1313518467' post='2782271']
Just a thought here, but what about a direct democracy? If it's going to be a very active alliance, then a direct democracy is not hard at all. You have one "Speaker" who is the official voice of the alliance to the public (voted on) and then everyone else does everything? If someone needs help with money, someone helps them. Defense, everyone beats the aggressor to a pulp, recruitment, well, it'll sorta sell itself... and education, well, everyone's already knowledgeable so no need there. Only thing missing is FA, which is where "Who wants to head out where? Who do we want to treaty with?" conversations happen.

With the heightened activity OP is looking for, it would theoretically be doable.
[/quote]

I think this is what INT does. However, they have an actual government; the treaties are just ratified by everyone. (I think )The problem with Direct Democracy is the alliance has to remain small, and that people may be biased or perhaps not know enough to make valid judgement. One guy may want a treaty with Alliance X, because he has friends there, but another guy wants one with Alliance Y (who's on the opposite side of the web) for the same reason. It would work out, if it was a small close alliance, I guess.

[Duke Nukem]

Baltus you are correct in some aspects. Int is run by a direct democracy system. In our alliance all those who are in good standing are a part of congress. Congress can ammend the charter, propose treaties, propose stuff, and recall gov't members, etc. I do agree that sometims we have conflicting opinions but we all respect each other enough to not cuss and whine at each other. Also we are led by a General Commissar his General Secretary and Commissars. We all vote in the elections and all are eligible to run.

[MrMuz]

I don't see where everyone gets the idea that a super active alliance would eat itself up. Power struggles are often done by mediocre people who want to appear relevant, rather than the truly skilled people. I mean, there are plenty of intelligent [i]and[/i] power hungry people, but they have the brains to know to not claim the throne when the king is still healthy. Some of the people who want the most to be top gov the most are the people who I'd never want to lead my alliance, because they're too egoistic to run an alliance, and are incompetent.

There are exceptions, of course, but just look at the biggest examples of fail in CN history. The elite/sanctioned alliances rarely collapse due to internal power struggles, but the micro alliances often do.

On the other hand, there are a few people who only shine when in leadership, and putting them at the heel of a better person just turns them into a generic, inactive member. You could maybe get more out of a tight MADP bloc of elite microalliances than one big elite alliance led by a few people.

[potato]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1313531408' post='2782372']
Feels good to be in charge of what people call a 'super-alliance'
[/quote]

... people who don't really know you.

[Raken]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1313702756' post='2784124']
... people who don't really know you.
[/quote]

Oh Potato, your insignificance is so cute :>

[SirWilliam]

You all suck, shut up already.

[potato]

[quote name='Raken' timestamp='1313711877' post='2784248']
Oh Potato, your insignificance is so cute :>
[/quote]

You'll always be the C&G liaison to me, raksiepantise.

[Raken]

I don't even know why I got so much access with that position anyway, Frenchfry. That is not a super alliance quality for sure.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Raken

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1313543715' post='2782523']
You lead CoJ?
[/quote]

No, but some day...