How can small alliances compete with Big Alliances?

[Monster]

Then don't sign treaties with people who are your enemy or cut them when it no longer makes sense to hold them. Alternatively, you can be like many alliances and ignore political realities and maintain treaties with alliances whose interests don't align with yours and have drastically different values.

The most tragic thing about the Sparta stuff is that it was unnecessary. Apparently, NV was actually not going to declare any non-combatant wf nations and ended up getting destroyed by NoR anyway. It was kind of hard for people like me and Impero to really believe that given the changes in NV's position from the start of the war. Though, I wasn't really big on doing it anyway. I preferred the preempt NSO plan.

edit: Actually, the other purpose of it was to make sure Argent didn't get hit by NV. Lusitan has said NV wouldn't have, but there's no way to know for sure.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Roquentin

[Mogar]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334033288' post='2950612']
Although that backfires pretty hard. It's hard to fight then enemy when they're treatied to you.
[/quote]
Only really failed because they weren't aware of the political reality of the time, they counted on people to be there that there was no way in hell would actually be on their side, had they had a more effective spy network, Karma would have been the death of the ex UjP, not the destruction of the Hegemony.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1334040740' post='2950638']
Only really failed because they weren't aware of the political reality of the time, they counted on people to be there that there was no way in hell would actually be on their side, had they had a more effective spy network, Karma would have been the death of the ex UjP, not the destruction of the Hegemony.
[/quote]

That's the problem with having too many allies though. You have to accept whatever they say at face value. I agree with the basic idea that treaties equal power and leverage, but having too many treaties gives you no way to maneuver. Overall, it's better to strike a nice balance of building a circle of trust with a group of loosely allied people with the same goal. Doing that is next to impossible, but it'll get you farther than treatying the entire world and hoping for the best.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334073842' post='2950718']
That's the problem with having too many allies though. You have to accept whatever they say at face value. [b]I agree with the basic idea that treaties equal power and leverage[/b], but having too many treaties gives you no way to maneuver. Overall, it's better to strike a nice balance of building a circle of trust with a group of loosely allied people with the same goal. Doing that is next to impossible, but it'll get you farther than treatying the entire world and hoping for the best.
[/quote]

Just disagreeing with this point. Having a lot of treaties does not mean you're powerful. Even a large alliance with a lot of treaties appears weak when they are not able to influence their allies in a meaningful way. See: Sparta/MHA in the past war. Despite being tied to the most powerful alliances in the game, they still were in essentially a curbstomp.

The treaty isn't what generates the power. It's the political capital an alliance has. It's why even a completely untied MK (when they purged their treaties) was more powerful then most alliances in the game.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1334074847' post='2950719']
Just disagreeing with this point. Having a lot of treaties does not mean you're powerful. Even a large alliance with a lot of treaties appears weak when they are not able to influence their allies in a meaningful way. See: Sparta/MHA in the past war. Despite being tied to the most powerful alliances in the game, they still were in essentially a curbstomp.

The treaty isn't what generates the power. It's the political capital an alliance has. It's why even a completely untied MK (when they purged their treaties) was more powerful then most alliances in the game.
[/quote]

Yea I guess it's more of a "friendships with promises of help" than "numbers of e-paper". Usually, it's solidified in treaties, but sometimes in the case of MK's short treaty hiatus and FAN they're not.

In the case of Sparta and MHA, this last war with the exception of Umbrella (who is a good case of what I said above). They weren't really tied to anyone powerful. I mean there was FARK, but FARK has never really been the type to use soft power. Just take a look at the VE thing, the whole drama with PB, the threats lobbed at NoR, the refrain from posting on the OWF etc...

Edited April 10, 2012 by Omniscient1

[Monster]

It doesn't matter who Umbrella is allied to at all. It is a subsidiary alliance and the only treaties that matter to Umbrella in such a situation are the ones MK tells them should matter. No one is as "cool" as MK so naturally they want to side with the cool people, get it?

They have the stats, but they don't have the proactivity and admit to being lazy and not caring. They're essentially a follower alliance par excellence.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Roquentin

[Scorponok]

By stop being boring.

New alliances have to strive to break the mould or they are dooming themselves and planet bob.

[Monster]

Well, I hope we're not being boring. :<

[Feanor Noldorin]

So Mongols and friends are actually dealing significant damage to GOONS? Good for them.

[Freddy]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1333901131' post='2950002']
Winning is defeating your enemies and losing is being defeated by your enemies. Looking at it from any other way is just trying to avoid the obvious truth.
[/quote]

You can win every battle and still lose the war. More to the point, military victories are intended to achieve political victories. In Vietnam and Afghanistan one side was/is completely defeated militarily, but they never submitted to the authority of the victor. Of course, their are functional differences in this realm. But, the side that is militarily defeated can still obtain a political victory. That is recruitment numbers, member retention and treaties. The way to kill an alliance here is to make them undesirable to members and other alliances. Tbh, I have no idea how that's going. Who is winning in that regard?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

If the stats above are to be trusted, roughly 1/3rd of NS so far.

In an extended assymetrical engagement, the 'stronger' side tends to spend disproportionately more money, so if we were able to calculate the true opportunity cost it would probably be higher, and climbing.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1334087062' post='2950773']
You can win every battle and still lose the war. More to the point, military victories are intended to achieve political victories. In Vietnam and Afghanistan one side was/is completely defeated militarily, but they never submitted to the authority of the victor. Of course, their are functional differences in this realm. But, the side that is militarily defeated can still obtain a political victory. That is recruitment numbers, member retention and treaties. The way to kill an alliance here is to make them undesirable to members and other alliances. Tbh, I have no idea how that's going. Who is winning in that regard?
[/quote]

I bet GOONS is feeling really defeated right now, having been compared to the most massive and dominant military force in the world. I guess it sucks that [s]airport security is now twice as long[/s] posting around here is now twice as painful, but that seems to be a rather trivial matter overall.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Leet Guy

[Freddy]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1334091393' post='2950805']
I bet GOONS is feeling really defeated right now, having been compared to the most massive and dominant military force in the world. I guess it sucks that [s]airport security is now twice as long[/s] posting around here is now twice as painful, but that seems to be a rather trivial matter overall.
[/quote]

The comparison is to the situation. America is willing to push their policy to the extreme. As a result they sometimes get into costly quagmires.

I respect the resolve of both sides here. But I'm reminded of a moral type story: the dog chasing the rabbit. The dog quit the chase before the rabbit, because the dog was running for his lunch while the rabbit was running for his life.

Both sides have gained reputation from this, if you believe Mongols, Kaskus will stand up like this in the future and if you believe Goons will enforce their policy like this in the future.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1334087062' post='2950773']
You can win every battle and still lose the war. More to the point, military victories are intended to achieve political victories. In Vietnam and Afghanistan one side was/is completely defeated militarily, but they never submitted to the authority of the victor. Of course, their are functional differences in this realm. But, the side that is militarily defeated can still obtain a political victory. That is recruitment numbers, member retention and treaties. The way to kill an alliance here is to make them undesirable to members and other alliances. Tbh, I have no idea how that's going. Who is winning in that regard?
[/quote]

Being defeated by your enemies is still losing the war last time I checked. Kaskus and Mongols can get all the positive PR they want and GOONs can get all the negative PR they want, the fact remains that Kaskus and Mongols are not going to be major players within the next conflict if this war keeps going on but GOONs will still require being dealt with.

Bottom line, GOONs will still come out of this in a much better position than Kaskus and Mongols.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334075610' post='2950721']
Yea I guess it's more of a "friendships with promises of help" than "numbers of e-paper". Usually, it's solidified in treaties, but sometimes in the case of MK's short treaty hiatus and FAN they're not.

[b]In the case of Sparta and MHA, this last war with the exception of Umbrella (who is a good case of what I said above). They weren't really tied to anyone powerful.[/b] I mean there was FARK, but FARK has never really been the type to use soft power. Just take a look at the VE thing, the whole drama with PB, the threats lobbed at NoR, the refrain from posting on the OWF etc...
[/quote]

Sparta and MHA were members of one of the largest blocs in the game.

Sparta also had RIA, TTK, and NOIR.
MHA had IRON.
(Admittedly ODP's hold little bearing, but they have been used before as an entrance route into wars... for the right alliance, which is my point)

The fact is, the treaties didn't matter for these alliances because they had no political capital to influence their allies in any significant way.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1334110201' post='2950931']
Sparta and MHA were members of one of the largest blocs in the game.
[/quote]

But we're talking soft power not raw NS. Raw NS can never be outdone by soft political power. You could be the most powerful alliance in the world, and still be taken down by a coalition.

[quote]
Sparta also had RIA, TTK, and NOIR.

The fact is, the treaties didn't matter for these alliances because they had no political capital to influence their allies in any significant way.
[/quote]

And Sparta was outdone in the number of friends they could bring in. Friendships with the promise of help (which usually are in the form of treaties) means more power. Overall the more friends you can bring to the fight the more likely you are to win the fight.

I think you're trying to say the same thing I am, but you're focusing in on the word "treaties" which I already said was a flawed word to use.

If you're trying to say that NS=power though you're completely wrong. If you're saying reputation=power, you're missing part of the equation. There are several cases of alliances with awful reputations doing well for themselves for a while, because they had the key treaties/friendships.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Omniscient1

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334111777' post='2950944']
But we're talking soft power not raw NS. Raw NS can never be outdone by soft political power. You could be the most powerful alliance in the world, and still be taken down by a coalition.



[i]And Sparta was outdone in the number of friends they could bring in. Friendships with the promise of help (which usually are in the form of treaties) means more power. Overall the more friends you can bring to the fight the more likely you are to win the fight.
[/i]
I think you're trying to say the same thing I am, but you're focusing in on the word "treaties" which I already said was a flawed word to use.

If you're trying to say that NS=power though you're completely wrong. [b]If you're saying reputation=power, you're missing part of the equation. There are several cases of alliances with awful reputations doing well for themselves for a while, because they had the key treaties/friendships.[/b]
[/quote]

I'm completely dismisses NS from the equation. However, your assessment of reputation is wrong, in my opinion. If an alliance is only doing well because they have key treaties/friendships, can you really say they are doing well?

[OOC] For a real life example, if Greece's economy gets propped up due to backing from Germany it may appear to be doing well, but it clearly is not. [/OOC]


My view, in a nut shell, power can only be derived from political capital. Political capital can only be generated from your reputation. Friendships/treaties of convenience do not promote, or improve your alliance's situation, because they are temporary at best, and when used effectively can only win wars in the short run. And, as history has proven, it's better to lose a war fighting than to win one on coattails... in most cases.

However, by generating enough political capital, an alliance would be able to influence its' allies and friends enough to promote their own agenda. The downside, generating political capital is a lot of give and take, and takes a great deal of predicting the future (guessing).

Edit >> I'd also wager that through treaty-linking Sparta could bring in just as many alliances as their adversaries did. Which renders your italicized statement pointless.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Wu Tang Clan

[Wishywashy]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334033464' post='2950614']
Then don't sign treaties with people who are your enemy or cut them when it no longer makes sense to hold them. Alternatively, you can be like many alliances and ignore political realities and maintain treaties with alliances whose interests don't align with yours and have drastically different values.

The most tragic thing about the Sparta stuff is that it was unnecessary. Apparently, NV was actually not going to declare any non-combatant wf nations and ended up getting destroyed by NoR anyway. It was kind of hard for people like me and Impero to really believe that given the changes in NV's position from the start of the war. Though, I wasn't really big on doing it anyway. I preferred the preempt NSO plan.

edit: Actually, the other purpose of it was to make sure Argent didn't get hit by NV. Lusitan has said NV wouldn't have, but there's no way to know for sure.
[/quote]
We definitely weren't going to hit Argent. Shame on you for attacking us, Sparta! Shame!

[Monster]

[quote name='Wishywashy' timestamp='1334165927' post='2951115']
We definitely weren't going to hit Argent. Shame on you for attacking us, Sparta! Shame!
[/quote]

Were you gov? I mean, honestly, NV had burned a lot of credibility with VE since it was first "we'll support VE" and then STA became the most important thing and VE were the only alliance we knew with a tie to them. It wasn't really communicated that NV wouldn't have hit Argent in retaliation for hitting STA if NV hadn't been attacked. I mean, you did hit wf and you had a limited deployment there. It was definitely a concern for Argent and us though.

I guess if NV had one stance from the beginning and stuck to it, it'd have been easier to trust them, but in general, it's difficult to trust people who flip flop.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1334157182' post='2951092']
I'm completely dismisses NS from the equation. However, your assessment of reputation is wrong, in my opinion. If an alliance is only doing well because they have key treaties/friendships, can you really say they are doing well?

[OOC] For a real life example, if Greece's economy gets propped up due to backing from Germany it may appear to be doing well, but it clearly is not. [/OOC]


My view, in a nut shell, power can only be derived from political capital. Political capital can only be generated from your reputation. Friendships/treaties of convenience do not promote, or improve your alliance's situation, because they are temporary at best, and when used effectively can only win wars in the short run. And, as history has proven, it's better to lose a war fighting than to win one on coattails... in most cases.

However, by generating enough political capital, an alliance would be able to influence its' allies and friends enough to promote their own agenda. The downside, generating political capital is a lot of give and take, and takes a great deal of predicting the future (guessing).

Edit >> I'd also wager that through treaty-linking Sparta could bring in just as many alliances as their adversaries did. Which renders your italicized statement pointless.
[/quote]

I'm just going to have to end this with "I disagree with you", because this really is a boring conversation with a lot of "what ifs".

[Manis B]

whos gonna start funding Mongols / Kaskus?

[Monster]

So far there are packages from NEW and Legacy, but they are limited in number, though.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1334073842' post='2950718']
That's the problem with having too many allies though. You have to accept whatever they say at face value. [b]I agree with the basic idea that treaties equal power and leverage[/b], but having too many treaties gives you no way to maneuver. Overall, it's better to strike a nice balance of building a circle of trust with a group of loosely allied people with the same goal. Doing that is next to impossible, but it'll get you farther than treatying the entire world and hoping for the best.
[/quote]

Unless an alliance is a dominant politic force, treaties are power and leverage against them.

[Monster]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1334256670' post='2951532']
Unless an alliance is a dominant politic force, treaties are power and leverage against them.
[/quote]

Pretty much and it's not just about having NS, it's about mattering on the global stage.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334255528' post='2951524']
So far there are packages from NEW and Legacy, but they are limited in number, though.
[/quote]
NEW's were from a lone member and we have already come to terms on a fair agreement for restitution.

I expect Legacy will follow suit if they have indeed aided them.