What makes an alliance?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1350785007' post='3043510']
Well me and Sardonic were arguing if their attack on a micro a declaration of war on a micro. He said he didn't consider it an act of war because it was not an alliance.
[/quote]
Allow me to clear this up for you, the thing is, you were talking to a goon, and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109404"]if you let a goon talk long enough[/url] . . .

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1350860090' post='3043817']
Allow me to clear this up for you, the thing is, you were talking to a goon, and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109404"]if you let a goon talk long enough[/url] . . .
[/quote]
Thread winner right there.

[Ch33kY]

I read this thread and thought of the smart-arse answer: what makes an alliance - allies. While that's the obvious answer, you've got to look at in a CN political context. An alliance can - and probably should - make an arbitary number for what constitutes an alliance so that they can differentiate between a strong, stable alliance and just a bunch of people who use the same Alliance Affiliation but aren't involved in CN politics.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Ch33kY

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1351092593' post='3044853']
I read this thread and thought of the smart-arse answer: what makes an alliance - allies. While that's the obvious answer, you've got to look at in a CN political context. An alliance can - an probably should - make an arbitary number for what constitutes an alliance so that they can differentiate between a strong, stable alliance and just a bunch of people who use the same Alliance Affiliation but aren't involved in CN politics.
[/quote]

I think this hints on the issue. I believe what the OP is trying to say is that some people don't think getting involved in "our" style of playing is necessary; separate forum, tie to the MDP web, irc channel, certain order of improvements, tech deals etc. If there is a group of RL 2-5 friends who want to be a micro and just play the game their way, they should be allowed to do so as long as they are not completely unaligned (have at least one friend).

Edited October 25, 2012 by Unknown Smurf

[Bob]

I'm game to attack anyone who isn't protected by a treaty tie til around 15 members, and also isn't PPO or a similar alliance. Safe bet if I recognize the name and they aren't disbanded, I won't attack them (and if they are disbanded, I'll see if they are protected).

Edited October 25, 2012 by Penlugue Solaris

[Hereno]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1350793249' post='3043572']
2 or more actively organized people.

However just become a group is an "alliance" doesn't mean that they have earned a level of respect as an alliance that puts them above being raided. That requires a large membership count or political ties.
[/quote]

Came here to say this. I've always found number-count alliance recognition policies to be crude and simple. A good raid target is a target I can get profit from raiding. A satisfactory raid target is one that I can have a fun week of war with and then go our separate ways. A bad raid target gets my ass kicked or requires me to pay reparations for the damage done. Of course, those are all personal preferences, and I haven't raided in a long time.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1351182103' post='3045130']
I'm game to attack anyone who isn't protected by a treaty tie til around 15 members, and also isn't PPO or a similar alliance. Safe bet if I recognize the name and they aren't disbanded, I won't attack them (and if they are disbanded, I'll see if they are protected).
[/quote]

I would hope that you didn't want to raid us

When we were updating our Rules of Engagement for what we allow qualify for as a raid target, we actually made it much easier than what it used to be:

[quote]Rules of Engagement

1- Do not engage nations whom are affiliated with an alliance which is over 25,000 NS. (or 10 members, whichever is less)
8- Realize that declaring war may deplete your own reserves. The alliance will not pay for technology, money, soldiers, cruise missiles, nukes, tanks, wonders, improvements, or anything lost during any of the offensive wars.
9- The Pirates of the Parrot Order Protection Agreement is nullified in your offensive wars.
10- If you are attacked by an outside presence for declaring nation according to above standards, the PPO will defend you from the attacking nation.
11- Violations of the Rules of Engagement will result in upper class punishments.[/quote]

has since changed to:

[quote]1 - Do not engage nations whom are affiliated with an alliance which is over 5 members in size without explicit permission of the Captain or Commander of War.
8 - Realize that declaring war may deplete your own reserves. The alliance will not pay for technology, money, soldiers, cruise missiles, nukes, tanks, wonders, improvements, or anything lost during any of the offensive wars.
9 - The PPO shall defend your nation from attack by third parties if the Rules of Engagement are followed, unless such presence is a declared protectorate of a nation you declared offensive war against (ex. a member of their alliance).
10 - Violations of the Rules of Engagement will result in upper class punishments, including but not limited to: payment of reparations to the victim, payment of a fine to the PPO, or even expulsion from the alliance[/quote]

pretty much we opened up raiding to those over 25k NS and cut back on the amount of members of "alliances" that qualified a raid. (still a proponent of 10 as the minimum but that's just me)

I posted snippets of our RoE that we make sure our members follow in order to raid, which we feel is a nation's fundamental right. We have detailed explanations of what they can/cannot do and what they can raid w/o needing to ask for higher permission. if they break our RoE, punishments follow. and like Articles 8/9 say in our current RoE, you are doing this action on your own, don't expect us to bail you out if another member of their alliance hits you back (if it's a third party alliance with no treaty though we'll be right there though).

Each alliance maintains what they believe constitutes an alliance and their own interpretation of who they can raid.

imho if you have an alliance policy, stick to it. or if you are going to green light something, atleast make it something still close to your policy



also what makes an alliance and what makes a POLITICAL alliance are two entirely different things and obviously should be treated as such. a group of friends who create an alliance for a school project and that's it should not be recognized the same way as a group of friends who make an alliance for IC reasons

Edited October 25, 2012 by Lurunin

[Groucho Marx]

I can see the argument for 2 people being an alliance, but 1? That makes sense.

He's allied to the voices in his head.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Emperor Marx

[Lurunin]

That I'll agree with, its like the guy made something completely made up so he's not "none" AA

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1350831995' post='3043673']So once again I stand by 5 members or a protector or special cases in which the AA is recognized by the international community (such as PPF).
[/quote]

But Omniscient1, if 5 members were the standard "common practice" in terms of alliances that care to define "alliance" for political purposes, then I'd personally have nothing to complain about and what fun would that be? I mean, anyone could then join the community with a couple friends (even I was able to get 4 other people to try CN when I first started out) and start their own alliance. There might be an explosing of that happening...total chaos!

Really, one has to consider possible unintended consequences, like more groups being able to do their own thing, people hanging out with just friends if they want to and any number of horrors that various small groups of independent alliances may scheme up.

No, keep it to 15 or more, something that the average joe or jane can't do upon first joining our community. Much easier for me to take issue with the practice in that case.

Edited October 25, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1351194129' post='3045172']
But Omniscient1, if 5 members were the standard "common practice" in terms of alliances that care to define "alliance" for political purposes, then I'd personally have nothing to complain about and what fun would that be? I mean, anyone could then join the community with a couple friends (even I was able to get 4 other people to try CN when I first started out) and start their own alliance. There might be an explosing of that happening...total chaos!

Really, one has to consider possible unintended consequences, like more groups being able to do their own thing, people hanging out with just friends if they want to and any number of horrors that various small groups of independent alliances may scheme up.

No, [b]keep it to 15 or more, something that the average joe or jane can't do upon first joining our community.[/b] Much easier for me to take issue with the practice in that case.
[/quote]

Why shouldn't the average joe/jane be allowed to join Bob on their own terms?

Edited October 26, 2012 by Unknown Smurf

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351202249' post='3045209']
Why shouldn't the average joe/jane be allowed to join Bob on their own terms?
[/quote]
He's saying they should be.

Anyway, raiders set their own guidelines, with the cut-off being somewhere that gives them access to targets while being politically acceptable. It's really up to the anti-raiders and/or the raided to change the equation to remove that political acceptability or the targets themselves.

[Sephiroth]

What makes an alliance is whatever individuals fly that alliance affiliation to represent them. Whether that is one, two, three, or one hundred+ members doesn't really matter other than effecting how much political pull that alliance might have with others. While some alliances might set artificial limits to what they consider an alliance, those limitations don't matter to the overall question of makes an alliance other than the narrow viewpoint of that individual alliance.

[Zoli84]

A group of 2+ people, where there's someone who is

- organising the defense of the membership (defense)
- represents the membership's interests in the CN community (FA)
- answers members' questions on gameplay (education)

Additionally:
- helps the nations to grow by organising foreign aid related deals. (finances)
- tries to get more nations to join the alliance. (recruitment)

(or there's someone who gets another alliance run these above for the membership - protectorate)

[Emperor Whimsical]

A leader.

An alliance without a leader is nothing. (Sorry LSF.) This "leader" doesn't necessarily have to be in a president/king/what have you, maybe a HoFA or a military leader or something. but no matter what, there needs to be an individual with a decent sense of direction within an alliance of where the alliance is headed, be in FA wise, growth wise,or goal wise.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1351194129' post='3045172']
But Omniscient1, if 5 members were the standard "common practice" in terms of alliances that care to define "alliance" for political purposes, then I'd personally have nothing to complain about and what fun would that be? I mean, anyone could then join the community with a couple friends (even I was able to get 4 other people to try CN when I first started out) and start their own alliance. There might be an explosing of that happening...total chaos!

Really, one has to consider possible unintended consequences, like more groups being able to do their own thing, people hanging out with just friends if they want to and any number of horrors that various small groups of independent alliances may scheme up.

No, keep it to 15 or more, something that the average joe or jane can't do upon first joining our community. Much easier for me to take issue with the practice in that case.
[/quote]

That's my point exactly though. Anyone worth anything can make four friends. You can convince three noobs to change their AA easily. So I say just keep it at five.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1350793249' post='3043572']
2 or more actively organized people.

However just become a group is an "alliance" doesn't mean that they have earned a level of respect as an alliance that puts them above being raided. That requires a large membership count or political ties.
[/quote]

Agreed. I think it's safe to say that this is the raider mindset in a nutshell.

Edited October 27, 2012 by SirWilliam

[Starfox101]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1350810778' post='3043630']
I had never seen the number 5 being used to define an alliance up until now. To me, it always was 10. Or 15 in some cases.

Ten sounds better to me (note: I have never raided so don't start) as it gives room to some sort of organisation, ie gov and regular members. And thus some sort of legitimacy.
[/quote]
Alliances are generally founded with 5 or so members. Does this mean this grouping isn't an alliance until they recruit some inactive players to bloat their numbers?

What makes an alliance? A government. Member count does not matter.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1351300217' post='3045652']
Agreed. I think it's safe to say that this is the raider mindset in a nutshell.
[/quote]

I don't raid much, but I'd agree with that as well.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[potato]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1351306377' post='3045694']
Alliances are generally founded with 5 or so members. Does this mean this grouping isn't an alliance until they recruit some inactive players to bloat their numbers?

What makes an alliance? A government. Member count does not matter.
[/quote]

So LSF isn't an alliance?

To be more precise, I think a member count is necessary on top of the gov thing (and a few other details) because going by just either side is too restrictive. I've always been pro-higher number but that's a personnal taste (and has nothing to do with raiding since I don't do it and neither did my first alliance).

Now, if you want to get philosophical, you can mention the community and blablabla. I just assumed OP wanted to see if we could reach a middle ground on what actually makes an alliance (as opposed to how it is cemented). And to that, the answer is no, we'll never agree on everything.

Edited October 27, 2012 by potato

[Lady Dakota]

Generally speaking, an alliance can be whatever two or more people make it out to be. One would assume they have similiar intrests and goals such as growth, prosperity, and ambition to rise within the ranks of Planet Bob. Of course what others consider to be an alliance is of an opinion. While two people working together are an alliance, others will just see them as a target for tech raiding. Would Planet Bob see two members as an alliance when they cry out for help? Probably not.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1351334909' post='3045778']
So LSF isn't an alliance?

To be more precise, I think a member count is necessary on top of the gov thing (and a few other details) because going by just either side is too restrictive. I've always been pro-higher number but that's a personnal taste (and has nothing to do with raiding since I don't do it and neither did my first alliance).

Now, if you want to get philosophical, you can mention the community and blablabla. I just assumed OP wanted to see if we could reach a middle ground on what actually makes an alliance (as opposed to how it is cemented). And to that, the answer is no, we'll never agree on everything.
[/quote]
LSF still has people in charge of FA, IA, and such. It may be an anarchy but it is certainly not an unorganized band of nations.

[Schattenmann]

How great would this thread have been if Admin had never endowed rulers with the "Alliance Affiliation" field?

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351202249' post='3045209']
Why shouldn't the average joe/jane be allowed to join Bob on their own terms?
[/quote]

Glad you asked. As someone who started my own alliance upon first joining the community years ago as an average jane with a couple friends, I kow the dangers well

1. If anyone could start an alliance unhindered by constantly being raided, they would start spreading new ideas and not know how things are supposed to be done . Not knowing any better, they might decide to do something like start tech trading at lower rates or start wars because they are unfamiliar with how the treaty web works. They may also get to know other alliances on their own and make their own judgments about who they want as allies as opposed to being put in the position of taking the first offer that comes along if they want to be safe from raiders. That sort of competition would be bad.

2. People would leave their already established alliances in droves and break up into groups of 5 nations, because we all know the only reason we all stay in our larger alliances is so we don't get tech raided. It has nothing to do with established friendships or working with others toward a common goal or that we're simply having fun in larger groups.

3. Raiders would miss out on all the opportunites to raid the vast number of unprotected alliances who are under 17 but over 4 currently out there.

(I did an informal check, looking for alliances between 5 and 17 that were unprotected. The largest unprotected alliance I found was 12 members. The largest percentage of unprotected alliances that I found of 2 or more were under 5. ALL of the one's over 12 that I found were protected, and the lowest number I found that had protection was 4.)

4. More people might post on OWF because there would be less fear of being found as a small group. Who wants to hear from anyone new?

5. Might end up with more "invasion" alliances because a few people from other communities come over to see what we're like (not to hard to get 5 from a group established elsewhere) and be able gain enough experience about this community to go back to their community and recruit others. Really, this could be a huge threat as it could mean a large number of new nations being established in a relatively short period of time. If nothing else, they would be hungry for tech and flood the market with sellers. Might end up making a political challenge to already established hegemony - whoever that is at the time.

6. More nations would be able to grow, thus creating larger nations who could be a military threat to those of us at mid and above ranges. I, for one, love the fact that in every alliance war I've been involved in thus far, I hardly have to fight because no one is available who is in range. We all just love going into peace mode to be banks and help rebuild later, just ask any larger nation. But if we had more nations from smaller alliances sticking around long enough to reach mid to higer nation strengths, some of us might end up actually having to fight.

That's just a few of the bad things that could result off the top of my head. No doubt I'm missing a lot.

[Unknown Smurf]

Almost all the things you listed as a negative are positives in my book. I guess we fundamentally disagree and there's no changing that.