ModusOperandi Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 So, yeah, I've always wondered what it would be like to create a micro-alliance (or an association of micro-alliances) with similar themes (etc.) to the hegemony and see what unfolds.. without the corruption/stagnancy par se.. sort-of a game within a game so-to-speak, Anyway, the point of this thread is that I wanted to ask if anyone's though of just playing the game while ignoring the cumbersome statues on the top.. creating a different mdp web altogether and striving for dominance within it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I cant say I have because, iv been in Polaris for just about 2 years now, so I cant imagine what it would be like, although im sure it would be quiet the experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 lol GDI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Terrible Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Anyway, the point of this thread is that I wanted to ask if anyone's though of just playing the game while ignoring the cumbersome statues on the top.. creating a different mdp web altogether and striving for dominance within it... Yes, in fact I think about this all the time. Consider TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 It wouldn't work, because as soon as any micro alliances got big they'd enter the regular MDP web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted March 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 TE is great; I just like how fun it can be to risk infra that's been built for longer than 3 month spans. @Bill, Polaris must be quite the experience, eh? I've known a few Polars (1 in rl) who have had the time of their live there. I give you props for your avatar btw haha. I didn't consider how similar this would be to that whole GDI thing though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Houston Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 This already happens to a certain extent. There are several small and new alliances who duke it out and have their micro-dramas. Most of it never makes the news though. It is true that eventually, that gets boring as well, and serious players want to be in on "the big game." That means playing by the big-boy's rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudeldorf Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Now I am slightly unhappier knowing that my previous ignorance was better then the less-then-bliss I am experiencing now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hey ModusOperandi, It could work. But it would entail not having a protectorate, not posting on the big boards, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fokker Aeroplanbau Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) This has already been brought up but I might as well reiterate what my fellow nations have already uttered. That is, two main issues, well three really, that inhibit the quality of this proposal. First off, it is already happening on CN Regular with the small alliances, this is also why we have CN: TE and lastly, there would be no way to keep the MDP threads seperate without all the leaders of the alliances in on it as well- at least until they get "big" and have to leave. Which isn't exactly a very descriptive rubric for a alliance's strength or ability or anything for that matter. What are the criteria for entering and leaving the web? How would that be enforced? It all seems very interesting, and would be fun to do; skepticism aside, so I'm wondering how of this you plan to pan out. Edited March 26, 2009 by Fokker Aeroplanbau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opethian Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I've considered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 you idea of corruption and stagnancy is only seen in the more open micro alliances. I enjoy a corrupt free alliance where every member is active. Also the big alliances are like prime time TV for me. You watch it and hope one day you will get in on it, but it's rather unlikely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Sooner or later your interests or actions interfere with a 'big' alliance, so the idea of being isolated from the main web is a non-starter. Even neutrals like GPA and NADC and up interacting (against their will) with the main web. The CoMA is the best example of what you describe but that was hounded by threats from larger powers for its whole existence and had to make decisions based on those larger powers' requests several times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven for Peace Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 This happened before. I was there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I more or less agree with Bob Janova. In the short term, it would work, but as alliances got larger, you'd "bump" into other alliances. For instance, if you ignore the current state of politics, you'd have to ignore voting for a team senator, ignore the sanctioned alliances, and really try to keep your members from accidentally attacking other alliances (because you're going to get noobs eventually). What's more, since your second world is going to be weaker than this one, if someone from this world declared war on you, you'd have not nearly as much support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Tech raiders wouldn't care thus forcing protectorates to be issued thus making your isolationist alliances not so isolated. Perhaps if such was formed just before a major war that was to last for quite awhile then it could possibly work. Thats a big if though. Good luck with it though if you go forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kolia Farvazov Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Could work IMO, but there are too many unknowns... Tread carefully I would say... K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neboe Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I think it would be possible even in the face of tech raiders. The 'micro' alliances would have to be prepared to defend themselves against any potential raiders. I think it could be done. Edited March 26, 2009 by Neboe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Anyone else find this ironic coming from a member of GLoF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinoceros Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 This already happens to a certain extent.There are several small and new alliances who duke it out and have their micro-dramas. Most of it never makes the news though. It is true that eventually, that gets boring as well, and serious players want to be in on "the big game." That means playing by the big-boy's rules. Never knew that stuff like that happened....but anywho, it's like Earth in the times before the age of exploration. The world was broken into MANY groups who fought their own battles, had their own cultures, and did things their own way. People in the Americas were far different from people in China or Europe. But when the Euros decided to venture out, the world got smaller and smaller. Eventually, it became impossible for you not to make communication with the rest of the world. That's CN right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I'd say trying to stay out of the big picture is almost impossible. Look at it like the cell stage in spore, you can be on an entirely different level, but the bigger monsters will always be there, and when they notice it's either run, or die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kolia Farvazov Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I'd say trying to stay out of the big picture is almost impossible. Look at it like the cell stage in spore, you can be on an entirely different level, but the bigger monsters will always be there, and when they notice it's either run, or die. That's very well put... Really describes the situation well... K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Anyone else find this ironic coming from a member of GLoF? For the sake of all that is obvious and holy, can you please rhetorically point out to me why this is so ironic? I remember when R&R was first established, two to three years ago; are you still just as important? @ everyone else, I really appreciate this advice guys; its something that I've pondered doing for a while to make this game entertaining for myself again. I wonder what kind of fun a micro-alliance bloc, with say 20-25 active/competing members spread between 4-5 alliances, could have; a big king of the hill game so-to-speak. ,,,,documented, of course. With all the affairs, betrayals, shenanigans, etc. announced once a week heh heh. Could call it; CN:Survivor :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 For the sake of all that is obvious and holy, can you please rhetorically point out to me why this is so ironic? I remember when R&R was first established, two to three years ago; are you still just as important? Well seeing as you've called me out and seem to be somehow insulted, wrongfully, but let me clarify. Another thing you'll notice is that is an OOC forum and I was stating the irony of you being in an alliance themed after the Freemasons who are put into conspiricy theories and you make a thread about alliances forming or controling puppet alliances. To sum it up, it has nothing to do with the nature, operation, or any member of your alliance. And why does the importance of my alliance, that I could up and leave any time, have to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Well seeing as you've called me out and seem to be somehow insulted, wrongfully, but let me clarify. Another thing you'll notice is that is an OOC forum and I was stating the irony of you being in an alliance themed after the Freemasons who are put into conspiricy theories and you make a thread about alliances forming or controling puppet alliances. To sum it up, it has nothing to do with the nature, operation, or any member of your alliance. And why does the importance of my alliance, that I could up and leave any time, have to do with anything? My apologies; I misinterpreted the intention of your post and assumed it was an insult, my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.