Next Major Bloc?

[Matthew Conrad]

I liked everything else in your post except this line. Sparta is extremely close to both GOD and RIA. They are our maroon brothers as many would put it. Unless Delta sentences Tulak to ZI (again), or Xiphosis kills Darklink's family, I highly doubt we would ever find ourselves in a spat with SF.

Hyp, he said we would fit in there...

[Big Z]

I liked everything else in your post except this line. Sparta is extremely close to both GOD and RIA. They are our maroon brothers as many would put it. Unless Delta sentences Tulak to ZI (again), or Xiphosis kills Darklink's family, I highly doubt we would ever find ourselves in a spat with SF.

No but I will go through Tulak's beer safe

[President Obama]

I liked everything else in your post except this line. Sparta is extremely close to both GOD and RIA. They are our maroon brothers as many would put it. Unless Delta sentences Tulak to ZI (again), or Xiphosis kills Darklink's family, I highly doubt we would ever find ourselves in a spat with SF.

He said you would fit in with them as allies of theirs.

[Archon]

Clearly, Aqua will rule the world.

I like how you think.

[Hyperion321]

Hyp, he said we would fit in there...

Oh, I read it as "Sparta would get in a fit with SF". My bad.

[Gen Lee]

I hate you all

[Kenix700]

Admin is going to reset the game, finally taking it out of beta.

[Denial]

"Thats what they all say, everything's jolly good"

Try reading the rest of the thread, handsome.

[Khyber]

Referencing the earlier comment about Polaris lining up away from the TOP ''side'' , we have yet to line up anywhere in particular, perhaps you are projecting again. We have no great issue with anyone right now, but we are watching carefully to see what transpires from here.

I believe you were commenting on this:

I'm not sure if there are SF alliances tied to the NpO and crew bloc but believe that C&G is tied heavily with them. Citadel seems on the other side of the NpO and crew bloc still however.

I use NpO and crew bloc, which is not really a bloc but the truth that you are still very close friends with those that stood up for you in the attack on Polaris and BLEU in general. This includes NV, STA, Genesis and others. While the NpO has not cast it's lot anywhere your closest allies, those with chaining clauses, have. And as we have seen via this war, one needs not believe in the cause of those that are fighting, just be closer friends and not have treaties in conflict to act one way or another.

Yes I kinda count you guys as part of the C&G+ bloc, just like I kinda count MHA, FOK, Argent, TSO, and Argent as part of the Citadel+ bloc, and VE and MA part of the SF+ bloc. Sparta seems the most difficult to place, as their close connection to both SF and Citadel can make them go either way. ODN in my mind will remain an outsider looking in, hurt by a reputation they can't seem to shake in most peoples eyes, thier in to war will go with whichever way TinT probably goes for now.

There is also a strong possibility that post war NpO will lead their own "bloc", one made up for Valhalla and their allies, and possibly those allies of the NpO that have forgiven them. Maybe Echelon will say sorry and make up. All speculation though on my part.

This does not mean we are going to war eachother. I have a great deal of respect for the NpO. This is just pointing out the facts that we remain on opposite ends of the MDP web. And like Poken pointed out, this is due to the last big war and how we fought eachother and not for any anymosity that exists on both sides (I can only speak of one side with confidence).

I also go on to comment:

Suprisingly NpO had more things in common with many Citadel alliances then Superfriends, and maybe some of C&G.

And how the future may suprise us all, as NpO is still a big wild card, and seeing recently how your philosophies line up with so many Citadel alliances may have opened up some peoples thoughts on you from this end of the web.

-----

On other comments, I disagree ex Heg will reform together. It would be stupid of them to do so, as those seeking vengence may persue it once again against alliances in a weakened stat. My guess is ex Heg alliances will join one of the 3 blocs (4 if you want to count the NpO and close friends as a bloc and not part of C&G).

Also, it would be easier for them to find acceptance into one of the established blocs if they part ways with some of their old friends. For example, IRON may be liked by some, but they may not like ML, TORN or Valhalla. Echelon may be accepted by some but they may not like GGA, NPO, MCXA. To remain in these old blocs would be suicide and marks them all for death. They are all rebuilding and no use to eachother should war come, and needlessly endanger eachother. If their friendship is strong they will persue it without treaties, but for now they won't do eachother favors by allying with eachother. Better yet once in, at a later time when they have more pull, they can bring another ally from the edges of the MDP web back into blocs and they have a better chance of this if they split up.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Khyber

[Lord Brendan]

Yes I kinda count you guys as part of the C&G+ bloc, just like I kinda count MHA, FOK, Athens, TSO, and Argent as part of the Citadel+ bloc, and VE and ME part of the SF+ bloc. Sparta seems the most difficult to place, as their close connection to both SF and Citadel can make them go either way. ODN in my mind will remain an outsider looking in, hurt by a reputation they can't seem to shake in most peoples eyes, thier in to war will go with whichever way TinT probably goes for now.

Who is ME?

Also I'm kinda insulted that VE gets the spot with three treaties and we don't with five.

[Matthew Conrad]

Yes I kinda count you guys as part of the C&G+ bloc, just like I kinda count MHA, FOK, Athens, TSO, and Argent as part of the Citadel+ bloc, and VE and ME part of the SF+ bloc. Sparta seems the most difficult to place, as their close connection to both SF and Citadel can make them go either way. ODN in my mind will remain an outsider looking in, hurt by a reputation they can't seem to shake in most peoples eyes, thier in to war will go with whichever way TinT probably goes for now.

Great analysis as always Khyber, but I am confused about one part. I am confused as to why you put Athens closer to Citadel considering they a a member of C&G. Did you mean this as bringing C&G and Citadel closer together through this tie?

[Doge Rex Dart]

Multipolarity won't last long - eventually there'll be a power that emerges victorious from the inevitable conflicts. It may take a year or so, but it'll happen.

And whoever emerges should know that they won't last forever, either. I suspect their "reign" will last longer than the interim period, however. I predict it'll either happen one or two Great Wars from now. CN is quite different now than it was three, two, or even just one year ago. Imagine what it'll be like a year from now.

[Khyber]

Great analysis as always Khyber, but I am confused about one part. I am confused as to why you put Athens closer to Citadel considering they a a member of C&G. Did you mean this as bringing C&G and Citadel closer together through this tie?

Bah, I meant Argent. Thanks for catching that.

Who is ME?

Also I'm kinda insulted that VE gets the spot with three treaties and we don't with five.

ME was suppose to be MA.

And Lord Brendan, I honestly know too little about CSN to say anything about them. I gleam things from the web and from friends talking. What I present are my thoughts and ideas, which are likely to be inaccurate in some places and have gaps in other places. I'm often making a leap with bits of information, and often put nothing down when I have none. At best I would think CSN moves with MA on most issues, as maroon seems pretty tight. But the only person that ever filled me up on maroon politics was Ace when we were both in Echelon, and when I catch him online which is rare, so to me Maroon slips under my radar.

You are free to talk to over pms though, as I'm always intrested in opinions, thoughts and corrections.

I do think multipolar will continue for some time to the poster above. 2 major wars at least, so we are talking maybe a year. You'ld be suprised how well people word together when they treat eachother as equals, and that is the case I see in alliances like FARK, Gremlins, MK, TOP, MHA, Sparta, Umbrella, and others.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Khyber

[Delta1212]

I'd hope you'd count MA as a de facto member of SF seeing as they are, in fact, a member of SF.

[Khyber]

I'd hope you'd count MA as a de facto member of SF seeing as they are, in fact, a member of SF.

See I missed that post.

[mykep]

Clearly, Aqua will rule the world.

This thread is over.

[anenu]

Multipolarity won't last long - eventually there'll be a power that emerges victorious from the inevitable conflicts. It may take a year or so, but it'll happen.

And whoever emerges should know that they won't last forever, either. I suspect their "reign" will last longer than the interim period, however. I predict it'll either happen one or two Great Wars from now. CN is quite different now than it was three, two, or even just one year ago. Imagine what it'll be like a year from now.

You forget the fact that it took several years for NPO to achieve the amount of control over the game they had and some may argue that their was a backroom cold war between NPO and NpO or at least between NpO and NPO's Q allies that ended in the NoCB war. And even after that they still had powerful blocs like SF and C&G outside of their direct control. And with the destruction of BLEU and a NpO curbstomp the alliances had no reason to remain together and were tired of the BS NPO made them put up with.

[CRexx]

I see GUARD got brought up and dismissed as a poor concept. While GUARD itself was poorly executed (very little internal organization, no military preparedness and an unseemly willingness to throw ONOS to the wolves), the concept itself is still a good one.

Consider WUT. When WUT was the most united was prior to GWIII. Everyone in WUT had a goal, kill The League alliances, they had few external ties and projects. Well the NPO had a lot of external ties, but hey in other news water is wet. WUT did extremely well in GWIII, achieving one of the most decisive military victories in a fair fight that CN has seen in some time. Of course it helped certain League alliances couldn’t find their rear ends with both hands, a road map and GPS. Anyway WUT was an amazing power block, it had internal structure, a goal and not a lot of treaties to tug at various members.

After GWIII though WUT lost focus, various members got into various external projects: YN5, the GOONS and their protectorates, Sponge’s dislike of lulz alliances, the GGA’s power play for green and eventually the block fractured and the Unjust War went down.

The Q though was fractured from the get go. We had no vision, aside from the “Hmmm, it is traditional for us to be in a block with the NPO and to trash talk the Legion. We should sign a treaty or something.” A number of people in Q wanted to talk noWedge out back and beat some manners into him, other parts protected him, there was internal bickering. The Citadel alliances had one code of conduct, other alliances in Q were merely immature tech raiders who lived only because the NPO found them to be useful meatshields, etc. So Q fell apart rather quickly.

If you’re going to make a block you need to incorporate some elements of GUARD. You need to limit the external ties / have a clear vision in place. You also need to learn from GUARD’s mistakes though and have internal structure and have the guts to back your members. Plus a war once in awhile to shake the rust off might not be a bad idea. It would be interesting to see a block try so that the only MDoAPs block members have are with each other, but not be as isolationist as GUARD. Have PIATs and such outside the block and keep up on foreign affairs, yet avoid the foreign entanglements that pull blocks apart.

[Cataduanes]

ODN in my mind will remain an outsider looking in, hurt by a reputation they can't seem to shake in most peoples eyes

Sadly i must concur, while we are working hard to try rectify this what you have outlined pretty much sums up our predicament.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Delta1212]

You don't have to limit external ties if you trust the other members of the bloc. As long as you keep your priorities straight, your fine. WUT is also a terrible example. They existed at a time when there very few periphery alliances compared today. WUT's problems also weren't caused by external ties. There was an internal culture clash created in part by a dislike of certain members by other and by the rampant desire by a lot of different alliances to be the Alpha Male. NPO, GOONS, FAN and Polar were doing some serious power tripping at the time and the only ones getting in the way were each other.

The ability of lots of small-mid-sized alliances to make a major difference in war wasn't fully realized until UJW. A bloc that completely isolates itself is subjecting itself to a severe political and military disadvantage. They may be less likely to break up on their own (possibly, though I would dispute this), but any conflict they ever got into, they would lose. Strength is about two things: NS and resolve. The League, Aegis, and The Hegemony are all good examples of groups with a good chunk of strength (They weren't facing an opponent many multiple times their own size at the peak of conflict) but very little resolve. FAN and the Polar/Hyperion side of the NoCB war are good examples of groups with a great deal of resolve but without the NS to do more than make the war hurt considerably.

Any bloc that wants to provide for its own defense needs both a strong intenal commitment, that is, putting the safety of each other at or above the level of their own alliance, as well as the political connections to prevent them from simply being ground down through overwhelming force. An NS advantage doesn't guarantee victory to the degree most people think it does, but if you get outnumbered by many times your own strength, it doesn't really matter how long or well you fight. Your opponent can simply absorb a lot more damage than you can dish out.

[Thierra]

It's been interesting to see the history of these threads. After the World Unity Treaty failed to protect themselves as well as they had all hoped, everyone said it was a poor internal structure that ruined them. This time, the Continuum (while internally unsound in places) was just a little more solid, especially in conjunction with One Vision. In this case, as Delta notes, the external relations weren't there.

Result? When the target wasn't an alliance seven times smaller than the offensive forces, isolationism (or at least selectivity) didn't work.

So what's the answer? Blocs that are internally sound but externally open? At what cost? Also, how strong can a bloc be if it's open enough to allow division? How do you shut out division without limiting the blocs members from holding treaties with other alliances? If the bloc is powerful, how do its member-alliances sign other treaties when there is always the possibility of a treaty-conflict?

After the Initiative failed, the solution everyone threw around was an end to MADP agreements, hence the rise of the MDoAPs (which I personally am not a fan of). Then, after a few smaller scuffs here and there, the new "en vogue" thing was anti-chaining clauses to prevent war from escalating - all the newest models have them.

I think the solution of tomorrow is going to be a greater emphasis on treaties, and a move away from blocs.. or at least very large ones. WUT and The Continuum have both shown that after a bloc reaches a "critical point" in size and NS, it quickly severs into smaller factions within said bloc, whether that be those that split from Q to help join Karma, or whether it's the Unjust Path.

The blocs of the future will be very small - perhaps a return to the three/four-alliance rings exclusively. I don't think a massive bloc, without a global hegemon to orchestrate it, is likely to rise again. At least not for a long, long time.

[CRexx]

You don't have to limit external ties if you trust the other members of the bloc. As long as you keep your priorities straight, your fine. WUT is also a terrible example. They existed at a time when there very few periphery alliances compared today. WUT's problems also weren't caused by external ties. There was an internal culture clash created in part by a dislike of certain members by other and by the rampant desire by a lot of different alliances to be the Alpha Male. NPO, GOONS, FAN and Polar were doing some serious power tripping at the time and the only ones getting in the way were each other.

The big problem here though is that internal organization and military ability is often linked to an 'alpha male' mindset. You need your alliance members as a whole to want to fight and more importantly to want to win in order for that alliance to be an effective military force. If your alliance doesn't have a bit of a dominating mindset then it tends to slack off and you get a meat shield style alliance that just kind of hangs out, bullies a little when it can and is a paper tiger in global wars. Sure you do have responsible, mature powers, but right now they're the exception, not the rule. This may change, but we shall see. Right now though I feel that the odds suggest that sooner or later you're going to end up with multiple alpha male mindset alliances in the same bloc or somehow tied via the treaty web. They'll start pulling and interesting things might happen.

The ability of lots of small-mid-sized alliances to make a major difference in war wasn't fully realized until UJW. A bloc that completely isolates itself is subjecting itself to a severe political and military disadvantage. They may be less likely to break up on their own (possibly, though I would dispute this), but any conflict they ever got into, they would lose. Strength is about two things: NS and resolve. The League, Aegis, and The Hegemony are all good examples of groups with a good chunk of strength (They weren't facing an opponent many multiple times their own size at the peak of conflict) but very little resolve. FAN and the Polar/Hyperion side of the NoCB war are good examples of groups with a great deal of resolve but without the NS to do more than make the war hurt considerably.

Any bloc that wants to provide for its own defense needs both a strong intenal commitment, that is, putting the safety of each other at or above the level of their own alliance, as well as the political connections to prevent them from simply being ground down through overwhelming force. An NS advantage doesn't guarantee victory to the degree most people think it does, but if you get outnumbered by many times your own strength, it doesn't really matter how long or well you fight. Your opponent can simply absorb a lot more damage than you can dish out.

Blocs need to be responsive is the secret I think. They need to scout out smaller alliances that are growing up and take them under the wing of the bloc early and kind of suck them into the bloc from the get go. You can't be like GUARD and close the door after founding. Rather you need to be more like the Citadel and focus on scouting out potential and bringing it onboard and giving it full status in your bloc, al la Umbrella. The trick is you need to grab these smaller alliances before they get sucked too deeply into the MDP web and work to keep them at your end of the pool. If you wait until they've come out, had a flurry of treaty signings and all that then that alliance becomes a risk factor due to its external ties.

The blocs of the future will be very small - perhaps a return to the three/four-alliance rings exclusively. I don't think a massive bloc, without a global hegemon to orchestrate it, is likely to rise again. At least not for a long, long time.

This is the Karma side of the equation, but you need to give some thought to what the Heg side might be thinking. I assure you there are people over on the New Pacific Order thinking "Wow, we are where we are today because we got soft. If we'd crushed Mushroom Kingdom [LUE 2.0], the Greenland Republic [NAAC 2.0] right off the bat. If we'd raided the Legion for reps a half dozen more times and kept people like Archon powerless then we wouldn't be where we are right now. If we'd rolled C&G right after it was founded, etc, etc. We should have been stronger hegemons." I'm sure a lot of them dream of repeating the first three great wars. Rebuild after the first one, load up with a bloc and crush those who dared to oppose them in the next two big wars.

Karma people need to remember how the NPO reacted to losing GWI and how LUE, the NAAC, the Legion and GATO paid for that in the next few Great Wars. If the winning side fragments off into small blocs that might fight each other, the NPO will have the time to rebuild its nations, rebuild those of its loyal allies and build its own bloc for another power play. After all they play the game to win it as a military order. Of course Karma has a lot of smart leaders on their side and I'm sure they can also see this possible future.

[Lord Brendan]

So Q fell apart rather quickly.

Is that a joke?

Nearly half of Planet Bob's lifetime has been under Continuum's reign.

[Electron Sponge]

Is that a joke?

Nearly half of Planet Bob's lifetime has been under Continuum's reign.

All that wasted time...

[CRexx]

Is that a joke?

Nearly half of Planet Bob's lifetime has been under Continuum's reign.

In terms of existing as a unified bloc with a united purpose then yes it did fall apart quickly. Infighting inside of Q began rapidly. It just took awhile for the cracks to show and the entire thing to come crashing down. The writing on the wall for the death of Q appeared early on. Sheer inertia carried it forward for a long period of time, but it the unity died early.

Note how easy it was to Vox to get leaks from inside Q for a long period of time. Lots of internal issues inside of Q.