Superpowers?

[Vladimir]

As far as I'm aware INC was the first alliance, and they disbanded shortly after the NPO arrived. Regardless, pre-NPO alliances were really only such in name. There was no real organisation or communication between nations (INC, NAAC and GATO), so much so that the 'first world war' between INC and GATO seemed to include about 3 nations occasionally launching a random attack -- more a tired skirmish than a war. Even after the NPO arrived it took quite some time for the other alliances to get themselves together.

As far as superpowers go, this is really a political question. You can have an alliance like the GPA on top of the ranks, but it was never a superpower, while those below them in the ranks were. But from any perspective, GATO was never a superpower -- and certainly not once NPO got here.

[avernite]

We had such a discussion on the Paradox forums, and it was great fun (even if it mostly revolved around the question of Great Britain being a superpower or not in the 19th century).

Essentially, the criteria for Superpowers would be such, in my opinion:

1) Global reach. This is always achieved in CN, and is thus rather inapplicable. A power that achieves all of the other criteria but not this one could be a local hegemon (say, China for most of its history) but would not be a superpower.

2) Outclassing other powers. Basically, it should take a concerted effort from the vast majority of other powers to bring them down, if they are to be a Superpower. However, other Superpowers are excluded from this seeing as the whole term comes from the cold war where there were two. In short, a Superpower should in its own class in power, and have only fear for those in that class. This is arguably the most stringent condition, and I'd say GW1 proves NPO WAS in that class, because it did take a concerted effort from near enough everyone else to bring them down. Since then, it is harder to be clear.

3) Being involved. Basically, not only should a superpower have global reach, it should also have global influence. In the cold war everyone was aware of what the USSR and USA thought of what they did. Likewise, the last few years, NPO has had a finger in near enough every pie, and it sometimes seemed like everyone's response to a crisis was 'tell Dilber, he'll fix it!'

With these criteria, no one right now fits. Even though TOP and Sparta have global reach and lots of power, there are plentifull alliances that are tied to neither and can still effectively ignore them if they so desire. The reign of blocs has seen to that. I would say that NPO is the only alliance that ever was a true superpower, and even then the exact time that this was true was probably quite short (at GW1, it seems right, and maybe at the end of GW3, but by the end of the UjW it was already much more on the level of a very powerful great power).

So, right now, we have plenty of great powers (TOP, Sparta, FARK, MHA, NpO and probably half a dozen more), which are powers that are powerful (duh) but do not outclass others. Besides this, I would say a great power needs to be at the highest tier of power unless there is a superpower; the above alliances, while not in any way equal, have a capability to influence eachother very much if they want to, while being able to wipe out any single alliance outside their tier. (NOT every single alliance outside their tier, which would make a superpower).

Apart from great powers, we have oodles of other alliances that are not easy to classify, because middling power just sounds stupid. Those alliances in significant blocs (FCC, the internationale, TLC, etc) but individually not so powerful, or those in weaker blocs but individually quite strong (ODN/TOOL/IRON) would make up this rank, as their aid would certainly be valuable for a great power fighting another great power, but alone they could not face one.

Finally, there's the last tier, alliances that are just not very strong. Goes from alliances that have some more than a million NS but no treaties down to 1k NS in a one-man alliances. Any of the other powers could kill them, with little cost, except for the intervention of other larger powers.

[Ardus]

SF is full of superpowers.

FARK has x-ray vision, Rok has super strength, MA can breathe underwater, GOD shoots lasers from its eyes, and RIA has an invisible jet and magic lasso.

May I assume this means RIA loses its powers when bound in a kinky manner?

[Lord Fingolfin]

We had such a discussion on the Paradox forums, and it was great fun (even if it mostly revolved around the question of Great Britain being a superpower or not in the 19th century).

Essentially, the criteria for Superpowers would be such, in my opinion:

1) Global reach. This is always achieved in CN, and is thus rather inapplicable. A power that achieves all of the other criteria but not this one could be a local hegemon (say, China for most of its history) but would not be a superpower.

2) Outclassing other powers. Basically, it should take a concerted effort from the vast majority of other powers to bring them down, if they are to be a Superpower. However, other Superpowers are excluded from this seeing as the whole term comes from the cold war where there were two. In short, a Superpower should in its own class in power, and have only fear for those in that class. This is arguably the most stringent condition, and I'd say GW1 proves NPO WAS in that class, because it did take a concerted effort from near enough everyone else to bring them down. Since then, it is harder to be clear.

3) Being involved. Basically, not only should a superpower have global reach, it should also have global influence. In the cold war everyone was aware of what the USSR and USA thought of what they did. Likewise, the last few years, NPO has had a finger in near enough every pie, and it sometimes seemed like everyone's response to a crisis was 'tell Dilber, he'll fix it!'

With these criteria, no one right now fits. Even though TOP and Sparta have global reach and lots of power, there are plentifull alliances that are tied to neither and can still effectively ignore them if they so desire. The reign of blocs has seen to that. I would say that NPO is the only alliance that ever was a true superpower, and even then the exact time that this was true was probably quite short (at GW1, it seems right, and maybe at the end of GW3, but by the end of the UjW it was already much more on the level of a very powerful great power).

So, right now, we have plenty of great powers (TOP, Sparta, FARK, MHA, NpO and probably half a dozen more), which are powers that are powerful (duh) but do not outclass others. Besides this, I would say a great power needs to be at the highest tier of power unless there is a superpower; the above alliances, while not in any way equal, have a capability to influence eachother very much if they want to, while being able to wipe out any single alliance outside their tier. (NOT every single alliance outside their tier, which would make a superpower).

Apart from great powers, we have oodles of other alliances that are not easy to classify, because middling power just sounds stupid. Those alliances in significant blocs (FCC, the internationale, TLC, etc) but individually not so powerful, or those in weaker blocs but individually quite strong (ODN/TOOL/IRON) would make up this rank, as their aid would certainly be valuable for a great power fighting another great power, but alone they could not face one.

Finally, there's the last tier, alliances that are just not very strong. Goes from alliances that have some more than a million NS but no treaties down to 1k NS in a one-man alliances. Any of the other powers could kill them, with little cost, except for the intervention of other larger powers.

I'd put ODN and IRON in great power. Particularly IRON, those guys are gonna come back and $%&@ !@#$ up when the time comes