Quality of alliance leaders

[Bob Janova]

There's a small amount of validity in this in that a good leader is a little less likely to get his alliance (and therefore his nation) rolled. But it's certainly not as simple as the OP suggests.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1295073834' post='2575843']
I usually don't bother logging into my nation at all, and tend to go on there every now and then and find out I'm 17 days inactive.
[/quote]

Stop using that for an excuse for being behind.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295078107' post='2575896']Another thing is that an alliance leader who just "doesn't care" about his nation isn't being a good leader, in my opinion. Why should his members care about their nations if their leader doesn't? [/quote]
I can answer that from experience in game under Moldavi.

Quite simply put, player cares for his nation for his own reasons, not for what some other guy does. Further, in case of Moldavi NPO for which I can speak, you have other players ("econ peeps") to bust your balls and teach you what to do or not. This type of leaders let others do and command the "pixel collection" and he concentrates on politics of it all. What I expect of an alliance leader, not how many pixels he has that couldn't be more irrelevant to the job description. Actually could be contra productive, if he is too attached to his stats that could be a problem for the entire alliance.

So quite simply the answer to your question. Correlation between leadership qualities and nation building are non existent nor important in any way.

[Alterego]

[quote name='thedestro' timestamp='1295055995' post='2575583']
MK leader, 81k NS almost 5 years. Taking into account casualties and possible past damage, it's not bad.
[/quote]
MK have never taken a serious pounding. In the war against TOP/IRON they had allies coming out of the woodwork to do their fighting and the war against NPO didnt really last that long. 3m dead isnt a lot. I have as much, my nation is much better, I am a year younger and didnt have TOP & NPO tech coming in for 20 months.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Alterego

[jerdge]

Leadership is about being good at leading people, where being good at building a nation is about [s]being able to analyze, optimize, design etc.[/s] having access to a good guide and being able to follow instructions.
They don't seem related to me. Maybe the common ground is activity, although everybody could probably name several people that are active and still manage to do it wrong, so I'm not really sure about that either.

Furthermore, "correlation" means that numbers have relations. Where are those numbers?

[lonewolfe2015]

If an alliance leader has built a proper nation, they can be considered a good leader if they built it using a thorough understanding of the mechanics in-game.

You cannot be a good leader by being solely a master in-game, or solely a master of politics. You must be strong in both areas, to both answer questions of members who need help running their nation, and to interact with other alliances around Bob.

[Branimir]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1295104034' post='2576030']Furthermore, "correlation" means that numbers have relations. Where are those numbers[/quote]
Nobody likes a guy doing what you are now, on although English speaking, internationally populated board. The term wasn't abused overly harshly and you got the point.
[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1295104319' post='2576032']You cannot be a good leader by being solely a master in-game, or solely a master of politics. You must be strong in both areas, to both answer questions of members who need help running their nation...[/quote]
Well, that maybe is an issue in smaller alliances, but in larger ones its an non issue. But an interesting point, I haven't considered in case of having a very small AA.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Branimir

[Machiabelly]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295078107' post='2575896']
I wouldn't point out a correlation with direct NS, as leaders get special focus in wars, and also tend to fight a lot. But there are other indicators, buying (or selling) tech with all their slots, keeping stable trades, growing their nation and building up their warchest at the fastest pace that wars will allow.

I would however, hold it against an alliance leader when they at least don't put in a good effort to build their nation up and use it effectively, and who doesn't have a solid understanding of the dynamics of nation building and in-game growth. For one, a solid understanding of in-game dynamics can be important, especially when planning for wars. An alliance leader ignorant of his alliance's real standing in-game can make mistakes, overestimating or underestimating his alliance in comparison to others and not have his alliance assigned well in a war. They also won't be as good at effectively monitoring and appointing their economics and war ministers. They may initiate and/or approve unwise and inefficient nation-building, war preparation, or deployment strategies. They may do a poor job at the negotiating table at wars end getting the best terms for their alliance (or writing good terms for an opponent).

Another thing is that an alliance leader who just "doesn't care" about his nation isn't being a good leader, in my opinion. Why should his members care about their nations if their leader doesn't? An alliance leader should lead by example, in that respect. If they don't that could contribute to a culture of laziness that will hurt the alliance. Alliance leaders tend to be some of the oldest nations and (if not rogued on a lot) have greater potential to have a large nation. Leaders can make a small difference with their nations alone. For example when I was in MK high gov (around noCB through Karma) all the gov were in the upper ranks, especially in tech, and made up a reasonable portion of those ranks.
[/quote]

I do agree with this, The onmly time I was overly concerned with nation building and doing it correctly, was way back in the mists of times when I led an alliance. Now I was never high enough profile to get much in the way of drive by nukings, so I did not have that issue to deal with...so I tried to lead by example and tech deal, have a solid trade circle...things like that.

[Sarmatian Empire]

I dont care about my nation at all, infact, it hardly grew for a year or so. I never back collect or improvement swap. I just choose to lead

[Zoomzoomzoom]

So this is why I've always been such a great leader.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1295108988' post='2576073']
I dont care about my nation at all, infact, it hardly grew for a year or so. I never back collect or improvement swap. I just choose to lead
[/quote]

I can understand alliance leaders focusing on politics and not putting as much time into their nations, but being willfully ignorant and incompetant ingame and then painting it as some kind of virtue baffles me. For someone who parades about Legacy's stats and seems to be the leader of a fairly competent/well built alliance, I find this terribly confusing.


I tend to agree with Azaghul, a good leader leads by example and for an alliance leader to try to build an alliance and make his alliance have a high standard of tech importation, wonder buying, and warchest accumulation (which should be major goals/benchmarks for every alliance), and then do nothing with his nation strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295104008' post='2576028']
MK have never taken a serious pounding. In the war against TOP/IRON they had allies coming out of the woodwork to do their fighting and the war against NPO didnt really last that long. 3m dead isnt a lot. I have as much, my nation is much better, I am a year younger and didnt have TOP & NPO tech coming in for 20 months.
[/quote]

There were wars before bi-polar...Like the WoTC, where MK entered knowing they entirely well that they might be disbanded. Furthermore, MK fought NpO who was either third or fourth in the game in the unjust war.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1295103555' post='2576026']
I can answer that from experience in game under Moldavi.

Quite simply put, player cares for his nation for his own reasons, not for what some other guy does. Further, in case of Moldavi NPO for which I can speak, you have other players ("econ peeps") to bust your balls and teach you what to do or not. This type of leaders let others do and command the "pixel collection" and he concentrates on politics of it all. What I expect of an alliance leader, not how many pixels he has that couldn't be more irrelevant to the job description. Actually could be contra productive, if he is too attached to his stats that could be a problem for the entire alliance.

So quite simply the answer to your question. Correlation between leadership qualities and nation building are non existent nor important in any way.
[/quote]
To a major extent, they will care for their own reasons, you are right. But that's not the entire picture, the expectations of their alliance will make a difference too. And when the alliance leader doesn't care, it's hard for him and his ministers to create an expectation that the membership should care.

Also there's also my point about a ruler's in-game knowledge being pertinent. If you aren't making any effort to run your nation properly, you lose out on the opportunity earn a better understanding of in-game knowledge that you need.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295104008' post='2576028']
MK have never taken a serious pounding. In the war against TOP/IRON they had allies coming out of the woodwork to do their fighting and the war against NPO didnt really last that long. 3m dead isnt a lot. I have as much, my nation is much better, I am a year younger and didnt have TOP & NPO tech coming in for 20 months.[/quote]
While we had allies come out to help us against TOP, MK didn't shy away from fighting and took the brunt of TOP's attack.

Also MK had a good fight against TPF. A decent number of MK members went to ZI and kept fighting TPF nations for months trading nukes near ZI. Archon was one of them.

[Joe Stupid]

I don't think Hoo has ever made it past 25k NS.

[Hyperbad]

Ask any number of players what it takes to be a quality leader and I'm sure you'll get a number of different answers. Some of those answers might include what others say or even run contrary to it. I would probably sum it up as ones ability to motivate others so that they [i]want[/i] to grow, achieve, take part, et cetera. There are many different ways to get that motivation into the members of an alliance.

To date the only leader of an alliance for a browser based game that I honestly respect was someone I had known from 1999-2001. His alliance hovered between 200 and 300 members in a game where the server population was roughly half what it presently is for CN. He designed and coded his own website and forums for the alliance along with roughly a dozen legal programs for members of his alliance to use. Mean while his account wasn't anything stellar despite the insane spreadsheets he possessed. The reason was simple; time. Between managing the infrastructure for the alliance and giving them tools with which to excel he also had to manage the politics of the game while also keeping the alliance well organized and run that they could go to war on a moments notice. He also had a busy life which cut into what he wanted to do. Still, he commanded respect not by demanding it or even not caring what other entities thought but by doing what he could, making sacrifices even of a monetary sort, for his alliance and spending all of that time and energy to ensure it would prosper. He was clearly capable of growing his account but he was sacrificing it so others in his alliance might be better built up and I've seen other examples of this in other games though not to the same extent.

CyberNations however isn't complex to the point it's necessary. In CN anyone is able to find a trade circle with relative ease because it's typically a one time thing with the rarity of having to find replacements. Tech deals are only problematic in finding reliable sellers and besides that you don't actually [i]do[/i] anything for long periods of time. So in truth there isn't a strong reason why anyone should be off a path of ideal growth. There is no need for a dozen programs or excessive amounts of attention necessary to run your nation.

With all of that said I still haven't been able to think of a way to quantify whether a leader is good at, well, leading. The flux of an alliance's membership varies as much from real life as from thoughts on the game itself and a leader can't really be blamed if members fall on hard times or are busy with work and school. I suppose a leader is partly to blame if the game has lost its appeal and if the appeal was lost because the leader has a nation whose numbers are not quite what you'd expect then there might be some relevance to what the OP said but it would still fall short because it doesn't take into account other motivating factors.

/end ramble

Edited January 15, 2011 by Hyperbad

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1295121831' post='2576257']
I can understand alliance leaders focusing on politics and not putting as much time into their nations, but being willfully ignorant and incompetant ingame and then painting it as some kind of virtue baffles me. For someone who parades about Legacy's stats and seems to be the leader of a fairly competent/well built alliance, I find this terribly confusing.


I tend to agree with Azaghul, a good leader leads by example and for an alliance leader to try to build an alliance and make his alliance have a high standard of tech importation, wonder buying, and warchest accumulation (which should be major goals/benchmarks for every alliance), and then do nothing with his nation strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
[/quote]

I think it would have something more to do with who certain are as people. I am more of a manager, so I manage an alliance. Some people want the best, so they concentrate more on their nation. Some want the best of both worlds. I find managing an alliance more enjoyable. You can build up a nation and in two weeks someone can erase what youve been doing for two months, meanwhile, those two weeks of war don't erase the systems you start in an alliance. Unless you disband, or all your members leave, things, if you have done everything correctly, should keep rolling along during and after a war. Meanwhile my nation has been reset two years ago.

Best I can do to explain it for you

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1295121831' post='2576257']
I tend to agree with Azaghul, a good leader leads by example and for an alliance leader to try to build an alliance and make his alliance have a high standard of tech importation, wonder buying, and warchest accumulation (which should be major goals/benchmarks for every alliance), and then do nothing with his nation strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
[/quote]

Can't remember the last time we agreed on something, is this a sign of something to come?

[Archon]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1295076625' post='2575885']
As Archon pointed out, Alliance leaders usually get special attention in wars, as part of a misguided belief that wrecking their nation will have an effect on the duration/outcome of a war.
[/quote]

However, sometimes that works out well, in that alliance leaders often duel. I count both Electron Sponge and mhawk among my friends, and those friendships really started from the wars we fought, not just as alliance but as individual nations (I'd say I won my individual against Sponge, but mhawk wiped the floor with me with his x2 tech advantage )

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1295122516' post='2576263']
There were wars before bi-polar...Like the WoTC, where MK entered knowing they entirely well that they might be disbanded. Furthermore, MK fought NpO who was either third or fourth in the game in the unjust war.
[/quote]

We fought NpO and MCXA (back when MCXA was a decent alliance, pre-TSO) at the same time, actually.

[Kowalski]

I don't think you can make that connection, both Tamurin (TFD) and WCR (MHA) were great alliance leaders but their nations sucked

[HalfEmpty]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295078107' post='2575896']
I wouldn't point out a correlation with direct NS, as leaders get special focus in wars, and also tend to fight a lot. But there are other indicators, buying (or selling) tech with all their slots, keeping stable trades, growing their nation and building up their warchest at the fastest pace that wars will allow.I would however, hold it against an alliance leader when they at least don't put in a good effort to build their nation up and use it effectively, and who doesn't have a solid understanding of the dynamics of nation building and in-game growth. For one, a solid understanding of in-game dynamics can be important, especially when planning for wars. An alliance leader ignorant of his alliance's real standing in-game can make mistakes, overestimating or underestimating his alliance in comparison to others and not have his alliance assigned well in a war. They also won't be as good at effectively monitoring and appointing their economics and war ministers. They may initiate and/or approve unwise and inefficient nation-building, war preparation, or deployment strategies. They may do a poor job at the negotiating table at wars end getting the best terms for their alliance (or writing good terms for an opponent).Another thing is that an alliance leader who just "doesn't care" about his nation isn't being a good leader, in my opinion. Why should his members care about their nations if their leader doesn't? An alliance leader should lead by example, in that respect. If they don't that could contribute to a culture of laziness that will hurt the alliance. Alliance leaders tend to be some of the oldest nations and (if not rogued on a lot) have greater potential to have a large nation. Leaders can make a small difference with their nations alone. For example when I was in MK high gov (around noCB through Karma) all the gov were in the upper ranks, especially in tech, and made up a reasonable portion of those ranks.


[/quote]

The ThugDwarf from Fungus makes a decent point, however it is negated by the supreme truthery of the Modavi Reality:

[i][size="4"]he plays with humans not pixels[/size][/i]

Edited January 15, 2011 by HalfEmpty

[xoindotnler]

The existence of Avalon makes this argument invalid, or just darn hard to prove it is correct.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1295124612' post='2576290']
I don't think Hoo has ever made it past 25k NS.
[/quote]

I hit 35K once. I've re-rolled twice and nearly get ZIed every war we get into though. Heh.

[ImperialCubanacan]

I'll play this game. I have been in Nordreich and was in it's Norden Verein variation for a long time, 2006, 2007 and early 2008 and now 2010/2011.

Nordreich/Norden Verein/Nordreich Reichskaisers:

Magnus Nordir (NoR) 2006 & early 2007 - nation deleted, inactive and no longer plays, so not available for stats.

Kaiser Martens (NoR/NoV) 2006/2007 - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=965 he was constantly rogued and partook in numerous wars (global and localized) and as a result his NS is considerably poor for its age. Depending on your opinion, he is either a crappy former leader or was a good one.

Striderwannabe (NoV) 2007/2008 - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=326347 was involved in numerous wars back in the day, along with the rest of the alliance. Looks re-rolled to me, his NS is on par a little with its age. Does not equate whether or not he was a sound leader. Despite former history of NoV.

Kingzog (NoR) 2009 - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=378553 a sound leader from what I have been told, was at the helm for the beginning of the new Nordreich. (I hadn't come back yet, so idk otherwise) NS is slightly lower than what it probably should be. But I suspect he may not focus much on it. Does this equate him as a bad leader?

Nemhauser (NoR) 2009/2010/2011 - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=38264 103K NS, he has survived many many years and is strong. He is a sound leader, but is this because of his NS? No, not really. It's because of his personality and character.

Point is, this theory has soo many holes in it. A lot of people re-roll, I myself did after my first nation was deleted years ago. NS does not equate strength as a leader, merely, strength in war. And by war, that is 1v1 in nation battles. Or, 1v3, whichever. But that does not determine the strength of the leader of an alliance.

The strength of a leader is determined by their personality, character, charisma and those who follow them. Their individual in-game nation only takes part when it comes to game mechanics such as tech dealing, war-time economics and prowess, etc. Otherwise their nation matters little.

In the real world, it's polar opposite.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1295125467' post='2576306']
I think it would have something more to do with who certain are as people. I am more of a manager, so I manage an alliance. Some people want the best, so they concentrate more on their nation. Some want the best of both worlds. I find managing an alliance more enjoyable. You can build up a nation and in two weeks someone can erase what youve been doing for two months, meanwhile, those two weeks of war don't erase the systems you start in an alliance. Unless you disband, or all your members leave, things, if you have done everything correctly, should keep rolling along during and after a war. Meanwhile my nation has been reset two years ago.

Best I can do to explain it for you
[/quote]

Fair enough, it seems to be working for you at least


[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1295126607' post='2576323']
Can't remember the last time we agreed on something, is this a sign of something to come?
[/quote]

Asgaard-TOP MADP 2011? You'll find I'm actually quite reasonable when I'm not desperately trying to keep a PoS alliance from falling apart and keep it in a war through sabotaging peace negotiations and being a !@#$%. Oh my, what memories

Edited January 16, 2011 by Lord Fingolfin

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1295131631' post='2576383']
I don't think you can make that connection, both Tamurin (TFD) and WCR (MHA) were great alliance leaders but their nations sucked
[/quote]

I beg to differ. When I was done with Tamurin's nation it got in good shape. And while he's having fun depleting his tech and money stock it's still not bad at all for someone who unloads 900 tech per month