Ambient on/off

Sign up

 

Continue

Continue By creating an account you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy
Resend email   |  Can't find the email? confirmation@erepublik.com

Resend the confirmation email to this address

Resend email Can't find the email? confirmation@erepublik.com

A "Third Way" for Alliances?

Day 1,866, 08:36 by Jaffle

Hi all,

I've also proposed this within the CPF and in congress - this is just to float the idea as widely as possible (i.e., to my 8 subscribers, in case they are not in CPF or congress).

I'm not sure whether this is a new idea, but it seems we are focusing on alliances from a point of view of territory - protecting our own, and helping allies retain or regain theirs.

If we are considering joining CoT for pragmatic reasons, why not be more pragmatic still, and focus on gaining gold and experience for our citizens, instead? In other words, why not choose our MPPs based not on an alliance bloc, but on whether a potential ally is likely to have an active war in the next month? Let's not worry about whether they will defend us if we're attacked: our experience has been that our allies haven't been much help against Poland, for example.

For example, one way forward would be to reach out to UK or Ireland (not USA) and arrange for a long-term training war, with the objective of drawing that war out as long as possible just to get TP gold, experience and rank all around. If the UK is interested, we stick with EDEN; if Ireland is interested, we go with CoT. Either way, we'd be looking for a commitment to have a training war that would last for months, not just a week or two.

I'm not arguing that this is the best way forward, but have we even considered it?

 

Comments

Plugson
Plugson Day 1,866, 08:45

1 of 8 reporting in...
I'm not sure if this has been considered exactly as stated, yet it does sound quite like the idea of remaining neutral and weighing the options as we go along. If we do work with CoT one month for a TW and then switch to EDEN or Asgard the next, one problem could be that our traditional MPP buddies see us as somewhat mercenary and not a 'bro' to be relied on. However, that's the emotional side of the game, since it's not like we'd be outright involved in invasions...even though MPPs with minor nations do tend to assist the larger nations with their conquests.

"why not choose our MPPs based not on an alliance bloc, but on whether a potential ally is likely to have an active war in the next month?"
This approach to the game sounds practical and makes plenty of sense if we shift priorities. First, we'd have to give up the idea that eCanada is out to expand and gain production bonuses (that's not a big leap of imagination, to be honest). Second, we'd have to focus on the benefits of each MPP signed as providing active wars, rather than fostering kinship among nations (this would be a bigger leap of imagination). I think people like the idea that by signing MPPs with Portugal or Columbia that they are helping out a 'friend' even if it's not for an active war.

But yeah, signing MPPs for their active wars and cutting those that conflict with Training Wars is a sensible approach to the game. Probably too sensible for the majority to consider.

Alexander Radsoc Goebbels
Alexander Radsoc Goebbels Day 1,866, 09:46

not sure of the logic in the last paragraph

Laset
Laset Day 1,866, 12:11

v 7 / s 10

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-1-2184364/1/20

vote, shout, pls

James Madison60
James Madison60 Day 1,866, 16:34

I am too new to know. I am am with what ever Jaffle says is the way to go.

 
Post your comment

What is this?

You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.