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?
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.