New Faustian Man
This is an idea I had regarding how the meta-game feature of alliances could be worked into the game in order to bring some parity between nations on the battlefield, and introduce much greater strategy both in terms of diplomacy and war.
Give it a read and tell me what you think below.
--- First: Install a bona fide alliance feature within the game that operates much like a hybrid of the MU/Politics modules
Each alliance would operate along the MU/Political party model, with a Commander -- or however the leader would be titled -- who's able to appoint staff and invite citizens into the Alliance, i.e. all the member-states CPs, MoDs etc., and give them roles.
--- Second: Institute an Alliance MPP Cap
How the Cap will operate:
Imagine: All countries are given a rating based on an average of their monthly Damage over a period of 3 to 4 months. This rating has a points-value attached, and can change depending on their Damage record over this set number of months.
An alliance will have a ceiling in terms of points-value, beyond which the accumulative points-value total of all member-states cannot grow.
Consequently, smaller rated countries can sign more MPPs (plus these will be much cheaper to sign) before they reach the ceiling, i.e. the points-value limit. This means an alliance of smaller and mid-sized countries could do equal or Damage in excess of an alliance with Poland or Serbia in it -- theoretically. The problem with organising and concentrating Damage would be an obstacle for alliances with lots of countries, but the incentive would be obvious, plus the new "alliance tab" would make coordinating Damage much easier.
Conversely, MPPs between top tier countries would be much more expensive, to offset the higher number smaller and mid-sized countries have to sign to compete with an alliance featuring a top tier country.
--- The Ratings System: How It Works
Basing a nation's rating on their monthly Damage, or a combination of population size/monthly Damage, determines in what tier each nation is classified. Say we have 6 levels, 1 being the highest and 6 lowest. Serbia, Poland and perhaps the USA would all be placed in the top bracket, if they MPP'd each other this would in all likelihood disable their ability to MPP anyone else of note as it would top the amount of points each alliance is allowed.
Countries likely to feature in the second tier would be Bulgaria, Greece, FYROM, Croatia, Turkey etc.; and countries in the third tier: Slovenia, Russia, Indonesia etc.; tier 4 and below would be countries like Ireland, Australia, Netherlands etc.
If a tier 1 nation is attributed a 50 points-value, a tier 2 a 30 point-value, a tier 3 a 15 point-value, a tier 4 10pts, and a 5 point-value for all lower tier countries and the alliance ceiling is 100 points total -- the different alliances that could be formed may look a little as follows:
- Poland 50pts
- Slovenia 15pts
- Indonesia 15pts
- UK 10pts
Alliance "A" would have room to add another tier 4 nation, or could simply close membership at 90pts.
- Serbia 50pts
- Hungary 30pts
- Lithuania 15pts
- New Zealand 5pts
Alliance "B" would be at maximum capacity, using all 100 points allocated each alliance.
- Croatia 30pts
- Russia 15pts
- France 10pts
- Germany 10pts
- Canada 10pts
- Finland 10pts
- Sweden 10pts
With 95pts Alliance "C" could squeeze in another tier 4 nation if it wished, however the line-up as-is is fairly attractive Damage-wise. Alliances with a strong tier 2 country and numerous tier 3 countries are almost always going to be the strongest, however the challenge is in organising and successfully channelling the Damage. The success or failure of an alliance like alliance "C" pretty much depends on who's organising it and how capable they are at directing this Damage to the much larger number of borders alliance "C" would possess.
Two super-powers and unlikely bed-fellows. The benefit of this kind of alliance is the ease with which they could direct much of their considerable Damage, plus the small HQ also ensures the potential for conflict or personality clashes amongst the members is greatly reduced.
How alliance A would fair against alliance B, or alliance B against alliance C, or alliance D against A is debatable based on current battlefield Damage stats. Whatever alliance would win, one thing we're sure of is this kind of set-up would present a much broader challenge with a much more open landscape.
--- The Beneficial Effects of an Alliance Module and MPP Cap
The population imbalances in Erepublik mean some countries are always going to find retention incredibly difficult. No one fresh to the game is going to continue to waste their time and/or RL cash in their e-country if its suffering regular wipes or is unable to have any kind of meaningful impact on the battlefield.
With the addition of an alliance module every single country could -- theoretically -- have an impact on how campaigns and even entire wars pan out, even the lower tier countries. Based on this model, a country like Ireland or Australia, for example, could easily mean the difference between an alliance being 1st or 2nd most powerful in the e-world.
Alliances working together would definitely be a feature we'd see, and more than likely we'd see strong regional alliances assert themselves in the different continents. However one alliance dominating everything would be a thing of the past under the new model.
Diplomacy and strategy would come to the fore as never before and get a real lease of life. Even the lowest tier countries with their relatively small Damage output would have quite a lot to barter with, and the danger of being ignored by your alliance would be a thing of the past.
The danger of the meta-game and meta-alliances encroaching on the new module or simply the old alliances continuing unofficially would be a real threat in the beginning. However, extending something like the increased Damage you get through the "NE Bonus" to make it even more attractive to fight for allies could be introduced; and a counter-measure, whereby your Damage/Hits are greatly decreased when NOT fighting for your country of citizenship or a fellow alliance country would quickly hamstring the meta-alliances -- ofcourse countries could still do it, but all parties would have to be VERY determined to make it work, and if the counter-measure on your Hit reduced it by 80 to 90% all old alliances would, you'd imagine, become a thing of the past very quickly.
The ratings and points distribution and various tiers and all the other concepts I've used would more than likely have to be re-worked completely and fine-tuned to ensure everything operated correctly. But however its worked what is important is ensuring lower tier countries -- should enough ally themselves together, and do so efficiently -- can be a match for even the biggest super-powers like Poland or Serbia. That would be the point.
I sent in the suggestion to Erepublik.
Thank you very much for your message and for your support.
Your ideas have been extracted from your tickets and placed into a document. Now all our resources are occupied with other projects, but when we will have some available time, we will analyze your suggestions.
Your eRepublik team
Thanks for taking the time to read,
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.