[TNT] Why the concept of a third alliance is a myth

Day 1,696, 22:34 • Published in USA Canada • by Chucky Norris


To put this article into context, I'd like to invite everyone to take a peak at the Public legislative branch of congress. There you will be able to see every thread related to the Alliance discussion, the first vote to pass it, the discussion thread, and the threads related to the repeal of the alliance project. I strongly advise you to check it out to get a good feeling of what congress is doing.

So basicly, the idea was to make a third alliance that would have no involvement in the balkans. This alliance would take 2 TERRA members and 2 ONE members in order to balance itself. This alliance would have for main purpose to help the four founding members to retain their bonus and spin things up.



I'd like to abord the core of the argument, and why I thought it was wrong to call this alliance a 3rd player. And this was the main reason why I objected the alliance, as it wasn't what it was selling itself for.

A 3rd alliance would be by definition one that is totally independant from both EDEN and ONE. However, even if you remove the US, Brazil, Spain and Poland. You still have some of the most powerfull nations that are members of those two alliance. For this very reason, it would be very hard for anyone to forgo any MPP with these nations. And at one point or another one of the big 4 would try to get a MPP from the balkans in order to gain an edge in a conflict of their choice. then if they do so, why would the others sit by and thus have lower firing power?

You see, the world is the way it is because of limitation in the game mechanics, the game itself will not support anything else than a ''us vs them'' mentality. Mostly because anyone would want as much MPP as they can. Can any president honestly say that they would be satisfied with only 15 MPP or so? I don't think so. And people that believe the contrary are naive imo. And I'm not even starting to talk about MPP conflicts that would cancel alliances in case of intra alliance conflicts.

How could we solve this? Have limitation on the MPP system. If a country could get no more than 10 MPP, we could have a much more diversified alliance landscape. Until then, it's simply impossible to make anything such as a 3rd way. Sooner or later, the 3rd alliance will lean to one side or another.

But all that is useless talk when you have unreliable new allies for a start. Especially when their only goal is to bring you to ONE instead of forming a 3rd alliance.

Aside from the game mechanics there was also things that were fundamentaly wrong with CTRL, one of them was the fact that not every member would have an equal membership as only the 4 founding members would have a permanent seat on a security council (much like the UN) and could veto project by the other members. The rest of the membership (envisioned 10) would be rotating on a non permanent seat. I thought this would be a hard sell, because who would really like to enter an alliance based on the fact that they are 2nd rate members? But I disgress, as this was only a secondary argument as why this would fail.

In a funny way, people thought I was crazy for thinking the way I did. I guess my 6 time as MoFA, my Presidential mendate and alliance leadership role, didn't thought me much! I'll let it for you to decide by reading the various thread on the eUS forum.