Join the new world

Sup all,

So here we are, at the end of the series. This is the third in a short series about super alliances, their positives, negatives and effects on others. The first article outlines the history of how we got to where we are now, and the second article explains the positives and negatives of the alliances, and their effects on neutral nations. This article will be examining the possibilities of a world without two major alliances, how it would look and how it could be formed and survive.

So… I guess we may as well begin, eh?
I guess I should note, much of this is hypothetical and parts are immensely unlikely in the current world climate.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The ideal goal.

To begin with, we should probably establish what we would want to see as the best possible outcome of this, and how the best end result could be achieved. Personally, I’d like to see an alliance the size of Sol or ALA, with the organisation and efficiency of Phoenix or EDEN. So this would result in perhaps 4 or 5 well-organized, militarily efficient alliances popping up around the globe.


Sol flag.

These alliances would most likely be regional, with countries such as Hungary, Serbia and Russia grouping up, and perhaps France, Spain and Italy in another or perhaps one wide European alliance. I should note, at the moment for obvious reasons, the second alliance is immensely unlikely 😛 I’m just using it as an example of a regional Western European alliance.

[img]http://wiki.erepublik.com/images/5/57/Aha_flag_1.JPG[/img]
The ALA flag, a regional alliance.

The overwhelming problem with this regional idea is of course, Europe. No matter how you argue it, Europe is undoubtedly the strongest continent in the New World, with Hungary, Russia (kinda), Serbia, Poland, Spain, Romania and the Nordic regions. Anyone who came up against Europe as a whole would be, quite frankly, screwed. There isn’t a major lot you can do about this, unless by the time this hypothesis is potentially valid, many other continents have babybooms.


Random picture to break text =o

The reason why 4-5 alliances the size of Sol would be rather nice is the fact it would no longer by two alliances fighting. The face of geo-politics would change, with some alliances trying to curry favour with others, and potentially trying to backstab others. There would be frequent wars around the world on multiple fronts. The smaller alliances would mean countries have less to pay on MPP costs, and small countries would have more chance of a training war, as such.



Buck Roger raised an interesting point in one of my previous articles:

Let's say you have 12 equal competitors, okay?
Let's say nine of them like big alliances and three of them don't.
Naturally, the nine will not all have the same interests. So, when two of these competitors conflict, they start to create allies. Since they don't mind big alliances, these alliances get big, until everyone has picked a dog in the fight who doesn't stay neutral or independent on principle.
Now you have two big alliances with 4 or 5 competitors in each of them, assuming that neither side has been exterminated by now.
At this point, the other three "independents" are essentially just pawns to be captured, moved, or ignored until and unless they connect with one of the larger, more powerful groups.



This is, of course, a fantastic point. And there is every possibility it will occur if such a situation arises. It is however not a certainty. What the point raised here would be is that this is how we found ourselves with two major alliances in the first place and a few neutrals along the way.

So we could assume this has happened, and then each alliance had internal problems leading it to split in two, creating 4-5 alliances as I originally said. However, that would be far too convenient and the issue deserves a better answer. 😛

So lets look at it another way. These 9 nations want to fight each other. But to do this would imply that there are no rivalries between any other nations, only the two initial fighters. Chances are this is unlikely, as even if we were starting from the beginning of eRep, people would still bring their RL issues into the game. So we can safely assume there will be at least two nations wanting war with each other, perhaps 3 or 4 even. This may either result in two massive alliances, like Buck said, or numerous smaller alliances with 2 or 3 members.

[img]http://www.alliance-games.com/Images/other_images/ALLIANCE_IMAGES/ALLIANCE.JPG[/img]

In turn, this would leave the neutrals the possibility to bind together if one is threatened, creating a final alliance. Arguably, strong nations want war more often than weaker nations, since war sustains nations and keeps the game fun which enables their large populations to survive. Generally smaller nations will be as interested in politics or economic matters as military things, and larger nations have a tendency to focus most of their actions on war, possibly because they can.

So yes, no matter what happens neutrals are more likely to be steamrolled by other countries, unless they choose to become “un-neutral” and join in an alliance with at least 2 or 3 others. But say they were equal, as was mentioned… Strictly speaking, they would be steam rolled by a larger group, and unless they wanted to be crushed, they’d have to form an alliance or join another, potentially creating larger groups.



However, if all countries were equal, that would create a lot of war between the competitors, possibly leaving them too busy to focus on the neutral nations or if they tried to, one of the other alliances would presumably step in to try and help the neutrals, in an effort for global diplomacy and to look good in propaganda, influencing this nation to join the helping alliance.

In a similar fashion, there are always going to be strong nations destroying smaller nations, regardless of the sizes of their military alliance. Smaller alliances make it a tiny bit harder to do so and give the small, neutral nation more hope, but they will not protect the nation entirely.

I have devoted an awful lot to this yet I have no idea if it even goes as close to answer the initial point 😛 My apologies.



In conclusion, the ideal goal would be regional alliances, with as equal a spread of power as possible (possibly two European alliances) with constant wars on multiple fronts, allowing greater diplomacy and flexibility on the global stage. Problem is this is a long-term thing, and will happen no time soon.

Dismantling the alliance and the aftermath.



Well an alliance can really go down in three obvious ways:

1) Both EDEN and Phoenix agreeing to dismantle if the other does;
2) Both sides building up regional alliances, which result in the death of the two big alliances due to a desire for self-preservation
3) Both sides facing internal break ups.

I’ll admit, none of those are particularly likely, with the most likely being the second, to be honest. ALA itself has led to less devotion to Phoenix in South America, and Sol has kept itself relatively busy. A Western European alliance was in the pipe works for a while, but ironically died with the birth of Phoenix. Perhaps with a renewal, Western Europe may become more unified and wish to work closer together. Although in current circumstances there isn’t that much left of Western Europe.


Rather dull colour over France, no?

So what will happen in the hypothetical aftermath of the death of EDEN and Phoenix?

It depends really on how each alliance breaks down. Option 1 may result in the strong nations of Phoenix banding together with one or two others, and the same with EDEN. Option 2 would result in continental alliances, which after realizing it is a game and no one gets hurt, may go to war with their old friends, sheerly for “the lulz”. Option 3 may potentially end up in the same alliance with a different name, such as the Sweden-Germany war ending Atlantis and beginning EDEN.


Pretty picture =3

If alliances broke down, there would be a short period of confusion before multiple wars broke out along the frontiers of alliances, the entire world situation would change, with new situations never before encountered arising and creating excitement for new and old players alike. It would take a bit of getting used to, but in the long run it probably is best for the eRep community.

[img]http://z.about.com/d/rap/1/0/c/D/-/-/DJKhaledWeTheBest.JPG[/img]
Too right, bro 😎

Whether it could work in the very long term is debatable, with Buck’s theory coming up and presumably forcing one or two of the alliances to join together, as was seen in early Beta for the foundation of Atlantis and PEACE. As it stands right now, the New World isn’t ready to put aside its differences and try something new together. Maybe in a month or two, maybe in a year if eRep is still going. And an equal opportunity to be never, if not greater.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

So yes, thank you for reading the Super Alliance series. I hope you haven’t found this article or any of the others too dull and have largely enjoyed them. If you have any questions, comments or just about anything, PM me here and I’ll answer them ASAP.

Thanks for your time,
AV
🙂


Proud member of the British Media Alliance