Ambient on/off

Join the new world


Alliance Module & MPP Cap

Day 1,838, 23:30 Published in Russia Canada by 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:

Alliance "A"

- Poland 50pts
- Slovenia 15pts
- Indonesia 15pts
- UK 10pts

TOTAL: 90pts

Alliance "A" would have room to add another tier 4 nation, or could simply close membership at 90pts.


Alliance "B"

- Serbia 50pts
- Hungary 30pts
- Lithuania 15pts
- New Zealand 5pts

TOTAL: 100pts

Alliance "B" would be at maximum capacity, using all 100 points allocated each alliance.


Alliance "C"

- Croatia 30pts
- Russia 15pts
- France 10pts
- Germany 10pts
- Canada 10pts
- Finland 10pts
- Sweden 10pts

TOTAL: 95pts

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.


Alliance "D"

- Serbia

TOTAL: 100pts

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.


Hello citizen,

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,


A Rock Star in Tanzania
A Rock Star in Tanzania Day 1,838, 00:30

good to read

simust2 Day 1,838, 00:30

2nd )

MiDoLi Day 1,838, 00:32

3rd xDD

Ivche Day 1,838, 00:40

Balance. In military and economics. And eRepublik will be again what it was.

sleft Day 1,838, 00:40

very interesting idea

Schoft Day 1,838, 00:41

Axis and Allies \o/

RoaiTG Day 1,838, 00:45

Good Idea Voted o/

Vincenzo Roque
Vincenzo Roque Day 1,838, 01:18

Nice Idea! Hope the admins think about this and make it work. I also agree that the economy should be given more importance in this game. Maybe these can be discussed in the erepublik summit.

Ivche Day 1,838, 01:25

All the "super powers" and "powers" will need is control of 2,3 country's more. + the rating system. There must be a good empirical way to calculate it. Yes, there was more balanced world in time of Phoenix vs.Eden.

Death and Taxes
Death and Taxes Day 1,838, 02:09

NFM - a very good idea mate. I remember when someone first spouted the idea about battles by divisions and look where we are now.

MR. HANK SCORPIO Day 1,838, 02:18


Skylovaravas Day 1,838, 02:21


Dio Czenishkov
Dio Czenishkov Day 1,838, 02:22

This would be fantastic. I like the basic premise more than just limiting the absolute number of MPPs a country could sign.

Don't overlook the possibility of several alliances coordinating to overcome the imposed limitations, even with your additional damage modification scheme (e.g. A+B both attack different countries in C). Even so, there's no way this wouldn't be a step in the right direction.

MrConway Day 1,838, 02:40

Really good idea. More alliances, more wars, more competitiveness. More money for admins.

StreakyTyphus Day 1,838, 02:57

HMMM. it woudl be a good idea if it wasnt stolen from another source

T Cherub
T Cherub Day 1,838, 03:00

It could give a new positive spin to the game. I like the idea!

mostates Day 1,838, 03:14

Proposal lacks realism to a certain extent, but eRep does too.

Che Kukaken
Che Kukaken Day 1,838, 03:16


Luis Mendez de Haro
Luis Mendez de Haro Day 1,838, 03:28


Ethan Seelowe
Ethan Seelowe Day 1,838, 03:31

good stuff. -v-

Mister Kirk
Mister Kirk Day 1,838, 04:07


RegisAjR Day 1,838, 04:09


OsmanGhazi Day 1,838, 04:14

excellent idea


DoctrineDark 1907
DoctrineDark 1907 Day 1,838, 04:33

wouw that is great!

Linzx Day 1,838, 04:50


6PABO Day 1,838, 04:54

please vote and chainshout to others, it must be on international top so admins could read it

Haidou Day 1,838, 05:04

In your first paragraph there is a flaw..
If this feature is added, theirs going to be PTOers trying to get into alliance leadership and that would definately screw things up!

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Day 1,838, 05:28

@UGX - An alliance HQ would be made up of all presiding CPs of the alliance's member-states, their MoDs and perhaps some other important cabinet members PLUS the alliance staff as voted for by the CPs of all the alliances. Nominations to these special HQ posts could work through the CPs thrashing out a shortlist, then putting it to the vote. Tenure in alliance HQ posts wouldn't have to be monthly, but could go on indefinitely if all the CPs are happy with their work.

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Day 1,838, 05:31

However, it should be in the power of all presiding CPs to propose a vote of 'no confidence' in the alliance commander, or his/her staff in order to have them removed from office, if the CP deems it necessary. All this ensures the alliance is accountable to the elected representatives of the member-states who make it up.

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Day 1,838, 05:37

And it also ensures some rogue "PTOer" CP couldn't single-handedly destroy the alliance. Everything in the alliance HQ would work democratically. Even membership of an alliance and the decision to leave it should require it pass successfully through the member-state's congress.

Kirill Volkov
Kirill Volkov Day 1,838, 06:25

Great idea!

Josef Svejk
Josef Svejk Day 1,838, 09:02

its a very good idea!

Dyzas Day 1,838, 13:03


Jassenin Kaltagi
Jassenin Kaltagi Day 1,838, 16:59

votado Faustian Nikola Tesla's descendant

Kyronte Day 1,838, 17:21

Great idea.


Your Loving Mother
Your Loving Mother Day 1,838, 19:50

mvcakir Day 1,838, 22:18

I loved the idea.

Especially the decrease of damage when you're not fighting for your CS country or her allies.
This would make PTO attempts harder as well.

Even the smallest countries can come together and do something meaningful.

Sean MacDiarmata
Sean MacDiarmata Day 1,839, 23:23

class stuff, we need to get someone that's going to the summit to tell Admin to try this.

Daemoner Day 1,839, 00:19

Out of reason. Both ideas.

Thedillpickl Day 1,839, 02:08

Once again players out think admins. Several brilliant players have had wonderful ideas in the past. Unfortunately eRep doesn't advance on brilliance but rather marketing. Show admin how this will make him more money and this will happen.

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Day 1,839, 02:44

@Pickl - Empowering smaller nations should help with retention there, and in the long run may create a bigger pool of potential gold buyers in countries where -- at the moment -- the populations are dying off for various reasons, but mainly because of wipes.

Plus more alliances means more hostile borders means more wars means more RL cash spent on this game.

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Day 1,839, 02:57

Presently we have 4 or 5 countries that can really turn Campaigns in their alliance's favour, with the above model all populaces would -- in theory -- have the power to turn a war in their alliance's favour because of the relatively small margins involved. This isn't likely to impact competitiveness, we'll still have huge battles, but what it will do is increase the importance of the contribution of smaller tier countries. And this ultimately can only benefit the global Erep community.

Wladimir Rote Sonne
Wladimir Rote Sonne Day 1,839, 21:13

Влом переводить. Требую русскую версию.

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.