Join the new world

Fear and Trust

Morale is irrelevant in eRepublik, as an ardent player clicks a button no better than one without any sort of motivation, and even people disinterested in a war will fight just for the experience points. However, while it matters not however the hearts of the combatants are swayed, those of the populace of warring nations are of utmost importance.

Aside from the largest core members of an alliance which control its affairs and use it for their needs, and their obedient lapdogs, countries join an alliance in most cases to seek protection from other states and organisations. As for example the case of Italy leaving PEACE GC after they failed to come to their aid when they were being taken over has shown, if this trust in the alliance and its ability or will to keep its members from harm is shaken these nations are likely inclined to turn away from their apparently false allies.

In practise, this does not happen often though. Many smaller countries which might want to leave their alliance face the danger of immediately becoming the target of hostile invasions as soon as they part from their inefficient but at least threatening overlords. A danger which the rape of France at the hands of Spain and Poland once the former had left PEACE GC has proven to be reality.

Thus we can see that trust and fear are what ties alliances together - and what can break them apart.


The Situation

Unfortunately both ATLANTIS/EDEN/Brolliance and PEACE GC/Phoenix have completely disregarded this crucial factor in the past. As mentioned above, PEACE GC's neglect of Italy was one such example, but also Romania forcing its way through Bulgaria some half a year ago.

Currently, the world is separated between these two mighty powers. Both are extremely aggressive, constantly at war, and show no respect for neutral states. Often the cravings of their core members lead to the neglect of larger strategies or acts of benevolence towards less important members or outside nations under attack by their enemies.

Secrecy and an exclusion of the populace in operations beyond urging them to click buttons evoke doubt within those who are unwilling to degrade themselves to mere drones and who feel alienated.
Nothing changes, the two factions are practically cemented, and most that is between them sooner or later gets crushed during one of their crusades. The strategies of both sides incorporate no diplomatic aspects and are mere constructs of violent barbarism.

However, within the word "tactics" there is a part spelling "tact".


Tactfulness

To gain the trust of members and potential new allies alike, an alliance ought to display a number of virtues.

An alliance must prioritise defence over offence. Few nations are as heroic as the Finns, and most will want to rest assured that in case of an attack their protectors live up to their duty and come to their aid when needed. Through this the alliance's members will feel safe in it and be more committed to the common cause.
Further, other countries are going regard the alliance as a reliable guardian and are thus more likely to choose it over an aggressive one that does not bother to shield those whom it promised it to, while simultaneously ravaging enemy lands elsewhere for conquest.
Of course, it would be unwise to suddenly abandon a major offensive atrociously planned for weeks because of the enemy's distraction manoeuvres. But a contingent of forces should be kept back to intervene in such cases, separate from the ones engaged in the offensive operation and always ready to be deployed to ward off hostile invasions.

The sovereignty of neutral nations and alliances must be respected. For one simple reason: When the time comes, which alliance would a non-aligned party side with, one which previously preyed on it while defenceless, or one which unconditionally guaranteed its safety before?
As the invasion of Bulgaria has shown, attacking a neutral party will ultimately drive them into the enemy's camp. Even if it might seem beneficial to tread over neutral soil for one's current goals, in the long run one will face in the opponent's army soldiers which could otherwise be counted among one's own ranks eventually.

The populace of the member states must be involved. A people cannot feel as joyous over a victory if it did not feel like it actually took part in it. To be mere cannon fodder clicking some fights as others instruct one to is not satisfying, and neither is to be completely uninformed about proceedings and operations until they're over as it implies that one is looked down upon and considered not worthy of being incorporated.
An alliance should not work for itself, but for the people who live in it and who fight for it, or at least make it seem that way. By communicating with the general population, the latter will feel more committed to the cause, and in case an operation fails they will not be able to blame it on the shady high command and its unknown and thus by default questionable plans.
Since everyone will to some extent have known what was the plan, everyone shares the burden of failure if it goes wrong; and in addition, knowing at least the outline of a scheme means that one can understand what exactly went wrong, and thus is able to give constructive criticism instead of just blaming the upper echelon for being completely incompetent (as would be easy to assume if one is left in the dark about their ambitions and merely sees the announced goals not achieved).

Another thing to consider would be the establishment of a platform where civilians of an alliance's members can communicate with each other. By seeing who they defend and with whom they are fighting, the alliance will stick together more.
I mentioned above that morale does not matter, but this is not the only aspect. If a country is considering to leave an alliance, the aforementioned measures might sway its opinion to stay after all, as it is different to secede from a bunch of anonymous political entities from separating from a collection of other individuals with whom one has bonded, who might even have become one's friends.

If a minor alliance member wishes to go to war, make it a joint operation. Unless there is a feud between two particular states who wish to duel it out between themselves only, if a smaller state has expansionist ambitions the whole alliance should support them in doing so. At the moment, the only attacks that are backed by entire alliances are those of the respective core states who seek to annex high iron regions or the likes. This might rightfully evoke the feeling within their smaller allies that their only purpose is to help the big ones get what they want. When the weaker members have ambitions themselves though, they are left alone and thus face great risks or are downright unable to even attempt to fulfil their wishes.
But if once in a while an entire alliance backs one such country, they will feel truly accepted. They will feel like they are just as important as all the others, that they are not only tools of the major players, but comrades who act in unity for everyone's satisfaction.


Conclusion

I believe that the implementation of these measurements could greatly improve the experience of this game. Aside from the obvious benefit for the alliances themselves, their members would feel safer, their people would have more fun due to deeper involvement, and neutral countries would no longer live in fear and when choosing an alliance eventually actually have a choice beyond trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

Alas, most of the current alliances are far away from this. Phoenix and EDEN are the epitome of strictly hierarchic imperialist tyranny anyway, Sol lacks the strength to effectively protect its own members without outside help, and the Brolliance with its uncoordinated and aggressive wars on France and South Korea has also already shown to be lacking. The only current alliance for which I bear hope is the Entente, but how things develop for everyone in the future will have to be seen.