The Economist ~ Notes on the developing alliance structures

Day 2,267, 07:52 • Published in Poland United Kingdom • by Spite313



Dear friends,


In late 2013, when the TWO alliance was failing, I spent a lot of time talking to people about the problems in the alliance. Some were systemic, and fixable. Some weren’t. The biggest obstacle to any THREE alliance is of course the fact that although SPoland and Serbia being at peace is mutually advantageous, they disagree on so many issues it was an uncomfortable union. I felt then, and still feel now, that it is better for those two to part ways with respect rather than to let it degenerate into the usual childish trolling and accusations of backstabbing you get at the fall of an alliance.


Now even the most short-sighted player will realise that with new MPPs being signed between Poland, Spain, Turkey, Chile and Cro- amongst others- a new world alliance structure is forming. As someone with a small role in this, I’d like to comment on the logic behind it all. Starting at the beginning, PEACE and Phoenix were big sprawling alliances. ONE was a rebellion against that, with a small tightly knit alliance. TWO was similar, but larger and with many ACT nations. But the big problem throughout is that people didn’t realise that alliances aren’t about numbers on paper, they’re about numbers on the battlefield.


Toward the end of TWO, the alliance still had overwhelming numerical superiority, yet Slovenia was wiped off the map. How did that happen? Simply because half the alliance’s damage refused to fight for them. Even that wouldn’t have been enough to allow Cro victory, if not for the fact that Slovenia’s closest allies were distracted by their own battles and didn’t help. The key thing here is that an alliance which has efficient and obedient allocation of damage will always be stronger than a larger, less organised alliance. That is why EDEN beat ONE and it’s why TWO was crippled by the scattered remnants of EDEN time and again, despite controlling 70% of world damage.





When creating a new alliance the absolute priority is to make sure that never happens again. When picking allies, you have to think not just about their relationship with your country, but with all other countries in your “group”. It’s no good if they love you, but hate another country in your alliance. That isn’t a true alliance, it’s just a series of bilateral agreements. For that reason many countries are sitting on the sidelines and refusing to commit- there are people on both sides they don’t like.


To me that is the most sensible position to take for many countries at the minute. Trust must come before alliances are formed, or you are building your house on a foundation of sand, and when the wars come and you need to be at your strongest you’ll find that the damage on the battlefield does not meet up to your expectation. For that reason I believe that a good alliance should form around a small, intensely loyal core group, and that other countries should only be added if they are totally committed to all your members.


There has been a lot of talk about “licking” in the media (I’m assuming this is a European equivalent to what we’d call kissing arse), but for the most part I’ve avoided courting any country which isn’t committed one way or the other already. I just don’t think it’s worth seducing some country to your side only to find they were brought on board long before they were ready. The desperate grasping for damage merely leads to premature and shaky alliances which lack substance and strength.


As for which side is the best organised, I’ll leave the battlefields to do the talking on that one.


Iain