Post by brianboru on Jul 26, 2013 5:18:34 GMT
A Treatise on Military Alliances in eRepublik
Introduction:
The purpose of this exercise will be to discuss the desired ideals of military alliances in eRepublik, given the nature of the game and politics itself, in order to craft a template of the ideal alliance, i.e. A strong alliance that can project its power while remaining together as an alliance. While some alliances have come very close to ideals in the areas I shall discuss, none have achieved perfection and none are very likely to ever do so. However, setting out the fundamentals of the ultimate alliance remains a useful exercise, as a template for practical application of such ideas.
Chapter 1: Member States
The member states of an alliance are the absolute fundamental level of consideration for the creation of an alliance. The traditional categories that have been used to select members are strength and closeness of the countries, as well as selection based on particular strategic goals in the short term. Generally, very little if any attention has ever been paid to more rationalised selections for membership.
This is particularly evident in the case of small or militarily incompetent countries' inclusion into alliances. Many such countries are members of alliances, but few contribute proportionally to their respective alliances. This is often because of a lack of integration into the alliance 'spirit', national failings in their respective militaries, or an insular attitude to diplomatic affairs. None of this says that small countries cannot contribute to good alliances, merely that smaller countries often fall prey to weakness beyond that of their size for any number of reasons.
The relationship between smaller countries and their larger comrades has to be one of strict practicality in action, not just an emotional connection between friends. Mutually beneficial arrangements, particularly around resources and strategic positions, must be made that may not always be entirely satisfactory. However, larger countries should not abandon or ignore the proportionally smaller ambitions of their smaller allies, provided there is a realism in the ideas put forth and some measure of glory to be had in pursuing the ambitions in question.
Chapter 2: The Fortress Core
Another important factor for military alliances that is often ignored is the idea of a geographic core; the majority of the major military powers should be capable of directly aiding each other without the use of airstrikes or even MPPs. The utility of this point cannot be underestimated, the opening of multiple fronts by multiple allied countries is almost always more effective than a single country deploying with MPPs, even with the same allies. This does not exclude countries that aren't within the proposed geographic core, but it gives a level of security that allows the core to maintain a security level sufficient enough to project power far beyond the core.
This factor, while ignored, has been demonstrated in-game; TWO's utter dominance of Western Europe can be seen not only as a projection of its military strength, but the ease with which multiple TWO countries can bring attacks to bear on European opponents. If TWO countries were more spread out in the eWorld, this task would be more difficult. TWO's core isn't as centralised as it could be, the core is punctuated by smaller countries who are military non-entities. The military and diplomatic weakness of France and Germany has also allowed Spain to join with TWO's core, making their fortress core even harder to attack. These countries do not inhibit the idea of the core region, in fact one could argue they augment it by providing more regions for strategic and resource purposes.
The lack of a geographic core can also be a weakness. CoT's strategic interests are almost as wide as TWO's are, encompassing North America, South America, Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. However, lacking a core from which it can strike at will, CoT's power projection is much reduced. CoT must rely on MPPs to a far larger degree than TWO would need to in a similar situation. This weakness isn't just for direct military reasons alone; CoT also lacks what you could call a cultural or civilisational core, and has failed to attract a number of strong and central countries to the alliance that would form a useful core. In particular, Croatia, Albania, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as Romania before it joined TWO's sphere of influence. Along with Bulgaria and Macedonia/FYROM, these countries would form an excellent core for CoT in the Balkans which would attract still more strong countries. Yet diplomatic issues and a lack of understanding of the urgency of a fortress core of regions means that these countries' cooperative actions can vary wildly, and the opportunity is lost at the moment.
The game's real life borders often means that cultural and political ideas from the outside are expressed in game. This naturally means that a geographic core is best organised around countries from a common civilisation. Again, TWO demonstrated this with having a geographic core based in central and eastern Europe, a region that has much shared experience in both reality and in-game. The core is therefore defined not only in geographic terms, but also in terms of shared culture and peer groups.
Chapter 3: The “Mediator” State
The role of some small or regional powers in the alliance is often less military than diplomatic. While participating fully in the military actions of the alliance, their smaller size requires two things of such nations; a much higher dependence on good diplomacy, and ambitions that are more restrained. Both of these occur naturally as a matter of course, as the smaller powers must use diplomacy to gain the military strength to fulfill their ambitions, and the very same ambitions are not so big as to step on the toes of larger allies.
A state within the alliance that is militarily active, but also diplomatically active and competent with both can be classified as the Mediator State. Any number of the smaller countries within the alliance could be mediators, but generally, very few are. Furthermore, the more smaller countries there are, the less effective their mediation.
The purpose of the Mediator State is generally to help the alliance stick together by promoting the common ambitions of the alliance. Competent or well-liked countries can and have pulled alliances together in the past, and doubtless will in the future. Soft power is what such states bring to the alliances, both in terms of keeping the alliance together and in diplomacy outside the alliance. Larger countries often play to their military strength and little else, whereas smaller countries must be more creative with their diplomatic actions or suffer annihilations. Small to mid sized countries also tend to have harsh political battles. Both the domestic politicking and the necessity of good diplomacy mean that the smaller countries' personnel are often the better diplomats. Furthermore, involvement in the alliance HQ by smaller countries is often seen as an advantage, and so they are more likely to value such positions more highly.
The most obvious example of a Mediator State in eRepublik, traditionally at any rate, is the United Kingdom. Repeatedly, Britain has found itself in alliances with much more powerful countries, despite its mid-level military strength and lack of strategic position. However, the general competence of the people it sends to serve in alliance HQs, as well as the high degree of public solidarity to the alliance that the British show, often gives them disproportionate influence in the affairs of whatever alliance they are a member of. Mediator states don't necessarily have to be just that all of the time, the attempts by Slovenia to carve a fairer set of procedures into the TWO Charter are another example of mediator behaviour; setting the alliance straight with both its ambitions and those of its member states.
Chapter 4: Strategic Allies
Aside from the geographic core, alliances must have some strong allies from outside the core, particularly in different timezones, due to both a need for more military strength and due to the length of battles. Bringing such countries into the alliance does possess some risk, and this is one of the better reasoned areas of alliance politics at the moment. Many alliances have suballiances, trial memberships or just having multiple MPPs signed with strong but distant countries.
Of the countries not in a major alliance at the moment, China is perhaps the best example of a strategic ally; large, militarily competent, in a timezone that can be considered valuable, and so far away from the battlegrounds of Europe and the Middle East that she cannot present any real threat to the interests of most countries. Brazil, while much closer to the main battle arenas, has also been a strategic ally to both the US and Spain for a time. While not in the geographic core, such countries are just as essential to any alliance, though their numbers must be kept below those of the core for the simple reason that spreading out an alliance fragments the interests of member states.
Another form of strategic ally is the MU, mercenary or otherwise. Private MUs hold a large amount of damage in reserve, and in mid-to-large sized states, often represent a larger proportion of damage than the national military does, if one even exists. A direct relationship between the alliance command and key MU leaders can definitely be considered at the level of strategic allies, as the alliance can circumvent political issues between members and appeal directly to people who control damage. Mercenaries, likewise, represent another large proportion of reserve damage available, and cultivating a good reputation among mercs is another plus for any alliance or country.
Introduction:
The purpose of this exercise will be to discuss the desired ideals of military alliances in eRepublik, given the nature of the game and politics itself, in order to craft a template of the ideal alliance, i.e. A strong alliance that can project its power while remaining together as an alliance. While some alliances have come very close to ideals in the areas I shall discuss, none have achieved perfection and none are very likely to ever do so. However, setting out the fundamentals of the ultimate alliance remains a useful exercise, as a template for practical application of such ideas.
Chapter 1: Member States
The member states of an alliance are the absolute fundamental level of consideration for the creation of an alliance. The traditional categories that have been used to select members are strength and closeness of the countries, as well as selection based on particular strategic goals in the short term. Generally, very little if any attention has ever been paid to more rationalised selections for membership.
This is particularly evident in the case of small or militarily incompetent countries' inclusion into alliances. Many such countries are members of alliances, but few contribute proportionally to their respective alliances. This is often because of a lack of integration into the alliance 'spirit', national failings in their respective militaries, or an insular attitude to diplomatic affairs. None of this says that small countries cannot contribute to good alliances, merely that smaller countries often fall prey to weakness beyond that of their size for any number of reasons.
The relationship between smaller countries and their larger comrades has to be one of strict practicality in action, not just an emotional connection between friends. Mutually beneficial arrangements, particularly around resources and strategic positions, must be made that may not always be entirely satisfactory. However, larger countries should not abandon or ignore the proportionally smaller ambitions of their smaller allies, provided there is a realism in the ideas put forth and some measure of glory to be had in pursuing the ambitions in question.
Chapter 2: The Fortress Core
Another important factor for military alliances that is often ignored is the idea of a geographic core; the majority of the major military powers should be capable of directly aiding each other without the use of airstrikes or even MPPs. The utility of this point cannot be underestimated, the opening of multiple fronts by multiple allied countries is almost always more effective than a single country deploying with MPPs, even with the same allies. This does not exclude countries that aren't within the proposed geographic core, but it gives a level of security that allows the core to maintain a security level sufficient enough to project power far beyond the core.
This factor, while ignored, has been demonstrated in-game; TWO's utter dominance of Western Europe can be seen not only as a projection of its military strength, but the ease with which multiple TWO countries can bring attacks to bear on European opponents. If TWO countries were more spread out in the eWorld, this task would be more difficult. TWO's core isn't as centralised as it could be, the core is punctuated by smaller countries who are military non-entities. The military and diplomatic weakness of France and Germany has also allowed Spain to join with TWO's core, making their fortress core even harder to attack. These countries do not inhibit the idea of the core region, in fact one could argue they augment it by providing more regions for strategic and resource purposes.
The lack of a geographic core can also be a weakness. CoT's strategic interests are almost as wide as TWO's are, encompassing North America, South America, Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. However, lacking a core from which it can strike at will, CoT's power projection is much reduced. CoT must rely on MPPs to a far larger degree than TWO would need to in a similar situation. This weakness isn't just for direct military reasons alone; CoT also lacks what you could call a cultural or civilisational core, and has failed to attract a number of strong and central countries to the alliance that would form a useful core. In particular, Croatia, Albania, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as Romania before it joined TWO's sphere of influence. Along with Bulgaria and Macedonia/FYROM, these countries would form an excellent core for CoT in the Balkans which would attract still more strong countries. Yet diplomatic issues and a lack of understanding of the urgency of a fortress core of regions means that these countries' cooperative actions can vary wildly, and the opportunity is lost at the moment.
The game's real life borders often means that cultural and political ideas from the outside are expressed in game. This naturally means that a geographic core is best organised around countries from a common civilisation. Again, TWO demonstrated this with having a geographic core based in central and eastern Europe, a region that has much shared experience in both reality and in-game. The core is therefore defined not only in geographic terms, but also in terms of shared culture and peer groups.
Chapter 3: The “Mediator” State
The role of some small or regional powers in the alliance is often less military than diplomatic. While participating fully in the military actions of the alliance, their smaller size requires two things of such nations; a much higher dependence on good diplomacy, and ambitions that are more restrained. Both of these occur naturally as a matter of course, as the smaller powers must use diplomacy to gain the military strength to fulfill their ambitions, and the very same ambitions are not so big as to step on the toes of larger allies.
A state within the alliance that is militarily active, but also diplomatically active and competent with both can be classified as the Mediator State. Any number of the smaller countries within the alliance could be mediators, but generally, very few are. Furthermore, the more smaller countries there are, the less effective their mediation.
The purpose of the Mediator State is generally to help the alliance stick together by promoting the common ambitions of the alliance. Competent or well-liked countries can and have pulled alliances together in the past, and doubtless will in the future. Soft power is what such states bring to the alliances, both in terms of keeping the alliance together and in diplomacy outside the alliance. Larger countries often play to their military strength and little else, whereas smaller countries must be more creative with their diplomatic actions or suffer annihilations. Small to mid sized countries also tend to have harsh political battles. Both the domestic politicking and the necessity of good diplomacy mean that the smaller countries' personnel are often the better diplomats. Furthermore, involvement in the alliance HQ by smaller countries is often seen as an advantage, and so they are more likely to value such positions more highly.
The most obvious example of a Mediator State in eRepublik, traditionally at any rate, is the United Kingdom. Repeatedly, Britain has found itself in alliances with much more powerful countries, despite its mid-level military strength and lack of strategic position. However, the general competence of the people it sends to serve in alliance HQs, as well as the high degree of public solidarity to the alliance that the British show, often gives them disproportionate influence in the affairs of whatever alliance they are a member of. Mediator states don't necessarily have to be just that all of the time, the attempts by Slovenia to carve a fairer set of procedures into the TWO Charter are another example of mediator behaviour; setting the alliance straight with both its ambitions and those of its member states.
Chapter 4: Strategic Allies
Aside from the geographic core, alliances must have some strong allies from outside the core, particularly in different timezones, due to both a need for more military strength and due to the length of battles. Bringing such countries into the alliance does possess some risk, and this is one of the better reasoned areas of alliance politics at the moment. Many alliances have suballiances, trial memberships or just having multiple MPPs signed with strong but distant countries.
Of the countries not in a major alliance at the moment, China is perhaps the best example of a strategic ally; large, militarily competent, in a timezone that can be considered valuable, and so far away from the battlegrounds of Europe and the Middle East that she cannot present any real threat to the interests of most countries. Brazil, while much closer to the main battle arenas, has also been a strategic ally to both the US and Spain for a time. While not in the geographic core, such countries are just as essential to any alliance, though their numbers must be kept below those of the core for the simple reason that spreading out an alliance fragments the interests of member states.
Another form of strategic ally is the MU, mercenary or otherwise. Private MUs hold a large amount of damage in reserve, and in mid-to-large sized states, often represent a larger proportion of damage than the national military does, if one even exists. A direct relationship between the alliance command and key MU leaders can definitely be considered at the level of strategic allies, as the alliance can circumvent political issues between members and appeal directly to people who control damage. Mercenaries, likewise, represent another large proportion of reserve damage available, and cultivating a good reputation among mercs is another plus for any alliance or country.