Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Non-Aligned Alliance Movement
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNon-Aligned Alliance Movement
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
STAR View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 99 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 11:48
Originally posted by Janosch Janosch wrote:


Non-Aligned Alliance Movement (NAAM)

We imagine a loose (and maybe sometimes closer) community of alliances with good intentions that aim to cooperate for the good of their alliances and all of Illyriad, without being pushed around by large alliances or annihilated for whatever reason. This would also avoid that small alliances need to run to this forum in order to get some help (which they might get or not). Internal and external conflicts should be solved peaceful (if possible). And finally there will be no force to participate in any decision that you do not support. We propose to agree on a declaration of intention which covers the following points:

1. Cooperate in peace;

2. Support in conflicts (if appropriate);

3. Form a large alliance (of large players) in the next tournament or for war effort; and

4. Be open to more members that like to see how a Non-Aligned Movement can work in Illyriad.


NOTE: This movement is not created to bully other alliances but to stand together against bullies.

Just a few Suggestions 

5. Trading opportunities - arrangements for alliances to inter-trade with one another at "special rates"
6. Basic Resource support between NAAM members if in a position to do so.
7. Friendly military operations (for training purposes)

etc etc......

Its great that you want to gather smaller alliances together as a collective but the incentive to join is limited to war scenrios more so then anything else....

I just think there is more benefits to be reaped from this situation or venture then what you have put forth in your proposal and if explored further you may get the desired results you are trying to achieve
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:58
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

 I believe there was a coalition rising because there widespread thinking that Aesir was attacking TLR for resources and therefor a coalition rose to protect their economic interests. 
No, I don't think that ~KV~ or the Nightbringers Confederation had any "economic interests" in whatever TLR considers as Greater Ursor, let alone before trade v2.  It was a perfectly non-aligned alliance mess, some last minute NAPs throw in just in time before folks could click attack.  Tongue
Back to Top
Janosch View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:22
Originally posted by Janosch Janosch wrote:


The idea of a non-aligned movement is to be not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc.
You like Democracy? Join the Old Republic!
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:17
Originally posted by Janosch Janosch wrote:

Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by Janosch Janosch wrote:

Strange comment from a Crowalition member, I thought this would be also the aim of Crow policy, not to let conflicts escalate to something seriously violen, if possible.

I don't particularly like how stagnant the crow alliances are and how fearful people are to get involved in a conflict with one due to the chance they'll all get involved, so it's really not as strange as you might think. 

The aim of your non-aligned alliance movement seems to be to prevent war whenever possible. This is silly. Newbies of all people are the single best suited players to go to war. Unlike many of the vets, they don't have a whole lot to lose. So what if they lose their 750 man army? So what if their 2k city with 200 cows and 10 saddles get's sieged? It's not a lot to lose. And while you may not stop them, the fact that they're in the huge confed of alliances is enough to stop it alone. Inter-confed conflicts are obviously going to be pressured to stop because that would defeat the purpose of it. So the entire thing is anti-war and I just want to know specifically:

Why?


I am the last one that wants to stick my nose into affairs that are none of my business. So if people want to fight, I do not mind. I do know that creatures like trolls or the definition of bully and self-defence are significantly shaped by power constellations here in this forum. So particularly small alliances do need friends. They can eventually come here and find assistance, if they need it (and as I said, they might find it or not). But as some players do not like to beg for resources, some players do not like to beg for military assistance. So the idea NAAM is not entirely about peace. If the game became stagnant, that is certainly not the fault of NAAM or the “small” alliances. But there are reasons why “small” alliances should join together and be it tournament participation or forum support. How precisely the policy of NAAM will look like and if the aim of NAAM is to prevent war whenever possible, depends on the alliances that will join. So I cannot predict what will happen and how this will influence the game.



So in short you are combating large confeds with a large confed?
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
Janosch View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:15
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by Janosch Janosch wrote:

Strange comment from a Crowalition member, I thought this would be also the aim of Crow policy, not to let conflicts escalate to something seriously violen, if possible.

I don't particularly like how stagnant the crow alliances are and how fearful people are to get involved in a conflict with one due to the chance they'll all get involved, so it's really not as strange as you might think. 

The aim of your non-aligned alliance movement seems to be to prevent war whenever possible. This is silly. Newbies of all people are the single best suited players to go to war. Unlike many of the vets, they don't have a whole lot to lose. So what if they lose their 750 man army? So what if their 2k city with 200 cows and 10 saddles get's sieged? It's not a lot to lose. And while you may not stop them, the fact that they're in the huge confed of alliances is enough to stop it alone. Inter-confed conflicts are obviously going to be pressured to stop because that would defeat the purpose of it. So the entire thing is anti-war and I just want to know specifically:

Why?


I am the last one that wants to stick my nose into affairs that are none of my business. So if people want to fight, I do not mind. I do know that creatures like trolls or the definition of bully and self-defence are significantly shaped by power constellations here in this forum. So particularly small alliances do need friends. They can eventually come here and find assistance, if they need it (and as I said, they might find it or not). But as some players do not like to beg for resources, some players do not like to beg for military assistance. So the idea NAAM is not entirely about peace. If the game became stagnant, that is certainly not the fault of NAAM or the “small” alliances. But there are reasons why “small” alliances should join together and be it tournament participation or forum support. How precisely the policy of NAAM will look like and if the aim of NAAM is to prevent war whenever possible, depends on the alliances that will join. So I cannot predict what will happen and how this will influence the game.
You like Democracy? Join the Old Republic!
Back to Top
Naxos View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 20 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 20:35
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

 
No hostility meant by this comment but isn't that what is advertised by easily half of Illyriad's alliances? "We are peaceful but do not seek conflict". If so many are peaceful do you need a union?

Might as well make a club for them right? XD

But back to a serious note, this movement was created to help keep it peaceful (for smaller alliances at least).  Many larger more aggressive alliances tend to shake off the rules (no written law but law of GC mob rule to not pick on the "little guy") and target smaller alliances to push around especially over resources.

Through this movement smaller alliances can help keep everything peaceful due to having other alliance to help support them if the occasion does arise that military forces are put into the field.  Illy is based around a peaceful mentality but it is an aggressive peace when you whittle down to it.
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 20:26
Originally posted by Naxos Naxos wrote:



NAAM's foreign policy can be compared to the League of Armed Neutrality of old.  We will not seek out conflict but we will defend ourselves if conflict seeks out our members (support by choice of member alliances)
No hostility meant by this comment but isn't that what is advertised by easily half of Illyriad's alliances? "We are peaceful but do not seek conflict". If so many are peaceful do you need a union?
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
Naxos View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 20 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 20:17
Hmm I'm sorry if you took my reply as an insult.   I merely wanted to point out the holes in your argument, just as you pointed out the holes in my argument.

But getting back to the subject at hand, NAAM is a movement geared toward smaller alliances.  My alliance has been around for well over a year and is still growing but it can not compare to any of the Crow alliances or Consone alliances.  While NAAM is currently tooled for smaller alliances there will come a time that larger alliances will be welcomed into the organization, shoulder to shoulder with smaller alliances and bigger alliances alike.  

NAAM's foreign policy can be compared to the League of Armed Neutrality of old.  We will not seek out conflict but we will defend ourselves if conflict seeks out our members (support by choice of member alliances)
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 20:00
Originally posted by Naxos Naxos wrote:

Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

In my opinion it's high time there should be consequences to being a part of a newbie alliance as compared to an established one, for starters, not having someone bail you out should someone decide to annex you. 

Interesting as almost a year ago you started your own alliance.  All alliances had newbie beginnings and to state that all newbie alliances should just be absorbed by established ones sounds a bit arrogant.  How would you feel when you started your alliance and let's say Big Alliance A comes over and says, "you are weak, join us or we'll stomp you." Personally I would be irritated at the attitude of it all.  This game runs on alliances, alliances which come from humble beginnings, and then become great.  You eliminate the creation of new alliances the game will stagnate like many other games online.  

I feel new alliances help add flavor to the melting pot that is Illyriad.  I have heard "this isn't fair mindset" from the Aesir and TLR war plenty of times (not saying you personally but others threw it around).  Due to everyone believing that there rose a coalition against Aesir to stop them from "picking on the little guy".  

Interesting as almost a year ago you started your own alliance.  All alliances had newbie beginnings and to state that all newbie alliances should just be absorbed by established ones sounds a bit arrogant.

I know when I started my alliance, of course all alliances had newbie beginnings and read what I wrote. 

How would you feel when you started your alliance and let's say Big Alliance A comes over and says, "you are weak, join us or we'll stomp you." 

Well I can say that no doubt I'd attempt to fight the opposition then if winning looked impossible I'd consider serving that alliance, I've come across people who have fought against TLR, lost and then entered in my alliance. 

 Personally I would be irritated at the attitude of it all.  This game runs on alliances, alliances which come from humble beginnings, and then become great.  You eliminate the creation of new alliances the game will stagnate like many other games online.  

I doubt I will ever gain enough power to enforce my opinions, so your fear of newbie alliances having to forge it on their own won't ever become reality. 

I feel new alliances help add flavor to the melting pot that is Illyriad.  I have heard "this isn't fair mindset" from the Aesir and TLR war plenty of times (not saying you personally but others threw it around).

Your feelings are noted, as that may be seeing as this is Eternal Fire typing out these comments on his forum account, we can note that these are my thoughts and therefor what someone else says does not mean I said it. 

Due to everyone believing that there rose a coalition against Aesir to stop them from "picking on the little guy".  

I believe there was a coalition rising because there widespread thinking that Aesir was attacking TLR for resources and therefor a coalition rose to protect their economic interests. Happens all the time, I believe STEEL for example has had quite a hand in trading and some are protecting them because they are holding desirable items. 
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
Naxos View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 20 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 19:42
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

In my opinion it's high time there should be consequences to being a part of a newbie alliance as compared to an established one, for starters, not having someone bail you out should someone decide to annex you. 

Interesting as almost a year ago you started your own alliance.  All alliances had newbie beginnings and to state that all newbie alliances should just be absorbed by established ones sounds a bit arrogant.  How would you feel when you started your alliance and let's say Big Alliance A comes over and says, "you are weak, join us or we'll stomp you." Personally I would be irritated at the attitude of it all.  This game runs on alliances, alliances which come from humble beginnings, and then become great.  You eliminate the creation of new alliances the game will stagnate like many other games online.  

I feel new alliances help add flavor to the melting pot that is Illyriad.  I have heard "this isn't fair mindset" from the Aesir and TLR war plenty of times (not saying you personally but others threw it around).  Due to everyone believing that there rose a coalition against Aesir to stop them from "picking on the little guy".  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.