So who's winning and is it really Illy armageddon?

H's coalition and "Soup" are definetly two different social concepts. You are trying to prove that one is better than other. It's like debating is green prettier than red, or day better than night.

we operate with no clear leadership but with well define goals and specialize duties, maybe thats why we are successful...those that play aggressively win war in this game and knowledge of basics of the military functions of the game give an advantage....sadly one side in this war are far superior due to lack of play of war...hopefully the other side is learning and hopefully they getting rid of the deadweight of disloyal people in their alliances....hint hint

Mogul wrote: Maybe you should read posts first, especially if you are replying to them: Mogul wrote: This was just some quick compare to see that comparing towns is not that good for war results as there are things with bigger impact on towns (like people quitting to play or changing alliances) I think it is quite easy to understand but just for sure what those table columns mean: New town: in alliance today and was not existent before Lost town: was in alliance before but not existent now Joined town: in alliance today but was not in alliance before (and did exist before) Left town: was in alliance before but not in alliance now (and is still existing) Relocated town: was in alliance before and is in alliance now but at different location

Three alliances enter into confeds with one another.  Do they need a centralised leadership?  Does anything change if they call themselves The Threealition?

Deranzin wrote: Jasche wrote: An example would be TD's statements regarding RES's war with Worlds End. We did encourage both sides (as TD says) to try and sort things out between themselves. VIC and other alliances did not come barging in. When we did, we encouraged World's End to release some Sov claims that were clearly aggressive in nature - to my knowledge this was done. You need less "encouraging" and more ear pulling in order to keep your confed in line ... if your decisions as a collective leadership group are not being taken seriously or they do not have the needed results, then your own leadership of the confed will be undermined and sooner or later the very people that are supposed to be on your side will just ignore your edicts.  In all these threads I've read, for some obscure reason or the other, things almost always seem to "fail" ... definitely not your fault entirely, but I imho you'd have to dig into it a bit and look for some causes ... Anyone who has ever been to the army ( even as a chore-fighter :p ) could inform you that the kind of leadership you are trying to attempt is the hardest kind to establish and the easiest one to lose, unless you are charismatic ... but that charisma only works in real life and with real people when you have them face to face ... in the internet things do not work that way ...

Sadly he makes a really good point on a few things that I have sort of hit on a few times in my posts but I think he worded some of it more to the point.

Its pretty much that the confed is very similar to the UN in that its decisions have no actual teeth. They can propose all sorts of rules that the world should follow but at the end of the day their rules mean almost nothing unless the nations want to actually back it within their own country. You can encourage lots of things in your confed but it has no central purpose other than if your member guilds are attacked then the entire confed attacks back. This also does not take into consideration who started said issue or even if its worth tossing the entire confed into it.

Then his last post was the main reason I replied to it. Without a central leadership of some sort whether a council, a head of some sort, or however else its figured out then decisions are strictly 'encouraging' them to do what you would like. Just like I can 'encourage' my leaders to do something but since I don't make any actual decisions or hold any actual weight in guild it will likely fall flat unless they simply agree with the idea :P.

Its where things differ in other confeds it seems. Even with H? and Dlords as an example... lets say Dlords was tossed into war for whatever reason then H? would decide whether or not this is something they should involve themselves in just like if it was the other way around. Imagine the same goes for many of the other confeds also like Crows. Being that I am sure at least 1-2 leaders in the confed alliance think things out at the very least I half expect it was something that all of the confed passed probably on the grounds of the terms of the confed in that if one is attacked then all attack back. Even if the one that started the attack was their own.

I am sure on paper when you all came up with the idea of a leaderless confed that just act and don't think about said actions it probably looked like a great idea. The application of said idea is going to be a rough path for you...