Alliances

[KWorld]

[Pulled from the other thread, because it's really more of a discussion issue.]

The other problem with WesWorld is that it's effectively static: the large alliance structures essentially prevent any action outside of South America.  There's activity, granted, but it leads nowhere.

The large Alliance structures...
We could modify rules & allow Alliances for medium & small countries.
Big 4 (UK-Germany-USA-France) could'nt be in any Alliances.

The problem in WW is that you have large alliance structures with the terms of the alliances being strictly defensive: ie, country A is protected against attack, but her allies have no obligation to support her if she attacks.  The result is that no one dares start a war because they'll be fighting it alone against their target and its allies.  The war in the mid-1930s between Argentina, Brazil, and the SAE is the exception that proves the rule: the SAE wasn't a member of any of the major alliances (having, at the time, a "secret" alliance with the Netherlands and an openly known alliance with India), and Brazil and Argentina being two of the members of the ABC alliance (Chile did not involve itself actively in the war).

I'm not certain what the best way out of the problem that alliances cause is.  Maybe it's your idea, maybe it's not allowing defensive-only alliances, maybe it's limiting the number of allies a country can have, maybe it's that major powers cannot be allied with other major powers, maybe it's something else entirely.

So far, the alliances here don't strike me as a major problem: the UK-Italy-Japan alliance is so spread out that it's not overly threatening (Japan's ability to support either of her allies in a European war is limited, as are the abilities of her allies to support her in a Pacific war).  The France-Iberia-Netherlands alliance is less spread out at home, but it's overseas possessions are widespread enough that their ability to dominate a region is limited.

[All of this is, of course, my opinion.  :)]

[Walter]

While I don't think there is any sort of text treaty, the SAE has very good relations with Nordmark through royal marriage.

There was also the war between the Philippines and China which could have been bigger if Japan had gotten involved. I wanted to get involved in that (and I think that because of the treaty I should have gotten involved in that), but I deliberately did not do it because I thought it would be more interesting if it remained limited to China and the Philippines.

What you said about the UK-Italy-Japan alliance and the France-Iberia-Netherlands alliance here is how I think of it as well.

The defensive-only alliances aren't really the problem. It's probably more a player's unwillingness to be the one who creates the spark for any major conflicts between such alliances.

[KWorld]

While I don't think there is any sort of text treaty, the SAE has very good relations with Nordmark through royal marriage.

There was also the war between the Philippines and China which could have been bigger if Japan had gotten involved. I wanted to get involved in that (and I think that because of the treaty I should have gotten involved in that), but I deliberately did not do it because I thought it would be more interesting if it remained limited to China and the Philippines.

What you said about the UK-Italy-Japan alliance and the France-Iberia-Netherlands alliance here is how I think of it as well.

The defensive-only alliances aren't really the problem. It's probably more a player's unwillingness to be the one who creates the spark for any major conflicts between such alliances.

That could be true as well, but I know that if I were involved in WW, and had a defensive-only alliance, I'd be very unwilling to start something with an opponent that had a similar alliance, because they should get their allies to help them, where I might well not.  Starting a war I'm likely to lose isn't too wise.  :)