Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Individuals are more important than alliances when it comes to politics. Sometimes alliances just win because they are better rather than because they made great political moves. Really though, I'd focus on people when it comes to politics rather than the alliances they represent. For example someone like JBG would wield influence whichever alliance he was playing for.
|
I think it rather depends on the alliance.
I think with Asc (without a proper knowledge of them, so feel free to put me right) would have members influence the alliance a lot.
But then with 1up, Sid knew what he wanted and what could be achieved and he would do it. If members didn't like it, they could leave and would be promptly roided.
I think he would take into account the members but generally, would have members who would do what he wanted. It was always about doing what the command wanted. Fury were the same.
Legion were always planet/member orientated and never really seemed to have hc in full command, it was more that hc would react to what the members did, whereas with Fury/1up it was members having to react to what the hc wanted.
Players seem to stay on the same side.
Whether that was the good Fury/1up/asc/ct/nd side of pa or the Legion/exil/section/dragons/ldk/apprime/ultores side too.
of course there was/is some crossing over but as a general I don't think there was too much
Good to have you on the thread though, makes a difference to have some proper posters instead of trolls.