Are Alliances Prepared

[HobbieRogue4]

Are alliances prepared for the possible changes coming in Round 10? Specifically, the changes "regional status" will create, and most likely shift alliances' structures significantly.

Consider, approximately 30 of your members (you being a part of a 'major alliance') simply leaving and forming a new force in "Region Vish." Now, what do you do? The core of your alliance has actually made it into "Region Spinner" and you still have a chance to compete without those 30 departed.

Or do you?

Imagine, those 30 have merged with another 20 or 30, and perhaps several other sets of similar players until... Region Vish is now the top competitive region, what do you do? Those original 30 members were probably friends, and suddenly their guns are pointed at you and your members. What are your choices?

Can your remaining members handle the challenges faced by fighting former alliance m8s, or get past the stigma of possibly having to ally with another alliance (regional or not) in order to compete for the top spots in the game?

Will alliances, after losing members, of even if they don't, begin to actively recruit players from within their primary region, in order to further their scores? Alternatively, will regionally-based alliances opt for a "cluster-bash" strategy, of simply hunting and roiding within their own region?

So "Region Vish" and "Region Spinner" are actively engaged in hostile action, and undoubtedly alliances are shifting... so what about the remaining regions?

"Region Zeus" seems to be facing its own problems as it's unfortunately heavily forested with more newer players than any other region. It simply cannot compete on the same level as other regions, so what does it do? The members of established alliances who have ended up in "Region Zeus" are now faced with a dilemma, as they cannot defend their fellow alliance members as readily as they can (as "Regions" will have different travel times apparently). Inadequacy is as demoralizing as having your planet crushed within a week of exiting Protection Mode, so what do they do?

More importantly, what will alliances do to help and provide for these members?

Meanwhile, as "Region Vish" and "Region Spinner" are bloodying each other up, and "Region Zeus" flounders into oblivion, "Region Fudge" is silently making "RGP"s, Regional Galactic Pacts, in which "Region Fudge" effectively 'suspends' alliance hostilities, and takes the rest of the Universe by storm, steamrolling over the remnants of the other three regions. "Region Fudge" effectively 'wins' the round...

...but what are the consequences?

Consider, 10-20% of your total alliance membership was in "Region Fudge" and actively participated in that region's conquest. How does the rest of your alliance's members feel? More importantly, what are the reactions, and will you support behavior that steps out of your alliance's "pre-Round 10" rules and regulations?

How will your alliance change its political stances in the coming weeks? Will your alliance champion with several allies, or be successful unaligned entering Round 10?

Has your alliance seriously considered the complications involved in the implementation of "regions" in Planetarion? Has your alliance leadership considered all its options?

It's clear that people such as members of the "PA Senate" have begun thinking about these issues, but has 'Joe-Average-Member' done the same thing? Will you enter Round 10 as a member of "Alliance Prince" because it's laid back, or will you seek to be a member of "Alliance People With a Brain" because they are effective and get things done?

Or, will you remain your own person, keeping your options open and allowing yourself flexibility during Round 10 (classifying yourself based on what sort of region you are in)?

Are alliances prepared?

[ComradeRob]

It seems unlikely to me that regional breakaway alliances will form, mostly due to the lack of personal trust that would exist between the players there, compared to the trust that exists within current alliances. People are used to the idea of temporary cluster/para alliances which exist for the benefit of a few players until they are no longer needed, so I would expect that most players would find it hard to trust a 'regional' alliance with their safety.

[Torz]

no.

[SpazMonster]

My guess is that inter-regional wars won't happen but intra-regional wars between alliances and battlegroups most likely will. The difficult part will be 'regions' aren't going to be concrete. Each alliance will have to define its own regional boundries and the difficulty will come in overlapping regions with other alliances. Is your group overlapped by 2 hostile regions, or do you have a few regions overlapping a hostile one? Alot will come down to how well alliances are able to take advantage of where their members are concentrated.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
It seems unlikely to me that regional breakaway alliances will form, mostly due to the lack of personal trust that would exist between the players there, compared to the trust that exists within current alliances.

Have you taken into account the effect new players will have on the game though? I'm not saying that anything is guaranteed, but I image a sizable influx of new players will occur if Planetarion indeed will be advertised in a "gaming magazine" (heh), despite my own reservations about Planetarion's quality as a game and its ability to 'draw a crowd' so to speak.

The point being, new players generally will think much the same you and I thought as first-time players; in effect, we knew absolutely nothing about a trust factor beyond our own galaxy. Everything veteran players know they know through experience, hardships, pitfalls, and everything better.

Even though established alliances and veteran players make-up the largest percentage of the game, I'm somewhat unwilling to disregard the 'newbie factor' as it were. They very well could be the driving force behind a regional alliance break-down, in theory at least.

People are used to the idea of temporary cluster/para alliances which exist for the benefit of a few players until they are no longer needed, so I would expect that most players would find it hard to trust a 'regional' alliance with their safety.

Again, newer players 90% of the time won't. More so because this will be the first round of regionally-based travel (and who knows what other 'features' the Creators are so happily thinking of). Still, your point stands, as veteran players who take alliances somewhat seriously will probably stick to them for 'guaranteed' support as it were.

[JonnyBGood]

I'd imagine we'll see a number of alliances trying to fight r10 as they always fought a round of PA. However the alliances which put more thought into it will probably minimise their activity early on and use the various regional alliances which spring up to their advantage. I wouldn't be surprised to see powerblocks forming across the universe albeit in a slightly different way. Powerblock wars will be fought as a number of different wars due to the regional eta difference. Say we end up with 8 different "regions". Two powerblocks form, one with a clear edge over the other. However due to the regional emphasis only 5 of these regions are dominated by one particular powerblock. These regions will now be at a disadvantage due to the fact that they'll a) have a lack of targets and b) have a tougher game to play to continue the war.

Frankly for an alliance to clearly win r10 they're either going to have a huge (and i mean ****ing colossal) numbers advantage or an incredibly disciplined and hardcore group of players. Alliances which have relied primarily on numbers will lose that advantage as all of their members will be spread out across the universe. Might be interesting to see how/if people adapt.

[G.K Zhukov]

The Cynical answer:
The ones who cheat the most and has the most money for "spare accounts" (read multies) will win.

The naive unrealistic spinner-is-actually-not-clueless answer:
alliances will have to adobt, bla-bla-bla
elite, hardcore alliances will prosper
we might see new lasting alliances form from clusters (like fury and legion).
bla-bla-jada-jada.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
The Cynical answer:
The ones who cheat the most and has the most money for "spare accounts" (read multies) will win.

The naive unrealistic spinner-is-actually-not-clueless answer:
alliances will have to adobt, bla-bla-bla
elite, hardcore alliances will prosper
we might see new lasting alliances form from clusters (like fury and legion).
bla-bla-jada-jada.

Oh well back to the drawing board. And we didn't even get to beta testing!

[Gerbie]

If you want an honest answer: I have no idea what to prepare for. I've seen some bits and pieces. But they also gave me the impression there will be a lot more. And I haven't seen any anti-blocking measures. And I think those can have great impact on the way an alliance should be organized.

I'm prepared to go a long way, even so far as to where you can't call our alliance an alliance any more. But I have no idea what to do.
Should I continue to recruit new players or tell them to come back when I know if I have a place for them next round? Should I be more selective, or try to somehow approach the 150 members (lower my standards)? How do they expect me to invest my time in new players if I don't know if it will have any use?

[SilverSmoke]

gerbie



I am becoming a Gerbie fan

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
we might see new lasting alliances form from clusters (like fury and legion).

This would be something I'd like to see. High time an alliance is actually formed from cooperating within their "travel time realm" in a round rather than anything else. Reminds me of slightly more recent times like NoS in Round 3 and some smaller alliance communities.

Having the 'same old blood' gets boring after a while. :/

As to Jonny's post, I agree entirely, and in addition, the same can be said for alliances with very small memberships, especially if their members are spread so thin among the said 8 regions. But this somewhat depressing too, as we'll no doubt see smaller alliances in their fledgling stages completely collapse as they'll probably be unable to perform as they used to.

With regional implementation, I guess alliances and communities will rise or fall based on commitment... the strong-willed will triumph over the weak.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
With regional implementation, I guess alliances and communities will rise or fall based on commitment... the strong-willed will triumph over the weak.

Thats nothing new. And ofc the will to sign up alot of accounts

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Should I continue to recruit new players or tell them to come back when I know if I have a place for them next round? Should I be more selective, or try to somehow approach the 150 members (lower my standards)? How do they expect me to invest my time in new players if I don't know if it will have any use?

Indeed, and it begs the question, will Planetarion continue to be an alliance-oriented game or become a more independent player-driven game?

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Thats nothing new. And ofc the will to sign up alot of accounts

Try to be somewhat more optimistic about 'fairness of play' in Round 10, and don't let the excess of free account multi-planets cloud your thoughts of Round 10.*

*At the same time, don't discount the very likelihood of people cheating in Round 10. It'll happen.

[hAl]

Originally posted by Gerbie
If you want an honest answer: I have no idea what to prepare for. I've seen some bits and pieces. But they also gave me the impression there will be a lot more. And I haven't seen any anti-blocking measures. And I think those can have great impact on the way an alliance should be organized.

I'm prepared to go a long way, even so far as to where you can't call our alliance an alliance any more. But I have no idea what to do.
Should I continue to recruit new players or tell them to come back when I know if I have a place for them next round? Should I be more selective, or try to somehow approach the 150 members (lower my standards)? How do they expect me to invest my time in new players if I don't know if it will have any use?

You can wait to see if you actually get 150 people first ?
Most alliance don't have that number of members.

[lokken]

The idea of Spinner and Fudge's regions battling it out is disturbing enough as it is.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Try to be somewhat more optimistic about 'fairness of play' in Round 10, and don't let the excess of free account multi-planets cloud your thoughts of Round 10.*

*At the same time, don't discount the very likelihood of people cheating in Round 10. It'll happen.

Hobbie, we both been playing for some time.
And we know creators is extremly inept at deleting cheaters.
They didnt even ban .lt, and look where it got us.

PA is a comedy.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Hobbie, we both been playing for some time.
And we know creators is extremly inept at deleting cheaters.
They didnt even ban .lt, and look where it got us.

No doubt. Hi Zeus.

PA is a comedy.

And a terrible one at that.

I'm just saying for the sake of actually trying to discuss the rammifications of Round 10, everyone try to keep 'cheating' and, dare I admit the true purpose of this thread, keep any reference of LDK and their playing 'methods' from my thread.

The rest of AD is depressingly crap, I'm trying not to add to it.

[Morden]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Hobbie, we both been playing for some time.
And we know creators is extremly inept at deleting cheaters.
They didnt even ban .lt, and look where it got us.

PA is a comedy.

seems strange, it was not so long ago that you were Defending LDK and there methods of conquest.

back on topic, personally i dont think many alliances will be able to adapt as anything more than communities,

Battlegroups have in effect killed alliances, people put there BG before there alliance nearly every day, think of the damage that will be done when you cant rely on your alliance to defend you as they are spread out? most will leave to join the dominant group in there sector, alliance loyalties are not what they once were and anyone who thinks they are is blind and will get a very large and disruptive shock.

then combine this with the new features, multi planets will be even more useful not for roids, because all in all roids wont be of the same value, and not just for fleet escorts, they WILL be used for sabotage and disruption of enemies, they will be abused to the point where entire alliances are effectively crippled by kiddies with there multi planets who can blind the scanners of an alliance, or destroy its ship yards and ship docks as well as the research in progress, with these new things you can cripple an enemy without firing a single shot.

[hAl]

Originally posted by Morden
seems strange, it was not so long ago that you were Defending LDK and there methods of conquest.

back on topic, personally i dont think many alliances will be able to adapt as anything more than communities,

Battlegroups have in effect killed alliances, people put there BG before there alliance nearly every day, think of the damage that will be done when you cant rely on your alliance to defend you as they are spread out? most will leave to join the dominant group in there sector, alliance loyalties are not what they once were and anyone who thinks they are is blind and will get a very large and disruptive shock.

then combine this with the new features, multi planets will be even more useful not for roids, because all in all roids wont be of the same value, and not just for fleet escorts, they WILL be used for sabotage and disruption of enemies, they will be abused to the point where entire alliances are effectively crippled by kiddies with there multi planets who can blind the scanners of an alliance, or destroy its ship yards and ship docks as well as the research in progress, with these new things you can cripple an enemy without firing a single shot.

The changes might have more impact on the current battlegroups. Often smaller than alliance they will be spread out more and attacking target gals with totally different ETA's will just make defender laugh. Battlegroups will need to be specialized regional units in r10. I think many people will try to form new battlegroups in their region. Attacking effective together with your friends seems impossible unless you cheat yourself all into the same region.

hAl

[Parthos]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Indeed, and it begs the question, will Planetarion continue to be an alliance-oriented game or become a more independent player-driven game?

Well I am pretty much talking out of my ass here since I haven't put much effort into thinking about the new changes.

What I can see is that most of them are ripped right out of Utopia, and Utopia is an individual/galaxy (kingdom)-driven game. So I would guess the Creators are shooting for a game where alliances have less influence.

If implemented properly, these new features could produce a best-of-both-worlds scenario: a game where alliances and influence are incredibly fluid from round to round.

And worst case, we have predetermined destiny on a higher level than ever before. In any round with reduced c or p traveltime/random gals, much of a planet's success depends on where you land in the universe crapshoot. Land with inactives in a hostile c/p and you can forget about having any fun. This whole regionalization dealy could result in the same thing, and on a much worse scale.

[kyrealean]

Rd10 is not going to be PA as we know it.


totally new game, so everyone will have to learn how to play it.

Should offer a week or so of fun before everyone finds the loopholes/cheats etc.

after that it will be PA per norm again.

enjoy

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Parthos
Land with inactives in a hostile c/p and you can forget about having any fun.

I think you're mistaking having fun with doing well. This round my galaxies (as I exiled from the first) have been very inactive, however, I've had great fun this round.


But a lot of big alliance players only play to be big and win, so you're right there. It depends on your attitude to the game.

[Parthos]

Originally posted by Scouse
I think you're mistaking having fun with doing well. This round my galaxies (as I exiled from the first) have been very inactive, however, I've had great fun this round.


But a lot of big alliance players only play to be big and win, so you're right there. It depends on your attitude to the game.

Hmm yeah I wasn't totally clear there. This round I'm in the same situation as you, exiled myself from first gal, both my gals have been pretty inactive, but I am having a good time. Being inactive and being with inactives isn't bad when you aren't going for anything big, but if you land in a bad neighborhood, that 24/7 red is no fun no matter how relaxed you are playing.

Now, if anyone comes on here and says one can have fun while having uncoverable incs 3-5 times each day, they're lying or ignorant or both.

[Scoot951]

Since no one knows what R10 will be like until we're in it, Alliances will likely stay the same. Frustrated, perhaps, but essentially the same.


And I find it very, very unlikely that PA will ever break 5k players again, without free accounts; when people can play Star Wars Galaxies (for example) why would they want to play a bare-bones game like PA? So don't rely too much on the effects of newbies.

[Dizzyness]

Originally posted by Parthos
What I can see is that most of them are ripped right out of Utopia, and Utopia is an individual/galaxy (kingdom)-driven game. So I would guess the Creators are shooting for a game where alliances have less influence.

you forget, utopia IS still fairly alliance driven, just not yet on the scale it is here

[Lerxst]

I can't/won't comment on all aspects of the changes for next round as I simply don't bother with it enough. But I think there will be roughly two types of alliances and they will differ in the type of leadership.

1. Ego-focussed leadership alliances.
They will try to control a region, look where most of their hardcore is, focus on that region, recruit new ppl from this region and either completely get rid of the rest or at least don't care soooo much about those "abandoned ones". They don't care a lot about those because they will be able to find a new alliance in their region.

2. Game-focussed leadership alliances.
They will try to do the best for all members no matter where they are and most likely will de-centralize their leadership infrastructure to hold together the alliance.

While #1 most likely will end up stronger, #2 will most likely cooperate with other, also "game-focussed" alliances. Not to block, but to withstand those regional #1-type alliances. Those #1-type alliances will have a more fluctuating memberbase mostly formed around the aim to control a special region while #2 will consist of ppl trying to be loyal to their family.

I don't think most alliances are fully prepared for this impact. Simply because the dynamics of those stupids playing this game can't be forseen...

[das_experiment]

What could be an interesting thing is, if a region has say 600 players, but only 150 can be in each 'alliance'.

So then youd have the same old 150 inactives, and the 3 alliances....

and what do we get then ? HI TEAMUP


2 vs 1 a.k.a r9 etc. in that particular region


ofc, things might hapens when that first alliance is dead, and the two others fight or 'go into the world', but i reckon the 'noobs' are still gonna suffer :P

[Parthos]

Originally posted by Dizzyness
you forget, utopia IS still fairly alliance driven, just not yet on the scale it is here

Oooh a debate

There are 2 kinds of alliances in Utopia: the established, age-after-age alliances, which are the ones that look on the surface most like PA ones; and the age-only alliances, formed of naps/maps etc among various kingdoms by means of circumstance. eg, many of the top 5 kingdoms decide to nap one another each age so as not to twat one another and ensure one another's success.

The established alliances in Utopia do fk all, at least by PA terms. Since, due to game mechanics, there isn't much they can do. Their main function is to mediate in case of conflicts between kingdoms that cannot be resolved in any other way. Military action of any kind is rarely taken by alliances and is a last resort, again due to game mechanics. Any single alliance in Utopia gets militarily involved in some conflict approximately once per age, if that.

Utopia politics beyond the kingdom level (aka galaxy level) is all about how best to avoid conflict. I just don't want to see so much of Utopia put into PA that all any alliance can do is twiddle their thumbs, make endless nap/map/whatnot agreements, and basically fight verbal rather than military warfare.

[Petru]

There's no preparation because as of yet there's been a) no solid indication of "geography" going into the game and b) no information released on how it will work with more detail than a bit of vague heresay.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Petru
There's no preparation because as of yet there's been a) no solid indication of "geography" going into the game and b) no information released on how it will work with more detail than a bit of vague heresay.

I suspect this is partly intentional, since the changes are designed to weaken alliances. Giving them time to figure out ways around the changes is something that the creators probably don't want to do.

However, it does give an advantage to those alliances whose members (or indeed HC) were part of the r10 design team.

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Parthos
Oooh a debate

There are 2 kinds of alliances in Utopia: the established, age-after-age alliances, which are the ones that look on the surface most like PA ones; and the age-only alliances, formed of naps/maps etc among various kingdoms by means of circumstance. eg, many of the top 5 kingdoms decide to nap one another each age so as not to twat one another and ensure one another's success.

The established alliances in Utopia do fk all, at least by PA terms. Since, due to game mechanics, there isn't much they can do. Their main function is to mediate in case of conflicts between kingdoms that cannot be resolved in any other way. Military action of any kind is rarely taken by alliances and is a last resort, again due to game mechanics. Any single alliance in Utopia gets militarily involved in some conflict approximately once per age, if that.

Utopia politics beyond the kingdom level (aka galaxy level) is all about how best to avoid conflict. I just don't want to see so much of Utopia put into PA that all any alliance can do is twiddle their thumbs, make endless nap/map/whatnot agreements, and basically fight verbal rather than military warfare.

Well said, though i think you wont have to fear alliances here being reduced to naps/maps/talking as much as in Utopia, since the game mechanics are simply different. Afaik it shall still be possible to defend each other in r10, and that alone gives PA alliances a lot more to do than Utopia ones....

[Salomo]

and concerning the whole "what will change" issue, I doubt a lot will actually change. Afaik alliances will still have the same defensive ETA's, so that the changes only make a difference for attacks... People will simply keep having their regular alliance and attacking will simply remain "outsourced" to the BG's. Only change i see is that BG's may very likely get more regional and will perhaps be even more accepted as regional alliance in the way that cluster/paraliances have been accepted

But the only new development in all that is BG's turning regional, the rest, e.g. alliances being more and more reduced to def purposes, imo is a development that allready started under the old system

[Dizzyness]

Originally posted by Parthos
Oooh a debate

There are 2 kinds of alliances in Utopia: the established, age-after-age alliances, which are the ones that look on the surface most like PA ones; and the age-only alliances, formed of naps/maps etc among various kingdoms by means of circumstance. eg, many of the top 5 kingdoms decide to nap one another each age so as not to twat one another and ensure one another's success.

The established alliances in Utopia do fk all, at least by PA terms. Since, due to game mechanics, there isn't much they can do. Their main function is to mediate in case of conflicts between kingdoms that cannot be resolved in any other way. Military action of any kind is rarely taken by alliances and is a last resort, again due to game mechanics. Any single alliance in Utopia gets militarily involved in some conflict approximately once per age, if that.

Utopia politics beyond the kingdom level (aka galaxy level) is all about how best to avoid conflict. I just don't want to see so much of Utopia put into PA that all any alliance can do is twiddle their thumbs, make endless nap/map/whatnot agreements, and basically fight verbal rather than military warfare.

that is true yes, but much like pa, kingdoms without alliances never have much of a chance to reach the top spots. In many cases, if they try, they usually war the wrong kingdom and get all kinds of allaince retals (age 19 my kingdom (farlayne) was #5 nw, we warred pansys and killed 2 of them, after a mp we had 3 hostiles declared on us from there allys and forced many into vacation, and all together ruining the age.) While alliances cant actually do as much because of the gameplay mechanics, they still control the game to a fair extent.

I personally don't think this will happen to PA, seeing as its a real time thing (not a 'send attack which immediatly hits, wait for a retal' type it is in Utopia) and you will have to rely heavily on others to defend you and to do cordinated attacks, thus allainces/bgs reign supreme. Perhaps if they brought in the kind of hostile/warring system they have in utopia, it would be a different story, but as it stands now, i think 'regions' wil be large enough not to warrant such a seperation that it would come down to that.

[Forest]

You will find bg's spring up, all over the universe. They will be smaller, and more elite, and they will raid everyone nearby to ****.

Then they will choose sides to give themselves the best chance of success.

The bg that wins will be the best politically, and the alliance/s that win will be the noes who manage to control there bg's to the best advantage for them.

We ahve seen over the rounds, power swing slowly from alliance to bg, and this round will confirm the power is with bg's as alliances will totally rely on them.

Question for me is, how will alliances manage them. Allow them to have who they want in them, orplace strict controls, and the most successful tactic will be the winner!

Imo

[HOPupNdown]

better wait until the open beta of r10 before we assume
anything

[LORD-NIKO]

Im prepared

i have a genious plan ;p

[QazokRouge5]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Are alliances prepared for the possible changes coming in Round 10? Specifically, the changes "regional status" will create, and most likely shift alliances' structures significantly.

Consider, approximately 30 of your members (you being a part of a 'major alliance') simply leaving and forming a new force in "Region Vish." Now, what do you do? The core of your alliance has actually made it into "Region Spinner" and you still have a chance to compete without those 30 departed.

Or do you?

Imagine, those 30 have merged with another 20 or 30, and perhaps several other sets of similar players until... Region Vish is now the top competitive region, what do you do? Those original 30 members were probably friends, and suddenly their guns are pointed at you and your members. What are your choices?

Can your remaining members handle the challenges faced by fighting former alliance m8s, or get past the stigma of possibly having to ally with another alliance (regional or not) in order to compete for the top spots in the game?

Will alliances, after losing members, of even if they don't, begin to actively recruit players from within their primary region, in order to further their scores? Alternatively, will regionally-based alliances opt for a "cluster-bash" strategy, of simply hunting and roiding within their own region?

So "Region Vish" and "Region Spinner" are actively engaged in hostile action, and undoubtedly alliances are shifting... so what about the remaining regions?

"Region Zeus" seems to be facing its own problems as it's unfortunately heavily forested with more newer players than any other region. It simply cannot compete on the same level as other regions, so what does it do? The members of established alliances who have ended up in "Region Zeus" are now faced with a dilemma, as they cannot defend their fellow alliance members as readily as they can (as "Regions" will have different travel times apparently). Inadequacy is as demoralizing as having your planet crushed within a week of exiting Protection Mode, so what do they do?

More importantly, what will alliances do to help and provide for these members?

Meanwhile, as "Region Vish" and "Region Spinner" are bloodying each other up, and "Region Zeus" flounders into oblivion, "Region Fudge" is silently making "RGP"s, Regional Galactic Pacts, in which "Region Fudge" effectively 'suspends' alliance hostilities, and takes the rest of the Universe by storm, steamrolling over the remnants of the other three regions. "Region Fudge" effectively 'wins' the round...

...but what are the consequences?

Consider, 10-20% of your total alliance membership was in "Region Fudge" and actively participated in that region's conquest. How does the rest of your alliance's members feel? More importantly, what are the reactions, and will you support behavior that steps out of your alliance's "pre-Round 10" rules and regulations?

How will your alliance change its political stances in the coming weeks? Will your alliance champion with several allies, or be successful unaligned entering Round 10?

Has your alliance seriously considered the complications involved in the implementation of "regions" in Planetarion? Has your alliance leadership considered all its options?

It's clear that people such as members of the "PA Senate" have begun thinking about these issues, but has 'Joe-Average-Member' done the same thing? Will you enter Round 10 as a member of "Alliance Prince" because it's laid back, or will you seek to be a member of "Alliance People With a Brain" because they are effective and get things done?

Or, will you remain your own person, keeping your options open and allowing yourself flexibility during Round 10 (classifying yourself based on what sort of region you are in)?

Are alliances prepared?

You tend to remind me of Barbara Walters sometimes...