Coalition of Alliances for Intergalctic Freedom

Good day Ladies and Gentlemen. First thing is first.

I want to thank you for taking the time to come here at our invitation and read this rather lengthy missive. It is appreciated, and important to us that you understand a few things before we start:

1.> While you read this, try to understand that we want no control here except equal representation. We only want to get the ball rolling. This is Cber's idea, and I firmly believe it to be worth the read and the effort.

2.> I am going to try to change the way you think, feel about and play OGame.

3.> This is simply a suggestion that we hope you will take to heart or at least consider enough that you will give us feedback on it. You see, quite frankly, we NEED your input here.

4.> I would like for you to imagine that no fewer than 3 alliances WILL join us in this endeavor, and then decide if that is enough for you to do the same.


OK, on with the show.

Cber, the leader of CSG, has brought to my attention that there are some serious imbalances within OGame and his plan for how we might go about correcting this. I will refrain from mentioning any one person or alliance specifically, but I am pretty sure you will get the picture. I was noticing them myself after having been very soundly bashed by two players, of different alliances, who had to have been working together in order to do what they did in the way they did it.

I would venture to say that many of you have been frustrated time and time again, logging on to see your fleet dismantled, your resources practically gone, and no debris for you to use to pick up the pieces. Maybe you just happened to log on in time to fleetsave, once or twice, but in the end, they got what they were after.

We have noticed that the strong get stronger at the expense of the weaker players, while the weaker players struggle to hold on to what they have, and we aim to try to put a stop to this.**I know that some, if not most, of you are thinking that this is the name of OGame, WAR, and you are right. This IS a war game, but not a bash-em-until-they-are-nothing-game.**

There are a few ways that we have been thinking that this might be accomplished, and Cber came up with what we feel may be the ideal solution, but we need you players to chime in here and let us, and everyone else we have invited, know what you think about it.

We are proposing an alliance between MULTIPLE alliances. THE ideal situation would be for us to create a forum, where we would hope that the majority of the players from the participating alliances would be involved. At this forum, we would post matters concerning our respective communities, and view those that the others have posted. Everything from trades that are available to grievances we have with other players.

Each of our alliances would elect a representative who would speak for us in this "Coalition of Alliances." If, let's say, the representatives decided that something needed to happen to another player, due to grievances on the board concerning that player, we would work out some way to hit him.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. We could:

1.> Have a few players from our different alliances, probably the strongest, break off and form an alliance all their own to ACS attack. When battle is concluded, they would rejoin their alliances and we would, hopefully, come out on top. But, no matter what, there must be a sharing of the loot!! This would leave the attacked player wondering how he was ACS attacked from 2-5 different alliances.

2.> If it is ACS defense that is needed, some people could break off of their alliances to join yours and help defend your player, but there would have to be a sharing of the debris. Again, after battle, the players would join with the alliances they left in order to help, and the attacking player would have to be shaking there heads, like "WTF?!?"

3.> It has also been suggested that we could all ACS attack with what we could spare, all of us at the same time from our different alliances, and even all of us at once, as single player attacks. The only problem with this is that it would be several weaker attacks instead of one or two really strong ones.

All sharing of debris and loot should be proportionate to the losses each player took during battle, NOT counting defensive structures AT ALL. If you lost 10kk units in the fight and everyone else lost that much all put together, then you get half. PERIOD. It is the only fair way to do it. Just because you went with a bazillion ships does not entitle you to more. Neither does going with only a few ships. It is how many units you lost as compared to the losses as a whole.

Duet used for fuel would be totaled as part of your individual losses, but only as a single unit. Neither metal nor crystal nor duet would count as a special unit. Units are units and the loot and/or debris would be divided even to you as 1:1:1 where that is 3 units of your total share.

I believe the representatives should have the chore of figuring this out, after the members they represent get the combat reports to them. It is also their duty to see to it that the reports are accurate, and not modified to make it look as if someone lost more than he or she actually did. Speedsim can show approximate duet costs to fly, but the rest is pretty much on the honor system.

We know that you are used to running your own show and may not want to give that up. Do not think of this as giving up your own authority, you will always have that, but rather think that when you need it, you are BORROWING a bit, or a lot, of umph from the other alliances that are known to participate and making good on that loan when the time comes that you should and can help.

If we were all to join this forum and enter into this Coalition:

1.> Communication would be exponentially more efficient. We could hear, and respond to, anything much more quickly than we could otherwise.

2.> We could SEE each other. The value in knowing who is where and if they are on is of no little concern, as I am sure some of you have experienced with the giving, or receiving, of Ninjas.

3.> We, of CSG at least, are very active in our communication and we believe that is huge where teamwork is concerned.
Knowing that your brothers are there for you is a great boon that should not be under estimated.

4.> We could actually participate in ACS attacks and ACS defends on a MUCH larger scale. With all of these resources and fleets at our communities' disposal, we would surely be a force to be reckoned with, and any who attacked us would be sweating with the fear of the Ninja, which is similar to The Fear of God in OGame, until their fleet landed, if they even attacked at all, AND THEY WOULD HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHO MIGHT BE HELPING AT ANY GIVEN TIME!!

5.> It would not take long for the players we fear to start to fear US. Surely, there would be some who would try anyway, and maybe they might get off an attack or five, but that is little damage in the scope of things. I will not claim that this will make us God-like, but it would come about as close as we can manage at this point.

6.> Trade, for the benefit of all our players, would be greatly eased, as we would now have a multitude of other players to view our posts on the forum and see what it is that we need and have to offer in return.


I will conclude with this:

There MUST be an agreed upon command structure. This is not to say that ANY ONE person has any type of final say, but that we would have communal vote as to what happens. Forum polls are the easiest to get votes from the masses, but the chatbox would be the best way to communicate. There is just one thing with the chatbox, only the representatives would be allowed to CHAT in the box. Others could view it, but not post. Think about it, if everyone was trying to chat at the same time, nobody's words would be able to be read. The box would be too busy scrolling the new messages in. All other players may post topics in the forum, and respond to those posted by others.

However, you must realize that this means that you will be in the forum 80% of the time you play OGame, and just check the game to set the events in motion and then get back to the forum. It would be pretty easy, if you think about it, because EVERYTHING in OGame takes TIME. It is not a live action game.

3.> There MUST be no one who wishes to be selfish. That would defeat the whole purpose, because it is the selfish we are trying to oppose with this. We want only to see that EVERY one of the players who participate in this with us becomes a better and stronger player and that the selfish begin to doubt their own power.

Please, let us know that we have not wasted our time with this AWESOME dream. It really could work, if you guys just put your minds to it. Try not to think of ANY way that it might fail, because that will just put you in a negative mindset. If a situation arises, the representatives will handle it. That is why we choose them to represent us. So, pick someone you trust. Pick someone you know to be fair. There will be plenty gain to be had here. I stake my fleet on it

i like that idea if you want i could start asking allainces i have contacts on the inside which are allot

butters3544 wrote:

i like that idea if you want i could start asking allainces i have contacts on the inside which are allot

I agree. Freedom = Sacrifice

I leave the decision to Cber, if this is what he wants to present to the alliances. I like it, but then, I wrote it. It is Cber's dream, Cber's plan, I am just the messenger. I always was fairly handy with the bandy.

Ok, I am pretty confident that is done now, at least to my satisfaction. The words flow right, they sound right, in my head, and they LOOK good. All that remains is for Cber to approve it or to let me know what to change.

I got wind of the birth of this idea a while back - that what Cber wanted to see was a fairer and more unified universe, and it's good to see the cogs in motion. This plan is perfect - all sides will receive the benefit of increased firepower, increased trade and increased security-by-reputation than ever before, and any smaller alliances under our wing will also receive security from unnecessary bashing.

That's not to say that we should stop smaller players being raided - this game is about raiding, and if the attacks were because the player left their fleet/resources laying around, then they should not be replied to with threats or an ACS attack.

Dizzy, You remember? good. And Kin, I like it! I will take the job of Spreading the word. I am now going to invite The heads Of GTF and HRE here to view our proposal. I will form another thread for them to post in, and we will discuss it there.

Thanks C. I worked on it for a good 2 and a half hours. Sorry about the initial confusion, with the subject matter and main points. Those things happen to me every once in a while.

Dizzy - Yes, we should not stop ANY player, high or low, from being raided, as long as the raid is not on a level with "Almost Bashing." For me, I would have to take into account the number of times the player was attacking, and the number of attempts this player made if the one who is attacked is able to fleetsave.

That is why we would post grievances against players and then the Rep.s would decide when it was time to do something. After all, the name of the game IS war. We could not, in good conscience, try too stop the raiding against ourselves and still raid.

I DO think that we should use our might right from the start to hit s few players who have given us trouble before, just to make ourselves known, and to have a bit of payback. All profits shared, of course.

Now Just one thing I need you all to keep in perspective. Once each alliance votes on a rep, and IT MUST BE A VOTE, what do you think about having the reps deciding on a more official governing structure? such as terms? a President of the COA? and is a written constitution a little too much?

Cber wrote:

Now Just one thing I need you all to keep in perspective. Once each alliance votes on a rep, and IT MUST BE A VOTE, what do you think about having the reps deciding on a more official governing structure? such as terms? a President of the COA? and is a written constitution a little too much?

A written constitution is great, as are terms that all must abide by, else they must leave. PLEASE, EVERYONE REMEMBER THAT NOTHING GOOD IS DONE WITHOUT COMPROMISE. Some people will be mostly pleased with the terms, but others may not feel the same. We must work together on this.

I am not sure there should be a president. If there were to be a president, what would his official capacity be? If he were just a figure head, then I suppose there would be no problem, but I would very much be disappointed to see another BUSH in office, you see? No "Final Say" or "Veto" power for any person, whatsoever. Discussion and compromise, those are the keys.

I think the governing structure should include one or two reps from each alliance, no matter how many members they have, and they vote on everything. Those reps may either go their way with a vote, or consult the members they represent to decide how to cast their lot, but that rep would have to realize that all his alliance members are privy to the conversations and votes posted and cast by the rep. He/She could be ousted for going against the wishes of the alliance he/she represents, and I think that will keep most people in check.

I do not mean to offend you, Cber, but I think our 1 or 2 reps should not include our leader, in order to set an example of trust. Sometimes the leader is too busy to bother with more than expressing his opinion and letting someone else hash out the details, anyway. I also think we should ask that the other alliances TRY to think about doing the same.

Kin, I totally agree with you, which Is why I vote you are our rep.

Cber wrote:

Kin, I totally agree with you, which Is why I vote you are our rep.

Definitely a good idea - 100% agreement from me.