open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked How to save a failing alliance, an essay
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Nez Perces
Metatron Inc.
Posted - 2007.01.03 10:25:00 - [31]

Edited by: Nez Perces on 03/01/2007 10:25:42

Originally by: Al Haquis

If a ceo´s of the alliance start going inactive Find new ones , keep the blood flowing people or you will get fat and then you die.

This is actually an extremely important point too. An inactive leader that won't step down can do more damage than a thousand enemies.

Ernest Graefenberg
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.01.03 10:35:00 - [32]

Originally by: searchi
Edited by: searchi on 03/01/2007 05:09:13

your advice is nice for fairytale island but not for eve in the current state.

Last I checked, Fleet Commanders do have thoughts (and whispering options), both which are awesomely spyproof. Unless BoB is reading your mind, in which case - yes you're boned, stop fighting.

Realistically though, your way of thinking is exactly what leads to colossal failure - every alliance does indeed have spies, and they do indeed have to take the obvious precautions. The impact of that is however down to your attitude. You have to be ready for failure, and take it in stride and without drama - you'll lose fleets sometimes, maybe a system or hell a region. Keep the drama out of it though, and your main ressource stays unassailable.

If however your esteem and your alliances morale are dependant on promises of constant victory, then yes espionage and short-term damages will wreck havoc. The difference really isn't whether you lose, but how well you do it. That's part of the nature of games ;)

Leilani Solaris
Posted - 2007.01.03 11:27:00 - [33]

Nicely written, All the way through i just kept thinking 'And wear sunscreen'.

The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.01.03 11:36:00 - [34]


Your'e fired. You are not supposed to teach anyone this, you are supposed to twist and turn words to give us advantages and make everyone else look silly.

On a serious note, NO, he's not for sale. OURS.

Electric Cucumber
Vae Nexon
Neon Equinox
Posted - 2007.01.03 11:37:00 - [35]

you write essays on a game?

The Singularity Project
Posted - 2007.01.03 12:17:00 - [36]

Originally by: Havras
Edited by: Havras on 03/01/2007 05:55:40
Edited by: Havras on 03/01/2007 05:54:12
Originally by: Cedart
Nice essay, but i would like to ask what you exactly mean by this? Are you saying that FC needs to think of the details first, and the big picture later, and if you are, what would qualify as "details"?

Originally by: Rebellion
thinks from the specific to the general (not general to specific)

He means have your battle plan laid out as to how you would ideally engage the enemy. Know that it will need to be modified at some point due to your enemies actions and have contingencies planned on a broad scale. I.E. Repositioning. Multiple strike points in range of each other at your optimals. Have your backup target callers and FCs know who they are and have yoru fleet know who they are... etc etc...

[Edit] Bloody spelling errors.

No plan survives the First Contact....

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.01.03 13:44:00 - [37]

Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 03/01/2007 13:44:49
Originally by: meafy
Originally by: Latitude
thats 3 pages on battle and 2 lines on logistics ............ rewrite

i do believe he covered this you lose less ships you require less logistics. If you are willing to add your thoughts constructively i am sure we would like too see how you would reorganise logistics

Pfft. Logistics is not building ships. That bit's easy, any monkey can operate a factory. Logistics is getting the supplies to the factory, sorting out what needs building, getting the end results out to the front line where they can be used, fuelling towers, sorting dread fuel, keeping everything running etc. Logistics is not having the right stuff, it's getting the right stuff to the right place at the right time, and it's something that the OP pretty much ignored.

It's clear that someone in BoB has a reasonable grasp of this stuff (to the extent that my prediction about the course of the war was wildly off - hats off to BoB's logistics chief), but a lot of posters here show an odd lack of understanding of how much work is done here, and how important it is. You can refine your fleet until you're blue in the face, but if you POS go offline, or your dreads are out of service, or the enemy's redeploying POS as soon as you knock them down, you're still going to lose. Fleets are only relevant when they're attacking or defending POS - jump drives on carriers make them largely irrelevant otherwise.

Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.03 14:13:00 - [38]

Edited by: Lianhaun on 03/01/2007 14:14:42
Originally by: Al Haquis
Good posts everyone.

I agree with most of them, but disagree with some.

One fundamental thing I have also come across in alliances is that the CEO prime responsibility is their own corp. The focus should always be on keeping you corp. firm and focused, keep your lads in ships, make sure that they know where they should be that given day.

The reason why I say this is that many CEO always get lost in the Alliance power game, and find it more important to be on a council or executive board . Thus they loose feeling for their own corp. and how their own corp. members are doing.

They only look at the amount of players you corp. ticker shows.

So at the end it comes down to having a structured layout how the Alliance/corps work within it.

And finally what really kills alliances, is having inactive CEOS and Alliance leaders that are in it for the fame or just being there to argue on the Alliance forums.

If the CEO of an alliance starts becoming inactive then find a new one, keep the blood flowing people or you will get fat and then you die.

With love from Al Haquis

*My spelling and typing is not good.

There fixed it for you, you made my eyes bleed .

I may not be able to cook ( I can, Al is just not used to real food instead of icelandic crap) but I know how to write decent english :P

Al Haquis
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.01.03 14:16:00 - [39]

Thank you honey bunny.

But get back into the kitchen.

Molle, will you please keep that woman in line, i have long given up on it.

Love you babes and thanks for tidying that up for me Razz

With love from Al Haquis

Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.03 14:17:00 - [40]

Originally by: Al Haquis
Thank you honey bunny.

But get back into the kitchen.

Molle, will you please keep that woman in line, i have long given up on it.

Love you babes and thanks for tidying that up for me Razz

With love from Al Haquis

Oh you are so dead in game.

Kaganis Warmonkey
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.01.03 17:00:00 - [41]

Edited by: Kaganis Warmonkey on 03/01/2007 17:01:33
Nearly every occasion I've seen accusations of TS spies, it's turned out afterwoods that they just had good Cov Ops pilots in all the right places. That's even more true now with the faster scanning system.

Accusations of TS spies do bad things for alliance moral. Having Cov Ops pilots reporting your every move & busting your safespots in minutes isn't as damaging (surprising as it may seem).

Only cry foul when there's no other possible explanation, IMHO. If nothing else, that way you may figure out how they pulled it off & do the same to them.

Oh, and cheers Rebellion, that was a good read. Smile

EDIT: Correcting for the profanity filter being a touch over zealous. Embarassed

Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.01.03 17:25:00 - [42]

I agree with the post.

But still was wondering about something.

Does bob have like a charter were they uphold everyone in the bob alliance to, from the smallest grunt to the alliance leader, with some rules in like, f.e.

If you shoot deliberately a alliance member, for what ever reason (f.e. a alliance member not willing to participate in a op (and thus the fc destroys this alliance member ship/kills his pod), under whatever circumstance (wartime/peacetime), the person, who shoot will be immediately kicked out of the alliance ?

Or is such a charter, with such rules, unnecessary ?

One Percent
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
Posted - 2007.01.03 18:53:00 - [43]

Well said Rebellion.

This is easily the most constructive thread I've read in this section of the forums... ever.

Atomic Battle Penguins
Posted - 2007.01.03 19:03:00 - [44]

The conversation about the line of progression between strategists and alliance commanders, down to FCs and PvPers, is a conversation and obstacle that has been discussed by military powers for centuries.

The modern solution to this is The Operational level of Warfare(lots of reading on the subject) which is a set of protocal that defines the different stages where strategic is turned into tactical. Trying to convert this idea to EvE is tricky, as some parralels simply cant be drawn, but I think you'll find that the Alliance whos FCs and roaming gankers can understand and act on the alliances grand plans, will simply have an easier time surviving and prospering, and those who dont (Cough*ASCN*Cough) will have some troubles.

Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.03 19:07:00 - [45]

The amazing thing is that, in the game of Eve, basic common sense works surprisingly well for running fleets and alliances.

IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.01.03 20:30:00 - [46]

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
It's clear that someone in BoB has a reasonable grasp of this stuff (to the extent that my prediction about the course of the war was wildly off - hats off to BoB's logistics chief)

We've got a few, thanks for the compliment.

Originally by: jedi2005
Does bob have like a charter were they uphold everyone in the bob alliance to, from the smallest grunt to the alliance leader, with some rules in like, f.e.

Absolutely not. If you're a ****** we won't make you feel welcome, that has worked pretty well for us so far - writing "rules" or a "charter" or having "council meetings" is something that no one in BoB wants.

Kalif Arnuex
Two Brothers Mining Corp.
Friend or Enemy
Posted - 2007.01.03 20:55:00 - [47]

Good post Rebellion.
Could you work on a tactics guide for future former Carebears?
If only included the STFU I would be sure you were the spy Razz

In my brief stint in the "Great War", a the lowliest of grunts, everyone assumes... Rephrase. A lot can be said
for using corps for thier strengths in a war than expecting meatshields. Are all corps in an alliance purely pvp
corps, no. Some excel at other things alliances need to survive like running freighters from empire to 0.0 the middle
of the night. Soooo, if you were running a full scale war, what would be your thoughts on non combat issues?

How does one determine who's loyalties lie with whom and incorporate that into the rise and fall of Alliances?
Example. Non-alt newbie most likely loyal to Corp/Ceo not Alliance. Ceo is most likely loyal to a group of other
Ceo's or important person and not others in same Alliance. Old corps in Alliance vs New Corps.. you get the picture.

Hopefully much wont be read into my questions and I am fully prepared to insulate myself in the largest Omber 'roid I can
find. These are things that were on my mind during the time that you were probably writing this.

the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2007.01.03 22:22:00 - [48]

I wrote portions of this in response to another thread but soon realized it fit here instead.

First of all:
People like me kill alliances.

Before LV top brass want me booted, let me explain...

I've been in a few alliances and more than enough alliance wars in my day. When an alliance falls it's usually due to boredom and/or conflict between those who want to fight vs. those who don't and also the alliance builders (the CYVOKs of the world) vs. the more typical alliance member who's more interested in their personal game than building something (me to be honest). In all cases I spent a day or two moving **** around and then went on to the next adventure. No regrets.

My loyalty to LV (or any alliance I am in) is not in question but honestly I'm just a foot soldier/mercenary. Or worse. My loyalty is 100% based on how fullfilled I feel in the game, which may or may not have anything to do with lagfest fleet battles, killing POSs or how many outposts we build. I will not ever betray my alliance but if I am bored I will cut and run.

When an alliance falls it usually goes a little something like this:

1a) A couple harcore PvP corps get bored and leave. Very small numbers, maybe two small-average corps. These corps probably weren't all that big a part of the war machine when it came to sovereignty and what not, these were your roving gangs and gate campers, not your POS killing fleet type people. Initially their absence goes unnoticed.


1b) An experienced group of guerilla fighters comes into the area to harrass and kill alliance members. This group uses tactics which makes fighting them difficult. They're able to cause massive losses for alliance members and take minimal casualties, this lowers overall alliance moral. As I write this I have a specific corp in mind. Initialts: BE.

2) The enemies know that the only thing that will stop them on any given incursion is the blobber/fleet type PvPers who usually aren't mobile enough to protect more than 2-3 core systems and aren't confident enough to break up into smaller groups. The enemies just avoid these systems if a blob present.

3) The industrial type people get mad that they can't do what they do with impunity due to increased enemy activity and incursions in alliance space.

4) The blobber/fleet battle people in turn also get mad and tell the industrial type people they don't fight for the alliance and thus should have no room to complain.

5) People in both camps leave the alliance, probably with a courtious alliance mail.

6) Core alliance type people/corps start feeling betrayed. These people have invested signifigantly in the alliance and feel that the other corps were just in the alliance for their own personal gain. They accuse people of this. They are correct, however, they never seem to realize that not everyone in Eve is out to build a powerhouse alliance with lots of sovereignty, outposts, motherships and etc. Internal conflict ensues.

7) Mass exodus. Lots of corps leave. There is lots of bitterness.

That's basically it. We know the rest, forum battles, reputations tarnished, some corps die, some core corps form a new alliance. Some corps join allies. Some join the enemy. Some move to Empire.

What have we learned?

1) All alliances need kill mail *****s. The most destructive force in Eve is a small roving gang that ganks alliance citizens whilst they try to make isk. They KILL moral. The only thing that will oppose small roving gangs is gate camps and other small roving gangs.

2) The bulk of alliance citizens don't give a **** how many outposts you have or how well you can lock down a system with 20 dreads and 150 sniping BS. This includes both PvPers and Industrialists. The bulk of the alliance also doesn't cry at night when the head honcho loses a Titan. Which brings us to...

3) Getting ****ed at the game and getting upset with people who don't take your alliance as seriously as you do will drive the bulk of your alliance away.


the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2007.01.03 22:23:00 - [49]

Edited by: Alowishus on 03/01/2007 22:26:11
4) Alliances with more PvPers survive the alliance death spiral longer. They keep themselves entertained. Individuals make more isk from selling loot than they do NPC hunting and mining, thus two things occur. First of all most guys don't mine or NPC much and they aren't vulnerable to getting ganked. Nothing hurts worse than losing a nicely fitted Raven to a few cruisers. Without this pain, moral generally stays high. Secondly the guys who do make isk mining and NPCing are few and far between and they also get ganked less because most of their enemies will not have the energy to search 50 systems looking for one Raven.

5) Industrialists are still important and should be treated with respect.

6) The least important people in the survival of an alliance are probably, ironically, the ones who try the hardest and feel they're the most important. Nobody prays to your avatar at night because you fronted 10 billion isk for something. In fact whatever that something was, it was more important to you than anyone else. That's not to say you're useless, usually these people are the heart and soul of the alliance, plus the diplomatic figures. But it's important to realize that not everyone in your alliance wants to do your thing. You have to listen to the masses and alter the course of the alliance to suit them, not alter their course to suit the alliance. Because all the people like me, and Eve is made primarily of us, will leave and your alliance with just you isn't all that great.

the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2007.01.03 22:40:00 - [50]

Originally by: Dianabolic
Absolutely not. If you're a ****** we won't make you feel welcome, that has worked pretty well for us so far - writing "rules" or a "charter" or having "council meetings" is something that no one in BoB wants.

Beautiful. I hate when alliances try to make you ask permission to ****. **** that. I won't work for a company like that IRL, why on earth would I join an alliance like that in my spare time? May as well kick myself in the balls.

BoB has lasted a long time, some alliances could learn some lessons from them. It's not that they are a powerhouse militarily, it's that there members are happy because the alliance is ran with common sense rather than some nerds idea of a fabulous Eve utopia with a charter and community structure of *******s.

Shamis Orzoz
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.01.03 23:13:00 - [51]

Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 03/01/2007 23:13:52
My list of what ruins alliances:

1. Councils. In times of war you need a dictator (preferably a benevolent one)
2. Good Fleet commanders. Difficult to find. But at the very least you have to take the best ones you have and make sure they are clearly and openly supported by the leadership.
3. Ships for the fighters. Its amazing how many times I've seen very wealthy alliances lose morale because people don't have enough money for ships, or aren't willing to take the personal losses. The leadership has to realize that the bazillion isk in the alliance assets aren't going to be worth jack when you're sitting back in empire.
4. The leadership must be positive and optimistic. No matter how grim things get, if the leadership and the fleet commanders start openly fretting, then everybody else will start packing their bags too.


Flapp Corp
Posted - 2007.01.03 23:54:00 - [52]

Originally by: Rebellion
Originally by: Nez Perces
What happens if communication has been established, and it has been assessed that non-confrontational protest is not the reason for lack of participation? What happens if suspicions of a corp's willingness to participate were present before the war.. and the advent of war has simply confirmed these suspicions. Bluntly speaking they are a bunch of bears and they are not gonna fight for love nor money.

That's when you revoke all of their access and tell them to shape up or ship out, but only after you've confirmed that. One wonders why they joined an "Alliance" anyway.

I disagree.

Any corp. being kicked in times of war means bad news for an alliance, affecting morale, creating logistical problems as the "gap" might need some filling up, makes people think about if they might be next.

You are trying to rally your soldiers. Instead try to motivate your civilians:

Industrial corps for example, nobody wants to fight anything but Bistot. Fine, let them have it their way as long as they contribute to the war effort (read logistics) in a sufficient manner.
Now you could ask them to produce so and so many BS per week, but that is just as unefficient as pulling out the taxbook.

A better way would be to integrate them into the war machinery. Examples for Good War News(TM):
"We lost 3 Geddons last week while X corp. produced 5."
"In order to supply the front lines, X corp. made a total of 1200 jumps, bringing those 80 new Rifters to our outpost."

Surely this sounds like cheap propaganda on first glance, but i hopefully got the point across: Make the miners feel important because they are!

Don't forget to make those deals known alliance wide in the first place: Direct and clear communications not only strengthen the alliance bonds, they also allow you to kick those miners should they fail to deliver - and this time nobody would be worried as everybody knew what was going on.

Two side notes on this:
1) As an alliance leader, be as consistent as possible. Ideally, you want everyone, especially corp. leaders to know you good enough that they are able to predict your next move.
2) Right, there are spies. So what? Good alliance leaders make strategic decisions only, so go tell your enemy.

Side note on side note two:
If i were a FC and my pilots were troubled by possible TS compromising, i'd just have them all shut down their mics.
Then i'd play some music for them. Very Happy

IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.01.04 01:20:00 - [53]

Edited by: Rebellion on 04/01/2007 01:24:06
About logistics:

This guide is about saving an alliance from crumbling, not about running it effectively. I mentioned that you should adjust your fighting force to what your logistics can support, no more. How you improve logistics is not an exact science as the methods differ depending on the people you have to work with, which is why communication with the right people in your alliance is important.

About organization/bureaucracy:

I am of the opinion that levels of formal organization and bureaucracy are put in place to protect organizations from incompetent leadership. A "system" is a substitute for ability, and reliance on a system only happens when there are no people with good ability. To make things short: if you have good people, you don't need much in the way of a system.

I won't add more into this as I've been busted by The Boss, and if I divulge any more unsolicited advice I stand the risk of having my city sacked by vikings.

Take the guide as you will. If it helps you, fine. If it doesn't, fine. Not following it (or something like it) would likely lead to alliances crumbling fast. However, if you do follow it, just keep in mind that it would mean that guys like me already know how you operate. While that doesn't make the tips any less genuine, sometimes just knowing how your opponents do things is already a huge advantage in the hands of certain people. And my personal perversion is that I have the incurable desire to tell opponents exactly how they will be attacked before it happens, and have it still happen exactly as stated in spite of the foreknowledge. Like a Greek tragedy.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, as they might be gifts bearing Greeks.

pew pew

Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only