Coercion of other leaders wasn’t what I meant to imply. That got pulled into the discussion later somehow.
How long did it take the United Kingdom or even Spain to pull their forces out of Iraq? Compare that with the average length of an expansion.
Now admittedly this isn’t a perfect comparison. Iraq posed no real threat to either the United Kingdom or Spain so they were less inclined to keep fighting and more willing to risk mission failure. Also in World of Warcraft leaders tend to stand more on principle than in the real world.
Still, it would work.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why I despise the faction war bull crap. Because it creates zero-sum mindsets that as long as their needs are met screw everyone else’s storylines and thematics.
1 Like
The only storyline and thematic being ‘screwed’ is the human empire crap that you were just condemning.
Okay, I’m severely confused now. Assuming you’re responding to my statement “That’s not a reason not to write a warmongering High King,” I don’t see how the characterization of the High King implies an empire.
I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about how the story would go from there.
You create conditions that go counter the established Alliance lore and characterization in order to achieve it. That screws the thematics of both SW and Anduin.
So it was more just having a warmongering High King? I gotcha.
That just circles back to that Ulduar trailer to me. Unless most of the Alliance goes along with it, which would entail similar issues the Horde had with Garrosh and Sylvanas, it looks like a Blue Horde rather than an Alliance.
Although considering how Tyrande storms off when Anduin can’t accommodate her demand to send forces to Darkshore, maybe that’s just the way she’s supposed to be now.
The problem is when empires unravel, they unravel FAST, it doesn’t matter how long you stand before it can only take a couple years for you to just completely explode. What you’d be suggesting would essentially transform the Alliance from a coalition into a very fragile nascent empire, and one that got into a slug out with a much older more established empire whose only real weakness is they tend to be the aggressor.
If the high King begins manipulating people overtly, if the Alliance starts to see that their principles are not being upheld and they have gotten into a fight with a dangerous warlike group of nations without some kind of moral highground, then there’s no reason why the Alliance wouldn’t just explode. Hell the Alliance playerbase is asking about that NOW when THEY were the ones to get attacked!
1 Like
Which unlike those two, can’t work because the structure of the Alliance is fundementaly different from the Horde, and we return to where we started
1 Like
But the other Alliance leaders can have other reasons to go along with a war besides coercion. Maybe some of them have grievances that they want to address. Maybe some are promised other things that they want if they will support the war effort. Maybe some of them owe debts to the High King that they feel they must repay. You could have different themes and reasons for each of the different races/groups to join the effort, which is what I meant about creating more story.
Okay. You realize you’re talking about a hypothetical situation that involves the Alliance being different.
I guess you’re welcome to throw your hands in the air, call the idea of having something different crap and walk away. But at that point I’m not sure you’re adding anything.
Getting atleast 5-6 independent states of comparable power to go along with war is a lot harder than you would imagine.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see how that is caused by making Varian aggressive toward the Horde. It seems like a completely separate issue to me.
Fine, it’s hard! But you’re talking like it’s impossible, which I disagree with.
And of course, that’s assuming they don’t just retcon the authority of the High King to have the power to order the other states into a war. Do you seriously think they wouldn’t do that, if they wanted to?
I’m really, truly, honestly baffled by the idea that there is NO way the Alliance could EVER start a war so the ONLY choice the writers have is to make the Horde do it. I get that you don’t want it to happen, but you seem to be saying it can’t happen, and forgive me, but to me that just sounds ridicuous.
I mean they already sort of did it by having Varian restructure the entire system of Ironforge.
And boy did that not go over well with the Alliance playerbase.
4 Likes
Because Varian could not act on his own, no matter how much he wanted. This is fundementally different than how both Garrosh and Sylvanas were able to accomplish their actions.
@Rotghar I am pointing out how your hypothesis fundementally alters the alliance to be something it is not. If that is all you care about because you have stated not caring about the Alliance except how it relates to the Horde (As you stated back in September while you were using Fondant), that’s fine. But it’s hard to take your ideas seriously
The fundamental thing you guys have to remember is the Alliance, since it’s inception, is a defensive coalition. First, Last, and always.
Please find me the place where I ever said that a warmongering Alliance leader would have to start a war single-handed, dragging the rest of the Alliance into it against their will, and I’ll explain what I really meant, because I didn’t intentionally say that.
@Saiphas, and I’m pointing out that is the topic of discussion that you joined in on. A militaristic High King inducing a war of aggression.
If your only contribution is that you don’t like the premise fine, but you’re wasting everyone’s time then.
Nope. Time is not being wasted.
1 Like
No, I rejoined a discussion from yesterday and one I have had on and off about impracticalities of an Aggressive Alliance. Just because i fundementally disagree that your premise is workable does not mean that I as an Alliance player, may not have something to add considering the it’s my faction that you have zero care about, other than how it helps protagonize the Horde.
2 Likes