In making this thread, I'm hoping to start a conversation about the international role-play in the game at the moment. On several occasions over the past couple of years, there have been attempts by players to establish prominent in-game alliances or to create international conflicts- with mixed success. In my opinion, a running theme throughout these attempts has been a failure to properly prepare and coordinate international role-play in order to maximise the chance of its success. With that said, it may appear fruitless to try, once again, to develop a new dynamic which would allow for some interesting international role-play but that isn't going to stop me trying. The only further preface I wish to give to these proposals and suggestions is that I do not want players to read them and immediately begin trying to implement them, in fact that is totally contrary to what I am suggesting. Rushed role-play is almost always bad role-play.
Essentially, I am proposing that any and all players who have an interest in international role-play begin the construction of two competing spheres of influence/groupings of states. While we should avoid the process appearing artificial or formulaic, there will inevitably be a degree to which actions are taken for out-of-character reason which serve to aid in building these two rivals "blocs". As I made clear in an in-character context in this article about the Northern Council, the chief problem with that organisation was that it did not have an explicit ideological nature for its rivals to coalesce in opposition to. The game is not split neatly into monarchies and republics or planned and free market economies nor is it necessarily desirable for it to be. In my view, the only realistic division of Terra at this point is on the issue of liberal interventionism versus national sovereignty.
Conflicts on this issue have surfaced before and, as I understand it, were a major factor in the development of Particracy's world war. As a consequence, there are already some approximate dividing lines which we could seek to exploit in splitting the globe in half. Istalia and Kazulia seem to be nations in favour of intervention, Vanuku and Trigunia are generally perceived as defenders of sovereignty and nations like Indrala don't appear to be defined either way. All players need to do, in these nations and others, is seek to develop or strengthen relations with like-minded nations and distance themselves from opposing ones so that a natural split begins to develop. Obviously, this shouldn't be clear cut and there should be a spectrum on which all nations fall.
In terms of what happens once this bipolarity has developed, that is very much up for discussion. Once the framework exists, a single atrocity could act as catalyst for a global conflict or a cold war-style situation may develop. A particularly radical idea I conceived is that the anti-interventionism nations might end up leaving the World Congress, or a war may necessitate the reformation of that organisation (a matter already being discussed in an out-of-character sense). Either way, I am eager to hear what others think- negative or positive.