Since there's now a shared ops functionality in the cooperation server, it seems like excellent functionality for intel allies to have shared ops on other servers as well. After all, isn't that what the Five Eyes do? Pool resources then share intel?

[+1]

While I'm not against the idea entirely, this would make collusion on solo servers basically approved by an in-game mechanism.

If we take that stance, wouldn’t it make more sense to eliminate all forms of relations in solo servers?

Lets look at defense allies as an example:

If someone farms your formal in-game ally:
- You lose units.
- Your defense ally becomes compromised, exposing you to more people that can break you.

If formal allies are allowed in solo servers, why should mutual defense beyond the pact be excluded? It is inconsistent.

If the goal is to create a true solo experience just remove the alliances altogether. We end up with a vague, self-regulated system that’s often misjudged by unpaid volunteers who delete first and ask questions later.

You can extend this line of reasoning to this suggestion.

The argument I always heard about even having alliances on solo servers is to help develop community and get players to interact with each other. Similar to why there is a bonus for posting on the forums.

Personally, I'd extend the reasoning the other way and remove all allies (and I've felt that way for a decade) because it certainly gives an advantage to long-time entrenched players; if we were to go that route though, it would have a number of balance implications (and I don't mean to hijack this suggestion).

I would be for that as well :)

Re: hijacking- many people feel the need to poo-poo ideas instead of letting the developer weigh in which often leads to conversation. Neither good nor bad don't be sorry!

First of all - you haven't hijacked anything, I'd say this discussion is directly related.

Second of all, yes, I can see the argument both ways. My suggestion is inclusive of Alliance and Team server though. As of now, Tournament is the only server that is A) solo and B) has zero ingame allies. Alliance and Team by their nature require players to share information, and what serves the longterm entrenched player base is to gate that infosharing behind joining alliances and discords to get it.

For Primary and Express (the two solo servers with allies), this could definitely lead to greater coordination and more warring. I don't see it as being a big problem though, because if two countries end up at war with the same country there - well, the guy by himself had to break GDI at some point right? The existing architecture doesn't seem (to me) to support crazy wars of collusion with a change like this.

FWIW Alliance already shares automatically.

Ah, I agree completely with it being shared on clan-based servers - partially because I assumed it was already working that way since I knew it did on coop and alliance (I haven't played Team much recently).

I agree with removing alliances from primary server. They are already removed from Tournament. I don't play express so can't speak to that one. Primary would benefit from having ~30% less tech supply. Removing DA's will make it harder for the top players to outrun retals without jumping out of range. I'm not really sure if any impact will be had from removing IA's at all.

Currently in primary some players that don't have DA's get farmed early and the more aggressive grabbers continue to build a land advantage that eventually allows them to break GDI and jump out of range, thus expanding the pool of land they can gain. Without that initial and somewhat arbitrary advantage of being able to grab anyone without a DA without risk of being retaled, it will make it harder to gain an advantage in primary (similar to Tourney, but with more players and a longer set to help differentiate best, from good, from new).