Alliances political snapshot?

It has been about 18 months since the last good public summary of the Atlas alliances that I can find:

Can anyone provide an updated picture? A few things definitely changed since then.

Aside from the alliance names, would it be considered a fair exception from the “callout” rule to name one major team from each alliance, so that the uninitiated could have a better chance to work out the rest from 5TAs and passages?

Such update could be useful around each Atlas season start, when some new teams are added and look for opportunities, and some existing Atlas players/teams might be considering new goals and plans for a new season.

1 Like

Ok, I hear the quickest way to get the correct answer online is to write a wrong answer and let people correct you. So here is a very poorly informed summary for you all to correct. Don’t be surprised if I get embarrassed and delete it later.

"Dread friendly": The leader team retired, but the club carries on, and may not be exactly monolithic, but at least friendly enough to trade castles with each other but usually exclude others. This includes alliances Sine Nomine, Sinister, Parabellum, Legacy, SF and VF. Based on the idea of playing to win, as far as I understand, these have a public perception of “the dark side”, and also collectively control most of the high level castles.

"DOA friendly": No idea if they were founded in order to fight the Dread side, or if it happened historically, but these teams are publicly recognized as the opposition to Dread. I can only remember two major alliance names in this camp: DOA and Libertas. (Edit: and Populares)

Neutral: It is hard to be truly neutral when at some point you might be forced to give passage or lose a castle to one side or the other, but some teams at least try to be less involved in active war between the two camps above. A major alliance that comes to mind is Arachnid. Then there are also pirates of various degrees of organization and neutrality, and sometimes with a lightly held castle or three. Pirates constitute a substantial portion of the total Atlas player base.

Small fish: Each of the above groups has smaller impact alliances in Platinum, either as semi-formal satellites, or just sympathizers. A notable alliance friendly to small new teams is AOM.

I must note that the actual behavior of the alliances, teams, and people in them is far from black and white. There are nice and naughty players on all sides. Most people choose alliances based on friends they trust, rather than some political statements.


A little outdated too. But it’s funny


:point_up_2: :point_up_2::point_up_2::point_up_2::point_up_2::point_up_2:


Yup as well as feeder alliances like PTW and a few others that are pretty much irrelevant. We also now have Semper or Semper-loyal teams that “broke off” from Sine to fight dominus (Dread DC Empire AnD)

Populares is DOA and Libertas loyal.

What is left of AOM is honestly not even noteworthy. I can only think of 1 or 2 teams that still identify as AOM. They either went up or disbanded.


Yeah idk if arachnid can even be considered neutral anymore. They commonly participate in conquers and raids with Libertas and I don’t think I’ve ever seen them hit libertas in the recent past. Definitely non-dread loyal.


Thanks, some useful corrections there.

Excuse me while I doubt that part. They may be small teams not on your mindmap but they exist.


That very well may be true.

I stand corrected, haha.

1 Like

Arachnid remains neutral and we do hit both sides. Just so happens those that hit us the most tend to be ‘Dread Affiliated’ so it looks that way from the outside at times. Arachnid ties to Libertas ended a while back around the time that some Libertas teams (Phoenix TA) made agreements with Semper and got involved there.

Keeping focus on 1 specific group/TA at a time is usually a strategic way to do things. The last thing you want is to become a target from 2 or more major groups.

Arachnid does not coordinate raids or conquers with other groups, we keep things internal.

Targets are decided based on positioning or retaliation.

This being said, I would personally like the direction of the game to move away from the larger groups and encourage teams to work on a TA level. I have seen many interesting ideas on the forums that could be explored and could probably make the game more enjoyable for many.


I agree things are more fun with just 5TAs. Too bad very strong 5TAs can attack weaker ones, and people can call any strong friends for high stake battles. And once a few large alliances are created, that creates pressure for the other teams to join. It would take some big change in the engagement mechanics of Atlas to remove this need.

Very nice to hear directly from Arachnid leadership here. It would be awesome to hear from other alliances as well.


I got a headache just from reading this little bit.

Atlas politics is enough to make anyone want to :face_vomiting: Just the mention of Atlas and politics makes me :nauseated_face:

1 Like

While this is my first time commenting on a thread, I read all of them.
We are one the Pirate Faction teams/alliances in the game.
While most of the Pirate teams work individually or within 5ta’ s, each has some things that are in common and some that aren’t. We have a playing style all of our own, the strategies that one pirate team employs may be different to the next pirate team and varies widely.
Speaking only for my team, we choose our targets according to retaliation, map access, glory points, and just random. We can have all these reasons or just one reason. Sometimes it doesn’t matter what glory a specific team gives us. It may be a Retaliatory hit. This is a bit different than being added to our ‘targeted list”. Once added to our targeted list, we are relentless.
While Pirates may be lone teams and not an “alliance” , pirate teams represent a large portion of the Atlas environment and collectively are a ‘force’ that can have some kind of influencing factors not just in map strategies but also disrupting strategies of the mega alliances as well as minor alliances.


Right, pirates deserve a mention as a viable choice in the neutral section. I forgot to mention them because they usually declare themselves outside of Atlas politics.

1 Like

There are some pirate teams that work in conjunction with mega alliances as well.
My team is NOT one of those that do.
Thanks for making this thread though, as many have no idea who is who even when their team does belong to a mega/minor alliance.
I am glad that we heard from one of the “mega” alliances leadership. I would encourage leadership from some of these other Mega/minor alliances to speak about their own alliances.

1 Like

Very well worded Blackbeard and Welcome to the forums as a commenter. :rofl: :pirate_flag:
I’m hoping this thread shows more of the different alliances and what their goals and Objectives are for their respective big or smaller alliances

Your targets are based upon positioning in regards to defense and maintaining long term defense of your holdings I assume?
And retaliation against attacks that threaten your held position or to improve your defensive position.
But I’d say it’s fair to say ….you have no singular offensive objective…… besides acquisition of improved long term defense.

And “working on the TA level “ is only possible with balanced engagement and short of changing the overall core objective to take and hold castles to a offensive objective supported by positional based attacking mechanics we will fail to provide balanced conflict without producing elimination tactics.

Elimination tactics are the result of our defensive objective!

Defense as the only singular objective and what it produces will continue to erode the fun of our game!

Mega alliances- elimination tactic
A result of unbalanced engagement and defense as the only team based rewarded objective.

Piracy - elimination tactic
The result of unbalanced engagement and narrowing of play styles from over monetization and a defensive core objective.

Meat shielding- elimination tactic
The result of unbalanced engagement and the defensive core objective of the acquisition of MULTIPLE defensive positions and not a singular defense position.

Stagnation- the result of using elimination tactics and having no game wide team based long term offensive objective to drive balanced conflict.

Lag- the result of map expansion used to mitigate elimination tactics by providing the illusion of escalating conflict.

Atlas has no offensive objective and no reason to escalate conflict long term and fight…it’s been reduced to a sad political theater plagued by elimination tactics produced by a short term map design supported by short term mechanics and we expect it to hold up long term and drive growth and keep our game healthy and vibrant!? :man_facepalming::boom: ummm no!

Elimination tactics eliminate teams and players by narrowing available tactics until a winner a loser or a draw is reached and a draw is stagnation ……and our stupid defensive core objective has already eliminated our top team. :man_shrugging:
Defense of these :point_right::european_castle: is and always has been the root of all our problems!

Only true neutral group is my 4ta. All others are liars, and give passage to both sides and do behind the scenes shit with both sides. Just sayin


We are neutral and could care less :rofl::pirate_flag::+1:

you are seriously mistaken, the team I am on has no castles to give others passage. and like Malik has stated already about his team, mine doesn’t care what alliance a team is on or from.

Isn’t that basically neutral though :thinking:. I’m just a nobody on my team though so leadership says “go kill” and I do that.

The whole alliance thing makes no difference to me. In fact I have no clue where my team stands in the big picture. I’m sure leaders have to worry about the politics but I typically don’t even think about it

Pirates don’t count. I’m talking about teams with castles to defend

1 Like