Stress-test generator
Fictional world system · evidence before alignment
See who aligns.
See where they do not.
The IARPG Alliance Observatory treats relationships as layered, conditional, and changeable. A faction can share intelligence with one partner, compete over infrastructure with another, and deconflict with a rival—all at the same time.
- Factions
- 12
- Relationships
- 27
- Domains
- 8
- Mission seeds
- 12
TRADESECURITYGOVERNANCE
INTELLIGENCETECHNOLOGYRELIEF
IARPGRELATIONSHIP MODEL
No omniscient map. Players see claims, evidence, confidence, disagreement, and correction.
Direct answer
How do alliances work in IARPG?
An alliance is not a friendship meter. It is a changing institutional relationship with a scope, decision rule, obligations, costs, dependencies, internal critics, evidence confidence, and exit conditions. Every relationship is recorded by domain, so cooperation in relief or trade does not automatically imply military or political alignment.
- Relationship model
- 14 neutral relationship types
- Lifecycle
- Contact through adaptation or fracture
- Truth boundary
- Fictional reference prototype—not a live geopolitical feed
Interactive relationship model
Filter the world by domain,
then inspect the friction.
Lines show published fictional relationships—not moral approval, certainty, or permanent alignment. Select a faction to see its interests, dependencies, oversight, internal blocs, recruitment boundary, and visible connections.
Loading the browser-local alliance publication…
Open the accessible relationship table
| Actors | Relationship | Domains | Lifecycle | Confidence |
|---|
Alliance lifecycle
Cooperation is a process,
not a permanent badge.
Relationships may stop at any stage, skip a stage, narrow to one domain, or move backward after a stress test. The model records what changed and why instead of quietly rewriting history. The Campaign State Console now previews reason-coded, reversible turns.
- 01ContactInitial communication; no implied commitment.
- 02Confidence buildingLow-risk exchanges test reliability and boundaries.
- 03Limited cooperationA bounded shared problem creates a practical link.
- 04FormalizationPublic instruments define scope and expectations.
- 05IntegrationShared systems create benefits and dependencies.
- 06Stress testA crisis reveals actual commitment and internal division.
- 07AdaptationReform, narrowing, hedging, fragmentation, or exit.
Scenario laboratory
Turn relationship research
into playable uncertainty.
These local tools generate safe fictional briefs from the published dataset. They do not save work, call external services, or expose real-world targeting, recruitment, intrusion, evasion, or attack methods.
Mission-seed generator
Build an evidence-first operation.
International fairness contract
Alignment describes a relationship.
It does not define a people.
Every faction has internal disagreement, oversight, dependencies, community perspectives, and possible future changes. No nationality, culture, religion, region, diagnosis, or demographic is assigned a permanent gameplay morality.
Formal instruments, practical behavior, public narratives, affected-community evidence, and confidence remain separate. “Proxy,” “ally,” “neutral,” and “lone actor” are conclusions that require evidence—not dramatic labels applied by default.
Same test for partners and rivals
Direction, support, control, obligation, and autonomy use equivalent evidence standards.
Many relationships at once
Trade, security, technology, diplomacy, relief, and rivalry can coexist.
Institutions are not populations
Characters and communities retain individual motives, rights, and disagreement.
Uncertainty stays visible
Confidence, source limits, challenges, and supersession remain part of the record.
Evidence before control labels
Partnership, support, sponsorship,
direction, and command differ.
Shared interests, public praise, geography, language, material transfer, one arms purchase, one vote, or a common adversary do not by themselves establish operational control or permanent alignment. State the exact relationship domain, period, evidence origin, autonomy, disagreement, and unresolved alternatives.
Resources without proven direction
Financial, political, technical, or material backing may coexist with meaningful independent decision-making.
Principal relationship
Sponsorship requires stronger evidence than thematic similarity and still does not automatically prove control of a specific act.
Tasking tied to the event
Authenticated instruction, reporting, compliance, and decision authority are required for a directed relationship.
Do not infer outcome from reach
Visibility, engagement, disruption, or message pickup do not demonstrate persuasion, policy change, or strategic success.
Deep research links
Six reports behind the new world system
The public prototype uses only the bounded Reviewed Synthesis from each report. Preserved source-derived prose remains available for provenance and may require fresh verification before factual real-world reuse.
FULL REPORT
Global Alliance and Alignment Atlas
Relationship taxonomy, hedging, nonalignment, evidence fields, and global fairness.
→
FULL REPORT
How Alliances Actually Work
Formation, burden sharing, decision rules, stress, adaptation, and fracture.
→
FULL REPORT
Informal Alignments and Intermediaries
Patrons, sponsorship, autonomy, deconfliction, intermediaries, and confidence.
→
FULL REPORT
Faction Recruitment Ecosystems
Organizational access, screening, integration, retention, exit, and safeguards.
→
FULL REPORT
Lone-Actor Network Influence
Network adjacency, claim versus control, protective factors, and civil liberties.
→
FULL REPORT
Alliance and Recruitment Worldbuilding
Fictional faction architecture, fog of war, dynamic relationships, and safe mission translation.
→
Alignment in context
Relationships sit inside larger systems.
An alliance record becomes more realistic when it includes domestic political constraints, regional decision rules, small-state agency, energy or logistics dependencies, source caveats, analytic dissent, and conditions for correction or reversal. None of those dimensions creates a universal friend-or-enemy score.
Country context before alignment inference
Five draft profiles show
why one relationship is never enough.
Regional memberships, rotating chairs, technical cooperation, infrastructure coordination, and overlapping institutions are recorded domain by domain. Audits and volatile rechecks preserve qualifications rather than converting any relationship into a loyalty, control, threat, or bloc-alignment score. Reviewer evidence and editorial decisions remain absent and publication-blocking.
Formal participation
Membership identifies an institution, not automatic agreement in every domain.
Issue-specific cooperation
Finance, operation, ownership, regulation, and control remain separate.
Internal institutions may disagree
Government, parliament, courts, parties, and public opinion are not interchangeable.
Context can remain ambiguous
Neutral, nonaligned, hedging, and mixed-domain cooperation remain possible.
