Company Takes Rival Company's Alliance Member as Development Territory

[Spoons]

 

So, I'm playing War Of The Immortals, where all companies are active at the same time, and WWFA (WWF Attitude) is in a direct war with WCW/nWo (WCW in its nWo era). As you can see here, WWFA recently adopted WCW as a development territory. However, WCW is in an alliance with WCW/nWo, as they're both versions of WCW, and I feel like they shouldn't be able to do that. Like, at the very least WCW should reject the request in order to protect the integrity of the WCW alliance, right? Or at the very, very least, it should act as like a dirty trick. Like "We're a parent company of your alliance member, how do you like that!?"

[thadian]

This is why I always just use WCW as the company and if I use NWO as anything other than a gimmick, it might be a Brand Split for Thunder (then a third brand for Worldwide).

Are companies in an alliance now allowed to be developmental? Like, if there is an alliance, can all the big companies buy one of the companies and use it for developmental? I thought in TEW 2020 this could not happen in-game (though I have done it in editor).

[Spoons]

10 hours ago, thadian said:

This is why I always just use WCW as the company and if I use NWO as anything other than a gimmick, it might be a Brand Split for Thunder (then a third brand for Worldwide).

Are companies in an alliance now allowed to be developmental? Like, if there is an alliance, can all the big companies buy one of the companies and use it for developmental? I thought in TEW 2020 this could not happen in-game (though I have done it in editor).

I have a developmental company that I then invite to my alliance, and nobody has a problem with it, though I don't know if you can do it the other way around, I've never tried it. 

And yeah, WOTI is different that way, it has every version of every company all at once. Every WWE, every WCW, etc. It's really neat, but does make for inconsistencies like this.

[thadian]

Oh, wow. I would think if any company is in an Alliance and is in buyout negotiations:

1. The Alliance should be able to vote no to the buyout, just like they can block an Alliance Title change or admitting/booting a member.

2. If the Alliance votes no, the company should still be allowed to sell, however it will be removed from The Alliance.

3. Because of the stipulations you mentioned - if an Alliance member goes bankrupt or is having buyout talks, Alliance Companies should do an evaluation to determine whether they should buy the company to "save" it. First, they should have enough money that if they do, they won't be in financial trouble themselves. Second, their needs - could they benefit from converting the company to a developmental/child company? Could they benefit from absorbing the roster? What moral impacts could occur due to any negative relationships? How do buyouts impact existing Broadcast deals, would they be able to pick up a TV slot? While the company might want to sentimentally save the other company, what it REALLY wants is to make a strong business move that gives the company a strong position, even if a little finagling is required to piece everything together.

Example - three WCWs are in an alliance. One bankrupt, one barely above water, one is drowning in money. They get two notices: 1, a company outside your alliance is in talks to buy a company in your alliance. Do you vote to expel them if they sell? 2. A company you are at war with is about to buy this company you are allies with. Do you wish to enter talks?

First, their place in the alliance if WWF buys them. Second, just like when bidding on a contract war for a talent, you both make better offers until the other steps back. So, the third WCW steps in to buy the first WCW but the WWF really wants it and Vince will spend the money. The WCW Alliance counter bids to make it more expensive for WWF to buy this WCW, then it is removed from the alliance. The WWF which made the purchase can now proceed with its acquisition as normal.