"I am not so sure about bringing politics into it +) I just envision more flamewars

" *chuckle*
But think about it. If there were 4 sides (or more, 6 may not be bad .... more than that might, though) then the R&D and production aspects you bring up would take on even more significance if each side could determine whether they can "officially align" with another side. Players could decide whether to sign treaties (and set them for a specific time limit), form alliances or even break them and declare war. If you shoot an ally, you suffer the same consequences as if you shot a fellow "countryman".
It would also give the side which is getting trounced a chance if there are some players on there with diplomatic skill ("We may not have alot to offer but maybe we could help tip the scales in the deadlock your side is having with the so-n-sos."). For the players who want a game with more depth, how much deeper can it get than that? And for those who don't, it'd be no skin off their noses to let the strat/diplomacy guys do their thing.
And when you think about it, how can there be more "chesspiece flamewars" than there already are? Oh, which reminds me. With more than three sides the chesspiece thing kinda goes out the window, eh? I suppose if the 4 sided arena was adopted then using card suits would be right up Ace's High's alley (Clubs, Hearts, Spades, Diamonds).
*ShruG* Oh well ... just a thought anyhow.
