Regarding what Atamara needs (I've only skimmed this thread): imperial breakup is the key. The question is, HOW do we break up the CE bloc?
There are basically three routes for this to happen:
1. Spoils-squabbling
2. Leader-balancing
3. Internal dissent
1. Spoils-squabbling
In this scenario, CE bloc breakup will occur when Darka is soundly defeated and forced to accept humiliating terms. CE will maybe have one or two more cleanup wars and police actions after Darka, but they will basically have conquered or defeated all of Atamara. The presumption here is that CE and allies are actually highly ambitious. Tara fulfilled its ambitions by expanding eastwards. CE fulfilled its ambitions crushing Carelia and Falasan, founding puppet realms in Strombran and Coria. Coria itself has expanded northwards, though its home-grown ambitions have already been squashed for now. Strombran seems unlikely to be able to muster up any serious political ambitions for a while. Talerium will make gains at Darka's expense. But after Darka, what? Expand Coria into Minas Leon? Sure, maybe, but Coria is the least reliable of CE's allies, while Minas Leon is Tara-alligned, while its other neighbor, Rieleston, is CE-aligned. So where will Coria be expanded? Eston, the already-defeated enemy? Maybe.
The premise here is that CE's allies will find that increasingly costly long-range wars requiring larger and larger amounts of time and soldiers and coordination will yield diminishing spoils to be shared around. And they will set to squabbling when there are no enemies left to fight. Territorial squabbles, for example: Strombran will demand allied help to expand eastwards to be an equal partner with the others. Or maybe Coria will want to be regarded as an equal as well. These kinds of squabbles will be kept on the backburner as long as meaningful spoils stand to be gained: but when the last enemy is killed, will all the hyper-militarized armies go home and hang up their shields, or will they start looking at each other?
If we buy this theory of conflict-creation (inter-alliance conflict will occur when no more enemies exist to fight), then Darka's defeat/surrender would be a good prelude to a more dynamic Atamara. Thus altruistic Darkans should lay down and die for the sake of Atamara's bored player proletariat.
2. Leader-balancing
But maybe the CE alliance hasn't done a good job of apportioning spoils. Corian attempts at independence seem a symptom of this argument: CE has misunderstood the desires of its puppets to be equals. Thus if the war with Darka fizzles, Talerium may suddenly find itself very much a junior partner: and they kept some semblance of peace with Darka. Or maybe CE peripheral states like Strombran, Minas Leon, Rieleston, and Coria will begin to assert themselves, coalesce to try and "balance the leader" (meaning CE, or possibly CE/Tara).
This argument has its main strength in Silverfire's Phoenix Empire. If the Phoenix Empire were regarded as not just a peculiarity of Silverfire, but rather a symptom of a larger desire by peripheral states to balance against a hegemonic and interventionist leader, then we might think this argument is strong.
If leader-balancing is the main source of conflict, then the way to make a more dynamic Atamara would be an alliance switch away from CE to Darka or some other third entity. The north seems paralyzed in local affairs; I know nothing about the south. To me the lynchpin here is Talerium. A Talerian betrayal of CE could unleash a similar betrayal by Coria, and opportunistic strikes by northern realms like Lyonesse and Eston.
If we buy this theory of conflict-creation (dynamic wars will return when smaller states collaborate to balance out and challenge the influence of super-states), then a Talerian betrayal of CE would be a good prelude to a more dynamic Atamara. Thus altruistic Talerians should hurl themselves on the altar of CE's army, committing suicide in the name of inspiring other peripheral states to turn on CE/Tara (or maybe inspiring Tara itself to fight CE).
3. Internal dissent
The above theories focus on relations between states. But as we all know, BM is not a perfectly state-centric system. There are multiple levels of cooperation and conflict and motivation. Maybe real dynamic conflict is truly grassroots, and filters upwards. In this theory, conflict will originate if there are ambitious people with real power in an environment with heterogenous interests, values, desires, expectations, or beliefs. Thus the real "stability" of CE/Tara is not a geopolitical one, but a symptom of the lack of meaningful religious or cultural conflict, and a powerful sense of state-centric military solidarity managed via guilds.
Thus conflict occurs when somebody with different interests or values gets power and becomes ambitious: even if they're in the same realm. I'm thinking of Magna Serpaensism here. CE's extermination campaign against that religion seems indicative of CE's intuitive grasp of the need for religio-cultural uniformity. An emphasis on collaborative military planning and shared institutions would be another symptom, as would the distribution of ranking offices reliably to long-term mentees and loyal supporters via an extended patronage network.
So we will have stagnation no matter what the political landscape looks like as long as Atamara has so huge a mass of nonpolitical religions, effective military-planning guilds, longevity-based political systems, and team-playing mentality.
If we buy this theory of conflict-creation (dynamic wars will return when serious conflicts of values and interests exist within the CE bloc) suggests that altruistic CE-bloc nobles need to begin founding sub-alliance guilds for specific rather than general purposes, altruistic religions around Atamara need to work harder to exert political influence beyond mere national concern, greater risks should be taken in political appointments by all players, and players should work harder to build personal patronage networks.
---
I'm not sure which theory I buy most of all, but any of them seem plausible.
