I am sorry Sicotic, I meant to reply to you earlier, had to go to work. I would like the test to show wrong answers, but I would have to purchase an upgrade to the WordPress testing plugin that I am using on my website that is hosting the test. I just don't feel the need to purchase the full upgrade at this time.
As for the 2K city recommendation you are correct. A 2k city does not mean that it is a good city. The question that this refers to however is not so much designed to make sure that a player knows to take over cities larger than 2K. Instead, it is designed to see if the potential alliance member is actually reading the wiki for the basic information that is provided there. It is right now, after over 80 test takers, the most missed question on the test. Almost everyone misses this question which shows how few people are actually taking the time to read the wiki.
As to your other questions they are very advanced and more related to tactics than game mechanics or basic game information that a player needs to prevent making costly mistakes. For instance,
"What advantages does an Oligarchy have over traditional alliances?"
This question cannot be answered. Why? It is because in practice all governmental systems are oligarchies. In practice, every form of government is ruled or controlled by a small majority of people. See link:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Oligarchy
This question as well, has little bearing on the game: "
What is a scorched earth policy?"
The essential tactic of scorched earth is to simply attack anything of use to the enemy, even if it is of a non military nature. In the game though, this tactic cannot be employed. There is only one target in this game, an enemy players city. You cannot attack supplies, troops on the move, civilians, manufacturing or any other non military targets. So, scorched earth would not apply. The game equivalent is constant farming or attacking of players cities repeatedly, which is not scorched earth, but instead a harassment activity.
Another question that does not relate to the game well is this one, "
In what situations is social engineering a very valid tactic in game?"
Social Engineering is a security term and not a warfare term. It is in the realm of manipulating people to give away passwords and account information, not spy intel. Social engineering involves Phishing and baiting schemes to get a target to divulge credit card, social security numbers, or password information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29
Psychological Warfare on the other hand is a valid game tactic that may use shock and awe military tactics, propaganda, subversion, disinformation, and many other warfare tactics.
The last remaining question that you have asked was, "
When is it viable to use fireships ingame on an ongoing basis?". The answer as I see it, is, never. I have never seen a situation where fireships were needed on an ongoing basis. Many players make a few just for added defense, but they are a unit that limits the abilities of the players who use them because they can only be used in defense and do not attack transports, so, to use them in an ongoing basis would only be done so from a purely defensive strategy. Since (like life) the game favors the attacker and not the defender, being an ongoing defensive player is a losing game. As General Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to fools". So, asking a player to know purely defensive turtle tactics is a defeatist strategy and would not be appropriate for an alliance entrance exam.
But thank you for submitting questions to be asked.