We've all been in non-Team games where one or more players create an alliance in order to better their chances of winning.  The question is: What impact do alliances have on the game as a whole?

As far as I'm concerned, it's part of the game.  Even necessary.  Consider a game that has come down to three players with a high value card cashing end-game situation and one player is way ahead. Often the other two players are put in a position where attacking each other would seal both of their fates. I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but the issue is a relative one.  Beating up on each other would simply be poor strategy, so they leave each other alone (even respecting each others borders so they both get their max bonuses. Do you consider this an alliance?

If your answer is, "No, not really", let me change one little tiny part of the scenario. With a weaker player, I might even "remind" them that an alliance might be a good idea. Now is it an alliance?

Now I could "back up" time in the above story to the point where it all but looks like a "premature" alliance, and this is where we can start drawing fine lines.

I think alliances are dangerous for those that use them.  Alliances with players you don't know are examples where the danger is more or less obvious.  

I have been known to take part in the occasional alliance ..but only in situations where the advantages of the alliance are more or less obvious to all players, though they may not explicitly know that the alliance exists.  When I've done this, I've considered that I do it at my own risk, and I always break it as soon as I smell a possible victory, as I would expect my ally to do.  Hmm.. the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to avoid making even these types of alliances.

Regardless, I think alliances, and especially the implicit ones, are a necessary - even cool part of the game. The degree to which they are explicitly agreed upon by players is where the grey area begins, but it is not without its dangers for those who chose to dabble.

Certainly, we can agree that we all have a problem with players who have a pattern of making "premature" or "artificial" alliances with each other.  The good new is that if they're "good" at it they're all the easier to sniff out over time.

Ugh. I'm a mathematician, not a political scientist. I think this is why I play mostly two player games, and why I will lose every game of Toaster's Diplomacy.

Alliances are important, but can so easily be gamed. Dislike #2: When you break one, people can get so whipped into a froth that you're called everything short of a baby-eater. I'd rather toy with an opponents brain over their emotions- the latter can get messy fast.

Agree completely with M- I ally when it's obvious I need to ally. These days, I'd rather take the loss if I wasn't enjoying the board.

Where's andernut?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

We've all been in non-Team games where one or more players create an alliance in order to better their chances of winning.  The question is: What impact do alliances have on the game as a whole?

 

 

This rang a bell, so I went back many pages. A good read there, including my 102 cents.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/580/Rules_on_multiple_accounts__teaming_up_against_other_players#post_17

Personally, I like trying to figure out when an informal alliance I'm in is going to go sour and trying to be sure to either be prepared for it or be the first to "betray" the other player.

But beyond my personal preference, I agree with M57.

M57 wrote:

 

I have been known to take part in the occasional alliance ..but only in situations where the advantages of the alliance are more or less obvious to all players...

 

 

This is a good point...sounds like good negotiating strategy as well...

Excellent post M57.

What is the most laughable at in wg games concerning alliances is when a player verbally makes an alliance proposal in the public chat because he either forgot to choose the person he wanted to send it to or he is not a premium member :D.

e.g: http://www.wargear.net/games/player/39550

Hasala had a dominating lead and somehow managed to get beaten. An alliance was proposed publicly, which made me laugh bigtime. But poor plays were made from his side too to justify the loss, imo.

Alliances, and especially informal alliances (the ones not mentionned) are essential in this game. In your 3-players example M57, most of the time you need to understand what the opponent is thinking, and if he's smart enough, both the shortest armies will understand that they need to team up for their own good. Else it's just spew. :P