by Dulkal
dyepbr wrote:
The other players would only need to focus on 1 player (of the alliance), as the scores will average out. This may cause the higher VP player to unallie.
Not if he is winning anyway. If his targets are both focusing elsewhere, he will have an even easier time attacking.
[Q]If the alliance crushes the other two players, then those players were probably playing sub-otimally enough that they would be lose in a 4 player free-for-all anyway.
Huh? The two strongest players against the two weakest players sounds like it would be lopsided in any game. If the strongest player wants to dominate in a free-for-all, he has to be strong enough to dominate three other players. If two players want to dominate, they just have to be strong enough to dominate two other players. There is a big difference.
[Q]If the alliance were focusing more on 1 player than the other, the other could easily turtle and VP up. The alliance would lose on points. Forming an alliance is both a benefit and a risk
But the point is that they are strong enough to beat both. Each of the players in the alliance is stronger than either of the players outside the alliance. So they don't need to focus, they just fight one war each. If the other players focus their defenses on one alliance player, the other just tramples over his target that much faster, and then its two against one.