by dyepbr
Dulkal wrote:
With an alliance, the two of you have to be stronger than the two of them combined, which will be possible very often. This is different from the free-for-all with two strong players beating on two weak players, because in the latter case, both strong players know that one of them will lose, so they have to guard against each other. To dominate militarily, either of them will have to destroy the other.
Those aren't different scenarios with regards to the question at hand. The OP asked if alliances were too strong in a 4-p game, in part implying that alliances in 4-P is OP and that it is unfair for those that are weaker players. In both scenarios the 2 weaker players are the losers either way. The only difference between the scenarios matters not to the original query.
In a 4-player free-for-all, if both strong players know that one of them will lose, perhaps they should re-evaluate who they are attacking, to put them in a better position to win.
Dulkal wrote:
That the gamestate is normally fluid does not matter, because it will be a slippery slope. If the two strongest players on turn 3 attack the weaker players mercilessly, the weaker players will still be weaker by turn 5.
If this is how games are to be played, then what's the point of playing beyond turn 3? Determine who is the strongest player by turn 3, declare him the winner.
Perhaps our game groups are different..
If these landslides are apparent and if indeed this is how it plays out, the scenario you describe is no different from a 4-player free-for-all, where the strongest players are refusing/avoiding attacking each other, knowing that 1 of them will lose.
In an alliance, the strongest players need to keep fighting their 1 war to maximize VP. If they attack together on 1 war, only 1 player gets each hex, in which they must share VP through average. Thus, the combined military dominance you speak of comes at VP cost.
If it's not such a landslide, and if players of an alliance are sharing a war, sharing military dominance in a hex means they are weaker on other fronts for another player to chip away at 1 of the stronger players, or turtle and VP up.
Dulkal wrote:
Of course, if you accept a metagame where certain kinds of victory are inferior to others, you can discount an allied domination as an inferior victory. But a game mechanic that only works on the assumption of unspoken metagame mechanics that are not universally adhered to is unfortunate.
Weaker players, in any game, will need to get better if they want to start winning. They will need to get to a point where they are no longer "out" of the game by turn 3, as you speak of.
Stronger players, alliance or not, continually pounding on weaker players game after game - where does that remain fun?
:star: A tip for weaker players - Try forming diplomatic relations early with a perceived stronger player.:)