by Mr Suplex
I am in the OP's play group and I really wanted to like Alliances, but they simply don't work in a 4 player game. Simon gets why, it seems others don't.In a nutshell, Alliances allow a player with an early lead to solidify his position and almost always guarantee a win. Whoever has a clear advantage early in the game should ally with the strongest player they can, every single time. There is no down side to doing this. Most likely anyone will be willing to ally since the lead player is a large benefit to them, but even if the weakest player allies it helps the lead player. By allying, he takes out one potential rival, he deflects attention away from himself (attack the weaker member of the alliance strategy), and he creates a second military force that can help him protect his interests (the ally will often be willing to protect the lead player's assets since they help his score). The lead player can use these advantages to create such a lead for himself that he can always just dump his ally if necessary, at minimal point loss.
People suggesting that "you only have to hurt one to break the alliance" are, in my opinion, speaking pure theory and have no actual experience in this situation. All the alliance has to do is make sure they do more damage than they take, and this is pretty easy when you are the strongest and have a coordinated effort. Even if the weaker player is badly damaged, the lead player can evaluate that and just break the alliance turn 8 and win anyway since everyone spent the whole game beating up his ally.
People suggesting that the two weaker players "played poorly" and "would have lost anyway" are deluded. In a non-Alliance game, the lead player and the second strongest player would be competing with each other and this would create openings for the people struggling and give the a chance to catch up. When these two strongest players are no longer competing it is next to impossible to stop them from further solidifying their position and winning.
As has been alluded, the main problem is the shared victory aspect. Its too easy to just steamroll the two other players. The game also seems like it will constantly devolve into "Eclipse 2v2 Edition", which has zero appeal to me.
Alliances may work fine in larger games (although I have my doubts as the shared victory mechanic still seems lame and broken to me), but in 4 player games the mechanic simply doesn't work; any rational player with an early lead will just ally with the second strongest for a win/win situation for them both. These two players would compete in a game without alliances and keep each other in check, ensuring that most players would at least have a shot at the win.