by DsnowMan
Has anyone mentioned the game Diplomacy yet?I see Alliances in Eclipse as serving a very similar purpose to alliances in Diplomacy. I capitalized the first because they are an official rule, and the second because they are encouraged, but no formal tiles exist to bind you to them.
The victory condition for Diplomacy are simple:
1) one player controls more than half the board, they win
2) all surviving players agree on a draw, and split the win equally.
Often condition (2) is referred to as a joint victory by the ~3 players who achieve it, but make no mistake, it is not a full victory.
Anyone who has played Diplomacy will see long-term alliances lead to both conditions (2) or (1), the most satisfying victories caused by a brilliant betrayal of the alliance.
In Eclipse, I personally see Alliances as the same vehicle for leading to a joint victory if played properly, or an opportunity for brilliant solo victory. Notably, solo victory feels like a more complete victory. In Diplomacy, it officially is, so if you have played Diplomacy, you will probably have the same feeling when you play Eclipse.
The remaining question is: was it the intent of the designers for a allied victory = solo victory, or are they former Diplomacy players who didn't make the distinction clear? I feel like Touku is encouraging solo wins with his statement in this thread, without actually taking an official position.
As it stands, my group values a solo win over an allied win because of our history. How you play is up to you. If someone values allied wins as solo wins and you don't, you still have table-top diplomacy and in-game tools to defeat them.