Alliances in three-player games

[T7]

In a four, five or six player game, alliances can stop a large player taking a game.

However, when the game gets to three players (or if it's initially a three-player game), alliances kill the point of the game in my opinion.

One player is strong and winning, the other two are weaker. So they form an alliance and take the strong player down.

Sooner or later, another player becomes strong and winning so the other two form an alliance and take the new strong player down.

Of course, another player eventually becomes strong and winning so the other two form an alliance and take this new strong player down.

And on it goes.

Two players might decide to destroy the strong third player, but often they don't - it's just to stop him or her winning. But that's going to happen sooner or later to one of the three players.

Anyway, you get the idea.

I'm a believer that all is fair in war, manipulation, alliances are all tools to help you win. I don't like alliances, but it wouldn't be right not to allow them - it's part of the game.

It just seems that in so many three-player games, someone gets strong (sometimes me, sometimes someone else) then gets cut down by an alliance and eventually a player with less skill ends up taking the game - often not by clever alliancing (they've only got one choice of person to allign with - the other not-strong player) but with an inproportionate amount of luck.

It not a great point I'm bringing up, more just something interesting that alliances in three-player games seems a bit poor. I want to get some perspective on what other people think.

[Bob Janova]

If you're not the strong player, and you're playing to win, you will attack the strongest enemy. It doesn't make for a clean win, but it gives you much more of a chance. So I think these shifting alliances will always occur.

[gimil]

Its was baby, you do what you have to do to win. People nuff and claim alliance in a 3 player is lame. But at the end of the day i want those points and ill do anything within the rules to get them.

[Jehan]

i agree with the second post, you can always rely on the two weaker players to recognise the stronger player and attack them, its a skill on the part of the stronger player to be able to remain dominant, thats not to say i like alliances or would ever make one, i just dont like them, it seems unfair, but you can definitely expect weaker players to have an unspoken informal alliance, which ends the second the stronger player is beaten back down, or wins.

[Rogue42]

you can always rely on the two weaker players to recognise the stronger player and attack them, .......but you can definitely expect weaker players to have an unspoken informal alliance, which ends the second the stronger player is beaten back down, or wins.

I have to disagree. It seems often when I rely on another weak player to recognize that the third player who is the strongest should be attacked, I end up being attacked because I can't cause him as much damage.

And often when I have an unspoken informal alliance it is broken the second the other player can get an attack in on me as well. So I guess I agree with you on that point.

I have been in few alliances, one of them was in a 3 person game. The player allied against was very upset and promised neg feedback. There was no other way we could win. I thought a turn before about proposing an alliance, but didn't when the other player offered one I jumped at the chance.

[pancakemix]

I have to disagree. It seems often when I rely on another weak player to recognize that the third player who is the strongest should be attacked, I end up being attacked because I can't cause him as much damage.

That happened to me this morning. I held 3 continents and the weak player attacked the other weak player. I won because of that mistake on his part.

However, I do think that game type will affect how you will ally/not ally with other players. Assassin you most certainly won't, and in Terminator you might not because you have the opportunity for points if you eliminate the weaker, but if you play Standard, then you'll have ore incentive to ally with someone.

[sharrakor]

In a three player game I was dominating, so the other two teamed up against me. I still won. Alliances must be made in order to even have a chance. That's how it is. The game of Risk has never truly been a game of skill. In the end, the player with more skill has a better chance of winning, but it's not the only factor. Sometimes, common sense is the only weapon that's needed against a stronger opponent.

[jako]

alliances are a big part of the game, just like in real wars. theres no stopping people if 2 of them have the same common enemy, its common sense for them to fight together rather than stick it out alone and die. like it or not alliances will never go away as long as we have a desire to always win.

[Coleman]

I've been in games where I'm clearly the strongest player and nobody thought so until they couldn't win. I wish I knew how to always do that.

There are some alliance busting techniques I have in my arsenal that I've used to great success, but I'll only share one.

Don't attack both players. Focus all your energy on one player. Not a majority of your energy, but all of it. All of it until someone breaks the alliance. There are a lot of reasons to explain why doing this will break their alliance and I won't go into that, but it works most of the time. Then you can try to get some of your lost continents back the player you'd been ignoring broke.

[Rocketry]

Poor form preventing the most talented from winning

man - its the most talented players that make use of alliances as a tool to victory

Rocketry

[Raidon]

More than anything else I find it extremelly irritating. I experienced it in one of the games I played. Two people ganging up on the third is extremelly frustrating. I have not/avoided 3 player games since that game.

[MeDeFe]

It's bound to happen when one player grows stronger than the others however. Whether the other players are smart enough to realize it or whether one needs to point it out to the other, sooner or later it always turns into a 2 vs 1 until noone is dominant anymore.

[darth emperor]

i also think is very normal do alliances but not only in the war or the game practically in life that the weakers does alliance if they can't win alone & for the strongest i think is really good that the other 2 goes together because if u lose u lose points and ok is a game but if still the strongest wins he we'll feel better(when u win u feel nice no?) and plus now we can say he was the strongest but if he had lose we can't say he was the strongest we can say he was strong but strongest means not only who can beat them alone means that he can beat them still if they have done an alliance

[borox0]

This happened to me and therefor the player with the worst position won. Even after I had dropped from the top they kept their alliance and I managed to take down the stronger of the two but that lost me the game. I pesonally don't like this strategy but I can understand why someone would use it.

[futuremperor]

The trick is to start out quiet until one player stands out too much. I wouldn't say alliances. I say temporary ceasefire. The ceasefire will eventually end, with only 2 left.

Quote:"May we stay allies until there is nothing else to conquer".

[misterman10]

The trick is to start out quiet until one player stands out too much. I wouldn't say alliances. I say temporary ceasefire. The ceasefire will eventually end, with only 2 left.

Quote:"May we stay allies until there is nothing else to conquer".

but that becomes pointless, because once the superpower gets weak a new superpower emerges and the cycle goes on. That's what the thread is about. Alliances in 3 person games are for pussies. Alliances in 4 person games (3v1) are for even bigger pussies.

[bloknayrb]

I think that two strong players allying to get rid of a weak opponent would be ok, it doesn't do anything but speed up the game.

[MeDeFe]

That is exactly what is not ok, for the simple reason that it's STUPID. Stupid of one of the players to ally against the weakest, that is.

Two players will never be completely equally strong, and once the weakest player has been eliminated the stronger party of the alliance will proceed to take out the weaker.

There is no second place in this game (unless you play terminator, but that's a completely different matter, alliances shouldn't be needed at all there), any player who teams up with a stronger to eliminate a weaker deserves to lose and to be put on 42 ignore lists, a negative feedback for both of them would also be a good idea.

Apart from that, alliances to the effect "Let's attack player x and not each other until x is dead" are generally frowned upon, no matter how many players there are left in the game. Taking down the game leader a few pegs is ok, a NAP over a border in order to save resources is ok, agreeing not to get in each others way when initially grabbing continents is ok.
Teaming up to take out another player in a standard game is not. It completely ruins the strategy aspect of the game.

[bloknayrb]

Not if you're the stronger player
Although I'd probably only actually do that in a game with close friends anyway, its kind of a dick move.

[MeDeFe]

That's why I said it's stupid of the weaker player to enter such an alliance.

[MR. Nate]

Quote:"May we stay allies until there is nothing else to conquer".

but that becomes pointless, because once the superpower gets weak a new superpower emerges and the cycle goes on.

I've noticed that if you point that out to the 2nd strongest player, they often realize they're next, and won't push as hard, which gives you the opportunity to take down the weakest player.

Apart from that, alliances to the effect "Let's attack player x and not each other until x is dead" are generally frowned upon, no matter how many players there are left in the game.

I have to confess, I've won games this way. Sorry Big Jon.

[Rocketry]

Alliances are a decent tactic used by good players. All these "noble" "honerable" people that refuse to enter them and then lose games are just stupid. You know the kind - people that say if you cant win on your own you are weak etc: We've all had the displeasure of playing them.

If you join a 3 player game and get allied against because you are powerful then just think to yourself that they are not doing it to spite you personally and remember that you would do the same if in their situation.

Rocketry

[tusmrt4u]

I feel most alliances in a three person game in which one player is dominating usually would be made any ways even is it is not stated. If the two weaker players spend toops and resouces on each other then the stronger player can easily win so the alliance can pretty much go unsaid.. On the other hand a alliance to finish off someone of equal of lesser strength is generally cheap. I think alliances shoul only be used in the most difficult circumstances but when people are in those positions then the alliance can probably go unsaid

[Rocketry]

I feel most alliances in a three person game in which one player is dominating usually would be made any ways even is it is not stated. If the two weaker players spend toops and resouces on each other then the stronger player can easily win so the alliance can pretty much go unsaid.. On the other hand a alliance to finish off someone of equal of lesser strength is generally cheap. I think alliances shoul only be used in the most difficult circumstances but when people are in those positions then the alliance can probably go unsaid

although the alliance does exist in a way in this situation - its is a hundred times more effective just to agree and co-ordinate your tactics properly.

Alliances are NEVER cheap. A player that enters an alliancs does it for his own benifit (ultimatly)

If two stronger players ally against a weakers player, the weaker player can easily offer one of the strongest players a far better deal. If they stfu about alliances being cheap, they would do this and increase their own chance of winning.

Rocketry

[I GOT SERVED]

I'm currently in this situation (game# 713142)

I had to create an alliance to slow down yellow, who was controlling the game at that point in time. But the alliance was only on one border, and green had gotten driven off of that border, so I called it off.

In certain cases, alliances are necessary in order to cover your ass, as I had to do. So really there's no stopping people from doing it. You just need to work around it.