the Strategy of Alliance
 

Disclaimer: Im about to tick off some people and might generate some "this is NOT how the game should be played" comments. What can I say? Im a hacker. The enemy of menus and defaults.

Im not talking about NAPs (non-aggression pacts). Im talking about full alliance for the length of the game. The tactic of creating a stronger nation by merging two or more. Or, in Dominions jargon it might be referred to as a "pantheon" (multiple gods sharing the world by setting specific areas of control).

Some common complaints about the game are:

A) alliances cant move thru enemy territory
B) my nations is great at xxxxxx but cant hold up against enemy armies

Some quick notes:
A) flyers can move past and are great first-strike surprise
B) stealth can move past and gather info or geurilla behind enemy lines
C) researchers can move past by use of spells or can soften an area ahead of a striking force
D) forgers can have a problem but there is a tactic of creating a "gateway castle" that you both can use to move armies thru

Advantages:

1) exchange information

2) strong army holds the battlefront protecting the weaker nation which "pays" for itself with its skills

3) using the quick-strike or geurilla nation to get a surprise foothold in an area, then using the stronger nation to hold/defend/expand it

4) or the expander nation grants lands to the support nation which frees the expander up from MM (seems a great way for the "I hate MM" blitz-fanatic to enjoy one of the really huge games). The support nation handles getting the gold/gems/equipment/dominion and regularly provides such back to the expander

5) support nation can do the research for spells which can be used to "soften" an area ahead of the expander nation

6) exchanging leaders can be done by the use of spells and specially prepared lab provinces. Very handy if one nation has great commanders while the other has great mages

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

I don't really understand your point, GP.

Jazzepi

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

He's explaining how an alliance can/should be played, I think.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Well I think its hard to argue that forming a secret alliance before the game starts is much better than cheating, which I think is what you're advocating. This is really no different than playing two nations yourself - deliberately starting with a big advantage and uneven playing field. Being a hacker and knowing you can do something doesn't make it ethical, no more than being able to hack a .2h file makes it OK to do.

I also think it's pretty smarmy to form an alliance "for the rest of the game" when the game rules everyone agreed to don't recognize team victory conditions. No reason you can't have plenty of alliance victory games (there's an allegiance game running right now I'm in), but if the game host specifies victory conditions its pretty rude to just decide you're gonna go ahead and make sure nobody wins by playing for an unrecognized victory. Host a game with whatever rules you want, but don't hijack other's games who are trying to do their own thing.

Its not about "how the game should be played" its about showing some consideration for the way others want to play their games.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

I agree with Baalz... alliances should not be made before a game starts unless ALL players are aware and agree. Doing otherwise provides unfair advantages and will be considered cheating by many players.

Alliances for an entire game should also not exist unless ALL players agree this can exist. Doing otherwise provides unfair advantages and will be considered cheating by many players.

Avoid unethical temptations which might damage your character for any gaming community.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

I never said it should be secret. I dont think I have ever done a secret alliance nor would I ever advocate one. But then I have been called "incurably paladin" (both virtually and in real life). Mentioning a pantheon would tend to say that I was talking about open public agreement.

Personally as far as "should agree this can exist" seems backward to me. They CAN exist (victory conditions excluding of course) therefor I would treat them as possible unless its stated that they CANNOT exist in the game. Not sure how that would be enforced but I personally would always comply with such a game setting. I would recommend that people hosting a game might want to keep this in mind since I personally tend to consider any agreement (even NAPs) to be game long unless specifically broken.

I only posted this because I see posts about how a nation (in this case a modded nation) seems to serve no purpose because it would never stand up against certain other nations. Ive seen it about some of the vanilla nations in the game also. That is a limiting view of the worth of nations and "how the game is played" IMHO

Gandalf Parker

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Sylvania in that mod game would make about as much sense as MA Ulm on a water based map with all the UW nations and only one land province. I exaggerate, but I ask you this - have you actually looked at Sylvania and compared them with the other nations in that game? Because if you haven't, advocating them isn't very logical.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Ah, ok, I misunderstood you and it obviously touched a sore spot on me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I will say I disagree that unless they're specifically barred they're OK, I think the bar you have to pass is "reasonable expectation". I think that if nothing is said when the victory conditions are specified it's implied that each player is playing for a single nation win, playing only one nation, etc. etc.

I think the possibilities of real alliances are very interesting, and I hope to see more team games like the Allegiance MP game. I've had a lot of fun working with my prearranged ally coming up with two builds that complement each other and an overall strategy we're working toward (splitting up research goals, conquest priorities, etc.). I don't really want to go into too much detail about our secret plans in an ongoing game, but it certainly is a different game played that way! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I also think some of the more interesting diplomatic dynamics are between long term allies that know they'll eventually have to fight each other...if they last that long!

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

He put your hacker comment into the black-hat hacker grouping. Jump him G!

You KNOW you have to say white-hat or the automatic ***-umption is that you mean evil cracker guy. (Which is fine when it's me they are talking about)

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Hmm I just saw something wierd. I think this board has problems if too many people are editing in the same thread at once.

Anyway Sombre,
I didnt advocate that nation. I just tend to avoid pre-categorizing anyones choices in a bad light. I have heard that has been held against me as being one of my major faults http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

But I kick myself for bringing it up in someone elses thread so I moved over here to start my own thread and expound the advantages of some of the "weak" nations as being better than "powerful" nations for someone to ally with.

Personally, as I was typing the post I was thinking of Pangaea and Caelum mostly.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

I hope you are not calling my favorite race, MA Pangaea weak?

While they certainly are not one of the top 5 power races, they are at least average. In no way are they "weak."

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Ive never called them weak (I never call any of them weak). Especially Pangaea which is my favorite.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

I find that a little problem with your suggestion on how to play with an alliance is that the support nation has to be surrounded by the expander nation. In general this suggestion is the same a having one nation having good scales and generating money while the other nation have an insane bless and strong sacreds.

8 F9W9E9 vans a turn can run over large portions over the map pretty quickly. In small alliance games (two teams) this is very hard to stop.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

That would be another alliance which would work well.
Is the problem that its possible?

I tend to play solo games. Sometimes I play two nations at once. In multiplayer games I tend to prefer "US vs THEM" player allainces against AI alliances (I probably should setup some of those for public play).

So to me, this is a great option to playing Dom3 games altho I can see the problem if its done in multiplayer games. I cant come up with any suggestions on game change to suggest to the devs which might make such alliances impossible. Can you? So bringing up the subject will at least spark game hosts to remember to mention it in the games setup rules.

I did try to come up with a way to try and enforce such rules. The steps for creating a completely anonymous game for example to try and control alliances. Instructions on how to watch in-game messages in the logs. But unless you also can watch PMs in this forum, IRC channel, etc then its abit moot.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Well, I was just asking how it would be possible to have your expander/protector nation to surround the support nation.

I like alliance games. Perhaps specifically two team games, as it eliminates diplomacy.

Re: the Strategy of Alliance
 

Yes, altho I tend to play on large maps with lots of chokepoints so for me its always been more important to have them guard the "entrances" to our area. I usually wanted the support nation to actually own most of the provinces. Its hard to do that if you are totally contained