Allied victory?

[Ennet]

This was first brought up as an issue in the PTWDG, and it could be a good idea to discuss it before we start the game.
Im personaly against the concept, mostly due to the balancing factor in knowing that your current ally will become your worst enemy when you have eliminated the other competitors. A one team victory only would limit powerblocking somewhat with the knowledge of that the stab in the back would come someday sooner or later.
In the PTWDG, because of gamemechanics mostly, ND and GoW was in such position that either nation that would be the first to strike would more or less erradicate the opponent in one turn. Hopefully with the movement limited to 10squaress at most this will be a little less true in the Civ4 Multi Team Demo Game.
So of each of the team would care to post their opinion on the matter perhaps..

[snoopy369]

Allied victory in a game such as this is anethema. Anethema.

However, an allied-team DG isn't outside the realm of possibility ... especially a RL simulation, such as WWI/WWII ... but I suspect not appropriate to this particular game.

[Krill]

My feeling on Allied Victory is this:

Over My Dead Body

An alliance between 2 teams to kill off the rest and then fight it out between those two teams at the end is fine by me though.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Krill
My feeling on Allied Victory is this:

Over My Dead Body

An alliance between 2 teams to kill off the rest and then fight it out between those two teams at the end is fine by me though.

I agree. Shared victories allow the game situation to flip instantly and permanently. Any other type of alliance has the liability of the future after it succeeds in mopping up the rest of the competition.

[DeepO]

I haven't formed a complete opinion on allied victories yet, but I know I surely didn't like the PTWDG one. And that was not because it was primarily focused on us.

Therefore, I think that if alliances are going to be in, they need to be made public the moment they apply. At least other teams know what is happening, and also get the chance to react properly.

DeepO

[binTravkin]

No to allied vict.

[Jon Miller]

I could be fine, even pro, with allied victory, since (I Beleive, I have never tried) it is part of the game (you have to disable it, right?).

JM

[Rhothaerill]

No allied victory.

[Krill]

Nope, allied victory is an optional part fo the game. It has to be enabled, rather than disabled.

[Arrian]

Meh. Let's all just join hands and sing Kumbaya in 4000bc. Yay! We all win!

No thanks.

-Arrian

[Addled Platypus]

No..No....No

never


Did I say NO

[Beta]

I am very much opposed to any concept of shared victory - for all the reasons hashed out in the PTWDG. The game - demo or otherwise - is built around the concept of one team trying to win. Two teams forming a we-kill-each-other-last alliance (secret or public) is fine as long as they realize that they do have to fight each other eventuallly, or race to the finish, or whatever.

Strategic considerations need to be based on a each team trying to win. For that reason, I am also opposed to a mercenary team - which would enter the game without the stated objective of winning. I am also opposed to a team playing for a second or third place finish. In civ, one civ wins, the others lose.

I am more than willing to discuss this at length.

[Rubychaser]

Originally posted by Krill
My feeling on Allied Victory is this:

Over My Dead Body

An alliance between 2 teams to kill off the rest and then fight it out between those two teams at the end is fine by me though.

Good points.