cool another glitch, i was logged in as defiance for that last post

Ok, there isn't a "glitch" so to say if you log in with a different name. That only happens say, if you didn't close your browser after you logged out. And, as for the two biggest players allying in the game, it mayt as well make the game go faster, but, that seems to be only to the delight of those allied.

Now, you can say that you should call an all out counter alliance, but, it seems that would only work sparingly. Unless anyone calls an all out counter truce, it's everyone else for themselves. 1&2 alliance just shouldn't be kosher. But, it really is up to whoever is playing the game.

Sometimes a one-two alliance is useful. Being in the top two in number of countries does not necessarily mean you are in a good position. Sometimes you find yourself stuck with a good number of territories in the middle of the board and enemies on all sides. I am sure we have all had a situation where we looked strong, but we were fighting on too many fronts and before you knew it you were dead. The most logical alliance given the configuration may be with the other top player.

But in general, yeah it stinks.

This is interesting because it wasn't too long ago that everyone was complaining about alliances with the smallest player.

The (sad) truth is that 1-2 alliance is a very useful strategy for getting points if you are in that position. And since the goal of the vast majority of people is to accrue points and try to get in the top 25, it is a strategy that will be employed.

It is romantic and perhaps more fun to have the weaker plays ally against the stronger, but in many situations, this is not efficient, and will quickly result in another 1 vs 2 alliance.

Lastly, since the strategy now is to win at all costs, 1-2 (or large equals) makes your liklihood of winning much greater since they hide and build strategy is no longer acceptable.

One other thing. It's not necessarily "lazy" for the second place player to ally. Usually, the difference between first and second isn't that great. Due to luck, placement on the board, and the location of other plays, it is often possible to overtake the 1st place player .

Gennius: I agree!

Davil: Who gets 1st or 2nd in such an ally isn´t the point... it´s about luck... and pehaps a little bit skill...

But Ryan himself gave the point why it´s better for 2nd to ally against the first -
in most cases I suggest...

Ryan´s words: It's actually a lazy play by the second place guy. The alternative is for 2nd to ally with 3rd and take first. The difference is approx. +30 rating points and worth the risk.

become big player. problem solved.

"Oh, defiance, lighten up. All of your posts are pessimistic, sarcastic, or just negative."

Pff. And again pff. You ain't seen nothing if you think he's negative.

@aixo
alliance between 1st and 2nd is perfectly fine
there are reasons for 2nd to attempt to get the most rewarding 1st place, but that doesn't mean that allying with first is unfair.

so you think it's ok for 2nd and 3rd to ally and wipe out 1st? or 1st & 3d killing 2nd?

all alliances are fair if they are announced in the chatbox. Pregame alliances are evil because not everybody in the game knows about it.

the wiki was also changed by a guest (aixo?) to reflect aixo's point of view, i'm expecting fuzzycat to rollback that change, or come up with an explanation.