1) Once a formal alliance is made you have revealed your entire map and force disposition to the other players. If not disallowed by house rules, you may have given hexes, units or tech to the other players.
2) during the course of play it will invariably break into a 3-2 split and very likely the "2" team will lose.
3) during the course of play, as in Dune, two players have come to the aide of a third player. Units of the other two players are now in territory that once belonged to the player needing aide and converting it to their own territory.
4) While every game is a little different, in Dune for instance, if I where to peal off and join you and Jeff, I'd be almost instantly crushed. Therefore there is no incentive for me to do so (and how to you turn on someone that has saved your butt from certain defeat?).
5) In this type of game the issue would be once you and Jeff surrender or are eliminated is who do I side with, then making it a 2-1 split. The "1" player likely will be the loser. I suppose another possibility is that once the "2" player team becomes a "1" team, then some on the "3" team could break away and make it a 2-2 split. I don't know about others but the investment you make with other players to achieve victory/ward off defeat and the mechanics of ATG just make it very tough to turn on those who have helped you.
6) I'm not sure this is really a reason or how accurate my perception, but this scenario type could potentially result in a very long game. My experience with AT and ATG seems to indicate that most players have a low tolerance for very long games. Certainly most players when they think victory is no longer achievable, choose to surrender and start another game.
General speaking I just don't think the design/mechanics of ATG work very well for a 5 player game with alliances and a single individual winner. It would seem to me the best way to do this is a 5 player game with no formal alliances allowed. You may informally ally with other players. This way there is no shared maps and no giving technology, units or hexes. That would, of course, make it hard to help another directly. What ATG could use is two alliance types: active and passive. Active would be like we have now. Passive simply would allow you to give stuff but not enter another player's territory with your own units or trace supply through their land.
I suppose if the scenario had some incentive for being that single winner (huge trophy, $500 prize, etc.) you'd probably create a different dynamic.
I do like all your various scenario ideas! Perhaps the next edition of AT will add enhanced options for creating fun to play scenarios.
for what is worth, that is my two cents...
ORIGINAL: SailingGuy
But you guys did not live up to the parameters of the scenario [5 by Sea] as it was set up. Let's not have a repeat on Dune.
