GMTom wrote:ahh, we disagree a lot
You are right to a point of course
but in any game where you need to vote for someone you simply can not threaten them into being your buddy. And if you wish to add even more players to your alliance, you make it even easier to simply carry them all to a victory ...kumbaya!
But 3-way coalitions breaking up is the worst and should never happen, right? ;) But 4 people, oh that's kumbaya! lol. But not 2! That would be chaos!
Keep in mind what actually does happen at the end of the current system: people actually sticking together to vote in their allies even when they aren't included in the win. So I'd say it's even more kumbaya than insisting you share in victory. Demanding a share of victory is greed, not kumbaya; voting for others is pure kumbaya, and is what actually happened.
I think you're blithely ignoring the math; you can't simply "add more allies". Did you notice in my example how *shedding* allies was beneficial?
GMTom wrote:The way it is now, you have a few big guys with nukes
Usually the larger players are those with them early, they know full well it is an uphill task to take part in an end game coalition (maybe two? but absolutely not three) that puts them at an immediate enemy situation (unlike what you want us to believe). So we have some large powers who threaten some, but get all nice-nice with others, those who think all is cool will want to take part in the end game group, when they find they are not wanted, they band together to fight the big guy.
Did not witness that at all... I saw a large alliance stick together and crown a few of their members, the max 3 allowed. In was in effect a 7-coalition victory, just not formally recognized as such. It either should have been, or should have continued.
GMTom wrote:But in your example they simply band together more and more of them so we avoid all confrontation, we all simply decide to join hands and sing around the camp fire together as we all win and nobody loses?
Actually, my example, as I said, showed the exact opposite: dropping 1 or 2 allies so 4 or 5 could take the win. And they will have to be dropped, not simply told "oh you know there's a cap of 3 anyways so it's all good, nothing we can do".
And if they really want to include everyone... then it's more war. It doesn't just suddenly end at the first vote. Hardly Kumbaya. And it gives their opponents a chance to try to stop them, or maybe win over one of the members.