Originally Posted by Exploit

There seems to be a mentality that fluid alliances means betrayal and treachery which is the least effective negotiating tool that I can think of. The true art is in negotiating a series of win/win deals with various parties and keeping those deals but resulting in a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I think one issue that come up that is impacted by whether alliances are more fluid or more stable is the degree to which you cooperate within the alliance. When alliances become de-facto teams, then one can sacrifice all for the alliance and specialize the civs. For example, I specialized for production and cash, to send troops and money to the partners.

If alliances are more shifting, then there will be less of this total commitment to the alliance, as one needs to keep one's own back covered, and be prepared for a different set of future relationships. In this setting, the alliances will be less efficient. Not saying one approach is better or worse as a game style, just pointing them out.

Now, if you end up with 4 total committers allied together, against four fluid alliance types (less totally committed), the efficiency from total commitment might overwhelm the less committed group ... which might make a total commitment approach the only way to survive. But then, what is a fair exit strategy to move from the initial alliance phase of the game to the round two survivors square-off (which might be two alliances duking it out, then a one on one finale?)

Exploit seems to have had experience in games (including Civ) where more transient agreements have been the norm. Maybe he can tell us the details of what that experience has been: are all deals time limited, and within what time range, typically? Are most deals bilateral, or are there large multilateral ones? etc. ...

dV