Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Patchistory» Forums » Rules

Subject: Diplomacy Action: Break Alliance and alliance per se rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
ode.
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Themewise it seems like a stupid question, but the rules seem unclear to me:

Do I need to have an allied trade route to perform the action "Break Alliance"? The rules of the 2nd edition do not state that out. It's just said, that if you do perform the action, that you discard an allied trade route. Nothing about that being a requirement for performing the action.

For me this Diplomacy Phase is still a riddle. Most of the time (being in a 2 player game) you just skip this phase, right? When trade routes get into play late.

Also, the only reason for us to join a alliance is being starting player next round and break the alliance for getting all the votes. In a situation like this no worker will ever see a allied trade route... It just makes no sense to allow the other player being part of a team in a game where you play against each other. Because it is to easy to get the big piece of the cake.

And if both players know that, no alliance will ever be there...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm confused by a lot of your questions. I hope my answers addresses them, but let me know if it does not.

1. Yes, the "break alliance" action only allows you to discard one of the allied trade routes that you are a part of.

2. Why would you skip the diplomacy phase in a 2P game? Threaten and Aid are both very important actions. Most games feature a player building a trade route as soon as they are able. Usually in the first era.

3. The point of an alliance is to use the allied trade route and to protect you from being attacked. Why do you think no worker would ever be on it? If an allied trade route exists, being on it is beneficial. If you want votes, you can just campaign, so breaking an alliance has no benefit. Also, I don't remember an alliance having any effect starting player (unless the second edition rules changed this).

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your questions, but what you are describing does not fit with the rules as I remember them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Eisen
United States
Menlo Park
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
bayerbube wrote:


Also, the only reason for us to join a alliance is being starting player next round and break the alliance for getting all the votes. In a situation like this no worker will ever see a allied trade route... It just makes no sense to allow the other player being part of a team in a game where you play against each other. Because it is to easy to get the big piece of the cake.


What does "getting all the votes" mean to you?

All that symbology means is that if you break an alliance on one turn, that is your only political action you take that turn and for each political point you have you earn one white cube.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ode.
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

sorry to confuse you. I am talking strictly about a 2-player game when thinking about the use of an alliance.

But regarding the rules-question: Can I perform the action "Break alliance" without having a allied trade route? Just to get the votes? Meaning: I do not perform any other diplomacy action. I just get the votes...

My guess is not, but it is not in the rules...

Regarding my thoughts on an allience: Remember: 2 player game.

If the only possibility to break an alliance is that there is an allied trade route:
Why should I agree in an alliance and building an allied trade route? When we install an allied trade route we can both benefit from this. But: if I can only break an alliance when having an allied trade route, in a 2 player game, there is no reason to let my opponent benefit from the route. So the first thing I do is break the alliance. Because then I get the votes. If I perform that action I get votes equal to the number of action points I have. Which means I will be very strong in the scoring of the prosperity cards. Which means: The benefit goes to me only! There will never be a reason to let my opponent benefit from this. Because there is a way to benefit from this all by myself.

So, when both players know this, one player will only agree to an allied trade route, if he his starting player in the next round. Because then he will be able to break the alliance first. And he will be the only player that benefits from the allied trade route. Which means, even if you install a allied trade route, you would never let worker on it. It will be broken as soon as possible. Peace is no option in this. And by knowing this, both players will never agree in installing an allied trade route.

This will work perfect in a 3-4 player game. Because: As soon as there is one player who will definitly not benefit from a trade route, than there is a reason to have it. And the reason is to have a advantage to the 3rd player. 2 players team up against another player. And to break the alliance will be critical. Because the player you disappoint by that will maybe team up with the 3rd player...

Did I describe it better? What do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ode.
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just a sec:

I just read, that we maybe did a major error...

If you have 10 political points to use:

Do you have 10 points in the diplomacy phase and 10 points in the management phase? Or do you have 10 points in both phases combined?


Maybe this is what confuses me: I do not see a reason to not spend all my points in the diplomacy phase because I have them again in the management phase... It occours to me, that we are playing it all wrong...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Blazquez Garcia
Spain
Madrid
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bayerbube wrote:
Just a sec:

I just read, that we maybe did a major error...

If you have 10 political points to use:

Do you have 10 points in the diplomacy phase and 10 points in the management phase? Or do you have 10 points in both phases combined?


Maybe this is what confuses me: I do not see a reason to not spend all my points in the diplomacy phase because I have them again in the management phase... It occours to me, that we are playing it all wrong...


Yes, you are playing wrong. Political points are for both phases combined.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon David
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Diplomacy and Management Phases are essentially 1 Phase. The Diplomacy part happens first in turn order. If you have 10 points to spend, and you spend 3 points to threaten, then you will have 7 to use during management.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ode.
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay... A friend of mine just told me on Facebook...

Forget the crap I wrote...

Thanks guys! Now I am even more exceited about the next play!!! :-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.