Permanent alliances in multiplayer

[Gavagai]

Civ 4 has a rarely used option to enable permanent alliances in games. If the option is on, it allows you to enter a permanent alliance with another civ after your research Fascism. Permanent alliance means that you pool together your research and have coordinated foreign policy.
I was thinking recently that allowing this option in MP games can have some beneficial effects.
1) It would add some intrigue and complexity to games which have one dominant leader as other civs would be able to challenge the leader by banding together.
2) It would give underdogs something to play for: even if you can't win a game outright, you still have an option to win as a member of a winning alliance.
3) Diplomacy, especially cultivation of long-term relationships, becomes a bit more important.
4) Relative value of solo-victory and victory as an alliance member is entirely subjective and unknown to other players. It can generate more varied and unpredictable individual strategies as you do not know for sure, whether your opponents would try to win by themselves or go into an alliance.
Some drawbacks:
1) Permanent alliances can lead to sudden and disappointing endings of otherwise competitive games. Imagine, for a example, a scenario where we have three leaders and two of them go into an alliance with each other.
2) We probably will have to allow full diplo between alliance members as otherwise playing as an alliance would be incredibly awkward. I can see how some players might dislike it.
3) I do not remember whether there is an option to leave a permanent alliance. There might be drawbacks both if there is one and if there is not.
Thoughts? Does anyone want to play a game with permanent alliances?

[Qgqqqqq]

There is no way to leave a permanent alliance (its in the name).

[scooter]

I have a pretty high tolerance for settings experimentation. The tricky thing here...

Some drawbacks:
1) Permanent alliances can lead to sudden and disappointing endings of otherwise competitive games. Imagine, for a example, a scenario where we have three leaders and two of them go into an alliance with each other.

... is this one seems like a deal-breaker here. We try really hard to avoid situations where games feel farcical. If one player all but had the game sealed, and then #2 and #3 joined a permanent alliance to deny #1 the win, I would not take that result seriously, personally.


In addition, if you game it out, the ramifications are weird. Why wouldn't you just enter a permanent alliance with everyone willing to do so? What if 6 players in an 8 player game all join a permanent alliance together? Would that be satisfying to anyone? Of course not, but something like it is truly inevitable.

[RefSteel]

This game had permanent alliances on, but it was an intentionally-ridiculous All-Perpentach Fall from Heaven game. It ended with a turn pace on the order of a week or more per turn, with too few of the dozen plus original players available to even keep three civs running, when the civ that had been strongest throughout the game finally conceded to the other two in permanent alliance. (Not all of these problems were because of the PA; the game was truly ridiculous on purpose!)

And the game was actually called a three-way draw, because everyone basically agreed that the permanent alliance made any real "winner" moot.

Really fun game to play and report though! (I was only in on the chaos for about 12 turns near the end.)

[superdeath]

I have a pretty high tolerance for settings experimentation. The tricky thing here...

Some drawbacks:
1) Permanent alliances can lead to sudden and disappointing endings of otherwise competitive games. Imagine, for a example, a scenario where we have three leaders and two of them go into an alliance with each other.

... is this one seems like a deal-breaker here. We try really hard to avoid situations where games feel farcical. If one player all but had the game sealed, and then #2 and #3 joined a permanent alliance to deny #1 the win, I would not take that result seriously, personally.


In addition, if you game it out, the ramifications are weird. Why wouldn't you just enter a permanent alliance with everyone willing to do so? What if 6 players in an 8 player game all join a permanent alliance together? Would that be satisfying to anyone? Of course not, but something like it is truly inevitable.

This. But also iirc, you could only go into a permanent alliance with just 1 person, before the option is no longer available?

[Krill]

Vassal states and house rules might work. It would be better if diplomacy could be recoded though.