Interesting point there. I don’t think there can be any doubt that most human players will be able to overcome the AI in most situations.
The differential between the tactical, although operational would be the correct term I believe, and strategic is clear. Tactical advantage is discussed already but I’m not convinced that the benefits of ‘set’ as opposed to informal alliance at a strategic level are really there.
The fundamental problems of human alliances remain. Firstly, one partner gets to choose the AI countries, unless there is a clear threat this can be decidedly difficult. Secondly, the alliance size is reduced considerably from a potential 10 countries down to 5. Thirdly, in the event of war it is highly unlikely that the AI countries will support both human powers due to relationship points. Ie. Those AI countries that like Austria are often hostile to, say, France. Meaning that upon mobilisation of allies one finds that one’s alliance partners refuse to participate.
I don’t see stabbing in the back as a problem. An imbalance in the BoP is plain for all to see and changes in sides will invariably be clear. We all know that in large long term MP games that stability can become a key issue, countries simply can not afford the large stability loss that would be accrued in changing sides. Of course they could remain on the sidelines and this is a danger.
But perhaps most importantly is that if there is a real threat, and most wars are sparked by shifts, or attempted shifts in the Balance of Power (BoP), then any player who has a real EU mind will seek to rectify that shift with political and subsequent military power. Alliances don’t need to be sealed with a stamp when such a threat emerges, players generally gravitate into one corner or another in times of crisis. Whilst I am no doubt that there will be times when there will be a real need for human alliances when a significant BoP threat emerges for most of the time I think its largely arguable that AI alliances are most advantageous. For those players that simply engage in AI gobbling exercises regardless of events on their own borders face countries that they simply can not face off in the long run. Perhaps because so many players don’t play continuation games that I seem to encounter this bizarre form of strategic suicide in my continuation games so often.
The differential between the tactical, although operational would be the correct term I believe, and strategic is clear. Tactical advantage is discussed already but I’m not convinced that the benefits of ‘set’ as opposed to informal alliance at a strategic level are really there.
The fundamental problems of human alliances remain. Firstly, one partner gets to choose the AI countries, unless there is a clear threat this can be decidedly difficult. Secondly, the alliance size is reduced considerably from a potential 10 countries down to 5. Thirdly, in the event of war it is highly unlikely that the AI countries will support both human powers due to relationship points. Ie. Those AI countries that like Austria are often hostile to, say, France. Meaning that upon mobilisation of allies one finds that one’s alliance partners refuse to participate.
I don’t see stabbing in the back as a problem. An imbalance in the BoP is plain for all to see and changes in sides will invariably be clear. We all know that in large long term MP games that stability can become a key issue, countries simply can not afford the large stability loss that would be accrued in changing sides. Of course they could remain on the sidelines and this is a danger.
But perhaps most importantly is that if there is a real threat, and most wars are sparked by shifts, or attempted shifts in the Balance of Power (BoP), then any player who has a real EU mind will seek to rectify that shift with political and subsequent military power. Alliances don’t need to be sealed with a stamp when such a threat emerges, players generally gravitate into one corner or another in times of crisis. Whilst I am no doubt that there will be times when there will be a real need for human alliances when a significant BoP threat emerges for most of the time I think its largely arguable that AI alliances are most advantageous. For those players that simply engage in AI gobbling exercises regardless of events on their own borders face countries that they simply can not face off in the long run. Perhaps because so many players don’t play continuation games that I seem to encounter this bizarre form of strategic suicide in my continuation games so often.
).