KDice: Intermediate Player's Guide to Alliances (a treatise by Eyenot)

If you don't like to read much, or already know how to play or get the ghist of it, or don't care or wtfe, then let me fill you in: TL--DR. Otherwise, I had fun writing it. I wrote this in response to several things I've seen written in other players' review boxes and behaviours I've seen expressed in chat on numerous occasions.

In this fairly long and wordy essay, I'll seek to change your mind about when and how to declare alliances. I encourage you to write your own theories about this amazing game!

There are some problems in the social expectations surrounding the game.

First of all, I agree that KDice is a social game. The chat is a great facilitator and the potential for on-board association is quickly understood and executed.

However, these on-board associations are not built-in to the mechanism of the game. There is nothing in the game sotpping players from breaking alliances, attacking flag bearers, attacking while holding flag, attacking away players, or attacking those who it would be socially deemed "impolite" to attack. Within the actual mechanical rules of the game, none of the social "rules" actually hold any bearing.

And yet I've read more than one article suggesting that the player conduct their play along these social rules (or face the social backlash!)

If there is a threat to those who disobey these social rules, it is because the social rules have a strong following. Many players, whether or not they understand why, follow the common suggestion and follow the social rules. They form the reason why you should follow these rules: because if you get an anti-social reputation, you'll never survive through the opening game!

This should be seen as reason enough to socially preserve the rules, but the problem that they are not enforced in gameplay is only a problem to the social doctrine itself; if the game were significantly altered to accomodate the social rules, play would suffer, and so would freedom. The game, without the additional social context, is great enough, but these unofficial social rules are there for a reason: they address things that many players are doing.

An additional problem to the social doctrine is a lack of understanding of why people choose to enact alliances in the first place.

Granted, you can easily see when and where alliances will help your game, but you have to understand as a player why you choose to seek alliances. If you have this understanding, you'll vbe able to more appreciate the alliance and you'll be able to better form them in ways that are beneficial and fun.

First of all, many players form alliances because they are losing. Please: don't do this. Especially in a social climate where turning down alliances is being called rude. You put the other player in a bad spot. So, make sure they have something to gain. That means have a show of force ready that could cause them problems if they refuse, or that would help them out if they accept. Otherwise, you're just begging either for protection or not to be killed. Players, please, if you see someone using a request for alliance just to save their own skin, don't hold it against the other player who refuses. It's a no-win, no-fun situation that you don't want to find yourself in one day. So to recap, if you are losing, don't try to form alliances -- try to get out of the game as far ahead and as quickly as you can. This would be considered bowing out gracefully and is more socially pleasant for everyone, and is also suggested in other articles.

Now, the second reason why many players seek alliance is because they are insecure players. They can't necessarily see how to win, but they know that there is some benefit to having somebody on their side. You have to admit that if somebody inexperienced and weaker is asking you for a tentative alliance, two very real possibilities confront you: they may cause you more harm than good, either taking advantage of peace at your front to expand into what should be your spoils on another; or, they may backstab, the common threat of all alliances. Players, if you see someone turn down an alliance that's offered so prematurely, please don't consider the refuser to be crass. Put yourself in their shoes. And if you turn down such an alliance, at least mention that it's too early.

The third reason why many players seek alliance is because they are bored. These players usually pick an alliance right off the bat, perhaps with half the board. But they may offer an alliance at any time in the game. Frankly, KDice is hilarious and awesome fun (totally addictive, too) without "spicing things up", and many players are very good at it. Considering that there are enough wrong reasons to seek alliance as it is, nobody needs this sort of alliance, for two reasons: it's up to the whims of a bored person and therefore can't be trusted, and, it makes alliances out to be useless. Considering how it's already bad enough that you might be ostracized for turning alliances donw, the last thing we all need are people offering worthless alliances just to make the recipient look bad.

Now the one and only real reason to suggest an alliance is if you are confident that you and your one -- just one -- partner can divide the board in roughly half and take 1st & 2nd places. That's the spirit! If you see a way to win, whittle it down to who you definitely would benefit from not being attack by -- who you would also benefit by not spending resources attacking -- and offer them an alliance. If it's in that earnest, and if you really have a shot, they'll know it, too, if they're worth partnering with.

And everyone should admit that things change, and that what was a good idea for both players can suddenly turn out to be a bad idea to keep going. So, think about the possibility of alliances that only last a certain number of turns, which you could keep renewing when they are up.

Please, though, learn to be clear: in chat, state "alliance [color of other player] for [number of turns] turns", or "whole game".

By stating yourself clearly, who you want to ally with and for how long, you and your ally both benefit. By using some commonly accepted, clearly intentive phrase, you can show that you mean it and you're serious about playing according to it.

If players could be taken more seriously about their offers of alliance, then alliances overall would benefit and become something worht all of the current social seriousness that surrounds them. Otherwise it would be a shame to see so many players, who could be not only scoring much higher but also having a lot more social fun, having a bad time instead.

As for us all and how we treat the persons who crassly reject alliances, what can be said? If the alliance was worth something in the game, and they turned it down, their game *is* going to suffer, no question about it, right? They will have hung their own neck.

As for backstabbers, you may never want to trust them ever again, but I suggest that you don't waste time keeping tabs on them and destroying them wherever you may find them, but take out your aggression immediately in the current game. At least the sudden and directed negative stimulus will be most effective in conditioning the dogs not to bite.

Now for the honest truth.

Alliances are a figment of your imagination. There really is no need to ever feel obligated not to attack beyond what is strategically sound. You should play to win, it's how the game was designed and is exactly why we all love it so much. Second of all, the last thing you want is to have to not attack somebody who you're really going to need to in order to survive. Since the game is made so your territories feed your income of resources (dice!!!) any sudden bad luck in th emiddle of an alliance coul dhave you reeling near death from counter attacks and opportunists. And you'll have one front to turn to for more territory, and you'll probably have to try for it to survive. Remember that 90's movie about the soccer team that crashed in the snowy mountains? That'll be you, eating your friend.

I know that sounds horrible. And I know, too, that alliances are not only good strategy when done right, they're also very fun! Figments or not. So I have just one more thing to mention, a sort of solution. It's what I'd prefer to use, and it should be easy to do for any intermediate player.

Basically, if alliances are imaginary social constructs, then don't tie yourself down to them so that you end up obligated to unrealistic expectations.

"How do I?"

Easy. The best way to signal an alliance isn't in words. If you say it out in the open, everyone will know and that will serve to ruin the effectiveness of it. And, the main reason to trust an alliance is because the player could have gotten something more immediate out of attacking you and went for the long run instead and wanted you along.

So to signal an alliance, just fail to attack somebody's territory that you could have gained from without worry. It's an obvious signal, hard to miss. Be on the lookout for it and value it, for as long as it's beneficial.

THE END