Our TI group decided to use the new 8 strategy cards. At the same time, two players decided to form an alliance to help one of them win. They would pass notes, agree not to attack each other, coordinate attacks on other players, etc. None of this seemed to violate any rules but somehow I felt cheated, especially since one of the two really didn't seem to care about winning.

The weak mechanics of the new Assembly card were proven due to this alliance. In our game of five people, Player A was in position 4 and Player B was in position 5. Player B would choose Assembly and use it during his turn. He would give Player A the speaker token and then play the political card of his choice. Then during the next strategy phase Player A wouldn't choose Assembly (as per an agreement between the two) and Player B would get it again. Player B would then take ths speaker token and let Player A play a politcal card from his hand. I'm not sure exactly what was wrong, but all I know is it felt dirty. I think this is why:

1. Player B really didn't seem interested in winning (he only had 3 VP while the top two leaders had 7 and 8.) Whenever players stop trying to look out for themselves it seems to kinda break the game.

2. Any political card or action card used by either Player A or Player B was carefully chosen so as to not hinder either of them two.

3. No one else, other than Player B or Player A, ever ended up with the Speaker token, one they figured out this manoeuver.

Normally I'm all for the back alley deals but this seems to almost break the game. It reminds me of playing Monopoly with my wife and daughter where they will sell properties to each other for 5 dollars just to stop me from getting them. I don't mind losing to someone that either plays better than me or just get lucky from time to time and takes adavantage from it.

Anyone run into this issue or similar ones like it?

From the sound of it you've got a case of bad players. It's one thing to make temporary alliances in order to accomplish your own goals, but a full game "I don't care if I lose" attitude is a problem. In the group that I play with, King-makers don't get invited back to the table, at least not at the same time.

As for them passing speaker back and forth, I take it you mean one of them would take 3, pass speaker to the other, and then on the next round they'd pass the speaker right back? There are a few things you can do about that. First of all, by doing this their card choice is limited every other round, meaning they only get powerful cards such as production, tech, leadership or trade every other round.

Second of all, abuse the power of the cards they're not taking because they keep bouncing speaker. If you're a trade master, don't allow them to trade with anyone, hit them in their economy. If you're doing production or leadership, delay it or use before as you see fit so that you can get the most out of the assembly secondary, or make them get the least out of it.

Finally…beat them at their own game. Unless it's a 3 player game, a pair of double-teamers is still out numbered, and if you alert the rest of the table to what's going on, you can make it your mission to make the duo pay.

Whilst Bowoodstock has neatly summated the inherent limitation in kingmaking alliances, which mirror my thoughts on the issue, I would draw the line at secret discussion and notes. Barring the clearly marked "secret objectives", this is an open game and any tactical discussion should be likewise.

Agreed. Also note, if you ever caught them discussing their secret objectives, point out they can no longer fulfill them as the rules state you cannot reveal it to anyone.

Dunno if any of you guys know the game 'Supremacy', but i used to get this all the time in that game, and it ruined the game as they could control the stock market, and one would go all out for nuclear weapons, and the other would go all out for laser defence technology and they would have a nuke/defend tactic that made the games all end in tha same way. Every other player had to go all out to stop them, and the games ended in nuke frenzy. That game had a similar playing time to T.I. and to invest so much time in a game for it to be strategically ruined by unsportsmanlike players pretty much killed the game for our group. Thankfully it hasn't happened in T.I. so far as weve only played 2 games, but im praying they dont develop the same sorta tactics.

The secret notes thing isn't really fair play, like other posters have said. I'd ask them to stop doing that and conduct all discussions openly at the table. Assuming they agree to that, however, I don't see anything wrong with their tactics. Nothing else they did was against the rules, even vaguely.

If you don't like it, forge an alliance of your own to take them down. Fight fire with fire. Booting them out of the group seems like poor sportsmanship to me, though. It's not like they're rampantly cheating.

This game deliberately makes room for negotiating and alliance-forming. It even encourages mild role-playing during political votes (ie: "saber-rattling.") If this is how they want to play it, that's fair game. If it really annoys you, then do what it takes to disrupt their alliance.

I'm quoting Starcraft guru Day9 here when I say "If they're trying to do a weird strategy, just go f*cking kill them ". Not much of a duopoly if it brings down the force of entire galaxy around their heads!

As stated, they aren't breaking any rules really. They just happen to be playing a very limited part of the game. Chances are they will also find their tactics very boring as well after a couple of games.

Using a counter-alliance to smash them will work, especially if you target the kingmaker. He'll see that feeding all the glory and benefits to his patron will put a target on his back.

Another strategy would be to bribe the kingmaker. Give him incentive to channel trade, or break the "speaker cycle". If you use combined negotiating power with the other players, you can outbid anything the other half of his alliance can match. The kingmaker's problem, as I understand it, is motivation. He doesn't care about winning or losing, so he's just helping his friend win. Get him more involved with the mechanics of the game by bringing him into the fold of the other empires and he may find interest. It might also be that he's a poor match for TI3 in general. If he just isn't into the heavy strategy and empire management, he will never be anything but a drag. It's not his fault, he just isn't interested in the game.

The kingmaker isn't bound by any treaties or bribes you send his way of course, but if you're smart about how you approach him, you can shatter the alliance politically. This will of course cause the "king" player to turn on him, and probably for future games as well.

May not be a direct connection but as I don't have this issue in TI but on my games of Munchkin I have two guys who work together until about level 8-9 and they know I am a play to win kind of guy so they will both savage me early game to try and remove me from play.

It's **** annoying and the only way I can seem to get them to split up is goading the one who doesn't want to win as much to the point that he gets competative then he starts knifing this mate in the back and equilibrium continues! It's like I used to play basketball and the more competative you get the more they do.

Have fun!