Why not allow just one alliance for each player. It would clean the game up so much. It’s barely playable. And if you stab me back I have a list with your name on it. Next time we match up I’m all about revenge. Word up buttercup.
#alliances.
shy berry
peak knoll
I guess this depends a bit on how you use alliances. I view alliances as a way of communication only. It can be used to tell somebody that you want then to attack a certain player but that's about it. Therefore having more alliances is good since you can then convey a target to any of the players.
sharp moat
If you dislike the way alliances work, you can also just play without alliances.
And if someone didn't mean to stab you in the back, but you did experience it that way, and your next match is all about revenge, you're just gonna be a person who ruins someone's game.
unique herald
The best way alliances can be explained. Is that they are as permanent as if you said let’s work together to your best friend over the board.
It may work out for a bit because it’s beneficial but you bet your rear end that the alliance will be broken very quickly 
haughty remnant
Alliances are just that, alliances, some people throw them up as a barrier, but break them in seconds. Just ignore an alliance request that has no benefit to yourself. Its strategy!
bitter wharf
🤦🏻♂️
lapis trail
Either this post belongs under a bridge or someone does not understand basic game theory.
In case it is the latter:
Each player participating in a game is presumably trying to grab the win for themselves. In the short term there are many non zero sum interactions in the game of risk. Alliances are merely a way of navigating those situations where there is benefit to work temporarily together with another or multiple players. If any attempt by the other players to put themselves in the best position is seen as back stabbing then it is you not them that is the bad ally. Good allies and good risk players recognize that even very solid alliances include having to hit each other to maintain board balance and that does not end the alliance, it does not even remotely offend the other player (if they are good) and ultimately one will have to kill the other for the win or when their cards give you a route to the win. If you think that alliance means the player is meant to help YOU win at their own expense then perhaps “Candy Land” is the game for you.
shy berry
If you dislike the way alliances work, you can also just play without alliances....
You mean like the do me. Sounds fair. Maybe look up alliance in the dictionary. I have been playing this game king king time. Save your insults for someone with feelings loser.
bitter wharf
You mean like the do me. Sounds fair. Maybe look up alliance in the dictionary. ...
Its this kind of thinking ‘why not change the game completely to suit my very niche way of thinking’ instead of ‘why dont I learn to better play the game using the mechanics available’ that really irks me in the risk community. I come across players like you way too often, some imagined slight sets you off and you spend the rest of your game slamming into me.
Saying nonsense like ‘how about look up alliance in the dictionary’ just solidifies how silly you are. This isn’t the real world bro, its a board game with a beginning and an end and one clear winner. Obviously the concept isn’t going to be used the same way because the situations are completely different and your failure to grasp such a BASIC concept is immensely frustrating.
royal merlin
I'm similarly frustrated. Blaming yourself instead of the game is the way to progress.
tame patrol
I treat alliances as an additional way of communication, and I will maintain balance of the board regardless of alliance