From: WV USA
Quote from Jeff: "If Roy, Jay and Doug just say, hey, good game, after they defeat Phil and I, I don't really see the point of the whole thing."
I understand this sentiment fully and it makes sense. For reasons I stated in a earlier post, the one winner game that allows formal alliances just does not promote that type of play. That said, once you have been eliminated or surrender and are out of the game, it really does not matter any longer what the other players do. They may choose to slug it out, or simply declare the player with the highest VP the winner (and the other players surrender to make that person the "single" winner). I have yet to participate in a "single" winner game that has actually gone the distance (other than 1vs1 games). If such a game did play out I envision it as sort of a king of the hill game. Player A is on top VP wise, pick on him. Several turns later Player B is on top, so everyone jump on him. Several turns after that Player C is now leading, so lets jump on him. Oh, wait! Player A is on top again so everyone attack him.