It wasn’t until I got totally destroyed by my own alliance in the first Rising Sun game that I realised I was doing everything wrong. Tom suggested we team up for the game and I just went along with it, no strategy or consideration of what I was getting out of it; I simply said “sounds good”! That was a huge mistake.
About three seasons later, Tom had positioned himself perfectly for the win using our partnership, and I’d pretty much spent the whole game helping him get to that point. When he eventually broke faith with me in the final season (the only way the game allows you to do so, by the way), I was fighting for scraps while he sailed to an easy victory. “You can’t just go into an alliance with someone because they’re friendly,” he said to me afterwards, probably feeling bad about how defeated I looked. “You have to consider what you’re getting.”
That bitter lesson began what’s now this strange fixation I have on alliance dynamics in Rising Sun. Sarah jokingly says I treat alliances like international treaties, but seriously? After playing 50+ times, I’ve finally come up with a way to use alliances to benefit both parties – at least, until someone inevitably sticks the knife in the other party’s back, which is part of the fun.
The key insight that changed everything for me is something I call “asymmetric benefits” — basically finding ways each player can assist their partner that won’t harm their own position. The best alliances aren’t about dividing things 50/50, they’re about each clan leveraging their individual strengths to give them advantages they wouldn’t be able to gain individually.
When you’re playing with clans that have radically different strengths and weaknesses, equal does not mean fair.
Clan choice establishes the framework for everything else. Some clans — such as the Koi with their additional political actions — make sense as alliance partners since they can easily share benefits. Other clans — such as the Dragonfly with their ability to move people around — may not seem as obviously valuable to a partner in an alliance, but can still be very helpful in certain situations.
One of the people I’m lucky to have as friends, Dave, is extremely skilled at recognising these patterns and once told me “clans that multiply effects and clans that produce resources — pair one of each and you’ll crush everyone.” He’s not far off. Alliances involving clans like Koi (who amplify the effects of political actions) and Bonsai (who produce economic advantages) generally work much better than those involving clans that have similar capabilities.
I recently had a game with my brother Mike where we were allied all three seasons but completely revised the nature of our alliance at each tea ceremony. In spring, our alliance was mostly about not fighting each other over the same areas of land. By summer, we had a fairly detailed agreement on coordinating our mandates and sharing resources. By fall, we were basically in a non-aggression pact with a number of details on how we would divide up our harvest rewards. Having the flexibility to change the nature of our alliance as the game evolved helped make our partnership a positive experience for both of us.
I hadn’t previously realised how significant geography was in forming alliances. If you are directly adjacent to another player, you will naturally compete for land, regardless of your previous agreement. Good neighbour alliances require more detail in agreements, sometimes to the extent that we literally draw lines on the board to show what each of us will control. During a five-player game, I was directly adjacent to Janet’s Lotus Clan, and we ended up creating what the other players referred to as a “border treaty.” We agreed on exactly which provinces each of us would prioritise, ensuring that both clans would get the lands that would work with their abilities. This level of detail ensured that we would not waste resources fighting over the same lands and that we would both remain competitive.
Coordinating mandates is likely the biggest tactical advantage of alliances. By being able to coordinate your political actions ahead of time, you can prevent the inefficiencies that occur when multiple players choose the same mandates. This type of coordination produces huge gains in efficiency for the players in an alliance compared to those who must act independently based on whatever mandates are selected.
Jim and I came up with a system where we would discuss what our priorities were for the upcoming political phase. If we wanted to select the same mandates, great. We didn’t need to do anything else. But if we wanted to select different mandates, we would identify whose priority should take precedence and the other player would select something else. Just that basic level of coordination allowed us to implement two complementary strategies and execute them successfully.
Battle coordination becomes very interesting as well, especially concerning the ronin hiring. Because allied clans can divide their ronin purchasing so that each has enough to support their top priority battles, they can avoid entering bidding wars against each other. Also, allied clans can decide which battles each will concentrate on, reducing the likelihood of conflict over the same areas of land.
While formal alliances only occur during tea ceremonies, the discussions leading to these partnerships typically begin during clan selection, or prior to the game. My experience has shown that discussing possible alliances based solely on the abilities of the clans, prior to the first turn, usually leads to more strategic partnerships.
In the past week, I played with a mix of seasoned and relatively new players and the differences in alliance timing between the groups were stark. The veteran players were having informal discussions regarding potential alliances during setup, and identifying their synergies before the first turn. The new players were approaching the first tea ceremony with no preconceived notions about their alliance, and were making their decisions based entirely on the board position at that time. The veteran players’ pre-determined alliances resulted in cooperative strategy execution from the first turn on, while the reactive alliances among the new players had no established patterns of cooperation.
I learned this lesson during a game where my alliance partner and I had determined beforehand exactly which mandates we would select for the remainder of the game. However, by summer, this lack of adaptability had become a hindrance as the board situation demanded drastically different priorities than we had originally planned. Today I approach mandate coordination with flexible expectations relative to the phase of the game, and renegotiate our alliance agreements at each seasonal transition to allow for a response to changing conditions.
Alliance public perception affects the success of alliances in unexpected ways. If other players view your alliance as powerful, they will frequently respond by increasing their aggression toward you, or by forming counter-alliances, which could negate the benefits of your partnership. Sometimes alliances appear weaker due to their low profile, yet they provide greater benefits than apparent.
This was demonstrated during a game in which my alliance with Lisa appeared so dominant that the remaining three players formed a coalition specifically to prevent us from winning. As a result, we lost every battle that round because everyone was coordinating to bid up the cost of ronin to prevent us from expanding our territory. In a subsequent game, I formed a low-profile alliance with an inexperienced player that attracted little attention, although it produced significantly greater overall benefits. There are many examples of successful alliances that appear weaker than they are.
I’ve begun to analyse alliance evaluation in an almost mathematical fashion, however the psychological aspects of alliances are equally critical. Players who believe they are receiving equitable treatment from their partners cooperate more effectively than those who suspect they are being exploited, regardless of the objective distribution of benefits. I have found that openly acknowledging each partner’s contribution, especially when one partner makes sacrifices to advance the interests of both, greatly increases cooperation quality.
During a recent game with our core group of players, my alliance with Pete encountered a situation in which mandate selection forced one of us to choose a mandate that was far from optimal for that player. Following a discussion of the issue, Pete volunteered to take the less desirable option so I could accomplish a vital recruit. Rather than simply accepting Pete’s sacrifice, I acknowledged it and pledged to repay him in kind whenever feasible. This openness about the value exchange between us maintained our cooperation, even through periods of imbalance in our alliance.
After dozens of games and likely too much analysis (our group of players certainly believes so), the single most important thing I’ve learned about Rising Sun alliances is that the best alliances are not the ones that maximise raw advantage. The best alliances are the ones that foster long-term cooperation through open communication, perceived fairness and respect. The mechanical optimization of clan synergy and the efficiency of mandate selection are the foundations upon which the best alliances are built, but the interpersonal elements that exist within the alliance are the determining factor in whether the alliance ultimately succeeds or fails due to mistrust and uncertainty.
I still periodically miscalculate alliance dynamics and/or fail to realise how evolving game conditions will affect the value of a particular alliance. These errors have occurred less frequently as I have gained a deeper appreciation for what makes alliances truly mutually beneficial. There is something rewarding about implementing two perfectly-coordinated strategies with a trusted partner, even though you both know that the partnership will eventually dissolve into competition.
Perhaps the area that has continued to captivate me is how alliance negotiations reveal player personality and approaches to cooperation. Some players see alliances as nothing more than optimization problems, while others place emphasis on building relationships and loyalty with their partners. Still others focus on obtaining knowledge and positioning themselves for the inevitable betrayal. The varied approaches to alliances create rich interpersonal dynamics that extend beyond the mechanics of the game.
Because of the differing abilities of each clan, no two alliance negotiations will ever be identical, even between the same players. The combination of the clans’ abilities, the players’ board positions, and their individual personalities creates a variety of potential alliance opportunities in every game. The variability inherent in alliance negotiations continues to make the process of developing alliances fresh and engaging, even after extended gameplay.
Tonight, I have to prepare for the game I’ll be playing with Rachel. She’s already indicated she wants to ally with me, and I expect she’s developed some new ways of negotiating alliances that I’m not familiar with. The challenge will be to determine what she’s hiding, while keeping enough trust in the alliance to make it functional. It should be fun.
Meeple Power is all about celebrating the joy of board games—great stories, clever mechanics, and big laughs around the table. We cover everything from easy-to-learn gateway games to deep strategic epics, shining a light on the creativity, community, and occasional chaos that make tabletop gaming so much fun. Whether you’re rolling dice, flipping cards, or arguing house rules with friends, we’re here to keep the game night spirit alive.