Even with all random factors taken out (0% luck straight rounding, cyclic turns, etc.), how much of this game is actually strategic. In FFA games, most of what I see is the most isolated player winning the game.

depends what type of game you're refering to.

on ffas, yes, the person in an isolated territory certainly has a great advantage.
in 1v1s, its mostly picking and game skill. though of course luck is needed too (3v2s to work, first order etc)

FFA require skills, but these are different from the ones you need for 1v1's, 2v2 and so on. In 1v1's it is picking and tactical moves that will win you the game. In FFA's you have to be smart and choose your enemies and allies good, so you can expand, but still are pretty safe.
Simply: For 1v1 you have to be Ceasar in Gaul, for FFA's you have to be Ceasar in the politics. You have to be smart for both, you need some skills for both. They do not have to be the same, but are closer together than you might think.

Uhh well min nailed it

Caesar got stabbed by his fellow politicians, does not sound like a good description for politics of ffa.

^+1 :D

A lot of players get stabbed during an Diplo game :p And the stabbers get hated and eliminated :p

I 've been in one FFA where the players actually all consented to break all truces at the same turn, in all others FFA's i played truces got disbanded "otherwise" ;)

Here is some strategy for ya :-)
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4420597

Warlight is 95% luck. Some players like Gnuffone i.e. are just luckier than others.

Oh cmon. Your sentence sound like "gnuff win games bc lucky" and tjis isn t true at all. Maybe i get a lof of lucky 1st move against you...

Oooohh whatcha ton do bout that? He told youuu