To have a positive social experience with a fellow member of the hobby.

I have had the good fortune to be on both sides of that with uclabb, but I don't think that's the answer to the question here

The pretense of mutual gain that one player attempts to get another player believe exists.
synonyms: sham, hoax

Largely to get the hell out of each other's way so you can actually get stuff done (while everyone else continues to fuck around, ideally). Also to attack an enemy together so as to immediately cripple him

@ssoren- can you share with the class what you learned from those games? (Hint: the answer is don't stab uclabb)

So, this is actually a very interesting question. The best way I would put it is to have mutual gains, but have you benefit marginally more than your partner while having him believe that he's benefiting marginally more. I don't think it necessarily has to be short term endeavors either. Personally, I would sacrifice a short term alliance if its only going to lead to conflict in the future. Hence why my games get so drawn out....

To reduce the number of enemies you have.

For the sexually sadistic pleasure of raping and destroying their lands later.

Oh, uclabb. Those two games had different outcomes, but I stabbed you in both.

I think this is one of those questions that essentially separates different types of players. I'm with uclabb on this one.

I thoroughly disagree with uclabb. I have positive social experiences with fellow members of the hobby while we're tearing each other's throats out.

@ssoren- It's hardly a stab when you make a completely impotent move taking zero territories while simultaneously getting stabbed yourself by a third power. :-)

Approach every player like you're about to make them your bffl.

I've always thought newyorkers having listening problems. This is not about us uclabb -- and goldfingers got it

Multiple reasons! To assist you long, or short term in winning or stopping someone else from winning; ideally this should be where you can sustain a series of short-term mutual tactical objectives that cement the alliance. But most of all, to have fun - games where folks talk are much more enjoyable - the best of these are like a great conversation.

From a weaker player's perspective (mine) -
The more friends you have the less chance you're the next one to be eliminated in the early and mid-game. If you can stay alive long enough to be one of the last 3 or 4 players, you have a good shot of getting in a draw (unless you are playing with ssorenn and jmspool in which case normal rules don't apply - game#148770).

gameID=148770

Damn it, Ucla already took my lines!

Dougy , did you feel left out? Awe.....;))

@goldfinger: "I have positive social experiences with fellow members of the hobby while we're tearing each other's throats out."

You're right, one does not preclude the other. So you essentially agree with uclabb then?

It isn't a stab unless you were an ally. Otherwise it's just a normal attack.

@TheMinister - not really, no. I think that's the point of playing diplomacy, not the point of an alliance.

An alliance is one of the most effective tools at getting a foreign nation's units to move where you wish them to be and to act as you wish them to act. Completely agree with Goldie regarding the social element.

I love the fact the game is based on that two people walk up to each other and mutually say "My goal and hope is to exclusively win, to your detriment. Let's work together!" It's a beautiful paradox.

Truninja's answer comes closest to the truth, based on my experience thus far on the site. I've learned not to trust a single thing a person says until at least two years have passed.

@Eadan- You have learned the wrong lesson. You can (almost) always trust people to act in their own interest. It's your job to explain to them why working with you is in their interest and even more importantly to create situations on the board where it is *actually* in their interest to work with you.

Maybe that works in the upper tier games, but all I see in my games are people who talk a lot of smack, make a bunch of promises, and then stab on turn one. I'll stick with the lesson I've learned.

I promise you that upper tier players can clean up in those games.

In my humble experience, an alliance is to eliminate Tasnica so he will stop writing novels in private and public press. Especially in public press only. Pretty sure he could rival Terry Pratchett in words per day.

I agree with uclabb. I've always said that the only alliance to be had is the one that can be forced. The best way to force an alliance is either to stalemate the guy until he works with you, or to continue to offer him things he wants. Alliances have to be give-and-take. From there, you continue to seek and make opportunities that allow you to be on top.

Now, I believe what I said is true, because I don't believe in care bear alliances. Diplomacy is about getting someone to believe that working with you is far better than working with someone else, and to do that, they have to believe that you're in it for the long haul (or at least longer than the other guy).

If your alliance building is entirely made up of promises nice words and what you can gain out of it, it's not really an alliance. It's more of a symbiotic relationship.

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their supply centres.

Actual answer (which I acknowledge is totally useless): The purpose of an alliance is to attempt to achieve whatever goals within that game that seem best to be able to be done together rather separately.

I don't think it's possible to say definitively what those goals must be or what actions must be taken to constitute an alliance vs something that might look like one but isn't. There's too much grey area overlap.

Couldn't disagree more with the "only alliance to be had is the one that can be forced" notion. I've always been a more bees with honey then vinegar type guy.

Diplomacy is basically one big game of music chairs, there's a reason there's an odd number of players. In the beginning the music starts and on each side of the board there's generally two players aligning and one left in the cold. One side of the board recruits the floater player (usually Italy) and that either helps or hurts them depending if he's extra helpful or just causing tension by being a third wheel. One side kills off their 'man without a chair' faster and maybe alliances shift and once again somebody ends up without a chair when the music stops. It goes on and on from there. While strong 'movement players' can preserve it's pretty much a rule that anybody who likes to play autonomously rarely solos in press games since there's too much working against them.

It's basic math, there's strength in numbers and it doesn't have to be your tanks that are giving you those numbers.

Even in classic gunboat (and I have played a *lot* of classic gunboat), you can't get far without some level of alliance play, at least for the first several years.

It's not the same as what you can achieve in press games (even public only press!), but it's there nevertheless. Try to go it alone from the start and you will simply get yourself eliminated.

An alliance allows a player to rant at you when you stab him/her..

Its fun to kill allies..sometimes.

Nothing like a bit of friendly fire..

Also nothing more rewarding than to negotiate a alliance b4 first move and have you both sweep the board..

@Dubmdell: If I recall correctly, I've only been eliminated once in a press game. And I continued talking almost as much after my elimination as I had been before. ;)

I've given this some extra thought, and I tend to agree more with Gold now. The point of diplomacy itself is to have fun, yes.

The point of an alliance is to progress in the game, possibly with mutual interest, but preferably with relative advantage.

"Also nothing more rewarding than to negotiate a alliance b4 first move and have you both sweep the board..."

Actually, WINNING THE GAME IN A SOLO is more rewarding.

Don't play PPSC games!

It just seems to me that most of my games consist of turn 1 alliances all the way to the end.

Like, the demographic is so scared to leave the security of their alliance that they will risk their partner getting big in hopes they don't betray them and let them draw in the end.

People don't play pragmatically, they don't play selfishly, they develop emotional bonds in turn 1 and stick with them for the rest of the game.

LMFTFY:

*Care bears* develop emotional bonds in turn 1 and stick with them for the rest of the game.

The good players get others to develop emotional bonds in turn 1, then get them to leave themselves open for the game-winning stab.

archer: Are you playing points-per-supply-centre games? Those games tend to have a lot of rock solid alliances that run all the way til one of them solos. For this (and other) reasons, it's not a particularly good scoring system.