I suggest alliances with everyone. Then I stab someone, and play it off to my other allies as working with them. Then I decide whether I profit more by stabbing the next guy in line or buddying up with him and stabbing someone else. Repeat until I win, I die, or no one likes me enough to help me stab a dude. That's with, like, four games under my belt, though.

Ah, I see you've played Buddy-Stabby before

It's not always a consistent way, but generally i prefer to take a "play the player not the country" approach so geography would be the least important of those options. It can make things more convenient so it's a consideration, but i'd even consider a player on the opposite side of the board as my 'primary' ally if he was the only player with the right game chemistry as me and just leap frog amongst secondary allies until we can meet up.

I tend to be fairly chatty that first year to really vet my potential ally thoroughly, always found picking my ally well as pretty important. Consistent communication is pretty important. Depending on the phase length there may even be factors like timezone taken into consideration, i want to maximize my ability to have dialogue with my ally. Every game is a little different so it's pretty common my preferences differ from game to game, one game i may like having that eager weaker player while in the next i may want the strongest player in the game as my ally. I do have a bit of an ego so a players strength rarely spooks me as long as the game philosophy matches up.

The important thing is to keep the checks and balances up as you go along, you won't know everything about your ally the moment you lock it in so just keep your eyes open and maybe even slip in little trust tests as you go along. Better he betray you in a smaller controlled setting earlier on when you can control it then later on when it's really going to sting.

Btw, really love seeing a topic on the forum actually related to Diplomacy. Great stuff ATC!

Usually how I choose my allies (and the entire selection process) completely depends on which country I play. I feel like the three western countries require you to have made up your mind about your ally before 1901 ends, but preferably even before your opening moves as for western countries these usually matter more in signaling aggression than for the eastern countries.

So when im a western power ill look for that guy that will be rational and decisive and willing to commit to the alliance and the plan. Unpredictability is the death of alliances and I always dread players that might make some unpredictable move around 1903 or 1904 that will kill the alliance. I don't even really mind if my potential ally is the new player or the veteran. If its a newby he'll be easier to manipulate and stab later on and you get rid of the bigger threat. If its a veteran player they might come up with interesting solutions and at least you'll know they wont mess up their orders or vanish. Being willing to commit and stick to the alliance is the most important, and showing this willingness very early will make you my guy.

As an eastern power however I feel its often way more important to play nearly all sides. Having an ally and having the real ally that remains hidden for a long time. Your opening moves and even your builds dont always matter as much in signaling alliances since theyre more likely to be vanilla in my case as an eastern power. As an eastern power ill usually have a more predetermined plan as well as how id like to play the game - they differ from game to game but I usually will have a game-plan that Ill stick to if at all possible. In most cases ill try to convince 3 out of the 4 players of this plan and dogpile on the remaining one, or ill be the target of the dogpile because people dont like the plan or they see through the fact theyre likely the next target.

always play the players -- i have no preferable allies. note to noobs: 1, 2 or 3 word press will never get you far with me.
note to chatty cathy's....I feel you and am interested but I am suspicious.

For me it's always about where I am on the board first, and then who actually talks in the first year. If someone isn't responding to messages I naturally assume that they will be attacking me, and go on the defensive.

As far as talking goes, I look for someone that I have chemistry with that knows the game and that I can "trust". It needs to be more in depth planning than just saying the moves, I want to see a plan at least a few years out from the start so I know we are on the same page. If they only give me a move at a time, then I know that I can't trust them long and they become a secondary ally that will be stabbed sooner rather than later.

I usually draw a pentagram, sacrifice two lambs (or one baby) and ask Satan for guidance. Works every time.

I try, whenever possible, to have every player know and accept my moves year 1. Remember that choosing an ally is only important if you have options. Let everyone know off the bat that I am trustworthy, and play up that aspect throughout. I only stab when I can do so with impunity.

I was once so turned off by a Turkish overture that it made its mind up for me. It's fine to role play, but keep the gross stereotypes out of it.

I know this sounds terrible but I was bored one day and just say songs to another player for our entire press. literally no context just songs.

Yup. That would put you at the top of my eliminate list. Unless they were good tunes...

There are also players out there that I am always next too, and always fight with. I think it becomes a self perpetuating problem.

Always ally with ATC and try to kill Valis is more or less my usual approach :-)

An interestng (to me at least) side note here. Press strategies designed to appeal to the cognoscenti here often simply telegraph your intentions to noobs who will use it against you. Know the players.

<3

I'm not sure if this really answers the OP's question, but it is a basic strategy that I use.

When speaking with players for the first time, I like to present myself as someone who's looking for a alliance where ideas are shared and spoils are evenly divided. My goal is to give the appearance of being a well balanced ally (not too pushy but not a pushover). In doing this I always bring multiple ideas to the table. For one, it doesn't allow the person I'm communicating with to single out a particular country that I may leaning towards attacking, and it shows that I'm the type of player that can make adjustments on the fly as the dynamics of the game change.

The two things that I try to figure out early on about the other players in the game are:

1) Are they leaders or followers in their alliances?

2) What is their level of greed?

Knowing where each player stands on those two questions allows me to gauge what kind of approach will be most effective in forming the right alliance.

If I have an alpha and a beta as neighbors, I may present myself as being stronger than the beta to the alpha, and less demanding than the alpha to the beta. Stronger players want someone they can control, but generally not total pushovers or players who may make tactical mistakes. Meeker players, while perhaps not minding playing a secondary roll, often don't want to be pushed around. Essentially, my goal it to present myself as the best option to all my neighbors while also appearing open-minded to the players across the board.

The level of greed a player displays can be used in multiple ways. The most obvious way is to present another neighbor as an easier target than myself. I've rarely run in to players that choose the path with no clear builds over one with obvious gains. A player's greed can also be used to influence them towards moving in a way that leaves them susceptible to attack. A player who isn't as greedy is more difficult to manipulate, but if I can prove to them that I'm the less greedy of their neighbors, it can influence them to join my side.

@GOD I actually dont think you were kidding..

I enter all games with a view to doing something different at the start. I will happily ally with anyone that I think will go for it.

Incidentally I am certainly nowhere near the best ally to have.

@brain I'm never kidding. Every word I say becomes part of some holy scripture, material for years and years of interpretation and discussion for many many people. Pretty fun aspect of being me ^^

GOD: What if, like Carl Sagan, I believe God is just the total sum of universal laws?

*the universe's

I can't wait to get a new phone.

I'd like to add that as a pet peeve I consider it incredably narrow minded when i see players join a game with automatic exclusions who they'll work with based on geography alone. I've seen England's who'll never work with France because in the past they always get stabbed when they do that, players who have hard rules never work with Turkey if they're Austria, and so on. That really limits your options and potentially defaults you to being forced to ally with a crappy ally in your respective triangle simply because you had bad experiences in the past. If your alliances are falling apart consistently chances are you're lacking some diplomacy skills that you need to work on and if you're falling for the same pitfalls every time then you're not doing enough to learn from and adapt to known mistakes and weaknesses.

Geography implications does have some bearing so should weigh a little bit in your decision, but under no circumstance should you enter a game with preconcieved notion that you absolutely have to ally with Country A because you're Country B prior to doing any due diligence on the player in that position.

^ Agreed. I'm also not a big fan of people who ally with whoever they communicate with first.

That's really good advice from VillageIdiot there. +1.

He's also a ruthlessly smooth pressmaker.

^ If that's exclusively what it's bases on then completely agree, however i may use the "hey we're here first, we must be like-minded go-getters!" excuse as a solid ice-breaker bonding moment which in some circumstances could lead to that player being the top choice.

I like having bonds that go beyond just best strategic partner as it often leads to better communication, stronger trust, and fewer stabs based simply on each other enjoying the rapport enough.

Time zone issues can put a spin on the "go getter" thing.

That pet peeve of VI's is mine as well.

Geography doesn't matter to me.
I do want an ally that communicates each turn, wants to discuss options and also sees things from my perspective. Trust needs building upon.
I communicate a lot and with everyone in the beginning and that usually weeds lut a few people, since they either don't respond or do not have clear plans.
I tend to tell in advance what my moves are and expect that from my ally as well. That builds trust. Surprises, or messages like "oh I missed your planned moves, sorry for not supporting/moving" make me quickly look for other allies, even if that is not immediately beneficial.
Lastly, I like to work with the guy being under attack. He needs any ally he can get and typically stick with me as a reward.

I almost always agree to ally with whomever I talk to first.

I may then however also ally with somebody I talk to later, superseding the original alliance.