Regardless of the countrys involved, the strongest pairing is of the of the 2nd and 3rd largest players when the leading player first hits 13 SCs.

As I have so woefully discovered...

Any strong lasting alliance of two players with common borders can take out the game in most cases, specially if:

1 - There isn't another strong alliance of 2+ players

2 - The rest of the board take some time to notice the alliance, or acknowlege it's strenght.

Think about it, you wrote in your shortlist Italy - Austria, but why would that be a powerful alliance when those two countries are the weakest of the game?

Well, precisely, because they are weaker and they know they need each other.

I have never seen an Italy winning a game after attacking Austria in the first two years, nor a winning Austria attacking Italy so quickly.

When two good players have Italy and Austria, and acknowledge the need to work together, they can make the most lasting alliance.

What I'm trying to say is that any alliance wich is solid and is kept secret or at least seems shaky for about 4 years should be a winner.

Wich is why you shouldn't join games with your friends with the idea to have an unbreakable alliance to win the game.

i am looking at an italy with 16: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=5493

and he attacked austria in 1901, (unsuccessfullly i might add.)

Here's another game where Italy attacks Austria in 1901 and wins:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=5144

I was Austria in that game :P

I will be eating my own words now...

Well, the thing is, I was eliminated really fast and faced attacks from all angles that stopped me from attacking him.

England-Germany

Does it have to be pairings on the same side of the board? For example, a Russia/France can be a really powerful alliance with lots of influence and the added advantage of not being obvious.

I think the key isn't necessarily the players, but the willingness to work closely and communicate with each other - especially if you're communicating with other people at the same time.

In other words, it isn't the nations, it's the people playing them.

It is good for Russia and Italy to ally against Austria and Turkey, but it is an alliance that doesnt last long.

Russia-France. Nobody catches on, they have no trust issues, it lasts long term. It's exceedingly rare, but they can shift their diplomatic weights into each other's theatres to help shape the outcome, and then crush everyone between them.

Italy and Austria can be real fun in openings

from the sheer standpoint of being able to trust each other, France and Italy make a good pair. Piedmont is an easy DMZ and it's rather hard to attack the other, which discourages a back-stab.

France-Germany, if it works. Russia-France is also good, as Chrispminis said, and Italy-Russia.

I notice that nobody has said England-France which is probably because usually after the first couple of years france will get bored and sneak a fleet into the nao. However, a firm Anglo-French alliance can be very powerful if france is not greedy or england keeps a guardian somewhere in the nao or nwg. The Anglo-French alliance lends itself very readily to an even split of the board moreso then the Juggernaut, in which Turkey is usually left out. Franco-German alliances are the same way. I am about to win a game in which i was in a very long alliance with France that has just ended and am about to win: http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=5827

I like Italy-Turkey. If Austria is taken care of quickly and France is NAP'd with Italy, then the alliance has a strong chance of surviving. I've even seen it go as far as a 17-17 draw. A very effective, hidden alliance if you ask me.

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4091

RUS/TUR. This is the only such allience has its own name, provokes (usually) total realignment across the board, and has practically predefined expansion zones (e.g. how to split the map).

I've done quite well with a Turkey/France alliance in one of my current games, though England has beaten me to 17 centres with Russia/France holding one each in strategic locations >_>.

It's not an alliance I've ever really come across but it is very powerful in the right set of hands. If Turkey is able to take out both Austria and Russia as I did it paves the way for an easy victory, though there were extenuating circumstances that robbed me of that this time...

I don't agree with the Italy/Turkey alliance. They are natural enemies and often come to blows over fleets in the med. Obviously all alliances can be made to work, but I'd say that is one of the weakest.

In a perfect world with all players of equal skill and a high level of communication between all then i guess the fames Russo-turkish formation is as good as it gets. But as php is an imperfect world with players of differing skill levels, communication breakdowns and desire /willingness/time to chat and make deals with other players i really feel that the 2 countries, any countries, that have trust, good tactical and strategic skill and communicate well with each other and hide their alliance for as long as possible will beat any other combo on the board.

I'd offer Italy/Russia as being the best long-term partners.... given their geographies and SCs need to epxand have the least overlap. The problem is getting the relationship to work/survive through the 1st few years. France/Russia has similar potential but have never been able to get it to work.

Which shows that forming an alliance is as much about working to ensure the other powers fall into line as it is about not stabbing your ally.

The Juggernaut is also greatly weakened by the fact that it has a name. Everyone knows about it, everyone fears it, everyone severely overcompensates in the face of a Juggernaut, absolutely crushing it. It's hard to pull off a silent Juggernaut...

I'm becoming a fan of more diagonal alliances, because they're much more silent. Russia-France, England-Austria, etc.

I dunno if anybody looked at this post by sundwn, but please notice the two Turkish fleets that sail completely around the board to help finish off England... that is aWeSoMe if you ask me...

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4091

Agree with you Chrispminis - these less obvious alliances can be much more deadly. But they require significantly more work as militarily you cannot combine against anyone directly for at least the first 3 years. They are more alliances of purpose and diplomacy to begin with - to persuade and cajool others to do as you bid. And requires much more subtle tactics.

As a frequent Turkey player, I never trust Russia. I'm quite the fan of the Turkey-Germany midgame alliance. Also, England-Germany is good, I like to call it the surf and turf alliance. Italy Russia is another one that I like, but it's difficult to keep Russia and Turkey prosperous through the midgame, especially once the alliance becomes apparent.

Even though it's not a two player alliance, I think the western triple (england, france, germany), Is the most powerful alliance in the game (even including if all four remaining countries allied). It immediately brings the game to the famous 'diagonal' stalemate line, and unless it's immediately combated, not later than '02, it is sure to bring all three nations into an arm's reach of winning. Granted, I've only ever seen it work once. Usually england and france stab germany for an easy few centers, and then germany helps the remaining powers, and, surprisingly, games like this often end in a turkish solo.

i think any triple can be pretty devastating.... Germany/Austria/Italy can be disguised quite easily for a long time and be equally devstating.

I agree with Chrispminis. Due to Turkey's position and the bottleneck at Constantinople, your intentions are usually absolutely clear after only Spring '01, since usually player attacking Russia move their army to Armenia, and players that don't move their fleets out to a more useful area. The only other thing you really can do is be vague, by half-committing to both fronts (or by doing nothing), but usually that just makes both Russia and Austria distrust you.

I once tried Austria-Turkey. I had so much desire to stab...yet I stayed true and we drew. It was more of an experiment than an actual fight...(I was Turkey!)

The Juggernaut isn't as strong as people think, because once even the slightest indication of such an alliance appears, everyone yells, Juggernaut! and reduce them to ashes. This happens often...I have seen far too many fouled-up Juggernauts.

Italy-Austria is hard to stop, actually. People always seem to think, well, they'll stab soon, so they underestimate it. With Italy and Austria first taking out Turkey (Lepanto, easy), then France and Russia (easy with the increased no. of SC's) and then the rest of the board. It's very hard for England to notice he has to help France hold the Mid Atlantic before it is too late.
The best counter to such an alliance is E-F, which tends to stab at an earlier stage...

France-Turkey IS good.

Well, I like the diagonal alliances that have some potential for early collaboration as well. The one's I chose border many common countries and allows of pincer movements, though it should probably be done a little subtly...

France-Turkey is good, except they don't get to collaborate directly until the mid game at the least. They can usually pressure Italy into attacking Austria, and it works especially well if Russia thinks they have a Juggernaut going. Though, in the one game I've tried this, Turkey ended up with a solo win...

Actually, I find that Italy-Austria is relatively easy to stop, as is Italy-Turkey, or Austria-Turkey. The reason being is that it's all to easy to clog the Straits of Gibraltar and hold an inland stalemate line against them, particularly at StP, and the Holcombe position if not Silesia, Bohemia, Tyrolia, etc. They can't get any fleets up into the North, and armies are only so effective... StP can be forced by superior naval power against the maximum power of 3 units that StP can be held with purely southern armies. As well, the Holcombe position is unbreachable without naval support that neither of the three alliances can offer if they have been choked in the Mediterranean.

Eg. http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4322

I agree with many of the posts. But my experience is that first alliances, those with neighboring countries, are rarely enduring. Winning countries must expand in all directions eventually. In successful games, my first alliance is with a neighbor but my final alliance is with a non-neighbor. My unsuccessful games have a common thread of a neighbor taking advantage of a weakness in my position. So with my neighbors, it has been stab or be stabbed.

All alliances are good, because you're screwed if you are on your own.

What about France-Germany? Can that work.

Well, I am trying it in a game now.

Enland-Russia.

France-Germany works really well if you can sort out the trust issue. Far better than France-England.
People seem to think that France-England is good, but I disagree. This is something like Austria-Turkey. France basically acts as a wall against England. He is effectively barred in. Either one will feel discontented and stab. Unless France lets England into the Mediterranean, which by then England will probably stab.

England-France can work. I've done it, pitching it as the Western Juggernaut. I would say that Germany-France is probably the stronger alliance... but as more people recognize the relative strengths of alliances, diplomacy will even out the odds as people are more likely to react strongly to a formidable alliance than one that is seen to be weak and/or impractical.

I've found that whatever country Rait is playing and whatever country his chief ally is playing are a killer combination. ;)

My personal favorite ally combo was the Eastern Triple (Austria, Russia, and Turkey) played out in the first mega-press game. A rather ungodly alliance, I thought. :)

You got an Eastern triple going in the Global Press game llama, and as Austria, I hated every minute of it. My sitter put me in that. Chrispminis, wasn't it?

Eh, I tried to recreate it, as it was the kind of strategy that I felt could still work even with broadcasting to the rest of the map, however it didn't work out the way I had hoped. Check out the game Circumlocutions (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=2091) for the alliance in true form. One unfortunate consequence of that game however, was that I didn't manage to build up enough suspicion between Turkey and Russia through the game to get one of them to make the move against the other so I could take a shot at the solo.

Interesting how nobody said Russia/Austria alliance. If it survives the first few years and after taking out Turkey, they it becomes even more deadly than the Russia/Turkey alliance. Armies ftw!

I love to play turkey-austria

TheGhostmaker, which game are you referring to? =)

thewonderllama, I had the good fortune of being Italy that game... sigh...