I would never commit to an alliance in 01 I don't think, first off.

But say i did, I would want France to know about that as late as possible. or, I would want him to think the opposite as long as possible. So talk with them and tell whatever truths you can so they believe this and trust you.

Surprised more people haven't commented. I'd be interested to see what they have to say.

Unless they feel Lando Calrissian has spoken for all of them, of course, in which case, bravo Lando! Hard for me to resist those first turn alliances... I'll work on that.

I think it's important to talk to most if not all players each turn if for no other reason than today's BFF can be tomorrow's enemy or CD and vise versa.

@Tiresias - i don't mean you can't organize one, but more that you should never commit in your own mind to something.

I personally think you should let others commit first and act based on that. I have been burned enough times comitting too early. The opening game is all about patience and building trust.

i think its always better when they contact you
it means they need you and live you in a better position for negociate
not answering can also be a strategy and you will know about their intentions before they know yours

ask their strategies (unless it is apparent), be open, talk about other options, persuade them to not attack you, sacrifice, etc...

If E/G is after me and I'm F, tell E how difficult it'll be to convoy over and take lands by fleet only, and germany will get the majority of the SCs... and since the north sea affects den/hol/bel, he'll come for him next.
Germany, I'd just talk about once he's done with me, he has russia and austria to expand to... england has... germany to expand to....

If you actually have nothing else to talk about try joking around or talking about something outside the game to build a rapport and make them not emotionally despise you.

Sometimes I pseudo-apologize to them and point out why, strategically, it made sense for me. I've actually been talked out of an attack by responses to that, and gotten a more lucrative position.

Sacred Digits has it right on the money. Thats what you always should do after a stab. Likewise, when you are attacked, point out why it was strategically unsound for them to do so.

One thing you could try is in 1901 tell every single adjacent player that you want a non-aggression pact (or alliance) then go for only neutral centres in 1901 and see who goes to war then make a more well-informed decision of who to support.

I do that as well in full press, ShockTrooper. As Austria, I always go for Serbia and Greece, and if I end up with Russia in Galicia or Italy in Tyrolia, I make adjustments. I've managed to rescue myself from BOTH of those happening in Spring 1901, because chances are someone else did something Russia and/or Italy didn't like, and you can play the "Hey, no harm no foul" card. Especially useful to that is saying to Italy, "You know, when Russia, Turkey, and Italy play let's divide up Austria, Italy ends up in the worst position of the three." I get Austria a lot, so I've had to get creative with interpreting moves as "Watch out, there's a Juggernaut!" or "Russia, I really think Turkey's not that into you."

i would say that you should try to get as many adjacent players as possible to commit to alliances and then pick and choose which ones will be the most valuable and scrap the rest of them. say you are England, you would want to plan with F to attack G and simultaneously plan with G to attack F but arrange the whole thing so that you can stay neutral as long as possible and then see which one holds more for you.