Alliances: AN introduction

5th Oct 2025

2-way alliances, 3-way alliances, Allan B Calhamer, ALLIANCES, Diplomacy, Early Game, Endgame, gaming, Mid-game, play

I started a series on alliances some time back but thought, to kick off my blog yet again I’d start again.

In all honesty, the first series didn’t get very far. I started hot and hard, and then moved on to a different series. Which is what I tend to do a lot of, in fairness!

So I didn’t need to delete a lot from the blog.

So, let’s kick off this new (sort of) series with an introduction.

What is an alliance in Diplomacy?

I think it’s fair enough to ask this question, as it can mean different things to different people.

For some people, an alliance is an almost unbreakable bond between players. Personally, this isn’t the way I believe the game should be played. When you read Calhamer’s articles – the important ones are listed in the notes – you can see that one of the inspirations behind his design for the game is the web of alliances built by the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

Bismarck’s alliance structure had one aim: to further the ambitions of the German Empire in the late nineteenth century. As such, when any alliance stopped working, it was abandoned. Many of these alliances were contradictory: the power Germany was allied with in one alliance might have ambitions at odds with another power Germany was allied with. Not surprisingly, a number of Germany’s alliances were secret.

The game-long alliance, then, favoured by Carebears, were not part of Calhamer’s vision for the game. The objective of the game was – and still is! – to win outright, to ‘solo’. Not to play towards a draw.

Perhaps the long-term alliances were more part of Calhamer’s vision. It is clear that alliances are necessary in Diplomacy: you’re not getting very far without some form of alliance and, if that alliance is working for you, why not keep it going?

Some players feel this is a dull way to play the game, boring. They’d rather play a more fluid version of Diplomacy. But, well, the idea is to enhance your ambitions in the game and this is one way of being able to do it.

Ad hoc alliances – those that are formed out of necessity – are more about what Calhamer had in mind, however. These alliances formed as and when they are needed. They are short-term, formed to reach some objectives that you’re aiming to achieve at the time.

This is where the ‘web’ idea comes in. Players form alliances with the players that can help them then and there, and when that objective has been attained the alliance is over… although you may not tell the other player that!

The idea for these short-term alliances is that you use it and then re-evaluate it. Can it be recycled? Is there something else my ally can support me with? If so, you do what you can to keep it; if not, you dump it and move on.

These different takes on how alliances should be used is one of the things that make Diplomacy such an intriguing game. Although I don’t agree with the Carebear form of alliance I don’t deny that it has a place in the Hobby. And the fact that players have to accommodate the different forms of alliance in the game they’re playing, and deal with them, is what makes the difference between a good player and a great player.

Early Game and Mid-game alliances

Often, when people write about alliances, they are considering just Early Game alliances. Who should you ally with when you start the game? This is for a similar reason to that which means that writing about strategy tends to focus on Early Game strategy. Frankly, it’s easier. There are fewer contextual variables at this stage of the game, with more concrete things to base ideas on.

Honestly, I will be thinking mainly about Early Game alliances, too, and for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. But I’m also going to write the series around the powers involved, so I will also be looking at Mid-game alliances.

But wait… what about the Endgame? Well, I will write at least one post on Endgame alliances but, in the Endgame you’re looking at something very different.

In the Endgame, you either find the game becoming a battle between two blocs of players, two alliances, or you find the game becoming about a bloc of players attempting to prevent a single player from winning outright. In the first scenario, you’re going to find I’ve covered the possibilities already; in the latter, it’s often called the Stop-the-Leader alliance, or what I prefer, the Grand Alliance.

2- and 3-way alliances

I will look at all possible alliances for the various powers. As you’d expect, a 2-way alliance features two players, a 3-way alliance features three. No revelations there.

There’s no real point in looking at any larger alliances, frankly, as they are usually to do with the Endgame scenarios described above. Once anything bigger than a 3-way alliance is formed, you’re probably in, or very close to, the Endgame.

2-way alliances will be discussed as either Early or Mid-game alliances. These are often the alliances people consider.

3-way alliances will not be identified as Early or Mid-game as they can form at any time. However, I will consider these as Early Game alliances, with some description of them as an Mid-game one.

Some alliances are rare. For instance, the Anglo-Austrian alliance (E/A) is almost impossible as an Early Game alliance, and is usually only formed later in the game as an alliance of expediency. Although these rare alliances will have posts, don’t expect too much discussion of them!

Naming the alliances

Many of these alliances already have names within the Hobby, and I’ll use these where I like them. Some, frankly, I don’t. For instance, the Austro-Italian alliance is often called the “Lepanto Alliance”. I dislike this name. “Lepanto” is the name of a set of opening moves in which the two powers cooperate, mainly against Turkey. Using this to name the alliance seems to indicate that this alliance should have an attack on Turkey as its objective, and this is too restrictive.

But don’t take the naming of the alliances with any degree of seriousness. The names aren’t important, they’re just to add some colour to the discussion, a bit of fun. Where I’ve changed them, I’ve also used the more common or established name within the Hobby… where I know it!

One final thought…

Although a discussion of alliances such as this focuses on the powers involved, alliances are not about powers. Rather, alliances are between players.

There is no ‘best alliance’ for one power to form with another. The Anglo-French (E/F) alliance is not ultimately better than the Anglo-German (E/G) alliance. The best alliance for you to form if you’re playing England is the one that gets you what you want.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I have to concentrate on the advantages of forming an alliance between powers. It is impractical to try to consider which player is best for you to ally with!

When considering which power to ally with in the game, you need to consider which player is going to make the better ally. While the E/F alliance may have an on-the-board advantage over the E/G alliance, or vice versa, is a consideration, there’s no point in choosing one over the other based on the powers themselves. If you decide that you’re going to ally with France, this needs to be based on whether you think the French player is going to be a more supportive ally than the German.