Have someone attack them, if they are destroyed, then no problem. Try to win one of them over to you, use all the tools, flattery, mutual attacks, even promise them an extra SC of the ones you would gain together if it comes to that. And is you cant beat them, join them. Just join that alliance.

You do know there is more than one stalemate line, right? And this focus on the stalemate line(s) is a focus on mediocrity. I try to make alliances in three quadrants so we all have room to grow and then try to make other alliances to have them attack my allies and keep everyone small and busy fighting each other while I grow.

My point is that focusing on the stalemate lines is accepting a draw from the start and not playing diplomacy, but some "touchy, feelly" variant.

Dip: say I am in a FG wiping E, and there is a strong IR that is destroying A and T. Who shall I convince to destroy R or I? There is nobody left. Yes, I usually have warm relations with RI, and talk about the future, but I don't think it's out of line to claim that any presumed alliance between east and west will be tested when the mutual spheres are resolved.

Draug: I'm not focusing on stalemate lines, but it's a pretty well established principle that there are two separate spheres about the MSL that are usually resolved before midgame. Obviously some countries (I and R, and to a lesser degree G) straddle these spheres, but the rest of the nations practically must eliminate one country from their sphere to advance. Ironclad? No, but if you look at any sampling of press games you'll see that the progression very regularly falls into this pattern.

I don't think you have any cause to suggest I chase a draw... the only one I've ever taken was a gunboat with 2 CD's before '02. In fact, my question directly relates to the opposite! It would be hugely advantageous to break up the "winning alliance" from the other sphere in order to put ones self in place for the win. I'm only saying I don't have a very developed sense of how to do this, and was looking for tips, advice, clues. My diplomacy isn't good in theaters that I cannot directly influence, simply because I feel removed from their circumstance.

As G, why do I care what promises T makes early on? Conversely then, why should he care what promises I make? Sure, it's nice to plan for the future, but I don't truly believe any of what they say. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't yet see the workaround. I suspect others may have the same problem, so why not discuss it?

@YJ - "As G, why do I care what promises T makes early on?"

You care because if T and A or T and R are working together, you need to be able to break them up to win.

Ugh! I KNOW THAT. That's my point! Maybe I'm not explaining well - HOW do you do it? I don't see how anything I say to break up the TA or TR will not be perceived as the obvious and clumsy attempt it is. I find it relatively easy to convince my neighbors to do what I want, because my decisions influence them directly and obviously. It is far more difficult to break up a successful alliance across the board. Obviously G has *some* sway with A, but if you're E in the same situation, what can you do?

Well, yoyu don't use negative statements. Instead, encourage them to join you. Try for a three way with them and then work on one of themn to betray the other.

Trust builds Relationships. Execution builds Results.

Thanks Draug... I guess that is what I've been doing, to some degree.

I'm sure this is not your own line Draugnar...

Nope. The founder, president, and owner of my company. Tom Nies.

My company, of course, meaning my employer. He owns it. Not me.

You have to start inter-shpere relationships early. I tend to see things in this light: in general, yes it matters what you say to the other guys, but it also matters how much you're saying.

Early on, I try to build relationships with all 6 of the other powers. I talk about their sphere, try to dig up information, share stuff with them, offer appropriate DMZ's and talk to them as if I'm a helpful outsider who really wishes them well and seeks to do what it takes to help them out. Sometimes you can help cultivate an alliance for someone.

In your example, let's assume you're playing Germany. One approach might be to talk to R/T/I about Austria. Secure him an ally, but you could tell them something to the effect of "I've talked a great deal to Austria and they're pretty interested in working with you. I can secure an alliance for you if you'd like." Talk to the others and try to manipulate the scene. Pair who you want to work together and separate the others. If you offer to help them in the intangibles, then it can be just as satisfying as working directly with them.

The biggest part of forming an alliance is knowing what your ally wants and working to try to give it to him. For everyone in 1901, they don't want to be the outsider in a conflict. They want at least one secure ally and the opportunity to grow. If you know their focal points (or help them to develop them) then you have formed an ally even one across the board.

OK, very good advice Ninja... some of that I've already been doing, much of it I haven't.