AT is probably the natural response to this question, although people will say that it's better than it's given credit for (which is true, but it's still difficult to keep together without a stab due to positioning).

AI is also likely to fall apart relatively soon after they're done with Turkey, if either player is planning to go for a solo.

In the north, I'd say E/R or G/R. Russia's win condition is usually having some form of fleet presence in the north, so that's the main aim of a Russian northern alliance - and both Germany and England suffer from letting the Russian keep fleets on the board.

T/I, most likely.

I love AT. It is fantastic as Turkey. My top choice alliance unless I can't stand the Austria.

Although, given the right circumstances I think there's no such thing as bad alliance, there are a few candidates. Both IT and ER suffer from wanting the same supply centers as each other, but I'd go with GR.

They really don't have a lot to split up between them (Norway?) and there most logical victim England isn't very close to Russia.

AT is only fantastic for Turkey if they stab a couple years in.

I feel like AG deserves a mention.

ER might truly be the worst sensible alliance in the game.

Better yet, all these need names...

FI

What's the problem with ER?

@ghug are you srs? AG is the most reliable alliance in the game.

Triggered.

I love ER. Stuck with ER all the way until the final solo stab in World Cup gameID=183878, and am always open to and interested in ER when playing as Russia, if England is willing.

AG sucks. How are either of you supposed to solo? Shit alliance.

ER is pretty shit too but I enjoyed the one I did. I feel like if you just trade Sweden and Norway and then go your separate ways, it's alright.

ER is great for... Russia

I recently tried an ARG and it was totally improbable and fun. gameID=210048

Every alliance breaks down when you want to solo, and any alliance works if the map has developed to a state where it makes sense. In 1901S, A and G should be allied, period.

In S 1901 they shouldn't be attacking each other, sure. Any three year old who's read Richard Sharp can tell you that much. That doesn't mean their goals aren't in direct opposition from the outset. They only have one power they can attack together (Russia), and there's really no point in either of them supporting the other into Russian centers, because an attack by either on Russia that doesn't gain at least Warsaw and preferably Moscow is completely pointless.

I disagree that AT is improbable. I think it’s a reasonable, standard alliance.

B.B.: if ER is only good for Russia, England is doing it wrong.

England - Turkey

It is a good alliance, but necesssitates a lot of short term alliances to set up. It is not one I would expect being set up in the early game.

There is no such thing as a strange alliance, with the exception of the EFGIRTA

Those happen pretty regularly when enough people CD in live games :-)

I have only ever done an ER on the England side and it works pretty well. If Russia agrees no fleet builds in the north and you neutralize Germany in Scandinavia, you can dmz a huge part of the north. It is good for Russia in that he doesn't have to worry about England snagging St. Pete/Sweden and it's good for England in that he can focus squarely on taking France out of commission early (usually Germany will help with that) and then dominating the Atlantic coastline.

I agree with Octavias: every/any alliance combination makes sense, unless there is a specific in-game reason to avoid it or change course.

For example, ER is great for E to divide up Germany and then free up northern units to push south, but not if Russia is already also steamrolling Austria with a juggernaut and ready to head towards England. But if Turkey or Austria are giving Russia resistance, then E can benefit nicely.

I think that the least probable alliance is ER, especially in the long run.

The thread asks us to remark on the probability of the alliance, not the utility of it.

The utility and probability are fundamentally linked, surely?

It does raise the question of what you define an alliance to be, of course, if indeed you define it to be anything. At its most basic, say a mutually beneficial agreement between nations, I'd say it was unusual for me not to ally with everyone. If you take the view that an alliance is a firm commitment to work with another power for the duration of the game, then I've probably never been allied to anyone.

Sometimes I think the term "alliance" is essentially meaningless, and exists only as a comfort blanket for the inexperienced.

One not mentioned yet is Russia and Italy being allied together. You don't see it often, and you need help from Austria or Turkey in the very beginning of the game, but once Austria or Turkey is handled and Italy and Russia meet up, it's one of the most mutually beneficial ones I can think of.

Octavious, will you be my BFFL ally? If you commit here in the public forum, then I know in my heart that you would never stab me.

"Sometimes I think the term "alliance" is essentially meaningless, and exists only as a comfort blanket for the inexperienced."

^ I think I agree with you 100%. There's who I'm attacking (right now), who I'm helping (right now), and who I'm not involved with (right now).