Because the weaker player is more likely to let me call the tune, is less of a threat of a solo, and is an easier stab target as they have less redundancy. A 10 SC player losing 2 SCs is down to 80% of his or her strength; a 5 SC player down to 3 is pretty much toast

Hmmm... I didn't mean so much in terms of in-game position but rather how skilled the diplomacy player is.

I usually ally with stratagos - does that answer your question? :P

it depends on the situation of course. If i can take down a stronger power with a weaker ally, I will always make that move

If it's a choice between someone close and someone far away, ally with whoever's farther away.

If they're both close, ally with the small one.

If they're both far, ally with the big one.

I'd actually rather ally with the big one and the small one at the same time, and play both alliances off of each other at a third party. It sometimes works, often doesn't, but makes for some great diplomatic chat :) Let the bigger one think you're his ally, but in fact work actively against him. So I guess, in terms of size I ally with the smaller one. In terms of skill, I ally with the higher skilled player. In tough times, low skilled players may not be able to tactically handle the opposition

For me it is not about their apparent skill or new-ness. More about unpredictability. I will ally with players whom I think we have constructive discourse - where a give and take exists and similar board-views permeate. If I recognize the player as good then I will be extra cautious and approach the alliance differently than if the player appears new.

Oh, of course everyone THINKS I'm allied with them until my units are all up in their businesses and residences. There's no reason to tell them they aren't. I was referring to which one I usually end up working with at the deadline.

What are these alliances you speak of? This is a new concept. Please explain.

I prefer alliance with a stronger player. I find the interaction more enjoyable, with better communication and collaboration. A stronger player probably will be more reliable as far as entering orders on time and accurately. To some extent, a stronger player is more predictable because he or she will act more rationally, although likely also more creatively than a weaker player. That makes it easier to put safeguards in place and anticipate moves if you do become at odds, compared to a weaker player who might enter moves that are strategically unsound even if they succeeded. Allying with a strong player gives you the best access to the thought process of your chief competition.

Yeah, THM is the perfect example of why I should listen to my own advice and ally with the stronger player. Good lord, that man can use his fleets well.

But Lando, what exactly do you mean by unpredictability? I mean, I consider myself fairly unpredictable in the early game, but as time goes on I settle down. I just like to mix things up in the beginning to make things interesting.

Obviously, it depends on a number of factors, but if we're taking that one issue of "stronger or weaker" in a vacuum in terms of playing ability, I'd take the weaker ally.

For one, they tend to be more easily persuaded or more trusting. They seem to be more loyal, or at least if they aren't, their stabs aren't well-planned or executed. Finally, they are much easier to stab than a strong player is, and if you intend to solo, you're probably going to have to stab your ally at some point. Along this note, I would assume the weaker player would be less likely to stab you in an attempt to stop your potential solo than a stronger partner would.

Now, I don't want to ally with a complete noob; I've learned my lesson on that. But I would certainly rather an average-skilled ally than one who plays excellent.