The Blood Pact

A BLOOD PACT IS A FORM OF ALLIANCE THAT INVOLVES THE ALLIES STICKING WITH EACH OTHER UNTIL THE ENDGAME WHEN ONE OF THEM WILL GO ON TO WIN, OFTEN WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE OTHER.

Let’s be honest, here, alliances are a key part of Diplomacy. There are seven players; you’re not going to win by going it alone (unless you’re playing some dumb ass players, or with a group of novices). A LONE WOLF player might start well, using the mutual distrust of others to cause mayhem but, at some point, and usually sooner rather than later, other players will band together against them.

It also seems to make sense that players should maintain a successful alliance for as long as possible. After all, if something is working, why break it? So there are some similar ways of playing that are less… questionable… than the Blood Pact, perhaps(?).

Forms of long-term alliance play

There are other forms of play utilising the long-term alliance. One is the GOOD ALLY. This is where a player will stick with an alliance for as long as possible, working to help everyone in the alliance to prosper. However, when the chance comes, a Good Ally will end the alliance and strike out alone.

Then there’s the DRAWMONGER. Drawmongers may not keep an alliance going as long as a Blood Pact player or a Good Ally. Rather, they will happily accept a draw when there is still play left in the game. In other words, they are ready to accept draws rather than try for more. This doesn’t automatically mean they are ALLIANCE PLAYERS as such but it can often work out that way.

And, of course, CAREBEARS. Carebearism looks very much like the Blood Pact. However, a Carebear aims to draw the game. They also keep the alliance going as long as possible, but not to try to win in the end; rather a Carebear’s objective is to draw.

What’s questionable about the Blood Pact?

A Blood Pact is an unbreakable alliance. The two players (occasionally more but it becomes much more difficult in that situation to reach a decision about who is going to win!) will work with each other throughout the game from the time they’ve decided to form the alliance. “Come one, come all!” they shout.

In some ways, a Blood Pact isn’t formed deliberately; it’s much more likely that it will evolve. The players will become allies in the usual way: common objectives, a common enemy, etc. They’ll find that they can trust each other, probably even like each other. The alliance then proves useful and remains in place. And then, not quite suddenly but close to it, they find themselves unwilling to end the alliance.

However, unlike Carebears, they’ll reach a point when one of them may have the opportunity to move on and win the game. This might be to achieve a SOLO win; often, though, the Blood Pact is a more successful tactic in a game where a GAME END DATE is in play: these are games that will end at a given point, and are often said to be won by the player that ends the game on most SCs (ie the TOPS THE BOARD). This is because, in these games, scores are usually based on the number of SCs a player holds.

At some point, the players in the Blood Pact will begin discussing how they will decide which of them will win. These discussions may become fractious, of course, and the alliance may end then. But, given that they’ve been playing towards this point, probably not!

What this means is that other players face an ARMOURDED DUCK situation. This is when a player (in this case, players) defiantly continue(s) on the same road, regardless. This is frustrating enough when the player in question is getting nothing from the game as a result of this; when it is based around a Blood Pact, it becomes increasingly frustrating.

The Blood Pact means that no other player has a chance of success in the game… or it can feel that way! In truth, of course, when a Blood Pact is successful other players’ diplomacy has failed. Have they – the players not involved in the Blood Pact – tried to form a counter-alliance, aimed at defeating the two allies? If not, why not? If they have, why has this attempt failed? And, ultimately, no matter how tight the Blood Pact is, it indicates that other players have failed to break it, or form their own alliance with one or other of the players.

The Blood Pact in practice

An example of a Blood Pact was recently seen in the 2024 Diplomacy Broadcast Network Invitational (DBNI). The game in question was the first game of the tournament.

The DBNI has a unique format. The games aren’t scored (or haven’t been since 2023) but rather they use the WINNER TAKES ALL system which means that only the winner scores; in the DBNI only the winner (whether a soloist or Board-Topper) progresses to the next round.

The game came down to three players with a chance of success: Ed Sullivan (France), Matthew Totonchy (Russia) and Evan Bouleris (Turkey). Matt and Evan had formed a JUGGERNAUT alliance and this was, predictably, proving successful in the east. In the meantime, Ed was emerging as the main competitor in the west.

Ed became increasingly exasperated in the game as it became clear that Matt and Evan’s alliance wasn’t for breaking. In fact, they had formed a Blood Pact: they were, quite early on, discussing which of them would go on to win the game.

Perhaps the situation was made worse by the fact that they simply couldn’t decide which of the Juggernaut allies would take the game. Neither was ready to allow the other to win: a win would mean one of them would play in the Final; the other player would need to play in the Second Chance round.* In the end, Matt won a coin toss: he would try to win the game with the support of Evan.

Ed despised this play. His comment after the game was that this type of play would kill the Hobby. And I can see where he’s coming from: the Blood Pact isn’t cheating, but it can mean that games might be determined by persistent and unbreakable alliances. Is this what the game is about?

So, what do you think about the Blood Pact? Is it acceptable? Is it something that shouldn’t feature in the game?

---

*The 2024 DBNI featured 28 players, split into four games in the First and Second rounds. The winners of each game would progress to the Final. Of the rest, the three lowest ranked players entering the tournament would be eliminated before the Second Chance round; everyone else would play a second game. The winners of the three Second Chance games would then progress to the Final.