webdiplomacy.net

I’m playing a game in which everyone is pretty new to Diplomacy (including me). My understanding was that the game is Winner Takes All, so although people make alliances, there can only be one winner in the end (or a stalemate if nobody can get to 18 supply centres). But now in my game Germany and Russia are working together and talking about ‘sharing/splitting the win’ between them. Is that a perfectly legitimate strategy, or against the spirit of the game?

Legitimate.

BUT: if they 'split the win,' then it will be a 'draw', and not a 'solo'. And a 'draw' isn't really a 'win'. So if, afterwards, they brag about having won the game, then you should correct them and point out that they only 'drew' it. And no-one is impressed by draws.

I'm impressed by draws and I consider them a win.
And I think that is the real beauty of this game. It is so open to interpretation. You can tell me all day long about the right way to play, and the right way to win, and the obvious optimal move. But the game is about people. And if a bunch of guys play the game at a pub and then call the game a draw when they get tired and declare the ones left winners, they are winners.

Calhamer himself talks about this stuff here...
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resour ... ctives.htm

He doesn't say drawing is winning, but he does says it is a valued result, in other words, it is not LOSING like some people like to say.

Yesterday, I was able to talk a guy into a draw when he could totally have gotten the solo. I consider that a win for me. I did not lose that game, and if you think I did, well, I can tell you the effort I put into convincing that guy, and then the eventual draw, felt like an exhilarating win to me. So, I won.

You're posting a false dilemma.

There are three possible outcomes of any game: win, draw, or loose. They are all different from each other. That is, a draw is not a win, nor is it a loss.

What’s happening in my game is that two players are working together to help one of them get to 18 supply centres, with the junior partner saying that that will still constitute a ‘shared victory’ for him.

Now, that is clear a loss for the junior partner. Quite an embarrassing loss as well - he didn't even realize he was loosing! It's like a soccer team deliberately scoring own goals.

It's like a soccer team deliberately scoring own goals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_ ... ification)

In diplomacy, if one person wins, everyone else loses. But there are other reasons to throw a solo to someone else. E.g. you're gonna die anyway, all the other players piss you off, etc.

Deinodon wrote: ↑

Fri May 08, 2020 7:35 am

I'm impressed by draws and I consider them a win.
And I think that is the real beauty of this game. It is so open to interpretation. You can tell me all day long about the right way to play, and the right way to win, and the obvious optimal move. But the game is about people. And if a bunch of guys play the game at a pub and then call the game a draw when they get tired and declare the ones left winners, they are winners.

I'm not impressed by draws (except 2-way-draws - which are as impressive as solo wins) but I count them as wins, otherwise, I only won once

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Fri May 08, 2020 9:52 am

Now, that is clear a loss for the junior partner. Quite an embarrassing loss as well - he didn't even realize he was loosing! It's like a soccer team deliberately scoring own goals.

On the other hand, that is impressive diplomacy play for the senior partner to talk him into that.

tr1285 wrote: ↑

Sat May 09, 2020 12:10 am

On the other hand, that is impressive diplomacy play for the senior partner to talk him into that.

On the same hand, I would say.

Ugh.

A win is a win. A draw is a draw. While there are differences of opinion as to the relative value of each, it is either disingenuous or nonsensical to conflate the two.

I think if you form an alliance from the start and are able to draw with your allies, then the ALLIANCE wins, even though on the scoreboard everyone gets a draw. But on the other side if that coin, everyone not in the alliance gets a defeated

There are quite a few things to consider here.

First of all, if every player plays well and doesn't make any huge errors, there shouldn't be a solo. Solo's are quite rare, and most games end in draws. So, it is pretty unfair to say that only is solo is a true win, since most games legitimately end in draws.

Secondly, there are different magnitudes of draws. In classic diplomacy, I think that although a 6 way draw isn't a loss, it definitely isn't a concrete win. 7 way draws are probably just cancelations of some kind, 5 way draws are somewhat better, etc. I feel like 2 way draws are a true win, even though both players just barely missed that 18 center mark, and 3 way draws are pretty legitimate as well.

Also, on webdip, 'winning' is gaining tokens. So, even a 6 way draw is a concrete win because you get more coins than you bet.

However, obviously the 'win' is having fun playing, and this debate is kind of pointless. Diplomacy is a fluid game, and people play how they want to, and see the game how they want to. Very often in my FTF games with friends, we all walk away feeling like we won and the others lost, even though it was a 4 way draw. So, it's unfair to say that true wins are only solos, but all 'wins' should be taken with a grain of salt.

In the end, its all just semantics.

In my humble opinion, the purpose of this game is to get a solo, but sometimes it is a success to stop the enemy and create a stalemate line even with all the unlucky allies, and you force the board to a draw, this is more successful than an easy solo. What determines your success is hidden in the game and isn't related to the end situation.

Wintogreen wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 8:50 pm

...Also, on webdip, 'winning' is gaining tokens. So, even a 6 way draw is a concrete win because you get more coins than you bet.

And what about the SoS games? :)

No, it's not just semantics.

The game has rules, and the rules stipulate what is a win and what is a draw.

There are several sub-games and several meta-games that you could be playing. But you should not confuse those games with the game itself. There's a simple distinction: are your opponents forced to acknowledge the win or not?

In this respect, the only win is the solo. Any other "win" - an alliance winning, making a draw from a difficult position, eliminating your nemesis, collecting GR or dPoints - you can try to proclaim them as "wins," but your opponents have no reason to acknowledge them.

qrzy wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 6:32 am

Wintogreen wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 8:50 pm

...Also, on webdip, 'winning' is gaining tokens. So, even a 6 way draw is a concrete win because you get more coins than you bet.

And what about the SoS games? :)

Anything that loses me GR counts as loss to me. If I gain, it's a Draw. Only a solo is a solo.

The definition of a solo, i.e. win, is not up for debate though.

It's a very good question though. As I keep a record of my stats, it's one I've asked myself before.

I understand the argument, but all I'm saying is that there is considerable nuance that needs to be addressed. If I tell someone that I just drew in a 2 way draw, that obviously isn't losing, and some classify it as a win. Even if you don't solo, because of how complex Diplomacy is, there is wiggle room.