Well, Rait, that is actually part of the game. I recently played in a game as Turkey and had a successful and lasting partnership with Russia AND Austria. We would up declaring an allied victory. I understand that being part of a game like this may be less fun for you, but it is one of the ways in which a given game can play out.

I still think that if ALL players are not fully committed to winning in their own right, there is little point in playing a game. If you cannot offer another country the prospect of his victory to entice him into working with you, your hands are tied from the start. There is no incentive for others to work with you if they are committed to losing a game, and most of the games I have played here in recent months have been decided by luck and circumstance rather than by skill and diplomacy. Chance should play it's part, but it must never be the deciding factor.

It's getting to the stage where wanting to win a game is actually a handicap, the only way to win is to stumble into a scenario where all the other countries are busy fighting each other.

Like i've always maintained....the priority is winning but the overall objective is surviving at any cost! I see no problem with the situation described to be honest, although i accept some players may become frustrated if it happens repeatedly.

This is exactly frustrating, not unfair, illegal or anything else. Because You feel totally helpless, there is nothing You could do to survive (and I'm not even gonna talk about winning). In this case the result of the game doesn't have anything to to neither to skill or to luck. In economies they have implemented antitrust measures to prevent cartels taking over the economy. What can You do in Diplomacy?

choose your games and opponents carefully... although this leads to cliques and exclusivity which isn't really all that healthy.

I guess that once "the winner takes all" and draws are implemented, most games will end up as a two-way, three-way and even four-way draw. It's normal in Diplomacy, while solo wins are rare. That's why I like the point system here -- it makes simple draws more subtle and interesting.

I guess that's the point behind "diplomacy": to find a solution suiting for all the players at the table. I'm often astonished how well the basic principles of this game can be assigned on "real life" political situations. Maybe you are going for world dom, Rait. Then that's your target. And that's fine for you. But the game allows the "end-by-agreement" which also means that it might happen that three or four players might form an alliance, which is pretty much what happened during the historical first world war. Extremely spoken: If you face six pacifists in a game, it might be really really frustrating for you.

For you, this possible way causes frustration, since you are out for "winning". For me, it makes this game fascinating. If there only was the chance of succeeding via "only the strongest survive", via pure egoism, this game would loose all it has to offer. Since to me the question is not whether I can get those 18 SCs, but whether I manage to communicate, whether I judge my takers correctly or whether I'm misled and have to fight for survival. If i find a chance to win a game, I take it. Honestly. It's my takers own fault, if they let me win. ;) But the thing that makes more fun is simply the diplomacy part and the "hey, let's see what comes out if I move my army to Belgium..." I know, I am member of a minority here, but that's why I prefer FTF: No points and better diplomacy. In an FTF you will always talk to everyone within every single turn and you will watch every players mimics. Within phpDip you get less information and while it's easier to bring seven people together here, communication lacks much. So sorry to Noodlebug and to Rait, since we will most probably never agree: The most important point in a game for many people is not winning, it's gaming, and in so far: having fun in a social activity.

i understand what are u saying Mr. Rait. It is something what i feel in our game "Turquoise Days". It seems everybody avoids a conflict with you (Rait) and prefer a pathetic second place than giving you a fight.

This is my point, what is the point in playing if X, Y and Z are all happy to sit back and let W win. You can't stop W winning on your own, particularly if every time you try, X, Y and Z attack you. You can't offer X, Y and Z anything to help them because they don't want anything other than to avoid obliteration. And you can't trust them anyway because you have no confidence in their motivation. You are forced to either let X, Y and Z obliterate you, or sink to their level and just allow W to win.

Which is STUPID!!!! And pointless. I'd rather not play at all than participate in more games like that.

[quote]Which is STUPID!!!! And pointless. I'd rather not play at all than participate in more games like that.[/quote]

You know you what you're saying about real world politics? :)

Having been the Austria in the game Mahatma mentions, I can say that from the start I had every intention of going for the win. In fact, there was a good while during the beginning of the game where I was trying to get my two allies worked up against each other so when the appropriate opportunity presented itself I could light a match and let them go at it, swooping in to clean up the remains. Expected attacks from other nations led to the alliance lasting longer out of presumed necessity, but in the long run though the alliance gelled and despite my initial intentions I found myself working to the three way draw. Perhaps it was the sheer volume of communications between us (this was the much press game) that really solidified our alliance and made it seem wrong to turn on them, I'm honestly not quite sure how it happened.

Now that being said, I understand where you're coming from, Rait. I remember hearing from TOgilvie (who was playing France) about his frustrations at trying to find an ally, any ally amongst the three of us to prevent his doom. I figure it's an awful lot like being Austria when Italy, Turkey, and Russia are against you, or any country being taken apart by his or her neighbors in the opening years; except in this case you've invested a number of game years in trying to build an empire only to see it crushed without any hope for survival.

But don't worry, I figure 9 times out of ten, maybe 7?, people will at least try honestly for the win, especially when winner takes all is implemented.

Draws are a natural part of the game - if three players think that they will be more successful if they do not attack each other, they are free to make that agreement.

A lot of real world politics is stupid and pointless too, I choose not to get involved. And I generally try to avoid competitions which are uncompetitive. If people aren't going to try, there's no point in beating them.

Agreements between players are fine if the end result (or even the aim) is success. When the agreement by definition hands success to someone who isn't part of it... that's not a natural part of anything.

I'm hoping that the winner-takes-all option will solve these gripes, I'll be very interested to see how it affects high stakes games.

I just realized that I have got 'enlightened' & have received another piece of equipment to my 'diplomacy arsenal'. And for Shugyosha - it's not about winning the games, but being sure, that against every move & strategy that the 'other side' uses, I can use some contra-strategy with my allies. I don't want to find myself in the dead end.

Ah, the dead ends. They've also been plaguing me, although I can see by your rapid growth in points that they haven't been plaguing you quite so much. It really just adds another element to the game, you must be constantly vigilant, because otherwise you might find yourself in a dead end, and if truly you were graceful in your Diplomacy, then the dead end could have and should have been averted. It is ALWAYS possible to win a Diplomacy game, as long as the players refrain from cheating or metagaming. Basically, as long as there are no initial dead ends, only the ones that develop themselves over a sloth in communication. I'm going to try to be more active in the new year. But I'm pretty bad with new year resolutions.

Anyways, sorry for reviving a dead looking topic. I'm trying to catch up on things I've missed. Like this whole anti-Anlari drama nonsense. Haha.