i think it's a very good diplomatic tactic both in PPSC and WTA games - more effective in WTA b/c in PPSC the one who won't get the break away to a solor may just say "oh well,i still get most of the points." what's important is to not take it to far so that you get killed or one of them does solo before you're able to get the other one to work with you against him. i've made that mistake more than once.

the only ethics that every diplomacy player should abide to are:

metagaming is bad, don't do that

and

when someone requests a pause, it is unfair to deny the pause just so you can attack him while he is away


it's a game, for christs sake. No need to take it too seriously

Akroma: Of course, it is a game but people do invest their time in this. They probably do so for the challenge.

I agree with dj. I've been both the beneficiary of it and the victim. It can provide massive leverage when you can clearly disband/move to the detriment of one player rather than the other. If defeat is inevitable, then deciding the fate of the game is better than going quietly

I also would add. Always be able to justify your actions as if you were the actual leader of the country. No points, no reputation, just the game.

yes, but the challenge is to beat your opponents on even ground.

metagaming and witholding votes to pause is douchebaggery for the idiots who can't manage to win without it.

@gjdip: There is nothing wrong with the strategy you describe. It is not against either the letter or the spirit of the rules, and under the right circumstances could be a very clever strategy.

@gjdip

I think it's fine to not only threaten to do it - but to actually follow through as well. That way, you can tell people not to call your bluffs in the future. However, the downside is that if you do it a lot, they will just team up and kill you anyway, discussing amongst themselves the follies of your final strategy.

I find pre arranged 17-17 draw games going against Dip ethics. The point of the game is to win. At least try to win. This is why I think a solo win should get the winner double the points.

Pre-arrainged alliances are wrong, period. However, your issue with people playing towards a 17-17 draw. Tough cookies. It has been discussed to death and the general consensus is it isn't against the rules. this isn't the boardgame. We have a point structure here, and we can't read people's faces and demeanors to tell if they are lying. We don't even know if Austria talked with Italy or not. the rules here allow for it and the whiny little bitches who don't like it can't kiss my smelly white butt.

BoG75, I think that kind of ethic only applies to single games.

In a tournament, 17-17 draws are absolutely viable. Or at least, allowing someone to work his way up to 16 centers before you grab number 18.

If you are in a very strong position, and able to win at a moments notice, then you should allow the remaining sides to duke it out, so that they can gather enough points to reach the next round.

For example, check out GFDT round one, game 6
I was a very strong russia, and was easily able to grab a solo-win.
Once I was certain that nothing could stop me from winning, I publicaly announced that, should any of the remaining players want to stock up on points for entry into round two, I will allow them to do so, and wait until my final grab. I had 3 enemies left alife, all of them with only a few centers. With only so few points, entry into the finals was questionable, if not impossible. But if all those points were gathered under a single player, then he would have gotten into round 2.

Of course, I also made clear that the moment they decide to turn against me, rather than duking it out amongst themselves, that I would go for the win immediatly.
Needless to say, they immediatly turned against me, and I immediatly went for the win.

so before making such public claims, make sure you can win no matter what. If my plan hadn't worked like I wanted, I would have probably ended up with a forced draw, or worse.


the point is, in tournament games there is more than just winning. And for the players that are currently not dominant, there is also more than "just stopping that guy from winning"

I did some math for the second round of the GFDT, and I don't have to win a single game to be able to reach the finals.
I could easily go with:

2X2-way draws. That one guarantees entry, even if all other games have solo-winners.

1X2-way and a 3-way. Again, guaranteed entry.

2X3-ways. Not entirely guaranteed, but the chances are still very high.

all 2-ways can also be replaced with strong seconds.


if I manage a single solo-win, then I could easily be eliminated in another game.

you see, there is absolutely no need for me to force solo-wins in every game, in fact, that might only make things harder for me. Reaching the finals is a lot more important than winning individual games. And if I can reach the finals and at the same time help some players whose chances are shaky to reach *just that one point that's missing*, then I am going to do that.

it's all a game. sure, trying to win is important, afterall I didn't come here not to try my best. But diplomacy, as all games, maybe even moreso than others, is also a social game. I am not the only one who is supposed to have fun.
If you are the kind of guy that things winning must happen at all costs and that every draw must be avoided, then I will gladly give my best to eliminate the hell out of you. But gladly, not all players think that way.
If every player thought that radically, then by default every alliance would be a lie. Such a permanently hostile atmosphere would be bad for the general mood of the game.
Sure, the ones who manage to win will have fun, and those that love a good struggle might also have some fun, but I think diplomacy shouldn't be a game exclusively for the egoistic elite

@BoG75: "The point of the game is to win"

I disagree. The fact is that although the original rules of the game do not allow for draws, phpDiplomacy does allow a draw. Therefore the rules in operation here on phpDip must be considered a variant of the original boardgame rules. Since the rules of this version of the game allow for a draw, it is not going against the spirit of the game - as it is played on here - to go for a two person draw. Unless you mean a 'pre-arranged' draw in terms of two people agreeing to work together for a draw before the game has even started. That's metagaming and is against the spirit of the game. But there is nothing specifically wrong with playing for a draw.

@Jamiet99uk The thing that makes playing for a draw wrong is that it allows you to remove garrison troops to the front lines. This makes the game less interesting for the opposing alliance because they are crushed quicker and lack the diplomatic intrigue because you've decided never to stab. It is ok to play for a draw but only if you assume that your ally could go for the win and take steps to stop it.

@Jamiet99uk: You're incorrect. I just read through the 1959 rules -- they provide for draws.

"If no player gets a majority during the time set aside for play, all the players who still have pieces on the board draw. Those losing all their pieces lose in any case."

http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/diplomacy_rules.htm

sometimes an alliance is kept not so much by agreement but by balance of power. this is perhaps less likely with a 2-way, but certainly a three way. i have experienced situations where a draw was discussed, and later i wanted to stab my ally, but it just wasn't feasible, b/c then i would end up going down under the weight of the other two or more attacking me.

aslo i've found that people are much more likely to attack or stab you if you have stated on the forum that you always go for the win at all costs. accordingly, i stab big time in some games and am an ally to the end in others - i'd rather not be predictable, and i always assume my ally will try to stab me, given the opportunity.

@bh: Thank you, I stand corrected.

how many rules are in diplomacy?

I think two of my games, in pre-game I started talking to a neighboring country a bit more than the others, and it seemed like he really trusted me so I asked him about the possibilities of a 17-17 draw (still pre-game) and he went for it. After we did our own stuff on our own fronts we both clearly became the major powers and in the end, I ended up stabbing him for the win like I wanted to in the begining when I proposed the 17-17 draw. Is that kind of pre-game alliance bad?

No, that isn't the pregame referred to. The bad pregame is before countries are known, i.e. joinign together wiht the intent to have an unbreakable alliance.

Spring 1901 is not pre-game. It is ingame. If you made the alliance in Fall 1900, than that is bad.

I have no problem with a 17-17 "agreement" followed by a stab by one of the parties and try for a win. That is what I expect in this game. My beef is when two powers get to 17-17 stop and say "OK we are both winners". NO YOU ARE NOT!!!! You are both losers who didn't even atempt to win the game.

For the record I was not talking about Tournament games just about individual games. I think we need a better way to reward winners rather than PPSC that is why I will from now on only play WTA type of games. Too many times people are happy to get their 4, 5 or 6 SC and get something out of it.

@BoG75: "My beef is when two powers get to 17-17 stop and say "OK we are both winners". NO YOU ARE NOT!!!! You are both losers who didn't even atempt to win the game."

But they did better than the other five players!

If you don't like people playing like that you should stick to WTA games.

@BoG75 - In September there will be the TMG Masters. You can expect the most ruthless, cutthroat diplomacy around.

@TheMasterGamer - Thanks for the heads up. I will keep my eyes open for that.

@Jamiet99uk - Yeah I am coming to realization that WTA is the way I enjoy playing Dip more than PPSC

@BoG75: Good for you. I prefer PPSC. I'm sure we'll both have fun.