Are there ever any cases of someone with an unfair advantage refusing to cancel? You're right; that would be bad.


Also, you should consider whether there's a precedent for a certain action from the original Postal or Face-to-Face games.

The unfortunate Catch-22 is that if the votes were made to be non-unanimous, then the reverse could happen: one player is about to win, and the other players vote to cancel or draw, robbing the presumed victor. So, probably better to be unanimous. However, I wonder if there could be a way to automatically cancel a game if orders are not posted for Spring 1901.

if im playing a live game and there is a noshow or multiple noshows my first reaction is to hit the draw regardless of if i benefit from the noshow or not. then if everyone else is voting cancel instead i will vote that but if there is just one person that is benefitting from it and because of that they dont vote i usually try to get all the other players to gang up on them and force the draw or cancel. unfair advantages from noshows take away from the fun of the game

And, in respose to your question: it happened tonight. So that's why I thought of it.

You know, mscott, that automatic cancel is a good idea.

If there is a no show at the start of the game - cancel. I wish the programming was alterted to automatically cancel the game in the event of an NMR in the first turn.
Later in the game, in my opinion, players are within their rights to play on if there are CDs. They can draw if they wish but if they choose not then there is no shame (IMHO).

Personally, if there are any CDs in the first year, I prefer to cancel the game. No time has been invested and it seriously breaks the board.

CDs later are trickier and really depend on the situation. I usually go with the flow unless the CD really doesn't affect the game, in which case I will not draw/cancel.

Thing thing about late game CDs that are so tricky is how much the game is affected is a grey area. So while some players might think it is valid to play on, others might think a draw is called for. But then that can be unfair too - maybe one player was having a very good game anyway, regardless of the CD, while another was probably going to be eliminated, but if the game is stopped, that would have been elimination gets upgraded to a draw.
It is simpler just to say it is okay to play on, but if you want to draw that is fine.
I see too many threads where players express their outrage at another player for playing on after a CD.
I am a firm believer in clear, simple, unambiguous guidelines. And the question of late game CDs is always ambiguous. Thus the simplest and clearest rule should be that it is okay to play on.

How about, to clarify things, an NMR from a power with two or more centres before 1903 merits immediate cancellation of the game; otherwise, the game *should* be cancelled in event of a CD, but continuing play is not unacceptable?

I agree that the late-game can be ambiguous. It is still annoying to have a player cop out of the game because a season (or several) have gone poorly, but there is also a significant amount of time and effort already put in by the other players. I still think an initial phase cancellation would be a nice feature.

The alternative is that players should always draw/cancel - but this would not work because so many games have CDs, and there would be too many games automatically drawn/cancelled.

What about in a case (as in the live game I'm in now) where a player gained a huge advantage from a player's CD by not voting draw, then actually lost much of the ground he gained and is now voting draw? Is it in good form to continue the game at this point?

I think you all have to agree to a draw. If one player disagrees you play on (IMHO).

as for the late game CD i think it really depends on the position of the CD'd nation, if they were one of those players that is like screw it im almost dead anyway i quit and just leaves and its obvious that there was no way they could be saved then im ok with playing on but if a country is very powerful, like 5+ centers and leaves then cancel/draw should be unanimous because it would influence the game to much.

Yeah. If everyone else voted draw and that asshat didn't vote draw then just because he starts to lose and wants a draw means he's even more of an asshat.

No, this was an early game CD which someone capitalized on, but they're losing ground anyhow.

@graeme01
if the person got greedy and didnt take the draw when it was offered and is now losing their lands because of that greed then i would not draw just because they are willing to now, i would most likely make sure that they get killed off because they didnt want to draw with the rest of you and then offer the draw to the remaining players...(that sounds a lot harsher than it should sound)

It does but I know what you mean.

It makes it even worse that the aforementioned player initial refused to draw or cancel, and now votes for a draw/ cancel because he's on the way to losing. Incredibly tacky. I guess the anonymous game prevents that kind of behavior from being more publicly broadcast. A shaming would do that player some good.

yeah, but unfortunately there's no way to do that, is there? I've never checked to see, but do players' names get revealed at the end of anonymous games?

Yes, if the game finishes; no, if the game is cancelled.

Awesome. We'll know in about... 3 years I'd say (game time)

Yay finally! Good game guys.

@Turkey: We had a great alliance - shame you had to try and stab me at the end!

@Germany: What a loser. You are doing well so you refuse to draw/cancel despite everyone else requesting it and then when you start losing you hit draw. Pathetic.

Well, Sargmacher can you blame me? I had to try. I don't like playing for second place. And honestly, judge for yourself if it was really a serious invasion ;) Both of our lines were technically invincible at that point.

Sargmacher +1 not a very impressive performance there Germany.

@Germany: PATHETIC...not drawing in a situation where FRANCE and ITALY were no-shows, and then to double the shame you flee when we need to stop a Jugger? Spineless play...

@Sarge & Graeme:

Good game, you two. :)

@curtis:

SERIOUSLY, I almost never get THIS PISSED over a live game, since they're so frantic, but that was one of the STUPIDEST, MOST SELFISH, SHORT-SIGHTED plays I've ever seen ANYONE make, and that you made it as ITALY, no less, my beloved Italy, my favorite country...GAH! WHY TAKE A CENTER FROM THE GUY WHO'S THE SOLE NORTHERN DEFENSE AGAINST A RUSSIAN SOLO??? WHY?!?!

@France:

...Where WHERE you, no show...come on, now...

@Austria:

Good game.

(As for etiquette--I myself usually wait until 1902, and then if they haven't arrived by then and most else hit Draw I will as well; I refuse to cancel in such circumstances unless it's cancel-or-die, as I feel stupidity should be punished by losing the points and losing out in the game. Also, if it's only one nation and the game's developed into a balance anyway, I play it by dear and see what others wish to do.)

Too bad France returned briefly. I had a guy lined up to fill in, who I know to be a good player who wouldn't have CDed...

obi- why draw a game that shouldn't be played? cancel is far more appropriate.

Again, I feel if you're of poor enough form to join a game--and thus take up a slot another might have wanted--and then not even play, that warrants punishing...

If they don't care enough to play or show up, I don't care to give up any progress or points earned and cancel and essentially restart on their behalf--draw with the 5 or 6 that are there, and then they get their dues for having shown up and played, and maybe those dropouts either won't drop or won't join unless they're SURE they're ready to play next time.

On the other hand, it's often hard enough to get a live game going. If you get your 7 on the 2nd or 3rd try to get a game going, then it sucks to have to cancel or draw. At least with a CD, you still have to dislodge the units. In face-to-face games with fewer than 7 players, you treat one or more of the countries as neutral supply centres.

gameID=51013

all i have to say is wow....i got lucky as hell hahaha

I reckon it makes for an interesting variation on the game if players dont show up (unless one player is clearly favoured by have 2 nations near them not show up. Like papamac says you still have to dislodge the units - good luck to them I say (unless its high stakes)