(I'll be making one of my first Troll comment)

Blablabla...
Boring and has been overly discussed a million times here. The real question is: how do you think your position has anything to offer to that debate given your dossier here?

I have a dossier? That sounds so cool.

ehm,
1) i rather like PPSC play, but i do agree WTA is the superior game.
2) although it does become clear which of the players has the strongest position, we are all human and such human qualities as ego, jealousy, vengeance etc come into play. Many a game have i played where, although it is against their long term interest, players will not make alliances or stop wars to help stop the main danger. I myself have at times been guilty of this :) As such, i cannot agree that the natural outcome is a 7way draw. I think rather that 2 or 3 way draws are the natural order of things, with outright wins actually the exception (and should be lauded all the more because of that!)

+ 3/4 Marti

I *strongly* disagree with the idea that the natural game would end in a 7-way draw. The reason is rather simple. because of the dynamics of the game, it is broken down into two spheres of influence, for better or for worse. Since the "magic number" is 18 centers, no one even begins to worry about a lead player until someone has about 10 to 12 centers. No singular power can achieve this number without a country being eliminated. If every player has the "every man for himself", it's ludacrous to stop attacking a player that you've been targeting simply to switch your focus on someone else because they're up a center. Even growth is a natural desire but can easily be achieved between two countries in the same sphere to the point where a country is eliminated.

The natural game will lead to a 4-way or 5-way draw because two powers will inevitably eliminate a third power in each sphere leaving 5 countries remaining. This will lead to possible further whittling because growth can still be even but the number of powers capable of influencing each other is a bit stronger.

http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy/articles/odd.htm
http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy/articles/myth-defended.htm

And again, before you can critique a style of play you would have to experience it first right? And since we have 3 variants and all can be played as gunboat and anon/non anon that creates a lot more a more games then the number of games showed as finished on my profile. So where is this insight into the other variants inferiority coming from?

I just went back into my playdip archived game where I had Italy (and lost). Basically what happened was that at some point Russia and Turkey sort of ... faded out of the game and Austria expended gigantically. I declared war on Austria (with whom I'd just made peace after an incredibly lengthy discussion) when I realized this and encouraged the rest to do the same thing. After all, that's the kind of problem I believe the board as a whole has to deal with. And I was totally honest to Austria that whatever was discussed before, the fact that Russia NMRd changed the entire situation. At Cachimbo sorry if I disturbed you as a new player bringing up this issue. I was unaware of prior discussions.

@jmo I'm not critiquing anything. Some people like to play soccer on a field, like me, others like to play it on a playstation, I'm not even starting that. Just doesn't appeal to me, just like going on holidays to certain countries doesn't appeal to me.

+1 Tru Ninja. A seven way draw is not the natural outcome. You generally don't all gang up on someone who has 6 powers in 1902. That wouldn't make much sense.

*powers = centers*

No but how about if, for example, Russia has seven centers in 1902 and Austria and Germany don't have many, but were concentrating on France and England, surely they will send a few tanks east right?

Sorry, Austria doesn't concentrate on France then, but say Italy

@redhouse:
Yeah... I'm obviously not a natural troll.
Your comment wasn't bad, I just don't see the point. I guess to me, it's really a question of preference. I've had Public Press games that were fantastic, WTA's that sucked, PPSC that were fun... it all depends on a lot of things I find, but it boils down to a question of preference.
Sorry for my earlier comment. I think I'll stick to not being a Troll from now on.

I forgive you. 5 hail maries and no more trolling my dear Cachimbro.

I don't hail, I nail.

#1 - I agree. WTA Full Press Classic all the way! But I do enjoy a world game every now and then.

#2 I disagree with. In the early game, one may want to make another player stronger while growing just enough himself and weakening others to the point of eliminating them so that in the mid game when there are 5 players left, the strongest becomes the target and allows the second strongest to continue to surreptitiously grow while the weaker players start attacking the stronger one with him until the former second is trong enough to kill a third nation and have a shot at a solo. But, All games of equally skille dplayers will draw at some point because no group of players should ever let *any* position reach a point of soloing. This just means a draw, not necessarily a 7 way draw. If four nations decide from the start to join up and stick to it, there will be three eliminated nations and a four way draw. If two teams of two nations decide to do the same thing, one team may get to be strong enough that the other team has to bring in a still surviving nation form the three outcasts to stop the other team or collapse on themselves and result in a three or five way draw.

No, a perfectly played game by equal players will result in a draw, but not necessarily a seven way draw.

Just read the articles Santosh posted. They pretty much encompass everything you all are saying... I tend to agree with the second...

@red: If your game has a 7 center Russia starting 1902, then several countries on the map are being retarded. Plus, Russia would be the enemy, but that wouldn't change once Russia is reduced to 5 or so centers. People would continue to pummel him and divide his land.