Just an option, but in many cases both players got a stalemate line set up preventing the other from taking any SCs leading to them having no choice but to draw.

There's nothing preventing one from stealing an SC from the other.

A lot of times, they just get lazy and draw when they could attack each other.

Whenever I draw, I think that the laziness aspect is my governing reason.

mutual respect is nice too. everyone remembers the prick who snatches the 18th from a steadfast ally.

Yes, if you're playing with a good ally, draw. It's respectful and can make the person you were allied with trust you in the future.

It is just an option.

There are some stalemate lines where each side has 17 centers. But even then one person may be a jerk and refuse to draw hoping you'll forget to order the right moves or turn in moves at all one of these years.

But there are also a lot of 17/17 situations where one player has the upper hand on the other. Sometimes both players have the upper hand on different areas so they end up swapping centers and are still 17/17. In any case, whether to draw or not is a personal choice based on how you play the game and possibly whether it is a PPSC or WTA game.

"Yes, if you're playing with a good ally, draw. It's respectful and can make the person you were allied with trust you in the future."

It's meta-gaming like this that makes me sick!

@ZaZa
Whether it makes you sick or not, if you join a game and see and draw Germany, and England is a player who you've allied before and is a fair, talkative ally, who rarely stabs, while france you know often lies and stabs whenever he can, you'll ally with England because you know you'll do better with him.
Its not ideal I know, but its unavoidable

no dave, i thought you were a free willer, it is avoidable if you choose to have it so.

I'm actually an anti free-willer, and playing anon games makes it avoidable, yes

`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo`: If it makes you feel any better, that quote was only meant for PPSC games. In WTA games, it depends. This is not metagaming if it is something people would do in the regular board game.

It's true, I generally ally with the better player. But, that's true whether or not I've played with them or not. I usually find the smart ones and work on allying with them. I'm not going to ally with someone who may stab me to both our destructions.

oh so dave you must be religious? a protestant perhaps?

Sorry for the grammar errors above.

"`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo`: If it makes you feel any better, that quote was only meant for PPSC games. In WTA games, it depends. This is not metagaming if it is something people would do in the regular board game."

Better, but still ruins a part of the game-the game starts when someone speaks.

But (I would presume) people that play the board game tend to play with a similar group repeatedly (they know the people they are playing with personally and are mabye even their friends).

Then they should be able to understand that every game is a new game.

But ZaZa, people play to win, so can you blame them for not wanting to ally with someone they know will stab?
I think its bad metagaming when you make deals for game y based on the moves from game x.
I definitely think leagues should be anon

@ Otto
Are protestants known for neing anti freewill?

I always plan on stabbing them before they can stab me.

I think leagues should be anonymous as well but everyone talks differently and it's pretty obvious who is who most of the time if I know who is in the game with me.

dave bishop: It sounded like he meant religious people were, which is an amusingly accurate assessment in my opinion.

I would always say take the win if you can.

re Anon leagues: this would be a good idea, especially as the mods could still see to swap nations round if they needed it.

Well, frankly JECE, that was sort of what I meant. Protestants in particular believe in Predestination though, I thought for sure that Dave would know that. I am schocked at his ignorance in this subject especially if he happens to be a Protestant.

ottovanbis: Have you studied theology?

Well, from my experience, Protestants attempt to believe in predestination and free will at the same time, which i fine doesn't make sense...
My beliefs about free will don't stem from the church... from philosophy and science

That's good, because studying a religion directly doesn't make any sense. ( I mean that religion rarely is logical, but I guess that would imply that attempting to decipher a religion also is pointless)

Thank you for the useful answers.
This game (gameID=17628) led me to start this thread.
Unfortunately (for me) , as GlueDuck said, the SteveC/otto's stalemate line did not allow me to snatch one of his SC's and we went to the draw decision.

hey, that's the one I sat Steven for!
Quite a fun last few years actually... if only I'd been able to hold Moscow!

I think if you'd taken GoL that go, you might have had a shot at grabbing Spain or Marseilles, but I pretty much had it covered.

i think one of the most critical parts of diplomacy is knowing who you're playing with. it's a human game, not a mechanistic strategic one. it's not chess.

hence i don't believe that collaborating with somebody you know to be a good, respectful, trustworthy player is metagaming -- and drawing with someone who you have built respect for over the course of the game is similarly proper. IMO, it's only "metagaming" if incentives from outside the game - or from other games - are involved.