If the opponent has adequately pulled back, I kill my ally and go for the solo, otherwise I point out that he is completely stalemated and force the three-way. My actions wouldn't change whether the player were my game-long ally or my game-long enemy, because I'm just a cold-hearted dick like that.

ghug has the proper analysis on this question

Agree with ghug. I don't have a PROBLEM with somebody who unnecessarily lets a game long ally into the draw for whatever reasons (that isn't metagaming btw, unless the reasons occurred outside the current game), but it isn't a choice I think I would ever make.

As far as the opponent never draw scenario... after 3 turns of no change in position, mods will force a draw. An opponent of high quality would never insist (and expect you to agree) on forcing the 3rd out unless he had pulled his troops back so that it was impossible for either of you to solo

depending on how early the draw was decided i think it is cheating. but i guess yellow imagines some imaginary line where it becomes cheating. he'd probably agree that if on the first turn russia + england + france + turkey agreed to a 4-way draw that it's cheating. so i'm not sure where the line is, maybe he can enlighten us all.

Why on earth would russia, england, france and turkey agreeing a 4-way on the first turn be cheating? Once the game has started you can agree whatever you like with whoever you like.

Note to self... bolshoi is the sort of player who believes that agreements made in spring 01 are binding :).

@ Vex

I can't for the life of me ever imagine such a situation arising. If it does then what you decide is entirely down to the sort of player you wish to be. I don't see it as a meta-gaming situation in the slightest.

obviously octavious can't read between the lines. it's implied that i meant an agreement that was followed through on.

Just to be redundant it is absolutely not cheating under any circumstances (barring metagaming) and if you read anything else from what I said you are an idiot. But we already knew that.

And how, bolshoi, can you tell whether it's being followed through on or not? An early 4-way alliance in which everyone intends to stick to it are very rare indeed. An early 4-way alliance in which several of the allies are rather keen on stabbing but never find the opportunity perhaps are slightly less rare, but look identical. An early 4-way alliance in which some are happy to stab and do stab are more common (still pretty rare) but again look identical until the stab happens.

All of them are perfectly legitimate as long as they were formed after the game had started and aren't just the same people allying with each other in game after game.

And at risk of violating my own new favorite rule (never respond directly to a bolshoi counterpoint as though it were legitimate) I'll just chime in that a 4 way agreement in spring of '01 is not cheating, whether it was followed through with or not.

I tend to prefer to reward the ally, and let them live, out of a sense of honor, but in part, its based on the psychology of the ally. But it also depends on how stable an ally they've been. If the heavy lifting has all been done by me, then I don't owe the "ally" that much - freeloaders are different.

Metagaming - once the game has started, anything goes. Arrangements made BEFORE the game starts are NOT kosher, and deserve the wrath of the mods. But proving it can be tricky at best....

Share a draw with an ally and cheer him for a day. Teach him how to solo by your exemplar stab and cheer him forever.

this before/after the game started nonsense is nonsense. first of all you can't know if the agreement was made before the game. second of all those anonymous games with messaging are not really anonymous, people can often guess who is who. and if you're going to allow that you should allow agreements before-game. because there really is no difference.

@bolshoi - It's the rules. No pre-game alliances.Quit bitching about the rules or go the fuck away. Obey the rules or get sent away (pregame alliances is a bannable offense).

ok well what i'm saying is that the rules are stupid if they allow a 4 way draw to be agreed upon before moves were entered. what difference does it make to the game if the agreement was in the first phase or before the first phase? you're all idiots. so what, it's just about scamming points, then, cause points are so important? doesn't matter if the game is just as noncompetitive and boring?

ok for myself, i just care about a fun game, not points. so i encourage you all to metagame me. because i don't like destroying people, i prefer a competitive game, no matter who is playing.

As far as the OP topic, I'd only kill the ally if I saw a way to do it and pull off the win. In fact, I'd help the ally grow off the enemy to weaken him then, in a fall turn where I saw an opportunity to grab the two remaining SCs, grab I would for the win.

ok, to be clear gents i called this Metagame situation because it is not based on any specific game, not because any agreements were made out of game. also to be clear in this scenario your opponent has 17 and has them buttoned down tight. you have a 0% chance to win. you have 16 and your ally is down to his last. you opponent alters his stalemate line so as to not threaten you , allowing you to take your allies last SC with no risk, its simply a matter of having your allies fate in your hands. do you kill him or do you include him in the draw because of the merit of his previous actions.

please stop talking about metagaming, it has nothing to do with this. i should have phrased differently

oh ok yes, i see now how the two are completely unrelated and there's nothing suspicious about your opponent giving up a solo to give you the opportunity to solo him.

nope, the line is held, he is secure in his 17, you and your ally have proven your 17 are secure. then he shifts his stalemate line back, still no risk to him, but allowing you to eliminate your ally and hold your own line @ 17 with no risk to you.

there you sit, your ally's life literally in your hands. My question is simply how many people ignore the increased points, and continue to hold your ally?

^^

bolshoi demonstrates his ignorance of practical endgame once again. Well done, sir. I'd explain it to you, but then its funnier to just leave you ignorant.

aww vexlord screwed it up for me. :P

Oh well.

I'm thinking its only about 10% of people that would hold

Won't be the first time he didn't let me get my way ;)

It depends on a lot of factors. Generally, I'd let it be a three way. Because I like three ways.

Under those specifics, vex, I let him live and get a mod to intervene. I've done it before. A draw is a draw. It isn't a win, so why do I need to eliminate someone from it who may have been instrumental in it's happening.

ok let me reread.... ok so sure, i don't study this game, as i am not a knob, despite the the community consensus. so if there's some strange set of circumstances where a 2-way draw is possible and you can take it by eliminating a player, then i don't know, go for it, i guess. any moves where you're not trying to get the best result are suspicious, and half-cheats.

one of my earlier games i made a move or two not for the best, and i regret it cause i feel like i was half-cheating. i've been crying late at night about it. so i won't do it again.

gameID=80186

I sometimes stab the ally, sometimes I don't. If I've really enjoyed playing with someone, I may let them live, and I have had that situation before and done both. Points and GR aren't that important to me, a fun game is, and sometimes a fun game is crushing your opponents and imagine their weeping, sometimes it's being nice. The fun thing about Diplomacy is that the game is what you make of it. You can be a sociopath or a nice guy, sometimes both, sometimes simultaneously. As long as it's not breaking rules, I never tell people how to play or argue one way of playing over another. To each his own.