"a draw is worth more than a loss in ANY scoring method"

Incorrect. For the purposes of this tournament, a draw is worth nothing and is equivalent to a loss.

On a technical note I can only see my in-game chat back to 1906, how can I view all of this, any clever-clogs out there please advise

Have you gone to the archive?

There's only one game we're aware of that has the archive broken in it, but in that case it won't load at all. If it is a bug, send it in an email.

"Incorrect. For the purposes of this tournament, a draw is worth nothing and is equivalent to a loss. "

Not so. If one player has a win, he gets a comparative advantage to me. In a draw, he gets zero points, so he is my equal. Hence a draw is worth more than a loss, even if it garners equal points (=zero).

@TheMinisterOfWar, that is only if a loss occurs in a game with a solo. If you lose in a game with a draw then it is the same.

That's a good point, hadnt considered that. But of course for your choices on what to do when you're alive, not what to do when you're already out of the game. In which case, go have a beer, talk to your wife, see the sunshine. :-)

*But of course this discussion is about your choices on what to do when you're alive...

@MinisterOfWar,
I was Italy , and it is your contention that a draw>survive=loss. That may be true in hindsight, but in the midst of a battle, it is my opinion that "fighting for chance at a solo">"fighting for a draw".

My goal in the game was to fight for a solo, even though I only had 4 SC's. To give that up, and fight for a draw, meant I had no chance at a solo, and therefore no chance at any points. So, fighting for a draw, under these conditions meant zero points, with absolute certainty. Some comments have implied that I should have starting fighting for a draw as early as 1906! That might be expected among noobs, but not in a masters tournament.

On the other hand, retaining the key SC's for victory meant I could petition for Turkey to stop attacking me and allow me to add SC's from Austria, and then defend against France. I began petitioning Turkey as early as Spring 1904, and continued to do so until the very end of the game. He never wavered in his attack. And I never wavered from defending against his attack and insisting that I would until the end.

So, it seems the focus of this discussion has been that I did not fight France, but I think more attention should be on the constant attack that never abated against me.

@Devonian I've been referring to the player who might consider supporting the solo as "doomed", i.e. no chance to win, and no way to guarantee a place in a draw (i.e. easily eliminated by the coalition fighting the solo with no practical way to resist, as soon as it's convenient.) You were the "doomed player."

@TheMinisterOfWar What I'm getting at is what are a doomed players obligations? I think he has none. In this specific case, Italy was not *mathematically eliminated* from getting something in a draw, but... really he was not going to be in a draw. Why include him once he's no longer of service? Doomed. His only power was to determine the winner in a game he can't get anything from. Which power to support? Up to him. No obligation to stop a solo.

@Devonian - can I draw your attention to a particular point in the game to bring a little clarity, Spring 06
France has 12 SCs you are supporting him East into Tyrolia, England has been routed, Germany is being overrun and this is your press to me
"Spring, 1906: France is less of a concern now that England and Germany are fighting him. I took Venice with my fleet, I hope that reassures you that I don't want to flood armies into the Balkans.
Can we start re-considering an alliance, and go after Turkey like we originally started to do? Turkey is aware that France is not as likely to solo now. This makes you a reasonable target for him. I am making this offer to you. But I am making a similar offer to Turkey, I am sure that eventually one of you will find that there is more to be gained by working with me, and not against me. Even if you do continue to work with Turkey, he will surround you, and you will be helpless in a few years."

1) France was 'less of a concern' - he had 12 SCs and was strolling through Europe, your brainwave at this point was to go back to attacking Turkey ..... wtf !!
2) You were basically trying to turn Austria and Turkey against each other, of course this had the effect of uniting us, how else did you expect us to respond to this dodgy diplomacy - ' I am making this offer to you. But I am making a similar offer to Turkey, I am sure that eventually one of you will find that there is more to be gained by working with me'
3) All I had to do was to inform him of your duplicity to guarantee his support, far from not thinking France would solo he was well aware of the danger and realised the need to actually get near enough to France to prevent the solo, you constantly defended France the whole game, even when I was allied to you. At no stage in the whole game did you attempt to move against France so no weasel words from you about what was happening from 1906-1910 can do this situation justice.
I think your best and somewhat incredulous piece of diplomacy came in Spring 1910,
"An apology is way past due, and is necessary, but that is not the only thing that would be required for me to prevent a solo by France. I treat a draw as complete failure. So, unless there is a glimmer of a chance that I might have better, I will not stop France.
I will accept no less than the destruction of two Turkish fleets (not to be rebuilt by Austria), Plus the withdrawal of one Turkish fleet to Ankara/Blacks/sea/or Armenia, and the other to Syria. I will also need two builds so that I can build a navy strong enough to both defend against the potential rebuilding of Austrian/Turkish navy while I go after France.
There is one year to do it, and I will not move against France unless these happen first."
This has to be the most incoherent rambling piece of bullshit diplomacy I have ever read, how were all those things going to happen in one year, it was written by a person who had been relieved of his senses..... absolute garbage.

At the same time, and this is when France has 15 SCs you are still supporting him into Tyrolia, and you have the audacity to suggest that you are being constantly attacked, the reality is you constantly supported a France solo, directly & indirectly.

After your nonsense request/demands in Spring 1910 you then allow France to take unopposed both Rome and Tunis in Autumn 1910.
You never gave any indication throughout the whole game you were interested in stopping France by working with others, it was all based on you gaining more SCs, not about working with others.
My main reason for posting this was because I'm hoping that we won't see this sort of tactic and behaviour repeated as I think it undermines the integrity of the competition. We can all just gift games to other countries, what real skill is involved in doing that I ask you ..... apparently you're a very big fish on vDip, that kinda speaks for itself. For evermore in this Diplo game I will know this behaviour of throwing a game as 'doing a Devonian'. Well done you.....

I was France in the game. Well it looks to me that Italy would have worked to stop me from soloing if you had made the step to give him a few SCs to be back into a contention for the solo. So here is my question to Austria: if you and Turkey had agreed to Italy demands and then Italy had moved to block me with a possible result a draw, why did you not agree to his demands? Italy was very clear that until you guys agree to his demands he would continue sticking with France. If he would not make his threat true then he'd lose his only bargaining chip. I understand that his demands look unrealistic but if you consider that not agreeing to them led to a French solo, then you should think again about giving Italy what he asked. I would in Austria/Turkey shoes have given it a shot. The alternative was simply doom, so it was worth trying in my opinion.
In any case this is a very interesting theoretical argument.
As to NigeeMee willing that other players don't behave as Devonian in the remaining Master games, it looks to me like wishful thinking: each player has different motivations that determinate his actions, and you cannot simply assume that every player will make stopping a solo his top goal. I think that draws could be given more importance in future Masters by being made a way to discriminate players with same number of solos. In this case players would be more interested in fighting for a draw.

This thread was *that* close to being dead. Who dragged it all back up?

@Julien - I started off allied to Italy but it became obvious that his way of working together was just to cede SCs to him, not to work together with him.
If he was given enough (and I'm not sure how many would have been enough) he would then do 'something' but of course he did nothing and very quickly you had control of both England and Germany, if at any stage he had moved into the Western Med he could have checked your advance.
With regards to him being in contention for the solo that is just a nonsense, how could Italy ever be in contention for a solo if he was scared to enter the Western Med, he wasn't a good enough player to solo IMHO, he is kidding himself if he ever thought he was, just dreaming.
Why did we not agree to his demands?
- they were nonsensical
- he wasn't a very good player, his diplomacy was poor and childish
- he kept wanting to invade Turkey not France
- he kept supporting France
- it was not possible to give him SCs because by him moving East it just gave France more domination in the Meditteranean, Italy had no defence set up at all against France at any stage of the game. He said he was going to fight France but made no efforts West at all.

-

@tendmote: "Italy was not *mathematically eliminated* from getting something in a draw, but... really he was not going to be in a draw.(...) No obligation to stop a solo."

I disagree from a pure point perspective. Nobody winning is better than Julien winning. But, as Devonian rightly points out, it has to do with what you think you can achieve earlier in the game. His chances for solo were obviously not in the direction of France, so he looked to the east. Not strange. 'Checking the advance' of the dominating plater is no foundation of a solo

The strange thing to me is that he didnt turn around sooner. Reviewing the discussion, apparently he was still trying to leverage his support for France into getting T and A to back off, which I can understand. That some level of aggravation also enters the equation, I also understand.

@Nigee he never said he was 'in contention' for the solo. He said he was aiming at the solo whereas you guys were aiming at the draw. I see his point. If you were serious about preventing the solo, why not just give in to "nonsensical", "childish", "poor" demands? It seems you -like everybody - also have non-rational arguments enter play. Why fault somebody else for theirs?

@Tendmote,

I was only doomed because Austria and Turkey insisted on trying to eliminate me, forcing a French solo. The funny thing was that with only my 4 SC's, I held them both back for 6 years! Apparently I was not easily eliminated by the coalition fighting the solo. But, actually, there was not a coalition fighting the solo. If they had an intention of fighting a solo, the would have backed off as Julien indicated, and as I had repeatedly requested.

I will repeat, it seems the focus of this discussion has been that I did not fight France, but I think more attention should be on the constant attack that never abated against me. This was the true cause for the French solo.

At any rate, and thankfully, all of this only lends weight to future threats to support a solo (regardless of reason.) For the simple reason that it really happens. That's another tool in the strategic warchest that we should all be grateful for.

^ tru dat

You are just making stuff up now Devonian, you can't re-write history, I was playing the game. You can BS your mates but you can't BS me, I know what you did last Masters ...... You spent more time and effort justifying your capitulation than you did in the game, you are a cad sir of the lowest order.

Just ignore Nigee, Devonian. It was a good game and the rest of us understand what you did.

I have been ignoring him. I have been responding to the legitimate comments and discussion from others. I'm just trying to fit them in between his insults. They do not bother me. But, I appreciate the comment! People like him think it is OK to be abusive, mostly because many people back down, and others are afraid speak up about it.

As I said earlier, his insults say more about him than the do about me.

I'm finished on the subject, why don't we just drop it now ..... what's done is done.