i disagree wholeheartedly on this one. that's not to say i'm not all about winning. i am. every single game i play i intend to do my utmost to win. and my second objective in every single game i play is to prevent someone else from winning, which some might argue is really just another facet of my first objective, as i cannot win if someone else does. i think the draw is the second best condition, it is a victory of a sort, a victory in that no one else could (or would, if you can convince someone with a superior position to take a draw when really they could take the victory...that's a fine bit of diplomacy if you ask me) win or take you out.

i don't remember where exactly, but somewhere on the pouch archives someone did a statistical analysis of pbem games...the overwhelming majority of games end in a draw. and that is because if you bring enough equally talented diplomats to a table, it's likely that they'll stand each other off in their quest for victory for themselves but no other.

I agree wholeheartedly with thewonderllama on this one. neogeo, I think you ARE referring to draws.

It is to be expected that they're are more draws, but I believe draws are much better than the players who play solely to profit from every game. Not that that isn't a valid strategy. My personal objectives are the following:

1. Win
2. Don't let anyone else win.
3. Draw.

I think the most interesting games are the ones in which it's players keep these objectives in mind and work against a common opponent. We start to see more of a seesaw effect, which punishes players that expand quickly, as they meet resistance from all other players. Otherwise, most games end up with players bowing out to the one player who had the most fortunate opening game.

Don't worry, for all the oldschool players, Kestas IS planning on implementing a winner-takes-all scoring option. Like wonderllama already mentioned, the vast majority of games DO end in draws.

I don't have a problem with a joint victory. If 2 players agree to be allies, want to stick with that alliance to the end, and "diplomatically" agree to share the spoils, it seems like that should be a legitimate outcome. The other players need to recognize the strength of the alliance as the game is played and adjust to it. They need to try and convince one of the allied players to turn on his partner or convince the others that it's in their best interest to gang up on them. To me, assessing the strength of various alliances is part of the game.

I don't know, the fact joint victories are possible makes alliances more profitable and thus harder to break up. Assuming (as is likely) you are in a game where the opposition is split between people who recognise the danger and are prepared to form their own counteralliance, people who don't really understand what's going on, and people who CD after the first turn... such "pre-arranged" alliances (not that I'm suggesting any fraudulent behaviour) must always have an advantage and will usually win. While there is still an element of competition in the game, as to which of the two allies finishes the strongest, there is a sense of "so what" about it all, and it's not very entertaining for the other players (or more often player singular) who can see what is happening and with all the talent in the world, can't do anything to stop it.

I don't think that makes for good games, and I don't think it's really in the spirit of the game. Alliances should be ethereal arrangements of convenience, only useful insofar as they serve the interests of each ally towards his objective of winning the game for himself. Having an alliance written in stone, effectively, is about as much fun as playing two brothers or two classmates who always work together and never attack each other. We should be encouraging people to break alliances and backstab each other more frequently if we want to see fun, entertaining, exciting games where the advantage swings wildly from player to player. I dunno, maybe I'm the only one here who likes that kind of game..!

The important thing to remember is that joint victories are part of real Diplomacy, in the official rules. As this site's goal is to be as close to real Diplomacy as possible (don't bother complaining about the differences, they are well known and will eventually be dealt with - probably not soon, but sometime), joint victories must be allowed, and no reason should be required. The fact that this site refers to them as "draws" instead of "joint victories" is completely semantic, and not an issue.

Noodlebug, I don't quite agree with you on this point. I have no problem with very strong alliances that are NOT pre-arranged. It's entirely different if it's metagaming.

Certain alliances are convenient all the way through to the shared victory. The point is that if the alliance was formed within the game, without outside influence, you should have just as much chance of forming a similar alliance, or convincing the other alliance to turn against each other. It takes a lot of diplomacy to keep a well-oiled alliance going, I would not say that it is a predetermined finish.

But I do love the see-saw games, when enemies will forgive each other one turn after a deep betrayal to work together again against a common enemy.

Please do not cite house rules and claim them as 'official rules.'

I have no problem with a strong alliance if it helps me to win a game. If there is a more powerful player than myself, he cannot be my ally, that would be helping him to win the game. If my ally becomes the strongest player on the board, he is de facto my enemy (though I probably wouldn't tell him straight away..!).
I just don't see where draws or joint victories come into it. Draws are for when neither my enemy nor myself can beat the other. There is no other circumstance where it would even be on the table.

hmm reading that back it doesn't make sense. I'll ally with more powerful players, but never with the MOST powerful player. There's some complicated provisos about keeping yourself alive as a vassal, but that's not really an alliance, that's just exploiting your enemy's goodwill!

hey, draws are ok, and they are much more frequent in winner takes all games. what possibly can you have against them?? of course, you can always stab and try to take the whole pot - it's certainly encouraging

Razz, you're obviously ignorant of the rules.

Yes, of course I am.
Now, since you've chosen to resort to personal attacks, back up your mouth. Please do quote said rule. Don't forget to cite the specific edition and section.

it seems that the drive to win (and its companion, the drive to deny the win to another player) is somewhat counterintuitivly helping most games to draws. if anybody looks like winning other players- rightly so- drop the old alliances and work together to deny them the win. this can lock games into united meduims (and maybe a one unit fellow ie moscow) vs the big boy. if this happens early enough the meduims can really hurt the big boy. but if its too late at best it becomes a stalemate. seesawing is fun its true but long dragged out games that go nowhere arent. but im not opposed to a team win. 18 is too easy. 24 (the win in the 2 person WW 1 model) is better i think. and of course only if all member agreed before hand, that goes without saying.

No, the current system of drawing is the best way to go about a team victory or joint victory. Every player still alive in the game has to agree to a draw, and the points must be split evenly amongst the players. If you insist on a draw, you must convince or destroy dissenting players. A set number of SC's is too easy.

yes crisp i can agree with that. we would all like to win more (or at least once!) but you cant always get what you want. hey- what percentage of games are ending in draws? seems like a lot if you look at the draw requests but maybe its not.

I think *fewer* games end in draws here than the norm, because of the high number of CDs make wins easier than usual.

Honest question re: draws. People who I think would know have posted here that draws and allied victories are the same. It would seem to me that they should be different - in a draw there is no victor, while in an allied victory, the allied are the winners.

In the points system, this would translate that in a draw all surviving players split the pot evenly, while in an allied victory, the allies get a larger share of the pot.

What sean said is what SHOULD happen... in fact what happens is everyone protects what they have, it's very difficult to form grand alliances these days. So whoever starts off well pretty much gets a free ride to victory.

really? in the (admittedly few) games ive played grand alliances are happening to stop the largest nation from winning. but yes i guess your right noodlebug, a lot of players have very short term goals and thinking. the longer view eludes them (or they just don't trust each other enough to work together)

I want to play in seans games!!

Freakflag et a.- I believe you are GROSSLY mistaken about the rules regarding "joint victory". To quote the official rules:

As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
However, players can end the game before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw.

Just to reiterate the second part: "BEFORE A WINNER IS DETERMINED" all players can agree to a draw. There are only two official options, single winner and unanimous draw.
Draws should really only be implemented when the few remaining players have played to a stalemate. It should not happen when two or three players who decide to work together from the beginning of the game finish wiping out the competition. At that point, what SHOULD happen, is the 3 former allies turn on each other and fight for victory.

The current point system encourages players to take the easy way out of games and try for a draw after they've eliminated 3 or 4 players. I am very much looking forward to the winner take all variant!

I don't like the idea of joint victories; they seem too easy to get, and I think it is good to have some draws. I like the system (in this aspect, anyway) more or less the way it is.

Draw games with 3 taking out 4 are great in my opinion, because, though a 3-way is promised, it rarely occurs, as someone turns (at least that's what happens in a lot of the games I have played in.)

Thanks Dangermouse, that's helpful. In light of the rules, I agree winner-takes-all is the best possible antidote to the plague of draws.

As for joint victories, I will speak from my own experience and perspective. You cannot win this game without alliances (notwithstanding abandoners etc). In live games and pre-points php, I have been a junior partner in alliances and - due to positioning or loyalty or whatever - have not turned on my ally and, rather, have supported him to get to 18. In those instances, I still felt like I had won. I have also been in even alliances and been involved in negotiations about the endgame and who would get to 18. (In instances where I have been the leading ally, I have done my best to be positioned in such a manner that the junior partner would want to remain loyal.)

All of this to say, winner-takes-all is fine, but perhaps the notion of "winner" needs to be reexamined when it comes to Diplomacy. Also, the "all" is completely relative to the reward system - in the past, the "all" has been the great feeling of getting to 18 or the very good feeling of having been a key part of the winning side, and I think it's too bad this was not sufficient for many players here.

I think you're all too emotionally invested in your alliances! They are just tools, as soon as they stop working in your favour and threaten the possibility of you winning the game, you need to ditch them and make new alliances to take down your ex-ally.
Letting an enemy get the better of you is unfortunate, letting an ally get the better of you is criminal!

What you're describing, Mahatma, is a moral victory. It's like when the kid no one thought was good enough gets a chance to play in the big game. But his teams loses by 20 (this is a basketball or football metaphor apparently). Heart-warming, yes; the point, no.

On phpdiplomacy I have sometimes been forced to be realistic and know that going against an ally and soon-to-be-victor is a waste of time. Too often, one or more of the other players is unwilling to help. I've accepted playing for 2nd or 3rd place because doing otherwise will just get me killed and won't change the outcome in any other way. I don't like it though.

Dangermouse, I seriously doubt he will respond now. I was hoping he'd actually go read the rules himself. Anyway, joint victories are definitely not part of the official rules. Draws are.
As for the rest of the ideas some people have mentioned, if you want to change the rules of diplomacy, either you should go set up your own site with modified code, or suggest alternate rules 9including maps) be optional when setting up games. However, I doubt that Kestas would consider implementing any such thing in the near future, as there are still bugs to be worked out with the judge.

As for alliances, noodlebug, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. it depends on the player and the game circumstances. That's a strategic discussion, not a rules or judge issue.

As for the point system, some people care, some don't ... personally I'm only interested in points so i can join games without the multis and/or with less chance of people going CD. other people care passionately about their 'ranking' and play accordingly ... if you want a 'pure' game without the baggage of points, create a private 5 point game and invite quality players.

danger, a fair point, no question. But I disagree with you about it not being the point. IMO the "point" of this game is a moving target; your objectives can (unlike others, I will not presume to say should!) change with every game and with every move. And sometimes the way a given game plays out is that it is an alliance of 2 against the world and you remain united; eventually you must determine how it ends, but even if it's your partner who gets to 18, you still triumphed against everyone else.

another thing, dangermouse. cgwhite provided the following quote from the game creator:
"Nevertheless, it is not wholly clear why the draw is not an adequate secondary objective, inasmuch as the game is probably a draw with best play from the overwhelming majority of positions actually encountered. One of the difficulties may be that the draw is reputed to be inconclusive, because it is so reckoned in chess or checkers. However, a draw in Diplomacy may be more conclusive than victories among an equivalent number of chess players. If seven players play Diplomacy, and three draw, those three have scored above the four others."

(Granted, he calls the draw a secondary objective.) From your explanation of draw, I take it Callhamer is saying those three were the only surviving players? Anyway, how does the quote square with the discussion on this thread? I'm just curious and now I'll sit back and listen. Thanks.

Mahatma, you're right about Calhamer thinking that the three were the only surviving players in that game - from what I read of his article - I'll try and find the link later and put it on, but I've had a long day... is that he thinks that a draw is a valid option, whether stalemated or otherwise.

Some people in this thread have argued that you should always go for the win. I agree where possible, and it will always be my primary objective. But I'll just as equally try and persuade others to have a draw if it's in my best interests.

Razz and I were playing a game with Jibber recently. There were three of us left - I was on Germany with 16, he was Turkey, and France was left with 5 units after I'd stabbed him. I pressed heavily for the win, made several mistakes, at one point holding 18 centres in a spring move, before mucking up. The point is that I made mistakes and saw my game position deteriorate. I pressed for the draw on the grounds that I thought in a few moves time the stalemate could be broken. Razz agreed reluctantly, and so did Jibber. I had no hesitation in pressing for the draw as it was my best remaining option. Win at all costs yes, but when the draw is there, take it, rather than lose and be reduced to a few centres. I dislike doing it, but it was the best remaining option for me on the table.

A quick PS - I don't like joint victories - getting two players to 17 and not going for the win is lazy. If you've eliminated everyone else, then it should be the last two going for the win hammer and tongs.

As for the points system, it's good fun getting the win and a lot of points, but I'd be just as satisfied playing really good players on here and doing well, than annihilating a lot of new/weak players and getting huge amounts of points. The point of Diplomacy is to enjoy the game for the game's sake, for the thrill of the alliance, the stab and the win, not for getting points.

I said I'd sit back and listen, but I think I'm as addicted to the Forum as I am to the game...

cg, you and I are of a like mind. I'm not sure if it actually makes a difference to game play, but I prefer to play password protected 5 point games (the minimum), so it is clear we are not playing for the points and there is no risk in losing other than to your ego.

Perhaps the next Masterminds series should be renamed Likeminds series and involve those who agree to ignore point-accumulation in their game objectives. This would not necessarily mean there would be no draws, but it should mean 2nd etc powers aren't ignoring overtures from 3rd etc powers and devouring them for points.

Ok, here, I'm responding Razz. Here's the quote from dangermouse:

"Freakflag et a.- I believe you are GROSSLY mistaken about the rules regarding "joint victory". To quote the official rules:

As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
However, players can end the game before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

Never did I say anything that disputed this. The only place I messed up was that I didn't carefully read what NEOGEO had said. I had no intention of claiming that two countried with 10 supply centers each should be able to end the game, but that if 3 players are left, and they decide on a draw, what does it matter if they refer to such a draw as a "draw" or as a "joint victory." The important thing is that if it is unanimously agreed on by all remaining players, the game ends, and they all have done better than all of the players who were knocked out.

My point in replying was to the original post, which said that, "an alarming number of games are ending in draws. This is just a suggestion, and I don't know which side i come on yet, but the thought:
To end a game in a draw you need a valid reason."

This is what I was responding too. To end a game in a draw, you don't need a valid reason. You just need everyone in the game to want a draw. That's all I meant, and saying that I "GROSSLY" misunderstand the rule is blatantly false. I understand the rules. I just didn't understand how "GROSSLY" Neogeo misunderstood the rules (and the point of this game).

good dicussion. dont really want to add to the talk about what are the official rules or arent, the goal of playing or the point of alliances. but would like to talk about the points vs wins debate.
maybe people wouldnt be so concerned for points (and be too quick to try for a draw) if our win/(draw?)/loss ration was next to our name rather than our points. i mean who couldnt helped but be impressed by having a couple of thousand DPs next to their name while playing against guys in their DP teens. If points werent so obviously evident people wouldnt think of them as the be all and end all.
another point- these winner takes all games soon to be here. i guess that will help grand alliances to be formed to stop the larger player- sounds good. but would that also mean the game will be more likely to head for a stalemate? and then from that stalemate how do move on from there? the points are returned - ie if you survive to a draw(either all the players decide to draw it or it is in a locked stalemate) in a winner takes all then you get your pionts you invested back, no more no less? could be tricky if countries go into cd then new people join.
also-
what would qualify as a valid reason? fixed unchangeable stalemates? that would require a bit of time on the admin to check each game requesting a draw.