I dunno.... near the Update and Finalize buttons, maybe....

No, I'd accidentally click the wrong one. Make it something down at the bottom, under the user list.

lol
People wouldn't click the wrong one if it looked totally different, and it wouldn't make a difference if only one player did it. It wouldn't hurt to tuck it safely away somewhere, but I think it should be somewhere near the other order options.

If it isn't hard, please make it! the topics requesting draws are becoming annoying :)

Is it possible for the game to automatically recognise a draw if no unit (from any country) moves position in 3 successive turns? That would catch stalemates, and to agree a draw everyone just has to not enter any orders for three turns (which doesn't necessarily mean waiting 8 days).

Everyone would have to be serious about a draw, there would be plenty of time to think about it and plenty of time for people to change their mind and stab everyone. Which would benefit the game enormously!

That could be done yes.
Noodle, when I read that I couldn't believe what I was seeing - I thought you suggested that no-one enters an order for 3 years! So much for stalemates in that case.
What you suggest would be an interesting option, and it would show everyone which player it was who was against the draw. However, the biggest issue with that is that in some cases you don't move for 3 years and don't want a draw.

I can't think of a circumstance where no piece on the board would move at all in three successive turns (and I mean move turns, not move... retreat... build), that wouldn't come under a definition of a genuine stalemate.

Another advantage of this system is that refuseniks like myself can be forced into a draw if our remaining forces can be trapped in position. Even players in a weaker position might be able to strategically force a draw - similar to getting stalemate in chess. Most strong players will be able to move forces on their fringes around if they want to avoid any risk of a draw but weaker players might not have the luxury. It would certainly add a fascinating element to the game.

Of course it's not in the official rules so no-one will agree to it... we all know the official rules are perfect :)

Me and the official rules are engaged to be married.

:o
Noodle just did something against the true spirit of the game.
I think a draw should be an option every player has, and that you shouldn't be able to be forced into a draw. Just because you can't move doesn't mean you want a draw. If the other players want a draw in that situation, then they will have to decide how to kill you off without loosing their own position, which is part of the game.
Dangermouse- They told me I was the only one :'(

we need automatic draws with anonymous voting!! at the moment every draw gets too much public attention. draws are part of the game just like alliances etc. and shouldn't be discussed by people who are not in the game

I think involuntary draws are a big Pandora's Box of problems, so I'd be inclined to keep those on a case-by-case basis. If the situation is something like a 17/17 stalemate or a 17/10/minor powers situation in which no power can be safely eliminated without causing the 17 power to win, then such a thing makes sense - but if it's one of those 12/12/10 stalemates one sees every once in a while, I don't think three years are quite long enough to guarantee that no one will turn on anyone else.

not to mention that kestas sometimes doesn't draw the game on time (more than 24h pass after the request) making the game move further

If two, three or four players are trying to make progress against each other, but cannot manage between them to move a single unit in 3 successive move-turns, then I can't see them having any cause to complain! I've never even seen that situation, even during stalemate lines I usually have a spare fleet floating about that I just move around for fun. One turn bouncebacks are common enough I suppose, and two turns are within the realms of possibility but if no-one can muster a single movement within 3 turns, I'd wonder what the point was in playing on. Particularly if every player is aware when putting in their orders that if they can't move a unit THIS turn, they're stuck with a draw.

The only circumstances I can imagine it happening are in a genuine 2-man stalemate, maybe at a stretch a 3-man stalemate (rare enough in itself), or where enough players have agreed not to move and the rest (if any) can't. In both circumstances a draw is probably an inevitable outcome regardless.

You can dream up constructed scenarios where it might be possible in a real life game that three turns pass with no movement where a draw isn't inevitable... I would think such possibilities would be so unlikely as to be irrelevant.

So basically it's just a convenience thing, a way for the system to recognise genuine stalemates and intentional draws without Kestas or other mods having to worry about people complaining they're not ending games quickly enough. It will only effect you adversely if you get stuck in a stalemate which you still think you can win (in which case why is it taking you 3 turns without breaking it?).

i agree with Noodlebug, but i would go for stability of SCs over three years. because you can always have a unit not on the stalemate to move around :-)

Games can go several years without any SCs changing hands and still be winnable. Some people can play a very long, patient game. For example, you need one extra fleet to break a stalemate and you have to bring it round from Scandinavia to the Balkans....

That may be true, but maybe the player that can't move has 14sc's and thinks he can split up the alliance of the other two powers, both of whom are holding him for a draw. Adding a button would be a much neater way of doing things, in keeping with the original rules, as well as easier to implement!