as mentioned in the thread "change passwords", a game that ThomasB, danikine74 and myself are playing, we have reached a stalemate.
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9481

this is not at all a personal attack on danikine74 who we both greatly enjoy playing with. but, as austria, he has so far refused a draw, even though there is no way for him to break through our defense, or vice versa. danikine74 says he is hoping one of us will make a mistake in our entering orders (something i do with alarming frequency unfortunately :-/ ). what do yall think? is that right? isn't this the ideal situation in which a draw should happen, with all to be congratulated for excellent play?

LOL. Would that it were that easy. Personally I prefer draws at that point, if all agree that stalemate lines have been reached. Thought some will want to keep playing for a bit in the hopes someone misses a move.

When you play online chess you sometimes slip with the mouse - and it's quite obvious that you didn't intend *that* move.
I would grant my opponent to take that move back - because I think Chess should be about Chess and not about your ability to operate a mouse. Some players are not that generous and I can accept this... However, prolonging a game in the *hope* that your opponent does a mouseslip... is bad sportsmanship/sportswomanship.

Ah, I posted that before I saw the 2nd response.
Personally, I would draw at that point. But Danikine is within his/her rights to keep playing. I would hope it would be a short-term p[roblem, that Danikine will eventually give up.

Well, he's allowed to do that - there's certainly no rule against it, if that's what you're asking.

This particular situation seems like it would benefit your enemy, because there's two of you who can miss a turn or mess up orders. But that's actually not true: if he misses a turn, twice as many units do nothing, even though it's only half as likely. And as for mistakes, assuming a situation with generic players, the mistakes-per-order rate would be the same across powers, and therefore while there are two of you who can mess up, he has twice as many orders which have to be correct.

as stated in my first post - obviously there's no rule against it, nor should there be. and it is certainly within each player's right to play as they please. what thomas and i were looking for was other people's thoughts, that's all.

Oh stalemates... :)

I have a couple things to say.

Unless the stalemate is between two people, it is important to recognize that alot of games aren't over when a stalemate line is reached. Brilliant Diplomacy, and purposeful vulnerability can shift the game in an entirely new direction.

That said, if the moves are same for 3-4 turns, I think all players need to realize that a draw is warranted.

Being in a whole nuch of draws, I am a supporter of the idea that a draw is a very legitimate (though perhaps not optimal) way to end a game.


The other issue you are undoubted fishing for is whether it is right to keep up a stalemated game in the hopes that someone will miss a game.

IMO that is terrible sportsmaship. It has happened to me before and it really wrecks the game. But of course, it simultaneously wouldn't be right to force a game, so I guess it is something to live with.


I wouldn't mind something like an autodraw after a long string of the same moves though. It would have the potential of getting ridiculous.

And as long as we are discussing the game, one could argue it isn't a draw.

I mean it isn't a stalemate yet.

Whoa, I am a slow typer. :P Six new responses

Depending on your definition of stalemate. Like, the wall is impervious unless someone does something stupid.

And I don't really want to be a poopoo, but I seem to remember a sort of consensus that discussing current games in specific terms is bad form.

but dingle didn't mention specifics, only an observation, so i think that's not bad form. now if specific moves were discussed/suggested, that'd be bad, i'd think.

i'm completely with djbent and ThomasB. mods must force a draw in this situation. other diplomacy sites have this rule (no change in centers for three years)

Alamothe, the official rule in Diplomacy (Calahamer's version; I don't know about all the sites) is seven years without a supply centre capture.

really?? i didn't know it was even mentioned in the official rules

If it is in everyone's best interests to maintain the stalemate line then the obvious result should be offer a draw. Howver if either side can gain, e.g. by killing a minor power, then they should do that first.

well, i think i have one or two things to say about this.
First, my appologies, english is in fact my third language and sometimas a handicap for diplomacy or explainin.
Iwas a bit frustrated because i had the win at my hand, and suddenly england went on CD and the new england, my frien Djbent, soon convinced france for a draw. Everything legal, and both have settled his unis in a way that nobody can take more SC´s, evrything legal.
I feel that after beating turkey, russia, italy and have ought england, i deserve a better end.
France has fought germany a bit, and without me he would have probably dissapear.
I have ofered france a 2 way draw if he fights england. And takes some good merits to take the points.
What made me bad was the new england who without doing anything, nothing he will get the same points than me, or france who have being playing and talking from the very beggining.
I dont look just for a mouse mistake, but a change os sides that would enable a 2 way draw.
I very patient, and have a look, every turn i talk to rance and england trying to mak ome "last hour" diplomacy...

Glad to read all of you

In a draw people that draw get the same points?
Even if they have different number of SC's?

all players get an equal share in draws

my opinion is that when a stalemate is reached and it's clear the alliances won't change the game is over
of course everyone will have different opinions regarding the strength or weakness of an alliance, so even if everyone would agree on that definition there would still be lots of different opinions about which alliance is solid and which isn't


anyway, what I'd like to say is that I strongly discourage people to consider games as sources of points; the point system has a reason to be (you can read about it on TGM's ghost-rating's page), but points should *NEVER* be a goal.
so while I can understand danikine74's willingness to continue to test the other player's alliance by tempting them to join with him, I strongly discourage him to consider the variation of points of the other players as something that can influence his decisions

just to add a final line to stress it again:
points aren't a goal, having fun is a goal; here we play diplomacy, not advanced accountancy

But Noirin, advanced accountancy is so much fun...

@danikine74, if you are concerned about the points, consider this...

While djbent will get the same number of points with a draw, she won't get the same profit. She put in around 215 points and will get around 270 with a draw for a profit of around 55. You put in around 85 points to win 270 which is a profit of 185. You are getting a lot more points out of the game than she is because of the different amounts you invested.

To those that say points are not the point, for those of us with only a handful of points, we do have to worry about the points to some extent so that we can get to the point where we are playing higher pot games that are less likely to have new players just quitting and throwing everything out of balance.

there aren't so many quitters around, and to spend less you can also search for good CD takeovers.

up to now I only played one game where you needed more than 100 points to enter (the other, Masterminds V, was played *before* the introduction of the point system), and haven't had much problems with quitters, even if it has gotten harder to find good games to join.

the best way to give more freedom would be to allow 0 points pot games, which of course would have a bigger drop rate, but would allow people to play as much as they like without worrying of points

"While djbent will get the same number of points with a draw, she won't get the same profit. She put in around 215 points and will get around 270 with a draw for a profit of around 55. You put in around 85 points to win 270 which is a profit of 185. You are getting a lot more points out of the game than she is because of the different amounts you invested."

well, this is flawed reasoning. Investment is one thing. Profit is another. Danikine earned his points, which was the point he was trying to make, through hard work and effort over many weeks. DJBent was a stock trader, swooping in on a good deal and trying to cash in immediately.

DJ, you're an ass

...djbent took over many CDs even though it had a bad impact on her statistics. she was doing so to improve game quality and not to earn profit. anyone who picks CDs has my respect. personally i never do this because it never pays out (i've tried)

As djbent indicated elsewhere, she wasn't swooping in for the points. She saw a good DC to take over rather than letting the game die an ignoble death due to one of the three countries going CD giving the another one a huge edge.

@Norin, I don't think I've made it through a single game without someone quitting and going CD. Either you have been very fortunate or I have been very unfortunate.

THanks Alamothe, your well thought out opinion is always appreciated.

I was merely trying to express what Danikine was trying to say. If Noirin wants to look at it solely through a profit lens, then I think its also necessary to differentiate through between earnings and investing.

Sorry, it was Alderijan, not Noirin who brought the concept of 'profit' to the discussion.

Even if you take the points out, and you value your record, his point is still valid that the CD country will get equal result as the other two. It is legit, but I can understand that after playing a week or two to not be content sharing equal result with a newcomer. I think the solution should be to kill the weakest country.

wow it's really great to see everyone's different perspectives on this. i definitely made the mistake of thinking i was thinking in a way similar to the majority of folks, but i see now that's not the case. it's a really good reminder, like someone put in a thread not too long ago that assuming everyone approaches the game with the same goals/values/etc as you is a major mistake.

it doesn't really matter, but i didn't join the gain for any sort of gain other than the gain of having fun, and hopefully making the game better. i hate when people go CD in my games. but i see not everyone feels the same way. do lots of people feel annoyed when others take over a CD country? if so, i'll do it less often, they've been about half my games on here i think. i'd be really interested to hear people's thoughts on that too, in addition to the stalemate question. sorry this is so long.

ironically, there are many great CD positions right now, people should check them out!

just checked them, all are ridiculously expensive :-D i would pay half as much at most

danikine74 is the one that brought up points. "he will get the same points than me". I was just trying to point something out to him in the terms that he appeared to be looking at it. He'll be getting a lot more out of a draw than dbjent will, pointwise.

Personally I'm not interested in the points other than the fact that I need some more to get into what I hope are better games. I'm not wanting to climb the point ladder and have more points than anyone else.

If we could do away with points and you could restrict games to people that haven't NMR'd or CD'd in some amount of time, that would be even better.

In any case, I'm really looking forward to the league play though because I'm hoping that'll solve a lot of it.

I find people taking over CDs annoying only when the situation is hopeless or beyond hopeless (like 1 sc and no units, I've seen it happen) or, worse, when they take over and then go into CD again. Else I find it a good thing.

@Alderian: I've counted how many of my games had CDs. They should be between 15 and 18 (you can't see old games' orders), plus of course the 11 CDs I have taken over [For a total of around 50% of my games]. Sometimes I won thanks to it or despite it, some times I lost because of it. It is a thing that happens, and you have to live with it.

But the thing that will certainly surprise you is that the games more affected by CDs were the ones with a pot OVER 200 points (4/12 without CDs, 3/12 without NMRs).

We just had a Spring 1901 NMR, then taken over in Autumn 1901, and that player has NMRd. Italy just sits there and we've only had one turn we didn't have to wait out. Why would someone take over a CD position only to let it rot? It's destructive to the community - I think it's a great idea for people to take CD positions so games don't get unbalanced, but why bother to just let them CD again?

I guess it usually happens to people who don't notice the deadline length, like it happened in our 1 hour phases game. I have really no other decent explanation, unless you like conspiracy theories about opponents multiaccounting to prevent someone else from taking over the CD :P

I was hoping than france, for long allied would prefer a 2 draw i m offering than a 3 draw, but i m tired. I give up

Well, to throw my opinion in, I think that it's bad sportsmanship to continue playing in the hopes that stalemate will break due to user error. It's another thing if you're convinced the stalemate can be broken through diplomatic means. That said, if it's clear that the stalemate will stand, you should draw.

He already did.

yes i did... not happy at all, but that s the way life is.

my least favorite situation is a 5way draw....but sometimes, its also the most fulfilling when you organize 4 against a run-away leader, or when you are the 5th wheel in a massive 2v2 fight (often italy or germany)

Well, I'll throw in my view.
I would take a draw at a stalemate, but as has been said people need to consider when a game is truly at a stalemate. This consists of more than just the positioning of units: it is also about the strength of any alliance.
If there are two players on the same side of a stalemate, and they are not themselves stalemated, then there is a chance for progress. To do this may be very difficult. One strategy I heard recently was for the major power to retreat certain non-critical units from the stalemate line (haven't credited this because I thought I'd let them decide if they wanted it known) to allow the minor powers on the other side to eliminate one, thus reducing the number of players in the draw.
Still, once players aren't going to change, take the draw. Waiting for a missed or incorrect order is, whilst within your rights, very poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

ps: Sorry for my bad writing, very tired tonight!

Well, now that the game is over.... If you look at the last set of moves, France/England had the opportunity to take Prussia and Western Med, without any risk to their own units.

yeah but to what end?