People need to ally to succeed and once it happens both players try to make as many safeguards as possible to prevent a stab, so draws are inevitable. I guess as you increase in ability the number of draws drops off because people are better and more confident at stabbing.

I am in the middle of a planned draw - Two of us have joined forces to attack the dominant player. He is slowly losing ground and we have agreed that whoever gets there first will hold at 17. Ok, it's an agreement, not a reality, not yet (and my never be, but I have high hopes). The alternative is for us to join forces until one stabs the other and takes a win. That may still happen of course <shrug> that's the way the game-world works.

To SpeakerToAliens:
Why stop at 17? If you haev to wait until your ally catches up to you why do so? Get the 18th and win the game. I will never understand that logic.

Because some of us need to feel that we have maintained our honor to look ourselves in the mirror. Agreeing to an alliance may or may not result in a stab. But once I say "I agree to a 13/13/8 draw when we get there" then my word is my bond.

In my one and only win. I engineered a 18/8/8 split at the end. I had promised a 18/9/7 but I felt the third party deserved an equal share of the PPSC. I immediately apologized, even though it cost the player something like 4 points.

@BoG75 - That's what agreements, honour and sportsmanship are all about. Oathbreakers have no honour (they do tend to have more points though).

I think you should do anything to win. If you stab to win then you are following the idea of the game. I only get upset if someone stabs then loses.

I'm in a game where I was France in an alliance with England, and the map boiled down to us versus a larger A-T(we both took over CDs). They decided to EAT me and draw, despite the fact that Turkey could have won the game on his own through a very easy stab of Austria. What possesses a player to willfully not win a game, to take the lesser outcome when the more positive outcome is basically assured? Austria had no units in the Balkans or Austria proper, all of them were bottled up in Italy. It would have been easy.

But now I am a sore loser.

Honour in Diplomacy, in my opinion, is to value winning above anything else. Complete, unadulterated self-interest is what you need. Certainly in a tournament game, I don't think that that will be held against you, from my experience.

That suggests an even worse side-effect of planned draws: If someone has a chance to win, the others should combine to stop them.

Hamilton - its because of this idiotic PPSC system (yes flame away you ppsc lovers)

its a mutation of the game - and I will stand by that...

the reason its a mutation is that it creates these new 'rules' for the game... in which you are an idiot NOT to create a planned alliance from the start... and where 'honoring your word' matters b/c its part of an engineered meta-game system.

in any case... dont play ppsc. play only WTA and you will rarely have this problem.

yes yes... flame away peeps.

What can I say, some of us are honorable diplomats. Perhaps that's our weakness, but often I find it hard to contemplate stabbing a good ally.

I have so few points ATM that I have very little control over what kind of games I can play.

even in PPSC it makes more sense to go for the win, more points.

Honor is important to me. That doesn't mean I never lie - although I will NEVER lie about my motivations. It just means that I will figuratively look my stabee in the eye and say "sorry about that, I decided that I'd try for the win". There are lines I won't cross. "I'll support Nth->Denmark" might be a lie. "I'd like to include you in a 3-way draw" won't be. Why? Hard to quantify, but that's the way I am. My favorite people to play with are the people who said "Thanks for the alliance, but you know, it's time I turned on you". One of those even went on to win in a WTA, but it didn't bother me (too much).

' "I'd like to include you in a 3-way draw" won't be." ' What's the betting that that isn't true :P.

Hamilton, in PPSC, you get pitifully few points for that once extra centre. Lets not reopen that debate though, for a while, at least.

Kestas should probably consider giving a bonus for a win - perhaps 60% of the points for a win and the rest divided by PPSC?

And I'm ready to take the action on whether it's a lie. What are the odds?

Babak, I disagree with your premise that PPSC causes early draws. I think both games cause that. Drawing a WTA essentially turns it into a PPSC.

i don't think people plan draws from year one... they do talk about it, but it is diplomacy. you can make promises but they are not bounding

My opinion might not hold much weight among long-time players since I'm new to the game and so never had any direct experience with WTA play.. But I have to say that I like PPSC because it gives players motivation to develop the best empire they can, regardless of their chance for the arbitary 18.

In that way I find it far more realistic and true to the era of warfare that it's roughly meant to represent.

There's a quote, supposedly from Napoleon, that I used to love.. I can't find it on google, but here's an approximation:

"Self preservation, the first law of states even more than men. For no nation may make that noblest of sacrifices, to gives it life for a greater cause."

@Babak and Dingleberry:
I also agree that PPSC shouldn't cause draws (though I've no doubt that many players still take that option because they consider a 'draw' mark on their record somehow better than a 'survived').
With respect to the points allotted, there doesn't seem to be much point to take an early draw, as a player near victory risks losing only a few SCs in most cases if their stab fails, and the reward is an equal swing of points in their favor plus an additional 'win' mark on their record.

My own limited experience is that draws become more attractive because this game can become much less interesting near the end, (due to the ease of stalemating and the general predictability of moves when only a few powers remain). At that point a draw may be chosen not for strategic/record reasons, but because everyone is just tired of the affair and would like to focus on something new.

(and of course the lure of maintaining some honor and dignity among players who have all survived till the and developed a mutual respect for one another).

ok, sorry to triple post.

"At that point a draw may be chosen not for strategic/record reasons, but because everyone is just tired of the affair and would like to focus on something new"
I heard that, although apparently some of my opponents don't.
sob:[

i think every game is different and you should react to the situation uniquely. that means sometimes you go for the win, other times you weigh the risk and it's not worth it.

for folks that are saying "i always go for the win" watch out - people read the forum and take note, and you may find yourself prematurely stabbed b/c the person says "on the forum you said you always go for the win." i suppose this is a case of being perceived as being predictable is worse than actually being predictable, or getting the chance to be so predictable.

I have to say, even if I'm playing PPSC, I'm still going for the Win. I treat it no differently. Probably why I have no points I guess. I find these people that honour alliances faithfully and blindly until the end and will not take a win even if they can very annoying. Just my 2 cents :)

I mean, I can understand England's motive and Austria's motive, they want the best possible outcome, but why Turkey didn't move on Austria? incomprehensible.

I'm skipping to the bottom after reading just less than half of the responses. In regards to WTA vs. PPSC, I found more discussion of draws in the WTA game that I played. I do have two draws (both in PPSC games). One was after a one hour phase game couldn't be finished. Another one was where three of us joined together when the situation looked very bleak and we actually eliminated all of the competition. We couldn't fathom stabbing each other at that point. But that discussion of a draw came very late (post 1905). In my WTA game, many players seemed to be discussing draws just to get some points back. So I would like to see if a higher percentage of PPSC or WTA games end in draws before badmouthing either one.

Based on my experience on FB phpdip, I think 'true' draws are actually more common as you get into WTA with stronger players. By 'true' draws I mean the two blocks stuck on a stalemate line, where every participant is a vital part of that line.

I've also found a good few 'draws by exhaustion' - where three of four good players remain, and it would take many turns to eek out a slow tactical victory. At that point, it often seems better to 'reward' good players, and move on to a more interesting game.

With regards to PPSC vs WTA I think that all good players go in with the following priority list

1. Solo win
2. Part of a true draw
3. Survival

I'm looking forward to being able to play WTA here - not becuase I think it makes for a truer gamer, but because you get better players (inme experience)

What do you think do what I've heard described as "strategic draw"? It's not a stalemate, because the powers could gang up on any lone power to defeat them, but no-one can start a fight because the last person to commit is in the best position to stab and solo. It is not a stalemate draw, but it is a forced draw.

I guess some would argue that that is the test of the true diplomat - if you can convince one or both of the others to stab and then take advantage.

Sure, pete, the problem is when you essentially give a player a plan that would lead to victory. (move a to b, c to d, e to f, and g to h, and then next year you only need to take two more SCs to win!) and they are so committed to their ally that they won't go for the win.