Two reasons, I think. First, not everybody cares as much about game balance. Experienced players don't see the joy of playing an unpure, unbalanced game. But casual players dont mind as much and go with the flow. Second, if you draw and restart a game, there is no guarantee it wont happen again. So you may as well take the CD and go with it.

Enthusiasm for drawing after CDs has never been constant. When I joined the vast majority of games (live games at least) would carry on with one CD as it was such a pain in the arse to try and set up another one, and the change in balance made it interesting. Two early CDs would often lead to a draw though.

To be honest, although I will offer a draw if there's a CD in year one, I do think the recent hard-line approach of "Pre-1903 CDs should *always* constitute a draw" is a bit silly for anything other than a top flight game, and I'm glad if it's on its way out.

I always think it is right to draw a game in which somebody CDs in the first year, but I don't entirely agree with the Pre 1903 statement. In my latest game as Germany, the last move Russia entered was spring 1902, and I took advantage of it. However the reason being is from since before the first move I decided to go out all out against Russia for no particular reason, I just wanted to see how well it would work. So I managed to get the help of both England and Turkey to help. So even though Russia CDd and I took advantage of it, I felt like I deserved it for organising such a crushing blow on Russia likely causing him to give up in the first place.

I personally get tired of players who posture as the only purists, the experienced elites of the game who only play honorably and always draw if there's a cd because they love the game more than the schlubs who keep on playing.

Well, here's another way of thinking about it. Say you love basketball, so you go to the park to play. You find nine other guys and start a full-court game. After half an hour one guy says, "Sorry, I gotta leave, I've got a date". Do you love basketball more than everyone else if you say, "I refuse to play 5-on-4 basketball, it's unbalanced"? No, that's stupid. If you really love basketball, you keep playing. You love playing the *game* more than you love the *rules*. You don't care if your team is losing because you're down a man, because it's not about winning or losing, it's about the game.

Just my two cents.

"Second, if you draw and restart a game, there is no guarantee it wont happen again. So you may as well take the CD and go with it."

The same can be said for a number of things. If you can't guarantee it doesn't happen next time, why not just go this time? Well, simple. You also can't guarantee it won't happen next time and you'd have a pure game with no CDs. It's either 100% versus, in relative terms, probably 15-20%.

"I do think the recent hard-line approach of "Pre-1903 CDs should *always* constitute a draw" is a bit silly for anything other than a top flight game, and I'm glad if it's on its way out."

If Russia CDs and I'm France, I'm certainly not happy when a country gains its power by taking over a non-existant player. If that happened in 1907, there's reason to think the map had been reasonably set up already, but not in the first two years.

@Flem ... if you are playing basketball and someone leaves, you keep playing. You'd probably sub someone out and go 4-on-4. However, if there are 160,000 people just waiting in line to play, why wouldn't you grab another player and go 5-on-5 again? That's what taking over spots are for, and that's what restarting with seven players is for.

@ Bo - I dunno, I've played an awful lot of unbalanced basketball, softball, soccer, and football. And when I started playing Diplomacy in high school it was all face-to-face (there was not internet) and it was rare to even start a game with seven players, let alone not have a cd. So I guess if I feel like it's a pickup game, I just don't care. It would feel a lot different in a passworded league or tournament game, I suppose.

I prefer to cancel if there is a CD or even an NMR all the way threw builds 1903. after that I am normally "forced" to play on with those who won't. I understand intermittent internet problems, forgetting that you joined a game that starts in an hour and you get side tracked. So I don't want to see that resign on someone's account. Cancel and restart. I even try to make a new game so others can see that there is a new game they can join.

Then my point still stands... we are always starting with seven players and we always have *tons* of people online ready to pick up the ball if someone leaves. That's why, if nobody takes the spot, people draw.

"If Russia CDs and I'm France, I'm certainly not happy when a country gains its power by taking over a non-existant player. If that happened in 1907, there's reason to think the map had been reasonably set up already, but not in the first two years"

If it was a game of significance (a tournament game, say, or a high quality game you'd gone to a lot of trouble to put together) I agree with you fully. For a fun everyday sort of game, however, I'd find the enexpected shift in the game dynamics quite refreshing.

...Although it'd be less so if it became a regular event :p

In live games, it is a regular event. That's why I rarely play them unless I know exactly who is in them. I tend to leave if a player I don't know joins. It's a real issue for me.

An early CD means draw - I have zero problem with that. But if someone quits because they realize early on (say 1905) that they aren't going to win, I'm not automatically for a draw. Especially if I've been busting my ass being diplomatic with the other five players to get a strong position, and even more so if the quitting player was the target of my attacks/intentions. If I've already set up the lines so that country is doomed, then it doesn't matter to me if there's anyone "behind the wheel" because to me they're already dead and out of the game.

I think a better incentive for people to pick up games ... and ESPECIALLY the contingent order feature that was talked about in the new feature thread ... would help here. Perhaps even better would be a joining penalty for those with recent CD's or perhaps any non-zero "resign" score. Maybe 50% or 100% increase in the joining fee? And/or the ability to specify minimum CD rates for games?

I agree on the early CD leading to draw or cancel, but when someone is clearly outsmarted in the first couple of years and then simply quits, I do not think it is fair to penalize the one(s) who organized the coup. Even with good defense, a 2 center France is going to be eliminated by E/G/I or whoever ganged up on him. Why should they be punished for doing well by losing their advantage?

And later in the game it is even worse. If I stab someone leading to an unstable stalemate *potential*, why should I be penalized just because the poor sport quits instead of trying to organize a defense?

There are plenty of proposals for that, Bob. Mine is pretty simple: CDer gets a resign when taken over, takeover price is discounted by 50%, CDer pays the other 50% out of their own points. Reliability rating could be good too.

Still, if the game hasn't had any distinct power come out, there's no reason the game shouldn't be ended through a cancel or draw.

Just as an addendum @bo_sox ... the current approach of requiring two missed turns often results in very poor positions ... and picking up a CD with 6 SC's & 4 units in the spring often means having 3 of those SC's you are paying for already occupied by foreign troops. I have tried to do my bit in the CD challenge, but there are a lot of positions where it really does not help game balance by the time the takeover is possible.

@Bo_sox ... missed your lates while typing. ANd yes, I agree with your simple approach to CD takeover. I still think that the contingent order feature would help, too.

For clarity: Any time 1 phase is missed, a spectator player can submit contingent orders for that country for the next phase. If the 2nd phase is missed, the contingent orders are executed instead and the submitting player automatically takes over from that point forward. That way only one phase is missed.

Virtual - I like that idea. +1