I can't speak from experience since the only game I've won was with the help of an ally, but I'd say it depends on what your ally has done for you. If someone saves you from almost certain destruction, is it really fair to turn around and stab them when they've done so much for you? However, if the alliance has always been uneasy and there's an air of distrust about them, then there's no reason to feel guilty about going for a solo.

Feel guilty about going for a solo? Are you insane or something?

I landed on Boardwalk once, but didn't buy it because I felt bad for the other players.

What I'm saying, is working well an entire game, and then stop someone from a solo, and stick it to your partner when we stopped one person together just to get your own solo

I landed on Boardwalk once, but didn't buy it because I felt bad for the other players..

Keep your day job, comedy is not it

If you ever don't go for a solo when you could simply to avoid guilt, you aren't playing the game right.

That's a very close-minded view. There are other goals besides winning.

Regarding the OP, if you think you have a very good chance to solo, I'd say go for it, but obviously we're not talking about a specific game here so I can only give general advice.

I'm alwys tempted to take a good ally to the draw. I say tempted because just as we get set up to stop the solo and draw, the ally stabs me in an attempt to solo themselves, destroys our lines with infighting, and awards the solo to the player we were trying to stop.

If the shot for the solo isn't 75% or better chance, you'll most likely just watch your efforts crumble after stabbing the ally. My experience anyway...

@Stupid - There is no goal in the original game except to win.

"That's a very close-minded view. There are other goals besides winning."

Such as?

I would understand that in WTA but in PPSC why stick a game long ally like that

Even in WTA, if you think you can solo without risk of giving the solo to the other guy, you are a care bear to not go for it.

Are you really interested in my answer 2WL? I don't expect I'll be saying anything you haven't heard before. You can defend the idea that winning is the only "correct" or "proper" or "sanctioned" goal if you like, but claiming it's the ONLY goal someone playing a game of diplomacy could EVER have is plain silly.

It is the only stated goal of the game. To have other goals is to not be playing Alan Calhamer's beautiful and perfect game of alliances *and* betrayals.

Draug, I have heard you profess from your own keyboard that you take over CD positions you don't expect to win or even draw with. So, your goal there doesn't appear to be winning, but (I would hypothesize) to improve the overall quality of the site, a noble goal completely unrelated to racking up a win count.

Big change in my game (not that it's borne fruit so to speak) was in realizing that the solo IS the thing. If you stick it, you stick it. Hopefully the person on the receiving end realizes that it's JUST a game. I played games where I went into it planning for a draw, etc. I think that's why I prefer WTA games now. PPSC seems like a great idea if I want to pad my DP, but I don't particularly care in that regard. it's my percentages I'm interested in. Finally, short answer, go for the solo, don't worry about being a dick.

I don't want to play with people that won't go for a solo above all else, I wouldn't be able to understand their motivations.

I think Ogion said all there was to be said in the first answer. Ppsc or wta makes no difference imo

If you can solo, but don't for the reason described you should feel guilty. Guilty because you literally just spat in the face of 5 players whom you shared a board with. Guilty because the guy you didn't stab gets a draw he does not deserve.

Have you ever been involved in a blowout in any kind of sport? If the winning team "stopped trying" it's pretty fucking disrespectful to the other team, right? Well, the situation you described is worse. You beat somebody, he left himself open. If you don't take the win, you're being an incredible dick.

Likewise, if you are the small guy, if you don't turn around and try to stop the other guy from winning, the moment you realize he can, you are also a giant asshole who has no respect for his opponents. Helping someone solo, PPSC or otherwise, is most certainly the most disrespectful way to lose a game. Might as well have not shown up and let the country CD if that's the kind of bullshit you plan on pulling.

ssorenn, don't be a dick. Play the game with integrity. It's a game played for fun. It's not fun for anyone if certain players don't take it seriously, as you're suggesting they should.

Well, there are 2 obvious reasons you might not want to try for the solo, and surely more that are not so obvious.

First is security in the 2-way draw, if you believe your ally will be faithful. A stab could lead to a larger draw or your elimination.

Second is camaraderie. Your friendship with your ally could be more important to you than a chance for the win.

Now, I would say that if tyou have a "forced win" (a situation where a set of moves you make will ensure victory no matter what the other players do) than there is little to no reason not to solo. Otherwise, there are many reasons, which must be weighed against he likelihood of the solo, and your other goals in the game.

"Second is camaraderie. Your friendship with your ally could be more important to you than a chance for the win."

My friends would be very disappointed if I would not stab them and try to go for the solo if I have a realistic chance at getting there

this is not about friendship, its about a loyalty felt from working together towards a common goal.when the goal is achieved, but there is still game to play, why be a dick and not let the 3-way draw happen

i have no issue with my integrity, the integrity comes from working seamlessly with someone and then not stabbing them, in my opinion. now if its WTA i think i would be more abt to make the stab, and try to solo

@sfighter - That is true with takeovers. But if I start the game, I play to win. Unless I don't have a chance to solo, then I play to stop the solo until I see another chance to try and win.

Let's don't forget that negotiation is also an integral part of the game -- perhaps even more so than stabbing. The only win that I've had came from a Juggernaut where I was the senior partner (Russia), Turkey helped A LOT in the early going, and Germany came on board mid-way through, paying me back for letting him survive by helping me get the solo. It took a fair amount of diplomacy to get Turkey to agree to let me have the solo (rather than insist on a draw) and keep Germany alive at the same time, but in the end he did and everyone walked away satisfied. I'm not saying that was the ONLY possible outcome, but I do think it was a good one as it happened.

And now this: http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1999M/Windsor/point.html

An excellent article I've read before OS, might be worth a re-read now that I have a few games under my belt. There are more like it, discussing various goals of diplomacy, some attempting to remain impartial, some advancing one point of view or another. Both types are valuable, and I have nothing to add that hasn't been said, which is why I was initially hesitant to do so.

If you are putting friendship above game play then you are metagaming and should have your ass banned from his site.

No Draug, negotiation and alliances are part of the game, it's as far from being meta as it is possible to be.

If anything, I'd say this "purist" view some of you seem to take on stabbing, is itself a perversion of the game design. The game was meant to be played amongst friends face to face, either longstanding pals or, at the very least, gaming groups you will come to know and appreciate. Their remembering previous stabs and not trusting you is certainly part of the game, just as the stab itself is part of the game, and they should remember this too, and remain friends afterward.

The larger community of the internet grants a degree of anonymity(to say nothing of the actual anonymous players games, which were certainly never conceived of by the designer.) We are not playing the game Calhamer envisioned, and this view that stabbing is always better than remaining faithful is not bringing us closer to that vision- and could quite possibly be bringing us farther form it!

While there may be other arguments for stabbing in these situations, remaining true to the original game intent is not, in this player's humble analysis, one of them.

@sfighter - The quote was "friendship". Friendships are personal relationships outside the game. If you let a friendship affect your play, you are metagaming. The mods have said so.

Well I apologize if the use of words disagrees with you, or implies that among these forums, but I think it's pretty clear from my post (5:34) that that is not what I meant, nor is it what the OP was talking about.

As for that mod ruling... I understand it on some levels, and have problems with it on others. but it's clearly got nothing to do with this question Do you have other problems with my arguments?.

As long as it is kept in game only and not intentionally carried from game to game, nope. I may disagree and not like playing with people who play like they are playing a purely cooperative game, but that is there prerogative (just as it is mine not to play with them).

So, I know you feel this way, and I shouldn't be allowed to figure that knowledge into my play if we come across each other in a non-anon game? this is not school of thought I have encountered before, many articles profess exactly the opposite as a crucial tactic in the early stages of a game.

of course you should take your knowledge about draug in a non-anonymous game! that's why most of us like playing anonymous more. but if it is non-anonymous, that would be like playing poker and simply not looking at the other people or their prevoius tactics/records/...!

Taking knowledge about how a person plays is unavoidable unless you play anon. But making decisions of alliance or enemy based on previous games alone and not involving the current game is both metagaming and simply stupid as an enemy in one game may be a necessary ally in another.

I feel the same way ssorenn. I can definitely relate.

I prefer to make friends than backstab them. I guess its cause im just a nice guy

>>And now this: http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1999M/Windsor/point.html<<

I'll be "that guy" who sees an opportunity to work in a shameless plug and strays off topic to seize it. Mr. Windsor attended our CODCon tournament in 2007 (http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/results/tournament_class.php?id_tournament=1028) and Weasel Moot last year (http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/results/tournament_class.php?id_tournament=1408).

If you attend either event this year, you may be able to meet him and discuss his many excellent articles at length. CODCon is fast approaching. It will be April 5-6 at the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn. More info here: http://windycityweasels.org/codcon8. Weasel Moot will be July 26-27 at the Hampton Inn and Suites in downtown Chicago. More info here: http://windycityweasels.org/wm8.

Come on out!

Now, to get back on topic:

>>I prefer to make friends than backstab them.<<

Try making friends with people who understand that the backstab is part of the game.

I'm from chicago, have you been playing here for a while?

could you also tell me the time commitment involved in the tournaments?

That Windsor article is interesting. Is it meant to be particularly rigid? I'd think Classicist fits me pretty well as a descriptor, but I'm a very aggressive player.

the classicist, fits me as well

A good diplomat puts himself in position to stab his ally to take the solo.
A better diplomat convinces his ally not to stab him to take the solo, ideally to reverse the roles.

>>I'm from chicago, have you been playing here for a while? <<

Here, Chicago or here, this site? If the latter, I've been playing here for two years but mostly in spurts and mostly live games. If the former, our club has been active all over the Chicago area since September 2005. We just played our 241st "league" game yesterday. We've also held two tournaments per year since 2007. We've played 21 games so far this season (September to August) with 50 players participating.

Several WebDip players are active with the Weasels. Probably the two best known are Ava (who moved to Denver last year) and gramilaj. There's a great pic of gramilaj from yesterday's game. Check it out at http://windycityweasels.org.

>>could you also tell me the time commitment involved in the tournaments? <<

That depends on how many rounds you want to play. It only takes one to qualify for awards. At both tournaments, we count your two best rounds for score. We use a central clock at both tournaments, and the clock moves constantly, so negotiations, order writing and adjudication all happen on the clock.

We start with 18 minutes for Spring and 16 for Fall and gradually work down to 15 and 13. We allow more time for Spring because starting in 1902, you're making adjustments on Spring time. You can get through 1912, for example, in six hours with our timing.

We use the center-based Sum of Squares scoring system, so most games don't drag out while players whittle the draw. Draw size doesn't matter.

At CODCon, there's a hard ending of midnight on Saturday because the building closes then. The second round will start at 6 p.m., so you could play that round and know that you're going home no later than midnight. On Sunday, we're starting at 9:45 a.m., and the tournament will end sometime between 2:30 and 4, followed by a brief awards ceremony.

That is a REALLY nice Diplomacy board, Jim! Is it custom made?

Yah, a guy named Peter Lokken made it. Used to be active here; I forget his user name. He's a scientist of some sort by day but in addition to Dip his hobbies include woodworking. He made that board for use in the world championship game when we hosted in 2012.

Just checked. His user name is sawboss.

I meant the former. As I said I'm from Chicago. I just found diplomacy again after not playing since I was 16, 30 years ago. Now there is online and clubs, who knew? It would be hard to carve out 6+ hours though, but I would like to try sometime!as I have not played ftf in 30 years.