i don't see how france could take tunis and be sure that he won't lose something...

Perhaps it's been too long since I've played this game, but I see a number of ways France can improve it's position and go for an outright win...maybe not without risk, but isn't a little risk required sometimes?

France can take Tunis if Italy supports from Ionian. Neither side could possibly lose anything from it. I agree with Marek.

I agree that France can take Tunis without risk. I agree that France should take Tunis. I do not agree that France is under any obligation to do so. Nor are the other powers under any obligation to accept a draw on France's terms.

I am France :) - and I am not sure if you can see the public press (?) - where I explained why I do not want to kill Italy. So, here it is again:
1. If I take Tunis (Italy) I will definitely jeopardise my defensive line-up in the Mediterranean.
2. I told Russia and Turkey that i they want me to even consider such a move they will have to first withdraw (Turkey) their fleets substantially - so that I have time to replicate the current line of defence. They refused because it would be too risky for them :) - and instead keep telling me that this is no risk for me. Which is a lot of bollocks - especially having in mind who my opposition is :)
3. I do not intend to kill one of my allies for 5% more of the points. If if gave me the win - yes, I would have done it without hesitation.
4. I have another ally (GER) which would probably not take it well it he sees me killing off Italy (because I can easily kill him too). So, he might decide it is better to get some agreement with RUS/TUR than to stay with me. This is also a risk I do not want to take for 5% o the points.

Feckless Clod - do you really need me to prove it to you that I cannot take Tunis without risk or you will look at the map again and find out yourself :)
If I take Tunis how am I going to support it? Or you suggest that I lose Gulf of Lyons :)

Let's just ignore whether it's safe for France to pick up Tunis. I don't think that this is the same situation necessarily. Not going for the win (as in Revelstone) is not the same as playing for a draw with one less player. Either way there would be a draw in this game, the only difference is # of points (which is not something addressed in official rules obviously). Now, if France could win by taking out Tunis then I would agree, he is obligated to go for it.

freakflag - Italy has only one unit - it is in Tunis. How is he going to support me from Ionian? And, by the way, Turkey is my enemy in this game :)

You're quite right, looking at the situation again, you can't take Tunis without risking losing it to the enemy, and so strengthening his position. That wasn't really my point.... even if you could, it would be your call.

I have to point out that I posted my initial message in Autumn 1908 while now is already the retreats phase. I'm sure that in Autumn 1908 France could take Tunis without weakening his position at all (NAF-TUN, WM S NAF-TUN, followed by building a fleet in MAR), however I admit that the position is different now (I'm still sure it is a draw, no matter who owns Tunis, but it's more complicated and not all people can see it) and I will most likely agree with a draw.

So only the general level of the question remains -- if a player is obligated to win (if he can without any risk), is he also obligated to decrease number of player included in a draw (if he can do it without any risk)?

Thank you for your opinions.

Yesm that is my opinion Marek: He is oblidged to play for the maximum number of points he can. France could play Norway to Sweden, and then build an army, place it in Gascony, fall back out of the Med, and let Turkey take Tunis

Hmm, and why exactly would I (France) want to give Tunis to Turkey :)

it's a draw.

Due to the arguments going on here, I would conclude that it is a draw--unless Turkey stabs Russia. =)

My point exactly, but they are not playing in accordance with the spirit of the game :)
Just joking :)

I'll side with ivo_ivanov here. We DO NOT have an obligation as players to maximize points, try to win the game, eliminate players or anything else. Games do not exist in isolation and there are other considerations at this site like honor and reputation that could prove more important to a player than points. In this case, Italy was France's ally and only through that alliance was he able to set up the defensive line. To claim he if now forced to backstab his ally is not only ridiculous but will make it harder for him to defend similarly in the next game.

Turkey and Russia failed to break through the defensive line before it formed and now have to suffer the consequences of a 1/5 draw instead of 1/4. France has decided his reputation and what gain that will bring him in future games is worth the 1/5 draw. Germany can take the 1/5 draw or roll the dice. His call.

The sin of metagaming lies not in having unusual motivations but in having motivations that no other player can be aware of and which harms their ability to predict actions.

Ivo_ivanov has told you what he plans to do and why. Draw with him or ally with him on that basis. He has no obligation to do anything he does not want as long as his motivations are discernible.

ldrut - many thanks for siding with me - but I have to say you clearly have not understood my reasoning.
What you are explaining is called Metagaming I think - doing something in one game in order to get some returns in another :)
I actually don't agree with anything that you said :) - it's just by coincidence that our end positions are the same.
I have valid in-game reasons to not kill Italy and they are explained above.
Honor and Diplomacy are not to be used in the same sentence together - think of it as i you were the King/President/PM of a country - what is more important - your honor or the future of your nation :)
You should not be playing like this!

I think it's important to remember that reputation does play into things a bit. Let's say canute came back (admitting openly it was himself) and started playing in your game. Everyone would suspect at least one of the other players to be a metacopy of canute. What Idrut described is metagaming only if reputation is a metagaming tactic.

Canute is a whole different story :) - that's cheating. Killing/backstabbing is part of the game (the essense of it if you like).

He would both be placing himself at risk and unnecessarily attacking an ally who has helped and is helping him hold the line. And I do believe that honor within a game is a relevant factor.

There are no "obligations". However, I would encourage players to play for the maximum number of points and to not show mercy in the interests of reputation. If I introduced one patch myself, it would probably be anonymous games. Anyways, it Ivo believes it is not in his self interest to take Tunis then so be it. I encourage selfishness. Altruism has no real place here, though I would not enforce rules against it.

For all we know, he is purposely staying out of Tunis because he wants to coax the opposing fleets back so he can move forward. It could easily be a diplomatic ploy.

Well, I'm sorry to post it too late (I was Italy at this game) but I had a complicated week that, inclusively, had obligated me to loose some turns on the games that I was playing.

I just want to say that I offered to France Tunis (because I watched that he was not doing it) and he exposed his posture about the disadvantage of taking it. What I am saying is that nothing had united France and me except a common game alliance.

Russia and Turkey has not the obligation to accept France requirements (5-1 draw) or France their requirements (annihilation of the poor, sad and lonely Italy =P), everyone should defend what believe in. Plus, I defend the believe that a player has not the obligation to win a game if he can. In an alliance, some times, the survival of both players depend of common movements, cooperation and coordination (not in this case, the alliance at this game was only a NAP). I think that if a player doesn't want to attack somebody, there is no opposition against that, everyone has their own motivations.

Excuse my english =P

why is it that everyone with perfect English apologizes for having bad English?

*cough, splutter*

It's real simple, if everyone left in the game agrees to a draw, it's a draw. Otherwise it's not.

All those who want the draw should form an alliance to destroy those who don't. If they can't or don't want to the game just isn't over.

I don't think France has any obligation to kill off Italy here, regardless of positioning. Entering a game of Diplomacy, a player's first objective should be to win, then to draw, and then to simply survive. Having said that, I think that a player is obligated to complete the highest objective he can. If France could win by wiping out Italy, then he would be obligated to. However, France should feel no obligation to cut Italy out of the draw simply for the sake of getting a bigger piece of the pie. That would be like intentionally delaying victory to allow yourself to pick up a few extra centers to end the game with 20 or more. It does not change your end result; a win is a win, a draw is a draw.

IMO 3-way draw is better than a 4-way draw.

When a person joins this site, or joins a game on this site, does he read a terms of service agreement that says "I will compete to the best of my meager ability, and always complete the highest objective I can, whatever the hell that means, so help me God"? Does he check an "I agree" box?

He does not.

There. Are. No. Obligations.

Once more into the breach.

phpDiplomacy is not Diplomacy. Diplomacy has a winner and a loser. It is one game, in isolation, perhaps never to be played again. Most players would view a draw as a failed game, if not a loss. Second, third, etc. count for nothing. Its all about the winner.

phpDiplomacy has points, PPSC, rankings, viewable records of past games, etc. Once that is introduced, the objective is maximizing points over the cluster of games. Why all this worry about ranking algorithms if it is not? At that point reputation, grudges, and perceptions all enter in as valid game tools to be used in maximizing score. To me it makes the game richer, but clearly different.

If you don't want that, then fine. Install the code on your own site, eliminate all ranking by points and rank purely by a won/not won count, ratio, or combination of all those. Easy enought to do by ruling out PPSC games and giving draw points back to all players, even eliminated players. You would have a very traditional Diplomacy game where only the victory mattered. I'll play there too and play just for the win - the site defines the goals.

Kestas has chosen a different route and as a result has changed the goals and dynamic of the game. That I expect is why the country rankings on phpDiplomacy do not match the traditional Boardman rankings - The advantages change whether playing for win, draw, or supply center count.

On to Ivo's claim that reputation is metagaming. Lets say that Turkey offers an alliance to Austria in Spring 1901. Is it metagaming for Austria to look back through Turkey's profile and see how he likes to open games and whether he has backstabbed Austria? If it is not, is it Metagaming for Turkey not to backstab Austria for the fifth time in a row just because he doesn't want that record out there? If it is then why are those records available. Do you think no one did that in the days of postal diplomacy? In a FTF game were you more likely to stab the guy who stabbed you last week?

Metagaming can not (on this site as it is currently constructed) be about using your play to affect your chances in future games. It is about using secret connections between players and games to affect a current game. Letting one on-going game affect another on-going game is probably Metagaming. Threatening the same definitely is. Trading victories between players definitely is. Not trying to win purely so another player can rack up the wins is. Metagaming is the game version of insider trading.

Trying to control others perceptions of you and using that is what Diplomacy is all about. You win because at some point people made critical errors in judgment about you. phpDiplomacy just puts that on a bigger stage.

I'd have said that letting one on-going game affect another on-going game is definitely metagaming, and that threatening the same probably is. I have to say, though, that was a bloody good post....

I couldn't go with the letting one on-going game affect another on-going game definitely be Metagaming. If you are Fecklessly stabbed in one game it can't be metagaming to become more cautious so he is less Feckless in another. Fool me one shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I agree though that it is definite Metagaming to stab in return in the other. It is whether your motivation is desire to win or a desire for revenge that decides the thing.

I'm currently being a major pain in the butt to ivo in game A but am on and off working with him, or at least not against him in game B. I did not consider how may actions in game A (which came first) will affect his future actions in game B. To do so would be metagaming. You can bet though that I am carefully considering whether his behavior in game B will now change. Thats just common sense. I judge that he is not the kind of player to let one game decide the other and my chances of a backstab are unchanged (though not zero) and my game behavior will not change. That is definitely not true for all my opponents.

I agree with Feckless, Idrut's post puts very concisely lots of views which I think many people would benefit from understanding.

I don't agree with the idea that phpDiplomacy isn't Diplomacy since Dip is supposed to be in isolation and only 1st matters, because realistically every game except for the first is going to have some sort of context, and going out first is worse than coming in 2nd FTF or not. Even without a points system a player that always goes out first is always going to be recognized as a worse player than one who consistently comes 2nd.

But it definitely addresses metagaming very well. I think I'll put it on the points page or FAQ when I next get a chance unless Idrut is opposed

That may be the first time someone has labeled one of my ramblings "concise".

I think my meaning of phpDiplomacy and Diplomacy being different can be better stated as most players in a FTF Diplomacy game sees draw as a loss. All but the leader in a phpDiplomacy view draw as a win. 2nd for bragging rights against a friend (who will remind you it was 2nd to him) is a lot different from 2nd for points. The points change the game.

In a PPSC game the points allow things like client states to develop which could never occur in a FTF game and discourage the "everyone gang up on the leader" that is inevitable in a WTA game. Strategies for the two are utterly different and I expect the win ratios are as well (has anyone looked at that?).

WTA gaming is pretty close to the FTF experience. PPSC is an entirely different beast.

Anything I say is public domain. Kestas, feel free to use it & abuse it as you see fit. Good job of programming BTW. Thanks!