Besides... these early draws never seem to work in my favour.

I'm happy I just survived

And I guess it's not surprising britain got knocked out. They are stretched out very thin and it seems like it could be hard for them to consolidate their forces. I'm more surprised that CSA survived with a very strong USA above it.

He problem with "everyone fighting off the solo" strategy is that it doesn't really make sense for a smaller power. In my case, I took over a prussia that was completely surrounded by turkey, so it didn't make any sense for me to engage them right away and ensure a swift defeat.

I think that one of the factors (they are certainly many) leading to these premature draws is that the default victory conditions are set too low on this map, the WW4 map, and some others. The Imperial II variant was designed to have a victory condition of 84 centers, but when adapted for this site it was arbitrarily assigned a VC of 70 centers. This map has been played hundreds if not thousands of times over a decade and never was there any feedback suggesting that the victory conditions be lowered. The 70 SC level may only be 14 centers lower than the 84 necessary to wind with 50%+1, but it significantly changes the dynamics of the game. As Alcuin points out about the above linked game, a general panic went out around the board when Turkey got to 40 SCs, still 30 centers away from victory. Rather than play the game with diplomacy players began playing for stalemate lines, and demanding a 10 player (out of the original 13) draw. The game quickly deteriorated into finger pointing and off board rumor mongering, which distract several salient points about this variant. First of all as Alcuin again notes, all of the supposedly unstoppable colonial powers (Britian, France, and Holland) were destroyed, as were the next tier of regionally concentrated powers (Russia and China). It's been alleged that these powers are heavily advantaged at the start of the game, but this game demonstrated what strong play and strong alliances from other powers can accomplish. Japan and Brazil established very strong global positions from meager beginnings debunking the myth that the small nations are unreasonably disadvantaged.

Unfortunately the low victory condition platform drove the game in a direction that destroyed the game. On one hand it's great that no one wants to see a solo, but when you set a "solo" criterion below 50% of the total centers, it destroys the dynamics of the game, and you have people scrambling to set up stalemate lines in the mid game rather than the end game. The bottom line is that this variant needs to be reset with the default victory conditions at 84 supply centers.

Of course that's only the start of the fix to the issue with the premature race to draw games here, and we have not even touched on the fact that the PPSC model encourages players to accept/allow solos because they score more VDip points by losing than they would in playing to force a draw. The two facots collide when your option is to vote for a 10 player draw and gain very few points, or to tolerate a solo and rake in lots of points. The system is broken here, and it's ruining the gaming experience.

I'm not convinced it's a bad thing to encourage some people to see a survival as better than a draw in some circumstances. And I actually think WTA is more likely to encourage playing for draws with silly numbers. Neither method is perfect because the play I would want to encourage is each player trying to win as long as possible and only going for a draw when there is no alternative.

And in particular, I would want to discourage unbreakable alliances so that everyone knows they'll get backstabbed in the end game. That way there will be an endgame worth playing.

I don't think WTA encourages draws at all. If anything it encourages all players to explore their potential, and then if a draw is going to take place it occurs between as few players as practicable without risking a solo by anyone else but yourself. That's why WTA works. WTA is the default Diplomacy strategy. It's the awarding of points that distracts from the true objective of the game.

I've heard a lot about unbreakable alliances recently here in this community. I think that in the context that you go tape to tape or from game to game with these alliances, it's a bad thing, But if you get to a point where you want to honor an alliance, or breaking it would be bad for you, you shouldn't be ridiculed for it. With that said, I do think that we have far too few people actually exploring their options of victory. Solos in Diplomacy should be rare, but not rare because nobody wants them or nobody tries for them. They should be rare because they are difficult to achieve when the remaining players are all playing to win. Lowering the VCs cheapens the victories, and lessens the incentive to win, and creates a lot of the call for premature draws.

I´d like to congratulation Ruffhaus for the victory. He somehow manipulated 4 other players into letting him win, despite the fact we have an established draw line easily defended... I´m not surprised he´s number one of this site!
.
Solo is victory, a draw is a draw. All other results = defeat.
I dont understand why someone would chose to be defeated.
.
Maybe my gameplay would improve if I assume some people play to lose, consciously or not, and use them accordingly, but I think it´s too hard to identify this kind of loser before the endgame... (maybe Ruffhaus could publish some tips...)

I consider anything other than solo victory as a defeat. I particularly think of it as a defet when I have somehow managed to survive as Savoia in Rinascimento and then, when Venice drops out because I backstab him, I allow myself to be forced into a draw because everybody else suddenly decides that when Venice drops out it's not the game they signed up for.

Gumers, I'll speak specifically about that game in the game thread if you're interested, but in general their are too many players here who play for points, and the scoring system sadly encourages players to "lose" via "survival". The answer to this is WTA games. But unfortunately the site still chooses to have the default for all games selected as PPSC, and describes WTA as an expert setting. WTA is the base setting for Diplomacy. PPSC *might* have some valid uses in some variants where imbalance of starting positions is so great that there is a need for varied victory/reward conditions. The Imperial II variant is NOT an imbalanced map in spit of the apparent lopsided start positions, as the above mentioned game illustrated. Sadly the powers that be are in love with the PPSC, and refuse to make it an option setting.

My answer to this is to only play WTA games from here on. I encourage anyone who cares about the integrity of the game to join me in that. The WTA setting removes all but the most extreme cases of solo collaboration from the game, where the only time it goes on is because a doomed player has nothing left to play for but revenge, and has exhausted all other means for survival. Then it's a legit play. But when players decide that they can get more VDip points by allowing a solo, it's a sad day.

I think the new elo-score system may help to change this culture...

Well, it really fails to make a dent in it, because you can still get significant points from a "survive" result, when you should be penalized for it. Until people realize that "survive" = lose, this is never going to change. That this site actually promotes the mentality of rewarding failure is a disservice to everyone.

This past game really hits a nerve with me because I knew better.

The goal of any of these games is to solo, that's what you want and that is why you play. Some bullshit players out here, play to draw right from the beginning, not only do I consider that cheating it is not how the game was intented to be played.

A draw is the result of none of us can solo and the countries remaining can no longer attack each other whether because of tatical defensive positions or because in attacking someone will lead to another nation soloing. This is the most critical and toughest call to do. Because in a perfect world, if the game doesn't solo it should have the least possible guys sharing in the draw without a solo threat.

Alot of bullshit players out here, enter a game with the preconceived notion of drawing before they even make their first move which I consider cheating and not the intention of the game. I know how hard it is to stab a gamelong ally as most do but it is necessary to play the game correct.

What I can't really understand are the world's dumbest stabs when somebody stabs a nation holding up a viable solo threat. We just had the happen in a game not so long ago and it is just stupid but it happens.
Now you will have players out there say hey lets knock this down to 4 players and then draw, usually it is the solo threat nation requesting this, comes from others but from my experience it is initiated from that nation. There is a problem with this. While nobody wants more draw nations then absolutely necessary if you use this tactic too much and lie to achieve your solo goals this strategy becomes pointless and moot. For why should I believe you when you will just take advantage of one of the nations we are to dismantle and achieve your solo through it. So unless that goal is not always honored it means nothing. So in the end you will end up with far greater of nations sharing in the draw because nobody will trust anybody for keeping their word on the limiting of nations. To me this request is outside of the game and should never never be used as a solo tactic and considered cheating because nobody in the end will trust it and again the result will be more nations in drawing than should be.

As for crediting points in games. First all games should be 50% + 1 as a default for solo, you can change the game but the default should be 50% + 1. That way solos are harder to achieve and mean something not like the 50 sc solo requirement in WWIV, that's a fricken joke. And yes I do play those, I keep telling myself not to, but I do.
Here is where I differ from my esteemed colleague Ruffhaus8. I will give you the most blunt example. As a matter of fact we just had a game for this example. In a WWIV one nation got 51 SC's and the other 50 SC's. Under Randy's, understandable point, the nation with 50 should not receive anything for just a survive. I differ from this, I think points both HoF and D points should be awarded, how much? That should be discussed, obviously the vast majority to the soloist. But if you can survive a WWIV map, I think you should be awarded something. Now Ruff thinks it is rewarding failure and I understand his point but to me if you have some nations surviving a WWIV map, especially with a high solo point value, I think there is some credit due.

I don't even know where to begin on the WW4 map when the victory conditions are set at only 50....There's just no making logical sense of such a game. It's not Diplomacy. It's a joke, and one perpetuated on us here that the default VCs are set to 50. However, if you are going to play a horse race game, then go for it. But the principle of Diplomacy is that there can be only one winner. Awarding points for failure is a terrible precedent, and it has taught dozens if not hundreds of players here how to play the game poorly.

"That this site actually promotes the mentality of rewarding failure is a disservice to everyone." (2)

Champ,
It wasn't the point to "engage" turkey because it would be futile it was the point to hold him at bay, that in itself is a victory and I told you not to leave your southern flank open, you did and Ruffhaus took advantage of that, with my support you could have stalemated him there and we had a chance to keep him under 70. Why would you bring your forces to meet me and leave him an avenue to kick your ass? Then I believed something Ruffhaus told me and i shouldn't have and tried to knock you out under the guise of "limiting" the draw players. I don't know what Randy told you but whatever it was, it was great diplomacy on his part.

Yes, defiant is right. Champ´s strategy was as unreal as Japan´s atempt to solo (lol)...

If everyone is worried about the methodology of holding a strong power heading to a solo stay tuned for the variant I am developing...

Ruffles really only won that game because people were just content with getting points, not because they stayed true to the heart of the game. It is what it is though, hats off to ruffles.

"Ruffles"? you are opening a can of whoop ass on yourself. :)

Defiant, you can rage against Champ all you want, but the reality is that you did nothing to make him believe that you were going to protect him from me. I didn't even have to promise him survival. I threw the guy a bone because I didn't need to take Sweden. You guys are taking him to task too much. His middle was weak, and he could hold it. That broke Prussia's back, but I was shocked when the USA just let me walk into Holland and Kiel. I was also surprised that Brazil abandoned Okrana. That position was a fortress that would have taken me 5 to 10 years to seize by force.

Defiant, I don't pay attention to Sandgoose. He's a troll. Don't feed the trolls.

ok no feeding the trolls.

I will respond to the prussian situation in my EOG in that game. I shouldn't really bring up that game's problems here.

Not really, Turkey... I´ve told Japan turkey would solo because of his stupid strategy... I was just making sure you would solo as soon as possible, so USA and Japan wont have time to profit (in SCs and points) from their despicable behavior...