I think this discussion is interesting on a theoretical level. However, for those self-identifying as diplomacy purists out there, I want to know: Where is the evidence that people not playing for the win is a huge problem on this site? I've finished several games on this site, not as many as some, but not ONE TIME have I ever received an invitaton to join a "game-long unbreakable alliance," nor were any of my diplomatic suggestions turned down because the opponent said he was in a game-long unbreakable alliance with another player or players. Even if these existed, I doubt people would be so open about it. So in the absence of such evidence, how do you distinguish between an "unbreakable" alliance and a breakable alliance that simply hasn't been broken yet?

I also want to argue against the idea that PPSC is a "newbie variant" and somehow inferior to true diplomacy. I can provide one example where the WTA/PPSC difference might have affected my play: Once I had a two-way draw in a PPSC game where, if it was WTA instead, I would have had additional incentives to either: 1. Stop at a 3 way draw, or 2. Stab my ally and play for the win. Although by happenstance I managed to stay in alliance with my ally for the whole game, I wouldn't classify this two-way draw as the inevitable outcome of a "game-long unbreakable alliance". Geographically and diplomatically, I had compelling reasons for keeping my alliance with him and so did he. I made and broke alliances with other nations throughout 90% of the game, and the WTA/PPSC distinction probably would have not affected the play of this greater part of the game. I still would have had the same incentives to enlarge my nation, secure my position diplomatically, and eliminate as many rivals as possible.

I also want to know: when exactly during a Diplomacy game should I begin thinking about making a solo run? In theory, a solo should be every player's primary objective all the time. But oviously the first year or two is way too early to seriously begin plotting a solo. Depending on the map variant, it could be ten years or more before solo scenarios even enter the realm of possibility. It seems to me that everyone, newbie or veteran, has to focus on survival first.

Amwidkle -

A couple short points since im on my phone.
No one is going to tell you theyre in an unbreakable alliance, but when you see a 17sc power support a 13 sc power up to 17, and then they draw, what would you call that? Or when 3 powersmake no attempt to ever fight, and leave scs completely undefended the entire game, and then draw as soon as the 4th player is eliminated, what would you call that?

As for the solo, it truly DOES start with turn 1. You must plot where you see your 18 coming from. A true dip master influences events, he (or she) does not let evebts influence them. From turn 1, you shoukd be trying to influence events to your solo run. Obviously on maps with hundreds of scs, this might change, but for most maps, this holds true.

There is actually one additional idea I would like to present. Specifically, the idea that two people may actually "tie" a game and simply need to "tie up loose" ends to make it a reality.

To illustrate, picture a game where a great alliance dominates the board. Now, from here one may stab the other in order to play for a solo. Picture the former ally organizing a coalition on the board capable of stopping this attempt. Similarly, picture this alliance moving in a way that neither will allow a stab - through their moves, positions and diplomacy with the remaining players on the board. In both these situations, I would argue that these two players have tied - they have both shown superiorty compared with the other 5 players while neither has managed to defeat the other. If and when this game is stalemated, I believe it is truly a tie. From this position, I believe if the two people both buy into this philosophy they can simply move to make the two way draw trusting each other.

This is akin to a FTF game where the major players may agree to a draw with X players before all the other players are eliminated. Again, it would require the correct personalities, relationship and actual results but it is possible.

I was once defeated and the other four players immediately agreed to a draw. My first game on this site actually. It was a frustrating experience, but the four remaining powers were of approximately the same strength so I could see this as a legitimate result. Perhaps not the most exciting result, but a legitimate result in the sense that it wasn't preordained that I be eliminated from turn one. Looking back on this game, I trusted the wrong people and made several poor decisions that caused resentment and weakened myself. I made efforts to avoid defeat but ultimately I could not undo the damage. Now, after I was taken out, if one power stabbed any of the three, then he would probably be the next to go by consensus based on the example of my own defeated nation.

As for one 17 SC power supporting the other from 13 up to 17, I haven't ever seen this kind of behavior in any of my games on this site either. But I would agree with you that this would not be in the spirit of the original design of the game.

Amwidkle - there are several 4 player variants on this site. In the game you describe, these players were probably in a similar situation. Players are choosing in this situation to end a game before it is over. Players like these who are not willing to play a game to its conclusion are players drano and I are describing as players we do not want to play with.

Only when each player honestly believes they can no longer win should a game be drawn.

The variant was for 9 players I think, so a 4 way draw was about like a 3 way draw for the original 7 player game. So I guess each player probably had 12-14 centers. Although the game could have certainly continued from there, easily down to three players, I could see how each player in such a four-man alliance could honestly believe there was no shot at a solo. In theory, three players of equal strength should mean there's no shot at a solo; if one gains the upper hand, the other two can join forces and the solo bidder will still be well short of the halfway mark.

I also want to defend the point system for three major reasons.

1. Points let you determine how much to wager on each game, from essentially nothing for "just for fun" games to many chips for competitive games where you are confident in the abilities of all the players.

2. If it were changed to an ELO type system, where you get more points for defeating higher ranked players, then you would introduce a powerful incentive just to attack those who are ranked higher. IMO that's an external factor that should have no bearing on the diplomacy within the game. IMO it should be the same reward to defeat a rookie or a 1000+ point veteran, so that all that matters to people's decisions is what happens inside the game. Diplomacy purists can also safely oppose such a change because this kind of ELO incentive structure was not in the original game design. Of course, neither was Vdip points either, but IMO this is a closer approximation of the rewards associated with a solo win or draw. (Of course, this doesn't stop people from ganging up on high point people anyway out of fear, which is one reason I like to play anonymously)

3. It's fun! Like playing poker :P

"As for a tangible reason, I guess if the creator of the games words aren't enough nothing is. Nothing will satisfy you synapse. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe if Jesus, or Buddha, or Barack Obama, or Colonel Sanders said to play for the win, you'd listen"

Nope. I make my own opinions instead of following others, and you still haven't provided any reason.

Amwidkle -

In a situation such as you described, it is perfectly feasible to attempt to solo. Let's call your 4 players A, B, C, and D.

Once it was just the 4 of them, player A should have been talking to player B about attacking C or D. Player B should have listened, and then gone and warned C and D about the potential for an attack so that player A wouldnt' make many gains. Then, Player B should have figured a way to position his units so that in the ensuing revenge attack on player A, player B nets the most gains allowing him to make his own solo bid against C or D while they're still finishing off player A, potentially even using Player A to help him in that bid.

The point Jim was trying to make is that there's always SOME way to work things out. Very rarely are things so balanced (both unit strength wise, strategic positioning wise, and diplomatic wise) that a draw like that is necessary. Most often it is simply because people don't have the will or courage to even try.

Synapse -

I'm glad you're so independent. Perhaps we can play a round of golf together some time. I'm sure you'd have no issue purposely letting me tie you so we can "draw" the match. Or perhaps we can race. You'd be fine sharing the victory right? After all, it's not in the rules that you can't, so surely that's what we should do yes?

I'll never be able to provide a reason for you Synapse. As soon as you said "it is as much belonging to the players as to the creator", you proved that. By your logic, since it belongs to the players now, the players (which clearly you view as meaning you) get to decide how to play. How can I ever provide a reason for you, when you feel that you (as a player) own the direction of the game as much as the creator? You're impossible to convince, and as such, I'm forced to ignore you from here on out as typing responses to you is a waste of my time.

You could convince me that it is better not to draw, in terms of game satisfaction or value. But your only argument is that the creator intended something else. Am I the only one who doesn't care about the creator of Diplomacy here? If the guy who invented golf didn't intend for bunkers, and somebody introduces them and convinces me of their value, then I think the game should evolve and include bunkers. If on the other hand someone proposes that there should be handicaps, and they weren't a part of the original game, I could be persuaded that handicaps are better based on logic and reason, not tradition. Or you might persuade me that the original golf was *better* for several reasons. But I don't owe allegiance to something just because that was the intention. People improve things. The internet isn't how Alexander Graham Bell thought that the telephone was supposed to be used, are you against that progress as well?

Apples to oranges Synapse. AGAIN you are comparing different things. A bunker DOES NOT change the OBJECTIVE of golf. It is merely an additional obstacle, much like the Milan variant of Classic adding territories. However, playing for the draw DOES change the OBJECTIVE of Diplomacy. It would be like (to use your analogy) saying that the objective of golf is now to tie with the people in your group instead of having the lowest score.

Are you really that blind to the difference?

Handicaps have changed the objective of golf in a similar way to points in diplomacy

No. Handipcaps simply give a bonus to one player, similar to if we decided to give players with less points an extra SC to start the game.

After all, the objective of golf is still the same as it's always been: be the player with the lowest score. A handicap helps level the playing field, like giving an extra sc to players who aren't as good at Diplomacy.

What do you propose anyway?

Have you *not* been reading the thread? I propose that people play for the win (yes, even in PPSC). No pre-arranged draws or unbreakable alliances. That in WTA, survival is NOT something anyone should play for (I'll concede that in PPSC it can be a worthy goal sometimes, however, that's a reason for me not to play PPSC in the future). That people actually TRY to solo, even when it's down to just you and your 2 allies. Position yourself to have a shot at it.

That's what I"m proposing. If people truly tried that out, they'd find that some of the most exciting and gut-wrenching moves you have to make are during that turn or two when the game is in doubt. When someone is making a solo push and you're scrambling to stop them with a former enemy by your side. THAT is exciting Diplomacy.

So no new rules or anything? You just want people to change?

Hahahaha, you can't change people.

Not people like you. Which is why you get the honor of being the first on my block list.

I have no desire to ever play anyone with your mentality, therefore there's no need to talk to you. I sincerely hope you have fun. Just not with me in the game.

+1, see you in a gunboat

I believe if you have someone blocked, it notifies you if you try and join a game they are in. It also notifies you if you try and join a game that your "blockee" has already joined. I don't think it matters if it is a gunboat or even an anon game.

Well, it appears this thread will fade into the blackness of the forums. I'm disappointed none of the "regulars" came to discuss (looking at you Guaroz). Perhaps it was because they knew they couldn't 'win'? : p

Sorry drano, discuss... about what? Did I miss anything I should agree or disagree with?

drano019, nobody wins on the forums, only in games! Anyway, just based on amount of text, you would surely win, but if you count not caring about what drano says, the rest of us win.

Guaroz -

I just thought you might have something to say on the topic. You generally do in things im involved in :p

General -

I usuàlly try to stay polite on here, but when a guy with a whopping 2 wins in games that have more than 3 players (one of which was 4 players, and 1 gunboat), and a massive 20 messages sent per game average trys to talk about winning in games, i cant help but laugh at the irony. Perhaps you shoukd go practice a little more instead if trying to be mister cool on the forums by sniping at me. At least my posts have substance and thought behind them, something yours lack. And if your in-game press is like your forum posts, its no surprise been 'defeated' more than twice as many times as 'won', even when we count your 1v1s.

I think this thread was originally about making WTA the default, not PPSC. It's a subtle difference that I think should be made. So yes, there's something concrete here. And I agree with it -- though I'm not sure it matters much here, as the site is loaded with more casual players (which, for the record, is quite fine).

What about making draws split points PPSC style? That would remove the impetus for eliminating weaker players from the draw, thereby making fighting for the draw a better result points-wise for a weaker player (as the threat of being eliminated is gone).

I know, compared to you and Ruffhaus I shouldn't be saying anything about winning. Maybe I should practice some more! Also, I guess tactics is more my playing style than talking to people. I have always wondered how people send so many messages they don't need. Are they messaging every player, or just chatting? Maybe you could give me some pointers on why people send so many messages.

what makes you say that this site is full of "more casual players"?

General - in order to succeed at this game you need people to do things that help you succeed. How do you convince them to do this through "tactics" especially when others are all talking to eachother. There is something to be said about "relationships" so even when talking isn't necessary, per se, it remains important.

reading what Amwidkle said about nasty all draws, I remembered one of my first games here : http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=4713

About winning. Van we make a setting where NO DRAW is allowed?