I feel there are two common mentalities regarding playing to draw/win. One kind of player looks to win from the outset, and if that looks impossible, focuses on securing the draw second. The other kind of player focuses on making themselves relatively certain of a draw, and goes for the win if they see an opportunity.

I tend to favor the latter school of thought, if I had to guess I'd say the former is more popular on this site. Not the same as deciding I need a triple alliance with no stabs from spring 01, but, that's my 2 cents.

I start proposing 3WDs, to most everyone, basically in S01 and never stop. But their purely 2nd fiddle to trying to solo. It's the people who ACTUALLY PLAN to be in a 3WD in S01 or otherwise super early that are the problem.

Is it better to propose a 3WD and maintain the pretense that is your goal, or to negotiate with your would-be allies acknowledging (somehow) that you both care about wanting to solo?

I'll take the bait: I'm one of those players who plays primarily for a three-way draw. I'm not saying I don't try to solo, or that I never stab my main allies (because I clearly do). But in my experience, even if everything goes according to plan in 1901 and 1902 and I get to 9/10 centers without making serious enemies, even then the chances of a solo are about 10%. So I play to maximize those chances, but I'll always keep in the back of my mind the possibility that it won't work and I make sure that my fallback option is a three-way draw and not elimination or some shitty 5-way draw.

A good example is the Peanut Gallery: gameID=164615. Obviously both uclabb and ATC are playing for a solo, but I'd be very surprised to see either of them get it. I estimate their solo chances to be about 10% each. So even though they are trying to cross stalemate lines and setting up to stab each other for the solo, neither of them is ignoring the obvious possibility of an R/A/E (or F) draw.

Another good example is the GR challenge game in which Stack and I shared a two-way draw: gameID=163864. Both of us attempted to cross the stalemate line at one point or another, and both of us knew that the other would take the solo given the chance, but neither of us really got that chance (or at least not me :p)

I'm really bad at planning, so I use this to my advantage and plan to lose. Amazingly this actually works.

Other tactics that shouldn't work but do including insulting all of your neighbours and telling your enemy what moves you're going to make in advance.

I'll be sure to try all of those on you, Oct.

I think there are a lot of people on the site who think the way stupid and bas do, and while they're certainly welcome to play as they see fit, I see that as the worse way to play. First off, planning for the safe three-way is often directly in opposition to maximizing your solo chances, and second, the games are just less exciting.

And, for the record, uclabb is definitely gonna solo Peanuts.

I think uclabb has increased his solo chances from around 10% to maybe 20% last year, but now that he waived a build, retreated from Rumania and lost Munich, it's back at a solid 10%.

"planning for the safe three-way is often directly in opposition to maximizing your solo chances"
I disagree. To secure a three-way draw, you need to grow to 8-10 centers, stab your most dangerous neighbors to avoid them becoming too big, and move your units towards the stalemate line. And you often need an ally on the other side of the line to coordinate with. These are all necessary ingredients of a solo too.

Playing for a draw, but being open for a solo, is all fine by me.

"Is it sad to play for a draw from the outset?"

Yes. There is less risk but I think there is also less entertainment (which is why I play). I accept that there may be circumstances, e.g. against a much stronger opponent, where achieving a draw will feel like a good result but that still feels a bit lame to me.

"Playing for a draw, but being open for a solo, is all fine by me."

Soloing is really, really difficult. You're not going to do it unless you're planning for it constantly.

I don't know about that. In the first year or two of the game you have so little information that any long-term plans you make, other than the most vague and open statements of intent, will soon fall victim to reality. Planning takes so much effort and more often than not just leads to frustration and disappointment.

Far better to just sit back and let the currents of the game pull you along. Dedicate your energy to increasing your diplomatic credit, and wait for that moment to appear when you can spend it to maximum effect.

^ Is this metagaming to encourage people to play badly? :-)

I mean, I do actually partially agree - you have to adjust and go with the flow of the game, and not be overly invested in specific plans, especially during the opening. (Heck, I'm a gunboat specialist, if you're having "solo plans" in S1901M, hahahahaha.)

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be thinking hard about where the winning opportunities are from the beginning, and how to encourage more of them to exist for you rather than for others. And indeed, thinking about whether it's possible or not.

For some games, after some sets of openings, certainly soloing becomes so unlikely as to be something that should be discounted in planning. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be thinking about it nevertheless.

That's all well and good if you like that sort of thing. From my own perspective, I do more than enough of that kind of stuff at work and like to avoid it as much as possible at home. I do not know what any but the most basic of openings actually are, or indeed the stalemate lines. If someone was to ask me to join them in a blue water Lepanto I'd have to google to find out what the damned thing was. For me, the background study and various bits of homework are counterproductive. Anything I'd gain from learning it would be more than offset by the huge drop in form caused by the tedium of it all.

It's the same with planning. I could come up with plans to try and maximize my solo chances, and diligently adjust then as new information becomes available and game patterns change, and it may actually produce better results for a time. But I know with cast iron certainty that if I did that I would have stopped playing years ago. I am a professional amateur. Being slightly inept is key to maximising long term performance, and that's the way I like it. I enjoy following rules of my own choosing, I enjoy being taken by surprise and having to react, I enjoy the chaos. And when I am enjoying myself, things tend to go better.

Planning is for wimps ;)

"Soloing is really, really difficult. You're not going to do it unless you're planning for it constantly."

@ghug

I don't necessarily agree, any 2-way alliance has an immediate potential for a solo and in every 3 way alliance there always seems to be a nation that is drastically overextended. I have gotten a fair share of my solos from betraying allies and picking up huge build numbers immediately prior to soloing.

Frankly, it's all about finding a style of play that suits you, and working with it for a solo.

That said, I also don't lose respect for the occasional Brazil-Argentina alliance that lasts for 30 years, and ends up being draw, sometimes you make buddies :\

JY likes cat and dog alliances best. Go dogs!