The Carebear Conundrum

[Octavious]

Two excellent examples to consider, PW

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=232095
The game above is my best game to the day. I took over France and made it to a two-way draw. I worked with Egypt in all the game and was a faithful ally. I reached 32 SCs and he had 31. I could have stabbed him at the time he got the 32nd so to be soloing, but what would be the point? For me, the achievement was already great and I was also rewarding my fellow who helped me get there.

As this game matured we see Egypt, France, Britain, Poland, and Ukraine fighting for dominance. Britain is on the receiving end of a lot of punishment and sadly CDs in 2001, throwing the balance slightly and no doubt causing a lot of irritation in those unable to take advantage of the situation. Through a combination of good play and good fortune the alliance of France and Egypt are well placed to press home their advantage, and do so.

For the next five years or so Poland and Ukraine invest a considerable amount of time and effort fighting on. There is zero chance that they can triumph against superior numbers, but their hope is that inevitably France or Egypt must turn on each other to have any chance of winning, and at this point they may be able to force themselves into a draw. In the dying moments of the game Poland realises his efforts have failed, and settles back to watch the final moves and congratulate which of his opponents will turn out to be the worthy winning, stating:

"Autumn, 2007: I officially give up gg well played may the better man win"

Sadly, there isn't a better man. The Polish and Ukrainian players have both been deceived. They have not been playing against fellow Diplomacy players, but Carebears, and as such the entirety of their efforts over the last half decade of play have been a complete waste of time. They have been betrayed. There is no winner to congratulate, but there are losers. It is a thoroughly gutting experience.

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=370235
Ιn the above game when we got down to 4 players the two major powers said that they'd accept a 3-way draw so the two smaller powers had to fight each other for the third place. Should I betray my ally and kill him (I was a little stronger)? Wasn't it better to fight the proposition until the two powers changed their mind?

And here we see a similar situation but in this scenario to dominant players are not Carebears. In this scenario the smaller defending alliance have realistic hope, a genuine reason to continue. The game for them remains enjoyable because there is a point to them playing on. There is something to fight for.

Unfortunately the real world interferes and Turkey is placed in a position where he'd be forced to retire. Poland, being a Diplomacy player of exemplary honour, agrees to draw rather than taking what would be a tarnished easy victory. This is an attitude to be saluted.

As for your question, I see zero evidence to assume that killing your ally would result in you being offered a 3-way. The draw should be earned, and you earn it by forcing it. You can, of course, only force a draw if you are playing against real Diplomacy players. If you are playing against Carebears you have no agency, no influence, no enjoyment, and no reason to come back and play the game in the future.

[Doug7878]

So, would this 2015 3wd what one would call a "carebear" game ?

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?game ... #gamePanel

[Octavious]

I wouldn't have thought so. If France, Germany and Austria had started the game by forming a 3 way alliance and never entertaining the idea of a stab then yes, but there's nothing I can see to suggest that's the case. You could perhaps argue that there's more life in the game, and a purist disciple of the lusthog tradition may have pushed things further, but from my perspective I can't see anything to criticise.

Do you disagree?

[Doug7878]

No, I don't. France and I were both on a stalemate line vs Austria (at 14SCs), and I felt at the time that Austria could very likely be the beneficiary of either of us attacking the other.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

Octavius, I disagree. Poland was to be killed, even if I was to try for solo Poland was not to survive. The only difference would be that I would be the killer in this case. Also, this is the only one time in dozens of games to get to a 2-way.

In the second game, the term was given publicly and privately.

In the only game I play now, I was stabbed just in the fourth turn. This game has something against me!

[Octavious]

Octavius, I disagree

Fair enough

In the second game, the term was given publicly and privately.

And this makes the terms more likely to be honoured for what reason?

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

No.no, I said that to ensure you that it was an idle threat. It was their terms.

[captainmeme]

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=158084

Just gonna leave this here

[Octavious]

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=158084

Just gonna leave this here

I'm frankly amazed this didn't crop up sooner . Well done for paying attention.

Tournament play is, of course, a little different. The goal is to win the tournament rather than individual games themselves. In this particular case a 2-way provided me safe passage to the next round and also allowed into the next round a competitor who I believed I'd stand a good chance of beating if I played him again. Not that he was a bad player, far from it, but in some respects Diplomacy is like rock paper scissors and I felt I was the paper to his rock. It is, of course, entirely possible that he allowed me into the next round for the same reason .

But yeah, I don't think that qualifies as true carebeariness

[Wusti]

But yeah, I don't think that qualifies as true carebeariness

You didn't take the solo on offer. The rest is sophistry. Also, nice job Cap.

The draw should be earned, and you earn it by forcing it. You can, of course, only force a draw if you are playing against real Diplomacy players. If you are playing against Carebears you have no agency, no influence, no enjoyment, and no reason to come back and play the game in the future.

Bahahaha

[Octavious]

You didn't take the solo on offer. The rest is sophistry. Also, nice job Cap.

Sophistry? It was tournament play designed to maximise my chances in the tournament. I'm somewhat surprised that you're having problems understanding the concept, Wusti. A Diplomacy player plays to win. In a one off game one's focus is on winning the game, in a tournament one's focus is on winning the tournament.

[captainmeme]

To be fair, you did win that tournament so I can't complain too much

[Trigfea63]

C'mon ... whatever else you might think about the topic of this thread, England cannot seriously be accused of playing that game like a Carebear. Look at how he allied with France in the early going, then brutally savaged him once the French units had all moved south and east.

[Octavious]

C'mon ... whatever else you might think about the topic of this thread, England cannot seriously be accused of playing that game like a Carebear. Look at how he allied with France in the early going, then brutally savaged him once the French units had all moved south and east.

True, that. I would have a hard time using this game as evidence to support my membership of the carebear club

[Trigfea63]

Nice stab btw :D

[Wusti]

You didn't take the solo on offer. The rest is sophistry. Also, nice job Cap.

Sophistry? It was tournament play designed to maximise my chances in the tournament. I'm somewhat surprised that you're having problems understanding the concept, Wusti. A Diplomacy player plays to win. In a one off game one's focus is on winning the game, in a tournament one's focus is on winning the tournament.

I know, I know - just giving you shit to see if you'd rise to it :)

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

All of you that oppose carebearing (!) answer me this question: Why it is bad for the game to reward and ally who shared all the game and fought side by side, but it is okay and acceptable to throw the game to a player so to punish the one that stabbed you and made you lose?
Either is both to be frowned upon or are both to be accepted.

[Gabe The Fancy]

All of you that oppose carebearing (!) answer me this question: Why it is bad for the game to reward and ally who shared all the game and fought side by side, but it is okay and acceptable to throw the game to a player so to punish the one that stabbed you and made you lose?
Either is both to be frowned upon or are both to be accepted.

This is a good and legitimate question. I'm happy you asked it. My position on throwing a game being better is this. The objective of ever game should be to win (solo). Carebears objective is the draw. They are the ones who betrayed the spirit of fair hr game first. If I am going to have an unfavorable outcome to a game I may as well support the player who is staying true to the objective. I don't expect everyone to agree with my position but hopefully this offers some insight.

[Gabe The Fancy]

Apologies for the previous post being full of errors. I'm on my phone - not the PC

[Squibit]

Hi Everyone,

I'm not much of a Diplomacy player, but I've enjoyed reading this discussion and have a suggestion to throw out there. Sorry if this has been considered already:

Someone quoted the rules as written regarding this earlier:

"OBJECT OF THE GAME: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw."

What this doesn't mention is how to "score" a win vs a draw. So any scoring associated with the conclusion is purely meta.

The rules as written don't make mention as to whether a Draw is equal to a win, worth a percentage of a win based on the number of remaining players, or perhaps is worth a great deal less than a win. Perhaps this is indeed the crux of the argument being had in this thread.

What if we introduced a new scoring system in which drawing a game was worth much less than winning? So lets say each player contributed a 10 point stake. A solo win is still worth 70 points in a classic game, but a two-way-draw is not worth 35 points each, perhaps it is worth 17 each instead? The exact total value of a shared draw vs a solo win is something that could be debated further. It could even be just your originally offered stake.

If there were an additional scoring mode along side SoS and DSS that was a more cut throat reward-the-solo style mode, then players could choose and be aware of what type of game they were joining from the start?