You knew it was going to happen, didn't you? :-)

You would think people would pre-write these threads in notepad or Word....

yeah, killing off some people so some will agree to a draw is perfectly acceptable.

anyone who doesn't agree to draw must be wiped out to get what you want, just like an opponent who gets in the way when you're tying to win. Of course holding a grudge and wiping someone out on principle is ok too, if everyone agrees...

still waiting to see your op.

Guys, at least wait until he posts his starting point before you try to respond.

The fact that some games on this site are going to end up as draws is an immutable fact. Sometimes a game is messed up and its participants no longer wish to play, other times a would-be winner reaches a stalemate and cannot progress any farther.

More common is a situation where a 'diplomatic stelamte' is reached; an alliance reaches some sort of stalemate line and cannot progress further. All participants can be agreed that any sort of winner is unlikely, and a draw seems inetivitable.

In these sorts of situations, do you think it is a legitimate and/or honourable tactic to request that a smaller power be eaten before drawing, and should it be something you care about?

How superior is a 3 way draw to a four way draw?

Personally, I feel that all draws, however many participants they have, are really the same. If someone played a good game, however small they are, I feel that they should share in the draw.

Others certainly do not share this view however, so when do you think whittling down the number of drawees is acceptable or even necessary, and why?

Thanks guys. I usually prewrite but I messed it up this time. :P

I'll give you an example. Germany and England have a super strong alliance, forcing the three remaining powers (Italy, Russia, and Turkey) to turn around and execute a skillful defense, stopping them in a stalemate line. Everyone agrees to draw, except Germany, who requests that Italy and Russia (with only three centres between them) must die before he draws. There is some bad blood between the German player and those two.

How do you feel about this? Can this be justified.

I disagree. The fewer in a draw the better. In addition, please accept the fact that this may be a diplomatic maneuver. By killing off a smaller party, it may allow things to change for the remaining 3 people.

Perfectly accept for Germany. He may want to share with fewer parties. He may also want to try to get you to make a mistake while you kill off Russia and Italy, so they can break through the stalemate line.

Feel free to not honor his request and tell him the alliance stands strong, and see who gives first.

But there is zero wrong with Germany requesting that. It is not dishonorable.

"By killing off a smaller party, it may allow things to change for the remaining 3 people."

This is true, and I accept this as a legitimate reason. Why though (beyond points- which I don't factor :P) are smaller number of draws preferable? You still didn't win, and niether did they. The only difference is that there are less faces around the table. Otherwise the situation is the same. You aren't superior to them in either scenario.

as you said, in this case it is a diplomatic draw.

If one party feels like wiping out a smaller player and you do feel they should be allowed to survive and participate on the draw then you have a diplomatic disagreement and a draw will not be possible until it is resolved.

There is no right or wrong, it can be resolved in the usual way, diplome whatever you've decided is worthwhile, and use your forces to force what you can't diplome.

Just because you accept that you have different interpretations of what is right and wrong does not mean that right and wrong do not exist, orthaic. :)

A four way draw is a waste of a game and a sure sign that you're not done yet.

"are smaller number of draws preferable? You still didn't win, and niether did they. The only difference is that there are less faces around the table. Otherwise the situation is the same. You aren't superior to them in either scenario."

By that logic, you might as well draw all games in 1901 with all 7 players.

Friendly, in this case, I believe Orathaic is correct, that there is no right and wrong; they do indeed not exist.

I agree with the majority (brave of me, I know). There is nothing "artificial" about reducing the number in a draw. Nor is there anything wrong in being adamant about keeping someone in a draw. A lot of people do care about points, or ghost ratings, both of which are affected by the number of players in the draw.

(unless, of course, you're that lonely small power holding on to your last stronghold by the skin of your teeth... in which case, getting the powers that be to include you in a bigger draw is a fantastic triumph!)

That is a different issue. If you are killing off smaller powers because your intention is to win, that is one thing.

But parties that are going to draw killing off a smaller party to the deal is something I believe is in bad faith. Essentially all I am wondering is why precisely people feel that a smaller number of drawees is somehow superior.

"By that logic, you might as well draw all games in 1901 with all 7 players."

No DJ, because I am skill committed to an attempt at winning the game. Once it has been established that I have given up on that though, the paradigm changes completely (at least for me).

I meant 'still', when I said 'skill', which I obviously do not possess. :)

My personal way of playing and enjoying the game only really allows for a three way draw. Any other situation (in my mind) should be subject to further play until either a solo or a three way stalemate is reached. If you have five players still in the game, then the game should continue. If players are truly in an "unbreakable alliance," then they aren't really playing Diplomacy. Again, this is all purely subjective, but I hope it answers what you are asking.

Friendly, if the idea is to win and make the other opponents lose, isn't it better for a 3 way than a 4 way? Because making 4 people lose is better than making 3 people lose, even if you didn't actually win, but only drew?

"That is a different issue. If you are killing off smaller powers because your intention is to win, that is one thing."

I think it was mentioned earlier that this culling of powers in the draw can often open up opportunities for a solo to emerge. Especially if eliminating the small power would require more movement of your opponents' troops than your own, refusing to accept a draw including the power might just give you the chance you need.

I guess the question is then, if you're one of the frontrunners in a game that's looking to be a draw, why would your intention be anything other than to seek the win?

Everything aside, it's some very exciting and complex diplomacy.

When someone inputs a draw vote, that changes a lot.

Not only does it demonstrate a tangible willingness to everyone that you want a draw, it means the player is risking a lot. If they put in the draw vote and walk away for the day it indicates that they wouldn't mind if when they came back everyone had voted for a draw.

Now... that doesn't always MEAN that's what they want. It could just be a tactic.

Also if someone has left a draw vote in place and hasn't withdrawn it in a long time, the other players can surprise him by drawing even after he may have assumed that wasn't going to happen.

There are lots of levels, but just know this: When a draw is becoming a feasible option, lots of things change. I was just recently in a game in which there were two large powers, myself as Italy and Germany. Russia had once been greater than both of us but we had banded together against him. When we were split 33/33/33, Russia had voted for a draw.

Germany was also willing to draw but hadn't voted to yet, but me, being one who believes pretty strongly in winning if you can, convinced Russia and Germany independently to stab each other, and each started fighting. I then stabbed Russia and the war began. Russia was rolled back to about 8 SCs to our 14 or so each.

As Germany approached 18 faster than I, things began to change. The West, especially the Atlantic, became the scene of an arms race where before it was relatively DMZ'd. Russia in the meantime was clearly the wild card. He was fighting me and not Germany, so Germany was then making all the gains. I knew I had been beaten at my own game and would not win if I did not do something soon.

As a result I did a lot of tactical thinking as well as some furious and desperate negotiating with Russia (that turned out to be in vain.) But the tactics paid off, and though I was undermanned, with a little luck, I put Germany in a bit of an uncomfortable situation by slipping behind his lines. When Germany and I broke our silence, the draw was mentioned, probably because we both saw Russia's draw vote still there. And so it happened. If I hadn't applied the pressure at that exact moment, I would have been on the run from Russia and Germany until he won, giving me just a survival.

Instead I got the draw. Perhaps I could have turned the tables and gone on to win, but I knew that Russia was playing strangely because the game was in its twilight, and knew I would need a lot of luck to win, so the draw was best.

Now.... was it unethical not to take the draw initially, hoping I could knock out Russia? Heck no.

gameID=12755

It was really fun and all three of us expressed our enjoyment. A game played right I think, despite what Friendly Sword may have seen as unethical.

@DbJ and Friendly:
yeah, ok right and wrong don't exist.

That said we are capable of defining behaviour as right and wrong for our own behaviour, and so in dip when other people disagree with you about whether it is right or wrong to wipe out a smaller player, play it out. Stand up for your beliefs, it's not the real world, it's a game, enjoy the arguement.

Germany's actions in your example would appear perfectly legitimate to me. Just because you're agreeing to a draw doesn't mean you can't try to draw on your own terms, to gain as much as possible.

@ Thucy:

"... we were split 33/33/33"

Were you playing a variant map with a lot more SC's?

Although that sounds fun Thucy, I'm not really sure it applies all that much.

Friendly, everyone seems to agree that you are wrong. Three way draws are by definition better than a four way draw. Asking for someone to be eliminated is valid because you can want a smaller draw (as you should) or because you want to break an alliance up to have a shot at winning (as you should). I also agree that any draw that includes more than 3 players generally implies diplomatic laziness, and isn't a finished game. If the culture was to play out a couple of turns, eliminate Austria and Germany, and then draw it up, then this game would suck. Adding the dimension of wanting smaller draws makes the dynamic more complicated and thus better.

Something else has just occurred to me on re-reading this thread.

@ FriendlySword: "Do you think artificially creating a smaller number of drawees is an honourable tactic?"

In what way does the behaviour you described in your example constitute "artificially" doing anything? Eliminating your opponents is an integral part of the game; there's nothing 'artificial' about doing so.

@ FriendlySword: "Essentially all I am wondering is why precisely people feel that a smaller number of drawees is somehow superior."

Because you get more points.