Also, how many on this site, if playing E/F, and swearing to Germany they will five-way draw, would actually then eliminate Germany and Italy if Turkey pulled back to the minimal southeast stalemate position? My prediction is that at least half of the people on this site would ultimately eliminate G/I for a three-way rather than a five-way, which is another reason I'd have helped the Turk solo if I were Germany.

PS - As part of our global discussion in the game, which was insanely heated, we discussed starting a thread on the topic to poll the users on this site. So please help the five of us settle the debate! :-)

Okies.

By the mantra of try to win, try to draw, try to enjoy your defeat, if I was confident that E/F were going to eliminate me, I'd do as Germany did.

Whoops, forgot to answer the second question: In the tournament games I've been playing recently, I would go for the maximum result if that had a bearing on the tournament outcome. I haven't played much non-tourney since 2008, but back then I did minimise draw.

However, I'm not sure that I now would, and its going to be something I ask myself before I start my summer diplomacy binge, which will not be tourney diplomacy. I don't think I'd find it fun, and I am less inclined to think about results and ratings etc. now that I used to be (I feel I've proven myself to an extent perhaps?)

than I used to be*

I find that any of those options for Germany would be valid. For myself, it would depend greatly on how the game was played and my expectations from the start. I waiver on the issue primarily because I'm not sure how I feel about a 'survival' outcome in a WTA game. I generally find that survival retains some merit in a WTA game, but not as much as in a PPSC game.

As for the second question, I think I would again take a pragmatic approach. Do I trust Turkey to retreat enough to allow for the defeat of Germany? Has Germany earned a spot of respect for its play in the game? I could fall in either camp depending on the game.

So, Ghost, in tourney play you would do anything/everything to convince the German to stalemate Turkey, and when Turkey pulled back to the minimal southeast stalemate position you would break your word and kill off the German and the Italian for the three-way draw, to maximize your result. BUT, you are currently puzzled by the dilemma and not sure what you'd do.

Thanks for your feedback, that's one vote for it being a very grey area and validates either course of action by the German, to help solo, or help try to stop the solo and get elminated while E/F/T three-way draw.

If I'm confident I'm going to be eliminated, then I try to make sure the people who are screwing me get screwed in return.

If I think there's a *reasonable* chance I'll get included in a draw, I may risk getting eliminated to try to maintain a stalemate - especially since I would assume that the big power would be... encouraging my elimination. However, the weakest power's negotiating ability primarily relies upon a threat to throw the game if he doesn't get support from the others, and it appears that E/F kept hammering far past the point where they should have set up a stalemate. My feeling in that case would be that they've damn well earned what's about to happen

Please keep the thoughts coming, great comments so far, thanks!

I think I would disagree with a lot of what was written so far. I view the game as winning, drawing, or losing (with all losing being equal). Thus, a slim chance at a draw is better than losing, no matter how much revenge you might get in the process. Also, from reading the global chat for the game (which I read pretty much in its entirely starting when the draw discussion became public), it appears that Germany had a legitimate chance to get a relatively simple draw if France and England agreed to it. The only way they could have eliminated Germany is if Turkey pulled back (like he, also played by MadMarx, did in the example game Turkey cited in chat) and allowed Germany to be cleaned up with E/F risking a loss.

Madmarx, in the tourney, I would play to win/go through to the next round of/ place myself as well as possible in said tourney. Playing for fun alone, I would play for err... fun!

I would have kept it in my hands. Play it on a bit from there, but make sure you were able to give the game to either side. That said, the way things look to have been going I might well have let Turkey take it.
I'm also part of the win>draw>survive>die school of thought.

Recently had this situation in gameID=31042, which was a live game plagued with CDs (and another suicidal Austria!). Getting on in the game I reached a similar situation, although with only 2 other players. Then with a bit of luck and some careful play was almost able to set myself so that either player would have to keep me alive to avoid defeat.
In that case, turned out Turkey wasn't thinking about playing for the draw and instead walked in as a turned to face England.

@Nola - Looking at it the other way, if you don't let the final nation close enough that you can throw the game to them you won't be allowed to survive in the draw.

figlesquidge - I agree with you that you may have to retreat in setting up a draw, but some coherent, non-emotional negotiation (which I did not see in the listed game) helps that a bit. Also, Germany indicated a full two years before Turkey's victory that he was throwing the game, and that, in my opinion, is just bad form unless there are only two powers left and they both are trying to eliminate you (thus allowing you to force a 3-way as each fears the other winning). Even if you don't trust the other people at all, the odds that they are telling the truth pretty much has to be greater than zero, while allowing someone else to win just means you have 0% chance at a favorable result.

Ghost, I think it is very fun to get revenge on game-long enemies! ;-)

PS - I had no idea people could read our in-game global discussion... I now feel very violated! ;-)

MadMarx - Yes, all global chat for every game become public after the game is finished (as least whenever I have checked). Gives great insight into what was going on in your particular game.

Correction - Global chat is public even in active games. You just pull up the game and then click "Messages."

I'll be damned... I don't pay much attention to finished games other than my own...

Honestly, I don't like it, those are personal discussions meant for the ears of seven people and seven people only!!

Fight, risk elimination, especially when there two other players are better than me, drawing with them proves nothing, beating them is the only course to victory (even if they wipe you out in the end, or let one take the solo...)

good times...

I think it completely depends on the individual situation and history between players in the game. If I'd really enjoyed playing with someone, I'd happily let them into the draw. If I'd found a player unresponsive and frustrating, I'd do all I could to throw the game to someone else.

I'm with nola2172 on this one. I think there are three outcomes to a game of Diplomacy: win, draw, and lose. Furthermore, I would have assumed that was the dominant mindset among experienced players, but it looks like I couldn't have been more wrong about that. (Score a point for Ivo on that one!) I simply don't understand playing for "survival" except that it allows you to lose on your own terms and save a modicum of face. But I guess I agree with Ghost that you should have fun with the game, and I suppose many find the vengeance-fueled Pyrrhic victory fun. But for my money, as a noted philosopher and poet once said, "you play to win the games."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

I see a draw as a form of win, a lessor win, but a win nonetheless. In the same way I see survival as a loss, a better loss but still a loss. For myself it matters greatly which nation I'm playing as. To survive as England or Turkey is no great success--as I believe both to be difficult to defeat. I also think a solo with Italy to be the biggest coup. But I wouldn't think anyone wrong for thinking otherwise.

V+, I agree that playing for survival is worthless. Personally, I prefer to die than survive. BUT, if I were in the German's shoes, as I have said, getting revenge on the E/F for their play would be MUCH more satisfying of an outcome than a survive or a death. If I can't win, or have a very good chance of a draw, I'm absolutely going to do everything in my power to do as stratagos said, to "try to make sure the people who are screwing me get screwed in return", which is exactly what I did in the other TopTwentyGR game that, ironically, had many of the same players that were a part of this final dilemma:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26449

There is winning and there is winning. I'm less concerned about my Ghost Rating and my web dip stats in general than in walking away from a game satisfied with the outcome. If I'm expertly outmaneuvered I can be content that I fell to someone who used innovative tactics, which I can utilize myself in the future.

If the odds are overwhelming that I'm not going to be able to either win or draw, then I'm going to die - but if I'm going to die, I prefer to have as much control over my fate as possible. So I have no compunction against dragging my enemies down with me if they've pushed my back to the wall - in that case my satisfaction in the destruction of their dreams trumps curling up in a corner and acting in a way that doesn't change the my ultimate fate, but is a benefit to my enemy.

@MadMarx: I think the other game (gameID=26449) is a slightly different case. In that game, you were stabbed early and really had no hope seeing it through to the draw. In the game we just wrapped up (gameID=26422), Ger had a legitimate and easy shot at the draw, even up to the last season.

I agree with Germany's decision. I would much rather see someone win than to see two greedy cretins killing me off.

Sorry, I should clarify.
I would never support going for SCs over trying to draw.
What I mean is that sometimes the only way to get in on a draw is to give away some supply centres such that you are *able* to throw the game one way or the other. Once in this position then in theory the other teams won't attack, but clearly you'll find lots who do, and in those cases I don't see why you have to try and fight the other guy whilst they walk in behind.

V+, "a legitimate and easy shot at the draw", this is where you and I seriously disagree, especially in an anonymous game. France and England showed nothing but aggression towards Germany for far too long for the German to have any faith in the E/F not killing off Germany after the Turk gave away StP/Mos/War/Sev and many other provinces while slipping back into the minimal southeast stalemate position possible. France and England may both have honored the five-way draw at that point, but if Germany bases their assessment of that very important question on actions and words spoken within this specific game, there appears to be not one single shadow of a doubt present to encourage the German to attempt to draw rather than help the Turk to a solo.