I don't know if it's officially in the rules, but it's bad form to comment on games in progress - so I can't advise you on this position as such.

However, I can answer your question in a general way without looking at the game, so I will say that the aim of the game is to win - if you can go for a win, go for it, just make sure you have a stalemate position to retreat back to if things go wrong. Then if a stop the leader coalition forms, take the stalemate position and you can still force a draw.

It is highly taboo to directly ask for advice on an ongoing game, if not flat out illegal, since it would be metagaming.

However, on the general topic of drawing, I only draw in the following circumstances:

A. A draw would be better than I would get if I refused to draw. (Ie, someone about to solo is willing to draw with me)
B. All parties have reached a tactical or diplomatic stalemate.
C. The other players in the game have played very well, and they deserve a draw for their efforts. (I probably wouldn't let this stop me from soloing though.)

I fully support all opinions already voiced.
If you're going to draw, whittle it down to 2 or 3 countries, first.

Dear Ivo_ivanov: Many thanks for your statment. I appreciate it (in particular because I can see that your are the number 8 worldwide... wow... what for an honour!).

Dear hopsyturvy: I really apologize if I've done something that is forbidded or I made a wounding remark which can offend the spirit of this play (which I like all the days more and more).

Best regards

Angelo (in Switzerland)

As the others point out, it is bad form to ask for advice on a game in progress with specific details (like the game ID). Next time, just pose the question of "when is it appropriate to do XYZ" and don't give any details (i.e. general advice). That said, I live by the adage.

Win
If I can't win, be part of the draw.
If I can't be part of the draw, survive.
If I can't survive, make certain the one who screwed me out of all of that gets screwed out too.

I'm not going to look at the game in question, because - as others have mentioned - it's generally considered a bad idea to comment on a game in progress.

So you need to assess your current position, with the following things in mind:
* Can I reach 18 centers if the other countries united against me?
* Can I reach 18 centers if I can successfully split any alliance against me?
* Can I be eliminated by the other powers if I refuse to draw? (If the answer is "no", then in general you'll want to continue hammering away until a stalemate is reached)
* Are there other reasons that I may want to draw that don't involve the questions above - ie: you feel the remaining powers have played a hell of a game and don't want to slog through another 15 game years just to get one more center

@Draug, or anyone - is enjoying the game ever a factor in your thinking?

Sometimes I definitely make a play that is to some degree inconsistent with the win>draw>survive>revenge hierarchy, just because it's interesting, or for a reason to do with player personalities. Not to say I'll play to lose, but I'll take unnecessary risks if I want to try something showy, or to help out the underdog if they've played well but been unlucky, or even to finish the game quickly.

@Angelo

Ignore the wiseguys above, who were all too eager to tell you what you're doing wrong and then proceeded to give you totally irrelevant (for a 15-center country) advice.

It is true that you should not be asking for specific moves and such - to avoid the game becoming a public dispute. Better to ask an individual player - maybe from another game you're playing in, or someone you've played before. Regardless, asking whether to play for the win or draw, in your situation, for someone who has only played one game is surely not such a big deal.

P.S. This about 8th in the world is not true in any way, not sure if I'm 8th in here, but you'll get to know the scoring systems later on. First survive some stabs and the forum folk :)

Dear All

I really apologize if I did something (morally or not) forbidden!

Should I, as a punishment, go into a church and say 1000 rosaries and light 1000 candles?

Thanks and best regards

Angelo

Heh, if people didn't tell you, you'd never know. I would say fair play, one telling off is enough - but really this is pretty mild. If you really want to see the forum folk up in arms, try posting a cheating accusation in the forum and enjoy the responses in all caps. :)

Win!

Dear All
Many thanks for all your help and information.
I've appreciate your feedback.
I wish you a good day and good luck!
Best regards
Angelo

"It is true that you should not be asking for specific moves and such - to avoid the game becoming a public dispute. Better to ask an individual player - maybe from another game you're playing in, or someone you've played before. Regardless, asking whether to play for the win or draw, in your situation, for someone who has only played one game is surely not such a big deal. "

Either instance is metagaming. It's allowing something outside the game to affect something inside the game.

Do not listen to Ivo. He's wrong. Asking one individual person is just as much metagaming as asking the entire community at large.

Rlumley, please use the correct thread for these postings:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=591303#591303

Yes, listen to rlumley and never ask no one for nothing. Stay stupid and then tell others what to do :)

@ rlumley

yours seems a silly interpretation of metagaming to me. Do you at home cover the screen when your wife walks by just to make sure she doesn't drop a comment on the game and makes you guilty of metagaming? Discussing privately about a current game with somebody not personally involved in the game is not metagaming.

@Raff - it is most definitely metagaming... That said, it is not necessarily unacceptable metagaming and is better than asking the forum at large, but it is still metagaming. Hell, if I were at a bar with Edi Birsan and asked him to look at my game, that would be metagaming and probably be unwise as I'm sure even Edi makes mistakes when he gets drunk. :-)

Take the win buddy, you deserve it.

Well, for one, victory seems easily enough within your reach. And Germany isn't even offering a draw, so forget that. Go for the win, brother, you worked too hard to let that pass you by.

Dear All

I've an additional question. But in order to avoid that the whole Diplomacy-Forum will be in an uproar over my question, I would like to accent that my question is not related to the game which I'm playing now or has something to do with a game which I played during the last 1000 years and/or with a play which I intend to play during the next 1000 years. So, I hope that any doubt about Mega- or/and Hyper- and/or Trans- or/and Turbo- and/or Pluri- and/or BP-Oil-gaming is removed.

And now my question:

I've a very good colleague which plays Diplomacy and is now in a very convenient situation (he has about 15 centres). His supremacy has been partially influenced by the fact that 2 countries (both were more or less neighbouring countries) decides to leave the play and maked easier his expansion.
Now, one user told to my very good colleage that in the interests of fairness, he should consider drawing with the other players. He (the player who ask to make a draw) realizes that an argument based on honour really won't carry much weight in Diplomacy, but he think this is a slightly different situation (because the countries which leaved the play).

What is your opinion here? Should my good colleague "follows"/"accept" the argument of the advantage and "in the interests of fairness" make a Draw?

I (but of coarse in particular my very good colleague who would like to stay anonimous) would appreciate your serious and competent feedback!

I wish you a good evening.

Very best regards

Angelo (on behalf of my very good colleagues)

@Angelo - That is truly a matter of personal views on honor in games and what not. If the placement is such that I could get the win in short order, I would probably still go for it. But everyone here knows I can be an asshole at times. If the placement is such that doing it would eliminate completely one of the other nations or that I might lose SCs or that it would be a long drawn out battle, I would join the draw and make some magnaminous statement about how well my opponents played and that I realize I got there because of the CDs, yadda, yadda, yadda...

But you have to look at your own conscience and decides what sits best with you.

...er... He has decide what sits best with him... :-)

I'm not going to respond, because it's obvious you're talking about your only ongoing game. What's more, you're making a mockery of the forum rules.

It depends how much he stands to gain from the other player leaving. If the only reason he might win is because they left then yes I would draw. Otherwise, play for the win!

@rlumley - honestly, he's asking for an opinion on etiquette, not strategy or tactics. We are telling himhow to win, just giving him our opinions on what is considered good or bad form.

@rlumley:
No, is not my intention to make a mockering of the forum rules. Sorry if you get this wrong impression (maybe it is because my poor/simple english?). I'm serious and fortunately Draugnar understood correctly my question which is only about (to use his words) "opinion on what is considering good or bad form". I've the impression also that the modified Hamlet sentence which I used for the title of this thread reflects my internal (--> conscience) conflict which my good colleagues has at the moment. I hope I was able to convince you that I'm (and my good colleague is) serious.
Best regards
Angelo

@figlesquidge
Thanks for your feedback. To be very honest, the fact that players leaved the play helped of coarse my good colleague. But on the other part there are a lot of other argument which are important to reach a supremacy. For example which country you have (for example is Italy "more difficult" as France. In addition, for a player who is not good in English (like me) is disadvantaged respect to a person with mother language english because he is more able to "use the words" as me. And now my retoric question: Is fair to win again Italy (who has statistically a disadvantage)? Is fair to win again a player which is not good in english? There are two (maybe exagereted) examples to explain that "fairness" is a concept which can be "raped" or not.
I hope I was able to explain what I mean...
best regards
Angelo

@Angelo

I would say your English is more that sufficient to play. Rhetoric is not as important as clear communication and your thoughts are very clear.

As to the inherent advantages/disadvantages of countries. Since everyone knows about this, the problem usually solves itself. For instance, Italy usually isn't attacked right away while France often is.

@Angelo - where do you get your statistics on Italy being disadvantaged. There was a thread here a while back with the stats for the various countries listed and I don't recall where it fell, but I do recall that the difference between first and last was not so great as to be a serious disadvantage. Each coutnry has it's strengths and weakenesses. Austria, for example, has enemies everywhere, but a good diplomat can make those enemies all go outward against the other enemies and France and England who are out of reach.