very slim.

It takes lots of trust.

Ive always played the game where the ultimate humiliation is to survive where someone else takes a win. I understand that on this site some will take the loss to improve there sc count (which i find unrealistic) So now I play WTA games only.

I'm sure there are draws in wta as players would rather draw than come away with nothing

He was talking WTA, Balaran.

And I don't think a 17/17 could ever naturally happen. A real player is going to try for the win when it gets close and a stab will occur. If anyone ever suggest a 17/17 draw to me in WTA, I say no way and insist on a three way with a third player unless I see that I have a better than average shot at the win. did it once in a League game and then stabbed for the win because I knew I could get it based on the limited creativity of my opponent.

it doesnt always take trust, sometimes its the logical outcome - often when two players are in the 15-17 range with a minor third player left, for instance in por/spain or spain/mar. the eastern power will usually be able to fall back and stalemate tunis from ion and tyrr, leaving the western power in peace to take out the small player - he would never do it unless the eastern power falls back, and thus its logical and profitable for both bigger players - of course the smaller player can start throwing the game as soon as he sees something like this going on.

"if the game is played properly" means everybody should go for the win. So no, in that case a 17 split draw is only possible when the 2 players have reached a stalemate or they both think they don't have a good chance at winning.

There is one stalemate line in particular where this is possible. One side takes, England, France, Germany, Iberia, Scandinavia, Hol, Bel and StP (17 centers)
The other side takes the rest. The key centers are Tun, Mun, Ber and StP. There is enough of a gap between these lines, that if no challenge is made through the Med, then a deal can be done. But it not easy and requires some choreography to allow each side to evenly grow into those centers.

Oh, come on, 17-17 draws aren't so difficult. I know the following game is PPSC, but it was played out, in the end, as WTA:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22163

This was an anonymous game. I was Turkey and working towards a two-way with England, dave bishop. As we were getting close, dave stabbed me to go for the solo, which I was able to prevent, and then he was willing to try the two-way again. I then thought I had explained to France that if he did not help me solo, then he would die, and I guess since it was PPSC that was part of my argument, to get him to get something out of this game rather than nothing. But, dave bishop was more convincing than me, got France back on his/England's side, thus preventing me from the solo, so I backed off for England to finish off France for the two-way draw. It was a hard fought battle, and once England tried to solo, I then tried to solo, but neither of us could pull it off, so we ended with the two-way.

PPSC is far easier to get a 17-17 draw than in WTA.

If you mean an engineered split, then slim if any of the two players value actually playing the game over being nice buddies.

If you mean a tourney game where the big guys need the points for 2-way, then pretty fucking high unless one of them gets greedy and doesn't provide a big enough room for the other to finish the little guys at the line without worrying about handing the other a solo..

And by engineered I mean negotiated before the flow of the game dictated the necessity for it.

Yes, I was just talking about WTA. The key is how the 3rd player manages his situation, so that one if the players can solo if the other pushes for the win.

But see example attached, one my games. It could have been a genuine 2WD, if I had less honor.

gameID=26737

Thanks for your responses. I'm just feeling a bit down by some of the play i find on this site and wondered whether people really felt it was likely.

martinck1, I think this is the crux of the question, is there such a thing as honor in a game of diplomacy? Is it okay to follow through with your word, or must you go for the win at all times? For me, here's the answer: It's up to each individual. Some people are so focused on being right, and only seeing that there is one way to play the game, that they do themselves harm by not realizing that everyone plays differently. It's easy to look at someone else that plays differently than you and say they do it wrong, but I think that's clearly tunnel vision and ultimately detrimental to your own success and enjoyment of the game (key word being game).

Great post, MadMarx. Instead of lecturing others on the priorities they should have while playing the game, one should take into account their approach and put that into good use. Both parties have a good time and you have a psychological advantage.

I agree to an extent. There clearly can be honor in a game of Diplomacy. Of course, some people don't play it like that. Apart from when they are knockng me out, I don't criticise people who maximise their position to the nth degree. I used to play like that too.

I personally like to avoid players who are content to come second to a solo, (except as the ultimate sanction against another opponent). My problem is that I'm not that good at recognising those players and others exploit them quickly and that quickly skew a game. On the other hand, you are a master at understanding the various motivations, so I can see why you don't mind.

I'm definitely in Balaran's camp, that the worst possible result is someone else winning, when you still a major player in the game. PPSC trains new players to value second place and imho that is a shame. That default option is the only thing I would change. I don't think that was Calhammer's original intention.

But hey - live and let live - the debate has been had many times:-)

When you were young and your heart was an open book, you used to say "live and let live." You know you did, you know you did, you know you did.

Not only do some people not play it like that, people don't play the same every game.

lol, I'm not sure where the "psychological advantage" and "master at understanding the various motivations" came from, I was merely trying to say that we're all different and view things differently, and that's okay. I'm a simple man of simple mind, why you got to complicate my simple idea?! ;-)

PPSC is a beast I wont touch. its a far less worthy variant of the WTA Dip game. but thats another debate.

on WTA games, yes, 17/17 splits ARE possible, but pretty much only along the lines that martinick outlined... really that diagonal split is the only way to get a "safe" split. i think if BOTH players are NOT going for a solo, then its a minor form of cheating. but it CAN happen in a legit fashion.

PPSC makes it far easier, but then again, I dont consider PPSC anything more than a minor variant anyways.

in the game that MM pointed to, I was pissed at him for a LONG time thinking it was a pre-set thing he had with dave. this was during a period where he and dave shared draws in like 5 games in a row which shot both of them up in the GR. but i'm over it now and I buy his very legitimate explanation on how things actually played out. in the end, it takes quite a bit of diplomatic and strategic expertise to pull it off so its not something I'd suggest for a noob.

in fact, noobs... if someone offers you a 2way, assume they are full of it and just want to solo off your back.

@MM - I'm only admiring your superior skills. Of course, I would expect nothing other than modesty and denial. Understanding how the various players view things differently and more importantly discerning that from early conversations, is something I'm still working on.

@THM

But if this ever changin' world
in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry
Say live and let die
Live and let die

I'll remember that next time I get knocked out.

I have seen a 17-17 WTA gunboat draw along the SPA-SEV line. Wherein one power (Italy) had Spain, Marseilles, Italy, Austria, Turkey, Balkans and Sevastopol while the other had Portugal, Brest, Paris, England, Germany, Low Countries, Scandinavia and what is left of Russia.

The other power was Germany, btw.

There was this one too: gameID=45564

LC - that is definately doable... but much more difficult to pull off in a contentious situation than the Stp-ber-mun-mar-spa-por line. but yes, it is do-able.

you can also set up another without mos and war but with ber and mun. so all of those are legit stalemates.

I think the point MM was making is that you CAN have a legitimate 2-way stalemate in a WTA without meta-gaming... but its just very difficult. the easiest line is the one martinck initially outlined.

ps. i re-read my own comment and it may have come across as too harsh against MM. I did not mean it in that light... what I meant was that I WAS pissed at him for a good while but his explanation was indeed legitimate to me regarding how the 2way transpired. like I said, it IS possible.

Babak, let's try to come to terms with this whole dave bishop thing, you have blown this *way* out of proportion for far too long. Look at my past games. I played dave bishop a total of three times:

Game 1 - http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=17552: db was Germany, I was Russia, and we tried to two-way draw. We brought the concept up early, but you never know how things will play out, so it's not like it's "pre-set" and cheating, it's merely a goal, but anything can happen, the best laid plans can go astray. In the end, dave got a bit sloppy, and I could have taken the solo, but I honored my game-long ally with a two-way draw as we had discussed and agreed to try to do. This actually ties into this thread perfectly, you said this was metagaming and you were pretty upset since you were eliminated in this game. Some say this sort of "honor" is disrespecting the game of diplomacy and poor play.

Game 2 - Linked above. Interestingly enough, and perhaps what really freaked you out, dave bishop and I ended in another two-way draw, while you were eliminated again. BUT, please keep in mind two points. One, this was an anonymous game and I knew it was dave bishop at the end of the game, but I had no idea it was dave bishop for at least the first 8-10 years, I created this anonymous game and didn't send anyone a personal invitation, so I had no idea he was even in the game at the start. Two, in this game, perhaps because the first time we played and I stabbed dave (even though I didn't follow through with the solo), dave made sure to stab me first to go for a solo, but I stopped him, etc., etc. from above.

Game 3 - http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26449: I bent over backwards trying to help dave bishop in the first few years, in an anonymous game (so I didn't know it was him), and he stabbed me even earlier in this game (notice a pattern of coming after me earlier and earlier?!). The stab was a good one, fatal, but I managed to get him eliminated as well, I am a loyal ally, but an even more loyal enemy! ;)

So, I don't know where you get off saying we had five draws in a row or why you imply he and I illegally inflated our GR with five draws in a row, but as soon as you read this I will expect a full apology, thanks in advance. (smiley face intentionally missing)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, why don't we settle this with an invitational?

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=72320

PM for password