Lol the point of that story... sorry it ended up being so long... was that it illustrates a situation where no one was angry even though people were intentionally targeted to be pushed out of a draw.

The bigger point in this debate is this: no matter what someone's motivation, if you get targeted, there's nothing you can do but fight and talk, and maybe if you time it right, you can get yourself back into that draw, or go even further than that.

7, 6, , or 5 ways draws are to early and should only be because the game has become corrupted. 4-ways only work if it is 2 dedicated allies against 2 other dedicated allies, but if fighting is still going on all around, this is still too early. 2-way draws are damned near impossible as one usually gets the win over the other.

That only leaves 3-ways (get your mind out of the gutters, or for those in Cinci, out of the chili parlour). So, to talk of eliminating a lesser power to get down to the 3-way, in my mind, is not only acceptable but may be the best alternative, especially if the three remaining powers are fairly close in size and agree to work together to "cull the herd" of the weakling.

If you have a group of three facing an alliance of two, it means it's time to move into the midgame, not to end the game.

a 4 way draw does not necessarily mean it's 2 allies against 2 allies. and it doesn't necessarily mean diplomatic laziness. most often,perhaps, but certainly not always.

evidence:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=12606

and i think defeating as many people as possible is completely reasonable goal.

I was once in an 18-16 stalemate with 4 nations. 2 on 2. (Crazyter can confirm this as she was my ally). We had a stalemate going and were trying to convince the smaller of our enemies to switch sides, but he wanted too much (he wanted behind our lines). In the end, he opted to let his much larger ally eat him up and get the win. I guess he thought we'd blink, but I was fine with a strong survive rather than let the little guy of 4 SCs get behind my lines where he could easily turn on us.

The bitch of it all was that we were prepared to give him a three way draw and support his assault on his former ally. He was just to stubborn to see that wanting to be convoyed into Greece when we had them stopped at Tun wasn't going to happen.

P.S. That is why the game isn't over when you reach a 4-way draw.

"Personally, I feel that all draws, however many participants they have, are really the same."

You're wrong. Happy to help!

I have to agree with the majority of people.
In a game with 7 people you are competing against other 6.
The best is to be better than those 6 --> solo win.
If that is not possible you should be better than the biggets number of opponents that you can.
3way draw - you did better than 4
4way draw - you did better than 3

so 3way draw is better than 4way draws.
It is closest to solo win.

Why shouldn't you think like this FS?
This is a game... it is supposed to be about winning and loosing and. do better than someone...

@Troodonte: personally I value winner highest, and coming second equal to not surviving at all.

A draw is some medium position where you neither win nor lose, but it doesn't matter how many people part-take.

I totally disagre :)

This is an interesting question of game philosophy, and the jury is still out for me on it. In the leagues, I have the number of players mattering, but in the Masters, it makes no difference. On the one hand, artificial six or seven way draw endings are pathetic and wimpish, but on the other, making a three way from a four way can be just as artificial.

actually i think convincing 6 other players to draw with you is a pretty good success diplomatically speaking.

especially as they are players who signed up to fight... Still it's not exactly playing diplomacy.

Nice game djbent, looks you had a pretty impressive alliance of necessity there with austria.

I agree with Friendly Sword: all draws are the same. However, I understand that other people see it differently, and that's OK too, just like those people going for points in PPSC (although fortunately we have WTA for a better game).

DingleberryJones wrote:
>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?

But the idea *isn't* to win and make the others lose; the idea is simply to win. Yes, everybody else loses if I win, but that's not my fault; that's just how the game works. If I'm in a 3-way draw, then I neither won nor lost; if I'm in a 4-way draw, then I neither won nor lost. They're the same to me.

The real question for me is: How much do I want to risk losing for a chance to win? If I understand Friendly Sword's scenario, Germany is not risking much chance of a loss by holding out, while there is a possibility of winning (especially if Germany is bigger than England) by taking advantage of a fight to eliminate Italy and Russia. So I might actually do what Germany did, claiming that I want a 3-way draw instead of a 5-way draw. But I would be lying; I would really want a win.

TGM,
"On the one hand, artificial six or seven way draw endings are pathetic and wimpish, but on the other, making a three way from a four way can be just as artificial."

I don't understand the 2nd half of this sentence.

@Tony
"But the idea *isn't* to win and make the others lose; the idea is simply to win. "

Then there shouldn't even be a draw option.

@Ghostmaker: Can you clarify what you mean by "artificial"?

then the game would go on to infinity if a alliance achieved a 17 center stalemate line.

I think in FS's and TB's view, a draw is equivalent to a cancel.

That is, if nobody won, then it is as if we never played in terms of "bragging rights".

I disagree with that view of the game.

"TGM,
"On the one hand, artificial six or seven way draw endings are pathetic and wimpish, but on the other, making a three way from a four way can be just as artificial."

I don't understand the 2nd half of this sentence."

What I'm saying is that just narrowing down the number of players in a draw can by "artificial".

By artificial, I suppose I really mean "Goes against the general feel of the game". Its quite hard to pin down, but basically finishing a game in an unstable position is artificial- you would get people eliminated and potentially winning if the game was continued. Narrowing down the size of a draw is artificial- nobody is actually trying to conquer Europe any more, so it goes against the original objective.

Ah Xapi, yes, thanks, I get it now. So a draw is like a draw in chess, doesn't matter if you have 17 or 2 - it gets reported in the newspaper as a draw without reference to who has how many SCs - they are all equal.

I've heard it argued before that players have a moral obligation to try to win and that this extends to trying to decrease the number of players in a draw, I wouldn't go that far but I'd certainly happily try to eliminate one of the other players before agreeing to a draw but I'd equally happily try to protect a worthy ally into the draw if I didn't think I could win even by stabbing them.

Well, I suppose I should admit that I agree with alot of what has been .

Personally I don't generally care how many people are in the draw, but that isn't to say there aren't still legitimate reasons to knock them out. I would never say that pretending to do anything if your goal is to is not legitimate.

Even if you only want to take someone out because you are a vengeful bastard is not something I will begrudge of someone; I simply think it is dishonourable if that is your only motivation.

What I found surprising is that no-one who responded mentioned that the small gain of 3-way versus 4-way may not be worth the sour taste if you are going to draw anyway. For me, killing your little ally when the draw becomes a possibility is a dick move that really isn't supported by the game philosophy. But... I suppose I shouldn't have expected idealism in a pack of cold-eyed Diplomats though, eh?

@Friendly
"For me, killing your little ally when the draw becomes a possibility is a dick move that really isn't supported by the game philosophy."

This wasn't the question you asked. You asked if it was honorable asking for a player to be eliminated. You didn't ask if it was dishonorable to kill your ally to honor that request. That's why now one responded as you expected; you didn't ask the right question.

No, I wouldn't kill an ally just because someone else wanted to go from a 4 way to a 3 way.

Why wouldn't you DJ?
If a 3 way draw is better than a 4way draw (at least in my vision and I believe in yours too)... eliminating an ally in that circunstances is the same as any other stab. So it is supported by the game's philosophy, in my opinion...

i agree with DbJ - taking the number of players in a draw down as much as possible is desirable in my eyes. but taking out my "little buddy" so that someone else can feel satisfied... that's not something i would do.

Troodonte,
I didn't say I wouldn't do it. I said I wouldn't do it just because someone else asked.

of course... i don't care about what others ask...
I would do it for me, not for others.

I believe that when someone asked for it I would (or should) already thought of it.

Now...if you asked me who i would eliminate, if i could choose between 2 opponents I would prefer that my ally would survive, but if he was the only one whose elimination would give me a "better" draw I would probably stab him (if that did'nt risky someone else's solo!).

>Then there shouldn't even be a draw option.

In a way, no. A game that is drawn is really no different from a game that continues forever. But eventually, you want to agree that it's not going anywhere and it's time to remove it from the list of active games (or go home, in FtF).

>I think in FS's and TB's view, a draw is equivalent to a cancel. That is, if nobody won, then it is as if we never played in terms of "bragging rights".

I can only speak for myself, but that's not quite right. I oversimplified a little in saying that the only goal is to win; I also have the secondary goal of not losing. The difference between a drawn game and a cancelled game is like the difference between divorce and annulment: we pretend that a cancelled game (like an annulled marriage) never really happened. So there are no bragging rights for a cancelled game; but in a drawn game, you might at least be able to say ‘I played against [insert name of good player here] and didn't lose.’, and you can also always say ‘I've played [insert number of uncancelled games here] games.’ and things like that. In other words, you can lose a drawn game, but not a cancelled game, so it's worth something that you played and didn't lose.

Actually, as far as bragging is concerned, there are lots of other things that you might say. You could say ‘I played against [insert name of good player here] and eliminated them.’, ‘I had a guaranteed win, but then [insert family emergency here], I couldn't get a pause or an Internet connection, and my sitter went CD.’, etc, and that might actually be worth saying (depending on who you're saying it to and why you're saying it), even though it's not about whether you win or lose.

If Diplomacy were as simple as tic-tac-toe, then every game (barring newbies and CDs) would end in a 7-way draw, and it would be boring. In that context, a draw is meaningless. But Diplomacy is not so simple, and you risk losing for the chance to win.