@figles - "if a game reached a 16-14-4 situation, it is in player 2s interests to let P1 win rather than try and stop this." You're assuming that every player care about the points or GR - this is clearly not true, some people do actually play for fun, or to be bloody minded, or just to bunk off work. I could give you more than 1 example where I could have soloed easily but settled for a draw for a number of reasons which had othing to do with me chasing GR or points.

@smily face - there are 100s of possibilities where a 18 strong SC player would never get to 34, take for example an austrian win which includes, russia, balkans, turkey and parts of italy and germany but not enough fleets to force his way past Ionian Sea. There are also recognised stalemate lines where less than 17 SCs can hold off larger combined powers. If your arguement for WTA over PPSC is based on the fact you believe almost all 18SC powers would win all 34SCs - then your arguement is flawed

@Indy - thx for my +3 - that takes me to......+3

Maniac: That is actually one of the reasons for the assumption. Because tactically, diplomacy is not real life. In real life, any real force that much larger could obliterate them.

@smiley face - not true, superior numbers can have the advantage on level playing fields, but wars are not fought on level playing fields. A small army holding a good position could easily hold off a larger force. I reackon about 10 units could hold off an 18 strong force in diplomacy under the right circumstances.

correction 9 units could hold off an 18 unit army.

no, i was right the first time, you would need 10 units just to be sure.

You only need 4...

And I know people don't just play for points, but those who don't play for points won't care whether its PPSC or WTA. I'm merely helping explain the flaws in PPSC gameplay

@figles - i don't play for points (all the time) and do care if it's PPSC or WTA because it affects how my fellow players think and what their objectives are.

The WTA/PPSC argument boils down to the value of a Strong Second. In WTA, Strong Second = Biggest Loser, and not in a good way.

Regarding survives in WTA, I have always viewed it thusly... If someone solos, then someone is at fault. If you survived, then there is a good chance you were partly or wholly at fault. If you were eliminated, then there is a good chance you were not. Therefore eliminated > survived.

Oh, and I do agree that WTA has flaws, specifically the elimination of small powers once the chance of someone soloing is gone.

I would prefer a system where you get experience points rather than betting points. You get a point for winning or for the game ending without anyone winning. (i.e. playing well.) You lose a point for surviving. (i.e. playing poorly) You lose 5 for going CD.

Or something like that.

@Ald - I've long been a supporter of removing PPSC, and instead having a "deposit" you got back finishing a game.

@Maniac Actually, if you read the link from Allan's article, he does declare that taking 18 is a surrogate for being able to take all 34. And since he is the creator of the game, I think Smiley is right, I have a difficult time claiming that ending up with 16 is any better than having already been defeated, as in the end, we are all dead.


Having said that, clearly almost all of the Dip games played diverge from the original game rules. In those rules and by the creator's intent, each Dip game is to be played on its own merits, ideally absent of prior information as to the other players' skills, tactics, or inclinations. And each game's results are to stand on their own. So any system that (1) reveals identities of players (2) gives out points for any result other than winning or preventing a win (3)precludes communication between players is clearly at odds with the intent of the creator. Does that make those systems/games bad? or worthless? No. It makes them variants. If you play gunboat, without communication - not pure Dip. If you play with identities revealed - not pure Dip. If you reward losers differentially (I get more points for 10 SC than you do for 1 SC) - not pure Dip. I'm sure I've forgotten some key ingredient here, but I presume that only those who are playing original board....anonymous players....WTA....with communication are playing the same game as Allan Calhamer played. The rest of us are greatly enjoying variants that are no more "right" or "wrong" than are those who prefer the spin-off "Upwords" to the original game "Scrabble".

But it's good that WebDip and other sites offer a "big tent". If only purists could play, then all seven of them would enjoy a very short and boring lifespan before the site went under.

Viva la difference!

I just don't understand why people can't play with a WTA mindset in PPSC games. I play mostly PPSC and I always try to stop the solo if I can. I think this is more a matter of people not understanding the spirit of the game than of a flawed system

@Indy - Well if you look around you'll probably find AWTA is the most common game played. Also, you've answered your own question: People have a problem with PPSC because it isn't treated as a variant.

I've asked Ghost to recompile GR counting all games as WTA, just to see how much difference it makes.

I think you perceive of the original "spirit of the game" (which is clearly WTA) as being the only "spirit of the game" possible. I want to win, and will try to stop solo's, but I see nothing inherently wrong in PPSC with a 17 17 tie. Just as I see nothing wrong with a game where identities are known (yes, it allows for prior knowledge, but compensates with the enjoyment of playing with friends) nor a gunboat game (yes, it precludes communication, but there is some joy in a mainly tactical exercise.

Why must the WTA mindset be the only correct mindset, and anonymous play be the only correct style, and non-gunboat be the only appropriate style?

Goldfinger, let me ask you that...

drawing is certainly part of the spirit of the game.... to cut out drawing would be....... ummmmmmm....... retarded.

how can you play games that allow zero private communications and feel like you are playing "Diplomacy"? How is that playing a game with a "diplomacy mindset"?

Actually, centurion, according to the article by AC, drawing as a means to stop a solo is certainly part of the game. Drawing 17 17 (as I endorse) certainly would make him roll over in his grave....

Diplomacy is achieved through communication. Communication does not have to occur through a private dialogue.

I am no fan of gunboat games, and that's not what I was really talking about, so I'm going to skip that issue. I agree with you on anon play. I only do anon games because that's how you ensure good games on this site. I have nothing against non-anon games, and I don't see why it matters that you see who the other person is. But as I said in the other thread, if you are playing with new players and have a high ranking, then you are at a disadvantage, but again, I view that as a challenge, not a problem. And I don't see anything wrong with 17 17 draws if they are actual draws. I was in a game a little ways back where it was a 17-15-2 draw, because I simply could not break the opposition.

STALEMATE. people reach 17 17 splits naturally sometimes.

i dont like 17 17 orchestratred splits myself however.

Allan Calhamer would ROLL OVER in his grave to hear one propose that a Diplomacy game without private dialog (written or verbal) was the Diplomacy he created. It is a valid variant...but let's not seriously argue that it is Allan Calhamer's Diplomacy, yes?

are you allan calhamer i agree with you but stop talking for the man its annoying as hell and makes me want to disagree with you.

lol sorry, good point, just pointing out what i recently (20 minutes ago) learned in reading his articles. It is a bit overbearing, eh :)

^^I would hope he hasn't been buried yet...

lol wasn't sure about that.... perhaps he'll hop on here and participate. Has anyone here ever played Dip with him?

Fyi: You'd be 100th by GR if all games were treated as WTA.