Idiot: PPSC
Genius: WTA

I have no great preference either way. I play the same in both. As much as some players dislike the prospect of the PPSC "playing for 2nd place points" numpty, they are few and far between. And on the occasions when you do, crushing them utterly is most enjoyable. :)

Plenty of people, even senior players prefer WTA under the false assumption that WTA produces more competitive matches.

PPSC produces more competitive matches.

Kinda agree w Al. Real board diplomacy is not WTA, there are no points be had. Most of the hundreds of face to face games I've played were concluded or drawn before anyone got to 18, out of time constraints, drunkenness etc

WTA 100%

It makes you play to win unlike PPSc, which just makes Jannissaries

So far I have preferred PPSC, but in a couple of the more recent games my opponents should have teamed up to force a draw a lot earlier to be able to force a draw. I'm not sure whether I should change to higher pot games or WTA.

I play both, and I've learned over time that it hardly matters what style you play, but who you play and how you play. After so many times answering this question and seemingly flip-flopping each time, I think this is a pretty obvious assessment even though no one offers it up, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

In my opinion PPSC is better. The problem with WTA is that it usually ends in a draw, because people are too afraid of *not* winning and losing all their points. In the mid to late game in a PPSC, people are more willing to take risks.

WTA should be re-named STS.

In face to face (the real game), the is nothing to be gained from second place, so WTA is closer to the board game and my preference.

I dunno. I find they are different. I approach the endgame quite differently in PPSC than in WTA. I think it would be useful to have PPSC draws also done by SC, rather than evenly.

Then it isn't a draw and the 1 SC nation who managed to wake up and get the rest of the group organized or who held a key position gets punished. No, this would result in small SCs going for land grabs to get more points before the draw and result in even more solos.

WTA. I go into a press game assuming I'll at least make it to a draw anyway, so I don't feel I need the PPSC insurance. If I manage to win, I should get all the points, not 55% or whatever. If you couldn't stop me, you get nothing, you lose. Good day sir!

WTA works because you play for the solo. The only time I usually draw a WTA game is if I have been stalemated or am part of the stalemate line.

PPSC encourages playing for the strong second. I think this makes the game far less interesting. There's often little or no incentive for large powers to stop a solo from happening, thus more easy solos happen. The minor powers have little leverage to work into a draw if there's no real threat of throwing the solo.

This is really quite an old and polarizing topic. It comes up fairly often on the forum. I think I conducted the first ever "+1 poll" (see threadID=791962) where WTA won by over a 2-1 margin.

Here is what Allan Calhamer, the creator of the game, thought about this topic:
http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

He gives a balanced treatment, entertaining both ideas, but ultimately it seems that he is arguing in favor of WTA.

Personally I prefer ppsc. This is because I think all players who play well should be rewarded. There is also still the motivation to win. In basically all situations so,some would rather have the win than go for a draw. Anyway, draws are less likely to happen in ppsc. There are some benefits from wta but i still overall prefer ppsc.

Comes down to your definition of "play well".

Draugnar, we Cincy boys agree on a lot, but I gotta say I see the real board game being more like PPSC is here ... but mainly I think we are all comparing apples to oranges, the real game simply does not involve points

Rancher. - Think of F2F as having one and only one point. That is to win. Strong second gets nothing in the board game. There's no pride in being the biggest loser. That is why, of the two options, it closest resembles WTA.

You can think of F2F like that, but I don't know many who do. The first goal in F2F is to have a game that actually works and is fun. The second is to do well. Winning is a nice direction to aim in, but actually getting there isn't much of a priority.

The simple fact is that the online game is much superior. There are a couple of things that work better in F2F, but almost everything else works worse. Lets stop trying to use it as a yardstick.

That would be like saying "Let's stop trying to use the real world as a yard stick for the virtual world". It will always be a yard stick because it came first. As far as which is better, that is up for debate. I prefer face to face so I can use *all* the manipulative tools at my disposal. It's like online versus live poker. You can't read a face you can't see. You can't read body language you can't see. And you certainly can't tell when two of your opponents are spending an inordinate amount of time chatting when you can't see them. There is so much more to this game and the online variant pales in comparison to a face to face tournament.