There are lots of people who do not want this.

I don't even care about the points, I just don't want to bother with turning in orders. But i won't NMR or CD. Definitely working on raising my RR and being virtuous.

Ah, yes, virtue. I remember when I had some of that before I started playing Diplomacy.

Right?

I would support that proposal, Valis.

Here's the problem with canceling games with a first turn NMR:

Say you draw Italy. You are a crappy player and you don't want Italy. So you just NMR, and the game gets canceled. Now you can just pick and choose what country you want.

That's why you draw and give them their resign, which now hurts their RR too. A draw before 1903 doesn't affect GR.

Yeah it's a tough issue for sure. In my current game, Austria is the absent party, and predictably Turkey is at 10 centers and leading the pack for sure.

A draw before the beginning or end of 03 doesn't effect GR?

I don't think so. ATC, can you confirm that?

I think too many people *don't* take this personally enough. If you're playing say...Italy and then Austria absconds, it's probably because you were too lame as an ally to keep him in the game. In essence, if people are leaving the game, it's *your* fault. The only possible recovery is to get in the ring and to take out your wrath on the remaining players. People who try to force early draws do so because they scent of the approaching alpha males scares them without a large pack of betas to hide in, so instead they wish to go running for their mother's skirts.

@2nd White Line

Good analysis. Unfortunately it's worse than that - players are trying to "balance" games when the point of Diplomacy is to make the game lopsided. This *ruins* the game. People who don't know how to win an uphill fight are lamers who are unworthy of the sport of Diplomacy.

To this I'll add that in no other sport will people fold a game simply because one player fails to show. It's bizarre that people think this is how Diplomacy should be played.

"...if people are leaving the game, it's *your* fault" - you do know that that is the kind of specious argument that people use to blame victims for crime? Say hello to the men in white coats!

And it makes just as little sense then as now.

@Al
"To this I'll add that in no other sport will people fold a game simply because one player fails to show."
Well, there's cricket. (I'll pass on the apparent debate about Diplomacy qualifying as a sport.)

"People who try to force early draws do so because they scent of the approaching alpha males scares them without a large pack of betas to hide in, so instead they wish to go running for their mother's skirts."
[starts to nod head, then engages mind, then stops nodding head and furrows brow in confusion]

"If you're playing say...Italy and then Austria absconds, it's probably because you were too lame as an ally to keep him in the game."
But of course! What other explanation could there possibly be? This carries particular weight when the departure occurs in Spring 1901, don't you think? And perhaps its greatest applicability appears if the NMR happens in Spring 1901 of a gunboat.

"players are trying to 'balance' games when the point of Diplomacy is to make the game lopsided."
More fascinating insights! To all players: any time you have a bad go of it and are down to 3 SCs (or, really, if you fall behind at all), make sure you lay down before the advancing armies and fleets around you so that the game can become lopsided. Whatever you do, DON'T try to make the game more "balanced" so that you can stay in it. (I won't even mention the prospect of voting "draw" in such a situation, since it's too horrible a concept to even contemplate.)

Draws before 1904 don't count for GR, and CDs in cancelled games still count against RR.

-webDiplomacy Moderator

Incorrect. Drawing in F03 will count for GR. Drawing in S03 will not.

Thx Ghug

This game impacted GR gameID=156118

#fuckghug. #takethatmodshipaway

My bad, before the end of 1903.

So you have 2+ years to draw a game, fuck up someone's RR, and put a resign on their record at no penalty (and slight gain if you care about your draw % or points). Then you play an actual game of Diplomacy and not a three- or four-way free for all for free centers while everyone else watches and complains.

@Sir Outside Smoker,

Young Master, well played! I will concede any number of points to you in the above, you seem to have outmatched me on all fronts.

Tell me then, why do you put your talents to use arguing for the Nancy-boys instead of against them? Clearly the right is on my side.

I wish the site would put a country into CD after ONE missed phase, which is how the real rules are written. It would make it easier for someone to take over for a NMR. Positions can really degrade with 2 missed phases, making it more difficult for someone to take over.

@BaldOldGuy The site does exactly that. CD in the rules means all units hold, that's all.

(That's not what this site defines as CD, in that CD = takeover is possible, but the rules don't make that distinction.)

The rules specifically mention that players should probably decide what to do in advance about replacement policy for players who have "left the game", and don't actually specify whether you should allow replacements, or not allow any, and if you do allow replacements, when.

As far as whether 1 NMR should be enough to allow replacement - I believe the situation is that 1 NMR happens reasonably often, often the player will continue to play the rest of the game fine, and it is probably far more disruptive to have a replacement player in that situation rather than allowing the same player to continue.

I have no idea if that's actually *true* or not, but I'm pretty sure that's the line of argument.

Rejoins and replacements make a game worse. Balance is an irrational goal for a socio-strategic game based upon deception and relationship building.

Diplomacy isn't soccer. If a soccer player is injured, you pop that guy out and pop a different one in, like a car part. Diplomacy is very different.

No no, in Diplomacy you get a new guy to test your skills to deceive the newcomer, and try to convince them to make your position better than you could get alone.

@TrPrado,

I disagree but that's a better explanation than I've yet heard for that particular perspective.

The problem with not replacing a player is that it gives an unfair advantage to neighboring countries. If, say, Turkey drops out, Russia has easy access to SCs and doesn't have to worry about the Turk. By requiring 2 phases to be missed before a new player can join, the position can really degrade and it makes getting a sub difficult, cementing that advantage.

And the rules call substitutes 'desirable' - "It is probably more desirable, if sufficient persons are present, to allow a person who has not previously had a country (or failing that, whose country has already been eliminated) to replace any player who has left the game." So rejoins and replacements are the way the game was designed.

The game loses its flavor and fervor when people are gone.

@BaldOldGuy,

Interesting point. My personal peccadillo is that it introduces a considerable level of randomness into the game, which in all other analysis of game play is considered undesirable. If you're correct, this essentially spits in the face of people who decry the use of dice in strategy games.

Keep in mind, though, that Calhamer brought any number of preconceptions to the game, for example he viewed a gridlock board as a highly desirable outcome. Most of the game's senior player tend to decry the existence of the stalemate line, by contrast.

Like Monopoly, Diplomacy was designed to be an allegorical game. An early polemic and indictment of globaliation, Calhamer intended Diplomacy to show how a gridlocked Europe would be better for people than a united Europe. In some sense I agree with this, it simply doesn't make for an interesting game any more than Monopoly would be interesting if the rules were modified to prevent monopolies.

Compare against proposed rule changes to basketball:
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-plot-to-kill-the-slam-dunk

"Wait for Orders" used to be a thing until it was abused to death in tournaments. One of the options theoretically possible would be to suggest a game option feature of "immediately replaceable" (CD in this site jargon) with "WFO", so any NMR results in the ability for the player to be replaced, but does *not* process the turn until the new player arrives and submits orders. (I have no idea what the mod/dev team opinion on that would be. I know they don't like WFO for good reasons, but I'm not sure how connected those reasons are to the inability to get replacements.)

That would reduce the craptastic factor of "NMR = all holds", but would not reduce the craptastic factor of different player. But arguably, nothing reduces the latter situation - there will always be players who quit playing in the middle of a game for various reasons ranging from valid to just because.

@thorfi,

You as well have made several excellent points, but are operating under a couple of misconceptions.
I think for as long as players view abandoned positions as undesirable, but this is a self-defeating attitude. After all, oughtn't a properly terrifying dictator to expect a pretender to flee his wrath? Trolling is prominent among the skills that any arch villain must hope to cultivate, and in my reckoning an abandoned position is the most singular indicator of success.
Given that, remaining players must be prepared to face the consequences of a suddenly and unpredictably abdicated throne.

Calhamer planned an uneven game. There are seven players, and I believe the odd number to be significant. Only the most accomplished topologist could find any semblance of symmetry in the map.

For the game to progress we need to train a better generation of players. A draw is an unacceptable goal for a champion. Since a mere mortal cannot hope to stand against six, any aspirant must therefore seek some method to stack the deck, all the better an unpredictable one.

This is not a game for mere strategists. We need fixers.

If a game is not crooked, it's not worth playing.

My dear Alfonso,

"If a game is not crooked, it's not worth playing."

This explains a lot about the live game we played together a few months ago :)

@Al :-) Hey, I'm one of those scummy I mean terrifying players that refuses to click Cancel if there's a S1901 NMR.

I'm just capable of arguing both sides to spite my face, to horribly mix metaphors.

Ultimately I'm in favour of player's choice (in advance, via game settings options), on this kind of issue (which basically is the position of the actual dip rulebook too on the matter of replacements). But player's choice which requires dev team work is not something I'm going to push unless the dev team seems interested. :-)