I think it's unfair if you eliminate some powers and then agree a draw when you would have had greater chance of a win than elimination should you have gone for it (clearly that's a judgement call - the player in the position needs to make it). The sight of three large powers ganging up to eliminate a fourth in order that they should share a 3-way smacks of bullying to me. I think this is partly a personal prejudice and partly how I was introduced to Dip but I also think it's bad manners - being knocked out is demoralising but "it's just a game" - "someone did it in order to win", "it's the same for everyone", fair enough, get back on your feet and into a new game but aha - "we knocked you out but aren't going to even try to knock anyone else out" is somehow different for me. Not sure what the situation you're discussing is - can you be clearer?

Yea Stratagos your scenario is pretty vague.

I really dislike unbreakable alliances. For an unbreakable alliance I mean you make a n-way alliance, kill all other players and then draw.
But it´s diferent when after some years of hard diplomatical and tactical play you were you have n (normaly 2 or 3) great powers and that powers decide to move to a draw (killing the small powers) because they don´t see a way to get a solo. This is just normal but obviously the small powers will not take that well and will try to do the most to stay alive, including some harsh words.
Well, it´s just my two cents.

Ok, I'll be more specific.

In the end game there are four powers - two with 10 SCs, two with 7 SCs. Those powers that were eliminated were attempting to goad one of the 10 SC powers into going for a solo, when the chances of success were ultimately slim. The 10 SC power in question was also saved from a stab by one of the 7 SC powers earlier in the game by the other 7 SC power, as that was the Deal for the alliance that had been hammered out in the first few game years. It was during this stab attempt that the 4th power (that eventually became the second 10 SC power) was enlisted, to basically threaten the wayward partner with immediate doom if he did not get back into line.

I'm sure that people can look in my history and figure out the game in question, but I'm not trying to make this discussion about one game, I'm trying to discuss the *philosophy* of making agreements early in the game and choosing to stick to them, instead of feeling that there is some kind of *obligation* to go for a solo even if it's a forlorn hope and would likely result in your death.

I need examples

Going for a solo when it is like to result in your death, instead of accepting a draw, in my mind, is pure stupidity.

Here is an example of a game that a power had a chance for a solo but held out to live up to the agreement with other powers and stoped just to draw this game.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=12854

I am very anti this behavior personally and this game left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

This BoG75 is a good example of a poor decision of the leading power, he just give up the solo for a draw. On the other side, the other two did a great job convincing him :-)
About stratagos game, I don´t have time to look all his games, but if you feel you have more chance to be killed by the others than get a solo you are pretty right to accept the draw.

On the latter game, why the bitterness BoG75? I mean, you would have died either way, even if Russia had stabbed in such a way that the other powers could not have reacted in time...

I am not bitter about being killed but I am bitter that Russia didnt even try for solo when I was offering him full help and support to get him a solo. It was my only way to punish the guys that were fighting me. Yet Russia declined because he wanted to draw with them.

I don't see anything wrong with "unbreakable" alliances. It's a tactic, and it's not a very good one. If your opponents are good, an unbreakable alliance should really be a detriment.

Care to explain your logic Don Corleone? I am not sure I understand what you wrote.

I've also decided that the best way to orient my objectives is the way it is done in WTA or tournaments: 1 solo = 2 2-way draws = 3 3-way draws et cetera.
So if I'm choosing between a 3 way and a 50% chance at a solo, I go for the solo. If I'm choosing between a 3 way and a 25% chance at a solo, I'll take the draw.

If you form an unbreakable alliance, the other players should realize it, and will respond. I'm fairly sure that having these alliances from the begin will decrease your average result. (though this is really just a guess)

*beginning

Two way alliances with a lot of trust are almost always successful, especially if the other five powers are either cd'd or fighting amongst themselves. By 1904, if a two-way juggernaut alliance (R/T, F/E, E/G,) goes unopposed, it's game over!

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=13569

This is the game he is talking about. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree it's stupid for France to not solo it. He has Austria easily at bay, thanks to England's foolish convoy tricks the past couple turns and his lack of defense, he can hold him off too, and he can easily stop Germany via bottlenecking him in Burgundy. Simply foolish to draw it.

How do you know that Player A and Player B have formed an unbreakable alliance until its too late?

rlumley, France would have lost BEL - I would ask england to convoy the army from NOR. He'd likely retreat to Ruhr, but DEN would be in Kiel on the same turn. Two armies cannot bottleneck my advance, and he can't get any back from Turkey without exposing himself to losses there

I'm not an idiot - there's a reason I was encouraging France and England to stretch out their frontiers - so if one of them *did* stab the alliance they would be scattered and I concentrated. That's also the reason I didn't help England stab France, and why I ignored several hints that we should cut our alliance down to three members.

Yeah, he loses Belgium, and takes 8 other centers?

How? What centers do you think he would have taken? Where was he going to advance? England has him stalemated for at least a turn due to having the army in YOR. Barents moves to Norwegian, DEN backfills NS and Baltic backfills DEN (locking him out of that axis). With the disband from losing BEL he's down to four deployable fleets, but he has to cover MAR from Austria, plus my advancing units would be threatening Paris before he could take LVP or LON. It's not like the rest of us are just sitting around watching - he's got to keep at least three units occupying Turkey and blocking the Austrian fleet

sorry - four, I forgot that austria has two fleets. So he has - at best - four fleets with which to try to take on... four fleets + an army, assuming he concentrates on England proper. and to have four fleets, he had to disband an army.

and a ticking clock as the blitzkrieg rolls through the countryside

If you disagree, I will be willing to plot the endgame out with you here, under the following constraints on myself:
* I will control the three non-french powers, and will post my moves first.
* None of the three powers will cede territory to anyone for any reason if at all possible

If you believe that France can win, show me

England:
Norway > BEL via convoy.
NS convoy Norway > BEL
YOR > WAL
STP > NOR
MOS > STP
BAR > NORWEGIAN
SEV > ARM

Germany:
Holland support Norway > Bel
MUN > BUR
DEN > KIEL
SIL > MUN
WAR > SIL
SWE > SKA
BAL > DEN

Austria:
TUS > PIE
ROM / NAP mutual support
ADR > ION
BUD > TRI
SER > ALB
BUL > CON
GAL > VIE

Oh. So the game is a gunboat now. I see.

Why is it a gunboat? Do you disagree that the other powers would unite against someone going for the solo?

I don't mind unbreakable alliances. It's when one of them has an opportunity to win and doesn't take it that angers me. Metagaming is written all over it.

ZaZa + 1 but technicaly the is not definition of unbreakable alliance :)

The=metagaming? Your message seems kind of confusing. But there'd be no reason to take that extra step if you knew it wouldn't effect the other games you will play in the future. It is metagaming or pure stupidity. Take your pick people who draw when they can win.

I think it is fine to stick to any deal you have made, even if that means drawing.

if you have a two way unbreakable alliance then you failed to stop them tactically when they were outnumbered 5 to 2. They are allowed to play the game however they like.

actually In one of my games that I one (out of the few) I played france and kept telling Russia that we could evetually tie it up and draw. I think he listened a little though after the third stab he had enough but it was too late.

Ooh I was in that game with BoG75 and while I can understand you being annoyed with being eliminated, ultimately it was diplomacy that got Russia to take the draw and diplomacy is what this game is about. I'd lost my chance at a solo after my failed stab on Russia and had to go for a draw instead. I convinced Russia that a draw was in his best interests and bullied Italy into heading your way instead of mine. It all came down to my argument for a draw beating yours for a solo. That's just the way it goes sometimes.

"I think it is fine to stick to any deal you have made, even if that means drawing.

if you have a two way unbreakable alliance then you failed to stop them tactically when they were outnumbered 5 to 2. They are allowed to play the game however they like."

That isn't how the game is supposed to be played. The goal of the game is to win. I can understand if that's a survive, the least amount of people in a draw, etc. But when you have an opportunity to have a solo win you must take it. Any solo win is greater than a shared win. This is fact. You're defeating the purpose and quality of the game if you change that orathaic.

"...You're defeating the purpose and quality of the game if you change that orathaic."

no, i'm allowing different players to play differently, and i'm making it harder for you to play because you have to determine which players will form strong alliances with one and other, and which will readily stab when the opportunity arises - also i'm doing this for none other than practical reasons, as it is impossible to only be in games with only players of one type, (or unreasonably difficult).

I would also point out that you should be able to stalemate people in some places forcing them to stab if they want to grow. This is may be enough to encourage a stab in many cases.

Finally if a player doesn't want to risk losing (which is more likely if he stabs) then he is right to keep his alliance. Fear and risk taking also takes a place in tiny tactical decisions where you canplay it safe and guarentee your position or risk losing your position and gained greatly... I don't think any of these parts of the game should be removed/discouraged.

@Stripy I am not annoyed at being eliminated because I accepted my fate but I am annoyed that Russia never even tried for a solo and that he wanted a draw. That is my fundamental lack of understanding of some players who play for a draw rather than a solo. Some have openly said to me that they will only play for draw because they dont want to make people mad for future games.

BUT orathaic, that's not always the case. I can understand that situation. It is possible for two players to keep themselves protected from a stab while still advancing, unstoppable. Sometimes it goes to 17-17 without either one being able to take the upperhand.

Although, often times, an opportunity arises for someone to win. They don't take it because of meta-gaming.

no, they don't take it because they as people are risk-averse. especially when there is still a third player alive.

in theory at any point before you have 18 you can be outnumbered and beaten. Now in some cases you know you can stalemate a third player, effectively neutralising a large number of his units. (like lots of atlantic fleets stuck beyond MAO) but if a player doesn't know this and isn't willing to believe the guy who he is attacking, (assuming you are the third who can't break the alliance)

but yes, it is only a game and sometimes i wish people would go for the stab, usually because i think that the stab will bring mea better chance of winning, but me winning automatically means them losing, therefore the stab is not in their interest...

at least sometimes it's not meta-gaming at all. Not that this is always the case...

Yes, but you're presenting scenarios that don't always happen. If a player is really good he can position himself to solo after the alliance has given them the advantage over ever other player.

yes, but not all players are this good, or they may not realise how good a position they are in, or they may need more expierence, or they may be delaying in the hopes of getting a better stab...

some players will always take the easiest route (path of least resistance), and some may choose to accept a draw because it is easier to achieve.

Sadly, you speak the truth. Some people aren't as intelligent as they should be. They could get a lot more points.

@BoG75 I do agree with you, I don't really understand people who only play for draws or who try to play for a 17-17 draw by eliminating people who've battled hard all game. So far I've been lucky enough not to be on the receiving end of one but it's just a matter of time.

I guess I was just disappointed you were left with a bad taste in that game after the great fight you put up as from my perspective it was a hard fought draw with me desperately trying to weaken and push Italy into a position to try and block a Russian solo while maintaining good relations with Russia

@Zaza
"Although, often times, an opportunity arises for someone to win. They don't take it because of meta-gaming."
So you consider all metagaming as bad? Most players I've talked to seem to consider most metagaming acceptable (short of multi-game deals and alliances).

"But when you have an opportunity to have a solo win you must take it."

Sorry ZaZa, but you're wrong. I'm not saying I wouldn't stab and I'm not saying I would stab. But if I'm playing with you and we're allies for most of the game and I KNOW that you're going to try to stab me before the game is over to try for your solo, then I am going to prepare for it every way possible. You have just become ... predictable. Have fun with that.

The opposite is true too. If I know that you are NOT going to stab me ... well, you can guess the rest.

Ah, this is our EOG statement thread? I was France (anonymous of course) in the game in question. To clear the air a bit I'll tell something about how I experienced the game.

Germany, England and I pretty early decided to form a Western Triple. This worked out great for me, because ENG went to the north (A LVP-EDI) and Germany had to cover MUN for Italy moving into TYR, so I had three builds. England and I successfully misguided the Italian that I would stab England (it was possible back then, with F BRE-ENC, F SPA(sc)-MAO and F MAR-SPA). But I fully committed myself in battling Italy, who was still at three units due to a misorder. My campaign against Italy went successfully, but Austria surprised me by stabbing his ally and taking VEN and NAP in one move. At that point I started negotiations with Austria (I had first assured him I was not out to harm him) and he tried - rather convincingly - to turn me around against Germany. Tho I was willing to work with him I still had my doubts. He could also let the fight escalate and watch by as a vulture. At that point he made a mistake by moving A PIE-MAR, which gave me the confidence to fight on for the Triple. So I helped Italy into NAP, taking ION myself, and started to convoy into ALB and GRE. By that time, silly enough England decided to stab me, more out of fear I think than anything else. He moved only one unit in my direction. This got me really frustrated because I was actually pretty vulnerable and not planning to stab either one of them. Luckily England had probably not conversed things over with Germany who obviously refused to cooperate. This time Germany saved my ass and it strenghtened our bond. We made plans to punish England if needed and made a deal with the Austrian to join us (because Germany found a two-way draw/alliance too dangerous). I ofcourse did my best to get incorporated in a new three way and not to be teamed upon by the three others. I made up with Austria and attacked Turkey. England behaved nicely again so I didn't went after him in order to prevent others punishing me. And so we ended the game in a four-way draw, mainly caused by diplomatic reasons but also by strategical limitations.

Options were: 1) join Austria against the rest. That would need quite some trust between us and for me that Austria would not set me up so I'd be defeated.

2) Take on Germany with three powers. I was a little afraid to suggest such a thing because the three others could as well turn on me, being afraid I would use the situation to solo. Thereby, Germany had helped me when I really needed him.


I think in WTA games there's too much emphasis on the solo-idea. I've got ten bloody centers, and then I'm supposed to solo? Come on! From 12/13 I'll think about it. It is not being the chip leader that makes you 'ready to solo'.

Another way to analyze the end-game is this: Of the four remaining powers, three of them had, at one point or another, stabbed someone else in the game. Trust was obviously already very strained.

PS: Ursa, that move to Mar really actually a screw up. I really didn't want to go there!

I know, you said that, and it was a strange move. But I didn't believe 100%, I thought you first planned to move there and then realized it was a mistake but forgot to alter it.